First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next  Last
The Truth About the Oregon Rancher Standoff
Banned
11283 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
13 / F / California
Offline
Posted 1/5/16 , edited 1/6/16

Ravenstein wrote:

From what I have read about the case, the Hammonds did set fires either on or that spread to government land. Authorities were not informed of these burns until at least 2 hours after they were set and one endangered a group of trainee firefighters. Sounds like arson to me, even if accidental. And they were convicted by a jury of their peers and while the initial judge gave the Hammonds shorter than the mandatory sentences, a higher appeals court issues the proper sentences as proscribed by law.

In this instance you should be working to change the mandatory minimum sentencing laws. Doing this does not involve taking over government buildings.


Why shouldn't it, Obama doesn't give a fuck about the current laws and tries to do end runs around them all the fucking time.
Posted 1/5/16

Ravenstein wrote:

From what I have read about the case, the Hammonds did set fires either on or that spread to government land. Authorities were not informed of these burns until at least 2 hours after they were set and one endangered a group of trainee firefighters. Sounds like arson to me, even if accidental. And they were convicted by a jury of their peers and while the initial judge gave the Hammonds shorter than the mandatory sentences, a higher appeals court issues the proper sentences as proscribed by law.

In this instance you should be working to change the mandatory minimum sentencing laws. Doing this does not involve taking over government buildings.


Arson has to be intentional to destroy does it not? To call accidental flaming which increased property value on public property, would hardly be rightful as a means of "Domestic Terrorism" I don't think the government has the right to drop their agreement in sentencing that both parties agreed to.
7113 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / F / USA
Offline
Posted 1/5/16 , edited 1/6/16

VZ68Why shouldn't it, Obama doesn't give a fuck about the current laws and tries to do end runs around them all the fucking time.


True. And virtually ever other Presidential contender is saying they will do similar things to circumvent Congress. I don't blame them for being frustrated by Congress but there should be at least an attempt to maintain the rule of law.
9541 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M
Offline
Posted 1/5/16

WeeabooWarrior wrote:


megahobbit wrote:


WeeabooWarrior wrote:


I thought they did in the court case. They contacted the BLM and the firefighters were miles and hours away if I wasn't mistaken.



Despite the ban, without permission or notification to BLM, Steven Hammond started several “back fires” in an attempt save the ranch’s winter feed. The fires burned onto public land and were seen by BLM firefighters camped nearby. The firefighters took steps to ensure their safety and reported the arsons


http://www.justice.gov/usao-or/pr/eastern-oregon-ranchers-convicted-arson-resentenced-five-years-prison

You may be mistaking this with the 2001 fire were BLM were notified two hours after the fact.



Do you have the original case in 2006? I don't.


Trail was in 2012. I cant find the documents but
http://www.justice.gov/usao-or/pr/eastern-oregon-ranchers-convicted-arson-resentenced-five-years-prison
http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Hammond-v-United-States-13-1512-Reply-to-Brief-in-Opposition.pdf
Are good rundowns.


So which case is the federal government suing them over?


It was 1 single case covering multiple charges. Also suing or lawsuit as a term usually implies its between two private persons or entities. The correct terminology would be to say they were tried or charged.
9541 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M
Offline
Posted 1/5/16

Ravenstein wrote:


VZ68Why shouldn't it, Obama doesn't give a fuck about the current laws and tries to do end runs around them all the fucking time.


True. And virtually ever other Presidential contender is saying they will do similar things to circumvent Congress. I don't blame them for being frustrated by Congress but there should be at least an attempt to maintain the rule of law.


This is kinda what checks and balances are for.
Banned
11283 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
13 / F / California
Offline
Posted 1/5/16

Ravenstein wrote:


VZ68Why shouldn't it, Obama doesn't give a fuck about the current laws and tries to do end runs around them all the fucking time.


True. And virtually ever other Presidential contender is saying they will do similar things to circumvent Congress. I don't blame them for being frustrated by Congress but there should be at least an attempt to maintain the rule of law.


Obama got in front of the American people and did a cry and lie today, he should have even known what he was saying was a lie because the case he talked about was overturned a long time ago. So trying to "kill des white boys because they are traitors" the left is ranting about holds no weight when the POTUS is doing end runs and illegal games.



Let's not forget between Yee, Holder and Obama, thousands and thousands of guns fell into the wrong hands, very very very wrong hands.
7113 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / F / USA
Offline
Posted 1/5/16

WeeabooWarrior wrote:


Ravenstein wrote:

From what I have read about the case, the Hammonds did set fires either on or that spread to government land. Authorities were not informed of these burns until at least 2 hours after they were set and one endangered a group of trainee firefighters. Sounds like arson to me, even if accidental. And they were convicted by a jury of their peers and while the initial judge gave the Hammonds shorter than the mandatory sentences, a higher appeals court issues the proper sentences as proscribed by law.

In this instance you should be working to change the mandatory minimum sentencing laws. Doing this does not involve taking over government buildings.


Arson has to be intentional to destroy does it not? To call accidental flaming which increased property value on public property, would hardly be rightful as a means of "Domestic Terrorism" I don't think the government has the right to drop their agreement in sentencing that both parties agreed to.


No it does not have to be fully intentional; it could also apply to negligence or recklessness. What does not enter into consideration is motive.

Both parties made an agreement that the Hammonds would serve concurrent 5 year sentences for the two arson convictions. This means they would serve both sentences at the same time and they would not stack, that is they would just serve 5 years instead of 10. They knew they would serve a 5 year sentence when they made the agreement.
9541 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M
Offline
Posted 1/5/16 , edited 1/6/16

VZ68 wrote:

I don't know why megahobbit posts here, he hates this forum and website.


>Implying I dont love this forum
Im hurt VZ68, wounded even.
Posted 1/5/16

megahobbit wrote:


WeeabooWarrior wrote:


megahobbit wrote:


WeeabooWarrior wrote:


I thought they did in the court case. They contacted the BLM and the firefighters were miles and hours away if I wasn't mistaken.



Despite the ban, without permission or notification to BLM, Steven Hammond started several “back fires” in an attempt save the ranch’s winter feed. The fires burned onto public land and were seen by BLM firefighters camped nearby. The firefighters took steps to ensure their safety and reported the arsons


http://www.justice.gov/usao-or/pr/eastern-oregon-ranchers-convicted-arson-resentenced-five-years-prison

You may be mistaking this with the 2001 fire were BLM were notified two hours after the fact.



Do you have the original case in 2006? I don't.


Trail was in 2012. I cant find the documents but
http://www.justice.gov/usao-or/pr/eastern-oregon-ranchers-convicted-arson-resentenced-five-years-prison
http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Hammond-v-United-States-13-1512-Reply-to-Brief-in-Opposition.pdf
Are good rundowns.


So which case is the federal government suing them over?


It was 1 single case covering multiple charges. Also suing or lawsuit as a term usually implies its between two private persons or entities. The correct terminology would be to say they were tried or charged.


So are they charging them according to the original case? or is it parell to the 2006 case?
27451 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / USA! USA! USA!
Offline
Posted 1/5/16

<-------------


Some call for Roll?





bobsagget wrote:

Bump. Aren't they trying the one rancher on Double jeopardy or something which is illegal? The Feds are totally in the wrong.




Not double jeopardy. They aren't being charged twice. Rather it is a matter of judicial review, something that those worried about a tyrannical government should embrace.


A higher court found that the law was inappropriately applied, and under review of the case (the defendants were not tried again, as they were only ruling on the facts as determined by the original ruling) corrected this error.



9541 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M
Offline
Posted 1/5/16 , edited 1/5/16

WeeabooWarrior wrote:


So are they charging them according to the original case? or is it parell to the 2006 case?


There was no 2006 case they were indicted in 2010, tried in 2012. There was 1 trial.
Banned
11283 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
13 / F / California
Offline
Posted 1/5/16

megahobbit wrote:


VZ68 wrote:

I don't know why megahobbit posts here, he hates this forum and website.


>Implying I dont love this forum
Im hurt VZ68, wounded even.


Posted 1/5/16

Ravenstein wrote:


WeeabooWarrior wrote:


Ravenstein wrote:

From what I have read about the case, the Hammonds did set fires either on or that spread to government land. Authorities were not informed of these burns until at least 2 hours after they were set and one endangered a group of trainee firefighters. Sounds like arson to me, even if accidental. And they were convicted by a jury of their peers and while the initial judge gave the Hammonds shorter than the mandatory sentences, a higher appeals court issues the proper sentences as proscribed by law.

In this instance you should be working to change the mandatory minimum sentencing laws. Doing this does not involve taking over government buildings.


Arson has to be intentional to destroy does it not? To call accidental flaming which increased property value on public property, would hardly be rightful as a means of "Domestic Terrorism" I don't think the government has the right to drop their agreement in sentencing that both parties agreed to.


No it does not have to be fully intentional; it could also apply to negligence or recklessness. What does not enter into consideration is motive.

Both parties made an agreement that the Hammonds would serve concurrent 5 year sentences for the two arson convictions. This means they would serve both sentences at the same time and they would not stack, that is they would just serve 5 years instead of 10. They knew they would serve a 5 year sentence when they made the agreement.


"No it does not have to be fully intentional; it could also apply to negligence or recklessness." So how can it be applied that domestic terrorism is reckless and negligible? I would assume that a person who is committing an act of terrorism would want to intentionally attack something, not be a farmer who has a history of legally burning vegetation on private and public property.

What I'm thinking is that the 1996 law, isn't applicable in this case. If someone commits arson, they should be charged with arson and different levels of arson, not domestic terrorism.

"both parties made an agreement that the Hammonds would serve concurrent 5 year sentences for the two arson convictions." This is where it gets murky. They did not do so with their best intentions, they did this because the BLM and feds said not to contact anyone or they would speed up their incarceration. Based on the case, they were pressured into doing so.


Posted 1/5/16

VZ68 wrote:


megahobbit wrote:


VZ68 wrote:

I don't know why megahobbit posts here, he hates this forum and website.


>Implying I dont love this forum
Im hurt VZ68, wounded even.




that photo is cute <3
Banned
11283 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
13 / F / California
Offline
Posted 1/5/16
There would be riots in the fucking streets if they allowed men that that did their time and got released sent back to prison to do more time because of a fuck-up the courts did if this wasn't happening in the middle of fucking nowhere Oregon.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.