+- Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise (http://thebengalsboard.com)
+-- Forum: Off Topic Forums (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Off-Topic-Forums)
+--- Forum: Politics & Religion 2.0 (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Politics-Religion-2-0)
+---- Forum: P & R Archive (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-P-R-Archive)
+---- Thread: 150 Armed Militia Members Take Over Federal Building (/Thread-150-Armed-Militia-Members-Take-Over-Federal-Building)
RE: 150 Armed Militia Members Take Over Federal Building - bfine32 - 01-06-2016
(01-06-2016, 01:18 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Posting the Hammonds version proves nothing. They had a fair trial before a jury of their peers (not the federal government) and it was determined that they were lying about the fires.
But obviously hearing something a reporter said he heard in a phone conversation is enough for you to label someone a terrorist.
RE: 150 Armed Militia Members Take Over Federal Building - fredtoast - 01-06-2016
(01-06-2016, 02:07 PM)bfine32 Wrote: But obviously hearing something a reporter said he heard in a phone conversation is enough for you to label someone a terrorist.
No. Even if the reporter never said anything I am smart enough to understand that when armed people take over property and promise not to leave until their demands are met then that is a threat to kill.
Are you seriously claiming that they all took guns just to sleep with and will not use them to resist any force to remove them from the property? You would have to be a brainwashed rube to believe otherwise.
RE: 150 Armed Militia Members Take Over Federal Building - bfine32 - 01-06-2016
(01-06-2016, 02:20 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No. Even if the reporter never said anything I am smart enough to understand that when armed people take over property and promise not to leave until their demands are met then that is a threat to kill.
Are you seriously claiming that they all took guns just to sleep with and will not use them to resist any force to remove them from the property? You would have to be a brainwashed rube to believe otherwise.
I've approached plenty people with weapons and they didn't use them and many not friendly. Hell one or 2 might have even threatened to kill me.
They took their guns first because they are cowboys (cowboys carry guns) and secondly to present a hard target
Yep, but I'm just a brainwashed rube.
Is stating you will kill someone an act?
RE: 150 Armed Militia Members Take Over Federal Building - Westwood Bengal - 01-06-2016
http://usuncut.com/news/5-government-handouts-bundys-receive/
Nearly every part of the Bundy family’s business is funded by government welfare programs.
RE: 150 Armed Militia Members Take Over Federal Building - Benton - 01-06-2016
(01-06-2016, 02:33 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I've approached plenty people with weapons and they didn't use them and many not friendly. Hell one or 2 might have even threatened to kill me.
They took their guns first because they are cowboys (cowboys carry guns) and secondly to present a hard target
Yep, but I'm just a brainwashed rube.
Is stating you will kill someone an act?
To the bold, yes. In legal speak, it's called... wait for it...
terroristic threatening.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terroristic_threat
Quote:United States[edit]
Main article: threatening terrorism against the United States
18 U.S.C. § 2332b©(1)(g) makes it a class C felony, punishable by 10 years imprisonment, for someone to willfully threaten to commit a crime that will result in death or great bodily harm; the threat is made with the specific intent that it be taken as a threat; the threat is so unequivocal, unconditional, and specific as to convey a gravity of purpose and immediate prospect of execution; the threat actually causes fear in the victim; and the fear is reasonable.[4]
But, as an MP, you'd know that.
RE: 150 Armed Militia Members Take Over Federal Building - fredtoast - 01-06-2016
(01-06-2016, 02:33 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I've approached plenty people with weapons and they didn't use them and many not friendly. Hell one or 2 might have even threatened to kill me.
They took their guns first because they are cowboys (cowboys carry guns) and secondly to present a hard target
Yep, but I'm just a brainwashed rube.
Is stating you will kill someone an act?
Do you at least agree that theses people have said they will not leave if the government requests it?
There is not one shred of evidence that they will leave peacefull.
Last night on CNN the gave direct quotes from named source s that they would not be arrested and would die before they would submit to custody.
RE: 150 Armed Militia Members Take Over Federal Building - bfine32 - 01-06-2016
(01-06-2016, 02:36 PM)Benton Wrote: To the bold, yes. In legal speak, it's called... wait for it...So you consider the BLM marchers terrorists?
terroristic threatening.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terroristic_threat
But, as an MP, you'd know that.
What makes you think an MP would be versed in Federal Code?
RE: 150 Armed Militia Members Take Over Federal Building - Benton - 01-06-2016
And since there's some confusion over the Hammond's sentencing, here's a pretty decent read on what happened and why the Bundy's are in the wrong. And dumb.
https://popehat.com/2016/01/04/what-happened-in-the-hammond-sentencing-in-oregon-a-lawsplainer/
If you don't want to read the whole thing, the meat of it is:
Quote:At sentencing, the United States District Judge on the case refused to impose the five-year mandatory-minimum sentences required by Section 844, ruling that to do so would violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. The court instead imposed sentences of twelve months and a day on the father1 and three months on the son.
The government appealed the sentence, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed and sent the case back, instructing the trial court to impose the statutory mandatory minimum sentence. The Court found — rather convincingly, given the precedent — that a five-year sentence for arson does not violate the Eighth Amendment:
A judge went against federal law. He lost and the Hammonds had to do the time they were originally supposed to because... that's the law.
Sidenote: Personally, I think the sentence is too long. They'll be in prison longer than it will take the grass to grow back. But you work to change the law if it's wrong, you don't take over a federal building and threaten people.
RE: 150 Armed Militia Members Take Over Federal Building - fredtoast - 01-06-2016
(01-06-2016, 02:36 PM)Benton Wrote: But, as an MP, you'd know that.
No former MP could be this ignorant of the law.
RE: 150 Armed Militia Members Take Over Federal Building - bfine32 - 01-06-2016
(01-06-2016, 02:40 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Do you at least agree that theses people have said they will not leave if the government requests it?
There is not one shred of evidence that they will leave peacefull.
Last night on CNN the gave direct quotes from named source s that they would not be arrested and would die before they would submit to custody.
They have said they will leave if the local citizens want them gone.
Again with the questions:
Is stating you will kill someone an act?
RE: 150 Armed Militia Members Take Over Federal Building - fredtoast - 01-06-2016
I also find it funny that Bundy claims this whole incident is the result of officials ignoring his request to act on behalf of the Hammonds at the same time that the Hammonds say he does not represent them.
RE: 150 Armed Militia Members Take Over Federal Building - fredtoast - 01-06-2016
(01-06-2016, 02:42 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Is stating you will kill someone an act?
Yes it is an act.
BUt I see that you still don't get the legal difference between a viable threat and a non-viable threat.
Anyone with any history in law enforcement would get it, but you still don't even though it has been explained to you.
RE: 150 Armed Militia Members Take Over Federal Building - fredtoast - 01-06-2016
(01-06-2016, 02:40 PM)bfine32 Wrote: What makes you think an MP would be versed in Federal Code?
I don't know, maybe the fact that a guy who claims he used to be an MP claims he is right about all of this?
Or is this just an admission that you are completely wrong?
RE: 150 Armed Militia Members Take Over Federal Building - bfine32 - 01-06-2016
(01-06-2016, 02:47 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I don't know, maybe the fact that a guy who claims he used to be an MP claims he is right about all of this?
Or is this just an admission that you are completely wrong?
MPs would be better versed in the Uniform Code of Military Justice; as well as, the local laws where they operate.
I have never claimed to be an MP; although, most combat arms Soldiers carry out many MP functions in urban areas in the GWOT.
Didn't say I was right about "all of this"; simply said I do not label them as terrorists as was the question posed by the OP. I further stated that those who are attempting to call them terrorists are doing so in an attempt to desensitize the word.
I get that your, Benton ,Matt and other left leaners wish to refer to them as Terrorists; why doesn't the major news outlets?
RE: 150 Armed Militia Members Take Over Federal Building - Mike M (the other one) - 01-06-2016
(01-06-2016, 10:06 AM)GMDino Wrote: But all he did was say that they would do something...he didn't do it. He merely threatened the act if the US didn't change its policy.
He never killed anyone.
Now back to the the question...does that make him a terrorist in your definition?
He might not have ever killed someone directly, but he certainly took credit for organizing and killing thousands of people in various countries. So far, how many people has Bundy said he was responsible for killing? 0
As far as the takeover, so far it is not an act of terrorism. No violence has been committed. They are simply drawing attention to the way the government has dealt with the Hammonds. So far it is a peaceful protest, and they warned the government that it will only become violent if the government makes it a violent situation. No one fears the Bundy's and their militia, what we fear is that the Government will instigate a confrontation and that it will turn into a bloodbath.
I am not very clear as to why the Hammonds were arrested (for starting a fire) in the first place (the Harney County DA reviewed it, and decided that prosecution was unwarranted, and dropped all charges). 5 years later the US Attorney's Office charged them with being Terrorists... that just reeks of pettiness. The Hammonds are not terrorists and should not have been tried under the Terrorist laws.
RE: 150 Armed Militia Members Take Over Federal Building - fredtoast - 01-06-2016
(01-06-2016, 02:54 PM)bfine32 Wrote: MPs would be better versed in the Uniform Code of Military Justice; as well as, the local laws where they operate.
I have never claimed to be an MP; although, most combat arms Soldiers carry out many MP functions in urban areas in the GWOT.
Didn't say I was right about "all of this"; simply said I do not label them as terrorists as was the question posed by the OP. I further stated that those who are attempting to call them terrorists are doing so in an attempt to desensitize the word.
I get that your, Benton ,Matt and other left leaners wish to refer to them as Terrorists; why doesn't the major news outlets?
Actually your defense of these criminals goes way beyond the semantics of calling them terrorists. Just go back and look at the dozens of posts you have made that do not even mention the word terrorism.
Throughout this thread you have insisted that they have not committed any act of violence by occupying this land with open weapons and insisting that they will not be arrested. This is clearly an act of violence. There is no other reasonable way to look at it.
You are not just claiming they are not terrorists. You are insisting that they have not threatened the use of violence when it is clear to anyone else that they have.
RE: 150 Armed Militia Members Take Over Federal Building - Benton - 01-06-2016
(01-06-2016, 02:40 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So you consider the BLM marchers terrorists?
What makes you think an MP would be versed in Federal Code?
Have the BLM marchers threatened violence or gave a reasonable indication of violence (like carrying around firearms)?
An MP would be versed in legal terms like terrroristic threatening. That's not a federal code, it's a law in just about every municipality.
Bonus: It's under Article 134 in the UCMJ.
RE: 150 Armed Militia Members Take Over Federal Building - Benton - 01-06-2016
(01-06-2016, 02:54 PM)bfine32 Wrote:
I have never claimed to be an MP; although, most combat arms Soldiers carry out many MP functions in urban areas in the GWOT.
I get that your, Benton ,Matt and other left leaners wish to refer to them as Terrorists; why doesn't the major news outlets?
To the first, I apologize, I must have mixed you up with someone else. I could have sworn you said in previous posts you were an MP. If not, my mistake.
To the second,
. Not falling in step with everything ultra-conservative doesn't make someone left leaning.
RE: 150 Armed Militia Members Take Over Federal Building - bfine32 - 01-06-2016
(01-06-2016, 02:59 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Actually your defense of these criminals goes way beyond the semantics of calling them terrorists. Just go back and look at the dozens of posts you have made that do not even mention the word terrorism.
Throughout this thread you have insisted that they have not committed any act of violence by occupying this land with open weapons and insisting that they will not be arrested. This is clearly an act of violence. There is no other reasonable way to look at it.
You are not just claiming they are not terrorists. You are insisting that they have not threatened the use of violence when it is clear to anyone else that they have.
I am stating they have not commited a violent act; you are. That has been my only "defense" (oh and not classifying them as Terrorists).
You orginally stated just saying it was an act, that has now changed to just saying, while holding a weapon, and presenting a threat.
Also you're using a reported phone conversation with a reporter as justification to say they have conveted this threat
If these folks have committed violent acts then why haven't the authorities moved in? Remember when the Boston Bomber was holed up in the boat? Why did the authorities move in? He could have been heavily armed or bombed.
Also why isn't the National Media (consevative as Benton may want folks to think they are) refering to these people as Terrorists?
RE: 150 Armed Militia Members Take Over Federal Building - Belsnickel - 01-06-2016
(01-06-2016, 03:34 PM)Benton Wrote: To the second,
Blasphemer!
At this point, I'm wearing it like a badge. I'd rather not be associated with the closed-minded hypocritical self-destructive stances of the ultra-"conservatives" of today. So while I am very much a moderate, I'll go with being called left leaning all day by them.