Take over of government building

[Jmayer20]

For those of you that have not heard an armed militia have stormed into a government building in Oregon and have taken it over. What I find most ridiculous is how the news media refers to them as protesters. I guarantee you that if they were Muslim the media would be referring to them as terrorists, which would be a more accurate description of them.

Frankly this sort of thing is unacceptable. I think the government needs to crack down hard on this behavior and make a harsh example out of people like this.

If you want to know more here is a link talking about it.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/03/us/oregon-wildlife-refuge-protest/

[Feoric]

It's a bad day for freedom.

[Jmayer20]

At 1/8/16 02:25 AM, Feoric wrote: It's a bad day for freedom.

God these red necks are pathetic. But what I find even more pathetic is how the law enforcement has such a nonchalant attitude towards this.

[aviewaskewed]

At 1/8/16 11:26 AM, Jmayer20 wrote: God these red necks are pathetic. But what I find even more pathetic is how the law enforcement has such a nonchalant attitude towards this.

Mistakes like Waco and Ruby Ridge make them very very hesitant when it comes to this sort of thing. But from what I'm hearing it's looking like these guys are beating themselves up and they aren't having their expected mass rush of reinforcements so....it's possible the government is looking at it as the stupid heads are handling the shit for them and they don't really need to jump in.

[RydiaLockheart]

At 1/8/16 11:26 AM, Jmayer20 wrote: God these red necks are pathetic. But what I find even more pathetic is how the law enforcement has such a nonchalant attitude towards this.

It's winter and they're running out of supplies. I think the Feds are just gonna let nature draw them out.

[morefngdbs]

At 1/8/16 10:42 PM, RydiaLockheart wrote:

At 1/8/16 11:26 AM, Jmayer20 wrote: God these red necks are pathetic. But what I find even more pathetic is how the law enforcement has such a nonchalant attitude towards this.

It's winter and they're running out of supplies. I think the Feds are just gonna let nature draw them out.

;;;
Hi RydiaLH hope you & those you care for are well & going to have a great 2016..

As well, according to our local news blurb on it... it is a remote area, not like its downtown LA

What is disturbing is the story these people say are the Government canceling or charging such outrageous fees for these ranchers to use public land for grazing their animals ...which has been used by some of these people for generations.
That story doesn't seem to be out there & readily available.
Also I haven't seen the whole story but isn't part of the reason they are out there is also a Father & son who were in jail for supposedly setting a fire to clear brushland, have been re-arrested & given more time for the crime they were already convicted for & did time for , now in jail again !?!
Is that even allowed under the double jeopardy laws of the USA ???
As a Canadian I don't know exactly how that works under your system.

[aviewaskewed]

At 1/9/16 12:15 PM, morefngdbs wrote: What is disturbing is the story these people say are the Government canceling or charging such outrageous fees for these ranchers to use public land for grazing their animals ...which has been used by some of these people for generations.

There's also the fact that the allegations as to WHY this started is about a family who was convicted of committing arson (a crime) to get out of paying these fees and covering up other crimes they were doing. This story is absolutely out there more, has been since the first time the Bundy family pulled a stunt like this last year.

That story doesn't seem to be out there & readily available.

Maybe not in Canada, but it's surely out there here in the States. But there's a lot of mis-reporting going on here, I still see most outlets calling the occupiers "protesters" when in fact they are committing a crime and what they are doing should more properly be labeled "domestic terrorism". So there's a lot of selective reporting happening.

Also I haven't seen the whole story but isn't part of the reason they are out there is also a Father & son who were in jail for supposedly setting a fire to clear brushland, have been re-arrested & given more time for the crime they were already convicted for & did time for , now in jail again !?!

There was an issue whereby there was a violation in what is called "mandatory minimums" in sentencing. The original judge decided to give them less then the mandatory and they served that, but it is not within the power of a presiding judge to try and overturn the mandatory minimum, and that is why the case was looked into again and they were ordered back into jail to serve the mandatory minimum. The case was improperly handled the first time, they didn't serve the proper sentence, and frankly I think this is just an excuse for these guys based on other things I've seen.

Speaking of that: This is an interesting article I ran across. Just because these guys aren't being overtly violent, are well funded or enforced....doesn't mean the mistakes being made now can't embolden people who are better organized, more intelligent, and more willing to get violent to make the point.

[Jmayer20]

At 1/9/16 12:15 PM, morefngdbs wrote:

At 1/8/16 10:42 PM, RydiaLockheart wrote:

At 1/8/16 11:26 AM, Jmayer20 wrote: God these red necks are pathetic. But what I find even more pathetic is how the law enforcement has such a nonchalant attitude towards this.

It's winter and they're running out of supplies. I think the Feds are just gonna let nature draw them out.

;;;
Hi RydiaLH hope you & those you care for are well & going to have a great 2016..

As well, according to our local news blurb on it... it is a remote area, not like its downtown LA

What is disturbing is the story these people say are the Government canceling or charging such outrageous fees for these ranchers to use public land for grazing their animals ...which has been used by some of these people for generations.
That story doesn't seem to be out there & readily available.
Also I haven't seen the whole story but isn't part of the reason they are out there is also a Father & son who were in jail for supposedly setting a fire to clear brushland, have been re-arrested & given more time for the crime they were already convicted for & did time for , now in jail again !?!
Is that even allowed under the double jeopardy laws of the USA ???
As a Canadian I don't know exactly how that works under your system.

OK first off, could you explain where it says that the father and son were charged twice for the same law broken because this is the first time that I ever heard of this.

Second you are portraying these people as sweet innocent individuals that the government is picking on. I would have no problem if they were peacefully protesting, using tactics such as waving around signs, giving out flyers to convince other people in the community that what the government is doing is wrong, and performing other none violent acts to resist what the government is doing. But these people have committed acts of violence such as arson, intimidating those who disagree with their position with threats of violence, an armed take over of a government building, and in effect trying (though failing miserably) to override the will of the people in their government that they elected. Which if you think about it goes against the Constitution which is the very thing that they are pretending to be fighting for.

Finally you mentioned that you are Canadian. Well how you would feel if a group of armed French Canadians took over a government building near Quebec, just because they did not agree with the current laws?

[RydiaLockheart]

At 1/9/16 01:46 PM, Jmayer20 wrote: Second you are portraying these people as sweet innocent individuals that the government is picking on. I would have no problem if they were peacefully protesting, using tactics such as waving around signs, giving out flyers to convince other people in the community that what the government is doing is wrong, and performing other none violent acts to resist what the government is doing. But these people have committed acts of violence such as arson, intimidating those who disagree with their position with threats of violence, an armed take over of a government building, and in effect trying (though failing miserably) to override the will of the people in their government that they elected. Which if you think about it goes against the Constitution which is the very thing that they are pretending to be fighting for.

I think what you fail to understand is that the people who have taken over the government building are NOT the people who were charged. Those folks have already reported to prison and didn't want any fuss, but Ammon Bundy and his buddies decided to "help." (Unfortunately, I see that with a lot of causes across the board.)

Background: The father and son landowners were doing a burn on their land to get rid of overgrown brush. The burn accidentally crosses over onto government land. Since the damage was fairly minor, the judge decided not to do the minimum 5-year mandatory sentencing mandate and charged them a fine and about a few months of jail time, which they had already served. The fine was also paid.

Now the federal government decides to butt in and drag the father and son to prison to make them serve out the remainder of the five years even though they have already paid their fine and done the time the judge in that case levied against them. That is double jeopardy and is not only unconstitutional, it's also illegal. I don't care if you're liberal or conservative, anyone should be upset at this overreach.

IIRC, the father and the son have retained a lawyer, but I don't know what the status of the case is.

[aviewaskewed]

At 1/9/16 02:12 PM, RydiaLockheart wrote: Now the federal government decides to butt in and drag the father and son to prison to make them serve out the remainder of the five years even though they have already paid their fine and done the time the judge in that case levied against them. That is double jeopardy and is not only unconstitutional, it's also illegal. I don't care if you're liberal or conservative, anyone should be upset at this overreach.

It's not though. Double Jeopardy is being tried twice for the same crime. They were not tried twice, they were charged with a crime, they were convicted, that crime carried a "mandatory minimum" for sentencing. A "mandatory minimum" means they CANNOT serve less then that minimum. The judge in the case was the one who overreached by declining to do his job and sentence them to 5 years. You may not like mandatory minimums, I certainly am no fan of them and think we need to abolish it, but as long as they are the law on the books, they must be followed and enforced. It's really that simple, whether you're liberal or conservative, either we agree in the rule of law (and if a law is unjust, then we change it) or we descend into lawlessness.

[Camarohusky]

At 1/9/16 02:12 PM, RydiaLockheart wrote: Background: The father and son landowners were doing a burn on their land to get rid of overgrown brush. The burn accidentally crosses over onto government land. Since the damage was fairly minor, the judge decided not to do the minimum 5-year mandatory sentencing mandate and charged them a fine and about a few months of jail time, which they had already served. The fine was also paid.

You dramatically misstate the prupose of the fire. It was not to clear brush (though that was their open excuse), rather it was to cover up the illegal hunting of deer on the land. So, they were destroying evidence, not cleaning their land. So let's get that point straight. No innocent act started this whole mess.

Now the federal government decides to butt in and drag the father and son to prison to make them serve out the remainder of the five years even though they have already paid their fine and done the time the judge in that case levied against them. That is double jeopardy and is not only unconstitutional, it's also illegal. I don't care if you're liberal or conservative, anyone should be upset at this overreach.

First off, the Federal Government didn't butt in. The US attorneys, who were part of the first trial, appealed the overtly and completely illegal sentencing. The imposition of a 1 year sentence on a 5 year mandatory minimum is no different than a state judge in Oregon imposing a 2 year jail sentence for harassment (a B misdemeanor which carries a maximum of 6 months).

Second, the judge broke the law and deserves to be admonished, and should receive bar action.

Third, that is NOT double Jeopardy. They are not being tried or sentenced twice. Their sentence is merely being modified to fit the law that the plaintiffs KNEW was overtly broken when they received it.

IIRC, the father and the son have retained a lawyer, but I don't know what the status of the case is.

This is a question of jurisprudence not politics. Frankly, the dad and son will not win. No court is going to decide that any and every disctrict court judge has the ability to unilaterally nullify sentencing laws. The dad and the son's only hope now rests in Obama, and because of the Bundy clan, a pardon of these men by Obama would be a huge political black eye, and would encourage more militia action. So, in an ironic twist, Bundy has actually sealed the fate of the Hammonds.

[morefngdbs]

Thanks for the clarification guys

Where there are some areas where IMO minimum sentences should be in place. I believe all of them should be for the very worst crimes, first degree murder, rape, child molesting.
Crimes where people are seriously impacted.
Property crimes IMO shouldn't be subject to those types of sentences & the Political Party that was recently tossed from a majority position of power to now, being basicly toothless in the political arena here . They were in the act of attempting to do exactly the same thing here.
One of the Conservative Reform Alliance Party of Canada's recent laws would have seen someone who was caught with marijuana plants doing more time in prison than child molesters !
& Yeah their political letters spelled CRAP !
The very first thing the new government did was scrap that law. Thankfully the law is back to what it needs to be & child molesters will do more time for their crimes than someone caught with pot.
Even better the Nation will be decriminalizing possession of small amounts of pot this year. Not that it helps me in any way ...with my heart condition I can't smoke pot ~:'(

[Camarohusky]

At 1/10/16 01:46 PM, morefngdbs wrote: Thanks for the clarification guys

Where there are some areas where IMO minimum sentences should be in place. I believe all of them should be for the very worst crimes, first degree murder, rape, child molesting.

Well, technically this was fore a pretty heinous crime: terrorism. Was this terrorism? I don't beleive so, but I wasn't on the jury. I do believe it was a crime, and I agree with the original judge that 5 years is too harsh. However, that does not undo the law and the terrible legal precedent that would arise from allowing the illegally low sentences to stay.

Did the justice system fail here? Yes and no. Is there anything the justice system can really do about it? Not really.

This is just as much a legislative problem. Congress made the law such as to have the mandatory minimum AND to include what the Hammonds did in it. Mind you, my guess is this law was made and supported by the very side of the political specturm now most friednly to the Hammonds and Bundys.

Property crimes IMO shouldn't be subject to those types of sentences

I agree. Mandatory minimums should be solely applied to serious person crimes, and the hybrids (arson and terrorism). I include the hybrids because arson and terrorism can be extremely serious crimes and don't always require a person to be present to be serious.

The problem with law, especially criminal law, is that nothing in this world is black and white. The law, while able to deal with grayscale, has lots of difficulties when the cases are not black and white.

[Feoric]

Freedom isn't....free.

[Camarohusky]

At 1/13/16 07:47 PM, Feoric wrote: Freedom isn't....free.

That's what they get for trying to trying to take the back door to power.

I guess they weren't anal enough to bring their own tools.

But when you think about it, being snowed in is the best time to plow.

[Feoric]

At 1/13/16 11:02 PM, Camarohusky wrote: That's what they get for trying to trying to take the back door to power.

I guess they weren't anal enough to bring their own tools.

But when you think about it, being snowed in is the best time to plow.

No need to be a dick about it.

[musichives1000]

Yeah. The government needs to act stronger, way stronger. Come on.

[Camarohusky]

At 1/14/16 09:20 PM, musichives1000 wrote: Yeah. The government needs to act stronger, way stronger. Come on.

Seriously. These guys' refusal to use the dildos clearly shows that they're the submissive sort.

[Feoric]

At 1/14/16 10:43 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Seriously. These guys' refusal to use the dildos clearly shows that they're the submissive sort.

I know. They're such a pain in the ass.

[Camarohusky]

At 1/15/16 12:49 AM, Feoric wrote: They're such a pain in the ass.

Only if you're a tight ass who refuses to let anyone in.

[Feoric]

At 1/15/16 01:11 AM, Camarohusky wrote: Only if you're a tight ass who refuses to let anyone in.

I've loosened up over the years.