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.
This is turning into the Turner Diaries real quick like....
01-04-2016, 09:19 AM
i7pXFLbhE3gq
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3~Shepherds
Why is the government interested in putting a man in prison for what was most likely a bunch of dirt on fire. Burns, Oregon is nothing but sand and dirt, nothing to destroy.......yet, the government will not except this was possibly an accident. What does putting a 73 yr old man in prison do, possibly this is why Bundy is there.
There's essentially zero question that the 2001 arson was intentional.
But let's suppose they somehow accidentally burned 129 acres. Does that somehow make it okay? Does it change things if you know that the Hammonds had been caught burning in 1999 and BLM warns them that they couldn't burn federal land without a permit?
There's essentially zero question that the 2001 arson was intentional.
But let's suppose they somehow accidentally burned 129 acres. Does that somehow make it okay? Does it change things if you know that the Hammonds had been caught burning in 1999 and BLM warns them that they couldn't burn federal land without a permit?
The bsoton bombers accomplice went to jail for 17 months. Locally here in Boston someone was just convicted for 7 years for shooting 2 innocents in the middle of the day in a train station. Put burning scrub land in context with these other crimes and the punishment is outrageous.
*law enforcement tells them to do somethinng, and
*they don't, so
*they're shot down and killed there on the spot
...what do you want to bet that the usual group of apologists who constantly bleat "Well, if they'd just done what Officer Friendly told them to do, they'd still be alive!" will suddenly be singing a very different tune?
Of course, that won't happen. They're racist right-wing nutjobs, so they'll be treated with kid gloves.
Actually, I read the headline and thought to myself, "If they're armed and display a weapon towards anyone, put them down". -from a white Conservative.
A few years ago, in my city, some protesters shut down a road and stood there protesting. A driver decided he/she didn't want to play games and had to get somewhere, so he/she hit one of the protesters and kept going. Both sides of the aisle applauded in the comments section because people are tired of idiots ruining everyone else's day. Just go about your life and stop harassing everyone else. If your protest involves blocking streets and screwing over innocent bystanders or taking over buildings, then you deserve what's coming to you. I understand the "right to assemble" and protest, but you can do it on a sidewalk or in front of a company you don't agree with (Planned Parenthood, for example) without harassing innocent people.
01-04-2016, 09:33 AM
i7pXFLbhE3gq
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by dpm1
The bsoton bombers accomplice went to jail for 17 months. Locally here in Boston someone was just convicted for 7 years for shooting 2 innocents in the middle of the day in a train station. Put burning scrub land in context with these other crimes and the punishment is outrageous.
if anything the punishment is fairly light. These idiots threatened to murder government enployees over a fence, committed arson on at least three occasions that we know of, and illegally slaughtered deer.
They're lucky they're only doing a measly five years for the arson.
If it was a one time accident and they were otherwise law abiding citizens, they most likely wouldn't be in this situation. Actually we know that they wouldn't be going to jail because they never faced any prison time for the 1999 burn.
He is, however, now sweetening the pot by telling potential YeeHawdists that they don't actually have to come all the way onto the "occupied" Wildlife Preserve -- just camp outside the gate 'in support'.
Interesting. I mentioned OAS previously; that group's feeble protests in DC collapsed in part because 'certain parties' involved (including a "Captain" Karl Koenigs who was captain of nothing) were able to split the movement and lure many of the expected attendees away to join the original Bundy ranch shenanigans.
Last edited by Scratch33; 01-04-2016 at 09:46 AM..
if anything the punishment is fairly light. These idiots threatened to murder government enployees over a fence, committed arson on at least three occasions that we know of, and illegally slaughtered deer.
.
They were convicted for the burn, not anything else and as such the rest is irrelevant to the discussion of punishment times.
Why is the government interested in putting a man in prison for what was most likely a bunch of dirt on fire. Burns, Oregon is nothing but sand and dirt, nothing to destroy.......yet, the government will not except this was possibly an accident. What does putting a 73 yr old man in prison do, possibly this is why Bundy is there.
Read about the case, then come back and defend the Hammonds:
The jury convicted both of the Hammonds of using fire to destroy federal property for a 2001 arson known as the Hardie-Hammond Fire, located in the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area. Witnesses at trial, including a relative of the Hammonds, testified the arson occurred shortly after Steven Hammond and his hunting party illegally slaughtered several deer on BLM property.
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.
Read about the case, then come back and defend the Hammonds:
The jury convicted both of the Hammonds of using fire to destroy federal property for a 2001 arson known as the Hardie-Hammond Fire, located in the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area. Witnesses at trial, including a relative of the Hammonds, testified the arson occurred shortly after Steven Hammond and his hunting party illegally slaughtered several deer on BLM property.
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.
Nobody seems to be defending them in their totality. I, however, do find it strange that the government has had them re-arrested and re-sentenced to more time after they had been released from prison. It seems like the government wants to wave red flags in front of anti government wackos.
In short, the government won this battle when the two ranchers were convicted of criminal acts by a jury of their peers and sentenced to prison. Why are they still fighting it- espescially when nobody was hurt, the ranchers are not life long militants broadcasting hate speech into the internet and the amount of federal property damaged was minimal given the expanse of the area? Is it really prudent to fight this battle now over the totality of the circumstances? I mean, WTF?
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.