150 Armed Militia Members Take Over Federal Building

[6andcounting]

(01-04-2016, 10:15 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: If only they had stolen their land.

The big complaint the Hammonds have is that rights were revoked for access to things on federal land. What is interesting is that I have heard permits were revoked because of the Hammond not following the guidelines set forth in the permits, rather than 'arbitrarily' as the story above puts it.

Honestly, I think the resentencing is bullshit. I m in support of the Hammonds. The Bundys, however, I have no sympathy for.

It seemed that federal agencies seized state and private land and made up new rules. The Hammonds denied the federal government had the power to do that and continued to go by the original contract and rules.

I don't know if a necessarily stand by the Hammonds completely, but I definitely don't stand by BLM or any other government agency. The occupation has been more effective than passing around a petition to neighbors for wat ever that worth.

[*bfine32*]

(01-04-2016, 10:20 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: You should read it.
It changed my view, a bit.
It kind of paints the federal government as terrorists, IMO.

Cliif Notes?

Of course there are problems with the Government and those issues should be fought in a legal manner. It appears what this group has done is protested; nothing more. But once they break the law they need to be held accountable. 

[Belsnickel]

(01-04-2016, 10:12 PM)bfine32 Wrote: First of all they didn't say they would be violent if attempted to be arrested; they simply said they don't wish to hurt anyone, but would not "rule out" defending themselves. 

Defending themselves if the feds attempt to end the standoff. If law enforcement goes in, which would be with the intent to arrest them, they have said they will be violent.

(01-04-2016, 10:23 PM)6andcounting Wrote: It seemed that federal agencies seized state and private land and made up new rules. The Hammonds denied the federal government had the power to do that and continued to go by the original contract and rules.

They didn't seize private property. They did take some actions on state/local land that was reversed, but here was no seizure of private land. Just revocation of access to fed lands.

[6andcounting]

(01-04-2016, 10:29 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: They didn't seize private property. They did take some actions on state/local land that was reversed, but here was no seizure of private land. Just revocation of access to fed lands.

I thought there was something with families having to sell off their farms.

But they had legal access to the lands before the federal government took over. The federal government took away their lawfully held water and grazing rights.

[Belsnickel]

(01-04-2016, 10:34 PM)6andcounting Wrote: I thought there was something with families having to sell off their farms.

But they had legal access to the lands before the federal government took over. The federal government took away their lawfully held water and grazing rights.

Families selling because of the feds is not seizure. It is bullying, but not seizure. And access can be revoked for any number of reasons, such as violating the rules of the access permit, which the Hammonds did.

[BmorePat87]

(01-04-2016, 09:15 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I would say that according to the USC definition of domestic terrorism, they qualify as such. The threat of violence they present is a danger and it is intended to intimidate/coerce the government.

It also matches the FBI's definition of domestic terrorism.

[*bfine32*]

(01-04-2016, 10:29 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Defending themselves if the feds attempt to end the standoff. If law enforcement goes in, which would be with the intent to arrest them, they have said they will be violent.

They have said they haven't ruled it out.

I do appreciate that you are trying so hard to make this an act of terror. The OP would be proud and most everyone else is entertained. 

[BmorePat87]

(01-04-2016, 09:22 PM)bfine32 Wrote: No it's not. When those two crashed the holiday party at San Bernadino and killed 14 people the term Civil Disobedience never crossed my mind and this was long before who we knew they were. 

You didn't understand my post. It's like the ol' phrase "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". What that means is that while we may consider the actions of these criminals to be terrorism, they may believe they are engaging in civil disobedience. The early actions of many of the American colonists would have been terrorism in the eyes of the British, but it was civil disobedience in our eyes. 

[Millhouse]

If anything this would considered 1st world terrorism.

[Rotobeast]

(01-04-2016, 10:26 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Cliif Notes?

Feds buy up land around them
Feds try to buy their land
They refuse
Feds restrict access to part of their property, water rights
Court rules for Hammond
Controlled fires used to stop wildfire from destroying their land, by Hammond
Fire spreads onto Fed land, burning 127 acres of grass
Hammonds puts out fire themselves
Feds file charges, accuse them as Terrorists under the Federal Anti terrorism Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996
Fed attorneys tamper with jury, use less than credible witness
Judge issues shorter than mandatory minimum
2  Hammond men serve time (3 months for father, 12 months for son)
Feds file appeal for men to serve full 5 years
Hammonds ordered to offer First Right of Refusal to BLM (first shot at buying property)
Men ordered to finish 5 year sentences, starting Jan 4th
People pissed
Govt can suck it

[BmorePat87]

(01-04-2016, 10:41 PM)bfine32 Wrote: They have said they haven't ruled it out.

I do appreciate that you are trying so hard to make this an act of terror. The OP would be proud and most everyone else is entertained. 

So they only threatened to use force if the authorities tried to lawfully detain them? 

I do appreciate that you are trying so hard to make this a peaceful protest. 

[*bfine32*]

(01-04-2016, 10:40 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: It also matches the FBI's definition of domestic terrorism.

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/terrorism/terrorism-definition

FBI definition:

Quote:"Domestic terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:

• Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
• Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and
• Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.
  

They have not been involved of any acts that are dangerous to human life; it is what I have said all along.

I have already addressed bullet 2. 

So they do not match the definition

The second they fire on a LEO or take a civilian against their will; that changes

[6andcounting]

(01-04-2016, 10:39 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Families selling because of the feds is not seizure. It is bullying, but not seizure. And access can be revoked for any number of reasons, such as violating the rules of the access permit, which the Hammonds did.

Bullying isn't seizing the same way "limited airstrikes with no boots on the ground" isn't war.

[*bfine32*]

(01-04-2016, 10:58 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: So they only threatened to use force if the authorities tried to lawfully detain them? 

I do appreciate that you are trying so hard to make this a peaceful protest. 

What has been unpeaceful to date?

[Belsnickel]

(01-04-2016, 10:58 PM)6andcounting Wrote: Bullying isn't seizing the same way "limited airstrikes with no boots on the ground" isn't war.

Nah, the comparisons are dissimilar. People don't get paid when their property is seized.

[*bfine32*]

(01-04-2016, 10:56 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: Feds buy up land around them
Feds try to buy their land
They refuse
Feds restrict access to part of their property, water rights
Court rules for Hammond
Controlled fires used to stop wildfire from destroying their land, by Hammond
Fire spreads onto Fed land, burning 127 acres of grass
Hammonds puts out fire themselves
Feds file charges, accuse them as Terrorists under the Federal Anti terrorism Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996
Fed attorneys tamper with jury, use less than credible witness
Judge issues shorter than mandatory minimum
2  Hammond men serve time (3 months for father, 12 months for son)
Feds file appeal for men to serve full 5 years
Hammonds ordered to offer First Right of Refusal to BLM (first shot at buying property)
Men ordered to finish 5 year sentences, starting Jan 4th
People pissed
Govt can suck it

I truly appreciate the synopsis. 

It seems they feel this is their best COA. While I agree with the message;  I disagree with the method.

But of course I am not in their shoes. 

[BmorePat87]

(01-04-2016, 10:59 PM)bfine32 Wrote: What has been unpeaceful to date?

So if I break into a house and threaten to shoot any cop that arrests me, I am being peaceful?

[BmorePat87]

(01-04-2016, 10:58 PM)bfine32 Wrote: https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/terrorism/terrorism-definition

FBI definition:

They have not been involved of any acts that are dangerous to human life; it is what I have said all along.

I have already addressed bullet 2. 

So they do not match the definition

The second they fire on a LEO or take a civilian against their will; that changes

An armed seizure of a federal building isn't dangerous to human life? You're being disingenuous here. Bullet 2 was also explained to you multiple times. They're refusing to end an unlawful occupation of a federal building until public policy is changed while also threatening to harm anyone who attempts to lawfully detain them and end their illegal seizure before public policy is changed. 

Responding with "who have they shot yet" doesn't change the threats made. 

[*bfine32*]

(01-04-2016, 11:08 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: So if I break into a house and threaten to shoot any cop that arrests me, I am being peaceful?

First: answering a question with a question is rude.

Secondly:

They didn't break into anybody's house and if they did; they did so peacefully.

They have not threatened to shoot anyone.

But to answer your question: If you did that, you are not being "peaceful".

Now: What acts have they done that is dangerous to human life?  

[6andcounting]

(01-04-2016, 11:03 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Nah, the comparisons are dissimilar. People don't get paid when their property is seized.

It's not a voluntary exchange when one side bullied the other into the deal.