Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 greatbigtree wrote:
To the best of my knowledge, the Occupy movement was non-violent. These people are specifically threatening violence against anyone that tries to remove them.

So that would be the difference. Specific, armed threats, compared to non-violence. Yes, they are expected to abide by the legal decisions of the courts. It's kind of what the rule of law implies. That you don't get to say, "Go feth yourself. I gots a gun, so you can't make me." It's part of the package when you live in a society.

Okay, aside form the fact that the Occupy was not all nonviolent (hurting folks livelihoods is not peaceful by any means), didn't they basically tell the gov't 'Go feth yourself?" What is the difference? They did it in a bigger and much much more disruptive way than this group.


And of course I could have used the obvious examples of the Black Lives Matter associated crowds that burned Ferguson and other places as groups that DID commit openly violent acts as well as call for the killing of cops country wide.

 CptJake wrote:

 greatbigtree wrote:
To the best of my knowledge, the Occupy movement was non-violent. These people are specifically threatening violence against anyone that tries to remove them.

So that would be the difference. Specific, armed threats, compared to non-violence. Yes, they are expected to abide by the legal decisions of the courts. It's kind of what the rule of law implies. That you don't get to say, "Go feth yourself. I gots a gun, so you can't make me." It's part of the package when you live in a society.

Okay, aside form the fact that the Occupy was not all nonviolent (hurting folks livelihoods is not peaceful by any means), didn't they basically tell the gov't 'Go feth yourself?" What is the difference? They did it in a bigger and much much more disruptive way than this group.


And of course I could have used the obvious examples of the Black Lives Matter associated crowds that burned Ferguson and other places as groups that DID commit openly violent acts as well as call for the killing of cops country wide.

where do you find this nonsense? faux news?

occupy protested the bail out of the banks, that is all. they didn't disrupt anything, nor hurt any ones livelihood. hell I bet the local pizza place had record profits while it was going on.

Hurting people's livlihood is not a violent act.

The BLM crowd is not a unified group so using examples of things certain people did while claiming to be part of the movement is in no ways comparable to this group.

I believe this is what is known as a false equivalency...

CptJake wrote:Should the Hammonds and their supporters just bend over and accept the Fed gov't stepping in and sending them back to jail after they already served the sentence the judge who heard the case had handed down? That whole part of this shouldn't really sit well with any citizen here in the US.

Sounds like another case of mandatory minimums resulting in screwing people over.

Granted, I say that while feeling that 5 years is a reasonable sentence for committing arson, and that 3-4 months is tantamount to not being punished at all.

Is occupying an empty building in the woods causing that much of an inconvenience?

We're talking about guys who have previously bragged about pointing guns at federal agents, who are now occupying a government building and threatening violence against anyone who tries to remove them. Inconvenience? Really, that's you're argument?

AlmightyWalrus wrote:I actually think Iron_Captain has a point here: what political demans have they made?

How is occupying a government building and threatening violence in response to a court decision not a political demand in itself?

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

Folks are calling for the gov't to move in and 'take them out' and similarly phrased violent acts. Is occupying an empty building in the woods causing that much of an inconvenience? The Occupy Wall Street group and their associated groups around the country were a lot more harmful to the local businesses and residents than these guys seem to be at this point, and I would bet many of you calling for this group to be taken out by the Feds acted appalled when local cops went into the Occupy areas and pepper sprayed some protestor.

The occupy movement were lentil guzzling peaceful incense burning hippies, all they did was smell the place up a bit. These guys are armed and threatening violence.

As well as illegally tie up areas, block places of business, leave cities with millions in clean up bills, etc.

 LordofHats wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:I actually think Iron_Captain has a point here: what political demans have they made?

How is occupying a government building and threatening violence in response to a court decision not a political demand in itself?

They haven't actually articulated why they're doing it yet though, have they? I couldn't see anything in the article linked in the OP that wasn't people assuming that it's linked to the court case.


That said, I'm not going to blame anyone for calling them terrorists, because it's pretty damn likely that what you're saying is correct, but we don't actually know that yet.

I just can't get over the young Bundy having the name Ammo.

Relapse wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

Folks are calling for the gov't to move in and 'take them out' and similarly phrased violent acts. Is occupying an empty building in the woods causing that much of an inconvenience? The Occupy Wall Street group and their associated groups around the country were a lot more harmful to the local businesses and residents than these guys seem to be at this point, and I would bet many of you calling for this group to be taken out by the Feds acted appalled when local cops went into the Occupy areas and pepper sprayed some protestor.

The occupy movement were lentil guzzling peaceful incense burning hippies, all they did was smell the place up a bit. These guys are armed and threatening violence.

As well as illegally tie up areas, block places of business, leave cities with millions in clean up bills, etc.

Which is entirely the same as armed insurrection...

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Arson is normally considered a very serious crime.

Why would these people want to support convicted arsonists, or is it just that they were convicted by "the government" (even though they weren't.)

Farmers and ranchers do it as a way to clear out plants that start getting into grazing or growing areas. I used to burn crap off the fields on the family farm after harvesting as a way to clear them for the next planting in spring.

We used to burn off stubble and unwanted straw after the harvest when I was a youngster, but it had to be stopped because of various problems, and no-one does it now in the UK.

It was great fun and looked fantastic in the evenings with the rows of fire going up and down the hills.

Did you burn public land? And 139 acres of it also almost killing some people?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
They haven't actually articulated why they're doing it yet though, have they? I couldn't see anything in the article linked in the OP that wasn't people assuming that it's linked to the court case

They've specifically related their occupation to the Hammond court decision. I thought the OP articles made that clear, but for more;

Armed protesters have taken over a building in a federal wildlife refuge in Oregon, accusing officials of unfairly punishing ranchers who refused to sell their land.

One them is Ammon Bundy, the 40-year-old son of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, who is well-known for anti-government action.

He spoke by phone to CNN on Sunday at 8 a.m. ET. Asked several times what he and those with him want, he answered in vague terms, saying that they want the federal government to restore the "people's constitutional rights."

"This refuge -- it has been destructive to the people of the county and to the people of the area," he said.

When asked what it would take for the protesters to leave, Bundy did not offer specifics. He said he and those with him are prepared to stay put for days or weeks.

"We feel that we will occupy this as long as necessary," he said.

"We are using the wildlife refuge as a place for individuals across the United States to come and assist in helping the people of Harney County claim back their lands and resources," he said.

It's a continuation of the family's vendetta against the BLM and a direct response to the Hammond court case. Beyond that however, there's probably a point to be made in that these guys don't really have a point. They seem to want nothing more than to live the dream of being the guys who spark the revolution that ends the big bad govment, and their pursuit of this dream is little more than the pursuit of the dream.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ustrello wrote:
Did you burn public land? And 139 acres of it also almost killing some people?

To cover up another crime no less at that

sirlynchmob wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 greatbigtree wrote:
To the best of my knowledge, the Occupy movement was non-violent. These people are specifically threatening violence against anyone that tries to remove them.

So that would be the difference. Specific, armed threats, compared to non-violence. Yes, they are expected to abide by the legal decisions of the courts. It's kind of what the rule of law implies. That you don't get to say, "Go feth yourself. I gots a gun, so you can't make me." It's part of the package when you live in a society.

Okay, aside form the fact that the Occupy was not all nonviolent (hurting folks livelihoods is not peaceful by any means), didn't they basically tell the gov't 'Go feth yourself?" What is the difference? They did it in a bigger and much much more disruptive way than this group.


And of course I could have used the obvious examples of the Black Lives Matter associated crowds that burned Ferguson and other places as groups that DID commit openly violent acts as well as call for the killing of cops country wide.

where do you find this nonsense? faux news?

occupy protested the bail out of the banks, that is all. they didn't disrupt anything, nor hurt any ones livelihood. hell I bet the local pizza place had record profits while it was going on.

Wrong.


http://www.ibtimes.com/occupy-wall-street-has-cost-local-businesses-nearly-500000-369174

"It's the same as the occupy wall street"

Oh good, many of them were arrested so you shouldn't have any problem with these yahoos getting the same treatment.
http://occupyarrests.moonfruit.com/

And none of those people were armed and threatening violence.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
We used to burn off stubble and unwanted straw after the harvest when I was a youngster, but it had to be stopped because of various problems, and no-one does it now in the UK.

It was great fun and looked fantastic in the evenings with the rows of fire going up and down the hills.

Yep, we'd get everything in various piles on the fields and light it up. There'd be Moose coming out of the woods to see what we were doing, sometimes not more than a few feet away. They'd just stand and look, then meander back into the brush.
That burning stubble sounds like it was a sight to see.

So... these guys are taking over a federal building that looks like a public restroom building out in the boonies...

That's so secluded that it's in the middle of nowhere about 50 miles from anything else...

My sense is these guys are like Dark Helmet:


Seriously, the only thing the officials should do is to set up a blockade to starve them of supplies.

 whembly wrote:
So... these guys are taking over a federal building that looks like a public restroom building out in the boonies...

That's so secluded that it's in the middle of nowhere about 50 miles from anything else...

My sense is these guys are like Dark Helmet:


Seriously, the only thing the officials should do is to set up a blockade to starve them of supplies.

I'd say if they like to occupy Federal buildings, there's a nice selection to choose from after they come out.

Even Cliven Bundy isn't happy with this action if I read his comments right.

A lot of you all could have used a stint in Iraq and/or Afghanistan. A lot on knee jerk reactions from posters hehe

3 days into the New Year, and already, we have a potential armed confrontation on our hands

It's a crazy world.

If they have no hostages, just wait them out - cut the electricity and water. Eventually they're going to get hungry.

When they do come out, charge them all with seditious conspiracy.

That being said, I'd like to know more about why these 2 served the time they were sentenced and now are being called upon to serve more time for the same conviction.

 Ouze wrote:
If they have no hostages, just wait them out - cut the electricity and water. Eventually they're going to get hungry.

When they do come out, charge them all with seditious conspiracy.

That being said, I'd like to know more about why these 2 served the time they were sentenced and now are being called upon to serve more time for the same conviction.

That's a point of interest for me also. If there's a minimum sentence mandated, why was that not given during the sentencing?

 Ouze wrote:
That being said, I'd like to know more about why these 2 served the time they were sentenced and now are being called upon to serve more time for the same conviction.

"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.”"

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

beast_gts wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
That being said, I'd like to know more about why these 2 served the time they were sentenced and now are being called upon to serve more time for the same conviction.

"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.”"

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

Even money says this is going to SCOTUS LOL

 Ouze wrote:

That being said, I'd like to know more about why these 2 served the time they were sentenced and now are being called upon to serve more time for the same conviction.

This... that's what interests me.

Initially, is sounded like maybe they didn't serve the full term and was on probation... and that they're going back because of some probation violation.

But, I have seen anything whatsoever that indicates this.

EDIT: That paints a clearer picture...

beast_gts wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
That being said, I'd like to know more about why these 2 served the time they were sentenced and now are being called upon to serve more time for the same conviction.

"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.”"

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

Thanks for that. That seems... dubious to me.

On the other hand it's not totally without precedent, I know for sure of one recent case where a dude was sentenced super light, the girl he raped killed herself, and the ensuing furor revealed that it wasn't the mandatory minimum and he was re-sentenced... but this guy was already in jail. Even if it's legal, that's pretty messed up.

I back the Bundy in this. Till they make dumb racist remarks then I drop them em like a pesky Insurgent

So far they were sentenced, served, and release. Now they're going back in for the mandatory due to 9th Circuit decision.

What this comes down to is that these people set fires that accidentally or deliberately burnt out areas of public land, and therefore should by law have received a minimum sentence of five years.

If their fires had only burnt out areas of their neighbours' lands, the penalty would probably have been lower.

Also was the area due for a control burn for undergrowth eh

Seems like they were jacking deer from there, also.

 Jihadin wrote:

beast_gts wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
That being said, I'd like to know more about why these 2 served the time they were sentenced and now are being called upon to serve more time for the same conviction.

"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.”"

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

Even money says this is going to SCOTUS LOL

Supreme Court rejected cert.

Relapse wrote:
Seems like they were jacking deer from there, also.

Which, my guess is, would have gotten them in a lot less trouble than the arson. WTF.