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.
2016/01/30 12:27:54
Subject: Re:Domestic Terrorists Take Over Federal Building in Oregon
Yeah, because he's a super credible source of commentary.
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
2016/01/30 13:42:22
Subject: Domestic Terrorists Take Over Federal Building in Oregon
I know pretty much nothing of this Stefan Molyneux guy and why he's apparently reviled.
I have noticed his name crop up once or twice really recently on stuff I've been watching and this forum, and after a quick look at wiki he does seem shady.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/01/30 13:45:33
Prestor Jon wrote: Because children don't have any legal rights until they're adults. A minor is the responsiblity of the parent and has no legal rights except through his/her legal guardian or parent.
2016/01/30 15:58:14
Subject: Domestic Terrorists Take Over Federal Building in Oregon
Dreadclaw69 wrote: [I'm sure you'll think that there is no disparity in how you view these events. Just make sure your electron microscope is fully charged for your hair splitting, and you have some strong backs to move those goalposts.
I am absolute comfortable seeing a marked difference between how this guy was treated and how Tamir Rice was treated, sure. I absolutely see a totally fundamental difference which I won't bother explaining because A.) other people already have here and B.) You've already poisoned the well with the above phrasing.
Waiting to see the bullet wounds and what direction they came from.
What does Tamir Rice have to do with this anyway? Kid was straight murdered, much like Deven Guilford and John Crawford the III. This whole blockade was an ambush, and I can't blame Finicum for dying with his boots on because that's more than quite a few people can even do. While this man did reach for his waistline twice, it's unclear on if he was hit or simply panicking. Given the fact he said he didn't want to spend the rest of his days in a cement box (prison), it is reasonable to say that he was reaching for his sidearm.
It's unfortunate that the Bundy involvement turned the American public in favor of the BLM's actions, and also in favor of the unconstitutional sentencing of the Hammond family. As for the supposedly witty anti-militia folks here, keep in mind a majority of the militiamen did not help the Bundy's, and quite a few actually spoke out. I remain sympathetic to their cause, but I don't agree with all of their reasons for doing what they did -- unsurprisingly their involvement turned the public against them because a) white guys b) white guys with guns c) claiming divine inspiration d) militia. I'm honestly not surprised.
From personal interactions with militia members, I'd say the anti militia folks here have a great deal more wit than those who are in a militia.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/01/30 16:00:21
2016/01/30 18:10:01
Subject: Domestic Terrorists Take Over Federal Building in Oregon
It's unfortunate that the Bundy involvement turned the American public in favor of the BLM's actions, and also in favor of the unconstitutional sentencing of the Hammond family. As for the supposedly witty anti-militia folks here, keep in mind a majority of the militiamen did not help the Bundy's, and quite a few actually spoke out. I remain sympathetic to their cause, but I don't agree with all of their reasons for doing what they did -- unsurprisingly their involvement turned the public against them because a) white guys b) white guys with guns c) claiming divine inspiration d) militia. I'm honestly not surprised.
No, it's because the Bundies are total knobheads.
Most Americans are pretty law abiding and respectful of the rules of law. Was the sentence on the Hammonds unconstitutional? Then challenge it in court.
Instead of doing that, a load of so-called militia turn up uninvited, unwanted and proceed to act like a bunch of bell-ends for weeks creating a media circus before they stupidly get themselves arrested by wandering around outside their safe zone.
It's not surprising this kind of behaviour has pissed people off.
They are currently challenging it and willfully went to their sentences after receiving them, I can't say I'm entirely sure what you're arguing there.
Kilkrazy wrote: Most Americans are pretty law abiding and respectful of the rules of law. Was the sentence on the Hammonds unconstitutional? Then challenge it in court
And, although it's been said in this thread, I think it bears repeating. These guys had their day in court, way more than most do. They got all the way to the SCOTUS, and lost. The idea that their sentencing was unconstitutional simply is not factually accurate.
The sentence some not fit the crime. Stephen Molyneux covered this quite well. The argument being displayed here is "We've gakked stuff up with our legal system before so it's alright if you gak it up again!". The precedents they list as a defense of the sentencing are stretches to the nth degree.
How does their sentence not fit the crime? I mean, I am not a fan of Mandatory Sentences at all, but these guys started a wildfire that burned a lot of land and put people at risk.
2016/01/30 18:17:50
Subject: Domestic Terrorists Take Over Federal Building in Oregon
How does their sentence not fit the crime? I mean, I am not a fan of Mandatory Sentences at all, but these guys started a wildfire that burned a lot of land and put people at risk.
Because a Judge in possession of the (in theory) entire facts determined that they deserved a lighter sentence for some reason.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/01/30 18:23:02
Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
2016/01/30 18:32:40
Subject: Domestic Terrorists Take Over Federal Building in Oregon
How does their sentence not fit the crime? I mean, I am not a fan of Mandatory Sentences at all, but these guys started a wildfire that burned a lot of land and put people at risk.
Because a Judge in possession of the (in theory) entire facts determined that they deserved a lighter sentence for some reason.
Which is illegal and unfitting of the crime by law.
2016/01/30 18:49:30
Subject: Domestic Terrorists Take Over Federal Building in Oregon
Because a Judge in possession of the (in theory) entire facts determined that they deserved a lighter sentence for some reason.
But he disobeyed his mandate, and probably would have been removed from office if he didn't voluntarily leave. He knew this, and that's why the sentencing was carried out on his last day.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
2016/01/30 18:52:51
Subject: Domestic Terrorists Take Over Federal Building in Oregon
How does their sentence not fit the crime? I mean, I am not a fan of Mandatory Sentences at all, but these guys started a wildfire that burned a lot of land and put people at risk.
Because a Judge in possession of the (in theory) entire facts determined that they deserved a lighter sentence for some reason.
...and got it wrong. This has now been corrected and the proper sentence was handed out. A mistake was made, it was caught and corrected - you might not like it for whatever personal reasons you have, but as of yet you've shown no rational reason for opposing the corrected sentence.
2016/01/30 19:02:57
Subject: Re:Domestic Terrorists Take Over Federal Building in Oregon
Kilkrazy wrote: None of those articles you have linked to show the Bundies using the courts to challenge the sentence on the Hammonds as un-constitutional.
And again they have nothing to do with one another. And again, what are you trying to argue here?
Sure, the Bundy militia called for the release of the Hammonds, though the Hammonds chose to fight their sentencing while being incarcerated. Two completely different groups.
How does their sentence not fit the crime? I mean, I am not a fan of Mandatory Sentences at all, but these guys started a wildfire that burned a lot of land and put people at risk.
Because a Judge in possession of the (in theory) entire facts determined that they deserved a lighter sentence for some reason.
Which is illegal and unfitting of the crime by law.
"Whoever 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, or any department or agency thereof, or any institution or organization receiving Federal financial assistance, shall be imprisoned for not less than 5 years and not more than 20 years, fined under this title, or both."
They were charged as both terrorists and arsonists, from my point of view this was not the way to charge them for a couple of range fires. Then again I'm not a statist.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/01/30 19:07:08
When is deadly danger,
When beset by doubt,
Run in little circles,
And wave your hands and shout.
2016/01/30 19:16:19
Subject: Domestic Terrorists Take Over Federal Building in Oregon
Ustrello wrote: They burned public land to cover up poaching and almost killed a few fighter fighters. I say 5 years was too light
If I recall, the testimony given that the Hammonds were poaching was thrown out of court due to the witness's unreliability due to mental illness and estrangement from the family.
When is deadly danger,
When beset by doubt,
Run in little circles,
And wave your hands and shout.
2016/01/30 19:26:16
Subject: Re:Domestic Terrorists Take Over Federal Building in Oregon
Kilkrazy wrote: None of those articles you have linked to show the Bundies using the courts to challenge the sentence on the Hammonds as un-constitutional.
And again they have nothing to do with one another. And again, what are you trying to argue here?
Sure, the Bundy militia called for the release of the Hammonds, though the Hammonds chose to fight their sentencing while being incarcerated. Two completely different groups.
How does their sentence not fit the crime? I mean, I am not a fan of Mandatory Sentences at all, but these guys started a wildfire that burned a lot of land and put people at risk.
Because a Judge in possession of the (in theory) entire facts determined that they deserved a lighter sentence for some reason.
Which is illegal and unfitting of the crime by law.
"Whoever 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, or any department or agency thereof, or any institution or organization receiving Federal financial assistance, shall be imprisoned for not less than 5 years and not more than 20 years, fined under this title, or both."
They were charged as both terrorists and arsonists, from my point of view this was not the way to charge them for a couple of range fires. Then again I'm not a statist.
My argument put simply was that the Bundies were being complete spankers because legal remedies were available for the dispute they weren't involved in, but rather than take advantage of these they made a huge public nuisance of themselves, which unsurprisingly resulted in them becoming unpopular.
You replied that these links showed the legal process was unconstitutional, and the Bundies challenged it in court, as shown by the articles to which you linked.
Kilkrazy wrote: None of those articles you have linked to show the Bundies using the courts to challenge the sentence on the Hammonds as un-constitutional.
And again they have nothing to do with one another. And again, what are you trying to argue here?
Sure, the Bundy militia called for the release of the Hammonds, though the Hammonds chose to fight their sentencing while being incarcerated. Two completely different groups.
How does their sentence not fit the crime? I mean, I am not a fan of Mandatory Sentences at all, but these guys started a wildfire that burned a lot of land and put people at risk.
Because a Judge in possession of the (in theory) entire facts determined that they deserved a lighter sentence for some reason.
Which is illegal and unfitting of the crime by law.
"Whoever 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, or any department or agency thereof, or any institution or organization receiving Federal financial assistance, shall be imprisoned for not less than 5 years and not more than 20 years, fined under this title, or both."
They were charged as both terrorists and arsonists, from my point of view this was not the way to charge them for a couple of range fires. Then again I'm not a statist.
My argument put simply was that the Bundies were being complete spankers because legal remedies were available for the dispute they weren't involved in, but rather than take advantage of these they made a huge public nuisance of themselves, which unsurprisingly resulted in them becoming unpopular.
You replied that these links showed the legal process was unconstitutional, and the Bundies challenged it in court, as shown by the articles to which you linked.
But they don't.
Neg. That is not what was said. Here's what I said.
"Secondly, that's my point exactly. Wrong place and the wrong time. However being white gun owners on the right persuasion is not helping their case. You'll see plenty of back in forth on this topic of their skin color alone and questions as to what would happen if, say, a <other race/other religious group> took over instead: "
The jyst of my post is that the Bundy involvement turned the American public against them and even cited white men with guns as an example, of which those articles do talk about. Though if you thought I was referring to the Bundy's then I apologize for the poor wording and you're simply mistaken. I was referring to the Hammonds of whom voluntarily turned themselves in and elected to fight their sentences from prison.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/01/30 19:51:30
When is deadly danger,
When beset by doubt,
Run in little circles,
And wave your hands and shout.
2016/01/30 20:03:46
Subject: Re:Domestic Terrorists Take Over Federal Building in Oregon
The Airman wrote: They were charged as both terrorists and arsonists,
Yeah, when you have the defendant tell someone to "drop lit matches on the ground so as to 'light up the whole country on fire,'" that isn't an unexpected outcome.
from my point of view this was not the way to charge them for a couple of range fires.
Then again I'm not a statist.
But your "point of view" still isn't correct, Ayn Rand.
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
2016/01/30 20:15:20
Subject: Re:Domestic Terrorists Take Over Federal Building in Oregon
The Airman wrote: They were charged as both terrorists and arsonists,
Yeah, when you have the defendant tell someone to "drop lit matches on the ground so as to 'light up the whole country on fire,'" that isn't an unexpected outcome.
from my point of view this was not the way to charge them for a couple of range fires.
Then again I'm not a statist.
But your "point of view" still isn't correct, Ayn Rand.
That testimony came from the estranged member of the family, of which was dismissed the first time around.
When is deadly danger,
When beset by doubt,
Run in little circles,
And wave your hands and shout.
2016/01/30 20:20:10
Subject: Re:Domestic Terrorists Take Over Federal Building in Oregon
The Airman wrote: "Whoever 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, or any department or agency thereof, or any institution or organization receiving Federal financial assistance, shall be imprisoned for not less than 5 years and not more than 20 years, fined under this title, or both."
They were charged as both terrorists and arsonists, from my point of view this was not the way to charge them for a couple of range fires. Then again I'm not a statist.
What terrorism charges were they convicted of? If the US Attorney is lying, it should be super, super easy to prove, with it being an open record... right?
Also, you know they were convicted of two separate arsons, and regardless of the testimony of the nephew, he actually confessed to one of them, right?
You're entitled to your own opinions, but you're not entitled to your own facts, as they say.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/01/30 20:21:55
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
2016/01/30 20:29:06
Subject: Domestic Terrorists Take Over Federal Building in Oregon
That I could question, as 'to administer justice and uphold the law' might be two different things. U.S. District Judge Mark Bennett was the subject of an interesting story in the Washington Post about six months ago, where he pointed out that Congress forcing minimum sentences had stripped the judges of their discretionary power in cases where there was obvious mitigating circumstances, where the sentence he handed down was not only not of his own choosing, but unjust.
I would make the argument at that point that minimum sentencing was a violation of the separation of powers. Further, it forces sentences that, while not unusual, would certainly be considered cruel, and more than few US Judges has said as much..
While in the case of the Hammonds, it's it's not as clear cut as to what the mitigating factors where, but the legal notion of a minimum sentence which underpins their return to jail is deeply flawed.
Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
2016/01/30 20:35:06
Subject: Domestic Terrorists Take Over Federal Building in Oregon
The Airman wrote: "Whoever 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, or any department or agency thereof, or any institution or organization receiving Federal financial assistance, shall be imprisoned for not less than 5 years and not more than 20 years, fined under this title, or both."
They were charged as both terrorists and arsonists, from my point of view this was not the way to charge them for a couple of range fires. Then again I'm not a statist.
What terrorism charges were they convicted of? If the US Attorney is lying, it should be super, super easy to prove, with it being an open record... right?
Also, you know they were convicted of two separate arsons, and regardless of the testimony of the nephew, he actually confessed to one of them, right?
You're entitled to your own opinions, but you're not entitled to your own facts, as they say.
I'll admit I could be mistaken here, however they were charged under the 'Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996', of which they were convicted of arson and forced to serve for five years each even though it was ruled that they would not serve such a term the first time. I'll admit that you got me there and I have no problem admitting that I was mistaken, nor am I going to accuse the US attorney presiding over this case a liar. However, I would call him and the people he answers to cruel and it looks like an attempt to make an example out of the Hammonds.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: If there's a legal argument, the militia could go and make it.
The militia tried to, while throwing in a bunch of other points as well that had nothing to do with the sentencing of which not only made the situationw orse, but turned the public against them. Again, for the third time, the Bundy militia cannot and does not speak for the Hammonds, as the Hammonds elected to serve their sentences whilst trying to appeal.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/01/30 20:55:13
When is deadly danger,
When beset by doubt,
Run in little circles,
And wave your hands and shout.
2016/01/30 20:57:47
Subject: Domestic Terrorists Take Over Federal Building in Oregon
The Airman wrote: Again, for the third time, the Bundy militia cannot and does not speak for the Hammonds, as the Hammonds elected to serve their sentences whilst trying to appeal.
You're wasting your time. Once they have an idea in their head, whatever you actually posted is irrelevant.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: Are we in favor of activist judges now?
Beats increasing the power of the executive branch, which is what minimum sentencing effectively does.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/01/30 21:00:31
Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
2016/01/30 21:03:23
Subject: Re:Domestic Terrorists Take Over Federal Building in Oregon
The Airman wrote: The militia tried to, while throwing in a bunch of other points as well that had nothing to do with the sentencing of which not only made the situationw orse, but turned the public against them. Again, for the third time, the Bundy militia cannot and does not speak for the Hammonds, as the Hammonds elected to serve their sentences whilst trying to appeal.
The Hammonds have been fairly upfront from the beginning that the Bundy clowns weren't really acting on their behalf but using them as a handy hook to lay their hat on, as it were. So I don't think that last part is really disputed. I think what Kilkrazy is trying to do is argue against the Bundys, not the Hammonds, who are fundamentally bystanders since this started. If I recall, the Hammonds said they should go home from day one, or close to it.
I also don't think they can appeal further. They petitioned the SCOTUS and were denied cert. I could be mistaken but I believe they are out of legal remedies at this point.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/01/30 21:07:09
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
2016/01/30 21:10:08
Subject: Re:Domestic Terrorists Take Over Federal Building in Oregon
The Airman wrote: Again, for the third time, the Bundy militia cannot and does not speak for the Hammonds, as the Hammonds elected to serve their sentences whilst trying to appeal.
You're wasting your time. Once they have an idea in their head, whatever you actually posted is irrelevant.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: Are we in favor of activist judges now?
Beats increasing the power of the executive branch, which is what minimum sentencing effectively does.
You mean we have an understanding in our heads of how the law works?
How does minimum sentencing effectively increase the power of the executive branch?
2016/01/30 21:14:45
Subject: Domestic Terrorists Take Over Federal Building in Oregon
How does minimum sentencing effectively increase the power of the executive branch?
Yeah, I could have sworn some, if not most of it, was written by the legislative branch as part of the laws?
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
2016/01/30 21:23:49
Subject: Re:Domestic Terrorists Take Over Federal Building in Oregon
BaronIveagh wrote: You're wasting your time. Once they have an idea in their head, whatever you actually posted is irrelevant.
The sad thing is that you're no doubt making that statement without a trace of irony.
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
