• 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

TexasDeac10 said:
But srsly, waiting these guys out and then arresting them all is the right answer.
Click to expand...

waiting them out for what? they have food and generators and are idiot rural militia with plans to stay "a long time" and using it as a militia base for others to come. i have a feeling they're going to hold out for a while.

waiting them out seems like the better option but I still think it normalizes behavior of occupying Federal buildings.

if they were islamic we'd be going out of our fucking minds instead of making jokes and rolling eyes
 
The arsonists have distanced themselves from the Bundy circus and are allegedly en route to LA to turn themselves in and serve their sentances. The Bundy wingnut brigade was looking for another anti government bandwagon to hop on, even if their support was unwanted. So now they're squatters without a cause. Armed squatters who want a confrontation with the government.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
Agreed. What kind of prison time are these guys looking at? I'm thinking it will be a decently long sentence.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure the penalty for treason is death and these guys claim to love the Constitution so . . .
 
Read a little bit more about the underlying arson case and it seems pretty straightforward. Jury didn't buy the story the Hammonds were selling about "burning out invasive species" and it seems witnesses testified that the purpose of the burning was malicious rather than simply protecting their own land. Again, you can disagree with the mandatory minimum imposed by the legislature here but I don't really see five years for intentionally burning land as unconstitutionally cruel or disproportionate to the convicted offense. .
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
Agreed. What kind of prison time are these guys looking at? I'm thinking it will be a decently long sentence.
Click to expand...

Well, considering the Federal Government returned Bundy's cattle, I imagine nothing will happen to these people.
 
what happened to "if you don't like it here, move to Canada/Sweden/Europe"?
 
bym051d said:
Well, considering the Federal Government returned Bundy's cattle, I imagine nothing will happen to these people.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty cynical in cases like this, but I don't think there's anyway that people labeled as "domestic terrorists" who illegally took over a federal building (regardless of how many people were or were not in the building or work there on a regular basis) will avoid federal charges.
 
ImTheCaptain said:
what happened to "if you don't like it here, move to Canada/Sweden/Europe"?
Click to expand...

That's only for lefties. Why would a right winger want to go to Canada or Sweden with their even more socialized medicine than we now have with Obamacare? I'm really not sure where we could send right wingers where they'd be comfortable. Australia probably isn't an option now that they've ousted Tony Abbot (if you think W was a little dim, you need to youtube Abbot). France isn't an option unless and until Le Pen wins. Maybe Hungary. Maybe Netanyahu's Israel for non-anti-semetic right wingers. Maybe the Kingdom if they're non-anti-the-other-kind-of-semetic right wingers who want to oppress women and execute Shiite clerics. Maybe we could hook them up with Joseph Kony if they're not racist, but they probably are racist. There really isn't a good solution here.
 
They have no leverage. Generators run out of gas, eventually their cell phones will also, they'll run out of food, water, and stink to high hell. They don't have hostages or an agenda. Hell the people they're trying to "help" don't even want it...let Trump build a beautiful wall around it and let every militia person that wants to join them through the gate then close it.
 
cville deac said:
That's only for lefties. Why would a right winger want to go to Canada or Sweden with their even more socialized medicine than we now have with Obamacare? I'm really not sure where we could send right wingers where they'd be comfortable. Australia probably isn't an option now that they've ousted Tony Abbot (if you think W was a little dim, you need to youtube Abbot). France isn't an option unless and until Le Pen wins. Maybe Hungary. Maybe Netanyahu's Israel for non-anti-semetic right wingers. Maybe the Kingdom if they're non-anti-the-other-kind-of-semetic right wingers who want to oppress women and execute Shiite clerics. Maybe we could hook them up with Joseph Kony if they're not racist, but they probably are racist. There really isn't a good solution here.
Click to expand...

That's one thing I respect about sailordeac. Dude practices what he preaches.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
Read a little bit more about the underlying arson case and it seems pretty straightforward. Jury didn't buy the story the Hammonds were selling about "burning out invasive species" and it seems witnesses testified that the purpose of the burning was malicious rather than simply protecting their own land. Again, you can disagree with the mandatory minimum imposed by the legislature here but I don't really see five years for intentionally burning land as unconstitutionally cruel or disproportionate to the convicted offense. .
Click to expand...

Typically the argument against mandatory minimum sentences is that they empower prosecutors and screw over defendants by providing the prosecution with an incredibly powerful bargaining position. If the mandatory minimum sentence for crime X is 25 years, and the prosecutors tell you they'll knock it down to 5 years if you plead guilty, then you're led to take the plea deal even if you know you're innocent but put your odds of winning the trial at 20% or less. In other words, the mandatory minimum allows prosecutors to manipulate plea deals to produce more convictions.

If the Hammonds were convicted after a jury trial, then this criticism against the mandatory minimums isn't implicated here. The sentence may still seem steep, but that's a separate issue.
 
TexasDeac10 said:
Typically the argument against mandatory minimum sentences is that they empower prosecutors and screw over defendants by providing the prosecution with an incredibly powerful bargaining position. If the mandatory minimum sentence for crime X is 25 years, and the prosecutors tell you they'll knock it down to 5 years if you plead guilty, then you're led to take the plea deal even if you know you're innocent but put your odds of winning the trial at 20% or less. In other words, the mandatory minimum allows prosecutors to manipulate plea deals to produce more convictions.

If the Hammonds were convicted after a jury trial, then this criticism against the mandatory minimums isn't implicated here. The sentence may still seem steep, but that's a separate issue.
Click to expand...

Lay off numbers. That's something they teach at 2L.
 
TexasDeac10 said:
Typically the argument against mandatory minimum sentences is that they empower prosecutors and screw over defendants by providing the prosecution with an incredibly powerful bargaining position. If the mandatory minimum sentence for crime X is 25 years, and the prosecutors tell you they'll knock it down to 5 years if you plead guilty, then you're led to take the plea deal even if you know you're innocent but put your odds of winning the trial at 20% or less. In other words, the mandatory minimum allows prosecutors to manipulate plea deals to produce more convictions.

If the Hammonds were convicted after a jury trial, then this criticism against the mandatory minimums isn't implicated here. The sentence may still seem steep, but that's a separate issue.
Click to expand...

Oh absolutely. I should have separated out those last two sentences instead of throwing them together but was focused on the argument advanced by the Hammonds in this case.

ETA: Here's the actual language from the DOJ release back in October on this case as to what happened:

"By law, arson on federal land carries a five-year mandatory minimum sentence. When the Hammonds were originally sentenced, they argued that the five-year mandatory minimum terms were unconstitutional and the trial court agreed and imposed sentences well below what the law required based upon the jury’s verdicts. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, however, upheld the federal law, reasoning that “given the seriousness of arson, a five-year sentence is not grossly disproportionate to the offense.” The court vacated the original, unlawful sentences and ordered that the Hammonds be resentenced “in compliance with the law.” In March 2015, the Supreme Court rejected the Hammonds’ petitions for certiorari. Today, Chief Judge Aiken imposed five year prison terms on each of the Hammonds, with credit for time they already served.

“We all know the devastating effects that are caused by wildfires. Fires intentionally and illegally set on public lands, even those in a remote area, threaten property and residents and endanger firefighters called to battle the blaze” stated Acting U.S. Attorney Billy Williams.

“Congress sought to ensure that anyone who maliciously damages United States’ property by fire will serve at least 5 years in prison. These sentences are intended to be long enough to deter those like the Hammonds who disregard the law and place fire fighters and others in jeopardy.”"
 
cville deac said:
That's only for lefties. Why would a right winger want to go to Canada or Sweden with their even more socialized medicine than we now have with Obamacare? I'm really not sure where we could send right wingers where they'd be comfortable. Australia probably isn't an option now that they've ousted Tony Abbot (if you think W was a little dim, you need to youtube Abbot). France isn't an option unless and until Le Pen wins. Maybe Hungary. Maybe Netanyahu's Israel for non-anti-semetic right wingers. Maybe the Kingdom if they're non-anti-the-other-kind-of-semetic right wingers who want to oppress women and execute Shiite clerics. Maybe we could hook them up with Joseph Kony if they're not racist, but they probably are racist. There really isn't a good solution here.
Click to expand...

Russia.
 
Can you imagine the rhetoric from Trump, et al., if these were Muslims taking over a building?
 
cville deac said:
The land of Putin and Snowden? Never. One of the few things American liberals and conservatives can agree upon these days is that Russia is a corrupt and problematic state.
Click to expand...

I think these dudes would like it in The Netherlands.
 
Have any of the candidates from either side commented on these fools?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top