Armed Militia Members take over Federal Building in Oregon

[fskimospy]

You mean like they did when they burned down a bunch of shit? Or looted pharmacies in Baltimore?

Exactly my point. Should we go search and compare and contrast your reactions?

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Plus the constant breaking news live media coverage of the armed standoff that is instead just few articles about anti-government protesters.

Edit: Peaceful protesters even.

holy shit. that is just sickening. fucking abc, who the fuck is their online editor? a bundy relative?

 

[LegendKiller]

holy shit. that is just sickening. fucking abc, who the fuck is their online editor? a bundy relative?

AFAIK, it was a peaceful protest prior to the seizure of the federal building.

 

[Knowing]

You don't appear to have a strong grasp of double jeopardy. This is in no way double jeopardy, an appeals court ruled that their initial sentence was illegal. Guess what, just like if the bank mistakenly deposits a million dollars in your account you don't just get to say that because they screwed up in sentencing that you don't have to serve the real sentence.

Ok so your argument is that it's ok to occupy federal buildings and threaten violence so long as they are small buildings. That makes total sense to someone I'm sure.

Nice attempt at a straw man. One does not need to believe there has never been a government conspiracy to think that a federal appeals court conspiring to steal land from ranchers despite literally zero evidence is a stupid and borderline insane thing to think.

So your homework is to go research double jeopardy and find literally a shred of evidence that the appeals court is conspiring against them. Be sure to check your work!

Ah, I see. It's like when police execute a no knock warrant on your house and then shoot your grandma in bed. It's different when they mess up.

What's the benefit to mankind if they go to jail and lose the farm vs pay the fine? Also, since the sentencing was illegal they're getting that money back with interest (lol, interest), right?

If you don't think that there would be a disparate response between this situation and a courthouse in Chicago then you're touched. For example, this legit terrorist attack (by a white guy -shock horror-) grabbed a lot of attention because it was in a major city and did major damage. This is insignificant by comparison. Also,

However, yes, the Bundy gang is electing to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune in order to bring attention to what is probably a persistent government f-up.

I didn't say the appeals court, BLM wants the land. The evidence of this is that they made filings so that they would get the first shot at it which is something that I'm pretty sure only the government can do, something that they'd have no reason to do if they didn't want the land. By all means though, if you have another scenario that explains this I'd love to read it.

 

[ivwshane]

Exactly my point. Should we go search and compare and contrast your reactions?

He just doesn't get it and can't see his own hypocrisy. I'm guessing it's a trait of narcissists.

 

[LegendKiller]

He just doesn't get it and can't see his own hypocrisy. I'm guessing it's a trait of narcissists.

or perhaps I just enjoy fucking with you.

 

[fskimospy]

Ah, I see. It's like when police execute a no knock warrant on your house and then shoot your grandma in bed. It's different when they mess up.

If the government engages in misconduct then people have a monetary claim against them. I have no idea what your point is, but I'm glad to see you've dropped the double jeopardy nonsense.

What's the benefit to mankind if they go to jail and lose the farm vs pay the fine? Also, since the sentencing was illegal they're getting that money back with interest (lol, interest), right?

I have no idea as to the outcome of the money paid in the fine. As for the benefit to humanity, who knows? Judges are supposed to sentence people in accordance with the law and that one didn't. If you don't like it, change the law. Under no circumstances does something like this make the occupation and violent threats issued by a bunch of thugs okay.

If you don't think that there would be a disparate response between this situation and a courthouse in Chicago then you're touched. For example, this legit terrorist attack (by a white guy -shock horror-) grabbed a lot of attention because it was in a major city and did major damage. This is insignificant by comparison. Also,

Who cares about any of these meaningless things you keep bringing up? The argument of 'they are just occupying and violently threatening people over a small building' is dumb.

I didn't say the appeals court, BLM wants the land. The evidence of this is that they made filings so that they would get the first shot at it which is something that I'm pretty sure only the government can do, something that they'd have no reason to do if they didn't want the land. By all means though, if you have another scenario that explains this I'd love to read it.

So you're not contesting that the law is being correctly applied, just that a government entity might benefit from it. That's quite a conspiracy to correctly implement the law there.

So again, I assume you want these violent thugs prosecuted and brought to justice, correct?

 

[Darwin333]

Without the support of local elected officials, they stand against the rule of law as nothing more than anarchists. Such divisions are what make places like Afghanistan exactly what they are today. People don't want such violence and civil strife here in America.

If people have been wronged, take the time to gather local support of elected officials. Failing their immediate support, campaign and elect those who will. If they can't win election on their issue... why should they be allowed to contest the will of the voters?

Shouldn't we stand as a Democracy?

To be fair I don't think that it was the will of the people for some terrorism bill to include this type of arson. It was Congress getting carried away when they wrote the bill and not thinking about unintended consequences. Personally it's retarded all the stuff we call "terrorism" these days. The arson that this guy committed was in no way terrorism or anything related to terrorism and shouldn't be treated as such.

Also actual judges and prosecutors have been arguing against mandatory minimums for a long time and while this is a good example of why they are bad it's nowhere near the worst. If they can't get the law changed I highly doubt that we mere civilians stand a chance.

Personally I'm not sure if I'd even call the militia domestic terrorists at this point, just criminals so far.

 

[boomerang]

This is a long read with a lot of back story going back over a hundred years. Basically what's going on is a land grab by the federal government. The father and son serving the remainder of five years will pretty much ensure that the .gov will get their land because the remaining $200K of a $400K fine will not be able to be repaid with these two in prison.

http://theconservativetreehouse.com...uge-in-protest-to-hammond-family-persecution/

There comes a time when people must take a stand. Government worshipers will eventually come to understand that the federal overreach and the government ignoring the law when they wish to filters down through society. The .gov is reaping what they've sown. It probably won't end well for one or both parties, but the government chose this path. It didn't have to come to this.

Interesting times.

 

[jackstar7]

Nevermind. I don't want to get into this one.

 

[Knowing]

If the government engages in misconduct then people have a monetary claim against them. I have no idea what your point is, but I'm glad to see you've dropped the double jeopardy nonsense.



I have no idea as to the outcome of the money paid in the fine. As for the benefit to humanity, who knows? Judges are supposed to sentence people in accordance with the law and that one didn't. If you don't like it, change the law. Under no circumstances does something like this make the occupation and violent threats issued by a bunch of thugs okay.



Who cares about any of these meaningless things you keep bringing up? The argument of 'they are just occupying and violently threatening people over a small building' is dumb.



So you're not contesting that the law is being correctly applied, just that a government entity might benefit from it. That's quite a conspiracy to correctly implement the law there.

So again, I assume you want these violent thugs prosecuted and brought to justice, correct?

I haven't dropped it, I still believe it's double jeopardy. The declaration of the previous sentence as illegal (the dispensation of the money unclear) seems to ease your conscience and that's good for you.

"Who cares?"
All of the people who don't actually care except for the political fodder of white guys with guns in a federal building without the context of how irrelevant this particular federal building is. But, here's another couple of terrorists. They only killed 10 people in a place that sadly has enough shootings despite well meaning and common sense gun laws.

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying it's politically convenient that despite the federal prosecutor not calling them terrorists they're being called such and the BLM is handily just waiting for their ranch to go up for sale. No one has yet explained how "arson" is "terrorism".

From the link that you apparently repeatedly have not read:

"At no time have I ever called these two men terrorists. Never," Papagni, the federal prosecutor, said in court last October. "They committed arson."

Amanda Marshall, then U.S. attorney for Oregon, said she recommended the government challenge Hogan's sentence as illegal.
"If the government stands by and doesn't pursue the statutorily mandated sentence in this case, what kind of precedent does that set?" Marshall asked. Hogan, she said, imposed "an unlawful sentence."
Papagni, the federal prosecutor, said in court last fall that "the government did what we are supposed to do when someone doesn't follow the law, be it a judge or be it two ranchers in eastern Oregon."

The solicitor general at the U.S. Justice Department authorized a rare appeal of an Oregon judge's order.

So, with these quotes in context: The federal prosecutor charged them with arson, they served time for arson. Some US attorney literally thinks that the world is going to end if a federal prosecutor convicts someone on arson charges and they serve time for arson so under a "rare" appeal they go back to court to get it right which just happens to mean that the BLM takes their land. No one died and so far there's no political motive for the fires which disqualifies them from being terrorism (which for those incapable of reading unless it's posted a gorillion times, the federal prosecutor never so much as accused them of).

So again, I assume you want these violent thugs prosecuted and brought to justice, correct?

However, yes, the Bundy gang is electing to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune in order to bring attention to what is probably a persistent government f-up.

If you had read it the first time, I wouldn't have had to post it two more times. I look forward to your continued disrespect concealed as bog standard ignorance and you not reading it a fourth time. ~<:^)

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

So there are reports of armed men in a federal building. Why aren't the cops immediately driving up to within two feet of the building and starting to kill them? I mean that is approved police procedure right? Or is it only because these people aren't black. (and because they have actual real weapons and not toy or BB guns?)

Funny how so many people have double standards. Black men and kids that have committed no crimes are executed within 2 seconds, and people will gladly make bigoted and racist comments about them and their families while defending the police

But a group of white armed men? Well, we will take our time and decide what to do later. I mean, it's peaceful and just a misguided protest.

Nice double standard.

 

[m8d]

That label only applies to brown Muslims.

 

[MagickMan]

You make a title like that and I think Oklahoma City federal building. Skyscraper / heavily populated.
Turns out, it may just be some remote (empty) building in the mountains.
No hostages or violence, just grandstanding. A protest.

Yeah, turns out it's a log cabin in the middle of nowhere. There's not even a liquor store or KFC to loot around there, WTF kind of protest is this?

Don't we currently bomb terrorist? Hmm...I don't see any of our resident "kill all Muslims", chiming in, I guess one man's terrorist is another man's "patriot".

So, what type of "terror" have these guys perpetrated? Who's been killed? No one? Oh. Who's been hurt? No one? Has there been any violence at all against anyone? No? Geez, what the fuck? These guys really suck in regards to being terrorists. By all appearances it looks like there's really nothing for you whiny cunts to bitch about.

 

[fskimospy]

I haven't dropped it, I still believe it's double jeopardy. The declaration of the previous sentence as illegal (the dispensation of the money unclear) seems to ease your conscience and that's good for you.

Okay, just so long as you realize that the courts have to use the real definition of words and not the ones you make up. Vacating an illegal sentence and imposing a legal one is not double jeopardy by any standard I am aware of.

"Who cares?"
All of the people who don't actually care except for the political fodder of white guys with guns in a federal building without the context of how irrelevant this particular federal building is. But, here's another couple of terrorists. They only killed 10 people in a place that sadly has enough shootings despite well meaning and common sense gun laws.

So again, the occupation of federal facilities and the threat to kill anyone who tries to stop you is somehow mitigated because it's a minor federal facility. Baffling.

I'm going to ignore the rest of the irrelevant nonsense.

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying it's politically convenient that despite the federal prosecutor not calling them terrorists they're being called such and the BLM is handily just waiting for their ranch to go up for sale. No one has yet explained how "arson" is "terrorism".

From the link that you apparently repeatedly have not read:

Uhmm, I'm quite sure that the appeals court did exactly that in their decision. If you bothered to read your own link you would see they were convicted and sentenced for arson under a provision of a terrorism law, which is presumably the law they were charged under. It doesn't matter if you call someone a mean name like terrorist, it matters what laws they are charged under. If you think the law was incorrectly applied then you are free to make that legal argument. The federal court of appeals apparently disagrees with you however, so you may have an uphill battle. Good luck with the 'cruel and unusual' argument as well. Sadly, conservatives have badly weakened that amendment to the point at which it offers little or no protection.

Again, this is truly a very troubling conspiracy to correctly enforce the law. I am scandalized. How's the conspiracy hunt coming?

So, with these quotes in context: The federal prosecutor charged them with arson, they served time for arson. Some US attorney literally thinks that the world is going to end if a federal prosecutor convicts someone on arson charges and they serve time for arson so under a "rare" appeal they go back to court to get it right which just happens to mean that the BLM takes their land. No one died and so far there's no political motive for the fires which disqualifies them from being terrorism (which for those incapable of reading unless it's posted a gorillion times, the federal prosecutor never so much as accused them of).

Speaking of those incapable of reading, as I already mentioned they were sentenced for arson under a provision of a specific law, a law that the sentence did not meet the mandatory minimum provision for.

It is entirely irrelevant what you think qualifies something as terrorism, because they weren't charged or sentenced for terrorism.

If you had read it the first time, I wouldn't have had to post it two more times. I look forward to your continued disrespect concealed as bog standard ignorance and you not reading it a fourth time. ~<:^)

Saying that the Bundy gang is electing to endure federal sanction in no way means that you agree with it. If you meant that you agreed with that outcome you failed to communicate that thought so the number of times you post it is again irrelevant. Since you've failed to answer it repeatedly I'll give you another chance: Presumably you support the arrest and prosecution of these individuals?

As for the disrespect part, of course. Haven't I made it abundantly clear that I think you're an idiot?

 

[bshole]

So are liberals that would utilize the government to take rights. Seems like the backstory is all about government overreach.

Wong fucking answer. The liberals are working within the system and not breaking the law in a violent manner. If everybody tried to get their way with arms (as Bundy is now doing for the 2nd time), we would soon descend into anarchy. Look to the Middle East to see what it would be like. Bundy should spend the rest of his life in his cage. He is an abomination.

 

[LegendKiller]

Wong fucking answer. The liberals are working within the system and not breaking the law in a violent manner. If everybody tried to get their way with arms (as Bundy is now doing for the 2nd time), we would soon descend into anarchy. Look to the Middle East to see what it would be like. Bundy should spend the rest of his life in his cage. He is an abomination.

LOL - liberals don't work within the system, they have completely hijacked the system, along with Establishment Republicans, to increasingly abrogate the rights of common people.

 

[IronWing]

This is a long read with a lot of back story going back over a hundred years. Basically what's going on is a land grab by the federal government. The father and son serving the remainder of five years will pretty much ensure that the .gov will get their land because the remaining $200K of a $400K fine will not be able to be repaid with these two in prison.

http://theconservativetreehouse.com...uge-in-protest-to-hammond-family-persecution/

There comes a time when people must take a stand. Government worshipers will eventually come to understand that the federal overreach and the government ignoring the law when they wish to filters down through society. The .gov is reaping what they've sown. It probably won't end well for one or both parties, but the government chose this path. It didn't have to come to this.

Interesting times.

Point one: There is no such thing as a grazing right on federal lands. So every point in your article tied to that claim is false.

Point two: A junior water right is inferior to a superior water right. The Hammond water rights were filed after the establishment of the refuge and are junior to the refuge's water rights. A superior water right holder can use up to their full right before juniors get a drop. This is basic western water law.

Point three: water rights do not infer a right to graze.

Point four: the government has a right to revoke, cancel grazing lease. It's in the law. No foul there.

Point five: no fence laws do not apply to federal lands and never have. The Hammonds should have known this.

Point six: The Hammonds are convicted arsonists. End of story.

Fabricating a just so backstory to hook the ignorant and gullible seems to par for the course with rightwing loons.

 

[bshole]

LOL - liberals don't work within the system, they have completely hijacked the system, along with Establishment Republicans, to increasingly abrogate the rights of common people.

Are you for real? The wealthy have hijacked the system and they are pretty much outside of the Democrat/Republican meme. They own both. Don't know what world you are living in but it is definitely not reality.

It is disheartening to see you support HOMICIDAL VIOLENCE as valid means of changing the American system.

 

[MagickMan]

Wong fucking answer. The liberals are working within the system and not breaking the law in a violent manner. If everybody tried to get their way with arms (as Bundy is now doing for the 2nd time), we would soon descend into anarchy. Look to the Middle East to see what it would be like. Bundy should spend the rest of his life in his cage. He is an abomination.

There's violence?! OMG! Please link to us the people killed and/or shot. How about just bruised? Anyone at all? Have they looted the KFC yet, or burned any buildings? Maybe they need to start selling t-shirts with #OccupyOregon on them? :\

 

[LegendKiller]

Are you for real? The wealthy have hijacked the system and they are pretty much outside of the Democrat/Republican meme. They own both. Don't know what world you are living in but it is definitely not reality.

It is disheartening to see you support HOMICIDAL VIOLENCE as valid means of changing the American system.

Isn't that how it was changed before? Sometimes when you aren't being represented your only way of changing the system is forcefully. The average American obviously can't change it, as you said, both have hijacked it. Instead of a king, we just have the .01%.

 

[MagickMan]

It is disheartening to see you support HOMICIDAL VIOLENCE as valid means of changing the American system.

Link to the "homicides"?

 

[zinfamous]

AFAIK, it was a peaceful protest prior to the seizure of the federal building.

...but with guns.

 

[LegendKiller]

...but with guns.

I didn't see guns but I have to admit I didn't look closely. Also, what makes that non-violent. Was there violence caused? Do you have to have guns in order to be violent?

 

[zinfamous]

This is a long read with a lot of back story going back over a hundred years. Basically what's going on is a land grab by the federal government. The father and son serving the remainder of five years will pretty much ensure that the .gov will get their land because the remaining $200K of a $400K fine will not be able to be repaid with these two in prison.

http://theconservativetreehouse.com...uge-in-protest-to-hammond-family-persecution/

There comes a time when people must take a stand. Government worshipers will eventually come to understand that the federal overreach and the government ignoring the law when they wish to filters down through society. The .gov is reaping what they've sown. It probably won't end well for one or both parties, but the government chose this path. It didn't have to come to this.

Interesting times.

Sounds good.

Time to give Texas back to Mexico, ditto California and the West Coast.

We also need to return Manhattan back to the Natives, and we made to just return all of it.

What isn't lost on rational people is that these people aren't patriots--they are selfish little pricks that refuse to suffer the consequences of their illegal actions. None of their rights are being, or have ever been violated. They have refused the responsibilities of citizenship of the USA and chose armed insurrection in lieu of the consequences of violating the laws afforded to citizens.