Occupied the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge “by force while using and carrying firearms”;
Warned the Harney County sheriff of “extreme civil unrest” if their demands weren’t met;
Brandished and carried firearms inside the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge and “prevented federal officials from performing their official duties by force, threats and intimidation”;
Threatened violence “against anybody who attempted to remove them”;
Traveled to Harney County, Ore., “to intimidate and coerce the population … in order to effectuate the goals of the conspiracy.”
The DA can throw a three ring binder full of charges at someone in the hope that a couple will stick, or when facing a couple hundred years in jail the defendant will just fold and take a plea bargain. Not uncommon or a reflection of whether or not any crime was actually committed.
They are charges, not proovens.
You’re missing the point. Regardless, anyone who believes that a) the Oregon militants are innocent of any crime or b) what the Oregon militants did constitutes peaceful protest is deluded.
There’s a well established legal basis for denying the Oregon militants bail. Read the link. I’m not going to hold your hand and walk you through the state’s argument.
You don’t need to hold my hand sweetie. I’ ve been held without bail before, and had this process explained to me by the best attorneys in this state. Litteraly. One is a state supreme court judge.
You must be delusional to think I would need y9u to walk me through anything.
Y’all that sympathize with the Oregon militants sure are in illustrious company. Assuredly, among the nation’s best and brightest:
“After repeatedly threatening to shoot himself, complaining that he couldn’t get marijuana, and ranting about UFOs, drone strikes in Pakistan, leaking nuclear plants and the government “chemically mutating people,” the last occupier, David Fry, 27, lit a cigarette, shouted “Hallelujah” and walked out of his barricaded encampment into FBI custody.”
Dude comparing people who can see the miscarriage of justice that started this to that guy is like comparing an actual diplomat or analyst to yourself. You should stop posting your own thoughts and go back to plagiarising smart people.
Geez, they almost sound like political prisoners when you put it that way. Here in The Land of the Free and The Home of the Brave, there are no political prisoners. All punishment is just, here.
The salient point was that the Oregon militants are hardly the paragon of liberty and rational discourse their sympathizers believe them to be. Their ranks consist of extremists and conspiracy theorists.
Let’s assume that your understanding of the Hammonds’ case is correct (it isn’t). Does that somehow justify the violent, blatantly criminal acts that were carried out by the Oregon militants?
P.S.; the Hammonds themselves want nothing to do with the Oregon militants, which is telling.
Yes, the Hammonds are scarcely distinguishable from the victims of the arbitrary revolutionary tribunals of the Cheka.
By law, arson on federal land carries a five year mandatory minimum sentence. Given that fires intentionally and illegally set on public lands, even those in a remote area, threaten property and residents and endanger firefighters called to battle the blaze and that the Hammonds set the fires to destroy the evidence of their poaching on federal property, the sentence is hardly draconian.
And that is why the “Oregon militants” were in the wrong: they were an uninvolved and uninvited third party. That doesn’t mean that the Hammonds’ punishment was just, but the fact that they did not wish to fight it themselves means that others should not have taken up the fight on their behalf.