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.
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!
Well, the crowd that thinks it's fine for law enforcement to blow away anyone holding a cell-phone would take a break from fluffing the police to come and complain about the draconian tyranny of withholding Charmin and the Ashley Madison website from their arsonist heroes.
There seems to be a pretty serious misunderstanding here. The ranchers were not tried for 'terrorism', they were tried and convicted of arson. Under the "Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996" arson on federal land has a minimum 5 year sentence. The judge in the original trial did not correctly apply the minimum sentencing requirements, hence the ranchers having to go back to prison. I agree that minimum sentencing is a bad idea (in all cases, not just this one) but that doesn't make the ranchers any less guilty of what they did, or this a case of federal over reach. The judicial branch was following the laws enacted by congress, which is their job. With minimum sentencing there is no room for prosecutorial or judicial discretion.
This needs to be over already. Not wanting any law enforcement to get hurt, I say send in the drones.
Now we know why we are droning the ME......
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stoke
Don't these people have jobs? I wanna know how they got all this time off.
Who cares they are not asking for free student loans or wanting to kill police. These ranchers happen to be tried of paying fees for land they are not allowed to use. I do wonder what Mr. Hammond was thinking if post #242 is true.......the poaching thing if true should be known, not brushed aside in being not important.
There seems to be a pretty serious misunderstanding here. The ranchers were not tried for 'terrorism', they were tried and convicted of arson. Under the "Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996" arson on federal land has a minimum 5 year sentence. The judge in the original trial did not correctly apply the minimum sentencing requirements, hence the ranchers having to go back to prison. I agree that minimum sentencing is a bad idea (in all cases, not just this one) but that doesn't make the ranchers any less guilty of what they did, or this a case of federal over reach. The judicial branch was following the laws enacted by congress, which is their job. With minimum sentencing there is no room for prosecutorial or judicial discretion.
This law was passed following several arsons out west (on Federal lands) that spread to private lands, causing hundreds of millions in damages, destroying dozens to hundreds of homes. The mandatory sentencing guidelines are a classic case of an overreaction by Congress. Still, the law is the law.
In this particular case, the jury found that the Hammonds deliberately/purposely set fire to Federal lands. The jury did not buy the defense's argument that it was an accident.
There was a thread on here awhile back that was all up in arms about how an off duty police officer was turned away from the Olive Garden because firearms weren't permitted and he thought he was special and exempt. I agree, LEOs are way too coddled and put on some pedestal. We're paying you to do dirty work, not to receive special treatment and free lunches. There's more to the job than hob-knobbing. And it may include having to confront people using negotiation and being reasonable. There's nothing worse for some cops than asking them to talk things out (not all cops are like this obviously, just some).
Who cares they are not asking for free student loans or wanting to kill police. These ranchers happen to be tried of paying fees for land they are not allowed to use. I do wonder what Mr. Hammond was thinking if post #242 is true.......the poaching thing if true should be known, not brushed aside in being not important.
For those closely following -- we trainwreck aficionados -- in Ritzheimer's tearjerker of a farewell to his family video (an unintentionally comic melodrama masterpiece worthy of any freshman high school drama production of Hamlet), Ritzheimer videoed himself sitting inside his car, setting out for the sagebrush caliphate, with a III% logo strategically visible in his back window.
The occupation of Malheur by armed, out of state militia groups puts one of America’s most important wildlife refuges at risk. It violates the most basic principles of the Public Trust Doctrine and holds hostage public lands and public resources to serve the very narrow political agenda of the occupiers. The occupiers have used the flimsiest of pretexts to justify their actions—the conviction of two local ranchers in a case involving arson and poaching on public lands. Notably, neither the local community or the individuals convicted have requested or endorsed the occupation or the assistance of militia groups.
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.
