One of the things I've been caught up on is how they don't seem to understand, at all, this fact: The arsonists were charged with arson under an anti-terror act - which, due to people like these paranoid ****s, was enacted, and is now used all over the place for things like marijuana possession and federal land arson and a host of other (usually drug-related) charges. But it's the far right's crazy terror paranoia that led to this insane civil-liberty-demolishing policy under GWB. They seem super caught-up on the whole "terrorism" thing and from their quotes they do not seem to understand this basic **** at all. (Of course there's likely a ton of **** that they don't understand at all)

To be fair, Obama's civil liberties record is pretty goddamn atrocious.

I can imagine the difference, which is why I'm surprised on you seem to about to take the horrible line from the hypothetical people instead of being better. These people are protestors protesting an injustice... peacefully so far. They aren't terrorists.

8 U.S. Code § 2384

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

Call the cops imo

lol do you really want the law to be enforced by that? Cause Occupy wall street should be put in prison for up to 20 years.

That should be 18 USC not 8 btw

Uh yeah bro that's the whole point. People like you would be wetting themselves if armed black people or armed muslims did the same thing. And the police would just straight up kill them.

Keed,

Well I certainly disagree with that if contexts were comparable, but even if I take your conjecture as true... so? So kill whitey to even the score? Is that the desired outcome here?

Schu,

First, lol "arsonists". But mainly, that sorta sounds like victim blaming. Dumb domestic terror laws that the feds have managed to use to charge all sorts of non terrorist activity is BUSH's fault, and these guys are right wing, therefore you asked for it, so stop complaining when an injustice is served? That a decent summary? K.

All,

Pretty good summary of the absurdity of the Hammond punishments, and how the 8th amendment is pretty much dead thanks to precedence (lol three strike laws) : https://reason.com/blog/2016/01/04/r...nspired-oregon

All,

Also note that controlled burns started by the state go astray from time to time and burn private property and sometimes even kills civilians. Somehow I doubt anyone is going to jail for this. Sounds like a matter for civil courts, which is probably how the Hammonds should have been dealt with. http://www.denverpost.com/ci_2287027...nce-prescribed

All,

This discussion also illustrates my problem with the Bundys... The Hammond case is actually pretty tragic, but by inserting themselves and their methods into the story, the case itself has received very little attention, and the argument is basically about the Bundys and should the be murdered or not. Media works for the media, they are not tasked with informing the populace. (sidenote: this is why I always lol when such and such cause whines about not getting coverage... you sure you want it?) Thus, you should know that in today's climate, if you march in protest with guns and challenge government authority on behalf of a beaten and broken family, the guns and government are what's going to sell, not the tormented and abused family. And not only that, it will be assumed that you and the family are one and the same, and rather than the family being ignored, they will be actively hated by a good portion of the population. So nice job on that, Bundy.

KC,

I was under the impression that the claim that the fire was started on the Hammond land was not so much a fact of the case but rather a claim made by the Hammonds in their defense that got rejected by a jury of their peers.

I don't think that's a fair assessment. A jury found both of them guilty as it relates to the arsons. The plea agreement occurred when the jury was deliberating on other charges. So there was enough evidence for a jury to believe beyond a reasonable doubt that they maliciously burned federal property.

The appeal thing makes a lot more sense knowing that, too.

The prosecution probably wasn't too worried about the other charges knowing that the jury came back guilty on a 5 year statutory mandatory minimum. That was likely the basis for why they agreed to dismiss the rest of the charges.

We can argue about mandatory minimums all day, I'm not a fan of them except as they relate to certain weapons charges. But to allow a judge to completely ignore a statutory mandate is awful precedent for everyone.

All,

Just found a justice.gov article on the case (too lazy to type out full address on phoan). It appears to be a mix, as there were 2 fires. The one in 2001 does appear to be malicious, or at least the were convicted as such. The two ranchers claim this was a routine planned burn, the prosecution claimed it was a cover-up for illegal poaching. They had one family witness testify that he was instructed by the defendant to light fire to help them (young teenage cousin, apparently a falling out.. Whatever, not gonna try to Serial this case). Nevertheless they accepted the plea so fine to assume guilt here.

The one in 2006 was started on their land, as a defensive backfire against wildfires coming through, to protect their cattle feed and home (which was successful). It spread and got about an acre of neighboring fed land they had grazing rights on. They failed to notify authorities of the back fire.

They were arrested in 2006 but the DA found nothing that warranted prosecution and dropped the charges. In 2011 is when the feds came back and drummed up new arson charges under terrorist pretenses.

They accepted the plea and I'm not arguing they're innocent. Maliciousness would not surprise me given the back and forth they've had with the BLM and FWS for the previous decades (a not at all uncommon back and forth with Western ranchers, since feds own a vast majority of Western land and their holdings are growing).

What I find tragic are mandatory minimums (I know this case pales in comparison to some truly horrible ones), the quasi double jeopardy (I mean c'mon one of the defendants is in his 70s for ****s sake, he's going back to jail after already serving for crimes almost a decade ago?), and the obviously vindictive state. Even if you ignore the decades of harassment leading up to this, it's a special kind of A hole who wins a case but gets bummed out a dude is getting 3 years instead of 5, and will spend the money and resources years later, AFTER they get out, to bump the sentencing and send them back. This is very clearly a grudge.

This would be more credible if appeals were motioned swiftly. They went to jail in June 2012. The appeal was filed in June 2014. This wasn't some principled limiting of judicial power, this was **** you that's why to the Hammonds.

All,

Correction to my previous post. It was a 1 year sentence, not 3.

All,

There's also a bunch of shadiness to the original case (prosecution getting 6 days, defense only one, jury tampering, non credible witness), but I'm admittedly reading this on some right wing rag and don't feel like going down some serial wormhole and fact check.

So you think that if a bunch of armed Muslims decided to protest the treatment of Gitmo prisoners by taking over some federally-owned buildings then the government response would be calm and measured? Uh, OK.

Ikes so dying to have an argument that he's straight up admitting to making up **** I might think as opposed to what I wrote. Well done.

Of course not.

There were bodies all over Chattanooga.

Right.

This is the issue. It's not as much how these ass clowns are treated, it's how others are routinely treated and the fact that so many seem to not even see it despite it being the most obvious thing in the world. And that willful ignorance is resulting in deaths US citizens on a daily basis without even a pretense of injustice. The fact that these dudes are being treated as gently as humanly possible merely is an exclamation point on the overall point.

I could not possibly care less about these tools. It's merely underscoring an issue that is more important than ISIS in the US.

Why instead of saying "See? This is how protesters fighting oppression by the corrupt state should be treated" people are being like "lol, how awsum would it be if Obama droned those idiots"

Yep. It's also comical how racists are deepthroating these guys for the fact that they did this without like violence. Not like the states reaction to the protest based on race of protesters has any impact on levels of violence that get reached.

Because Thayer neither me nor most I've seen are asking for drones. As usual, keep straw manning though.

I agree with this and would like to see it resolved peacefully, but can I be both against oppression and against guns being used in protest in this way? These guys are using the threat of violence to accomplish what their numbers can't. I would actually be cool with putting them in jail because not only is it a double standard but society would be untenable if everyone "protested" like this.

I believe you believe people feel this way.

DIDS feels that way, and yeah the general vibe on the twitter verse is "How unfair that these idiots aren't shot" which seems perverse to me

Bull****. It's the only logical conclusion from your comparison to actual terrorists.

I love how people (OK mostly Ikes) are saying this is a "peaceful" protest.

They are occupying a building that does not belong to any of them with an arsenal of weapons and one of them said "we are prepared to use lethal force"