This is gonna get interesting! Militia takes over Ore. federal building after protest.

Uncle Ben

Uncle Ben

Well-Known Member
“We the people need to take a stand,” said Ritzheimer, adding he expects 75-year-old Dwight Hammond to die in prison.

“Dwight, do you want die in prison labeled as a terrorist by these oppressors,” Ritzheimer asked. “Or do you want to die out here with us a free man. I want to die a free man.”

"A FBI spokeswoman is aware of the militia take-over at the Malheur refuge, but would not comment further.

The refuge, which is closed until further notice because of the occupation, encompasses nearly 190,000 acres of wetlands and desert frequented by hunters and fishermen with a visitor center."

Hope this is not another Waco!

http://m.nydailynews.com/news/national/militia-takes-ore-fed-building-protest-article-1.2483723
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Local control is a concept some people accept in some circumstances, then curiously reject in other circumstances.
 
Uncle Ben

Uncle Ben

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
Local control is a concept some people accept in some circumstances, then curiously reject in other circumstances.
Click to expand...
Kinda like 6 of one half dozen of the other? :)

Depends on which side you're on. A handful of "militia" is no match for the feds. I have friends with this mentality. Had one (RIP) that not only had a dozen different kind of high powered rifles but hundreds of pounds of munitions in large wooden boxes. Thought he was a little nutty. Was a big patriot and just didn't trust the government, especially the kooks in the Obama administration.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Uncle Ben said:
Kinda like 6 of one half dozen of the other? :)

Depends on which side you're on. A handful of "militia" is no match for the feds. I have friends with this mentality. Had one (RIP) that not only had a dozen different kind of high powered rifles but hundreds of pounds of munitions in large wooden boxes. Thought he was a little nutty. Was a big patriot and just didn't trust the government, especially the kooks in the Obama administration.
Click to expand...

It will certainly be interesting to see how this situation plays out.
 
420God

420God

Well-Known Member
The pair said they lit the fires in 2001 and 2006 to reduce the growth of invasive plants and protect their property from wildfires. They were convicted of the arsons three years ago and served time — the father three months, the son one year. But a judge ruled their terms were too short under federal law and ordered them back to prison for about four years each. Dwight Hammond has said he and his son plan to peacefully report to prison Jan. 4 as ordered by the judge.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
420God said:
The pair said they lit the fires in 2001 and 2006 to reduce the growth of invasive plants and protect their property from wildfires. They were convicted of the arsons three years ago and served time — the father three months, the son one year. But a judge ruled their terms were too short under federal law and ordered them back to prison for about four years each. Dwight Hammond has said he and his son plan to peacefully report to prison Jan. 4 as ordered by the judge.
Click to expand...


Stockholm syndrome is a terrible thing.
 
7

757growin

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
Not that I endorse all of the concepts of "public property" but how does a person trespass on "public property" ?
Click to expand...
There's hours of operation at national parks. When you occupy a closed building during closed hours, that constitutes trespassing. Also I doubt these folks paid for their day pass to be at this national park. In case you weren't aware it's not free to go to these parks...
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
757growin said:
There's hours of operation at national parks. When you occupy a closed building during closed hours, that constitutes trespassing. Also I doubt these folks paid for their day pass to be at this national park. In case you weren't aware it's not free to go to these parks...
Click to expand...
I was referring to the original "crime" that was alleged to have been committed by the people the judge wants to put in jail. Unless, I'm mistaken they didn't harm another person or another persons property did they?
 
7

757growin

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
I was referring to the original "crime" that was alleged to have been committed by the people the judge wants to put in jail. Unless, I'm mistaken they didn't harm another person or another persons property did they?
Click to expand...
I thought when you highlighted my quote, you were referring to my illegal trespassers comment... don't see why you used it otherwise
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
757growin said:
I thought when you highlighted my quote, you were referring to my illegal trespassers comment... don't see why you used it otherwise
Click to expand...

I misunderstood your context. My apologies.

Wouldn't you agree that the original "crime" caused no harm to another person or another persons property ? In any rational application of justice, it would seem the corrective action to criminal behavior is for the alleged perpetrator to restitute their victim(s)....BUT who was victimized by the people being sent back to jail?
 
Mellodrama

Mellodrama

Well-Known Member
Malheur is a Refuge, not a national park. My wife and I have visited.

I'm sick of ranchers like the Bundys getting a free ride off the taxpayer, polluting the streams and killing all predators, then pulling this sh*t.

The land isn't theirs. It's govt. land, administered by BLM and paid for by the taxpayer. Boot their cows off. Then there won't be anything for these rugged, independent, freedom-loving patriots to complain about.
 
7

757growin

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
I misunderstood your context. My apologies.

Wouldn't you agree that the original "crime" caused no harm to another person or another persons property ? In any rational application of justice, it would seem the corrective action to criminal behavior is for the alleged perpetrator to restitute their victim(s)....BUT who was victimized by the people being sent back to jail?
Click to expand...
I wouldn't agree.. clear cut burning is bad for the environment. Also wouldn't you say these fellows were lucky that the fire didn't spread. Should they only be prosecuted when it becomes a out of control wildfire? Did they aquire a burn permit? The laws are already in place and so were the penalties. Why should they get a break?
 
nitro harley

nitro harley

Well-Known Member
420God said:
The pair said they lit the fires in 2001 and 2006 to reduce the growth of invasive plants and protect their property from wildfires. They were convicted of the arsons three years ago and served time — the father three months, the son one year. But a judge ruled their terms were too short under federal law and ordered them back to prison for about four years each. Dwight Hammond has said he and his son plan to peacefully report to prison Jan. 4 as ordered by the judge.
Click to expand...
The democratic Oregon judges are fucked up. Like the one that destroyed the young bakers over a fucking cake and then put a gag order on them so they couldn't talk about it. And then the liberals bragged about it to rub it in our faces like little fucking kids. If I was in Oregon I would drive by and support the movement these patriots are conducting. TRUMP!
 
whitebb2727

whitebb2727

Well-Known Member
757growin said:
There's hours of operation at national parks. When you occupy a closed building during closed hours, that constitutes trespassing. Also I doubt these folks paid for their day pass to be at this national park. In case you weren't aware it's not free to go to these parks...[/QU
Click to expand...
Mellodrama said:
Malheur is a Refuge, not a national park. My wife and I have visited.

I'm sick of ranchers like the Bundys getting a free ride off the taxpayer, polluting the streams and killing all predators, then pulling this sh*t.

The land isn't theirs. It's govt. land, administered by BLM and paid for by the taxpayer. Boot their cows off. Then there won't be anything for these rugged, independent, freedom-loving patriots to complain about.
Click to expand...
You need to read the whole story. Most of the land for the rufuge was gotten by shady means. Fish and game diverted irrigation and flooded the lakes and ruined a lot of farm land to force people to sell their land.

They also blocked peoples access to peoples own water supply.

The fire was set to stop wildfire. It is a back burn. I have helped to such myself.

You never heard of fighting fire with fire?

This is a long back story with the state doing some shady stuff.

Maybe take the time to research it.
 
whitebb2727

whitebb2727

Well-Known Member
757growin said:
I wouldn't agree.. clear cut burning is bad for the environment. Also wouldn't you say these fellows were lucky that the fire didn't spread. Should they only be prosecuted when it becomes a out of control wildfire? Did they aquire a burn permit? The laws are already in place and so were the penalties. Why should they get a break?
Click to expand...
Controlled fire is actually good. Plenty of state wildlife agencies use it.

I garuntee the grassland that burned grew back greener.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top