Armed Militia Members take over Federal Building in Oregon

[Jhhnn]

I've been a bit curious about the occupation of the building. I understand doing it, sorta continues the tradition of the hippies/civil rights/anti-war protestors of the 1960's, the whole civil disobedience thing to get someone to listen/pay attention.

And I keep reading stuff like this: “We don’t want it to end with violence,” said Ryan Bundy in an interview...“We’re not looking for bloodshed.”

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/as...s-son-quietly-surrender/ar-AAglwTX?li=BBnb7Kz


But I'm confused......if the occupiers actually mean they want no bloodshed or violence, why do they have guns?

Yeehawdi fashion accessories, obviously.

 

[DrDoug]

"Manages" land that we can't actually use, and if we try they attempt to bully the shit out of us, that's brilliant.

Still full of shit? One of the main reasons the federal government set aside those lands and controls what happens in and around them is because the public nearly hunted several species to extinction and were basically destroying the land through unregulated cattle grazing. We all know what happens when you let Joe Citizen loose without any oversight, he's in it to win it and fuck everybody else. Ever read about the range wars? I take it you would like a return to the good old days of the wild west...lol! I have used those lands (and other parks in eastern Oregon) with my family and friends. I've been over there several times and it's quite the place to visit or vacation. We have enjoyed our visits every single time and the people there are really nice. While it's true that the ranchers have issues with certain acronym government entities over land use, it's not anything that would allow Y'all Qaeda to move into the area and declare martial Christian Constitutional property law.

If you paid attention in school you would have learned that the federal government has always owned the land from the day it obtained it and has allowed its sale and use as it has seen fit with the overall aim to benefit the people of America. The problem with this is that some people interpret this to mean that they can do whatever the fuck they want on public lands without consequences. We tried that and it didn't work, people are inherently selfish and only care for themselves.

As I said before, your teachers should be ashamed at how uneducated you are.

 

[Jhhnn]

Still full of shit? One of the main reasons the federal government set aside those lands and controls what happens in and around them is because the public nearly hunted several species to extinction and were basically destroying the land through unregulated cattle grazing. We all know what happens when you let Joe Citizen loose without any oversight, he's in it to win it and fuck everybody else. Ever read about the range wars? I take it you would like a return to the good old days of the wild west...lol! I have used those lands (and other parks in eastern Oregon) with my family and friends. I've been over there several times and it's quite the place to visit or vacation. We have enjoyed our visits every single time and the people there are really nice. While it's true that the ranchers have issues with certain acronym government entities over land use, it's not anything that would allow Y'all Qaeda to move into the area and declare martial Christian Constitutional property law.

If you paid attention in school you would have learned that the federal government has always owned the land from the day it obtained it and has allowed its sale and use as it has seen fit with the overall aim to benefit the people of America. The problem with this is that some people interpret this to mean that they can do whatever the fuck they want on public lands without consequences. We tried that and it didn't work, people are inherently selfish and only care for themselves.

As I said before, your teachers should be ashamed at how uneducated you are.

It's the classic tragedy of the commons scenario driven by the ideology of Freedumb.

 

[Atreus21]

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/429214/oregon-rancher-protests-civil-disobedience-justified

The story as told by the protesters begins not with the federal criminal case against Steven and Dwight Hammond but many years earlier, with the creation and expansion of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, a tract of federal land set aside by President Theodore Roosevelt as “a preserve and breeding-ground for native birds.” The federal government has since expanded the preserve in part by buying adjacent private land.

Protesters allege that when private landowners refused to sell, the federal government got aggressive, diverting water during the 1980s into the “rising Malheur lakes.” Eventually, the lakes flooded “homes, corrals, barns, and graze-land.” Ranchers who were “broke and destroyed” then “begged” the government to buy their “useless ranches.”

By the 1990s, the Hammonds were among the few private landowners who remained adjacent to the Refuge. The protesters allege that the government then began a campaign of harassment designed to force the family to sell its land, a beginning with barricaded roads and arbitrarily revoked grazing permits and culminating in an absurd anti-terrorism prosecution based largely on two “arsons” that began on private land but spread to the Refuge.

While “arsons” might sound suspicious to urban ears, anyone familiar with land management in the West (and to a lesser degree, in the rural South and Midwest) knows that land must sometime be burned to stop the spread of invasive species and prevent or fight destructive wildfires. Indeed, the federal government frequently starts its own fires, and protesters allege (with video evidence) that these “burns” often spread to private land, killing and injuring cattle and damaging private property. Needless to say, no federal officers are ever prosecuted.

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.”

At trial, the jury found the Hammonds guilty of maliciously setting fire to public property worth less than $1,000, acquitted them of other charges, and deadlocked on the government’s conspiracy claims. While the jury continued to deliberate, the Hammonds and the prosecution reached a plea agreement in which the Hammonds agreed to waive their appeal rights and accept the jury’s verdict. It was their understanding that the plea agreement would end the case.

At sentencing, the trial court refused to apply the mandatory-minimum sentence, holding that five years in prison would be “grossly disproportionate to the severity of the offenses” and that the Hammonds’ fires “could not have been conduct intended [to be covered] under” the Anti-terrorism act:

When you say, you know, what if you burn sagebrush in the suburbs of Los Angeles where there are houses up those ravines? Might apply. Out in the wilderness here, I don’t think that’s what the Congress intended. And in addition, it just would not be — would not meet any idea I have of justice, proportionality. . . . It would be a sentence which would shock the conscience to me.

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.

There’s a clear argument that the government engaged in an overzealous, vindictive prosecution here. By no stretch of the imagination were the Hammonds terrorists, yet they were prosecuted under an anti-terrorism statute. The government could have let the case end once the men had served their sentences, yet it pressed for more jail time. And the whole time, it held in its back pocket potential rights to the family’s property. To the outside observer, it appears the government has attempted to crush private homeowners and destroy their livelihood in a quest for even more land.

If that’s the case, civil disobedience is a valuable course of action. By occupying a vacant federal building, protesters can bring national attention to an injustice that would otherwise go unnoticed and unremedied. Moreover, they can bring attention once again to the federal government’s more systemic persecution of private landowners.

So that's the case put forth by the ranchers.

 

[MrPickins]

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/429214/oregon-rancher-protests-civil-disobedience-justified



So that's the case put forth by the ranchers.

The article doesn't mention that the "protesters" are not at all associated with the Hammonds and in fact, the Hammonds have said that they don't want any help from them...

Additionally, they were convicted by a jury of their peers, not by the BLM.

 

[Jhhnn]

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/429214/oregon-rancher-protests-civil-disobedience-justified



So that's the case put forth by the ranchers.

Negative. That's the case put forward by the occupiers. It's their story, not necessarily the Hammond's story or one that holds close to the truth, either.

The fact that the locals aren't involved should tell us something.

 

[WelshBloke]

Apparently the situation has gotten serious.

They have been tweeting that they have run out of snacks!

 

[IronWing]

Apparently the situation has gotten serious.

They have been tweeting that they have run out of snacks!

Duck soup it is!

 

[Atreus21]

The article doesn't mention that the "protesters" are not at all associated with the Hammonds and in fact, the Hammonds have said that they don't want any help from them...

Was not aware of that.

Additionally, they were convicted by a jury of their peers, not by the BLM.

Right. This apparently has gone well beyond the Hammond's.

 

[HomerJS]

They haven't attacked anybody!! You're just a bag of emotion knee-jerking at this point. Best of luck making whatever point you're trying to make. :thumbsup:

They haven't? You obviously failed to read the FBI stats on Muslims vs Militia in the US since 9/11

 

[compuwiz1]

Apparently the situation has gotten serious.

They have been tweeting that they have run out of snacks!

They'll be alright. A buddy of mine just dropped off a couple cases of Doritos and Moon Pies, in exchange for some beard oil.

 

[Theb]

They'll be alright. A buddy of mine just dropped off a couple cases of Doritos and Moon Pies, in exchange for some beard oil.

No Busch Light or Natural Ice? y'all qaeda is doomed.

 

[WelshBloke]

They'll be alright. A buddy of mine just dropped off a couple cases of Doritos and Moon Pies, in exchange for some beard oil.

 

[Bitek]

Can you imagine the response had black lives matter protesters occupied the building with armed force?

 

[JTsyo]

Can you imagine the response had black lives matter protesters occupied the building with armed force?

They would have probably starved on their way out there. The urbanites wouldn't do so well in these areas during winter.

 

[WelshBloke]

They would have probably starved on their way out there. The urbanites wouldn't do so well in these areas during winter.

Doesn't seem like this lot are doing too well either!

 

[Vic]

RNWJ's don't recognize their bigotry because, most of the time, that isn't their actual malfunction. Their issue is a lack of critical thinking skills, which makes them unable to understand a narrative from any perspective that they don't identify with. Couple that with a dishonest character and reactionary paranoia and voila! bigotry.

 

[DrDoug]

Apparently the situation has gotten serious.

They have been tweeting that they have run out of snacks!

Reddit is on it! Someone needs to send them some condoms too...lol! Maybe a dead flashlight battery or two would be useful too.

Glitter is a good idea too!

 

[Vic]

As it is, this out-of-state "militia" is not welcome in the state of Oregon. The people of Burns, the sheriff of Harney county, and the Hammonds themselves have spoken loud and clear on this.

 

[zinfamous]

So now we have to be subject matter experts, employed in the field, for any shred of logic to apply?

well, if you want your argument to mean anything?

yes.

you should understand something about the claims that you make.

basic debate, jabronie.

 

[UberNeuman]

RNWJ's don't recognize their bigotry because, most of the time, that isn't their actual malfunction. Their issue is a lack of critical thinking skills, which makes them unable to understand a narrative from any perspective that they don't identify with. Couple that with a dishonest character and reactionary paranoia and voila! bigotry.

You're in bad shape when Stewart Rhodes, the President and founder of the Oaf Keepers is calling out the moron Bundy clan...

 

[DrDoug]

As it is, this out-of-state "militia" is not welcome in the state of Oregon. The people of Burns, the sheriff of Harney county, and the Hammonds themselves have spoken loud and clear on this.

One of the Bundy boys said that they were going to meet with the locals because:

Ryan #Bundy has told @OPB that if the people of #Burns ask them to leave, they will leave peacefully. They plan to have a community meeting.
— John Sepulvado (@JohnLGC) January 5, 2016
​

and:

Ryan #Bundy tells @OPB that “This is their county – we can’t be here and force this on them.” #bundymilitia #burns cc @HarneyCoSheriff
— John Sepulvado (@JohnLGC) January 5, 2016
​

But not so fast!

A key militant leader at the refuge was surprised to hear of statement they would leave if locals wanted them to. He hung up to go check.
— Les Zaitz (@LesZaitz) January 5, 2016
​

and:

A second militant leader has expressed surprise at news they might pack it in. “Sounds uncharacteristic,” he said.
— Les Zaitz (@LesZaitz) January 5, 2016
​

I'm wondering if they have any idea exactly who is in charge of what there...lol! That's Y'all Qaeda for ya! I wonder if some of them are afraid of missing out on martyrdom?

I heard they believe that they get 72 cousins when they go to heaven. :biggrin:

 

[Zorba]

Still unbelievable to me that there has been basically no response. What the Bundys have taught me is that you can piss all over BLM regulations all you want with no consequences. Really, BLM should go back to Bundy's ranch and round up all his cattle while his kids are messing around in Oregon.

 

[jackstar7]

This already came up, right?

18 US Code 2384-Seditious Conspiracy:

If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States ...or by force seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.


Which makes it seem like going in armed was a stupid move...

 

[jackstar7]

Or is it just #OccupyBirdhouse ?