• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

A Militia Has Taken Over A Federal Building In Oregon

It won't. These people were sentenced under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, which this New Yorker article describes as "surely one of the worst statutes ever passed by Congress and signed into law by a President." Should people who started two fires on their own property, fires that spread onto federal scrubland and burned 160 acres, be sentenced under something passed in the wake of the World Trade Center and Oklahoma City bombings?
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-destruction-of-defendants-rights

They burned 160 acres of public land? That's kind of a big deal.
 
It also sounds like they made up the invasive species part after they burned public land intentionally to spite the federal government for punishing them for killing animals on BLM propwrty
 
They burned 160 acres of public land? That's kind of a big deal.

I don't think it should be a mandatory 5 year sentence, especially when you consider the type of land that burned and just how much of it there is in this county.
Harney County is an expansive, rural county in central Oregon. At more than 10,000 square miles in size it is larger than six states, but has a population of less than 8,000. More than 60-percent of land in the county is public land owned by the United States and administered by the Bureau of Land Management.
130 acres is a drop in the bucket. I think the initial judge was right when he said a 5 year sentence was "grossly disproportionate" given what they did. There was nothing on the land they burned. What they did was wrong, no question about it, but the initial sentence they served seems far more just to me. The father will likely now die in prison given his age.
 
You might be right, but given the circumstances, I think the cops would wait 'em out. The building is 30 miles from the nearest city, at a wildlife refuge, and there was no one in it when they occupied it. They are in the middle of nowhere, in winter, with few supplies. So no one is at risk and the occupiers don't have the means for an extended occupation.
So you think this should be handled differently than armed "urban" protestors, taking over federal property, and defying the government with veiled threats? I think that's bullshit. Just as it was bullshit when it happened at the Bundy Ranch, just as it was bullshit when it happened with the motorcycle gang riot in Texas.
 
Last edited:
This isn't the case im going to live and die on if I'm against mandatory minimums
I mean, if you're saying there are more outrageous abuses with more sympathetic criminals, of course you're right. But if you see something where you think an injustice has been done, you still should speak up. And I think the first judge got it right- that sentence was the just one.
 
So you think this should be handled differently than armed "urban" protestors, taking over federal property, and defying the government with veiled threats? I think that's bullshit. Just as it was bullshit when it happened at the Bundy Ranch, just as it was bullshit when it happened with the motorcycle gang riot in Texas.

Waiting them out, communicating with them, doing everything possible to make sure no one gets hurt- that is also done in a lot of urban situations. And what's the harm in waiting them out and trying for a peaceful resolution? Do you think escalating the situation and going in with guns blazing is a smart move? They are in the middle of nowhere. There are no cities nearby. Just wait 'em out. Turn off the water and power. It's winter in Oregon. They'll probably give up soon enough. And after they do then you arrest them. I'm not saying there shouldn't be consequences. But that makes more sense to me than turning this into another Ruby Ridge situation and making these guys martyrs.
 
This occupation should be treated like all of the other occupations. To suggest otherwise is hypocritical. And wgaf if they get martyred. It's about time we rid the country of these domestic terrorists in waiting.

And I think I still agree with bsf4l.
 
Waiting them out, communicating with them, doing everything possible to make sure no one gets hurt- that is also done in a lot of urban situations. And what's the harm in waiting them out and trying for a peaceful resolution? Do you think escalating the situation and going in with guns blazing is a smart move? They are in the middle of nowhere. There are no cities nearby. Just wait 'em out. Turn off the water and power. It's winter in Oregon. They'll probably give up soon enough. And after they do then you arrest them. I'm not saying there shouldn't be consequences. But that makes more sense to me than turning this into another Ruby Ridge situation and making these guys martyrs.
I agree with you and I dont agree with you. I dont wan't anyone to get hurt, but I think the double standard for handling urban vs rural protests is de-facto racism. In calling for a peaceful resolution to this protest, I think we should acknowledge that urban protests deserve the same cautious handling
 
Last edited:
This has shades of the Waco Siege and Ruby Ridge

Send in the ATF and let em do what they do best
 
You treat urban and rural situations like this differently because of the massive difference in possible collateral damage. If everyone could take a deep breath and stop being ideological shitheads and realize that the government storming in is exactly what these hillbillies fucktards want, that would be wise.

Wait 'em out. Let them surrender due to the conditions and then have society mock how they have accomplished absolutely nothing.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top