Bundys in custody, one militant dead after gunfight near Burns

[drbrumley]

Was LaVoy Finicum Shot w/Hands in the Air? Eye Witness Audio Testimony Here...

 

[Krsto]

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.

Yes, it's an attempt to bring what they consider abuses and oppression to light, but it's not a legit method. They need to get more creative. Ya know, like the feminists in Paris squares standing naked with signs. Something interesting like that. Not threatening people with deadly force.

 

[Jose Fly]

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

It's interesting to me because some of the fundamentalists here come across as very tribal in their thinking, i.e., they're much more understanding and forgiving for those they see as being on their team. Couple that with how many conservative Christians view Mormonism as a cult, and you see why I find it interesting.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Bump for Mr. Fly (I'd like an answer)

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4600786&postcount=91

 

[Jose Fly]

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

???????????? That doesn't make any sense at all.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

???????????? That doesn't make any sense at all.

There are multiple codes (laws) that deal with burning on federal lands. I would imagine that very few would be charged under anti terrorist legislation. Why were the Hammond's?

 

[Jose Fly]

There are multiple codes (laws) that deal with burning on federal lands.

A few things...

1) Do you understand the difference between a regulation and a law?

2) The site you linked to didn't say anything about setting fires on federal lands.

I would imagine that very few would be charged under anti terrorist legislation. Why were the Hammond's?

The Hammonds were offered the chance to plead down to lesser charges but refused, and instead elected to gamble on a jury trial. A jury of their peers found them guilty.

The Hammonds gambled and lost. Now they have to accept the consequences of that decision.

 

[Jose Fly]

Another interesting tidbit is how all of the militia people who've been arrested are using court-appointed public defenders (except A. Bundy). IOW, government lawyers.

But I have a feeling that at some point we'll hear the phrase "has chosen to represent himself".

 

[Quetzal]

Another interesting tidbit is how all of the militia people who've been arrested are using court-appointed public defenders (except A. Bundy). IOW, government lawyers.

But I have a feeling that at some point we'll hear the phrase "has chosen to represent himself".

It will make it that much easier to throw these lunatics in jail. Fine by me.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
There are multiple codes (laws) that deal with burning on federal lands.

A few things...

1) Do you understand the difference between a regulation and a law?

I understand that if you break a federal regulation, that you'll be penalized for it.

2) The site you linked to didn't say anything about setting fires on federal lands.

My point is that there are federal laws and regulations that prohibit burning without a permit. Why were the Hammond's charged under some 'anti terrorist" law when there are plenty of laws and regulations on the books that could have been used against them?


Quote: Originally posted by aCultueWarrior
I would imagine that very few would be charged under anti terrorist legislation. Why were the Hammond's?

The Hammonds were offered the chance to plead down to lesser charges but refused, and instead elected to gamble on a jury trial. A jury of their peers found them guilty.

The Hammonds gambled and lost. Now they have to accept the consequences of that decision.

The acceptance or denial of a plea bargain has absolutely nothing to do with what law they were charged under.

I've been somewhat impressed with the homework you've done on this case Mr. Fly, now show me why they were charged under anti terrorist legislation instead of laws that other citizens allegedly caught burning on federal lands would be subjected to.

 

[Jose Fly]

I understand that if you break a federal regulation, that you'll be penalized for it.

A regulation is about how an agency will enforce a law.

My point is that there are federal laws and regulations that prohibit burning without a permit.

Because their crime wasn't burning without a permit. Their crime was arson on federal property.

Why were the Hammond's charged under some 'anti terrorist" law when there are plenty of laws and regulations on the books that could have been used against them?

They committed arson on federal property. The anti-terrorism law I cited earlier is the federal law that applies in such a case.

The acceptance or denial of a plea bargain has absolutely nothing to do with what law they were charged under.

It's not at all uncommon for prosecutors to charge defendants with as many and the highest crimes that apply, and then offer a plea deal to lower crimes. My understanding is that the Hammonds were given the opportunity to plead to much lesser crimes, i.e., misdemeanors that would have likely resulted in nothing more than fines and probation, but refused and elected to gamble on a jury trial on the federal arson charge.

I've been somewhat impressed with the homework you've done on this case Mr. Fly, now show me why they were charged under anti terrorist legislation instead of laws that other citizens allegedly caught burning on federal lands would be subjected to.

Because they committed arson on federal property, and the prosecutor charged them under the federal law that applies in such cases.

 

[Zeke]

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

The Corporate run Government needs the minerals on the western ranch lands, so they create a distraction by these events the BLM instigates for them seeing they are on the same teem. through back channels, they have trained implants in all anti government groups that realize things are going down hill fast for the majority of the populace, so it's easy to get some emotional response from people under stress and without much hope.

The telling part is, (and I applaud the brain washing they have accomplished) that the a bigger percentage of the majority are still under hypnosis and support the legalized Mafia that is killing them through Bankster, Drugs, Food, Polution, mental parasites,etc...... paid trolls every where ..........

What time is the Super Bowl?