BREAKING: Armed militia occupies forest reserve HQ in Oregon, call ‘US patriots’ to arms

a reply to: DexterRiley

originally posted by: Vector99
2012 court documents
Haven't read this myself, just digging.

a reply to: Vector99

Thanks. 34 page transcript of the trial. I think I'll visit the "reading room" and scan through it. Then I'll use it to "clean up." Which is the best way to deal with any government paperwork.

-dex

Correct or not, they have a right to peacefully assemble and protest as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others.

a reply to: Sremmos80

Never have. Fires round here are fought with water and or chemicals.

So it seems this is more of an attention seeking thing than anything else. The family has said over and over they will report in. The town does not want these militia types around and held a gathering to make that clear. So why are they trying to get involved? The Government is likely to just ignore them as harmless idiots so other than making the locals mad just what are they suppose to be doing? It is like they want something to happen is some mistaken belief people will support them. I have ban news for them, they have a terrible reputation and people more of afraid of a random mob of armed people wandering into to town than they are of the Government any day of the week.

a reply to: Swills

controlled burns are almost always done when fighting forest fires.

originally posted by: onequestion
There's a lot of people in this country sick of the government and of the corporate overlords.

Yep, and it's been pretty quiet domestically. We haven't had anything on the level of Waco in a long time -- we've been so focused on international terrorism and threats abroad.

It seems the government has been doing a good job keeping people like this (anti-government rambos) at bay using external threats. As long as ISIS and others are perceived as a greater threat, the domestic stuff seems to never flare up. Not a bad strategy eh?

Keep everyone --radical American's included -- looking OUT instead of IN and you can keep the peace domestically fairly well.

That's worked now for a long time, except...

There are MORE people like this than EVER before. The old tricks of trying to scare us with international terrorism isn't working like it used to. The militia folks have been quietly growing in numbers and returning from military deployments. They're fed up ... and I don't think more ISIS fear-mongering is going to keep them distracted forever.

Eventually it'll boil over. Let's hope we can have some political change in DC to prevent any bloodshed.

a reply to: DexterRiley

. The press release seems to be relatively fact-free and somewhat non-specific.

How are you judging what the facts are?

Sounds like just because the Bundy side said more you think theirs is more believable?

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Correct or not, they have a right to peacefully assemble and protest as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others.

True. I don't think breaking and entering/occupying government property is included in that?

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: MystikMushroom

I guess my question is what are they rebelling against? The 2 going to prison seem to be distancing themselves and locals are declini9ng to join them. Its one thing to be a cyber warrior.. its something else entirely to come out of mom and dads basement and join them in person.

The argument is thr bundys want to be able to graze their cattle in federal lands. There argument is the government has allowed it for decades. Well now the government charges ranchers because the damage they cause. They actually have to go out and reseed the area. Basically they destroy government property instead of their own. And don't want to be charged to use the land there only argument is they were not charged before. Many local ranchers now have joined this militia started by them and they are in direct confrontation with the town and the government. They even still want thr right to move their cattle through the middle of town to get there. They have been battling with the Bureau of Land Management for years now.

Ok, so what I can gather, the court and jury found them guilty of charges. The judge ignored the mandatory minimums set in place due to the 8th amendment, citing the mandatory minimums were excessive for the crimes convicted.

This is just what I'm getting from searching it, and reading a bit. It seems the government can pursue further charges per the 9th district court(not sure what that is tbh source).

originally posted by: MystikMushroom

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Correct or not, they have a right to peacefully assemble and protest as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others.

True. I don't think breaking and entering/occupying government property is included in that?

So you're telling me trespassing on federal property to hold an armed protest indefinitely isn't legal?

'Murica?

Let's pray this peaceful protest stays peaceful.

Let's hope nobody gets any crazy ideas like they did in Ferguson or Baltimore.

Protests against police/government actions can get dangerous.

a reply to: Vector99

Ah I see, I always fought imaginary house fires, not imaginary forest fires. I can thank Smokey the Bear for that.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Correct or not, they have a right to peacefully assemble and protest as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others.

True. I don't think breaking and entering/occupying government property is included in that?

That's debatable, I thought the building was unoccupied. And if trespassing is an issue, then they could simply go outside.

Just look at the disruptions caused by the BLM protests. Were those infringements on the rights of others? How about Occupy Wall Street? Didn't they trespass?

Protest is a funny thing.

a reply to: xuenchen

Funny your bring up black protests when you could have just used the Bundy's other protests as an example.

a reply to: Swills

Well what a controlled burn essentially is, it's burning the ground in the fire's path before it can get there, so there is no fuel for the fire to spread.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: MystikMushroom

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Correct or not, they have a right to peacefully assemble and protest as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others.

True. I don't think breaking and entering/occupying government property is included in that?

That's debatable, I thought the building was unoccupied. And if trespassing is an issue, then they could simply go outside.

Just look at the disruptions caused by the BLM protests. Were those infringements on the rights of others? How about Occupy Wall Street? Didn't they trespass?

Protest is a funny thing.

Well, it sounds like they "broke" in -- which means they are guilty of breaking and entering a premise that isn't theirs.

a reply to: liveandlearn

But then there's this:

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




EUGENE, Ore. – Dwight Lincoln Hammond, Jr., 73, and his son, Steven Dwight Hammond, 46, both residents of Diamond, Oregon in Harney County, were sentenced to five years in prison by Chief U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken for arsons they committed on federal lands.

A jury sitting in Pendleton, Oregon found the Hammonds guilty of the arsons after a two-week trial in June 2012. The trial involved allegations that the Hammonds, owners of Hammond Ranches, Inc., ignited a series of fires on lands managed by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), on which the Hammonds had grazing rights leased to them for their cattle operation.

The jury convicted both of the Hammonds of using fire to destroy federal property for a 2001 arson known as the Hardie-Hammond Fire, located in the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area. Witnesses at trial, including a relative of the Hammonds, testified the arson occurred shortly after Steven Hammond and his hunting party illegally slaughtered several deer on BLM property. Jurors were told that Steven Hammond handed out “Strike Anywhere” matches with instructions that they be lit and dropped on the ground because they were going to “light up the whole country on fire.” One witness testified that he barely escaped the eight to ten foot high flames caused by the arson. The fire consumed 139 acres of public land and destroyed all evidence of the game violations. After committing the arson, Steven Hammond called the BLM office in Burns, Oregon and claimed the fire was started on Hammond property to burn off invasive species and had inadvertently burned onto public lands. Dwight and Steven Hammond told one of their relatives to keep his mouth shut and that nobody needed to know about the fire.

The jury also convicted Steven Hammond of using fire to destroy federal property regarding a 2006 arson known as the Krumbo Butte Fire located in the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge and Steen Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area. An August lightning storm started numerous fires and a burn ban was in effect while BLM firefighters fought those fires. Despite the ban, without permission or notification to BLM, Steven Hammond started several “back fires” in an attempt save the ranch’s winter feed. The fires burned onto public land and were seen by BLM firefighters camped nearby. The firefighters took steps to ensure their safety and reported the arsons.

www.justice.gov...

If true, they need to go to prison.

a reply to: DBCowboy
OWS were finally chased out of that park but it took 2 months.

BLM protests are being shut down, right? I'm sure not all but wasn't the last one?

Plus, these guys are armed and threatened violence if they are to be removed. Kinda goes against the idea of a true protest.