Posted on 01/31/2016 9:23:41 AM PST by Sioux-san
There are several reasons why we have chosen not to dig into this specific aspect of this event, after posting the first three research articles. Here are the ones we are comfortable stating:
The freedom continuum has two diametrically opposing forces on either end. On one end, the left, if you travel outward from democracy to socialism to communism eventually you arrive at totalitarianism. The absolute power of government over the individual. The maximum amount of liberty lost.
On the oppositional end, the right, again if you travel from democracy to a constitutional republic and keep going, eventually you arrive at a place absent of any government. This is anarchy. This is law of the jungle, survival of the fittest. Mad Max type societal tribe formation.
Neither path, left nor right, is good when taken to its ultimate conclusion.
However, the freedom continuum is not linear.
(Excerpt) Read more at theconservativetreehouse.com ...
As the old white guys long ago said, our Constitutional Republic will only work as long as the people are morally good as defined by Christian principles and follow the law. How far away are we now from that? I agree with Jefferson: The government that governs least governs best. Only those laws that are truly needed to maintain order and Constitutional functions - get rid of the rest.
I agree with you on this 100%, but it is unlikely that our hopes will be realized. Our nation has turned away from God and it continues to accelerate in what history will (or would) view as another life cycle of a nation.
In the end people do themselves in due to their own folly when they are put in charge.
Based on the video, the officer to the left was not a shooter, but was using a taser. I say this for four reasons:
(1) He has the weapon in his left hand in a single handed grip, and I see no evidence of recoil in that left hand;
(2) He reaches with his right hand for his right hip while using the weapon in his left hand. This movement only makes sense if he is reaching for a pistol for the event that his less lethal weapon is ineffective;
(3) He would not have a safe shot. Police are not known as the best shots, and his line of fire would have exposed the entire roadblock to his fire; and
(4) It appears as if you can see this officer stripping (like in fly-fishing) wire from the taser as he walks around Lavoy.
I don't think anyone at the roadblock shot Finnicum. Going back to point (3) above, none of the police at the roadblock would have had a safe line of fire because of the position of the officer in the upper left.
The only shooter was likely the officer in the lower center as he was the only officer with a safe line of fire.
With this said, it seems that the officer in the center shot much earlier than the officer with the taser, and it seems likely that Lavoy was reacting to the impact of bullets when he went for his side.
Overall, this isn't open and shut and the video doesn't resolve doubt as to whether Lavoy was murdered or justifiably killed by the officers at the roadblock.
The other issue that needs to be raised is that the entire action was based on a trumped-up charge. In this case, the violated law was a 150 year old law that is broken by every protest. (i.e. it is hard to think of a scenario when a protest doesn't impede at least one postal worker; alternatively, there is no way that at least one SEC employee wasn't impeded or intimidated by OWS). The spotty and inconsistent enforcement of this law potentially raises due process concerns and shows that this arrest was merely a political arrest, likely because the MWR protesters did not align with the current regime's goals and beliefs.
The political nature of the arrest and the ridiculous nature of the charge supporting the arrest makes this, regardless of whether the police were justified in pulling the trigger, murder by the regime. (we haven't even touched on whether Lavoy would have been justified if he had shot the police based on two eyewitness statements that the FBI shot at the truck at the initial stop, and based on the fact that Ryan Bundy was, somehow, shot in the arm).
If we do not speak and refuse to comply with the edicts and policies of tyrants now, then tomorrow we will not be permitted to speak at all.
Our children will be made slaves, and worse.
But too many of our people are comfortable with tyranny, and lie to themselves that this tyranny we have grown accustomed to is not really tyranny and this is all necessary because Joe Sixpack cannot be trusted with liberty.
And no wonder. A people who no longer recognize sin, are a people who cannot recognize evil and tyranny either.
All of this just confirms my fear that Adams’ prophetic warning to Abigail has already been fulfilled on our watch - and stopping where this beast of Marxist/Fascist/Islamist tyranny will take us - is now impossible and inevitable.
So I will laugh at all the false bravado being spewed on the internet about men rising up with their guns and resisting tyrants when they finally push too far.
No they won’t. They lie to themselves.
They will do what we have witnessed here just discussing this issue and declare any resistance to tyranny as domestic terrorism, and applaud when those who do defy and resist the Federal Beast are eradicated.
History teaches when government begins using food as a weapon of compliance, blame is placed on everyone and anyone who does not comply, and then the roar of applause meets those who are punished and eliminated and everyone becomes afraid of their neighbor snitching on them and playing double agent for an extra ration.
That is where all of this goes, and most everyone lies to themselves and pretends that is not possible when it is happening right in front of their faces. It doesn’t matter that the people are armed, a climate of fear is already being set in cement and the few who dare are being made public examples, and the rest analyze why the Beast and it’s agents are justified enforcing tyranny.
This country is already toast. And everyone’s comfortable with it.
The Hammonds were convicted by a jury of their peers after a two week trial. That is a fact. There was a burn ban in place when they lit at least one of the fires. That is also a fact. Outside of that I think the sentence was harsh and I would hope that an exception could be made on their behalf, but they had their day in court and 12 people who heard the facts and evidence convicted them.
I live on acreage in wildfire country and homes/property have burned or been damaged near me from wildfires. I have helped my neighbors fight lightning induced fires on their properties with a shovel and my tractor. I burn only when burning is authorized so that I don’t endanger my neighbors or firefighters - I will not burn a brush pile when there is a burn ban in place, much less burn off my pasture to kill weeds (I use Milestone herbicide for that). I view my refusal to light a fire when it’s forbidden as simple courtesy to my neighbors and community - the fact that it is also the law is secondary to me.
I am guessing it’s the same in Oregon, but where I am at the local Fire Marshal and Fire District is the deciding authority on when the burn ban is in place - I believe BLM and the National Forest Service follow their lead or use the same criteria. Wildfires are serious business and cost millions of dollars to fight. My neighbor does not have the right to light a fire on his own property if there is a chance it could jump onto mine and burn my forest, home, and pasture or that of my neighbors.
I think you’ve covered this very well. One thing I would add is a nod to the major difference between a modern well trained soldier or police officer and the people they have to deal with. As a soldier you had to train your mind to stay in analytical mode under tremendous pressure. Soldiers can not afford to suddenly go into survival fight/flee mode. You have to stay focused.
At the first stop the driver of the van, who had previously vowed he would not go to jail, went into survival mode - he fled. When his flight was suddenly cut off he panicked, jumped from his van without waiting for instructions. He looks to me to still be in flight or fight mode. He is not capable of considering his odds in a possible future court case. It’s flee or fight/fight or flee. Once it is clear that all avenues of flight are cut off he becomes his most dangerous. Meanwhile, all the well trained officers, who have been briefed on this man and his prior statements, are braced for that instant when his survival instinct will turn to fight only. They didn’t desire it, but they expected it. They have to.
They had every reason to interpret his movement of his hand within centimeters of his gun as an attempt to fight.
Thanks for making my point.
Yep.
And I agree with you 100% on that!
I have been getting a lot of responses to my two posts today that I am dealing with, so I have not seen the video you posted. I will do so before the day ends. Once upon a time I lived out in your beautiful state, back in the early 80s. I would have happily stayed, but personal reasons took me back East. My brother works for the USFS and did work for the NPS. He has told me some of the issues that you discussed in your last post. This has been going on for a long time. Pre-Clinton I never gave it a thought. It seemed that the Federal Bureaucracies for the most part were not our avowed enemies like they seem to be now. Elected officials are paid shills, nothing new in that either except more than ever they are showing that they are the pawns of the Globalists/NWO team. I like my corruption to stay domestic. ;)
You speak wisely. I agree very much. I prefer too say no more. Stay free and if necessary hide in plain sight.
The Hammonds had already served (Dwight 3 months, Steven 12 months) for arson.
The arson charge stems from a back-fire the Hammonds set on their property to stop a lightening caused fire. The back-fire also burnt 127 acres of adjoining refuge land. Prior to starting the back-fire they called the fire department notifying them of their plans.
Five years later the government charged them with terrorism.
It wasn’t a “van”. It was a pickup with a shell.
There was no gun on LaVoy’s left side - visible or otherwise.
The hills are alive and it’s pretty frightening...
Jeff,
just can’t but question the purpose of Oath keepers and PPN ?
I would feel responsible for Lavoys death if I had the task of preventing violence at this event.
The whole mess is disturbing,
But the ranchers should have been Drilled on the dynamics of
Law Enforcement under these circumstances.
Oath keepers and PPN Where Were You?
Your views ?
He died a PATRIOT, fighting against tyranny. May he rest in peace.
Yes, but we may be a very small minority of Americans who think so.
The Beast, The State, It’s Agents and a majority of the populace does not.
Which does not bode well for freedom existing in any capacity on this land much longer.
Of course, this people can no longer agree on what the definitions of freedom, liberty, sin or tyranny are either. So anyone resisting what we would understand as tyranny would die in vain.
After all, there isn’t a single Republic that came into existence that did not first commit suicide.
I am all for them being granted reprieve on the sentence - further analysis not necessary. However, there were two fires - you only spoke of one in your post where there were fires around them and he lit backfires to save their winter feed - Steven Hammond was convicted of that one also. The first fire was not charged until the second fire was lit and that WAS NOT a backfire to stop other wildfires already burning.
So in reality one of them was convicted of two arson fires - the son (I believe) was convicted of one arson fire. The sentence was the same on sentencing guidelines for one or two counts.
A jury hears far more facts than we do and draws their own conclusions - that is the way our legal system works. Here is a cut and paste of the press release by the U.S. Attorney. Yes, it is a summary of the governments case, but this is the narrative the jury decided upon at trial. This was a jury in Pendleton, Oregon, (Northeast corner of the state above where the Hammonds live) so it was a jury of their peers - people who live in the same community/area the Hammonds live in - not a bunch of environmental activists from Portland. The jury knew the issues at play from a local perspective and they decided to convict.
The jury deserves a measure of credibility beyond my summary or yours because we approach the story we have heard with many more ideas in mind far beyond what the jury considered - a jury is supposed to decide guilt or innocence based on facts presented and testimony - not their like or dislike of government.
Eastern Oregon Ranchers Convicted of Arson Resentenced to Five Years in Prison
EUGENE, Ore. – Dwight Lincoln Hammond, Jr., 73, and his son, Steven Dwight Hammond, 46, both residents of Diamond, Oregon in Harney County, were sentenced to five years in prison by Chief U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken for arsons they committed on federal lands.
A jury sitting in Pendleton, Oregon found the Hammonds guilty of the arsons after a two-week trial in June 2012. The trial involved allegations that the Hammonds, owners of Hammond Ranches, Inc., ignited a series of fires on lands managed by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), on which the Hammonds had grazing rights leased to them for their cattle operation.
The jury convicted both of the Hammonds of using fire to destroy federal property for a 2001 arson known as the Hardie-Hammond Fire, located in the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area. Witnesses at trial, including a relative of the Hammonds, testified the arson occurred shortly after Steven Hammond and his hunting party illegally slaughtered several deer on BLM property. Jurors were told that Steven Hammond handed out “Strike Anywhere†matches with instructions that they be lit and dropped on the ground because they were going to “light up the whole country on fire.†One witness testified that he barely escaped the eight to ten foot high flames caused by the arson. The fire consumed 139 acres of public land and destroyed all evidence of the game violations. After committing the arson, Steven Hammond called the BLM office in Burns, Oregon and claimed the fire was started on Hammond property to burn off invasive species and had inadvertently burned onto public lands. Dwight and Steven Hammond told one of their relatives to keep his mouth shut and that nobody needed to know about the fire.
The jury also convicted Steven Hammond of using fire to destroy federal property regarding a 2006 arson known as the Krumbo Butte Fire located in the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge and Steen Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area. An August lightning storm started numerous fires and a burn ban was in effect while BLM firefighters fought those fires. Despite the ban, without permission or notification to BLM, Steven Hammond started several “back fires†in an attempt save the ranch’s winter feed. The fires burned onto public land and were seen by BLM firefighters camped nearby. The firefighters took steps to ensure their safety and reported the arsons.
By law, arson on federal land carries a five-year mandatory minimum sentence. When the Hammonds were originally sentenced, they argued that the five-year mandatory minimum terms were unconstitutional and the trial court agreed and imposed sentences well below what the law required based upon the jury’s verdicts. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, however, upheld the federal law, reasoning that “given the seriousness of arson, a five-year sentence is not grossly disproportionate to the offense.†The court vacated the original, unlawful sentences and ordered that the Hammonds be resentenced “in compliance with the law.†In March 2015, the Supreme Court rejected the Hammonds’ petitions for certiorari. Today, Chief Judge Aiken imposed five year prison terms on each of the Hammonds, with credit for time they already served.
“We all know the devastating effects that are caused by wildfires. Fires intentionally and illegally set on public lands, even those in a remote area, threaten property and residents and endanger firefighters called to battle the blaze†stated Acting U.S. Attorney Billy Williams.
“Congress sought to ensure that anyone who maliciously damages United States’ property by fire will serve at least 5 years in prison. These sentences are intended to be long enough to deter those like the Hammonds who disregard the law and place fire fighters and others in jeopardy.â€
Fire incidents are managed by a centralized command. It’s a gray area, but backfires sometimes “backfire” to use a bad pun. I thin trees on my private property near my house to try and maintain a 200’ buffer, but I recognize that other people have built closer to property that is not theirs. The first fire was done to save winter feed - was not there and don’t know the circumstances, but wildfires are difficult to manage and fight under ideal circumstances without everybody lighting their own backfires. Just my .02 and I am sure your opinion is different.
Bookmarking....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.