It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is Ryan Bundy Just a Mormon Extremist?

page: 5
26
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 09:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: awareness10



You did what you were told to do, what society required of you and why? In the name of War.
No. I protested vehemently against a war which was unjust, unnecessary, and uncalled for. Peacefully, as did millions of others. The radicals did not help the cause, they hindered it. Because of the actions of the radicals, peaceful protesters were killed.



And now you know why peaceful vehement protests no longer exist, BECAUSE THEY ACCOMPLISH NEXT TO NOTHING.

The radicals were just there for fun and to make sure you felt like you were in the middle of something, to inject energy to an otherwise useless action.

Inciting violence is the name of the game with the government, are you saying its bad to stand up to it with the same tactics ??




posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 09:38 AM
link   
The only part of this whole conflict I disagree with is the armed part.....Both Hammond and Bundy have been railroaded by the BLM

Im not sure it matters whether he feels hes following the tenants of his religion or not, the fact remains that the courts were leading to a process of double jeopardy with the Hammonds..

The BLM tried to keep the Hammonds from GETTING to his land by not allowing him to use access roads to his own property...

They gave them permission to do back burns to protect their property then reneged...

They have repeatedly tried to push this man and his family into no win situations, despite the fact of having owned the land well before the BLM was even an entity.....

His grievances are genuine, his actions are understandable, except for the armed aspect....

So I fail to see where hes an "idiot" in any manner....

The BLM has a history of doing things like this, Uniting under a common cause isnt out of the norm



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 10:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Phage

If ISIS are Muslim terrorists then this man is a Mormon terrorist.


Compare and contrast, please.



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 10:40 AM
link   
a reply to: TheBulk

ISIS is a bunch of muslims who happen to be terrorists. The idiots in Oregon are a bunch of mormons who happen to be terrorists. Easy.



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 11:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: TheBulk

ISIS is a bunch of muslims who happen to be terrorists. The idiots in Oregon are a bunch of Mormons who happen to be terrorists. Easy.



How are they terrorists? They haven't hurt anyone, they haven't hurt anyone in the community, they haven't been violent....

So honestly where does the terrorism come in , besides the fact that the Gov is trying to label them?

You do realize that there is a very thin line there with the gov, all one needs to do , is do something the gov doesnt like to be labeled a terrorist and taken out with extreme prejudice, forfeiting all constitutional rights to trial.

You advocate that they are terrorist, yet fail to realize that you could very well be put under that umbrella the minute you decided youve been slighted and do not fall in line....

Peoples short sightedness in these areas , and placation of such actions is what is going to lead to some serious, serious issues



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 11:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: TheBulk

ISIS is a bunch of muslims who happen to be terrorists. The idiots in Oregon are a bunch of mormons who happen to be terrorists. Easy.


ISIS has killed and terrorized thousands, these guys haven't hurt or threatened to hurt anyone. ISIS ,has an army that includes heavy weaponry and equipment. These guys have rifles.

There seem to be some pretty stark differences that you are purposely avoiding.
edit on 5-1-2016 by TheBulk because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 11:28 AM
link   
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

They are illegally occupying federal land in order to try to force the government to change the extension on the prison sentence it handed down to two criminals. Just because it isn't violent (yet) doesn't mean it isn't terrorism.

PS: The government isn't in violation of double jeopardy laws either.
edit on 5-1-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 11:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheBulk

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: TheBulk

ISIS is a bunch of muslims who happen to be terrorists. The idiots in Oregon are a bunch of mormons who happen to be terrorists. Easy.


ISIS has killed and terrorized thousands, these guys haven't hurt or threatened to hurt anyone. ISIS ,has an army that includes heavy weaponry and equipment. These guys have rifles.

There seem to be some pretty stark differences that you are purposely avoiding.


So ISIS are the only terrorists in the world? And anyone who acts in any way differently than ISIS isn't a terrorist?
edit on 5-1-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 11:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
So ISIS are the only terrorists in the world? And anyone who acts in any way differently than ISIS isn't a terrorist?


YOU'RE the one who made the comparison to ISIS!

In what way is this protest like a terrorist action? Pick any terrorist group you like! They've done SOMETHING to earn that title. What have these guys done other than being white with cowboy hats and guns?
edit on 5-1-2016 by TheBulk because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 11:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

They are illegally occupying federal land in order to try to force the government to change the extension on the prison sentence it handed down to two criminals. Just because it isn't violent (yet) doesn't mean it isn't terrorism.

PS: The government isn't in violation of double jeopardy laws either.


yes they are, they already served their time, now they are trying to go back AFTER the sentence was already carried out and give them more time for a crime they already served for.



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 11:39 AM
link   
a reply to: TheBulk

Illegally occupying federal land without permission for starters. The willingness to actually trade bullets with the government if they don't get their way for another.



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 11:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

They are illegally occupying federal land in order to try to force the government to change the extension on the prison sentence it handed down to two criminals. Just because it isn't violent (yet) doesn't mean it isn't terrorism.

PS: The government isn't in violation of double jeopardy laws either.


yes they are, they already served their time, now they are trying to go back AFTER the sentence was already carried out and give them more time for a crime they already served for.



So clearly you don't know what Double Jeopardy is and isn't.


Double jeopardy is a procedural defence that forbids a defendant from being tried again on the same (or similar) charges in the same case following a legitimate acquittal or conviction.


They aren't being tried more than once. The verdict was appealed and they extended their sentence because it didn't align with the severity of the crime. This is exactly the same thing as the defense appealing a verdict and getting a reduced sentence. Please explain why the prosecution isn't allowed to appeal a verdict but the defense is, and why you think that is double jeopardy.
edit on 5-1-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 11:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

They are illegally occupying federal land in order to try to force the government to change the extension on the prison sentence it handed down to two criminals. Just because it isn't violent (yet) doesn't mean it isn't terrorism.

PS: The government isn't in violation of double jeopardy laws either.


yes they are, they already served their time, now they are trying to go back AFTER the sentence was already carried out and give them more time for a crime they already served for.



So clearly you don't know what Double Jeopardy is and isn't.


Double jeopardy is a procedural defence that forbids a defendant from being tried again on the same (or similar) charges in the same case following a legitimate acquittal or conviction.


They aren't being tried more than once. The verdict was appealed and they extended their sentence because it didn't align with the severity of the crime. This is exactly the same thing as the defense appealing a verdict and getting a reduced sentence. Please explain why the prosecution isn't allowed to appeal a verdict but the defense is, and why you think that is double jeopardy.


Clearly I do, they already served their sentence for the crime, they cannot appeal to serve additional time after the sentence has already been carried out .....end of story

The fact that you see no issue with this is appalling....



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 12:01 PM
link   
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Clearly you don't if you still think this is double jeopardy. Because it isn't. Also, whether I have a problem with it or not is irrelevant to it being or not being double jeopardy, which again, it isn't.

Double Jeopardy requires a brand, new trial. They are being resentenced. It should also be noted that they are getting credit for time served as well. So it's not like they are slapping an additional five years on their existing term either.

You didn't answer my question. Why isn't it ok for the prosecution to appeal a sentence but the defendant can do it?

Eastern Oregon Ranchers Convicted of Arson Resentenced to Five Years in Prison


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.

edit on 5-1-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 12:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheBulk

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: Phage

None of this applies?



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."

Wikipeidia

Seems to me he's (A) breaking the law and (ii) trying to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion...

So, under federal law he's a domestic terrorist?


YOu know the government does this very thing to us all, everyday?


Um...and I'm not in a jail, and apparently you aren't either? I don't hear about to many people being whisked away in the middle of the night and never heard from again...you'd think they would have family members that would notice they're gone for disagreeing with the evil government?



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 12:29 PM
link   
"We're gonna put a stop to government tyranny!

... By taking over a bird sanctuary."

This has nothing do with American men being "girly men," or people being "too afraid to stand up for their rights."

The farmers themselves - do not want assistance and did not ask for help from the militiamen - they just showed up.

Next stop - let's stop government tyranny, by protesting against Barbie Dolls!

People aren't "joining," or "siding," with them - because the vast majority of people can see this for what it is, and would rather not have themselves be involved with this group of nutjobs.

This also isn't double jeopardy. Thank goodness that are those who actually understand this, rather than those who simply believe it is.

"If it walks, talks, and smells like a duck... well clearly it's a peaceful sit-in protest!"



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 01:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t




Double Jeopardy requires a brand, new trial. They are being resentenced. It should also be noted that they are getting credit for time served as well. So it's not like they are slapping an additional five years on their existing term either.


your own post says they were re sentenced on the same charge.....so its double jeopardy....period...




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.


How can he give credit for time served if its not for the same charge?




Double jeopardy is a procedural defence that forbids a defendant from being tried again on the same (or similar) charges in the same case following a legitimate acquittal or conviction.


please tell me again how I dont know what im talking about



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 01:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: TheBulk

Illegally occupying federal land without permission for starters.


That sounds like a protest.


The willingness to actually trade bullets with the government if they don't get their way for another.


First one, they haven't done anything. For another, the 2nd amendment exists to keep tyrannical government in check. Do you think the founders were terrorists?



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 01:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom

Um...and I'm not in a jail, and apparently you aren't either? I don't hear about to many people being whisked away in the middle of the night and never heard from again...you'd think they would have family members that would notice they're gone for disagreeing with the evil government?


You're required to do all kinds of things under threat of force by the government. Millions of Americans will be forced to pay a fee for not having health insurance, under threat of force if they do not pay.

Many of us dont want to see this country get to the point you're describing above, but it seems so many of you are ok with it.



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 01:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: RomeByFire
"We're gonna put a stop to government tyranny!

... By taking over a bird sanctuary."


It's called a symbolic protest.



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join