Militia takes over wildlife refuge headquarters

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.
 
Last edited:
Reading Blaine Cooper's FB makes me laugh. Funny people out there.

1916527_1005008519563223_6290551314755233293_n.jpg
 
Gerald Martin said:
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.
Click to expand...

This pretty much sums up my opinions on this. There is no absolute right or absolute wrong in most man made situations.
 
Gerald Martin said:
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 arsonpists. 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.
Click to expand...

Very well stated!
 
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
 
Last edited:
Nameless Range said:
Nate Silver, at FiveThirtyEight has a good essay on the great deals Ranchers who graze BLM already get. I have a lot of friends who think grazing on Public Lands is under attack. I always feel the need to point out the disparity between market prices and what they get

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-armed-oregon-ranchers-who-want-free-land-are-already-getting-a-93-percent-discount/?ex_cid=538fb
Click to expand...
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
 
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.
 
Nameless Range said:
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
Click to expand...

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:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

SilentBirdHunter
Threating a Waterfowl Production Area with an Office Complex
Replies
18
Views
1K
Mallardsx2
Mallardsx2
B
Biden Announces Lead Ammo/Lure Ban Across Eight National Wildlife Refuges by 2026
4 5 6
Replies
114
Views
11K
MTGomer
MTGomer
Sytes
Hunting: Human Vulnerability to Orf Virus?
Replies
7
Views
816
ismith
ismith
W
Death Valley Vacation?
Replies
9
Views
384
Sixmile
S
B
CSF Webinar: At The Tipping Point – Misguided Efforts to Reform Wildlife Management
Replies
0
Views
457
bayoublaster7527
B
Kenetrek Boots

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
114,050
Messages
2,042,396
Members
36,442
Latest member
Grendelhunter98

Share this page

Back
Top