>family owns lands since the 1870s
>fed has wanted your land for years to turn into a wildlife reservoir (i.e. make money)
>never sell to them regardless of their constant jewry
>2001, routine bush fire on property
>tell fire department beforehand, accidentally 100 acres of federal land, put it out yourselves
>2006, lightning storm starts bush fire on your property
>start backfire to push it away from your private property
>cops show up next day and press charges , go to court
>get tried and convicted, sentenced to a year in jail
>go to prison for roughly one year
>get let out, government says you've served your time
>2011, feds want your land again, still won't sell
>feds issue re sentencing convicting you of domestic terrorism
>minimum of 5 more years in federal prison
>now convicted of terrorism and must serve 5 more years in prison
>150 men and women strong armed milita with tons of ex-military occupy gouverment building
>boolicker liberals call them terrorists, don't look into what happend
>claim if they would be muslim or black they would be treated like terrorists so they can do their moral circle jerk and make it about race
>some are so tolerant to want these rednecks to be murdered by the feds (you don't negotiate with terrorists suddenly)
>paid /pol/ shills call them traitors, ignore them
Even people charged with involuntary manslaughter get less time, all they did is burn a bunch of the forest, something which actually occurs fairly often in nature anyways.
I think it's actually pretty easy to conclude that the 5 year re-sentencing was pretty fucked up. They served their time and the government comes back, coincidentally all the while trying to get them to give up their ancestral land,
Why did they decide to put their foot down and form an actual acting militia / terrorist cell / coup / junta / whatever over this? Why did this miscarriage of justice bring the into action instead of PRETTY MUCH ANYTHING ELSE SHITTY THE GOVERNMENT DID THAT WAS WORSE THAN THIS THEY DO IT ALL THE TIME WHERE WERE YOU GUYS THEN HUH???How long does one need to be on land for it to be considered ancestral because those Indians came from somewhere else as well.
rofl
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
How long does one need to be on land for it to be considered ancestral because those Indians came from somewhere else as well.About 350.....years
Why did they decide to put their foot down and form an actual acting militia / terrorist cell / coup / junta / whatever over this? Why did this miscarriage of justice bring the into action instead of PRETTY MUCH ANYTHING ELSE SHITTY THE GOVERNMENT DID THAT WAS WORSE THAN THIS THEY DO IT ALL THE TIME WHERE WERE YOU GUYS THEN HUH???
rofl
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
Meh just saw it was a hundred hectares...that's pretty bad tbh. Other point still stands, these people def fucked up, but some lawyer would have to go and look at precedent to see exactly what is considered a proper legal punishment for it, and if this one is disproportionate.
Why did this miscarriage of justice bring the into action instead of PRETTY MUCH ANYTHING ELSE SHITTY THE GOVERNMENT DID THAT WAS WORSE THAN THIS THEY DO IT ALL THE TIME WHERE WERE YOU GUYS THEN HUH???
So, basically it's bad to "stand up" to the government because we live in a post-modern world? Is that what you're saying? i.e. Bad shit happened already and people did nothing, thus doing something now is wrong? Interesting logic!
The jury convicted both of the Hammonds of using fire to destroy federal property for a 2001 arson known as the Hardie-Hammond Fire, located in the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area. Witnesses at trial, including a relative of the Hammonds, testified the arson occurred shortly after Steven Hammond and his hunting party illegally slaughtered several deer on BLM property. Jurors were told that Steven Hammond handed out “Strike Anywhere” matches with instructions that they be lit and dropped on the ground because they were going to “light up the whole country on fire.” One witness testified that he barely escaped the eight to ten foot high flames caused by the arson. The fire consumed 139 acres of public land and destroyed all evidence of the game violations. After committing the arson, Steven Hammond called the BLM office in Burns, Oregon and claimed the fire was started on Hammond property to burn off invasive species and had inadvertently burned onto public lands. Dwight and Steven Hammond told one of their relatives to keep his mouth shut and that nobody needed to know about the fire.
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.” The court vacated the original, unlawful sentences and ordered that the Hammonds be resentenced “in compliance with the law.” In March 2015, the Supreme Court rejected the Hammonds’ petitions for certiorari. Today, Chief Judge Aiken imposed five year prison terms on each of the Hammonds, with credit for time they already served.
Oregon standoff cliff notes version:
A father & son tried to cover up poaching by committing arson, committed arson several more time and were eventually convicted. The sentence they received was lighter than federal law allowed so overturned by a higher court and now they're serving the rest of their time. Various anti-government types show up in their community and occupy a couple buildings at a wildlife refuge to protest.
http://www.justice.gov/usao-or/pr/eastern-oregon-ranchers-convicted-arson-resentenced-five-years-prison (http://www.justice.gov/usao-or/pr/eastern-oregon-ranchers-convicted-arson-resentenced-five-years-prison)
Isn't it so that you can't go to jail twice for the same crime and that once you receive a sentence and it's hammered, it cannot be extended considering there's no development in the crime? What's the legal grounds on the government extending their sentences? I feel like we're not being told something.
wat
I didn't say nobody should do anything a bluh bluh bluh second ammendment late capitalism nihilsm eschatology
I just don't get why this is the straw that broke the camel's back. Is there something about it that tickles their patriotic funnybone extra hard or did they just take everything a step too far and now they have to walk the walk they talked? A dude was wrongly imprisoned for 5 years. Why didn't they get whipped into a militia/terrorist frenzy by all the folks who have been imprisoned for life or shipped off to Guantanamo or straight up killed in similar situations?
I guess it's just like Rosa Parks becoming a symbol of the civil rights movement. Shit it's just a lady on a bus calm down people what's the big deal. Makes a hell of a cultural touchstone though.
Through shear violence the old tyrannical rule shall be torn down and replaced by a new government. A government formed by the people, for the people and errr.... in the people!
@sir hans
http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/01/03/full-story-on-whats-going-on-in-oregon-militia-take-over-malheur-national-wildlife-refuge-in-protest-to-hammond-family-persecution/
To date the Hammonds have paid $200,000 to the BLM, and the remainder $200,000 must be paid before the end of year (2015). If the Hammonds cannot pay the fines to the BLM, they will be forced to sell the ranch to the BLM or face further prosecution.
Seriously guys? Heskey & Witch, I know you guys aren't fucking stupid people. What's with the smug pretentious shit?
your first post cited 4chan as its only source
The irony is that you get called out on being pretentious and then you make a pretentious and untrue remark. kek gg no re bitch.
Is anyone surprised about how this ended?
A vague and non-committal report about 'a shootout' involving law enforcement and the protestors where nobody really knows or states (at this stage) who fired the first shot, resulting in 1 dead and the rest being arrested. That tends to be how these things go.
Of course it was what?
Not sure what you're being defensive about, only that you sound defensive as usual. And what does the location have to do with anything I said?
An armed protest meets law enforcement and in totally ambiguous circumstances shooting begins resulting in the death of a protestor and the arrest of the remainder. Other than the protesters simply giving up, that's the only outcome you can expect.
Geez, at least explain what you're being defensive about