Politics Trump Pardons Domestic Terrorists

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
jonnyboy said:
Ok what about them? The Hammonds were turned into arsonists under an obscure terrorism law because they refused to sell their land to expand the refuge. They were being railroaded by the government and being given maximum penalties for minimal crimes. Everyone has the right to public land, that is fantastic. When the government starts deciding people's private land is going to be made public then they tend to get pissed. See how you feel when they decide to put the interstate through your front yard.
Click to expand...

And now you understand how black people are treated daily. Yet, people freak the fuck out when they take a knee during the national anthem.

But, oppose the government, occupy a federal building, take up arms against them? All good!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
theprunetang said:
Nope. Not settling. Fuck this guy.

Ban me. I don't care.
Click to expand...

Paint a klan hood on someone elses face dude. I haven't said anything to warrant that response. Your just posturing like a douchebag. Sorry you're cranky but you don't get to run around calling people racists because they disagree with your opinion on a totally different subject.

Drink a juice box and take a fucking nap.
 
theprunetang said:
And now you understand how black people are treated daily. Yet, people freak the fuck out when they take a knee during the national anthem.

But, oppose the government, occupy a federal building, take up arms against them? All good!

Fuck you.
Click to expand...

I never said blacks don't get unfair treatment by the judicial system, I know they do alot of the time.

I never said the Malheur protesters actions were "all good", they weren't.

I never even remotely expressed an opinion on kneeling during the national anthem, that was just irrelevant.

I question the label of "domestic terrorist" when applied to those protesters, that's pretty much it.

All that other shit is just things you made up and pretended I think or said so you could justify getting all puffed up.
 
jonnyboy said:
Ok what about them? The Hammonds were turned into arsonists under an obscure terrorism law because they refused to sell their land to expand the refuge. They were being railroaded by the government and being given maximum penalties for minimal crimes. Everyone has the right to public land, that is fantastic. When the government starts deciding people's private land is going to be made public then they tend to get pissed. See how you feel when they decide to put the interstate through your front yard.
Click to expand...

That's not what happened.

You are normally one of the more fair minded ones in conversations like these so I don't think it's intentional but there is much your post that is just not factual. The refuge said the Hammonds had to stop grazing cattle on refuge land. The refuge did not try and take the Hammond's land.
 
In Oregon we have mandatory minimum sentences for violent felonies. It is a complicated law that has been adjusted some over the years. Sometimes judges apply the wrong sentence, some not to long, some not long enough. When that happens the sentence is appealed and the person convicted is resentanced correctly. This happens from time to time in Oregon.

The Hammonds had something similar happen to them only on a federal level.
 
SlyPokerDog said:
That's not what happened.

You are normally one of the more fair minded ones in conversations like these so I don't think it's intentional but there is much your post that is just not factual. The refuge said the Hammonds had to stop grazing cattle on refuge land. The refuge did not try and take the Hammond's land.
Click to expand...
You may be right but I thought the Bundy standoff in Nevada was the one primarily about grazing rights. I was watching an interview with the Malheur protesters and they were claiming the federal government was trying to force them (Hammonds and other neighboring ranchers) to sell their land to either start or expand the refuge. That and the details about the arson charges being hyped up to basically bully them into complying. The government does this (land acquisition) all the time so it's not hard for me to believe.
 
jonnyboy said:
You may be right but I thought the Bundy standoff in Nevada was the one primarily about grazing rights. I was watching an interview with the Malheur protesters and they were claiming the federal government was trying to force them (Hammonds and other neighboring ranchers) to sell their land to either start or expand the refuge. That and the details about the arson charges being hyped up to basically bully them into complying. The government does this (land acquisition) all the time so it's not hard for me to believe.
Click to expand...

Oh please. The Hammonds land wasn't being taken. They were told they couldn't graze their cattle anymore in the wildlife refuge, which is federal land.

In response to that, the Hammonds destroyed fences that the feds put up to keep the Hammond's cattle out, and threatened federal employees repeatedly.
They set fires multiple times, after being warned not to, including in ways that threatened the lives of firefighters.

They were and presumably still are criminals and assholes.

barfo
 
SlyPokerDog said:
the Hammonds had to stop grazing cattle on refuge land. The refuge did not try and take the Hammond's land.
Click to expand...

Well, I seriously doubt this is the whole story. But is does sound like a polite city boy reading.
 
Last edited:
MarAzul said:
Well, I seriously doubt this is the whole store. But is does sound like a polite city boy reading.
Click to expand...

The alternative, I guess, is a rural conspiracy theorist reading.

barfo
 
SlyPokerDog said:
In Oregon we have mandatory minimum sentences for violent felonies. It is a complicated law that has been adjusted some over the years. Sometimes judges apply the wrong sentence, some not to long, some not long enough. When that happens the sentence is appealed and the person convicted is resentanced correctly. This happens from time to time in Oregon.

The Hammonds had something similar happen to them only on a federal level.
Click to expand...

Dumb as fuck. Bait and switch.
 
SlyPokerDog said:
In Oregon we have mandatory minimum sentences for violent felonies. It is a complicated law that has been adjusted some over the years. Sometimes judges apply the wrong sentence, some not to long, some not long enough. When that happens the sentence is appealed and the person convicted is resentanced correctly. This happens from time to time in Oregon.

The Hammonds had something similar happen to them only on a federal level.
Click to expand...
dviss1 said:
Mandatory minimum sentences are unconstitutional.

The debate over the constitutionality of mandatory minimums has been on-going. Last year the Maryland Senate unanimously approved a landmark criminal justice bill [JURIST report], known as the Justice Reinvestment Act, which would significantly change how non-violent drug offenders are sentenced, shifting focus from prison to treatment. The changes in the sentencing structure would allow the state to save money on prison costs and allow those serving mandatory minimums to appeal their sentences. In 2015 the US Senate voted to move forward on the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act of 2015 [JURIST report] , which would cut back on mandatory minimums for nonviolent drug offenders. Several police chiefs were concerned about reducing sentences, including Chief Will Johnson of Arlington, Texas, who noted that the government has been hesitant to assist with drug and mental health treatments as alternatives to incarceration. Following the introduction of the bill, US President Barack Obama argued for overhauling the nation's sentencing laws in front of top law enforcement officials at the 122nd Annual International Association of Chiefs of Police Conference and Exposition. The president argued that placing large numbers of nonviolent drug offenders in prison was neither fair nor an effective way of combating crime, stating that "it is possible for us to come up with strategies that effectively reduce the damage of the drug trade without relying solely on incarceration."
Click to expand...
 
barfo said:
Suppose a mass murderer is released from jail by mistake. Should he, having been given his freedom, remain free?

barfo
Click to expand...
Mistake? Judge gives him a sentence of 20 years when he should get life? That's what I'm talking about.

Don't like what the judge gives for sentences, vote him out or disbar him if he breaks the rules.
 
bodyman5000 and 1 said:
Mistake? Judge gives him a sentence of 20 years when he should get life? That's what I'm talking about.

Don't like what the judge gives for sentences, vote him out or disbar him if he breaks the rules.
Click to expand...

Yes, mistake. Jailer lets a guy out of jail when he shouldn't be let out, that's a mistake. Judge fails to follow mandatory sentencing guidelines, that's a mistake.
Now, either one could instead be an intentional middle-finger to the system, of course.

If it's a mistake, you correct the mistake and perhaps, depending on the facts, discipline the mistake-maker.
If it's intentional, you correct the mistake and perhaps fire the mistake-maker.

barfo
 
barfo said:
Yes, mistake. Jailer lets a guy out of jail when he shouldn't be let out, that's a mistake. Judge fails to follow mandatory sentencing guidelines, that's a mistake.
Now, either one could instead be an intentional middle-finger to the system, of course.

If it's a mistake, you correct the mistake and perhaps, depending on the facts, discipline the mistake-maker.
If it's intentional, you correct the mistake and perhaps fire the mistake-maker.

barfo
Click to expand...
Murderers walk for technicalities all the time. I think a one year sentence that should have been five is best left alone.
 
bodyman5000 and 1 said:
Murderers walk for technicalities all the time. I think a one year sentence that should have been five is best left alone.
Click to expand...

I do see your point. If the cops or prosecutors screw up and that causes a murderer's case to be thrown out, or for him to be found not guilty, that's probably worse than a judge screwing up a sentence.

But, the cop/prosecutor problem is (usually) not reversible. The judge's decision is reversible.

barfo
 
MarAzul said:
Well, I seriously doubt this is the whole story. But is does sound like a polite city boy reading.
Click to expand...

Then what is the whole story? The Hammonds set their own ranch on fire to make it so disgusting that the guberment would no longer want it?
 
jonnyboy said:
They didn't threaten violence, they said they had weapons and were willing to defend themselves in the event of a waco-style assault. You can build it up all you want, the fact is they were protesting non violently, and had weapons for self defense. The biggest crime they committed was occupying a government building.

It was funny to go on Oregon live when this was all going on. The comments sections were completely full of liberals, all practically frothing at the mouth praying for the occupiers to get killed by the government. I've seriously never been in an environment that was that encouraging of death and violence. It was actually pretty unnerving. I've known most liberals are completely full of shit for quite awhile, but that was a turning point. A real eye opener. I've never experienced a group that large where the overwhelming consensus was simply to kill a large number of people.
Click to expand...

Kate Brown was a very vocal part of that hysteria.
 
MARIS61 said:
Kate Brown was a very vocal part of that hysteria.
Click to expand...

And Kate Brown went up there, she said, "Shrink, I want to kill. I mean, I wanna, I Wanna kill. Kill. I wanna, I wanna see, I wanna see blood and gore and
Guts and veins in my teeth. Eat dead burnt bodies. I mean kill, Kill, KILL, KILL." And she started jumpin up and down yelling, "KILL, KILL," and
he started jumpin up and down with her and they was both jumping up and down Yelling, "KILL, KILL."

Yep, Maris, your story checks out.

barfo
 
Ok I'm actually a little worried about prunetang, I hope he didn't explode.
 
tlongII said:
Has that been proven? I'm not aware of it if it has.
Click to expand...

They pled guilty to it. A family member testified to it. And they just accepted a pardon for it which is also an admission of guilt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top