OR - Militia members occupy federal building in Oregon after protest #1

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Apologies for the double post.

Sounds like the Hammonds' are distancing themselves from the Bundy's.

Would it have served enough purpose if the gov't. authorities had just fined the Hammonds' the cost of replanting and renewing the trees that burned during the 'controlled burn' , no matter what total arose ? Instead of having the taxpayers support them for 4 more years ?
Obviously it's more complicated than that... but just my .02 .

What about just seizing 130 acres of the Hammond's land in return for the destroyed federal land-- wouldn't that be a simpler solution ?
These "Patriots" sound like they are Timothy McVeigh wannabes.
:moo:
 
bluesneakers said:
How is this not treason?
Click to expand...

I thought treason was more for military usage. But I may be wrong.

Because a hate crime is defined as one thing. But in actuality. Every premeditated personal murder should be a hate crime. Jmo.
 
DexterMorgan said:
I thought treason was more for military usage. But I may be wrong.

Because a hate crime is defined as one thing. But in actuality. Every premeditated personal murder should be a hate crime. Jmo.
Click to expand...

I thought trying to overthrow or go to war with the government was treason.
 
bluesneakers said:
I thought trying to overthrow or go to war with the government was treason.
Click to expand...

You are probably definitely right. So I am not sure why the government are waiting to arrest gun toting protesters that took over a temporary vacant federal building.

Btw. If Bundy needs his sons help to run the ranch. Why is his son asking for a long fed incarceration.

Is his son that dumb. Jmo
 
At this point, having read more about these people, I wouldn't call it a stretch to designate the Bundy brahs, Ryan Payne, Ritzhaimer (sp?), etc. a threat to national security.

Invading federal lands, threatening violence against federal agents, admitting they are prepared to die in a shoot out for what they believe...We are ALL thinking it.

I totally understand the Feds want to bring this to a peaceful end. Of course they (and we) don't want anyone hurt or killed. But by the gods, if these clowns don't end up with very, very long prison sentences I will be livid.
 
I think that sort of government response is what got the Bundy's all wound up to begin with. They had not paid their grazing allotment fees for years, so some land and cattle were taken. Kind of like if I don't pay my mortgage, the bank can take my house.

Anyway, that solution was met with an armed standoff in March or April of 2014.

So, a reasonable solution to you and me is not met with acceptance by some mindsets.

That said, the Hammonds do not appear to be condoning the behavior of the Bundy faction, even though Bundy claims support for the Hammonds.

I don't know as much about the Hammonds, but perhaps they would have been more reasonable to a different type of restitution. I do think the deliberately set fire may have spurred a more harsh response, however.

I have no links. This is all just to the best of my recollection- please feel free to correct any factual mistakes, and the rest is simply MOO.



LietKynes said:
Apologies for the double post.

Sounds like the Hammonds' are distancing themselves from the Bundy's.

Would it have served enough purpose if the gov't. authorities had just fined the Hammonds' the cost of replanting and renewing the trees that burned during the 'controlled burn' , no matter what total arose ? Instead of having the taxpayers support them for 4 more years ?
Obviously it's more complicated than that... but just my .02 .

What about just seizing 130 acres of the Hammond's land in return for the destroyed federal land-- wouldn't that be a simpler solution ?
These "Patriots" sound like they are Timothy McVeigh wannabes.
:moo:
Click to expand...
 
DexterMorgan said:
You are probably definitely right. So I am not sure why the government are waiting out gun toting protesters that took over a temporary vacant federal building.
Click to expand...

Because they do not want to be seen as bullies persecuting people, as in what happened at Waco twenty years ago.

I was struck by the video I saw on TV of one of the occupiers, sitting in his car dictating a parting message to his family, assuming he would die in his fight against the government. I had to wonder how many children he has and if he thinks losing his life on this fool's errand is really worth it?
 
A little more from the S.C Decision:

Dusty feared Steven and kept the arson secret for years.
Id. at 212. Steven also called BLM a few hours after
the fire was started, falsely reporting that he planned
to do a prescribed burn confined to his own land. Id.
at 234-235; Gov’t C.A. Br. 9. When later questioned
by BLM investigators, petitioners denied being involved
in the fire. C.A. E.R. 298-301, 331, 336-338.1
c. The August 2006 fires. On August 22, 2006,
BLM firefighters were conducting fire-suppression
operations on federal land in an effort to prevent the
spread of a nearby wildfire. C.A. E.R. 615, 623, 772-
773, 795-797, 800-804. A firefighter observed three
spot fires lined up in a row, which was “not characteristic
of what a wildfire would do.” Id. at 511-512; see
id. at 481, 487, 491-492. Those fires spread and combined
to cover an acre of land. Id. at 509. Steven
drove up and admitted that he started the fires in
order to provide a buffer to protect his property from
the wildfire. Id. at 663-664, 813; see Pet. App. 3. A
BLM supervisor, Lance Okeson, informed Steven that
he was prohibited from setting fires on federal land
and that Stevens’ actions had endangered firefighters.
C.A. E.R. 664-665. Steven “got upset” and told Okeson
that BLM “better just clear out.” Id. at 665.
Click to expand...


http://www.justice.gov/sites/defaul...02/12/hammond-cert2-br_in_opp-osg_aay_v2b.pdf
 
The next morning, two firefighters again observed
Steven driving on a road on federal land. C.A. E.R.
523, 528-532. The firefighters proceeded in the direction
from which Steven had driven and encountered
several suspicious fires. Id. at 533-538. Later that
day, Okeson observed Dwight in the same area walking
away from a freshly lit fire. Id. at 670-672. When
Dwight reached the road, the men locked eyes, and
Dwight fled on foot. Id. at 672-673. Okeson laid
chase; caught up to Dwight; and told Dwight that he
knew that Dwight had lit the fire, that people were
“all over this mountain,” and that Dwight was “going
to get someone killed,” id. at 678. See id. at 674-679.
Dwight shrugged and initially refused to respond. Id.
at 679-680. After Okeson attempted to contact a BLM
law-enforcement officer on his radio and another BLM
employee (Joe Glascock) arrived, Dwight told Okeson
that he “d[id]n’t have to” make the call and to come
that evening to petitioners’ ranch to “work this out.”
Id. at 680, 682-683. By the time Okeson and Glascock
returned to the road, the fire had spread such that the
men were surrounded by fires on both sides of the
road. Id. at 685. Okeson radioed a fire-suppression
aircraft to circle above for safety, while he tried to
preserve evidence of the arson and while Glascock,
who was concerned for Dwight’s safety, left on his
four-wheeler to attempt to locate Dwight. Id. at 684-
687, 823-824. Both men were forced to flee to safety.
Id. at 687, 824-825.
The next day, Glascock met with Steven and discussed
the fires. C.A. E.R. 831-833. When Glascock
told Steven that his father (Dwight) had been caught
coming from the fire, Steven stated that petitioners
had “been doing this a long time” and that Glascock
“need[ed] to do what [he] c[ould] to make this go
away.” Id. at 833. Steven threatened to frame Glascock
if BLM did not drop the issue, warning Glascock
that “t could be an ugly situation” and that “if I go
down, you’re going down with me * * * because
you started those fires and not me.”
Click to expand...


http://www.justice.gov/sites/defaul...02/12/hammond-cert2-br_in_opp-osg_aay_v2b.pdf
 
Some interesting tidbits:

The occupation: Some time after the rally, key militia leaders broke off and drove across the high desert basin south of Burns to the wildlife refuge. They said they took over the refuge headquarters, which was unoccupied for the holiday weekend. They also have blocked the access road. Indications are that this has been planned for some time.
Click to expand...

Community reaction: Harney County residents are mad and concerned about the occupation. Militia members, including some of the occupiers, vowed in a community meeting with residents on Friday that they intended no violence. Burns-area schools will remain closed the entire week. They were scheduled to re-open Monday after the holiday break.
Click to expand...

http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-n..._continue_occupation_of.html#incart_big-photo

So, these guys don't really give a crap about the Hammonds or the community that they are disrupting. They just seized the excuse to carry out their little occupation.
 
Snick1946 said:
Because they do not want to be seen as bullies persecuting people, as in what happened at Waco twenty years ago.

I was struck by the video I saw on TV of one of the occupiers, sitting in his car dictating a parting message to his family, assuming he would die in his fight against the government. I had to wonder how many children he has and if he thinks losing his life on this fool's errand is really worth it?
Click to expand...

That's Jon Ritzheimer and I think he does have children.

He views this and all of his other outbursts o'outrage through his prism of a patriotic warrior, so I'd say that he does think (to some degree) that losing his life over this would be a just cause.

Media <self-snipped> with a martyr complex, but that's just my opinion.

Quite a collection of similar <self-snipped>s involved in this one. Going by some of their past tendencies ego-wars, in-fighting, and finger-pointing could surface in a brief amount of time.
 
Am I allowed to derail slightly? I hope the Mods don't mind?

I was still living in my home country when Ruby Ridge, OKC, and Waco happened. I don't remember any coverage of Ruby Ridge, tbh, but OKC and Waco were certainly covered - extensively - on the BBC.

OKC was shocking to us, as a nation, even though we were living under PIRA threats daily. Maybe that's why? That PIRA could inflict that level of death? Of course, this was after the Brighton bomb, but seeing the OKC bombing certainly made an impact n us.

We didn't understand why McVeigh did it. I still don't understand. Please remember that for all of us, the US was Happy Days, home of Coke, ideal. We just didn't get it. We had no idea it was related to Waco.

We saw Waco on our TV. We saw ATF agents murdered as they tried to get into the compound. We saw the fire start from the inside. We heard Koresh.

We - mostly - as a country, felt terribly sorry for the cluster it turned into, but we did not understand the whole federal vs individual argument behind it. I've lived here for 10 years and I still don't get it. From *my* perspective, watching Waco on the BBC, what I saw was people trying to rescue kids in mortal danger from a preacher who was abusing them, and willing to die rather than be sent to trial for rape and pedophilia. Same as Jim Jones.

I appreciate Americans may feel differently.

Sorry for going so far off topic, but if these a-holes think they are another Waco or Ruby Ridge, I sincerely hope they are mistaken and the Feds shut off all their utilities until they come out dirty, hungry, and defeated.

JMO as always.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 182 more.
Total: 434 (members: 183, guests: 251)

Online statistics

Members online
183
Guests online
251
Total visitors
434
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
608,888
Messages
18,247,114
Members
234,484
Latest member
ScruffyFox
Back
Top