Militia takes over national wildlife refuge headquarters in Oregon

In phone interviews from inside the occupied building Saturday night, Ammon Bundy and his brother, Ryan Bundy, said they are not looking to hurt anyone. But they would not rule out violence if police try to remove them, they said, though they declined to elaborate.

"The facility has been the tool to do all the tyranny that has been placed upon the Hammonds," Ammon Bundy said.

"We're planning on staying here for years, absolutely," he added. "This is not a decision we've made at the last minute."

DWags wrote:What size was the fire those guys lit on federal ground to get five years? Was it arson or was it a camp fire

DWags wrote:What size was the fire those guys lit on federal ground to get five years? Was it arson or was it a camp fire

xsanguine wrote:

DWags wrote:What size was the fire those guys lit on federal ground to get five years? Was it arson or was it a camp fire

The ranchers say it was controlled burning for grazing purposes. I'm not sure if it's the government or elsewhere that has alleged they did it to cover up a poaching incident, but that's an opposing viewpoint I've read.

Either way it spread to 139 government owned acres.

DWags wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

The ranchers say it was controlled burning for grazing purposes. I'm not sure if it's the government or elsewhere that has alleged they did it to cover up a poaching incident, but that's an opposing viewpoint I've read.

Either way it spread to 139 government owned acres.

Then I have a problem if you're burning 100 acres of shit that's not yours. I think five is a bit stiff but some jail time and restitution would be agreeable.

DWags wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

The ranchers say it was controlled burning for grazing purposes. I'm not sure if it's the government or elsewhere that has alleged they did it to cover up a poaching incident, but that's an opposing viewpoint I've read.

Either way it spread to 139 government owned acres.

Then I have a problem if you're burning 100 acres of shit that's not yours. I think five is a bit stiff but some jail time and restitution would be agreeable.

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:The media coverage on this is funny but not really at the same time compared to other similar situations.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:The media coverage on this is funny but not really at the same time compared to other similar situations.

are you suggesting that there are different rules for white people?

xsanguine wrote:Wow. ISIS, huh?

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:Where is the dude to blame this on liberals?

xsanguine wrote:

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:Where is the dude to blame this on liberals?

Well, technically........

Turtleneck wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

Well, technically........

Actually, you can blame Teddy Roosevelt.

The prosecution of the Hammonds revolved mainly around two burns, one in 2001 and another in 2006. The government alleged that the first was ignited to cover up evidence of poaching and placed a teenager in danger. The Hammonds claimed that they started it to clear an invasive species, as is their legal right. Whatever its intent, the fire spread from the Hammonds’ property and ultimately ignited 139 acres of public land. But the trial judge found that the teenager’s testimony was tainted by age and bias and that the fire had merely damaged “juniper trees and sagebrush” — damage that “might” total $100 in value. The other burn was trifling. Here’s how the Ninth Circuit described it: In August 2006, a lightning storm kindled several fires near where the Hammonds grew their winter feed. Steven responded by attempting back burns near the boundary of his land. Although a burn ban was in effect, Steven did not seek a waiver. His fires burned about an acre of public land. In 2010 — almost nine years after the 2001 burn — the government filed a 19-count indictment against the Hammonds that included charges under the Federal Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, which mandates a five-year prison term for anyone who “maliciously damages or destroys, or attempts to damage or destroy, by means of fire or an explosive, any building, vehicle, or other personal or real property in whole or in part owned or possessed by, or leased to, the United States.”

Thus, he found that the mandatory-minimum sentence would — under the facts of this case — violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against “cruel and unusual punishment.” He sentenced Steven Hammond to two concurrent prison terms of twelve months and one day and Dwight Hammond to one prison term of three months. The Hammonds served their sentences without incident or controversy.

The federal government, however, was not content to let the matter rest. Despite the absence of any meaningful damage to federal land, the U.S. Attorney appealed the trial judge’s sentencing decision, demanding that the Hammonds return to prison to serve a full five-year sentence. The case went to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the court ruled against the Hammonds, rejecting their argument that the prosecutor violated the plea agreement by filing an appeal and dismissing the trial court’s Eighth Amendment concerns. The Hammonds were ordered back to prison. At the same time, they were struggling to pay a $400,000 civil settlement with the federal government, the terms of which gave the government right of first refusal to purchase their property if they couldn’t scrape together the money.

LooseGoose wrote:I'm not too sympathetic to the yahoos doing the takeover.....but it seems the ranchers got a screw job here.

The Case for Civil Disobedience in Oregon Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/429214/oregon-rancher-protests-civil-disobedience-justified

The prosecution of the Hammonds revolved mainly around two burns, one in 2001 and another in 2006. The government alleged that the first was ignited to cover up evidence of poaching and placed a teenager in danger. The Hammonds claimed that they started it to clear an invasive species, as is their legal right. Whatever its intent, the fire spread from the Hammonds’ property and ultimately ignited 139 acres of public land. But the trial judge found that the teenager’s testimony was tainted by age and bias and that the fire had merely damaged “juniper trees and sagebrush” — damage that “might” total $100 in value. The other burn was trifling. Here’s how the Ninth Circuit described it: In August 2006, a lightning storm kindled several fires near where the Hammonds grew their winter feed. Steven responded by attempting back burns near the boundary of his land. Although a burn ban was in effect, Steven did not seek a waiver. His fires burned about an acre of public land. In 2010 — almost nine years after the 2001 burn — the government filed a 19-count indictment against the Hammonds that included charges under the Federal Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, which mandates a five-year prison term for anyone who “maliciously damages or destroys, or attempts to damage or destroy, by means of fire or an explosive, any building, vehicle, or other personal or real property in whole or in part owned or possessed by, or leased to, the United States.”

Thus, he found that the mandatory-minimum sentence would — under the facts of this case — violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against “cruel and unusual punishment.” He sentenced Steven Hammond to two concurrent prison terms of twelve months and one day and Dwight Hammond to one prison term of three months. The Hammonds served their sentences without incident or controversy.

The federal government, however, was not content to let the matter rest. Despite the absence of any meaningful damage to federal land, the U.S. Attorney appealed the trial judge’s sentencing decision, demanding that the Hammonds return to prison to serve a full five-year sentence. The case went to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the court ruled against the Hammonds, rejecting their argument that the prosecutor violated the plea agreement by filing an appeal and dismissing the trial court’s Eighth Amendment concerns. The Hammonds were ordered back to prison. At the same time, they were struggling to pay a $400,000 civil settlement with the federal government, the terms of which gave the government right of first refusal to purchase their property if they couldn’t scrape together the money.

Turtleneck wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:I'm not too sympathetic to the yahoos doing the takeover.....but it seems the ranchers got a screw job here.

The Case for Civil Disobedience in Oregon Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/429214/oregon-rancher-protests-civil-disobedience-justified

I tend to agree. However, if they were poaching, I have little sympathy. Poachers are a scourge.

xsanguine wrote:

Turtleneck wrote:

I tend to agree. However, if they were poaching, I have little sympathy. Poachers are a scourge.

Sometimes the situation just calls for it, though. I mean, I enjoy an open flame charcoal grill as much as the next guy but for certain types of fish you can't beat poaching in a white wine and vinegar.

Turtleneck wrote:Ted Cruz denounced these guys today. I guess that means they really are in the wrong.

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio called them "lawless." Texas Sen. Ted Cruz offered prayers for law enforcement officers. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie expressed sympathy for state officials who have "very difficult choices to make."

Turtleneck wrote:A rancher's perspective on federal regulation of land. He says at the start he does not approve of the tactics used by the occupiers, but sympathizes with what brought them to Oregon.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/01/08/im-an-oregon-rancher-heres-what-you-dont-understand-about-the-bundy-standoff/

xsanguine wrote:

Turtleneck wrote:A rancher's perspective on federal regulation of land. He says at the start he does not approve of the tactics used by the occupiers, but sympathizes with what brought them to Oregon.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/01/08/im-an-oregon-rancher-heres-what-you-dont-understand-about-the-bundy-standoff/

A lot of people that own a 1/4 acre have some pretty strong opinions on how people with 100's of acres feel about government's involvement. This doesn't fall under the contemporary liberal mantra that if someone else feels they're being pushed around you need to automatically believe them and adjust your behavior, apparently.