Pages: 1 … 3 4 5 6 7

 

2016-01-06 18:42:38
DesertFox-
The very model of a modern major general
+796|6966|United States of America

MajorSpittle wrote:

DesertFox- wrote:

How is the government doing a land grab of their own land? In doing reasearch, it seems like much of the land in question was acquired (read: stolen) directly from the Indians or became property of the federal government due to unpaid taxes or abandonement during the Depression era.
wat?  what land do you think is in question?
Oddly enough, you answered that later in your post, explaining to you how the government came to own all the land.

MajorSpittle wrote:

The feds don't need to own half of the land out west.  Give the shit to the states if it isn't being used by the fed.
I also don't know what part of National Wildlife Refuge you think means the land "isn't being used".
2016-01-06 18:50:55
MajorSpittle
Member
+7|3373|Oregun
you are confused.
2016-01-06 23:27:36
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,816|6388|eXtreme to the maX

MajorSpittle wrote:

This was the law applied against them:

(f)
(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.
Seems simple enough.

This was selective application of the law.
How?

A jury was brought in and just like people here heard they started a forest fire.  This automatically makes people think one thing, just like people on this forum.  I don't think any of you know what 6000 acres is or ranching practices.  Many farmers and ranchers have fires escape their property.  Many farmers and ranchers are part of the local volunteer fire departments like my whole family was and most of the neighbors.  Burning fire breaks and burning off land to put phosphorus back in the ground and control invasive species is a common practice and good for the land.
You can tell what the jury was thinking?

Maybe the jury looked at the information and found them guilty on that. Rehearsing the Hammonds side again is irrelevant.
If they have a beef then its with the jury or their lawyer.

Now what happens when a Hunter starts a camp fire on BLM land?  That is a intentional fire that burns federal property.  OMG, another terrorist.
They say it was an accident -not malicious - and let the jury decide?
The law is clear, if its an accident its not a crime, if it is malicious then it is.

There was evidence it was deliberate and not an accident, the jury went with this, there's nothing to talk about really.
If you'd rather people were tried by sticking their hand in a bag of snakes then just say so.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2016-01-06 23:30:06)

Fuck Israel
2016-01-07 09:31:50
MajorSpittle
Member
+7|3373|Oregun
Camp fires are intentional and damage property.

Last edited by MajorSpittle (2016-01-07 09:32:10)

2016-01-07 09:43:07
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,981|6914|949

Campfires are allowed in designated areas or in non-designated areas if it's an emergency.  But that has nothing to do with your argument.  What is your argument?  Is it that the Federal Government charged the Hammonds with a law meant to combat terrorism?  Or are you arguing the Hammonds knew what they were doing in starting the fire?  Or both, and that is part of the injustice?
2016-01-07 13:49:24
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6998

MajorSpittle wrote:

Camp fires are intentional and damage property.
jesus fuck you are thick. guess you really don't understand what 'malicious intent' is.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
2016-01-08 16:35:47
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+644|4001
The protesters who took over a federal building in southeast Oregon did not accept the local sheriff's offer for safe passage out of the state.

"During this morning's press conference, the people on the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge made it clear that they have no intention of honoring the sheriff's request to leave," according to a statement posted Friday afternoon on the Harney County Sheriff's Office Facebook page. "Because of that, there are no planned meetings or calls at this time. However, the sheriff is keeping all options open."

Sheriff Dave Ward met Thursday on a snow-covered road with leaders of the group called Citizens for Constitutional Freedom, including chief spokesman Ammon Bundy. The meeting was recorded and posted on YouTube.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/08/us/oregon … index.html


zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Just start shooting each other in 720p HD please.
https://i.imgur.com/xsoGn9X.jpg
2016-01-12 09:13:04
MajorSpittle
Member
+7|3373|Oregun
Oh the malice with which these terrorists started their own land on fire.  Not to mention the malice with which they put out the fire the went off their property and burnt 139 acres of their lease land and 1 acre the second time.

The horrible damages the government incurred, oh wait there was no damages.

Yes, a now see the point you liberals make.  I feel so safe with the federal justice system hard at work protecting me from these acts instead of going after corruption on wallstreet, border security, and policing local law enforcement corruption.
2016-01-12 10:19:36
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,981|6914|949

Unfortunately malice (or the lack their of) plays no part in the court of law. 

You have a point regarding corruption and wall street and the lack of criminal prosecution by the federal government.  I think the Hammond's punishment was extremely heavy handed.  That doesn't make what those hicks are doing in Oregon any more right though.
2016-01-12 10:42:13
uziq
Member
+502|3734
malice is one of the major categories of intent; it's a substantial factor in the mens rea judgement of all serious crimes against the person, for instance. malice aforethought is the main criterion in establishing the difference between murder and manslaughter. malice or intention can divide a case between being arson and criminal negligence. purposefully setting fire to land, with a reasonable expectation that the fire could spread and cause damage to property / harm to others, is a fucking stupid offence. they deserved it.

Last edited by uziq (2016-01-12 10:42:39)

2016-01-12 10:57:19
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,981|6914|949

that's a valid point re: malice.  I was thinking more along the lines of "well we didn't mean to burn the federal land".  Just because the intent wasn't there doesn't mean they are in the clear.
2016-01-12 11:26:46
MajorSpittle
Member
+7|3373|Oregun

uziq wrote:

malice is one of the major categories of intent; it's a substantial factor in the mens rea judgement of all serious crimes against the person, for instance. malice aforethought is the main criterion in establishing the difference between murder and manslaughter. malice or intention can divide a case between being arson and criminal negligence. purposefully setting fire to land, with a reasonable expectation that the fire could spread and cause damage to property / harm to others, is a fucking stupid offence. they deserved it.
So they are terrorists and the fire was their act of terrorism?  They did it with intent to destroy/damage federal property?  Why did they put it out?

They were charged under a terrorism law.  How is it that people are so stupid as to not see what BS this was on face value.  Not arson, terrorism.  wtf was the jury instructed on this aspect, and wtf could have been going through their minds.  How did the Judge possibly run his courtroom to allow the prosecution to somehow get the jury to believe this was a terrorist act with malicious intent.  How could a terrrorism charge have not been thrown out for it having absolutely no standing in the court.  I could see an arson charge taking up court time and money, but how the hell does a judge let a terrorist charge turn his court into a damn circus.  It is like being charged for speeding while out on a jog, how can it not be thrown out of court at first challenge because there is no application of the law to any evidence/statements presented in the complaint. 

No, I am not a lawyer but obviously when an antiterrorism law is applied and upheld against citizens then the legal system has failed and is not fair.  If it can happen to them, then nobody is safe from the feds and the legal system.

The link below actually seems to spell out that there was no real damages and says nothing about intent to damage or it being a malicious act.  All it basically says is that arson is bad so fuck the Hammonds and don't bother with perspective when applying the law.

http://landrights.org/or/Hammond/Hammon … 7-2013.pdf
2016-01-12 11:36:53
uziq
Member
+502|3734

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

that's a valid point re: malice.  I was thinking more along the lines of "well we didn't mean to burn the federal land".  Just because the intent wasn't there doesn't mean they are in the clear.
definitely not in the clear but with most types of offences, there will be a category for 'intent' and one for 'negligence' or an equivalent.
2016-01-12 11:47:33
MajorSpittle
Member
+7|3373|Oregun

uziq wrote:

purposefully setting fire to land, with a reasonable expectation that the fire could spread and cause damage to property / harm to others, is a fucking stupid offence. they deserved it.
A back burn to stop a fire?  Are you serious.  Where was the "reasonable expectation of damage"?  They are out in the middle of nowhere.  They start fires on the land to control weeds and promote growth of grass. 

That is such a small minded statement by you.  No damage was done.  No danger or threat.  No terrorism.  No reasonable expectations.  No intent to cause harm/damages.  No malice.

Fire bad, convict them of a terrorist act!  Sorry, but this is why people protest this shit.  And all people care about is who is protesting and not the reasons for the protest.
2016-01-12 16:12:51
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6998

MajorSpittle wrote:

uziq wrote:

purposefully setting fire to land, with a reasonable expectation that the fire could spread and cause damage to property / harm to others, is a fucking stupid offence. they deserved it.
A back burn to stop a fire?  Are you serious.  Where was the "reasonable expectation of damage"?  They are out in the middle of nowhere.  They start fires on the land to control weeds and promote growth of grass. 

That is such a small minded statement by you.  No damage was done.  No danger or threat.  No terrorism.  No reasonable expectations.  No intent to cause harm/damages.  No malice.

Fire bad, convict them of a terrorist act!  Sorry, but this is why people protest this shit.  And all people care about is who is protesting and not the reasons for the protest.
I think you're focusing way more on the name of the act rather than the specific legislation.

What if they called it the 'dont damage government property act'.

There's a reason why they lost the trial. The jury believed they they started a fire in federal land with malicious intent. I'm sure there's a separate negligence equivalent that gets them jail time as well.

The intention is one of legal. Did the defendants believe that their activities would cause substantial damage? 'hurr i didn't know it'd burn a lot of acres judge' well too bad fuckstick.

Last edited by Cybargs (2016-01-12 16:14:14)

https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
2016-01-12 16:16:55
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+644|4001
There were campers in the forest at the time and one of the kids they sent to start the fire almost died in it.
https://i.imgur.com/xsoGn9X.jpg
2016-01-12 17:40:13
MajorSpittle
Member
+7|3373|Oregun
I believe there are already laws against damaging government property.  The law is for fighting terrorist, that is its purpose and why it was created. 

Show me anything that addresses how this law could be applied.  The judge that sentenced them even made statements that don't jive with applying that law to their actions.
2016-01-12 22:22:26
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6998

MajorSpittle wrote:

I believe there are already laws against damaging government property.  The law is for fighting terrorist, that is its purpose and why it was created. 

Show me anything that addresses how this law could be applied.  The judge that sentenced them even made statements that don't jive with applying that law to their actions.
And that judge erred in law on appeal. Trial judges can make mistakes. It's human. It doesn't matter the name of the legislation, the statute still applies.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
2016-01-12 23:32:29
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,816|6388|eXtreme to the maX

MajorSpittle wrote:

I believe there are already laws against damaging government property.  The law is for fighting terrorist, that is its purpose and why it was created.
I've read that part of the law, it says nothing about "fighting terrorists", it's part of the "don't fuck around with fire or explosives" law.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/844

Here's the "fighting terrorists" part
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text … apter-113B

Show me anything that addresses how this law could be applied.  The judge that sentenced them even made statements that don't jive with applying that law to their actions.
Laws are absolute, there is no guidance on applicability. Angry hillbillies and jihadists are equal under the law.

"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. "

There's the guidance and applicability - do the crime get the time - the only get out is if it was accidental, not malicious.

But I don't believe in government - It still exists, bad luck

But I think I should be able to do what I like and fuck the government - Nope

But guys, can't you see that we're white? -

But it was an accident LOL - These turkeys had been involved in a long-running feud with the govt, they set multiple fires on a day when setting any fire was prohibited risking the lives of other people, and they made statement to the effect that they were deliberate and malicious, and they'd done it before.
They were convicted by a jury, there is nothing more to discuss.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2016-01-13 02:39:35)

Fuck Israel
2016-01-13 04:52:31
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,816|6388|eXtreme to the maX
In the meantime, while a heavily armed gang has taken over a Federal building and holding Police at bay - and the Police are doing exactly nothing, a woman is dragged out of a hospital for 'trespassing' - apparently claiming to be sick and entering a hospital is trespassing - and promptly dies.

Fuck Israel
2016-01-13 04:52:38
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5640|London, England

Cybargs wrote:

MajorSpittle wrote:

uziq wrote:

purposefully setting fire to land, with a reasonable expectation that the fire could spread and cause damage to property / harm to others, is a fucking stupid offence. they deserved it.
A back burn to stop a fire?  Are you serious.  Where was the "reasonable expectation of damage"?  They are out in the middle of nowhere.  They start fires on the land to control weeds and promote growth of grass. 

That is such a small minded statement by you.  No damage was done.  No danger or threat.  No terrorism.  No reasonable expectations.  No intent to cause harm/damages.  No malice.

Fire bad, convict them of a terrorist act!  Sorry, but this is why people protest this shit.  And all people care about is who is protesting and not the reasons for the protest.
I think you're focusing way more on the name of the act rather than the specific legislation.

What if they called it the 'dont damage government property act'.

There's a reason why they lost the trial. The jury believed they they started a fire in federal land with malicious intent. I'm sure there's a separate negligence equivalent that gets them jail time as well.

The intention is one of legal. Did the defendants believe that their activities would cause substantial damage? 'hurr i didn't know it'd burn a lot of acres judge' well too bad fuckstick.
The legislation was enacted after the Oklahoma City bombing which was a legitimate act of domestic terror. This particular law should not have been used when the prosecuting team assembled their grab bag of charges.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2016-01-13 04:53:50
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,816|6388|eXtreme to the maX

Jay wrote:

The legislation was enacted after the Oklahoma City bombing which was a legitimate act of domestic terror. This particular law should not have been used when the prosecuting team assembled their grab bag of charges.
I think you used 'legitimate' wrong.
Fuck Israel
2016-01-13 04:55:11
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5640|London, England

Dilbert_X wrote:

Jay wrote:

The legislation was enacted after the Oklahoma City bombing which was a legitimate act of domestic terror. This particular law should not have been used when the prosecuting team assembled their grab bag of charges.
I think you used 'legitimate' wrong.
Should've been 'actual' in hindsight
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2016-01-13 05:54:42
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6998

Jay wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

MajorSpittle wrote:


A back burn to stop a fire?  Are you serious.  Where was the "reasonable expectation of damage"?  They are out in the middle of nowhere.  They start fires on the land to control weeds and promote growth of grass. 

That is such a small minded statement by you.  No damage was done.  No danger or threat.  No terrorism.  No reasonable expectations.  No intent to cause harm/damages.  No malice.

Fire bad, convict them of a terrorist act!  Sorry, but this is why people protest this shit.  And all people care about is who is protesting and not the reasons for the protest.
I think you're focusing way more on the name of the act rather than the specific legislation.

What if they called it the 'dont damage government property act'.

There's a reason why they lost the trial. The jury believed they they started a fire in federal land with malicious intent. I'm sure there's a separate negligence equivalent that gets them jail time as well.

The intention is one of legal. Did the defendants believe that their activities would cause substantial damage? 'hurr i didn't know it'd burn a lot of acres judge' well too bad fuckstick.
The legislation was enacted after the Oklahoma City bombing which was a legitimate act of domestic terror. This particular law should not have been used when the prosecuting team assembled their grab bag of charges.
...

The legislation is essentially an amendment to the US Code. It doesn't matter the name of the legislation, the specific section applies to the acts of yokel haram. It was the appropriate section to lay charges.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
2016-01-13 07:10:11
uziq
Member
+502|3734
complaining about the definition of 'terrorism' and the government indicting its own citizens with that category of offence in 2016...

how long ago was the patriot act now? lol.

 

Pages: 1 … 3 4 5 6 7

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard