What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Oregon Militia Takeover - Ammon Bundy arrested (3 Viewers)

2. How is this NOT double jeopardy?
Because the judge ignored the law and imposed an unlawful sentence. The prosecution appealed it from day one.
The initial judge claimed a 5 year term would be “grossly disproportionate” to the crime. 5 years for a fire that got out of control seems excessive.
It appears the courts disagree with you.
The courts aren't perfect

 
Who is saying this is supported by either party? The first moron Bundy was a little hero for a while, lot's of pictures of him riding horses with American flags and guns, but I don't think you saw John Boehner out there riding an ATV. Maybe a few Tea Party folks from deep in the woods.

This new batch I'd assume are being ridiculed by all politicians as well.

We'll see if Hannity and some other talking heads jump aboard with these clowns.

 
When the whackos on the fring left had their Occupy Wall Street groups all over the country taking over city parks across the country, did the government violently respond or did they wait for months while those idiots stunk up the cities? Seems like the actually closest analogy to this situation then the utterly ridiculous strawmen being put out by a few deranged posters.
Trust me, if the Occupy folks had been armed with a single gun, the government would have responded immediately, snd they did in Oakland anyhow.
Exactly.

 
This was Clive Bundy guy that Fox crowd was all pumped about until he dropped his sweet knowledge about "The Negro" right?
You guys make every thread something political. Why?
Isn't this whole occupation political?
In the most broadest interpretation of the term. Do you believe either party supports this?
Democratic or Republican party? No. Other parties? Absolutely.But the original post said nothing about any party.
What does the Fox crowd imply?
Sean Hannity had this guy the Cliven Bundy ####### as the star of his show and honorary guest of honor in his "Great American Panel". That's what was being implied with Fox crowd.
 
When the whackos on the fring left had their Occupy Wall Street groups all over the country taking over city parks across the country, did the government violently respond or did they wait for months while those idiots stunk up the cities? Seems like the actually closest analogy to this situation then the utterly ridiculous strawmen being put out by a few deranged posters.
https://www.google.com/search?q=occupy+wall+street+arrests&safe=off&client=ms-android-oneplus&prmd=niv&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwja4cLKiY7KAhVL7yYKHVLoA64Q_AUICCgC
 
Interesting read here http://www.tsln.com/news/18837869-113/where-theres-smoke

Notes:

- The Bureau of land management is not liable for damages done to private lands for fires started on public land.

- Hammonds are currently paying 400k for fire fighting costs from the fires

- The Hammonds are the last remaining private land owner in a 170,000 acre wilderness. The rest of the land owners were bought out.

- As part of the Hammonds’ plea agreement the BLM obtained the first right of refusal should the family have to sell their private land.

- A neighboring rancher who sold their land said the BLM was relentless in its pursuit of their property.

 
Interesting read here http://www.tsln.com/news/18837869-113/where-theres-smoke

Notes:

- The Bureau of land management is not liable for damages done to private lands for fires started on public land.

- Hammonds are currently paying 400k for fire fighting costs from the fires

- The Hammonds are the last remaining private land owner in a 170,000 acre wilderness. The rest of the land owners were bought out.

- As part of the Hammonds plea agreement the BLM obtained the first right of refusal should the family have to sell their private land.

- A neighboring rancher who sold their land said the BLM was relentless in its pursuit of their property.
All land rights are granted by the sovereign.
 
“The facility (Malheur National Wildlife Refuge) has been the tool to do all the tyranny that has been placed upon the Hammonds,” Ammon Bundy told the Oregonian, adding that he would not rule out violence. “We're planning on staying here for years, absolutely. This is not a decision we've made at the last minute.”
Who knew Wildlife Refuges were such serious business.
Where will the wildlife seeking refuge go?

Do they, or did they offer sanctuary to wildlife from other countries and if so how was it vetted?

Wildlife lives matter.

 
When the whackos on the fring left had their Occupy Wall Street groups all over the country taking over city parks across the country, did the government violently respond or did they wait for months while those idiots stunk up the cities? Seems like the actually closest analogy to this situation then the utterly ridiculous strawmen being put out by a few deranged posters.
Trust me, if the Occupy folks had been armed with a single gun, the government would have responded immediately, snd they did in Oakland anyhow.
Single gun? The Occupy folks tried to blow up a bridge.http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-05-01/bridge-bomb-plot/54661638/1

 
When the whackos on the fring left had their Occupy Wall Street groups all over the country taking over city parks across the country, did the government violently respond or did they wait for months while those idiots stunk up the cities? Seems like the actually closest analogy to this situation then the utterly ridiculous strawmen being put out by a few deranged posters.
Trust me, if the Occupy folks had been armed with a single gun, the government would have responded immediately, snd they did in Oakland anyhow.
Single gun? The Occupy folks tried to blow up a bridge.http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-05-01/bridge-bomb-plot/54661638/1
These guys said that the Occupy movement hadn't gone far enough.

So these anarchist decided to go farther... not the occupy guys.

sought to use the cover of the Occupy campaign in Cleveland to strike

Its like you guys don't read. Or something.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
2. How is this NOT double jeopardy?
Because the judge ignored the law and imposed an unlawful sentence. The prosecution appealed it from day one.
The initial judge claimed a 5 year term would be “grossly disproportionate” to the crime.
Judicial Activism can go both ways.
I guess my holdup is that if a private citizen starts a fire on his property that spreads to public land, it is arson and he is liable for damages.

The govt starts a fire on govt land that spreads to private land causing damages, it is not criminal nor are they liable for damages.

Considering all this, 5 years is too much.

 
2. How is this NOT double jeopardy?
Because the judge ignored the law and imposed an unlawful sentence. The prosecution appealed it from day one.
The initial judge claimed a 5 year term would be “grossly disproportionate” to the crime.
Judicial Activism can go both ways.
I guess my holdup is that if a private citizen starts a fire on his property that spreads to public land, it is arson and he is liable for damages.

The govt starts a fire on govt land that spreads to private land causing damages, it is not criminal nor are they liable for damages.
If a private citizen shoots someone because they felt threatened...

 
2. How is this NOT double jeopardy?
Because the judge ignored the law and imposed an unlawful sentence. The prosecution appealed it from day one.
The initial judge claimed a 5 year term would be “grossly disproportionate” to the crime.
Judicial Activism can go both ways.
I guess my holdup is that if a private citizen starts a fire on his property that spreads to public land, it is arson and he is liable for damages.

The govt starts a fire on govt land that spreads to private land causing damages, it is not criminal nor are they liable for damages.

Considering all this, 5 years is too much.
I think the law is more there so that if some numbnut starts a fire in government controlled land, the government won't be held liable for damages. I don't think the government is starting too many uncontrolled fires.

 
Clearly the judge gave the Hammonds a second sentence that is proportionate to the new bid the state got for the Uranium and natural gas found on their ranch.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
2. How is this NOT double jeopardy?
Because the judge ignored the law and imposed an unlawful sentence. The prosecution appealed it from day one.
The initial judge claimed a 5 year term would be grossly disproportionate to the crime.
Judicial Activism can go both ways.
I guess my holdup is that if a private citizen starts a fire on his property that spreads to public land, it is arson and he is liable for damages.

The govt starts a fire on govt land that spreads to private land causing damages, it is not criminal nor are they liable for damages.

Considering all this, 5 years is too much.
Ultimately, the government has the say on how all land is used in the country.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
2. How is this NOT double jeopardy?
Because the judge ignored the law and imposed an unlawful sentence. The prosecution appealed it from day one.
The initial judge claimed a 5 year term would be grossly disproportionate to the crime.
Judicial Activism can go both ways.
I guess my holdup is that if a private citizen starts a fire on his property that spreads to public land, it is arson and he is liable for damages.

The govt starts a fire on govt land that spreads to private land causing damages, it is not criminal nor are they liable for damages.

Considering all this, 5 years is too much.
I think the law is more there so that if some numbnut starts a fire in government controlled land, the government won't be held liable for damages. I don't think the government is starting too many uncontrolled fires.
The government is only liable when it chooses to be liable.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
As I read a bit of what happened its very clear to me the Hammonds are getting ####ed by the feds.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Let 'em sit there until the Chik-Fil-A gifts cards mama gave them for Christmas are ready to expire. Then they'll come scurrying out.

 
As I read a bit of what happened its very clear to me the Hammonds are getting ####ed by the feds.
Originally Dwight Hammond was sentenced to three months and Steve to one year, which they have already served, but new use of terrorism law has mandatory sentence of at least 5 years.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
As I read a bit of what happened its very clear to me the Hammonds are getting ####ed by the feds.
Because of the original jail sentences for burning 127 acres or because of the re-sentencing? I would like find more in depth coverage on this situation from a reliable source.

 
As I read a bit of what happened its very clear to me the Hammonds are getting ####ed by the feds.
What I read was the Hammonds set fires intentionally. There is a minimum sentence for doing this that a judge ignored just before retiring. A second judge determined that they should serve the minimum.

In the same article the Hammonds were saying through a lawyer that they don't want these militia dudes there.

 
Clearly the judge gave the Hammonds a second sentence that is proportionate to the new bid the state got for the Uranium and natural gas found on their ranch.
This also sounds interesting. Is this actually what happened?
The judge must follow the law, which requires a mandatory minimum sentence. The "second sentence" was only what the "original" sentence should have been, if the judge had not decided to ignore the law in the first place.

I agree that mandatory minimums are a terrible idea, but it's the law of the land and the Supreme Court has given its blessing here.

Oh, and there's no uranium.

 
Seems like a ton of misinformation and spin out there. What else is new. Now let's imagine they were Amish.

 
Freaking liberal media can't cover an act of terrorism. We need more conservative media outlets in this country. Oh, wait...

 
As I read a bit of what happened its very clear to me the Hammonds are getting ####ed by the feds.
Originally Dwight Hammond was sentenced to three months and Steve to one year, which they have already served, but new use of terrorism law has mandatory sentence of at least 5 years.
The 5-year sentence was part of the original trial. This is not "new use" except in the sense that the original judge refused to "use" the sentence that he was required to use, by law.

Let's be clear here: there was no second trial using a "terrorism law". They were tried and convicted under a criminal statute that required a 5-year sentence. Simple as that.

 
As I read a bit of what happened its very clear to me the Hammon are getting ####ed by the feds.
Because of the original jail sentences for burning 127 acres or because of the re-sentencing? I would like find more in depth coverage on this situation from a reliable source.
It appears to me that the Federal government is being very aggressive with them due to the government wanting their land. For example, they are no longer allowing grazing due to the arson conviction.

 
As I read a bit of what happened its very clear to me the Hammonds are getting ####ed by the feds.
What I read was the Hammonds set fires intentionally. There is a minimum sentence for doing this that a judge ignored just before retiring. A second judge determined that they should serve the minimum.

In the same article the Hammonds were saying through a lawyer that they don't want these militia dudes there.
The Hammonds say they will be turning themselves in on Jan. 4th as required by the court.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top