Armed group take over Oregon wildlife refuge

[Foxrac]

Or, they could have just produced the evidence that the Hammonds were covering up poaching.

they were not poaching, if they were poaching, the Feds would have evidence of it, which they do not.

Their poaching is already covered up, that why.

It is done with interrogation.

 

[Steinhauer]

Their poaching is already covered up, that why.

It is done with interrogation.

There would have been evidence of poaching, if that was what they did. However, since they were not poaching, there was no evidence.

You would have to know a little bit about farming and hunting to understand this. You would also have to understand wildlife regulations in order to understand why the Feds attempted to claim this.

the Feds want the Hammonds property.

 

[Foxrac]

There would have been evidence of poaching, if that was what they did. However, since they were not poaching, there was no evidence.

You would have to know a little bit about farming and hunting to understand this. You would also have to understand wildlife regulations in order to understand why the Feds attempted to claim this.

the Feds want the Hammonds property.

1) Jurors convicted Hammonds with unanimous decision.

2) Hammonds family isn't appeal the ruling to higher court.

Due to 2 factors above - I doubt that FBI is lying, but if Hammonds win the appeal case so we know that FBI is lying.

 

[Steinhauer]

1) Jurors convicted Hammonds with unanimous decision.

2) Hammonds family isn't appeal the ruling to higher court.

Due to 2 factors above - I doubt that FBI is lying, but if Hammonds win the appeal case so we know that FBI is lying.

The Hammonds were not convicted of poaching, they were convicted of arson.

Do you know why they were not convicted of poaching?

because the BLM was lying.

 

[Steinhauer]

Maupin said planned burning in cooler weather like the Hammonds chose to do improves the quality of the forage, and makes for better sage grouse habitat by removing juniper trees that suck up water and house raptors – a sage grouse predator.

After 34 years working for the U.S. Forest Service in Oregon, Rusty Inglis resigned from his position with the federal government and now ranches about 40 miles from the Hammonds and is unique in the area – he has no federal land permits and operates strictly on private land.

“The Hammond family is not arsonists. They are number one, top notch. They know their land management.”

Inglis, president of his county Farm Bureau organization and a member of the Oregon Cattlemen’s Association said both groups are working to help gain media attention for the Hammond case. The state Farm Bureau group gathered signatures online for a petition to show widespread support for the family. “Enough is enough. We are not in Nazi Germany. We are in the United States of America.”

http://www.thefencepost.com/news/18847695-113/two-members-of-oregons-hammond-family-to-serve

 

[Foxrac]

The Hammonds were not convicted of poaching, they were convicted of arson.

Do you know why they were not convicted of poaching?

because the BLM was lying.

Conviction for arson only, that's ok.

Many of my families are from rural and farming communities, but none of them are from BLM or next to federal land, so own a ranch that next to BLM or federal land are complicating with legal issues.

 

[Jiro]

Are you attempting to portray anyone who disagrees with this President as a terrorist?

No, I do not agree with them. They are trespassing and need to leave peacefully. The family they came to protect don't even want them there.

I am sure the Federal Government attempted to bully this family off their property, but that can be handled by the courts.

based on what I read about the Hammonds' spat with BLM in the past... I think the system was corrupted. 5 years is a terrible injustice.

I pretty much agree with most of your posts here. I don't know if you agree with me on this but IMO - I believe the Bundys should be charged with domestic terrorism or similar in that category because of making statements like armed standoff, staying indefinitely till their demands are met, and will defend by any means.

 

[whatdidyousay!]

can you see this now?

I was able to see your photos with no trouble but not Steinhauer .

 

[Jiro]

I was able to see your photos with no trouble but not Steinhauer .

must be because your ISP or browser is blocking the access to wherever Stein is posting from or vice versa. *shrug*

no biggie. at least now you're able to see it. I uploaded it to different site.

 

[dogmom]

In terms of legality/corruption though I do tend to agree with lots of Stein's post #49....based on what different things I've read and the fact that I do think there is corruption in a lot of the government.

I think there's lot more than what we're getting.

Also do think that if these were not mostly <people perceived as> white men, there would have been a different outcome by now

 

[whatdidyousay!]

must be because your ISP or browser is blocking the access to wherever Stein is posting from or vice versa. *shrug*

no biggie. at least now you're able to see it. I uploaded it to different site.

That could be it .

 

[hoichi]

is that what I said? because if you think that's what I said... then there's really no point in continuing this because anything I say... it will come out as "gun" to you.



when you make a bunch of irrelevant examples... it shows your argument is foundering.

Sorry jiro

Ill be more clear

What actions by these people be spacific pls, makes them terrorist?

If its ocuupying buildings, which indeed they are doing then i ask if all who occupy buildings, for what ever reason (note college kids, ect., pet protests ect), are also terrorists?

If not why not?

It seems to me the only difference between the above is the presence of firearms, thus my question.re guns in my last post.

All these guys have done is occupy a building.

 

[whatdidyousay!]

In terms of legality/corruption though I do tend to agree with lots of Stein's post #49....based on what different things I've read and the fact that I do think there is corruption in a lot of the government.

I think there's lot more than what we're getting.

Also do think that if these were not mostly <people perceived as> white men, there would have been a different outcome by now

I agree with you about the outcome would be difference by now if they were not 'white men'. My daughter said was this all over Facebook how come the police has not put an end it soon as it happen . There has not been any more updates about this on this .

 

[hoichi]

I agree with you about the outcome would be difference by now if they were not 'white men'. My daughter said was this all over Facebook how come the police has not put an end it soon as it happen . There has not been any more updates about this on this .

Why the rush for bloodshed?

They are occuoying a builsing,

Do you want the cops to.go in guns blazing?
Perhaps a little patience and arategic thinking can result in

-the building being vecated
- no bodies.either of cops, or them

 

[Jiro]

Sorry jiro

Ill be more clear

What actions by these people be spacific pls, makes them terrorist?

If its ocuupying buildings, which indeed they are doing then i ask if all who occupy buildings, for what ever reason (note college kids, ect., pet protests ect), are also terrorists?

If not why not?

It seems to me the only difference between the above is the presence of firearms, thus my question.re guns in my last post.

All these guys have done is occupy a building.

*sigh* exactly as I predicted. let's try again

no that's not all they did.

1. occupied a federal building
2. made an armed standoff and will defend itself by any means
3. made a list of demand
4. called for "citizens" to revolt against the government

that's exactly what they did.

 

[Foxrac]

based on what I read about the Hammonds' spat with BLM in the past... I think the system was corrupted. 5 years is a terrible injustice.

I pretty much agree with most of your posts here. I don't know if you agree with me on this but IMO - I believe the Bundys should be charged with domestic terrorism or similar in that category because of making statements like armed standoff, staying indefinitely till their demands are met, and will defend by any means.

Sure, it is minimum sentence policy.

I don't support minimum sentence for most crime, except for serious felony like murder, rape, multiple violent felony and arson that involved death of people.

Hammonds family didn't kill anyone when they fired the federal land.

 

[Steinhauer]

based on what I read about the Hammonds' spat with BLM in the past... I think the system was corrupted. 5 years is a terrible injustice.

I pretty much agree with most of your posts here. I don't know if you agree with me on this but IMO - I believe the Bundys should be charged with domestic terrorism or similar in that category because of making statements like armed standoff, staying indefinitely till their demands are met, and will defend by any means.

I've been reading the posts between you and Hoichi, and I think you both are making valid points.

I do, however, think Domestic Terrorism should not be used in this situation. Here is why - there are plenty of other charges this militia can be brought up on that have hefty sentences. Criminal Trespass and Destruction of Federal Property (they tore down a fence).

If this militia were making threats, blowing things up, killing people, or harassing through menace (like the KKK) then I could see how a domestic terrorism charge can be brought up.

The wikipedia definition of domestic terrorism is as follows:

The statutory definition of domestic terrorism in the United States has changed many times over the years; also, it can be argued that acts of domestic terrorism have been occurring since long before any legal definition was set forth.

Under current United States law, set forth in the USA PATRIOT Act, acts of domestic terrorism are those which: "(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; (B) appear to be intended— (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States."[2]

While taking over a Federal Building with an armed group may be considered an act of attempting to influence the policy of a government by intimidation - they have made no direct threats. They are not kidnapping anyone, causing mass destruction, or assassinating anyone.

I think that the Sheriff should give those who have shown up a chance to peacefully leave, and charge the ring leaders with conspiracy.

 

[Steinhauer]

The CC is ... meh ... ok-ish

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SB6m7x3QDAg[/ame]

 

[Steinhauer]

So, here you have it - the FBI posing as militia, walking through town and harassing people, in an attempt to portray the militia in a negative light to the public - caught red-handed by the Fire Chief of Harney County:

http://app.streamsend.com/s/1/qssmnhemwk/UIQ6VkV/pphyt


Now, why would the public statement of a County Fire Chief have any bearing over this case? Is it possible he knows the Federal Charges of Arson against the Hammonds is BS?

Let that sink in a moment ....

 

[Jiro]

I've been reading the posts between you and Hoichi, and I think you both are making valid points.

I do, however, think Domestic Terrorism should not be used in this situation. Here is why - there are plenty of other charges this militia can be brought up on that have hefty sentences. Criminal Trespass and Destruction of Federal Property (they tore down a fence).

If this militia were making threats, blowing things up, killing people, or harassing through menace (like the KKK) then I could see how a domestic terrorism charge can be brought up.

The wikipedia definition of domestic terrorism is as follows:

While taking over a Federal Building with an armed group may be considered an act of attempting to influence the policy of a government by intimidation - they have made no direct threats. They are not kidnapping anyone, causing mass destruction, or assassinating anyone.

I think that the Sheriff should give those who have shown up a chance to peacefully leave, and charge the ring leaders with conspiracy.

oh I agree. I definitely know they will not be charged with domestic terrorism nor be labeled as one.

I do believe this will end peacefully but the Bundys will definitely be arrested and charged with whatever.