Protesters Take Over National Wildlife Refuge

[Ben]

Protesters have taken over the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon to protest the (re)incarceration of a rancher and his son.

Probably not enough info yet to fully comment, but based on the story, a few thoughts:

1) I've driven through that part of Oregon, including exploring back roads. The idea that someone would start fires to "hide poaching" seems very implausible to me. It is a big empty. You could hide the Burning Man there. Perhaps the "hide poaching" thing is misreporting. The ranchers claim they were burning invasive species, which is more plausible, and also more plausible for something the govt would stick its nose in, regarding what people can do on their own property. It could also be that their fires damaged property, but that's not evident.

2) The part about them both already serving a sentence, being set free, but now having to go back to prison because the govt decided they didn't serve enough time after the fact? It's probably legal, but I can't fathom how.

3) The father and son are (apparently) willingly going back to prison, so maybe there's more to the story.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/01/03/armed-protestors-occupying-national-wildlife-refuge-building-vow-long-stay.html?intcmp=hpbt1

[bedlamite]

2) The part about them both already serving a sentence, being set free, but now having to go back to prison because the govt decided they didn't serve enough time after the fact? It's probably legal, but I can't fathom how.

Apparently their original sentence didn't meet the 5 year requirement:

http://www.justice.gov/usao-or/pr/eastern-oregon-ranchers-convicted-arson-resentenced-five-years-prison

More info:

http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Hammond-v-United-States-13-1512-Reply-to-Brief-in-Opposition.pdf

I don't see this ending well.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

One of their kin testified that grandpas told him to lite it up to hide the poaching. Was a fairly small fire iirc


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Ben]

Apparently their original sentence didn't meet the 5 year requirement:

I had seen that. I'm just wondering about the legality of re-incarcerating them. Seems like a goof in the legal system. Had they been handed five year sentences to begin with, probably wouldn't be an issue.

Also I still can't believe the "hide the poaching" thing, whether it comes from the accused or the gov. How does that hide poaching in BFE? The gov also, in natural resource cases, generally likes to file the criminal complaint, but then finagle civil penalties instead to fund the enforcement agencies.  I didn't see that here.

Regardless, there has to be more going on given that they are willingly going back to the pokey. Bundy being there is likely mostly for his own agenda.

I do find it funny that the BLM crowd (funny, since this is also on BLM land) is crying about the National Guard not being called out, like it was in Ferguson. No matter what I might think about the militia crowd there, I'm betting they'll not be looting or trashing the place. The BLM crowd seems to have no concept regarding the remoteness of the location. There were probably more protesters at Rahm Emanuel's house last week, and no National Guard there.

[BryanP]

Regardless, there has to be more going on given that they are willingly going back to the pokey. Bundy being there is likely mostly for his own agenda.

From what I'm reading, the Hammonds have rejected Bundy and the protesters. At that point it ceased being about the Hammonds and became just another Bundy ego trip.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Ammon wants to be the angry white version of Jesse Jackson

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

http://www.justice.gov/usao-or/pr/eastern-oregon-ranchers-convicted-arson-resentenced-five-years-prison

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

[just Warren]

Here is the narrative of the pro-rancher side.

Anyone who takes the Feds side in this has to realize that there is another side and is expressed here.

There is a lot of justified anger out there for the Feds and this case is just one of many instances of what is driving that anger.

Not to mention that the Feds routinely get away with instances of destruction that dwarf whatever the damage is that these ranchers allegedly did.

I'm of the view that there has been a long-term effort to drive people off the land and reserve it all under Federal auspices. And that this is part of that strategy, thus the injustice shown here isn't a local office or personnel that are out of control, they are doing what they are told to do.  And so it doesn't matter what destruction the Feds have wrought since to their mind the land belongs to them and they can do what they want with it and the rest of us have no say in the matter.

One of their kin testified that grandpas told him to lite it up to hide the poaching. Was a fairly small fire iirc

From section O of the linked article:

(o) Federal attorneys, Frank Papagni, hunted down a witness that was not mentally capable to be a credible witness. Dusty Hammond (grandson and nephew) testified that Steven told him to start a fire. He was 13 at the time and 24 when he testified (11 years later). At 24 Dusty had been suffering with mental problems for many years. He had estranged his family including his mother. Judge Hogan noted that Dusty’s memories as a 13-year-old boy were not clear or credible. He allowed the prosecution to continually use Dusty’s testimony anyway. When speaking to the Hammonds about this testimony, they understood that Dusty was manipulated and expressed nothing but love for their troubled grandson.

[Andiron]

From what I'm reading, the Hammonds have rejected Bundy and the protesters. At that point it ceased being about the Hammonds and became just another Bundy ego trip.

Sure looks like more than just a few Bundy fans.

[zxcvbob]

Wouldn't increasing their sentences after-the-fact (whether the govt screwed up the minimum or not) be "double jeopardy"? 

[BryanP]

Wouldn't increasing their sentences after-the-fact (whether the govt screwed up the minimum or not) be "double jeopardy"? 

From what I understand, the prosecution appealed the sentence and it was changed. This happens.  Usually when you hear about it, it's the defense appealing a sentence and having it reduced.

[lupinus]

Wouldn't increasing their sentences after-the-fact (whether the govt screwed up the minimum or not) be "double jeopardy"? 

Sucky gray area I think.

Technically no, because the sentence for the original crime is just being extended to what the minimum sentence should have been. They aren't being tried convicted and sentenced all over again for the same crime.

On the not so technical side, it stink to high *expletive deleted*ing heaven.


Sent from my iPhone. Freaking autocorrect.

[GigaBuist]

Was a fairly small fire iirc

The fire covered 139 acres of public land.  I know that's probably small by western standards but i'd consider it significant.

[HeroHog]

The fire covered 139 acres of public land.  I know that's probably small by western standards but i'd consider it significant.

LEASED land. It was a controlled burn to kill off invasive weeds according to one side.

[Andiron]

LEASED land. It was a controlled burn to kill off invasive weeds according to one side.

At which point,  who cares?  Controlled burn on leased land.  No wildfire,  end of story.  *expletive deleted*ck you very much to the Feds.

[Ben]

The fire covered 139 acres of public land.  I know that's probably small by western standards but i'd consider it significant.

There have been bigger fires on public land in CA caused from everything from a guy welding a gate to kids letting their pot fueled campfire party get out of control. None of them were labeled arson and IIRC, none of them went to prison. I'm pretty sure several of the fires that were actual arson cases ended in probation or short jail stints.

The backfire should not be labeled arson, and I still call bull on the "fire to hide poaching". No one who lives in an area like that would ever think to start a fire when they could just bury the evidence, or freakin' cover it up. The chances of finding poaching evidence in that large and desolate area have to be puny. Whichever side that story comes from, there's something else going on with that fire.

Plus I saw the feds got $400K in damages, so that much dough plus 5 years jail time, that's more than "punishment fitting the crime". They definitely want that land.

[Northwoods]

One of their kin testified that grandpas told him to lite it up to hide the poaching. Was a fairly small fire iirc


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

That kin, from what I read, was a now 24-ish year old with significant mental health problems and lengthy estrangement from the family.  Who was also only 13-ish at the time of the fire in question.

LEASED land. It was a controlled burn to kill off invasive weeds according to one side.

What I read was that it was done in order to prevent a major wildfire from destroying winter feed crops for their cattle.  And that the burn worked even better than intended as it not only saved their feed crop but was key to stopping the fire overall.  And whatever the total acreage of the back burn, it apparently consumed a whopping 1 acre of public (and leased for grazing) grass land.  We're not talking about destroying thousands of acres of old growth timber here.  I bet 6 months later you would be hard pressed to tell there'd ever even been a fire there.

[Boomhauer]

The fact that the Hammonds specifically requested for the circus of idiots to not come gives me a lot more favorable opinion of them and their case...

[Firethorn]

The backfire should not be labeled arson, and I still call bull on the "fire to hide poaching". No one who lives in an area like that would ever think to start a fire when they could just bury the evidence, or freakin' cover it up. The chances of finding poaching evidence in that large and desolate area have to be puny. Whichever side that story comes from, there's something else going on with that fire.

The last fire the feds started up here was something like 83,000 acres burned, so a 'few hundred' isn't much.

Part of the problem is that apparently there's 3 fires and questions about whether they actually got the necessary permission/permits.  Another thing I thought of - we know 3 fires supposedly got out of control, but out of how many?  3/3 is a bad ratio, but this was over the course of years.  Was it really 3/100?

[RoadKingLarry]

 
Wasn't there some very early support for the protesters from the family that very suddenly was reversed? Like maybe in response to a credible threat from the government....
 

The group "occupying" the visitor center and outhouses at the wildlife reserve aren't playing it smart. Too concentrated a location. Too easy for a tragically convenient natural gas/propane explosion in the middle of the night.
Two basic options for the feds- go full Waco/Ruby Ridge on them and really cause a stink or just ignore them and they'll eventually just go home when they figure out American Revolution II isn't happening this week.
I don't have a lot of faith in the Feds doing the smart thing.

[BryanP]

Two basic options for the feds- go full Waco/Ruby Ridge on them and really cause a stink or just ignore them and they'll eventually just go home when they figure out American Revolution II isn't happening this week.
I don't have a lot of faith in the Feds doing the smart thing.

Setting aside the arguments as to why they're in there, the fact remains that an armed group has taken over a federal building. That's not something you get to just walk away from. If they're lucky they're all going to prison.

[dogmush]

I'm not so sure of that Bryan.

Two years ago I would have said that an armed group stopping Federal Law Enforcement from asset forfeiture wasn't something you walked away from.  I also would have said that leading a group to shut down a major airport, even for a short time, wasn't something you walked away from. 

And yet, clearly it can be for folks on both sides of the political spectrum.

[RoadKingLarry]

I kind of think the "taking over" aspect is getting blown way out. Was the building occupied or even if use or was it a visitor center that was shuttered for the season?
We see the SJW crowd causing much more trouble with shutting down federal highways, disrupting airports,  rioting and such, how many of them go to prison.
Everybody has fallen in line with the narrative being fed by the mainstream media and the goverment. "Just a bunch of right wing radicals" .

[BlueStarLizzard]

I kind of think the "taking over" aspect is getting blown way out. Was the building occupied or even if use or was it a visitor center that was shuttered for the season?
We see the SJW crowd causing much more trouble with shutting down federal highways, disrupting airports,  rioting and such, how many of them go to prison.
Everybody has fallen in line with the narrative being fed by the mainstream media and the goverment. "Just a bunch of right wing radicals" .

According to one FB "friend" they are "white terrorists".

The majority of the population will not be outraged if the feds do go Ruby ridge on these guys or throw them all in jail. They are not idiot protestors on the " correct" side of the political spectrum.

[castle key]

Technically no, because the sentence for the original crime is just being extended to what the minimum sentence should have been. They aren't being tried convicted and sentenced all over again for the same crime.

I thought the Obama administration opposed mandatory minimum sentences....