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.
originally posted by: Gryphon66
originally posted by: tweetie
a reply to: Gryphon66
Hehe. I knew I could count on you to slap the appropriate law on the table.
Even in the U.S. Code definition intent is key.
Nope. The guilty act + the guilty mind. Actually, the term generally used means knowledge AND intent of wrong doing.
By your logic, if my "intent" is not to kill a person by shooting them in the face, when I am compos mentis, that is the sole determinant of my guilt?
Are claiming that the Bundy Gang didn't understand what they were doing, or weren't in their right minds?
(Actually, I'd probably be willing to accede to the latter for some of them.)
"The Malheur National Wildlife Refuge is closed and will stay closed for several weeks," said FBI Special Agent in Charge Greg Bretzing. The bomb squad found no rigged explosives or booby-traps during their sweep of the refuge headquarters on Friday. Now forensic examiners are identifying damage and collecting evidence.
originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: tweetie
Yep. ... and it also says ...
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
Both ACTIONS that we have on video and audio multiple times ...
ACTION + INTENT/KNOWLEDGE
originally posted by: diggindirt
a reply to: Gryphon66
Just look at you with that list of "facts" and nothing in the world to back up what you are saying.
(1) A person commits the crime of criminal trespass while in possession of a firearm who, while in possession of a firearm, enters or remains unlawfully in or upon premises.
(2) Criminal trespass while in possession of a firearm is a Class A misdemeanor. [1979 c.603 §2]
(2) The use or threatened use of a firearm, whether operable or inoperable, by a defendant during the commission of a felony may be pleaded in the accusatory instrument and proved at trial as an element in aggravation of the crime as provided in this section. When a crime is so pleaded, the aggravated nature of the crime may be indicated by adding the words with a firearm to the title of the offense. The unaggravated crime shall be considered a lesser included offense.
(a)In General.—Whoever—
(1) forcibly assaults, resists, opposes, impedes, intimidates, or interferes with any person designated in section 1114 of this
title while engaged in or on account of the performance of official duties; or
(2) forcibly assaults or intimidates any person who formerly served as a person designated in section 1114 on account of the performance of official duties during such person’s term of service, shall, where the acts in violation of this section constitute only simple assault, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both, and where such acts involve physical contact with the victim of that assault or the intent to commit another felony, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.
(b)Enhanced Penalty.—
Whoever, in the commission of any acts described in subsection (a), uses a deadly or dangerous weapon (including a weapon intended to cause death or danger but that fails to do so by reason of a defective component) or inflicts bodily injury, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 688; Pub. L. 100–690, title VI, § 6487(a), Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4386; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXII, § 320101(a), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2108; Pub. L. 104–132, title VII, § 727(c), Apr. 24, 1996, 110 Stat. 1302; Pub. L. 107–273, div. C, title I, § 11008(b), Nov. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 1818; Pub. L. 110–177, title II, § 208(b), Jan. 7, 2008, 121 Stat. 2538.)
originally posted by: diggindirt
If I go down to the local sheriff's office and complain about this 'n that and demand that he address my complaints with the weapon in my purse that his office has authorized me to carry concealed----can he arrest me as an armed militant? Even though I've been civil, have made no threats, just complaints, have not produced my weapon, but he has a pretty good idea that it's there. But if he wants me out of his office, could he have me arrested and put through the court system 'cause he was tired of listening to my complaints?
originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: diggindirt
Murder has been illegal for over 6000 years.
Yet, there are still murders.
Ergo, laws against murder are failures and should be forgotten?
Ridiculous.
originally posted by: diggindirt
a reply to: Gryphon66
Again with your silly charges of things that never happened.
originally posted by: diggindirt
a reply to: Gryphon66
You and the government are the ones being ridiculous. Two hundred troops to manage two dozen protesters? Seriously? Who is being ridiculous.
originally posted by: diggindirt
a reply to: Gryphon66
When they go looking for refuge employees who have been threatened, who are they going to find? Nobody. Because the protesters never had any contact with refuge employees. Because the place was closed, as it was scheduled to be until Spring.
You can't threaten someone who isn't there.
Plan your Visit - Malheur
Hours
The Refuge is open each day from sunrise to sunset.
Visitor Center
The Visitor Center includes The Friends of Malheur Nature Shop, an information desk, views of wildlife using Marshall Pond and an expansive view of Malheur Lake. It is open Monday through Thursday from 8:00 to 4:00 and Friday from 8:00 to 3:00.
Benson Memorial Museum
The museum is open from sunrise to sunset each day of the week.
originally posted by: diggindirt
a reply to: Gryphon66
It was civil disobedience. The Supremes have given wide latitude to the civilly disobedient in cases where no actual harm occurred, as in this case.
originally posted by: diggindirt
a reply to: Gryphon66
I've no doubt that the state and feds can come up with a list of charges as long as the Mississippi River. Just like they originally charged the Hammonds with 19 charges, dating all the way back to the '80s. Oops, then somebody explained to the nutty prosecutor about ex post facto and they had to have another go at it. Finding a jury to convict them of anything with a good defense attorney will be a bit more difficult than writing out a bunch of charges.
I'm hoping to see Gerry Spence step up or one of his trail attorneys. Now that would be educational.
originally posted by: diggindirt
a reply to: Gryphon66
You really need to study civil disobedience laws before calling me a liar. Look at the Supreme Court rulings in the past. You might be surprised. If you're going to argue this stuff, you really need to know the facts, not what the FBI and msm tell you. This nation was built on protest.
originally posted by: diggindirt
a reply to: Gryphon66
There was also a heavy dose of the idea that evil would prevail when good men did nothing. That philosophy was attributed to Edmund Burke by JFK. "The only thing necessary for evil to prevail is that good men do nothing."
Study the foundations before you start re-roofing the nation.
originally posted by: diggindirt
They will continue the fight. Peacefully. As they have been peaceful all along. It wasn't the people that fired guns.
It was employees of government.
Men, at least I'm guessing they were all males, without souls, who could shoot down a man on the side of the road with his hands raised. Those men were only following orders.
originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: tweetie
Yep. ... and it also says ...
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
Both ACTIONS that we have on video and audio multiple times ...
ACTION + INTENT/KNOWLEDGE
...but instead they chose to employ an ambush.
Your two conditions don't even have any relationship to each other.
Too much fear in the community
originally posted by: diggindirt
If I go down to the local sheriff's office and complain about this 'n that and demand that he address my complaints with the weapon in my purse that his office has authorized me to carry concealed----can he arrest me as an armed militant? Even though I've been civil, have made no threats, just complaints, have not produced my weapon, but he has a pretty good idea that it's there. But if he wants me out of his office, could he have me arrested and put through the court system 'cause he was tired of listening to my complaints?
originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: Xcathdra
The former Fire Chief. Is that community enough for you?
Undercover FBI-agents disguised as militia, stirring up trouble.
originally posted by: Indigo5
originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: Xcathdra
The former Fire Chief. Is that community enough for you?
"Former" for a reason...the community wanted nothing to do with his militia nonsense.
Undercover FBI-agents disguised as militia, stirring up trouble.
Right up there with the other 80% BS the Militia claimed but failed to support with any proof.
Funniest part is he never said the FBI were pretending to be militia