DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Why aren’t we calling the Oregon occupiers ‘terrorists?’

There's a plethora of reasons why they would be buyin up land.

Some good, some bad, some conspiracy.

I say we have Prez Obama negotiate with these guys like he did with Iran.
They will go home richer than their wildest dreams.

Ok I'm not going to list my reasons..some of it is probably conspiracy for me but..when I saw how much they arent just buying but just flat out taking it over...So could you just appease this old man and tell me why you think its happening and at the rate its happening..Mr. Swish

Why shouldn't the two guys be in jail? They accidentally set federal land on fire. Just because something is an accident doesn't mean it should be legal.

I'm sorry CHS...I didnt see where I said this??

Sorry forgot the j/c

Their sentence was reduced by a judge from 5 years to 3 months and 1 year for father and son respectively. After they served their sentences, a federal judge reapplied the 5 years, minus time served. They already served their sentences. That's double jeopardy.

Well, that's not true. They were let go because the judge found mandatory minimums to be against the constitution (He found it to be cruel and unusual punishment), but was later overturned by another judge. It's not double jeopardy.

Thank you! Finally someone is making the correction! From what I gleaned around the net, these guys intentionally set to a hundred or so acres to cover up evidence of poaching. (Good thing Manziel didn't go this far to hide his video!)

Anyway, the conviction was supposed to carry a minimum 5yr sentence, the judge ignored the sentencing guidelines, they obviously were sentenced to less, and served their sentences. Someone somewhere along the line brought it up to a higher authority, who reviewed the case and said they had to serve the 5 yrs.

Now I don't agree that they should have to go back to jail, but I think it's also important that if you are going to argue against them going to jail, you have to be using the correct argument. The additional jail time is NOT because they have been charged again, so no, it is not actually double jeopardy. The only real Constitutional argument in their defense is that the punishment is excessive, especially in light of the amount of time that has past.

Details matter.

As for why they aren't being called terrorists... I've seen it all over the place on social media... police, conservative, libertarian sites are fairly split about these guys.

I personally don't trust these yahoos. Most of them are closet anarchists hiding behind the label of Liberty. These guys copy and paste parts of the Constitution to justify their positions, yet not a single one of them actually talks about or has plans to remove the current gov't with a Constitution based gov't we were founded on.

So they accidentally set fire to federal land in an attempt to destroy evidence of poaching? Possibly? Throw away the key if so.

If the poaching is true, I bet environmentalists would be calling for just that if they had killed a couple endangered turtles.

I'm generally not a fan of mandatory minimum sentencing. Even if these guys did kill an extra deer or two, and torched about a 100 acres.. 5yrs IMO is excessive. Problem is, without mandatory minimums you sometimes end up with repeat child rapists getting electronic home monitoring

Who knows?

The link someone put up describes things fairly well.

The deer poaching is/was an accusation.

The "arson" thing amounts to there was a lightning strike on fed. property, starting a fire. The father and son apparently lit a fire on their property - a "back fire", to prevent the big fire from burning all the grazing feed of their cattle. The "back fire" they lit went on to federal ground.

Who knows what's going on.

I will say this though - if the time the judge gave them was served - and it was - why, now, is a different judge saying "nope, not good enough."

I understand minimum sentences, but shouldn't someone, somewhere, have brought this up long ago? Like, when they were sentenced?

Take into consideration how the Fish and Wild life department have treated them even though they had legal water rights.

Take into consideration the BLM harassing them.

Who knows what's going on.

The militia taking over some podunk little building is an attention grabber - and it certainly seems wrong. But, it's getting attention.

My understanding is the fires they lit burned about 140 acres. The fire lightning started burned thousands of acres.

Back fires is a normally accepted practice when dealing with forest fires. Not that these 2 had the authority to do so.

Who knows what's going on, other than these 2 served the sentence they were given by the judge, and later, after having served, a different judge said "nope, not enough". That couldn't have been figured out earlier?

come Arch, i like some of your arguments, but when you try to compare something intentionally done with natural things like lighting strikes, it doesn't hold water.

Does anyone know if they were found guilty or plead guilty?

If they were found guilty and appealed the ruling, they would still have to start serving the sentence. The danger in appealing is that if that appellate judge still finds you guilty, they can impose a harsher penalty if they see fit. It could be wholly possible these guys would still have their cases under appeal when they finished their initial sentence. And if it took 4 years for the appeals process to complete...

I'll have to do some more digging on the legal timeline

some could be environmental concerns, wildlife concerns. wildlife i'll admit is a good reason, as poaching is a serious problem.

Back fires are legit.

Now, it appears the back fires they lit burned about 140 acres of fed. ground. Meanwhile, the lightning strike burned....thousands? I think I read that.

On a slightly different topic - or tangent - we're so concerned with not having fires that we ignore the tinder nature makes, which leads to huge, out of control fires. But, I guess that's really not for this topic.

I will say, it does appear the fed. gov't. and the fish and wild life department kinda sorta were picking and choosing when it came to blocking the road to their house, when it came to fencing in the ground (water resource) the 2 had legal grounds to.


Look, I"m not on anyones side here. But I will say this: If I did something wrong, and served the sentence I was given, then a month later or 3 years later a court said "oops, wrong sentence, come back to prison", I'd be a little bothered. You wouldn't?

no, basically what you're doing is dismissing what we do intentionally because of what happens randomly in nature.

that's flawed.

i understand what fires do. i know people do it for weed control and other things agriculture.

but if they only did it to cover up poaching, then thats a problem.

The judge said he wasn't going to rule a mandatory minimum and the case took awhile to get to it's appropriate court. The courts do have other cases.

After reading up on this:

It's a shame we have mandatory minimums. The second fire is not his fault. The first is, but what screwed it up, was his poaching. He got snitched on by his own family member that he was illegally poaching deer. He knew that the land was going to be set ablaze soon and used the fire to cover up his poaching. Again, it's a shame that we have mandatory minimums.

I think the poaching thing may have been made up? I don't know. No one knows. It's possible that was a rumor started to get them in trouble?

Regardless, they weren't sentenced for poaching.

And anyways, how dumb would they be if they killed deer in order to eat them, but then decided to burn the carcasses to hide it?

And, how dumb would they have to be to slaughter a herd of deer (IF they did) and think they could burn the carcasses?

I think it's just an allegation. Who knows. They weren't sentenced for poaching though, so none of it matters. Had they killed a bunch of deer and tried to burn them, there'd be bones the fed's would've found.

Do you have a link to that? I'd like to read it. Again, I have no pony in this show. Are you talking about the kid that was 14 or so, at the time, but testified after 11 years, after he had been established as having mental problems for years before he testified?

His family member, who was with him, said they poached deer on Federal land that day. This family member said this under oath. They took the deer and burned evidence of hunting.

Not doubting you, just would like a link.

Judge Hogen dismissed testimony from a disgruntled grandson who testified that the 2001 fire endangered his life and that of local hunters, saying the boy was very young and referencing a feud that may have influenced the testimony.

Apparently it got thrown out. I withdraw.

http://www.tsln.com/news/18837869-113/where-theres-smoke

This is probably the best article I read on this issue. Very pro Hammond, but it's not entirely his fault. I think the macro vs. micro handling of natural wildlife reserves (which I think are amazing things for multiple reasons).

Are these people bent on killing as many people as possible? If not, they arent terrorists.

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016...ly-persecution/

Just posting my link from earlier again. This is a 100+ year land grab by the federal government. The family that's constantly battling the government over their land didn't want the Bundy's involved. The feds have been pushing people off property in this area since Teddy Roosevelt was in office.

I see we still ha people who don't know the definition of terrorism.

So let me ask you something.

If you constantly disregard liberal media, why should I as a liberal take your post seriously?

Did you read it?

That's my definition. People still don't call school shooters terrorists which is wrong.

But in this country, as a matter of terminology, people are usually referring to radical Islam.

However, it is your right to whine about it however much you want.

Not whining.

Just stating that your wrong.

The fact is terrorism doesn't have to involve killing anybody.

You don't have to kill in order to invoke terror.

But it's your right to be ignorant and make up terminology. God bless America.

Yes, as I'm not one to dismiss material just because it might come from a right or left source.

I understand that I'm one of few, if not the only one who practices that, but whatever.

I'm sure if BLM decided to occupy a Walmart, you would spin your racist support of them. And they couldn't possibly ever be terrorists.

What's funny is you can't find one post where I fully support the BLM movement.

But here's what you can find:

Me explaining to Ted the BLM overall message.

Me saying that their rioting and terms they use in protest are terrible and doesn't help.

And that what they did to Bernie sanders was stupid and disrespectful.

But it's your right to make up stuff because you got called out talking out the side of your neck.

God bless America.

Also, the fact that you're hoping the BLM does something that way you can go "see!! See!! The BLM movement are terrorist too" shows you're a pretty low person, and now tell me what you think about blacks and their views on social injustice overall.

But hey, spin spin spin to take attention off the topic at hand.

Also, 40 liking your post tells me he's as low as you are.

But I already knew that, so it isn't a surprise.

That is no way to speak to Lurker, son.

When did I talk out the side of my neck? It's true. In this country the general population typically refers to terrorists when it involves radical Islam. Even Obama drags his feet labeling anything as a terrorist unless it involves radical Islam.

I get that you don't like it, but it doesn't change anything.

The country also still thinks French fries come from France.

The country also didn't know Georgia was a country and not just a state.

Hell, a bunch of people still think Jesus is white.

What does that have to do with what the facts are? Are you saying public opinion override what the legal definition is?

Man, you can't take being wrong gracefully, can you?

Well, they don't occupy a Walmart with guns and say they weren't going anywhere. But yaknow, those are just really semantics.