Posted on 01/04/2016 5:09:19 AM PST by NRx
The Yankee Marshall's take on the armed idiots taking over a Federal building.
Whatever point they had is now lost, and the media will use this to make everyone on the right of Hillary look bad.
_____________________________________________
This has become the standard Republican meme. Everything is judged through the liberal MSM looking glass. How has that worked out in for Republicans in the past? There is a guy running for president who doesn’t give a damn what they think of him and look where he is.
Nobody labeled the Hammonds "terrorists". And when the Hammonds lit that fire there was a burn-ban in effect due to dry conditions, Forest Service firefighters were already battling a grass fire in the area, and it was the third time the Hammonds had lit fires after two prior warnings that their actions were illegal. How much more slack did they deserve?
The prosecutor likely chose the terrorist law because it carried a mandatory minimum of five years.
The Hammonds were charged with a violation of 18 U.S. Code § 844, which is not a "terrorist" law. Paragraph F, Subsection 1 is the pertinent part: "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."
The trial judge sentenced the rancher to a few months rather than five years commenting that the mandatory minimum was outrageous for the actual 'crime.'
But the law in question had a mandatory minimum sentence. The judge had no leeway. He was bound by law to impose at least 5 years. If we criticize other courts for seemingly ignoring the law when they issue rulings on things like gay marriage or Obamacare then how can you applaud this judge for doing the same thing?
The government wasn't to be deterred and appealed pressing for the statutory minimum.
As they should have.
There is a huge BLM back-story to western grazing lands and the use of recognized ‘controlled burns’ that people need to carefully research themselves before forming opinions.
And where would you suggest I research it?
That “terrorist law” talk is nothing but propaganda. They were convicted of using fire to destroy Federal property, that is, arson.
The 1996 Federal Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act increased the penalties for many Federal crimes, including arson on Federal land, but the same law already existed.
They were not “charged as terrorists”, they were charged as arsonists. The penalty for their crimes had been increased, several years earlier, by an act designed to prevent terrorism.
The same act increased penalties for possessing and transporting illegal explosives. Again, it doesn’t matter whether those explosives were being used in terrorism, the increased penalties still apply.
Actual Federal Buildings have become something of a rarity.
My sister-in-law was working for a Federal agency, and shortly after the McVeigh bombing they quietly moved her office out of the Federal Building to a nondescript suburban bungalow (and did the same with many others).
Finally dawned on them the providing a one-stop shopping center for violent nutjobs was a bad idea.
Except for the fact that the media and the administration would try to hide the fact that they were Muslims.
The old adage of, “The best place to meet a federal agent is at a militia group meeting” still holds true...
It wasn’t arson. It was a Back Burn.
A properly run proscribed burn doesn’t “destroy property” either.
Witnesses testified that one of the fires was set by the son to cover up illegal deer slaughter and they then called BLM to falsely report that a “controlled burn” had gotten out of control.
The other back fire was set illegally during a period where there was a ban on such fires due to conditions that made them unsafe.
- The old adage of, “The best place to meet a federal agent is at a militia group meeting†still holds true... -
_______________________
There was an old joke, before my time, that went something to the effect that a KKK rally was actually a bunch of FBI agents standing around feeling silly in their robes and hoods, trying to figure out who was a real Klansman and who was just another FBI agent.
Not good at all.
These guys maybe right, but they are making a mistake.
Taking a federal building is NOT the answer.
Down right dumb and dangerous!
I don't know that it matters, but is that playing into the government's voracity in this?
That was the claim for the 2001 fire, and I believe the person who set those fires for the Hammonds said as much in court. Regardless of the reason setting the fire was illegal and the Hammonds were warned for the second time against it. When they did it for a third time in 2006 then the government dropped the hammer on them.
I suspect that Fed prosecution witnesses are heavily coached in long running Federal land grabs.
I suspect that Fed prosecution witnesses are heavily coached in long running Federal land grabs.
NRx: another abusive, statist, lickspittle, idiot noob heard from. Bite me, Bozo.
The witness was a relative of the Hammonds and sharp enough to be trusted with setting the fires. Also sharp enough to shelter in a stream when the fire got out of control.
I suspect that Fed prosecution witnesses are heavily coached in long running Federal land grabs.
I haven't seen anything indicating the government wanted their land to begin with.
A couple of doomed crackjobs take over a small wildlife house. Not exactly a “militia” or a “federal building”.
“NRx: another abusive, statist, lickspittle, idiot noob heard from. Bite me, Bozo.”
I am blinded by the fiery intellect and logic displayed in your reply.
You enter these halls—still wearing your fledgling down—calling patriots, victims of an avaricious, vulpine state, men who actually carry the Gadsden flag and demonstrate their dedication to the 2nd amendment: “idiots”, “knaves”, “terrorists”, “wingnuts”, and worse things, as well as tarring many FRiends here who go beyond posting pictures of flags and variations of `Molon Labe’ and actually stand with them?
And your weak DU concern troll sarcasm sucks.
IBTZ
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.