First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next  Last
The Truth About the Oregon Rancher Standoff
9551 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M
Offline
Posted 1/5/16

maxgale wrote:


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


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.





>TFW I actually agree with something Max says
Thank you based Megaman have some Megaman themed music.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkLvpt9Z3fA
Posted 1/5/16

megahobbit wrote:


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.


Ahh ok now I get it. I was getting the dates when they were accused 1982-2006, confused with the actual dates, my apologies.
15742 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 1/5/16
Essentially they are being charged for burning their own property?
9551 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M
Offline
Posted 1/5/16

WeeabooWarrior wrote:


Ahh ok now I get it. I was getting the dates when they were accused 1982-2006, confused with the actual dates, my apologies.


Earliest incident I have evidence of was a 1999 burn they received a warning for.
Posted 1/5/16

descloud wrote:

Essentially they are being charged for burning their own property?


No. The government charged them for domestic terrorism, at the higher court. I don't think they can apply the domestic terrorist law in this case though.
37158 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 1/5/16
I see the arson case and the rancher standoff as two separate issues now.

The Hammonds have publicly distanced themselves from the situation, and even other militia groups who took part in the initial protest have said it's gone too far. They don't have the support of the local community either.

Something I've been thinking about: What would happen if an Islamist militia decided to take strap up and take over a federal building?
9551 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M
Offline
Posted 1/5/16

descloud wrote:

Essentially they are being charged for burning their own property?


2001 fire they burned federal property they were renting. 2006 was there own property but it spread into a public area. The thing is you really cant set fire to shit even if it is your property without notifying people. One of the reason for there conviction was that they endangered firefighters lives.
10831 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
13 / F / California
Offline
Posted 1/5/16

descloud wrote:

Essentially they are being charged for burning their own property?


Leased property.

Damn thing is the BLM has been extremely fucking lax in doing their jobs and won't do shit, other than off road in their quads and trucks (government funded) It's gotten so bad that there are superherds of mustangs running around because the BLM won't do their jobs. But hey, they get great money and bennies.
Posted 1/5/16

megahobbit wrote:


WeeabooWarrior wrote:


Ahh ok now I get it. I was getting the dates when they were accused 1982-2006, confused with the actual dates, my apologies.


Earliest incident I have evidence of was a 1999 burn they received a warning for.


Yeah I heard about that.

As for the standoff people. I don't like their methods, but as long as they don't harm people and the get out of the building in 24 hours I think it will be ok.

Occupy Wall Street did similar things in the thousands and we didn't convict them of terrorism (the protesters not the ranchers) or call them crazy.

Lazy perhaps :P, but not evil and respected their right to protest.
6662 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / F / USA
Offline
Posted 1/5/16

WeeabooWarrior"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.




As I already stated, motive is irrelevant in arson cases. Whether it was a guy horsin' around with some cherry bombs and beer who wants to show you sumthin' cool or a terrorist in a van laden with napalm intent on overthrowing the government, arson is arson. While the law was crafted with terrorism in mind, the way it is worded it applies to any fire or explosive based incident on US government property. There isn't a separate law for terrorism and not terrorism.

And yes, they were pressured to accept the plea deal or else they would serve 10 years instead of 5.
9551 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M
Offline
Posted 1/5/16

WeeabooWarrior wrote:


descloud wrote:

Essentially they are being charged for burning their own property?


No. The government charged them for domestic terrorism, at the higher court. I don't think they can apply the domestic terrorist law in this case though.


No thats implying they were retried. They were charged and convicted of arson but sentenced below the minimum that the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 set as the minimum for committing malicious arson.
Posted 1/5/16

Ravenstein wrote:


WeeabooWarrior"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.




As I already stated, motive is irrelevant in arson cases. Whether it was a guy horsin' around with some cherry bombs and beer who wants to show you sumthin' cool or a terrorist in a van laden with napalm intent on overthrowing the government, arson is arson. While the law was crafted with terrorism in mind, the way it is worded it applies to any fire or explosive based incident on US government property. There isn't a separate law for terrorism and not terrorism.

And yes, they were pressured to accept the plea deal or else they would serve 10 years instead of 5.


"As I already stated, motive is irrelevant in arson cases" I don't think that's the case, because if I'm not mistaken, the Domestic Terrorist law states that it had to be "Malicious", implying with intent to destroy.

" Whether it was a guy horsin' around with some cherry bombs and beer who wants to show you sumthin' cool or a terrorist in a van laden with napalm intent on overthrowing the government, arson is arson." Are we going to throw in 7 or 8 year olds in federal prisons for 20 years because they accidentally lit up a firework that blew up 2 buildings with terrorism? Come on now.

" the way it is worded it applies to any fire or explosive based incident on US government property. " I don't think that's true nor is it implied in the law.
27451 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / USA! USA! USA!
Offline
Posted 1/5/16

megahobbit wrote:


maxgale wrote:


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


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.





>TFW I actually agree with something Max says
Thank you based Megaman have some Megaman themed music.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkLvpt9Z3fA





Needs more Bass.
9551 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M
Offline
Posted 1/5/16

WeeabooWarrior wrote:


megahobbit wrote:


WeeabooWarrior wrote:


Ahh ok now I get it. I was getting the dates when they were accused 1982-2006, confused with the actual dates, my apologies.


Earliest incident I have evidence of was a 1999 burn they received a warning for.


Yeah I heard about that.

As for the standoff people. I don't like their methods, but as long as they don't harm people and the get out of the building in 24 hours I think it will be ok.

Occupy Wall Street did similar things in the thousands and we didn't convict them of terrorism (the protesters not the ranchers) or call them crazy.

Lazy perhaps :P, but not evil and respected their right to protest.


Wall street is a public street. Completely different from a federal building.
15742 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 1/5/16

WeeabooWarrior wrote:


descloud wrote:

Essentially they are being charged for burning their own property?


No. The government charged them for domestic terrorism, at the higher court. I don't think they can apply the domestic terrorist law in this case though.


Ah.
9551 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M
Offline
Posted 1/5/16

maxgale wrote:
Needs more Bass.


Which Bass?
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.