Armed terrorists occupy federal building - won't leave until their demands are met

[Jose Fly]

Or let the Federal Government confiscate the land and reap the profits from it?

?????? What are you talking about?

 

[glorydaz]

Good article, as is one that doc posted a couple pages up. The trouble is what Jose says in a post a couple down and what you said in a previous page. The Hammonds might have a legitimate case here but when a bunch of guys with guns show up the focus moves off the Hammonds and their cause and onto the 'militias'. If Bundy is really trying to help the Hammonds he's an idiot.

I think he's using the Hammonds to bring attention to something he believes in strongly, but having an armed militia will only mean a step closer to the government taking away our guns.

 

[Nick M]

So how many people have been murdered or wounded by these armed terrorists in this standoff?

 

[Nazaroo]

So how many people have been murdered or wounded by these armed terrorists in this standoff?

Only one victim has been murdered so far: the truth.

 

[patrick jane]

IOW, they're demanding that you and I (the taxpayers) give huge swaths of land to them and their buddies for free, so they can profit from it.

The land belonged to the ranchers to begin with - your arguments are foolish, get the real story.

 

[Jose Fly]

What specific land are you talking about?

 

[bybee]

What specific land are you talking about?

The long standing tradition of "open range" comes to mind.
Are you aware of how much land the federal government controls?
And on which they place restrictions governing access by citizens?

 

[Jose Fly]

The long standing tradition of "open range" comes to mind.
Are you aware of how much land the federal government controls?
And on which they place restrictions governing access by citizens?

I live out west, and have lived in E. Oregon, so I'm more than familiar with the situation. Now, how about answering the question? What specific land do you think the ranchers, miners, etc., have a right to get for free?

 

[Jose Fly]

Remember yesterday when Bundy said that if the locals didn't want them there, they would leave?


Militants' occupation stirs up fear in small rural community

Residents complain openly about those responsible. Anti-militant signs have sprung up around town, and many agree with Harney County Sheriff David Ward that the militants should go home.

"It's destroying our community," said Lola Johnson, 36, an employee at a local discount store. "For the most part, no one wants them here. ... People understand the reasons they're doing it, but they don't like the way they're doing it."

Think they'll leave now?

 

[Granite]

The land belonged to the ranchers to begin with - your arguments are foolish, get the real story.

Funny how the actual original landowners never really get mentioned at all.

 

[kmoney]

Bundy compared himself to Rosa Parks. lain:

 

[Granite]

Bundy compared himself to Rosa Parks. lain:

I want this whole freakish sick scofflaw pack of Mormons to just. Go. Away.

 

[ok doser]

I want this whole freakish sick scofflaw pack of Mormons to just. Go. Away.

put. Them. On. Ignore. :idunno:

 

[kmoney]

I don't think they do. When they were first charged with arson on federal property, they were told by the prosecutor that a conviction of that crime carries a mandatory 5 year minimum sentence, and were offered a plea bargain to lesser crimes, thereby avoiding the 5 year mandatory minimum. They refused and elected to go for a jury trial, where they were subsequently convicted of arson on federal property. Now they're crying because they're going to prison for 5 years.

Where are you getting that? I've read that they did take a plea.

At trial, the jury found the Hammonds guilty of maliciously setting fire to public property worth less than $1,000, acquitted them of other charges, and deadlocked on the government’s conspiracy claims. While the jury continued to deliberate, the Hammonds and the prosecution reached a plea agreement in which the Hammonds agreed to waive their appeal rights and accept the jury’s verdict. It was their understanding that the plea agreement would end the case.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/429214/oregon-rancher-protests-civil-disobedience-justified

The two men were sentenced to prison in 2012. Steven served eleven months and Dwight three.

The men were charged with nine counts, including conspiracy, using aerial surveillance of sites they intended to burn, and burned, attempting to destroy vehicles and other property with fire, and more. Dwight and Steve were found guilty of two counts – the two fires they readily admitted to starting on their own property.

In order to draw the original court case to a close, the two men, in a plea deal, agreed that they would not appeal the 2012 sentence.

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

Do you have a link about the plea deal they rejected?

If they'd just owned up to what they'd done and taken responsibility, they'd be free men today and none of us would ever know anything about them.

What do you mean by owning up? They've admitted to starting the fires, but not for the reasons the gov't alleges. And they served their time and weren't making anything of it. It's the gov't that went after them again.

The Department of Justice news release said arson on federal land carries a five-year mandatory minimum sentence. Judge Michael Hogan, however, did not give the two men the minimum sentence called for under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, saying it would have been “grossly disproportionate” to the crime. He added that a longer sentence would not meet any idea he has of justice and that he didn’t believe congress intended that act to be applied in cases like the Hammond one. A longer sentence than the few months he gave them would “shock his conscience” he said.

The Department of Justice appealed for a full sentence.

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

I agree with Judge Hogan. You can hardly say that a terrorism law applies to what the Hammonds did, even if the poaching part of the govt's story is true.

 

[Jose Fly]

Where are you getting that? I've read that they did take a plea.

Do you have a link about the plea deal they rejected?

It's from the US Attorney who prosecuted the case. You can read his statement HERE. It states: "The charges came after the Hammonds rejected an offer to settle the case by pleading guilty to lesser charges and sentences."

So they were offered a chance to plead guilty to lesser charges that didn't carry 5-year mandatory minimum sentences, refused, and elected for a jury trial.

IMO they have to accept the consequences of that decision.

What do you mean by owning up? They've admitted to starting the fires, but not for the reasons the gov't alleges.

It looks to me like they were hoping a jury would acquit them. Why else reject the plea deal and gamble with the possibility of 5 years in federal prison?

And they served their time and weren't making anything of it. It's the gov't that went after them again.

Again, the facts are important here. They knew arson on federal property carried a 5 year minimum and were offered a plea deal to avoid that. They rejected the offer and chose to gamble on a jury trial. They lost and were convicted of arson on federal property. But the judge went against the law and sentenced them to less than the mandatory minimum. So the US attorney appealed and won. The 9th Circuit Court noted that mandatory minimum sentences "are not suggestions" but are mandatory, and sentenced the Hammonds to go back to prison and serve the mandatory minimum.

Do you think the US attorney should have ignored the law?

I agree with Judge Hogan. You can hardly say that a terrorism law applies to what the Hammonds did, even if the poaching part of the govt's story is true.

The poaching didn't have anything to do with their crime being prosecuted under that law. That law specifically addresses arson on federal property. This case fits that law.

 

[kmoney]

It's from the US Attorney who prosecuted the case. You can read his statement HERE. It states: "The charges came after the Hammonds rejected an offer to settle the case by pleading guilty to lesser charges and sentences."

So they were offered a chance to plead guilty to lesser charges that didn't carry 5-year mandatory minimum sentences, refused, and elected for a jury trial.

ok, thanks. Then I guess they rejected an initial plea deal and accepted another one.

IMO they have to accept the consequences of that decision.

They did, and are.

It looks to me like they were hoping a jury would acquit them. Why else reject the plea deal and gamble with the possibility of 5 years in federal prison?

Maybe. :idunno:

Again, the facts are important here. They knew arson on federal property carried a 5 year minimum and were offered a plea deal to avoid that. They rejected the offer and chose to gamble on a jury trial. They lost and were convicted of arson on federal property. But the judge went against the law and sentenced them to less than the mandatory minimum. So the US attorney appealed and won. The 9th Circuit Court noted that mandatory minimum sentences "are not suggestions" but are mandatory, and sentenced the Hammonds to go back to prison and serve the mandatory minimum.

Do you think the US attorney should have ignored the law?

I think there are two sides. You have the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. I think the original sentence was about the spirit of the law and I support that. If the 5 year mandatory is based on terrorism, you can't rationally say the Hammonds are terrorists.

The poaching didn't have anything to do with their crime being prosecuted under that law. That law specifically addresses arson on federal property. This case fits that law.

I brought up the poaching to make it worst case. If the poaching part is true then a charge of arson makes sense, still no terrorism. If the poaching part is not true then arson isn't even valid.

 

[Jose Fly]

They did, and are.

Given the rallies in the town and some of the rhetoric, I don't get the impression that the Hammonds showed up for jail the other day out of owning up to their decision to gamble on a jury trial, but instead did so out of fear of additional time.

I think there are two sides. You have the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. I think the original sentence was about the spirit of the law and I support that. If the 5 year mandatory is based on terrorism, you can't rationally say the Hammonds are terrorists.

The law is actually pretty clear, and specifically and deliberately covers arson on federal property, and mandates a minimum of 5 years in federal prison. It's not vague or ambiguous.

Now, whether they should have been charged with that is a moot point, since they were given the opportunity to plead guilty to something else but declined. They chose to be tried under this law and lost.

I brought up the poaching to make it worst case. If the poaching part is true then a charge of arson makes sense, still no terrorism. If the poaching part is not true then arson isn't even valid.

I don't understand your point. You do understand that you can commit arson without poaching, right? If the Hammonds just walked on to the refuge and lit a building on fire, that would still be arson even though they didn't poach any wildlife.

Also, the "terrorism" label just comes from the title of the law they were prosecuted under. The prosecutor never referred to the Hammonds as terrorists or anything like that. But the actual law (CLICK HERE) specifically covers this case, as you can see...

(1) Whoever maliciously damages or destroys, or attempts to damage or destroy, by means of fire or an explosive, any building, vehicle, or other personal or real property in whole or in part owned or possessed by, or leased to, the United States, or any department or agency thereof, or any institution or organization receiving Federal financial assistance, shall be imprisoned for not less than 5 years and not more than 20 years, fined under this title, or both.​

That's exactly what they did...they maliciously used fire to destroy federal property. There were independent eyewitnesses and their own relative testified against them. So when the US attorney got this case, this was exactly the law that applied. But, he offered the Hammonds a way out of this and they refused. Now they're in federal prison for 4 years (they'd already served 1).

Seems pretty clear-cut.

Also, it's worth noting that the US attorney could have requested that the Hammonds serve a 5 year sentence for each of the counts (there were two fires), but instead he agreed to recommend that the sentences be served concurrently (IOW, they just serve a single 5-year term). So when you look at the case as a whole, I see lots of instances where the federal government actually did quite a bit to make things easier on the Hammonds.

 

[zoo22]

This article is from 2012 when the Hammonds first lost their jury trial. It's interesting reading some of the comments from locals who knew the Hammonds, what they have to say about them and the situation, long before the Bundy "God talks to me" freedom fighters stepped in:

Eastern Oregon father-son ranchers convicted of lighting fires on federal land

 

[Nazaroo]

"When the Law is an arse, it is often because an arse is the law." - anon.

 

[rexlunae]

Why is anyone surprised that the "social justice warriors" are siding with the government in this?

I take no position on the conflict between the Hammonds and the BLM. I simply don't know enough about it, and the versions of events are so radically divergent depending on who you ask that I can't come to a strong conclusion. But...

What I am sure of is that the proper venue to address this situation is a court of law. The Hammonds themselves have said that the Bundy-lead publicity stunt isn't representing them. And while it may well be that a five-year prison sentence is too harsh for what they did, what you're seeing here is a case of mandatory minimum sentencing. And yes, it produces egregious injustices. But, it is far from the worst case of it, and I find it curious that the Bundys pick this case and not any of the other worthy ones to protest. It leads me to suspect that this is more about getting back in the headlines than anything else.