First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next  Last
The Truth About the Oregon Rancher Standoff
Posted 1/5/16 , edited 1/5/16

megahobbit wrote:


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.


Wall street wasn't the only place they protested. They also protested on public property and private as well. Do you not remember when they were occupying university campus spaces? Black Live Matters shuts down highways, do they not?

Take away the guns and then all of a sudden it's not so extreme.
6646 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / F / USA
Online
Posted 1/5/16 , edited 1/5/16
Allow me to quote the law in question, Title 18, United States Code, section 844(f)(1):


(1) Whoever maliciously damages or destroys, or attempts to damage or destroy, by means of fire or an explosive, any building, vehicle, or other personal or real property in whole or in part owned or possessed by, or leased to, the United States, or any department or agency thereof, or any institution or organization receiving Federal financial assistance, shall be imprisoned for not less than 5 years and not more than 20 years, fined under this title, or both.


Malicious applies to both intentional acts and acts of recklessness or negligence in legal arson discussions.

Yes, it applies to all US government property.

There is no mention of terrorism. This would apply to the aforementioned guy with beer and cherry bombs and the terrorist with a vanful of napalm equally.

There is a 5 year minimum sentence.

And yes, this can apply to children. While they would be charged in juvenile courts, if a 7 or 8 year old blows up a building I would hope he gets charged.
Posted 1/5/16

Ravenstein wrote:

Allow me to quote the law in question, Title 18, United States Code, section 844(f)(1):


(1) Whoever maliciously damages or destroys, or attempts to damage or destroy, by means of fire or an explosive, any building, vehicle, or other personal or real property in whole or in part owned or possessed by, or leased to, the United States, or any department or agency thereof, or any institution or organization receiving Federal financial assistance, shall be imprisoned for not less than 5 years and not more than 20 years, fined under this title, or both.


Malicious applies to both intentional acts and acts of recklessness or negligence in legal arson discussions.

Yes, it applies to all US government property.

There is no mention of terrorism. This would apply to the aforementioned guy with beer and cherry bombs and the terrorist with a vanful of napalm equally.

There is a 5 year minimum sentence.


Based on the case, I don't think their actions were reckless, they did call the BLM before hand and they even put the fire out themselves. I think there would be reason this law violates the 8th amendment.
9551 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M
Offline
Posted 1/5/16

WeeabooWarrior wrote:

Wall street wasn't the only place they protested. They also protested on public property and private as well. Do you not remember when they were occupying university campus spaces?

Take away the guns and then all of a sudden it's not so extreme.


Okay dude guns and threat of violence are a massive fucking leap. If I remember correctly though the Uni campuses were generally occupied by students in said campus. Also alot were trying to be open to give a space for the protesters to protest in.
9551 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M
Offline
Posted 1/5/16 , edited 1/5/16

WeeabooWarrior wrote:


Based on the case, I don't think their actions were reckless, they did call the BLM before hand and they even put the fire out themselves. I think there would be reason this law violates the 8th amendment.


They didnt contact BLM beforehand

2001 fire


The government presented evidence that Steven Hammond called an emergency dispatcher to ask if it was OK to burn -- roughly two hours after they already lit the fire


http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2015/12/ranchers_fight_with_feds_spark.html


After committing the arson, Steven Hammond called the BLM office in Burns, Oregon and claimed the fire was started on Hammond property to burn off invasive species and had inadvertently burned onto public lands.


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

2006 fire


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
Posted 1/5/16

megahobbit wrote:


WeeabooWarrior wrote:

Wall street wasn't the only place they protested. They also protested on public property and private as well. Do you not remember when they were occupying university campus spaces?

Take away the guns and then all of a sudden it's not so extreme.


Okay dude guns and threat of violence are a massive fucking leap. If I remember correctly though the Uni campuses were generally occupied by students in said campus. Also alot were trying to be open to give a space for the protesters to protest in.


It would never rise to this level if we had a non corrupt government and people blaming each other 24/7. This is exactly as I predicted what would happen.

Were getting to a point in this nation, where it no longer matters who is right or wrong, because revenge and anger are going to overwhelm us. let's just say your 100% correct. It won't matter when people start murdering each other over this. This law has to change or something to avoid this, it's not worth it anymore.
9551 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M
Offline
Posted 1/5/16

WeeabooWarrior wrote:


It would never rise to this level if we had a non corrupt government and people blaming each other 24/7. This is exactly as I predicted what would happen.

Were getting to a point in this nation, where it no longer matters who is right or wrong, because revenge and anger are going to overwhelm us. let's just say your 100% correct. It won't matter when people start murdering each other over this. This law has to change or something to avoid this, it's not worth it anymore.


Or you know the ranchers can grow the fuck up and stop playing cowboy.
Posted 1/5/16

megahobbit wrote:


WeeabooWarrior wrote:


It would never rise to this level if we had a non corrupt government and people blaming each other 24/7. This is exactly as I predicted what would happen.

Were getting to a point in this nation, where it no longer matters who is right or wrong, because revenge and anger are going to overwhelm us. let's just say your 100% correct. It won't matter when people start murdering each other over this. This law has to change or something to avoid this, it's not worth it anymore.


Or you know the ranchers can grow the fuck up and stop playing cowboy.


Your not being considerate to their suffering.
6646 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / F / USA
Online
Posted 1/5/16

WeeabooWarrior Based on the case, I don't think their actions were reckless, they did call the BLM before hand and they even put the fire out themselves. I think there would be reason this law violates the 8th amendment.


I think they were.

In the 2001 arson, it was likely set to cover up a large scale deer poaching. Furthermore it endangered the life of a minor child related to the Hammonds and several campers nearby according to testimony from the minor child.

The 2006 arson was set despite there being a burn ban. The fires set required the evacuation of a group of firefighters that were dealing with a separate blaze.

In light of their reckless endangerment of the already engaged firefighters, they got off easy if you ask me. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed.
9551 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M
Offline
Posted 1/5/16 , edited 1/5/16

WeeabooWarrior wrote:

Your not being considerate to their suffering.


My consideration for suffering goes out the window when you threaten violence.

More importantly ranching as an industry is (largely) dead and ranchers need to accept that. There holding onto a view of america thats outdated and unnecessary. Same with the farm industry.
Posted 1/5/16

Ravenstein wrote:


WeeabooWarrior Based on the case, I don't think their actions were reckless, they did call the BLM before hand and they even put the fire out themselves. I think there would be reason this law violates the 8th amendment.


I think they were.

In the 2001 arson, it was likely set to cover up a large scale deer poaching. Furthermore it endangered the life of a minor child related to the Hammonds and several campers nearby according to testimony from the minor child.

The 2006 arson was set despite there being a burn ban. The fires set required the evacuation of a group of firefighters that were dealing with a separate blaze.

In light of their reckless endangerment of the already engaged firefighters, they got off easy if you ask me. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed.


"In the 2001 arson, it was likely set to cover up a large scale deer poaching." Do we have proof of this? Second, how does this relate with domestic terrorism?

"Furthermore it endangered the life of a minor child related to the Hammonds and several campers nearby according to testimony from the minor child." How so? And did the child sue their own family or something?

"In light of their reckless endangerment of the already engaged firefighters, they got off easy if you ask me." How exactly were they endangered?
Posted 1/5/16

megahobbit wrote:


WeeabooWarrior wrote:

Your not being considerate to their suffering.


My consideration for suffering goes out the window when you threaten violence.



Are they going around trying to kill people?
9551 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M
Offline
Posted 1/5/16

WeeabooWarrior wrote:


megahobbit wrote:


WeeabooWarrior wrote:

Your not being considerate to their suffering.


My consideration for suffering goes out the window when you threaten violence.



Are they going around trying to kill people?


You do know what the word "threaten" means?
Posted 1/5/16

megahobbit wrote:


WeeabooWarrior wrote:


megahobbit wrote:


WeeabooWarrior wrote:

Your not being considerate to their suffering.


My consideration for suffering goes out the window when you threaten violence.



Are they going around trying to kill people?


You do know what the word "threaten" means?


Whom have they threatened?
9551 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M
Offline
Posted 1/5/16

WeeabooWarrior wrote:

Whom have they threatened?


They threatened violence if people tried to remove them. Like this is in all the fucking news articles.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.