Is what's going on in Oregon "Terrorism" ? Nope...

[Filliam H. Muffman]

rjmacs wrote:
At whom, precisely where and when, have these guys aimed their guns at anyone???

I'm not sure it is all the same people, but it was happening during the Bundy Standoff.

[Onamuji]

Marc Anthony wrote:
A minimum five-year sentence for what could even potentially be an innocent act...

You're nuts.

It was willful.

A jury found it willful.

They got drunk. shot up the place and tried to cover their crimes. They endangered hundreds of lives, destroyed thousands of acres of national treasure and cost hundreds of thousands in damages. They torched land that they had no business on repeatedly, habitually and flagrantly.

5 years is going easy on those a-holes.

[Marc Anthony]

What's going on in Oregon in response to this case is not terrorism—it's civil unrest for something the Oregon Farm Bureau says should leave people incensed. Let’s not resort to name-calling, if you choose to disagree.

139 acres were claimed as affected by fires; there were not thousands of acres destroyed, and the jury found the men innocent of all but two fires in the court case. A jury did NOT conclude that they willfully or maliciously set fire to public lands—only that they were guilty of starting the fires that led to that end.

Witness testimony does imply that the Hammonds had a drunken deer hunt on land that wasn’t theirs in 2001—that would be fineable as poaching, although they were not charged for that. That land was not a national treasure, it’s pasture with juniper trees and sagebrush. By BLM’s own accounting, the total damage from the 2001 fire was less than $100.

The 2006 fires started on the Hammond property. They willfully set that fire, but there were extenuating circumstances that suggest this was for the protection of their land. They gained nothing by having that fire spread to BLM property; it was a mistake that cost them $400,000 in a settlement, even though the testifying conservation expert said there are no rehab costs or appreciable losses. Prosecuting these people under an inapplicable anti-terrorism Act and increasing their punishment, especially after they have served the original sentence, is morally wrong.

[Black]

[Onamuji]

Marc Anthony wrote:
What's going on in Oregon in response to this case is not terrorism—it's civil unrest

"It's not "civil unrest." That's New Orleans on the last day of Mardi Gras.

It's armed insurrection. There's a big difference.

Marc Anthony wrote:
139 acres were claimed as affected by fires; there were not thousands of acres destroyed

Actually, that was just one of the fires. Thousands of acres combined. But they were only convicted for 139 acres in one fire and one acre in a second fire. Kind of ridiculous, but that's the way it worked out in court. The evidence was overwhelming that they threatened several witnesses, but only one witness-tampering charge made it to court and the defense managed to exclude most of the evidence for that one. Again, that's the way it works sometimes. They had their trial. They had a good defense. They got their sentences.

Marc Anthony wrote: and the jury found the men innocent of all but two fires in the court case. A jury did NOT conclude that they willfully or maliciously set fire to public land

The jury HAD TO HAVE DETERMINED THAT IT WAS WILLFUL TO GET A GUILTY VERDICT.

I'm wondering why you keep attempting to distort the documented history of this case with such determination. That family is a bunch of hoodlums. Nobody liked them. Their neighbors were scared of them, and happy for the conviction. Those guys belong in jail. What do a bunch of drunken arsonists who slaughter animals on protected land for fun and then torch it for fun and to cover their tracks mean to you?

[$tevie]

If you want to use the dictionary definition of terrorism, then they are terrorists.

If you want to use the legal definition of terrorism, you open up a huge can of worms on a topic which countries, states, lawyers, and politicians have been unable to agree on since forever.

Ultimately this question is one of semantics and everyone needs to agree to disagree.

As for the rest of what's being covered in this thread, I will respectfully bow out.

[Marc Anthony]

I’ve read up on the case—from multiple sources on both sides—because it’s interesting and has further implications, including the current standoff by non-parties. I am not distorting its history. You seem to be ignoring distinctions in the findings and jumping to conclusions of guilt, including that the Hammonds “belong in jail” because they are idiots, drunks, gun-owners, hunters, and/or are generally bad people that are disliked by neighbors—none of which is particularly relevant to either the current standoff or the jury decision.

“Saying they ‘intentionally’ set fire to public land or threatened lives is not what the jury concluded.” –Oregon Farm Bureau President Barry Bushue.

[Onamuji]

Marc Anthony wrote: You seem to be ignoring distinctions in the findings and jumping to conclusions of guilt, including that the Hammonds “belong in jail” because they are idiots, drunks, gun-owners, hunters, and/or are generally bad people that are disliked by neighbors—none of which is particularly relevant to either the current standoff or the jury decision.

'

You seem to be ignoring what I actually write and deliberately putting snippets into false contexts to try and support a dubious and unsupported conclusion of those bozos' innocence.

They are not good people, and supporting them is not aiding whatever cause you are poorly attempting to advocate for.

[Marc Anthony]

I never said they were innocent people. They factually set fires. They were charged, and a competent judge stated his valid constitutional concerns with the law used and intentionally limited their punishment. They factually plead to several hundred thousands of dollars in restitution and served their time. That should've been the end. It wasn't. At any rate, this is the end of me attempting to discuss it. You made up your mind, before my first post.

[Onamuji]

Marc Anthony wrote:
I never said they were innocent people.

No, but you seem to be holding up their "cause" as if being a bunch of losers trying to escape accountability for their crimes is heroic.

Best that you drop it.