Bundys in custody, one militant dead after gunfight near Burns

[Jose Fly]

Have BLM burns of public land ever spread to private land?

Probably, but I can't say for sure. Why?

 

[Krsto]

If evidence that they had been unfairly treated by the government was not admitted then how could they be considered malicious or retaliating? What EXACTLY were they charged for, under which statute, and what was the evidence for the charge or reason for conviction? Lots of conflicting information here.

Surely some journalist has actually looked at the court documents and written about it?

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
[Per the United States Supreme Court document previously presented] Both were convicted of arson in connection with a 2001 fire lit to burn invasive species on private land

Nope. They lit a fire to cover up their poaching, and that fire spread to federal lands. That's arson on federal property.

I'm just quoting from a Supreme Court document Mr. Fly, the same Supreme Court which at least half are God-hating secular humanists like yourself.


Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
The fires caused minimal damage and,
arguably, increased the value of the land for grazing.
The district court found no one was endangered by
the fires

So everyone should just go around lighting fires? That'd be a good thing?

I'll repeat the above for the morally and intellectually challenged:

Minimal damage, increased property value, no one was endangered. The Hammonds were not brought up on State charges, but instead federal anti terrorist charges. Is that really a good use of taxpayer money?


Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
How much tax payer money has been spent on this fiasco Mr. Fly?

Good question. Too bad these militia nuts claiming to be on the side of the Constitution can't seem to abide by it.

I wasn't even talking about the stand off. Look at all of the money spent over the years the feds spent harassing the Bundy's and Hammonds.

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

 

[Jose Fly]

If evidence that they had been unfairly treated by the government was not admitted then how could they be considered malicious or retaliating? What EXACTLY were they charged for, under which statute, and what was the evidence for the charge or reason for conviction? Lots of conflicting information here.

Surely some journalist has actually looked at the court documents and written about it?

If evidence that they had been unfairly treated by the government was not admitted then how could they be considered malicious or retaliating?

Not sure what you're talking about here. Can you clarify?

What EXACTLY were they charged for, under which statute, and what was the evidence for the charge or reason for conviction? Lots of conflicting information here.

I answered that for you once already...

They were convicted of arson on federal property, which is specifically covered by a federal law that also addresses terrorism.

The "terrorism" label just comes from the title of the law they were prosecuted under. The prosecutor never referred to the Hammonds as terrorists or anything like that. But the actual law (CLICK HERE) specifically covers this case, as you can see...

(1) 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.​

That's exactly what they did...they maliciously used fire to destroy federal property.

 

[Jose Fly]

I'm just quoting from a Supreme Court document Mr. Fly

Um....you're quoting from petition filed by the Hammonds' lawyers. Were you aware that the SCOTUS denied their petition?

Again, some of you can't even seem to get the basic facts right.

Minimal damage, increased property value, no one was endangered.

So move out west and go around starting fires. Let us know how that goes.

I wasn't even talking about the stand off. Look at all of the money spent over the years the feds spent harassing the Bundy's and Hammonds.

Thanks for your time.

 

[WizardofOz]

Probably, but I can't say for sure. Why?

In your opinion, shouldn't it be criminal if BLM burns destroy private lands?

 

[aCultureWarrior]

They were convicted of arson on federal property, which is specifically covered by a federal law that also addresses terrorism.

The "terrorism" label just comes from the title of the law they were prosecuted under. The prosecutor never referred to the Hammonds as terrorists or anything like that...

Are you saying Mr. Fly that there are no federal statutes dealing with arson on federal land other than the one that is written in an anti terrorist law?

Is there any chance that the feds knew that they could get an easier conviction using anti terrorist laws instead of specifically using laws that deal with arson?

 

[genuineoriginal]

They were convicted of arson on federal property, which is specifically covered by a federal law that also addresses terrorism.

The "terrorism" label just comes from the title of the law they were prosecuted under.

Actually, it does not come only from the title of the law.

To be convicted under that law, you must have committed a 'Federal crime of terrorism', not merely an act of arson.

(5) the term `Federal crime of terrorism' means an offense
that--
``(A) is calculated to influence or affect the
conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to
retaliate against government conduct; and
``(B) is a violation of-- . . .
844 (f) or (i) (relating to arson and bombing of certain
property) . . .​

That little word 'and' is very important, since if the Hammonds were convicted of arson without also being convicted of a 'Federal crime of terrorism', then they were improperly convicted.

 

[Krsto]

Not sure what you're talking about here. Can you clarify?



I answered that for you once already...

They were convicted of arson on federal property, which is specifically covered by a federal law that also addresses terrorism.

The "terrorism" label just comes from the title of the law they were prosecuted under. The prosecutor never referred to the Hammonds as terrorists or anything like that. But the actual law (CLICK HERE) specifically covers this case, as you can see...

(1) 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.​

That's exactly what they did...they maliciously used fire to destroy federal property.

I was hoping for original source material, like the actual court docs, or at least a journalist quoting those docs, as to which law they violated, and how they determined "malicious," when others say they were just trying to control invasive species or do a preemptive backfire. Someone also said that their previous battles with BLM were not admitted into court, which I think aCW thinks was detrimental to their case, but I think if that evidence had been admitted it would have been easier to prove maliciousness because they would then have some reason for retaliation.

 

[Krsto]

Actually, it does not come only from the title of the law.

To be convicted under that law, you must have committed a 'Federal crime of terrorism', not merely an act of arson.

(5) the term `Federal crime of terrorism' means an offense
that--
``(A) is calculated to influence or affect the
conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to
retaliate against government conduct; and
``(B) is a violation of-- . . .
844 (f) or (i) (relating to arson and bombing of certain
property) . . .​

That little word 'and' is very important, since if the Hammonds were convicted of arson without also being convicted of a 'Federal crime of terrorism', then they were improperly convicted.

According to some here they were convicted of that crime in their first trial, but the second "trial" was about whether the sentence was legal.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Gosh Mr. Fly, while I don't have time to research all of these federal laws that prohibit burning on federal land without a permit, it does appears that if someone does so, they won't be charged under anti terrorist laws...

unless the feds got a bone to pick with you.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

Many of rules and regulations enforced on BLM lands are listed in 43 Code of Federal Regulations. Additional regulations enforced can be found in 50 Code of Federal Regulations and various titles of United States Code.
http://www.blm.gov/nm/st/en/prog/law_enforcement/rules_and_regulations.html

 

[zoo22]

I was hoping for original source material, like the actual court docs, or at least a journalist quoting those docs, as to which law they violated, and how they determined "malicious," when others say they were just trying to control invasive species or do a preemptive backfire. Someone also said that their previous battles with BLM were not admitted into court, which I think aCW thinks was detrimental to their case, but I think if that evidence had been admitted it would have been easier to prove maliciousness because they would then have some reason for retaliation.

Here's the indictment, from 2012:

http://www.thewildlifenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Hammond_superseding-indictment1.pdf

This article, and the comments, from 2012 has some interesting information & local commentary from that time period:

Eastern Oregon father-son ranchers convicted of lighting fires on federal land

It's also important to recognize that the Hammonds, like the majority of the nearby townspeople, said they wanted nothing to do with the Bundy-led armed occupation.

Bundy took it upon himself to go to Oregon and set up an armed compound on seized Federal property in the name of the Hammonds because God told him to do it.

 

[lighthouse99]

[UR

It's a shame that someone died over this lunacy. rs.

yeh, it's a shame the gov't has no respect for human life, but then we knew that w/ Roe v W, when the gov morons said that human life can sometimes be trash (depending on who you ask)

 

[aCultureWarrior]

It's also important to recognize that the Hammonds, like the majority of the nearby townspeople, said they wanted nothing to do with the Bundy-led armed occupation.

Bundy took it upon himself to go to Oregon and set up an armed compound on seized Federal property in the name of the Hammonds because God told him to do it.

Zoo, just try to leave your HATRED of God out of these discussions if you can; and thanks for showing that the Hammonds aren't the gun toting demons that your left wing buddies portray them to be.

That being said: Based on the history of the feds harassment of the Bundy's and their family, the stand off at the compound says the following loud and clear:

Enough is enough!

 

[kmoney]

Because there was a federal warrant out for their arrest.

From what I've read they only were trying to arrest Finicum, but I haven't seen for what.

 

[kmoney]

One thing that doesn't seem to have been mentioned here, and is particularly relevant given that this is a Religion forum, is the religion of the Bundy's and their supporters (including LaVoy Finicum, who was killed last night).

Explainer: The Bundy Militia’s Particular Brand Of Mormonism

It's interesting to see a group of fundamentalist Christians strongly support a band of oddball Mormons. When I was a kid, our fundie church regularly referred to Mormonism as a cult.

Why is it interesting? They aren't being supported for their Mormonism. :idunno:

 

[Krsto]

Alright, aCW, and genuineoriginal, absent actual court docs I think this will do. I think the only thing left out of this report is that the teenage witness was mentally handicapped, but it appears everything done was done legally. Can you find any illegalities in these trials (on the part of the feds) and how do you justify an armed takover of a federal facility for a disagreement over court proceedings?: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2660399-Statement-USattorney.html

 

[genuineoriginal]

Alright, aCW, and genuineoriginal, absent actual court docs I think this will do. I think the only thing left out of this report is that the teenage witness was mentally handicapped, but it appears everything done was done legally. Can you find any illegalities in these trials (on the part of the feds)

I would have to invoke Godwin's law to give this question the answer it deserves.

how do you justify an armed takover of a federal facility

First there is this:

_____
two wrongs don't make a right
phrase of wrong
1.
proverb
the fact that someone has done something unjust or dishonest is no justification for acting in a similar way.
_____​

Second there is this:

_____
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
_____​

The question then becomes whether the second ideal has reached the point where the first ideal is no longer applicable.

 

[Krsto]

I would have to invoke Godwin's law to give this question the answer it deserves.


First there is this:

_____
two wrongs don't make a right
phrase of wrong
1.
proverb
the fact that someone has done something unjust or dishonest is no justification for acting in a similar way.
_____​

Second there is this:

_____
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
_____​

The question then becomes whether the second ideal has reached the point where the first ideal is no longer applicable.

Oh, so this was an act of throwing off the whole freakin' federal government, not to just take over a few federal buildings in the middle of nowhere. Well, guess you gotta start somewhere right?

 

[genuineoriginal]

Oh, so this was an act of throwing off the whole freakin' federal government, not to just take over a few federal buildings in the middle of nowhere.

Have the abuses and oppression of the Federal government reached the level of Despotism that makes the citizens unwilling to suffer these evils?

For a small minority it has.

For the majority, it has not.

This appears to be an attempt to bring the abuses and oppression of the Federal government to light, not an act of throwing off the whole Federal governemnt.