• 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

bym051d

bym051d

I AM VERY IMPORTANT
Joined
Mar 16, 2011
Messages
39,302
Reaction score
5,061
Our friends, the Bundys are at it again. This time, the son.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...onal-wildlife-refuge_56888a61e4b0b958f65be382

http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-n...f/2016/01/drama_in_burns_ends_with_quiet.html

BURNS, Ore. (AP) — A protest in support of Oregon ranchers facing jail time for arson was followed by an occupation of a building at a national wildlife refuge led by members of a family previously involved in a showdown with the federal government.

Ammon Bundy — the son of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, who was involved in a standoff with the government over grazing rights — told The Oregonian on Saturday that he and two of his brothers were among a group of dozens of people occupying the headquarters of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.
Ammon Bundy posted a video on his Facebook page asking for militia members to come help him. He said "this is not a time to stand down. It's a time to stand up and come to Harney County," where Burns is located. Below the video is this statement: "(asterisk)(asterisk)ALL PATRIOTS ITS TIME TO STAND UP NOT STAND DOWN!!! WE NEED YOUR HELP!!! COME PREPARED."

In an interview with reporters late Saturday night that was posted on Facebook, Bundy said he and others are occupying the building because "the people have been abused long enough."

"I feel we are in a situation where if we do not do something, if we do not take a hard stand, we'll be in a position where we'll be no longer able to do so," he said.

Bundy said the group planned to stay at the refuge indefinitely. "We're planning on staying here for years, absolutely," Ammon Bundy said. "This is not a decision we've made at the last minute."

The event is protesting the conviction of ranchers who committed arson to cover up poaching.
 
I think the first judge had it right when he said the sentence the prosecutors wanted violated the prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.
 
Sounds like there aren't that many at the building. If this ends violently they will be seen as martyrs and the militia movement will become a far more serious problem. Hope tne Feds block off access so people can't start joining them. Just wait 'em out and charge them when it's over.
 
Dwight Hammond, 73, and Steven Hammond, 46, said they lit the fires in 2001 and 2006 to reduce the growth of invasive plants and protect their property from wildfires.
The two were convicted of the arsons three years ago and served time — the father three months, the son one year. But a judge ruled their terms were too short under federal law and ordered them back to prison for about four years each.
Click to expand...

Without knowing more details, the Bolded sounds a little ridiculous.
 
DeaconCav06 said:
Without knowing more details, the Bolded sounds a little ridiculous.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree. An armed takeover of a federal building is not the right move. The takeover should be considered an act of treason.
 
If these guys were black does anyone think the cops would just let them hang out armed in a federal building?
 
Sounds like the minimum for federal arson charges is 5 years and the district judge disagreed so he sentenced below that. 9th circuit upheld the five year minimum as being appropriate to arson on federal land and Supreme Court denied cert. doesn't sound quite as bad with the full picture compared to the description given in the article above.
 
Seems like a dumb strategy, cut off water and electricity and let them sit there for however long they can. My guess is they didn't learn history where you want to be the one conducting the siege not surround and under siege.
 
MysteryMen said:
If these guys were black does anyone think the cops would just let them hang out armed in a federal building?
Click to expand...

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.
 
At least I don't think they have the supplies. Who knows how this will play out.
 
I think they suck and have led to a lot of injustice, whether they be for drug offenders or these folks.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
I don't really have strong feelings either way on it. I was just pointing out that there was a minimum here, the district judge thought that it was unnecessary, and he got overturned by higher authority.
Click to expand...

Isn't that how things are supposed to work?

Seems like a fair result.
 
PhDeac said:
So how does that get changed?
Click to expand...

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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top