Militiamen Occupy Oregon Wildlife Office in Protest of Ranchers' Prison Terms

[nevada]

As far as who said what, and what the governments allegations are: when the government charges a case in court, and there is a trial, the charges are in fact allegations. Once both sides present their evidence and witnesses in court in accordance with the federal rules of criminal procedure, and a jury of 12 peers of the defendants concludes beyond a reasonable doubt the guilt of the defendants, the allegations become proof in court. Especially after the appeals court has reviewed the matter and ruled in favor of the government. If some of arguments presented here in favor of the convicted men by the "occupiers", or whatever we should call them, are true, these guys would not have been convicted. Heck, the two convicted men want no part of this trespassing.

they never denied starting the one fire.
what is in question is the other fire, and the poaching claims.

also, they were previously cleared of all charges in regards to the fire, yet later are charged with it again.
they have now served the time given them, and again a different judge is saying they didn't serve enough time.

none of this adds up.

 

[wadle5]

That's my opinion of the topic, not my opinion of another member or their interpretation. I'm striving to focus on the topic, as I'm sure the mods would appreciate. Whether or not you think it's biased or I think another members opinion is biased doesn't matter - we're all entitled to our opinions right?

On sedition...on topic...

Bundy Oregon Standoff Should Be Treated As Sedition

Right but when you keep posting BIAS/malicious and oversensationlized articles, it makes hard for a discussion. Because you are only painting the issue in one light. And some would say not neutral.

So you are talking around the topic but not ABOUT the actual topic and what is occurring.
Again you can keep posting these articles, but is clear the bias they propose. It's why todays "news" is horrible, because about %5 are facts and the other 95% of what is reported is speculation. You could posts up 19 more articles, and you still couldn't obtain the big picture of what is going on.
Combing through all the B.S. is key.

So whats your stance on Eminent Domain?

 

[ndcent]

Eminent Domain built the US Interstate Freeway System. I like it.

 

[Bigshankhank]

Right but when you keep posting BIAS/malicious and oversensationlized articles, it makes hard for a discussion. Because you are only painting the issue in one light. And some would say not neutral.

So you are talking around the topic but not ABOUT the actual topic and what is occurring.
Again you can keep posting these articles, but is clear the bias they propose. It's why todays "news" is horrible, because about %5 are facts and the other 95% of what is reported is speculation. You could posts up 19 more articles, and you still couldn't obtain the big picture of what is going on.
Combing through all the B.S. is key.

So whats your stance on Eminent Domain?

I don't know ndecent but I think that is exactly his point; yes he has his personal bias and is posting articles that support where his point of view has come from. There are articles/discussions that support an alternate viewpoint and bias. Let's discuss that.

From my point of view, why are we covering this in the media? A bunch of yokels are hanging out in a park ranger shed in the middle of nowhere in the middle of winter under the pretense of "taking back america" (though the people they purport to be fighting for are not asking for their help) and just begging for someone to pay attention to them. Let them have their moment in the cold grey sun, go home bored (and cold, again why are they doing this in the winter?) because they didn't get to become martyrs, then the Feds can swing by and pick them up and remind them of why you cannot bring firearms to Federal land. Yes, this sensationalism is the fault of the media, and these chumps know how to exploit that.

 

[Wingsuit]

they never denied starting the one fire.
what is in question is the other fire, and the poaching claims.

also, they were previously cleared of all charges in regards to the fire, yet later are charged with it again.
they have now served the time given them, and again a different judge is saying they didn't serve enough time.

none of this adds up.

Only nothing is still in question. The arsonists were convicted. (When you are convicted of arson you are an arsonist.). They recognize that we are a nation of laws, and willingly surrendered to do their time. It appears that all parties to the legal action are satisfied. Parties (the occupiers) With no legal interest in the matter are trying to use it to their own personal advantage.

 

[nevada]

Only nothing is still in question. The arsonists were convicted. (When you are convicted of arson you are an arsonist.). They recognize that we are a nation of laws, and willingly surrendered to do their time. It appears that all parties to the legal action are satisfied. Parties (the occupiers) With no legal interest in the matter are trying to use it to their own personal advantage.

perhaps, though it does seem as if they were railroaded. being convicted of something does not necessarily mean they were at fault. it may just mean the jury was fooled. if what ive read is true, this was some kind of kangaroo court anyway.

now i think the issue is the fact they are being told they didn't do enough time.
why are they having to suffer the consequences of the previous judges action/choice?

also, the fact that the OP claimed they were poachers. THAT is still in question, is it not?

 

[ndcent]

perhaps, though it does seem as if they were railroaded. being convicted of something does not necessarily mean they were at fault. it may just mean the jury was fooled. if what ive read is true, this was some kind of kangaroo court anyway.

now i think the issue is the fact they are being told they didn't do enough time.
why are they having to suffer the consequences of the previous judges action/choice?

also, the fact that the OP claimed they were poachers. THAT is still in question, is it not?

Because federal minimums.

I concede the poacher title is up for debate, but that now stands behind seditionist, traitor, insurgent, coward, gang member, domestic terrorist or a slew of other fun names.

 

[cashmoney]

Can't y'all spot a troll?

 

[ndcent]

Can't y'all spot a troll?

"People have opinions different from mine, quick dismiss it as trolling and everything will be okay!"

 

[CXS]

Steven and Dwight Hammond, the Oregon ranchers whose sentencing on arson charges spurred a militant group’s takeover of a federal building, turned themselves in to authorities on Monday evening, CNN reported.

The duo’s attorney, W. Alan Schroeder, had stated to Harvey County Sheriff David Ward that the group, led by anti-government rancher Ammon Bundy, was not acting on their behalf, despite its allegations to the contrary.

Bundy, who has argued that his group’s seizure of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge is part of its call to undo federal ownership of public land, was also criticized earlier in the day by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which said in a statement that it “can in no way be justified on a scriptural basis.”

 

[BlackWorksInc]

So basically this comes down to whether or not there's legitimacy to the claims that the US Government is snatching up people's land.

 

[cashmoney]

"People have opinions different from mine, quick dismiss it as trolling and everything will be okay!"

Few people on this site share my opinions on things. Only one continues to either play or be unbelievably ignorant//naive. And with that I'll bow out of this one.

 

[Jernik]

So basically this comes down to whether or not there's legitimacy to the claims that the US Government is snatching up people's land.

Wait a minute! There might
be a legal precedent.
Of course! Land-snatching!
Land. La-land. "See 'Snatch'."

 

[Wingsuit]

perhaps, though it does seem as if they were railroaded. being convicted of something does not necessarily mean they were at fault. it may just mean the jury was fooled. if what ive read is true, this was some kind of kangaroo court anyway.

now i think the issue is the fact they are being told they didn't do enough time.
why are they having to suffer the consequences of the previous judges action/choice?

also, the fact that the OP claimed they were poachers. THAT is still in question, is it not?

No US Federal District Court could ever come close to being a "kangaroo court". Federal trials and proceedings are run with decorum and strict adherence to the law and rules. And Lord knows I've seen enough of them. They are subject to the oversight of the appeals and Supreme Courts, if things aren't handled correctly. The info regarding poaching was admitted and heard by the jury. This is exactly why we are a nation of laws not men. (Look it up). To say someone was "cleared" is a vague non-legal term. No one who has been acquitted on any charge can be tried again on that same charge. It will be interesting to see how this all plays out. If those guys had any hair (you know where) they woulda taken on a federal courthouse or some other not so soft target.

 

[BlackWorksInc]

Wait a minute! There might
be a legal precedent.
Of course! Land-snatching!
Land. La-land. "See 'Snatch'."

LoL

My point was that whether or not these two fellows who are/were/may/may not be arsonists/poachers/boogiemen/ect. is no longer relevant. While at first they were being used as the justification for this group's occupation, it's evident that they have shifted their reasoning and are maintaining that the real crime is that the government is snatching their land.

So this argument becomes a matter of whether or not this group's claim has any legitimacy.

 

[Wingsuit]

A bit off topic, but on this topic ... Pres. Obama is characterizing this as a "local law enforcement matter". Wait, it's a federal building on federal land, the FBI is in charge, the beef is with the federal government ... That's right up there with Bowe Bergdahl serving with " honor and distinction".

 

[Jimmy_D]

So basically this comes down to whether or not there's legitimacy to the claims that the US Government is snatching up people's land

I would suggest anyone wanting some insight into whether there's any factual basis supporting this possibility take the time to read THIS linear detail of various relevant events leading up to this situation.

 

[morganashley0524]

Does anyone know how many replies before I can create a new thread?

 

[BrianSD_42]

I fail to see why ANYONE should be able to pass "grazing rights" which are heavily taxpayer subsidized on to their children.

What is conservative about passing on government subsidized grazing rights onto a persons grandkids?

it's evident that they have shifted their reasoning and are maintaining that the real crime is that the government is snatching their land.

Agreed. And there is no such thing as "their land", it is Federal Land ... as in MY LAND SINCE I AM A TAXPAYER. It is just as much my land as anyone elses LoL.

The land was acquired from deals with the Indian tribes (possibly shady deals just based on US History) but it is solidly, without a doubt, US Federal Government Property.

It belongs to the taxpayers. People like me and you who pay for the government.

It does not belong to a bunch of Yockels from Nevada or the family in Oregon claiming grazing rights.

 

[ndcent]

Frauds.

5 Government Handouts the Bundys Businesses Depend On