The Truth About The Oregon Rancher Standoff

a reply to: Xcathdra
Only the law matters not doing what's right.

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: Xcathdra
Only the law matters not doing what's right.

Doing whats right would be not setting an intentional fire.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Then why bother having a constitution if it isn't going to guarantee the rights it provides?

a reply to: Vector99

The jury ruled that while the fires were intentionally set, they weren't set with the intent of causing damage or harm.

False. The jury convicted the Hammonds under section 844. The section which I linked.

The Ninth Circuit summarized part of the trial evidence as follows: Although the Hammonds claimed that the fire was designed to burn off invasive species on their property, a teenage relative of theirs testified that Steven had instructed him to drop lit matches on the ground so as to “light up the whole country on fire.” And the teenager did just that.

A jury convicted the Hammonds of the Section 844 charge, acquitted them on other charges, and failed to reach a verdict on additional charges.

popehat.com...

a reply to: Xcathdra

Is that really how you view that situation?

That makes no sense to me!

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: Xcathdra
Only the law matters not doing what's right.

Doing whats right would be not setting an intentional fire.

It was a back-burn. This is a common thing.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Vector99

The extended sentencing pursued is in compliance with acts of terrorism

No.
Arson on federal lands carries a minimum sentence of 5 years. No extended sentence was applied. Nor was terrorism charged.
www.law.cornell.edu...

This isn't even a terrorism law not sure why people are saying that. It was created to stop arsonist on federal land. THUS IS EXTLY WHAT IT WAS USED FOR. And why thr court of appeals overturned thr sentencing the original judge said he didn't believe this law was meant for government lands in a wilderness area. Sadly that is exactly what it was meant for.

The bottom line is some people think the US government doesn't have the right to own and regulate federal land unless it's under the states jurisdiction. Meaning the state has the right to set rules and decide fair use of lands. Problem is history and the supreme court say otherwise. Congress has the right to establish laws for federal lands this fight has all ready been made to the supreme court. Any military base in thr country is a great example.

a reply to: Vector99

and yet it still does not change the facts presented about the first judge, the wrong sentence, and an appeals judge fixing the mistake of the lower court.

You need to use the laws in question instead of personal opinion.

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Xcathdra

Then why bother having a constitution if it isn't going to guarantee the rights it provides?

It does.

What rights are you saying were violated?