RobG
Well-known member
Thank you. It is an honor.Congrats on the award.
Militia takes over wildlife refuge headquarters
- Thread starter Oak
- Start date
I have snacks. I win everything.
OriginalOscar
Active member
RobG
Well-known member
Somebody better send this dude some snacks.
T
tjones
Guest
Do any of the bozos in Oregon have Wyoming points?
ERSS
Well-known member
Don't need snacks, have a year supply of food storage, a local ward and over 15 million members who have my back....
P.S. - Mormon
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 8,643
The problem with scenarios like this is neither side knows when to say when and then it comes to a head and the situation gets much worse.
The occupying Militia is a bunch of extremists who are exploiting a bad situation for their benefit. The Hammonds were convicted by a jury of their peers of arson and sentenced to prison for their crimes. Do the crime, do the time.
However, and a big however for me is the automatic 5 year minimum prison sentence drawn from the language in an anti-terrorism bill. The original prosecutor made no reference to them as being terrorist during the trial and prosecuted them as arsonists. I think the judges original sentence was fair and they deserved some prison time for arson, not domestic terrorism.
A different prosecutor coming on the scene and invoking an anti-terrorism law to force the judge to send them back for a longer sentence after they had served their time, seems way out of proportion to the crimes committed and smacks of a prosecutor looking to make a name for himself.
We all lose freedom when laws intended to be enforced for our protection are misused as a way to overcome a weak case for the prosecution and used to ensure that there is punishment regardless of guilt or innocence.
Keeping in mind the ongoing feud they had with the BLM and multiple court cases concerning water rights and access, some of which they won, I don't see BLM managers as being saints and good neighbors either.
Unfortunately, I don't see this situation being resolved in a manner that brings opposing interests to any kind of decent working relationship.
The way this needs to be resolved is to make sure the Yehadists get really hungry without their ration of fruit loops, until they give up and then make them accountable for their illegal trespass.
The sentencing of the Hammonds needs to be re-addressed in a legal manner that holds them accountable for their crimes with the laws that are written to address their situation. Not adding additional charges by calling what they did domestic terrorism. This is a bad precedent and the prosecutor who did this should face legal sanctions.
Putting the setting of an illegal fire on your own property that then burns over to federal land into the same category of domestic terrorism as shooting a bunch of people like happened San Bernadino, is just as ridiculous as calling Ammon Bundy a patriot.
Life's hard. It's harder when you're stupid.
The only upside to this story is seeing some pretty clever remarks about the occupiers. Hope nobody gets killed over this.
The occupying Militia is a bunch of extremists who are exploiting a bad situation for their benefit. The Hammonds were convicted by a jury of their peers of arson and sentenced to prison for their crimes. Do the crime, do the time.
However, and a big however for me is the automatic 5 year minimum prison sentence drawn from the language in an anti-terrorism bill. The original prosecutor made no reference to them as being terrorist during the trial and prosecuted them as arsonists. I think the judges original sentence was fair and they deserved some prison time for arson, not domestic terrorism.
A different prosecutor coming on the scene and invoking an anti-terrorism law to force the judge to send them back for a longer sentence after they had served their time, seems way out of proportion to the crimes committed and smacks of a prosecutor looking to make a name for himself.
We all lose freedom when laws intended to be enforced for our protection are misused as a way to overcome a weak case for the prosecution and used to ensure that there is punishment regardless of guilt or innocence.
Keeping in mind the ongoing feud they had with the BLM and multiple court cases concerning water rights and access, some of which they won, I don't see BLM managers as being saints and good neighbors either.
Unfortunately, I don't see this situation being resolved in a manner that brings opposing interests to any kind of decent working relationship.
The way this needs to be resolved is to make sure the Yehadists get really hungry without their ration of fruit loops, until they give up and then make them accountable for their illegal trespass.
The sentencing of the Hammonds needs to be re-addressed in a legal manner that holds them accountable for their crimes with the laws that are written to address their situation. Not adding additional charges by calling what they did domestic terrorism. This is a bad precedent and the prosecutor who did this should face legal sanctions.
Putting the setting of an illegal fire on your own property that then burns over to federal land into the same category of domestic terrorism as shooting a bunch of people like happened San Bernadino, is just as ridiculous as calling Ammon Bundy a patriot.
Life's hard. It's harder when you're stupid.
The only upside to this story is seeing some pretty clever remarks about the occupiers. Hope nobody gets killed over this.
Last edited:
RobG
Well-known member
Good point.
Schaaf
Well-known member
I got a pretty good laugh out of this one.
"Bundy Militia Moob Team 6 asks for Twinkies. Lots of them."
MThuntr
Well-known member
http://www.theonion.com/graphic/what-you-need-know-about-oregon-militia-standoff-52111
For a spoof publication this seems to be spot on
For a spoof publication this seems to be spot on
VAspeedgoat
Well-known member
This pretty much sums up my opinions on this. There is no absolute right or absolute wrong in most man made situations.
jryoung
Well-known member
So, does anyone have any info to shed more light on the claims that the Hammonds and other in the area have been harassed by the Feds and their land has been taken?
noharleyyet
Well-known member
Good post Gerald.
CodyCass
Member
Very well stated!
Nameless Range
Well-known member
Honestly I don't feel bad for the Hammonds and I don't feel the BLM was out of line.they asked for what they got through their deeds, and had the opportunity to settle for lesser charges. Not to be too dramatic, but firefighters sometimes die fighting fire. Hammond lit two fires at different times that threatened human lives.
It's also worth noting they were never addressed as terrorists in court. That's simply propaganda for their cause.
This letter written yesterday from the US District Attorney lays it out clearly.
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2660399/Statement-USattorney.pdf
It's also worth noting they were never addressed as terrorists in court. That's simply propaganda for their cause.
This letter written yesterday from the US District Attorney lays it out clearly.
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2660399/Statement-USattorney.pdf
Last edited:
There are a couple of cost factors left out of that analysis. A big one is infrastructure maintenance. For folks interested in public lands grazing issues, though a bit dated, this link is a pretty good synopsis for better understanding them for $10.
http://www.cast-science.org/publications/?grazing_on_public_lands&show=product&productID=2857
dannyb278
Active member
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2015
- Messages
- 574
Gerald Martin and the rest of you guys who think the Hammonds were to harshly sentenced and just some unlucky ranchers who let a couple fires get away are about as ill informed as the idiots that are currently occupying the federal property. They knowingly set fire to government property, putting the lives of hunters, fire fighters and the Hammonds own family at risk. Instead of taking a plea deal like the could have, they decided to fight it in court and failed miserably. The facts are this. The minimum sentencing for arson on federal property is 5 years. These chit for brains committed arson. 5 years is what they get.
VAspeedgoat
Well-known member
Even though they weren't addressed as terrorists, weren't they prosecuted under an anti terrorist law? I guess thats what I'm confused about. Intent is an important part of the law and it doesn't seem like terrorizing was their intent. A holes....yep, common poachers...yep, entitled...yep, but I don't think the Hammonds are terrorists. The militia is a different story though.
With both sides spinning the factd and a group of crazies trying to spark a civil war, its really hard to tell what is fact and what is spin.
Last edited:
Similar threads
