I suspect the OB will be wildly divided over this:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/03/us/oregon-wildlife-refuge-protest/index.html

If the Hammonds really did commit the arson (which sounds very likely that they did, and were also convicted of it) then the guys holding up the building are probably very misguided and in the wrong. But an easy solution to this is just to leave them be. It's an abandoned building, they will eventually grow tired when everyone ignores them.

Isn't that what happened during the Indian occupation of Alcatraz in the 70s. Let them make their point and then move on.

Hammonds dont want them there.

The building isn't abandoned, it's unoccupied because of the weekend.

Not real brave to decide to commit a breaking and entry during a long holiday weekend.

Guess it is good in a way too.

Do these people ever have jobs? It's always interesting a couple months later when you start learning about the ones that even the goof balls sent home for being to far out there, or oh crap you are a convicted felon.

quote:

---

The building isn't abandoned, it's unoccupied because of the weekend.

---

Aw gotcha

My guess is that Daddy's seed was a little pickled and this idiot is truly a chip off old block.

Oh, no doubt about it.

I don't understand how you serve a federal prison sentence and then have a prosecutor say the sentence wasn't long enough and get a judge to say you have to go back to jail to serve longer.

Didn't they resentence a child molester to a much longer sentence in Montana a couple years ago?

Yeah, bumped from 31 days to 10 years.

quote:

---

I don't understand how you serve a federal prison sentence and then have a prosecutor say the sentence wasn't long enough and get a judge to say you have to go back to jail to serve longer.

---

There is a pretty lengthy explanation of it on the politics board. It boils down to mandated minimum sentences. The first judge sentenced them to way less than the mandatory minimum.

quote:

---

My guess is that Daddy's seed was a little pickled and this idiot is truly a chip off old block.

---

Yup. Insanity/detachment from reality/persecution complex/ seems to run in that family.

I'm sure it's "legal" but it seems awfully close to double jeopardy. The federal prosecutors had their shot in court, it didn't go their way so now they are making another run at it.

quote:

---

I'm sure it's "legal" but it seems awfully close to double jeopardy. The federal prosecutors had their shot in court, it didn't go their way so now they are making another run at it.

---

No. The crime they were convicted of carried a mandatory minimum 5 year sentence. The judge thought that was too severe and gave them less than 5 years. His opinion doesn't matter when there is a mandatory minimum sentence. The minimum sentence he can give is the mandatory minimum. End of story. So the Feds appealed the sentence and won.

I don't agree with the minimum mandatory sentence in this case either. Unfortunately that is the law.

I'm not sure what you are saying "No" to. I stated an opinion, understand how mandatory minimums work and like you disagree with their application.

quote:

---

I'm not sure what you are saying "No" to. I stated an opinion, understand how mandatory minimums work and like you disagree with their application.

---

quote:

---

The federal prosecutors had their shot in court, it didn't go their way so now they are making another run at it.

---

I am saying "No" to your opinion (second quote above) that somehow the prosecutors had their shot in court, didn't get their way and are taking another run at it.

The prosecutors got their way. They got a conviction. The judge didn't follow the law. The appeals court ordered the judge to follow the law.

quote:

---

I want to emphasis that the American people are wondering why they can't seem to get ahead or why everything is costing more and you are getting less, and that is because the federal government is taking and using the land and resources," Bundy said.

---

Are they? Or is it just the stupid ones that hope they will get ahead in life and don't have the work ethic? I bet I know which.

These people are idiots.

I'd argue what they wanted from jump street was the full sentence for what seems a dubious charge. It's unfortunate that what is legal is not necessarily synonymous with justice. The judge clearly tried to be just, too bad the prosecutors were not.

quote:

---

I'd argue what they wanted from jump street was the full sentence for what seems a dubious charge. It's unfortunate that what is legal is not necessarily synonymous with justice. The judge clearly tried to be just, too bad the prosecutors were not.

---

I am sure "the full sentence" is much more than 5 years.

This case highlights the nonsense that are minimum sentence laws. Like most laws, they were passed to right perceived wrongs. I am an old so I remember the hubbub about 20 to 30 years ago about the limp wristed, panty waste, bleeding heart judges that let criminals off with very light sentences. Add in the war on drugs nonsense where the belief was that all it would take to reduce drug use was to make sure drug dealers and users were sent up the river for long sentences and voila! A movement to set minimum sentences was born. As is usual in American politics, if anything is worth doing, then it is worth overdoing! So here we are. Five years for a brush fire.

Or ten years for selling some crack. Same sheety logic.

Agreed

They were doing a controlled burn on their land and set 160 acres of land owned by the people (****tard federal government), but it is arson and carries whatever minimum sentence. This is out in the middle of No Where and I am sure no one else cares but some lawyers and judges.

I hope they make Obama look like the fool that he is for not putting a stop to this nonsense.

The BLM is one of the most corrupt organization in our gov so if this makes them look bad again then well **** em

quote:

---

The BLM is one of the most corrupt organization in our gov so if this makes them look bad again then well **** em

---

quote:

---

They were doing a controlled burn on their land and set 160 acres of land owned by the people (****tard federal government), but it is arson and carries whatever minimum sentence. This is out in the middle of No Where and I am sure no one else cares but some lawyers and judges.

I hope they make Obama look like the fool that he is for not putting a stop to this nonsense.

---

If they were really doing a controlled burn and it got away then the sentence is just ******ed. Hell, we have guys on our local Corps area that regularly let their prescribed burns go all the way to the river (through a good swath of public ground).

If however, as members of their own family testified to, they set the burn to cover up a large poaching operation then I have 0 sympathy for them.

...either way, this seems to be two separate incidents. 1) the burned ground; 2) an unassociated group of whack-a-dos seeing an opportunity to be Billy Bad Asses and use the arson situation to "take" a government building by doing what whack-a-dos do.

The family member was 13 at the time and has mental issues per some sources.

The second fire was them lighting back fires to protect their property from a large forest fire.

I'm sure there is a metric crap load of back story.

BLM probably had designs on their land and wanted to limit grazing rights so leaned on them. The family fought back but poorly it would seem and got rolled by the system.

If they get the waivers or if they are denied and their land is burned then the BLM gets rolled in said disputes.

There is more to this story than what main stream media has shown. This is about the BLM in that area bullying private land owners since the 70s. More specifically its the BLM holding a grudge and abusing power against the few people that have stood up against them.

what would setting a fire do to cover up poaching? Any bones would not be destroyed by fire more than likely burning the vegetation would make bones and tracks more visible. There is just nothing that a bush fire could do to help cover up a poaching operation.

If any thing they could be convicted of negligence for the fires. But terrorism? Give me a f'n break.

I thought the issue with their papa was use of federal land for grazing leases, and papa Bundy refusing to pay said lease fees to the tune of $1 million in arrears.

Papa Bundy may consider himself the owner of his federal grazing areas, but the law does not recognize him as such, so I don't think that I would consider the issue to be one of the federal govt. bullying a private landowner about this private land. The federal govt. may be bullying him about public land, but I don't see how it can be legally characterized as private land.

Paging marcel ledbetter:

Marcel, you live in eastern Oregon, and seem to be connected to ranching, correct? What is your opinion of what is going on?

quote:

---

I thought the issue with their papa was use of federal land for grazing leases, and papa Bundy refusing to pay said lease fees to the tune of $1 million in arrears.

Papa Bundy may consider himself the owner of his federal grazing areas, but the law does not recognize him as such, so I don't think that I would consider the issue to be one of the federal govt. bullying a private landowner about this private land. The federal govt. may be bullying him about public land, but I don't see how it can be legally characterized as private land.

---

Take a step back and actually educate yourself in what we are discussing. This is not about the Bundy situation in Nevada. This is a different situation/ different ranching family in Oregon. The Bundy sons are simply supporting this father and son being jailed under bogus charges.