Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Isent it funny, a bunch of armed White people take over a federal building and the City Data ultra-right wingers think it's awesome ... but if a bunch of Blacks or Hispanics took over a federal building they would be demanding that FBI Hostage Rescue Team be sent into clear them out.
As far as I am concerned both groups are equally bad. In our society the ballot box is where we express our discontent, and if we lose ... we'll that's democracy. These dumb bumpkins should be cleared out by force if necessary. Use the Army, National Guard, etc. These idiots just gave Bozo justification for a new round of gun control measures via executive order. Brilliant job dummies! Now we all have to suffer.
Forcing confrontations? It is the job of the prosecutor to impose the most serious charges that the evidence supports. They can't decide to charge a lesser crime because someone is basically "a nice guy". It's the same in State Courts, you might have a really, really nice guy who has been a wonderful citizen and has never been arrested, but if he gets drunk and runs into someone and kills them he is charged with felony DUI and vehicular manslaughter same as the guy with an awful criminal record who is not nice at all. That's how the law works.
Well, that's not entirely true. There is a concept called "prosecutorial discretion" and it does give prosecutors some latitude. They don't have to file charges in every case that supports the filing of charges. They don't have to prosecute everyone that they could conceivably prosecute. They can enter into plea bargains when the evidence supports a heftier charge for an offense and a longer sentence.
In this case though, the evidence showed that the fire wasn't set on the defendant's ranch. Perhaps, multiple fires were actually started on land owned by the government and leased for grazing. The evidence showed that the defendants wanted to set a large brush fire on government land.
These facts were determined in open court by a jury of the defendants' peers. Any claim that the fire was purely on private property was found to be false by the jury.
Finally, arson is indeed a very serious crime. Sometimes those who are sent to fight brush fires are burned to death. Fires can get way out of hand and destroy both public and private property.
I don't know what prison sentence is appropriate for this sort of crime. However, Congress which was elected by the people of the United States in accordance with our Constitution determined that a five year minimum mandatory term of imprisonment should be imposed for the offense of arson. The Court of Appeals simply followed the law.
The end result for the defendants may be harsh if it involves five years incarceration. However, what they did was nothing less than a foolhardy, dangerous criminal act.
Isent it funny, a bunch of armed White people take over a federal building and the City Data ultra-right wingers think it's awesome ... but if a bunch of Blacks or Hispanics took over a federal building they would be demanding that FBI Hostage Rescue Team be sent into clear them out.
As far as I am concerned both groups are equally bad. In our society the ballot box is where we express our discontent, and if we lose ... we'll that's democracy. These dumb bumpkins should be cleared out by force if necessary. Use the Army, National Guard, etc. These idiots just gave Bozo justification for a new round of gun control measures via executive order. Brilliant job dummies! Now we all have to suffer.
Forcing confrontations? It is the job of the prosecutor to impose the most serious charges that the evidence supports.
The job of the proscecutor is use an applicable charge, not to contrive charges for greater sentences. It does not matter whether the defendents have islamic, right wing, or left wing political sympathies.
Contrived charges with or with out the use of professional "bounty" informants against eco dreamers (Eric Mc David), sort of, kind of moslems (Chicago 7), right wing ranchers (Hammonds), or anybody elese are not inherently good for a democracy.
But, come to think of it, I wonder if any of the union guys in Madison might have ventured into terrorism or "terrorism"? We"ll just charge some of them with it anyways. Appeals can take years.... .
No, the job of the proscecutor is use an applicable charge. It does not matter whether the defendents have islamic, right wing, or left wing political sympathies.
Contrived charges, whether against eco dreamers (Eric Mc David), sort of, kind of moslems (Chicago 7), or right wing ranchers are not inherently good for the system.
But, come to think of it, I wonder if any of the union guys in Madison might have ventured into terrorism or "terrorism"? We"ll just charge some of them with it anyways. Appeals can take years.... .
NO, it is the job of the prosecutor to charge the most serious charge that the evidence supports, you might want to do some homework regarding that. And regarding the Hammond's being terrorists - what do you call this?:
"Jurors were told that Steven Hammond handed out “Strike Anywhere” matches with instructions that they be lit and dropped on the ground because they were going to “light up the whole country on fire.” One witness testified that he barely escaped the eight to ten foot high flames caused by the arson. The fire consumed 139 acres of public land and destroyed all evidence of the game violations. 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. Dwight and Steven Hammond told one of their relatives to keep his mouth shut and that nobody needed to know about the fire." Eastern Oregon Ranchers Convicted of Arson Resentenced to Five Years in Prison | USAO-OR | Department of Justice
FBI definition of domestic terrorism:
Domestic terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:
Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law; that appear intended
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.
The protesters vow they'll occupy the Federal building "for years". I'd like the authorities to cut the power & heat, seal off the place, then leave them alone and see how long they actually stay.
See, why don't they try these tactics. Stop delivering toilet paper. Disconnect the internet from the place, etc. I like where you're going with this!
Have animal control drop off all their wild raccoons there.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
