OR - Militia members occupy federal building in Oregon after protest #1

[Brightbird]

Um, so are they threatening to kill LE or innocent citizens? Or themselves? Either way, that just really pizzed me off.

Go get 'em Feds.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/01/0...a-occupy-oregon-wildlife-refuge-building.html

I think they mean they'll shoot at LE and die doing it. Aren't these more or less the same people who kept guns aimed at LE during a previous standoff? I think it's mostly chest beating. Pathetic really.

 

[Tawny]

It's almost like these guys are daring LE to do something.

I feel like making a statement such as any involvement will mean loss of life is a direct challenge. JMO!

Holy Cow! I hope to heavens children aren't being brought into the facility! I honestly can't understand why the feds haven't blocked access to the facility and just wait for these guys food to run out. SMH

Um. What. People are able to just... go in...?

 

[Montjoy]

To me, just the fact that they FOR SURE are armed, and have actually threatened that lives will be lost if LE interferes, warrants a strong and swift show of force.

I've read just today of much more aggressive LE actions against much less clear-cut circumstances.

It's almost like these guys are daring LE to do something.

Like the Branch Davidians, or for that matter, Randall Weaver -- both situations shared some ideological similarities.

 

[Frigga]

I don't believe you understand the arson event and they purchase those allotments to graze public land. They have been encroached upon by the Government reneging on the purchases.

The arson was a grass fire that got into "public" lands from their land and they served their sentence. then a Judge decided they didn't serve enough years ago and ordered them back to jail for more sentencing.

Would you please explain the "grass fire" details as you understand them?

Have you read the Supreme Courts decision?

 

[Everyday Grace]

Like the Branch Davidians, or for that matter, Randall Weaver -- both situations shared some ideological similarities.

And the Montana Freemen.

Similar in ideology. Similar in tactics.

 

[EllieBee]

I think they mean they'll shoot at LE and die doing it. Aren't these more or less the same people who kept guns aimed at LE during a previous standoff? I think it's mostly chest beating. Pathetic really.

I hope you are right about the chest beating.

I suppose that because of all the other recent terrorist attacks and threats, my hackles are a bit raised. I really try to not worry or live in fear (because then the terrorists have a partial victory), but I do feel diminished by the loss of every innocent life.

Let's hope this is much ado about nothing.

 

[LietKynes]

I hope you are right about the chest beating.

I suppose that because of all the other recent terrorist attacks and threats, my hackles are a bit raised. I really try to not worry or live in fear (because then the terrorists have a partial victory), but I do feel diminished by the loss of every innocent life.

Let's hope this is much ado about nothing.

SABBM

Hope you're right !

 

[DexterMorgan]

I'm confused. The father and son did their jail time for the fires. So why do they have to go back.

I thought the judge gave them a fair sentence at first. So why did someone take offense and made it personal to advocate that the judge was too lenient and didn't rightfully sentence them?

Was the original judge a friend of theirs or something? Because not too many people will force the system to give longer sentences after it was all said and done. Jmo

 

[LaborDayRN]

I'm confused. The father and son did their jail time for the fires. So why do they have to go back.

I thought the judge gave them a fair sentence at first. So why did someone take offense and made it personal to advocate that the judge was too lenient and didn't rightfully sentence them?

Was the original judge a friend of theirs or something? Because not too many people will force the system to give longer sentences after it was all said and done. Jmo

Hi Dexter, if you read the supreme court decision that I posted at the beginning of the thread, they state their reasoning. Basically, all parties had agreed to a minimum sentence of 5 years to be served during the original trial, but a local judge sentenced the men to less time, which caused the feds to appeal. The supreme court agreed with the appeal.

 

[stormshine]

The charges which they were convicted carried a mandatory minimum of five years. The judge sentence them for a shorter timeframe citing 8th amendment concerns. The prosecution immediately appealed the sentence based on that and the 9th circuit overruled the original sentence. However, the time for the appeal (and the appeal of the appeal) to process took longer than their original jail sentence: thus they were released before the appeal process was finally complete.

 

[Everyday Grace]

I'm confused. The father and son did their jail time for the fires. So why do they have to go back.

I thought the judge gave them a fair sentence at first. So why did someone take offense and made it personal to advocate that the judge was too lenient and didn't rightfully sentence them?

Was the original judge a friend of theirs or something? Because not too many people will force the system to give longer sentences after it was all said and done. Jmo

Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, which increased the penalties for arson committed against federal property, the mandatory minimum punishment for such crimes was upped to five years in federal prison. The law, which was passed in the wake of the Oklahoma City bombing, struck the judge presiding over the sentencing as too harsh — and off-base in this instance.

"It just would not be — would not meet any idea I have of justice, proportionality," U.S. District Judge Michael R. Hogan said at the sentencing. "I am not supposed to use the word 'fairness' in criminal law. I know that I had a criminal law professor a long time ago yell at me for doing that. And I don't do that.

"But this — it would be a sentence which would shock the conscience to me."

At the time, Hogan sentenced Dwight Hammond Jr. to three months of prison, and Steven Hammond to a year and one day. The federal government wanted the full five years, appealing the shorter sentences and eventually winning that appeal in 2014.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...r-the-roots-of-the-armed-occupation-in-oregon

 

[IzzyBlanche]

This is a summary from the Department of Justice:

By law, arson on federal land carries a five-year mandatory minimum sentence. When the Hammonds were originally sentenced, they argued that the five-year mandatory minimum terms were unconstitutional and the trial court agreed and imposed sentences well below what the law required based upon the jury’s verdicts. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, however, upheld the federal law, reasoning that “given the seriousness of arson, a five-year sentence is not grossly disproportionate to the offense.” The court vacated the original, unlawful sentences and ordered that the Hammonds be resentenced “in compliance with the law.” In March 2015, the Supreme Court rejected the Hammonds’ petitions for certiorari. Today, Chief Judge Aiken imposed five year prison terms on each of the Hammonds, with credit for time they already served.

http://www.justice.gov/usao-or/pr/e...convicted-arson-resentenced-five-years-prison

 

[DexterMorgan]

Hi Dexter, if you read the supreme court decision that I posted at the beginning of the thread, they state their reasoning. Basically, all parties had agreed to a minimum sentence of 5 years to be served during the original trial, but a local judge sentenced the men to less time, which caused the feds to appeal. The supreme court agreed with the appeal.

Okay. Great. Dumb me. Lol. Thanks my friend. Now I understand. Sorry for just jumping in without starting from the beginning. Thanks.

 

[SophieRose]

https://www.rt.com/usa/327762-armed-bundy-militia-oregon-ranchers/

The militiamen told OregonLive there were about 150 of them, but a couple who delivered food to the refuge HQ estimated that there were just 15.

snip

However, Hammonds said they did not welcome the Bundy group's help, CBS News reported.

"Neither Ammon Bundy nor anyone within his group/organization speak for the Hammond Family," the Hammonds' lawyer W. Alan Schroeder wrote to Sheriff David Ward.

 

[MIKAYOYO]

Would you please explain the "grass fire" details as you understand them?

Have you read the Supreme Courts decision?

I'm nott Archangel but from what little I have researched so far, the Hammonds claim they were setting fires to kill some type of species or to prevent other fires. I donn't understand how all that works, startting fires to prevent it from spreading or whatever.

They also claim they were denied the land allotment for two years.

It sounds to me as though this whole thing is they don't tthink the FEDERAL governmet should be in charge of the statte's land. IDK. I'm still trying to figure it all out. It took me a bit just to differentiate between the Hammonds (who are supposed to be goinng back to jail) and the Bundys who have taken over this building.

Here's a link I was reading stuff. It is abviously more biased towards the Hammonnds.

http://www.tsln.com/news/17302049-113/story.html

MOO

 

[IzzyBlanche]

Nice people.

Among those joining Bundy in the occupation are Ryan Payne, U.S. Army veteran, and Blaine Cooper. Payne has claimed to have helped organize militia snipers to target federal agents in a standoff last year in Nevada. He told one news organization the federal agents would have been killed had they made the wrong move.

http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-n...f/2016/01/drama_in_burns_ends_with_quiet.html

 

[Ragamuffin]

I have to say, to be fair to the Hammonds, they have accepted the appeal and are prepared to serve their sentences as ordered. They have also stated they have no affiliation with Bundy's <self-snipped> sons and want them to leave.

Update from DM http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ist-plan-peacefully-report-prison-Monday.html

 

[Tawny]

https://www.facebook.com/bundyranch/videos/938588846217924/?permPage=1

*still biting tongue*

 

[Ragamuffin]

Nice people.



http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-n...f/2016/01/drama_in_burns_ends_with_quiet.html

And WHY is this guy not in gaol?

 

[LaborDayRN]

https://www.rt.com/usa/327762-armed-bundy-militia-oregon-ranchers/

The militiamen told OregonLive there were about 150 of them, but a couple who delivered food to the refuge HQ estimated that there were just 15.

snip

However, Hammonds said they did not welcome the Bundy group's help, CBS News reported.

"Neither Ammon Bundy nor anyone within his group/organization speak for the Hammond Family," the Hammonds' lawyer W. Alan Schroeder wrote to Sheriff David Ward.

really interesting video at the above link.