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.
The Birdhouse Boys, set a fire on their land, that got away from them and by accident burned some federal land, which by 'law' will land them in jail for 5 years. For whatever reason, no one seems to have a problem with this? Or is the part where some one comes along to tell me, I don't understand the situation, between the government and the ranchers.
Many people don't agree with mandatory minimum sentencing. What I don't agree with is taking over public land, trashing the place, and threatening to kill anyone that tries to remove you. I also don't agree with calling others to "come get you some" and to "kill any LEO that tries to stop you".
And the stated reasoning for the takeover really has nothing to do with the Hammonds in the first place. Ammond wants the federal government to give the land to ranchers, loggers and miners. Then it changed to give it to the states. Then it changed to give it to whoever owned it originally. They can't even make up their minds what this is about.
There is more to the Hammond story, and it wan't a one time "oops" situation. And none of the people involved in the takeover is part of the Hammond family. In fact the Hammonds told the "militia" that they did not want their help.
The Birdhouse Boys, set a fire on their land, that got away from them and by accident burned some federal land, which by 'law' will land them in jail for 5 years. For whatever reason, no one seems to have a problem with this? Or is the part where some one comes along to tell me, I don't understand the situation, between the government and the ranchers.
This is the part where you are given the real reason they set that fire. It wasn't a fire that "got away from them," it was a fire deliberately set to cover up evidence of their illegal poaching.
Quote:
"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.” The fire consumed 139 acres of public land and destroyed all evidence of the game violations."
After committing arson Steven Hammond called the BLM office in Burns, Oregon with the made up story you cite in your post in an attempt to cover his tracks.
Try hard not to put an "R" or a "D" label to the view, but the knowing what it means to be able to have, certain liberties, without the federal government's thumb on top or ones head.
To be fair ... if the land in question was privately owned, the fire that got away and created a destruction of property, the dispute would have been handled in a court of law with the fines or penalty, pending an outcome of the court system. However, since it was federal land, the accidental fire comes with an automatic 5 Year prison sentence, no hearing is required.
If they had not occupied the federal reserve and brought about media attention (a lot of good that has done) private ownership, property rights and the increased power of the federal government, would not be brought out to the public for discussions and debate.
This crew was going to jail, no matter what they did, they just chose to not go quietly into the night.
You seem to be conveniently overlooking the fact that the Hammonds were found guilty of arson by a jury of there peers. It was not an 'accidental fire' and there certainly was a hearing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellis Bell
Try hard not to put an "R" or a "D" label to the view, but the knowing what it means to be able to have, certain liberties, without the federal government's thumb on top or ones head.
To be fair ... if the land in question was privately owned, the fire that got away and created a destruction of property, the dispute would have been handled in a court of law with the fines or penalty, pending an outcome of the court system. However, since it was federal land, the accidental fire comes with an automatic 5 Year prison sentence, no hearing is required.
If they had not occupied the federal reserve and brought about media attention (a lot of good that has done) private ownership, property rights and the increased power of the federal government, would not be brought out to the public for discussions and debate.
This crew was going to jail, no matter what they did, they just chose to not go quietly into the night.
To be fair ... if the land in question was privately owned, the fire that got away and created a destruction of property, the dispute would have been handled in a court of law with the fines or penalty, pending an outcome of the court system. However, since it was federal land, the accidental fire comes with an automatic 5 Year prison sentence, no hearing is required.
What part of "deliberately set in order to cover up poaching activities" do you not understand?
This is the part where you are given the real reason they set that fire. It wasn't a fire that "got away from them," it was a fire deliberately set to cover up evidence of their illegal poaching.
After committing arson Steven Hammond called the BLM office in Burns, Oregon with the made up story you cite in your post in an attempt to cover his tracks.
You have been told numerous times that those accusations were never proven in court, and the charges were dropped. And the testimony of a relative against Hammonds that you've posted so many times, “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.” was dismissed by the judge.
It doesn't matter how many times you repeat it, it's still does not make it true. The evidence was presented in court, and a jury didn't convict them, and the judge didn't believe the accusations either. In the end, the charges were dropped. So, you cannot say that it wasn't a fire that "got away from them".
Quote:
Originally Posted by OscarTheGrouch
You seem to be conveniently overlooking the fact that the Hammonds were found guilty of arson by a jury of there peers. It was not an 'accidental fire' and there certainly was a hearing.
The Hammonds never claimed the fires were accidental, them admitted that they set the fires. One fire was set to remove overgrowth, and the other was set as a back burn.
Many people don't agree with mandatory minimum sentencing. What I don't agree with is taking over public land, trashing the place, and threatening to kill anyone that tries to remove you. I also don't agree with calling others to "come get you some" and to "kill any LEO that tries to stop you".
And the stated reasoning for the takeover really has nothing to do with the Hammonds in the first place. Ammond wants the federal government to give the land to ranchers, loggers and miners. Then it changed to give it to the states. Then it changed to give it to whoever owned it originally. They can't even make up their minds what this is about.
There is more to the Hammond story, and it wan't a one time "oops" situation. And none of the people involved in the takeover is part of the Hammond family. In fact the Hammonds told the "militia" that they did not want their help.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JAMS14
This is the part where you are given the real reason they set that fire. It wasn't a fire that "got away from them," it was a fire deliberately set to cover up evidence of their illegal poaching.
After committing arson Steven Hammond called the BLM office in Burns, Oregon with the made up story you cite in your post in an attempt to cover his tracks.
I don't believe either of you a long with many more in America, has a problem with the mandatory sentencing.
As restriction increase on our ranchers and farmers how will we eat? With the government every thing leads to something and most of it is never good.
Many people don't agree with mandatory minimum sentencing. What I don't agree with is taking over public land, trashing the place, and threatening to kill anyone that tries to remove you. I also don't agree with calling others to "come get you some" and to "kill any LEO that tries to stop you".
If this bunch had gone unarmed to a federal courts building to peacefully protest the mandatory minimum then heck I might have donated to a gofundme to help pay their expenses.
You seem to be conveniently overlooking the fact that the Hammonds were found guilty of arson by a jury of there peers. It was not an 'accidental fire' and there certainly was a hearing.
You seem to be conveniently over looking the fact if this was two ranchers each with private property rather than federal land, this situation would have a different scenario associated with it. Or does the federal governments increased powers not bother you?
Try hard not to put an "R" or a "D" label to the view, but the knowing what it means to be able to have, certain liberties, without the federal government's thumb on top or ones head.
To be fair ... if the land in question was privately owned, the fire that got away and created a destruction of property, the dispute would have been handled in a court of law with the fines or penalty, pending an outcome of the court system. However, since it was federal land, the accidental fire comes with an automatic 5 Year prison sentence, no hearing is required.
If they had not occupied the federal reserve and brought about media attention (a lot of good that has done) private ownership, property rights and the increased power of the federal government, would not be brought out to the public for discussions and debate.
This crew was going to jail, no matter what they did, they just chose to not go quietly into the night.
First, the Hammonds are not part of the Oregon takeover group. In fact they told the "militia" that they did not want their help.
Second, there was a trial, and an appeal.
Third, the Hammonds DID go quietly. They turned themselves in the day before the "militia" decided to take over the wildlife reserve.
You seem to be confusing the players here. The Hammonds are locals that are finishing their sentence for the charges they were convicted of. The "militia" are from out of state, and can't even decide among themselves what they want from this whole fiasco. Is it "free the Hammonds", "give the land to the ranchers loggers and miners", "give the land to the states", "give the land to the original owners", "let everyone involved in the takeover out of jail and drop all charges", "put god back in the schools", "just let us go home", "preventing the NWO" All of those have been touted by members of the "militia" as the reason for the takeover.
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.
Or is the part where some one comes along to tell me, I don't understand the situation, between the government and the ranchers.