Armed federal law enforcement is unconstitutional. That is the source of these problems. No federal agency should be funded for armed law enforcement. This should be worked out with state government and if absolutely necessary use of the state 'national' guard. However, in this case, there would be no incentive for the state to support the feds, and that is exactly as it should be. Waco would have been peacefully settled without Federal armed law enforcement. Ruby Ridge would never have happened. The bombing of the Murrah Building in OK City would never have happened either. The federal prison system would be 1/20th of its size and that would be mostly empty cells. Instead, a lot of people are in jails for victimless actions, and the federal government has millions of guns and billions of rounds of ammo to use against the people.
Overwhelming majority of WOD (War on Drugs) prisoners (approximately 90%) are in state prisons, not federal. And even that figure is understated because many state prisoners plead guilty to non-WOD crimes because they were arrested while in possession and plead out to avoid punitive drug sentencing laws.
OK, federal prison system only shrinks to 1/5 its size and the state systems to 1/20th their size.
Currently federal prisons are occupied for these offenses: Drugs 47% Weapons 17% Immigration 9% Extortion, Fraud, Bribery 7% Robbery 4% Burglary, Larceny, Property 4%
Note that only 15% of the federal prisoners committed crimes that directly violated someone's rights. Also note that all of those crimes also presumably violated state laws unless they occurred on federal land or Indian reservations. So why do we have a federal prison system at all?
Because the banking cartel wants the government to punish people (at taxpayers expense) who try to steal the money the banksters stole from productive people and to make it appear the government is doing something to support law and order and to provide safety to the citizens? (In reality it is doing nothing of the kind, and exceeding the government's constitutional powers.)
ummmmmmm ... when I gave my credit union my cash in exchange for a pittance in interest, I did it willingly and didn't consider their meager interest rate evidence of theft, just capitalistic stinginess. . where is the theft? -- j .
Not part of the cartel unless they are a "national" bank. (At least that is what they used to call the ones in the fed system.) I don't think that credit unions are part of that cabal.
Another reminder why going Galt is better than standing and fighting. When I first heard of this standoff I thought to myself that the Feds are going to massacre those guys. The best thing those guys could probably do is invite in a couple news crews to document everything. That's what probably gave them a good result down in the desert in the last standoff.
but you know how the feds want to control the media coverage, to be able to spin things in their favor. . locals may not be as bad in that respect, at least in the countryside like this. -- j .
I think the locals are terrified to get involved, they have seen a large thriving ranch turn to ruins due to fighting the system. The Hammond's have given up. And the Fed's are doing all they can to keep the locals out of it, because if they get in on it, the situation begins to gain legitimacy. At that point they can no longer say its just some trouble makers from other states, then the real conflict may come out. And God forbid that happens. Keep it all quiet and keep the mess to a dull roar, people will forget.
Yeah, I know. But, the media has a very close relationship with government. Media sets the agenda and government acts on it - in general. (The one thing I took with me from Poli Sci 101 in college - haha)
So the first things I see in the official news reports are staggering and telling.
#1. They didn't initially report a confrontation with Federal law enforcement. #2. The man who died was the spokesperson for the group. Pretty suspicious. And secondhand witness accounts indicate that he really did have his hands up and that no member of the convoy attempted to resist in any way. #3. The convoy was on its way to speak to a gathering of interested citizens in another county and they were being escorted by that county's sheriff. #4. There is no mention of the federal roadblock which was set up specifically to trap them. #5. There is no mention of the charges on which the remaining members of the convoy were booked, which are ludicrous. It is "interfering with a Federal officer in the line of duty. That this is a manufactured charge is evident.
This whole thing stinks to high heaven of outright federal tyranny. Everyone involved in this should be up on premeditated murder charges, illegal arrest charges, and more - including the Oregon Sheriff who led them into the trap.
Given the lack of an "official" statement in the matter and explanation of the particulars of the arrest, I am leaning towards that conclusion as well.
The only reports I have heard are second-hand, mostly being from Ammon Bundy through outside contacts (as he is in jail). The daughter of the victim claims that she was told her father had his hands up and was shot in the face while trying to surrender.
What also didn't get reported much is that Ryan Bundy was also shot and wounded, but not killed.
This is all over talk radio in my area as we're only a couple hundred miles away. It was on the headlines of the paper (which is another left-leaning news outlet) but it - interestingly - contained no official statement from either Oregon or Federal Law enforcement. I think they're crapping in their pants right now trying to craft a statement that lays the blame on the militia men, but they're going to have a hard time explaining the deliberate entrapment and trumped up charges in the face of a murder.
I so agree with you. This is blatant murder of an American citizen, revolt or revolution, either way the whole damn thing stinks! And they are hiding it from the media as much as possible. I am sure this man's family are crushed and I hope they don't back down. Not to mention the Hammond s served their time is there an amendment against being retried for the same crime? This whole situation is all bad, way too much govt control. When and where does it stop.
This guy was shot by a state police officer while being arrested on a warrant. He went for the loaded gun in his pocket. This is no more "blatant murder" than the death of the unarmed guy who was charging the cop in Ferguson. Far from "hiding" things, the film of the whole incident was released today for your review. The Constitutional provision you are referring to is the prohibition on double jeopardy which generally bans trying someone from being tried twice for the same crime. The Hammonds were not tried twice. They were tried once and found guilty by a jury. The sentence imposed by the judge after the trial was alleged to be unlawful. An unlawful sentence can be appealed. That happened here and the appellate court reversed the trial judge and remanded for resentencing. They are now serving time on the new, presumably lawful, sentence.
Do you have some specific reason to think the film was "altered" or do you just not like the possibility that Mr. Finicum was going for his loaded firearm?
do you have a source for the "shot by a State police officer" statement? . and, j.a., regardless of the legality of a "re-sentencing" action, it stinks to high Heaven of police state. . there is "legal" and there is "wrong." -- j .
I don't know why it "stinks" to allow an appellate court to review a sentence alleged to be unlawful. This sentence was, in fact, unlawful. If the Hammonds had been unlawfully sentenced too harshly by the trial judge would you think it "stinks" if the appellate court had reversed that? CNN reported this morning that the officer who shot Finicum was a state police officer. The arrest was effected by a joint group of federal and state law enforcement officers. Sorry I can't give you a better source at the moment. My guess is that we will soon have the name and rank of the officer.
They have already served their time, and they have been cooperative since release. At this point they will do anything to throw the final blow to get that land, the Hammond's Ranch I mean. Besides I have rarely met a police officer that wasn't "jumpy" and damn quick to pull the trigger. It is what it is, but I still think there's much more to it all then we will ever know! I just want to know what the hell the government needs all that land for. What's the purpose of taking this family's ranch? That's the only thing no being answered.
Your question is a legitimate one and I probably share your point of view regarding federal dominion over huge swatches of land in the American west. However, I don't think you and I ought to seize federal facilities to make our point. These are legal and political issues which do not, on the face of it, justify armed insurrection.
I do agree with that. The only conclusion I draw from that is they probably planned on staying at the Hammond's Ranch, and when that fell through, this place seemed like a great place to kick it.
it seems like armed insurrection is the ultimate end to all of this, dammit, and the only things which have yet to be decided are who, when and where. -- j .
Rand opined that revolution is justified when: (1) Your right to vote has been abridged; (2) taxation has become confiscatory; and (3) you are not allowed to emigrate. What do you think of those conditions and do you think they have been satisfied?
yes, and while I agree with those conditions, there might be modifications involving property rights and usurpation of States' rights. . failure of the federal government to remain within the restrictions of the constitution is another area which should be explored, IMHO. -- j .
as you have observed here in the gulch, there is a certain wariness of government's use of force, and this of course includes incarceration. . when a person is sentenced to prison, it is a serious thing. . when a sentence is increased, through whatever means, it seems as though it could be a manipulation to control unruly people beyond the first effort. . no matter the change, for the better or worse, I am just naturally suspicious. Thank You for your research, your knowledge and seasoning on legal matters. . I just wonder how this Hammonds case was appealed. . someone must have been dissatisfied with the original sentences. -- j .
Yes, the prosecution appealed the sentence in a timely manner. The trial judge strayed outside the mandatory sentencing range set by law. Such things get reversed even if the judge's sentence was more just. The judge doesn't get to overrule Congress and the President.
So, alerted by this post I went and hunted down the video. From a distance, it's really far from conclusive. He clearly had his arms up and brings them down. Of course he is stumbling around in deep snow and he may simply have been trying to keep his balance -- if you start to fall you drop your arms.
Since both arms go down instead of just one I'm inclined toward that. Plus if two people are pointing pistols at you it's really stupid to reach for a gun.
I agree that the video is far from conclusive. We should listen to what the various witnesses say also. That includes both the Finicum sympathizers and the police (as well as anyone else who was in the God forsaken area). And don't forget the autopsy results. I admit ignorance as to whether Finicum was stupid enough to go for his loaded gun. I never met nor talked with him. Although, it should be noted, he did make statements to the press about his willingness to die for the cause and aversion to incarceration fairly recently and he did flee from the traffic stop and try to escape capture. Collectively that is consistent with a "death by cop" mentality. Evaluate as more information comes available.
There were arrest warrants issued by the federal court and signed by a federal magistrate judge. Those warrants would have to be properly supported by factual statements and affidavits demonstrating probable cause for the arrests. Since there would be no reason to seal those warrants we should soon have access to them and then be able to see what facts were alleged to support the probable cause findings. My guess is the interference has to do with the seizure of the federal buildings involved but that is only a guess. The warrants and the supporting materials will explain more.
I, too, will be interested to see what the warrants state, because the charges were about interfering with a Federal officer in the course of his duties. That means they have to cite the duty being performed (which immediately becomes a jurisdictional challenge) and how the alleged interference took place. The burden of prosecution lies with the Federal Government.
Correct, but remember that as to the validity of the warrants the standard is only probable cause that a crime has been committed, not beyond a reasonable doubt or even more likely than not. My guess, and it is only a guess, is that the "duty" interfered with is going to turn out to be manning of the refuge buildings.
They'll have fun getting a conviction there if Bundy has any kind of attorney. The building is only staffed when the park is open from May to October. And if I were Bundy, I'd be screaming entrapment and excessive force, as well as deliberate deceit by a law enforcement officer, as he was being escorted by the Oregon Sheriff to a town hall meeting.
Hard to see how they were "entrapped" into traveling hundreds of miles to occupy the refuge buildings, but good lawyers can work miracles sometimes. We'll have to wait and see.
They were led into an ambush - a roadside blockade with dozens of Federal law enforcement officers who had arms at-the-ready by State Law Enforcement. That screams entrapment to me. They could have arrested Bundy et al at any time simply by coming out to the refuge building. Instead, they staged a deliberate roadblock in another county replete with overhead surveillance. That's not a simple traffic stop.
They are not being charged with the crime of being on the road at the location where they were arrested. They are being charged with unlawfully impeding federal employees from carrying out their duties. The arresting authorities had signed arrest warrants for the defendants. How the arrest was eventually effected is irrelevant to their guilt or innocence of the underlying crime as charged. Defendants are often tricked into being at a place where they can be arrested. That is not entrapment. Neither does it matter that the officers had weapons at the ready. Officers are supposed to have weapons at the ready when they are about to arrest someone, particularly someone who they have good reason to believe is armed. Entrapment would have been if they had been invited by the federal authorities to occupy the wildlife refuge and then been arrested for doing so. That did not happen.
I view the "entrapment" as their being told that their property rights -- as u.s. citizens -- would be honored. the bait-and-switch of which the feds are guilty pervades many of the western States, and it has caught both the Hammonds and the Bundys in its trap. . they were invited to occupy their own land, as well as Nevada and Oregon land, and the feds moved in on them. -- j .
Are you really saying the government "invited" these people to occupy the wildlife refuge?? That might be entrapment if true, but I haven't heard anyone assert that before. Do you have a source for this?
my point is this::: the feds have invited us citizens to occupy our land -- like my 34 acres -- in peace for decades. . recently, they have conjured up reasons for modifying that peace like water rights and environmental rule changes. . I view this as a bait-and-switch situation, where the feds have changed their side of the contract without any due process with the land-owners. . my source is business school (MBA, 1984) and I fear that these unilateral changes are tantamount to a challenge to the land-owners' property rights. -- j .
A dispute about property rights is not "entrapment" under the law. You have a pure legal argument. Assert it in Court, but do not pretend that you have been "entrapped."
I wonder also about the bait-and-switch behavior of our employees, senators and representatives, who have failed to follow-through on their campaign promises. . we need more accountability here! -- j .
They were invited to speak at a community event and offered an escort by that County's Sheriff to the event. Instead, that very Sheriff led them instead into the roadblock. That is deliberate deception on the part of law enforcement which brought about an adverse situation. That IS entrapment.
No, mere deception is not entrapment. Entrapment is when law enforcement encourages and advances the commitment of a crime and then arrests the defendants for the very crime the government helped them commit. That did not happen here. No arm of the government encouraged or helped the defendants seize the wildlife refuge. If you know differently, please cite your source. The invitation to speak and the escort was apparently a ruse designed to trick them into a situation where they could be arrested on the warrants that had already issued. Police deceive and trick people to effect lawful arrests every day. It is both legal and commonplace. It couldn't be that you think this arrest was an example of "entrapment" because you have a position regarding the guilt or innocence of the defendants regarding the underlying crime, could it? If they had been accused bank robbers who were tricked in this manner would your position regarding "entrapment" be the same?
Law Enforcement baited them into a knowingly dangerous situation based on pretenses and deception. If you don't want to call that legal entrapment, I'll go for something on the civil side: gross negligence and (criminal) negligent homicide. That every officer at the blockade had their arms out and pointed, loaded with safeties off and on hair-trigger for a "traffic stop" as this is being painted is absurd. I normally side with law enforcement first, but this has all the earmarks of picking a fight that wasn't necessary. Not one of the protesters ever pulled a gun or fired a shot. And the man who was killed was shot in the back.
As for my position, Federal law enforcement officers have had every opportunity for weeks to engage in dialogue with the protesters. They had those same weeks to effect an arrest at the refuge. That they chose instead to collude with local law enforcement and offer a peaceful discussion only to turn around and reneg on that commitment shows blatant dishonesty and ulterior motives. I can not defend any such - regardless of its purported "legality".
As for your example, do you really want to argue that a Sheriff is going to offer alleged bank robbers the chance for an escort into a neighboring county to talk with the citizens there? You're reaching...
I live about 300 miles from the site of all this stuff and have been hearing about it from people who have been there. I don't necessarily agree with the takeover of the office, but I can understand the frustration of the ranchers and having looked at the long train of abuses and usurpations over the last 40 years in that area, I can come to a reasonably informed decision that the Federal government is way out of bounds and needs to be called on this. The problem is that they are judge, jury, and executioner and there is no court of appeals. Such took place prior to the Declaration - when the colonists petitioned for redress of grievances and were pointedly ignored by government at the time.
Okay, first you are correct that law enforcement could have tried to arrest the defendants at the refuge. However, Waco and Ruby Ridge show that setting up a siege and invasion situation does not end well. Instead, they did not press the occupiers, did not restrict their access or egress or cut off their supplies and, most importantly, did not try to invade and arrest. A different strategy was applied. Wait them out and then try to arrest when they left the property under some ruse. Unfortunately that strategy still led to a death. I don't think this was a traffic stop. The officers intended to arrest the defendants and they tried to do so. A civil negligence action would have zero chance of succeeding here. It is not negligent to have weapons drawn when attempting to arrest armed individuals. Finicum was shot in the back? I had not read that. Interesting. That was not clear from the helicopter footage. Was he shot multiple times? As for the bank robber (or any other suspected felon), cops uses ruses, lies, misdirection, false promises, fraudulent assertions, etc. all the time to effect arrests or gain confessions. There seems nothing out of the ordinary in this case in that respect. The defendants better come up with better defenses if they wish to avoid prison in this matter.
I'm not trying to say the defendants aren't guilty of obstruction. That is for a court of law. What I'm concerned about first and foremost is that the Federal agents were far more interested in arresting the protesters than in investigating the cause of the protest. There was a very interesting history piece on this situation that outlines some of the egregious behavior on the part of the refuge managers that the FBI should be investigating. See http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2... for more.
And some people laugh when you tell them that Obama wants to the federal government to take over all law enforcement. Me, I'm going to buy another gun.
This is a perfect illustration of an overbloated government demonstrating its power for the sake of demonstrating its power. The Feds have nothing to gain by their restrictions on the ranchers except for some phony environmental wacko made-up reasons. But, like other cases in the past it lead to someone's death. Reminds me of what we learned in basic freedom lessons: Q: "Why must we obey a stupid law?" A: "Because if you continue to do so, eventually the government can kill you." The more power the state is allowed to have, the more power it will exert. Sometimes, merely to demonstrate its power over its citizens.
Heard Stefan Molyneioux explain it a certain way recently. A law is a rule that you, as a citizen, adhere to unless you want to be killed...or something along those lines. Made me laugh, but it's true. And, best of all, we citizens allow it. You don't have to attend a sports event, play on a team, go for a hike, dance to a certain song...all with an element of choice. But laws...you had better adhere or get crushed. Interesting take...
Win the debate, hearts and souls of a significant number and then follow Martin Luther King's example. Should enough do that the system would soon become completely mired down by the sheer numbers.
Valid take, I think. MLK has been completely forgotten or his message bastardized beyond any resemblance of what he intended. The man, though, was really on to something - a great mind.
The irony behind the Oregon situation is that I had just read a story last night by Reason Magazine's editor describing the relative restraint shown by law enforcement in Oregon compared to Ferguson, MO and Baltimore, MD.
A point was made that they were allowed to leave without interference or fear of force but yet the latter is exactly what they did. This should be a national "Front Page" issue.
Will anyone bring this up in the debates? I am going to try.
Yet another American Citizan murdered by the Feds. I also did not think this whole incident was going to end well. I also though we would have another Waco on our hands. I don't think its over yet.
I live about a hundred miles away. Our local hospital (only one with adequate emergency room) was on lockdown all night awaiting casualties during and after the incident. None came. Perhaps the Feds were expecting a higher body count. Latest word (rumor, but published) is that LeVoy took off in his pickup after the traffic stop and came upon another roadblock down the road, went off the road into a snow bank, and was shot while "reaching for his waistband." If they release the cam results, this may clarify things. The lefties around here are going nuts with fist pumps and hallelujahs. A sordid mess, for sure, whatever the results of the investigation.
I knew it was going to come to this. Obama's government is arrogant,, petulant, and MUST rule over people. Insurgencies cannot be tolerated by him. Look at how Snowden, who should be a hero, was met with Obama's arrogance (Putin put Obama in his place). Best to hide in plain sight and not openly fight Obama while he is in office.
Not enough information to comment let's see what the news conferences have to say. Since it's still ongoing I assume the other side will be interviewed as well.....maybe.
whether a whistleblower (Snowden)or openly resistent, the govt has shown how you will be dealt with...make no mistake, this is a fascist govt...you will be made to disappear or silenced...
what is sad is that thousands did not show up with their guns to defend the resisters in Oregon...
If this goes the way of Waco and Ruby Ridge, the militia members will all be found innocent of any wrongdoing. The Feds will walk and nobody will be held accountable for the death.
We should be glad Janet Reno wasn't still around...the body count would have been MUCH higher.
Been following the situation north of us... What, to me, is interesting... is the Hammonds (who turned themselves in, BTW) didn't want either the federales OR the Bundy's there, nor did the neighbors... They (the Hammonds) fought the good fight in court, and (perhaps wrongly) lost, so (as good, upstanding citizens) decided to turn themselves in. The Brethren Bundy out of SOUTHERN NEVADA (nowhere near Oregon), who have problems with paying a land owner for running their cattle on someone elses land (regardless if that land owner is the dotgov, I still think that is called... um... mooching?), used the Hammonds situation (against the Hammond's wishes, BTW) as a way to keep their 15 minutes of adrenaline-fueled, overthrow-the government baiting nonsense going. (I still think they read too many survivalist novellas, and somehow believed that the end of the world scenario espoused in some was real...)
What the Bundy Bunch were apparently shooting for (no pun intended) was, after failing to do so at their home turf in Nevada, they wanted to provoke an armed confrontation with the government (a'la Waco, Texas) in Oregon. They want to be the new-day Koresh's so they will be looked on as "heroes". Meanwhile, the people in Harney County, Oregon, wanted nothing to do with these assorted rabble rousers, and the US government people they attracted, and wanted them all gone. The Bundys - wanted none of THAT - they needed a firefight.
The Bundy clan got their wish - they poked the hornet next, and kept poking at it, until they got the firefight they wanted so desperately (and felt were "cheated out of") at home. Notice how they're calling the dead guy (who committed "suicide by cop") a martyr for the cause? Bah.
I just wish these out of stater southern Nevadans and their Ilk would pack up, go home, and leave the locals in peace to deal with what they have to deal with. Unfortunately - the locals (who DO value their liberty and privacy) will have the dotgov down their throats for a long time to come. Nice Job, guys.
great analysis, except for one thing::: we now have a person who has given it all for the cause, whose name will be part of a "remember the cause" call ringing in our ears. this needs to become a part of a popular uprising against an oppressive government, does it not? -- j
Go up to Burns Oregon (about a half days drive from here, BTW, if you're ever in the area!!) and ASK the locals how they feel about these out of staters coming up and sticking their nose in what was a private issue.
Sure, it gave them a voice and platform... but it also ruined their lives, something they saw coming. But don't take it from me... go up there yourself and ask. Good people, they'll talk to you. See how THEY feel about this insanity.
I understand -- but it would be a long commute from tennessee. . the horrible thing is that it's the feds who are ruining their lives, and the double-jeopardy re-sentencing of the Hammonds started it. . the nevadans should never have been involved ... except that they wanted the platform to resist the feds. . sad sad sad. -- j .
Here's my guess on what happened: the group's spokesman had a habit of shaking his finger in the direction of opposition as he argued; adrenalin-charged FBI shooters saw what they perceived as what might be a pistol (finger with pointed index finger) pointed at them, and cut loose, killing the rancher. Before the leader of the government crowd could stop the shooting, at least one more person was hit. Now they're being purposely vague until a government "Baghdad Bob" can come up with a plausible cover story, and praying no independent video of the incident exists.
That is the source of these problems.
No federal agency should be funded for armed law enforcement. This should be worked out with state government and if absolutely necessary use of the state 'national' guard.
However, in this case, there would be no incentive for the state to support the feds, and that is exactly as it should be.
Waco would have been peacefully settled without Federal armed law enforcement.
Ruby Ridge would never have happened.
The bombing of the Murrah Building in OK City would never have happened either.
The federal prison system would be 1/20th of its size and that would be mostly empty cells.
Instead, a lot of people are in jails for victimless actions, and the federal government has millions of guns and billions of rounds of ammo to use against the people.
second amendment ... damn. -- j
.
Currently federal prisons are occupied for these offenses:
Drugs 47%
Weapons 17%
Immigration 9%
Extortion, Fraud, Bribery 7%
Robbery 4%
Burglary, Larceny, Property 4%
https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/...
in exchange for a pittance in interest, I did it willingly
and didn't consider their meager interest rate evidence
of theft, just capitalistic stinginess. . where is the theft? -- j
.
to be able to spin things in their favor. . locals may not be as
bad in that respect, at least in the countryside like this. -- j
.
the best one, though, is on cast iron things in the street --
sanitary sewer. -- j
.
#1. They didn't initially report a confrontation with Federal law enforcement.
#2. The man who died was the spokesperson for the group. Pretty suspicious. And secondhand witness accounts indicate that he really did have his hands up and that no member of the convoy attempted to resist in any way.
#3. The convoy was on its way to speak to a gathering of interested citizens in another county and they were being escorted by that county's sheriff.
#4. There is no mention of the federal roadblock which was set up specifically to trap them.
#5. There is no mention of the charges on which the remaining members of the convoy were booked, which are ludicrous. It is "interfering with a Federal officer in the line of duty. That this is a manufactured charge is evident.
This whole thing stinks to high heaven of outright federal tyranny. Everyone involved in this should be up on premeditated murder charges, illegal arrest charges, and more - including the Oregon Sheriff who led them into the trap.
.
What also didn't get reported much is that Ryan Bundy was also shot and wounded, but not killed.
This is all over talk radio in my area as we're only a couple hundred miles away. It was on the headlines of the paper (which is another left-leaning news outlet) but it - interestingly - contained no official statement from either Oregon or Federal Law enforcement. I think they're crapping in their pants right now trying to craft a statement that lays the blame on the militia men, but they're going to have a hard time explaining the deliberate entrapment and trumped up charges in the face of a murder.
Hubris never learns.
statement? . and, j.a., regardless of the legality of a "re-sentencing"
action, it stinks to high Heaven of police state. . there is "legal"
and there is "wrong." -- j
.
to all of this, dammit, and the only things which have
yet to be decided are who, when and where. -- j
.
might be modifications involving property rights and
usurpation of States' rights. . failure of the federal
government to remain within the restrictions of the
constitution is another area which should be explored,
IMHO. -- j
.
certain wariness of government's use of force, and
this of course includes incarceration. . when a person
is sentenced to prison, it is a serious thing. . when a
sentence is increased, through whatever means,
it seems as though it could be a manipulation to
control unruly people beyond the first effort. . no
matter the change, for the better or worse, I am
just naturally suspicious.
Thank You for your research, your knowledge and
seasoning on legal matters. . I just wonder how this
Hammonds case was appealed. . someone must
have been dissatisfied with the original sentences. -- j
.
Since both arms go down instead of just one I'm inclined toward that. Plus if two people are pointing pistols at you it's really stupid to reach for a gun.
property rights -- as u.s. citizens -- would be honored.
the bait-and-switch of which the feds are guilty pervades
many of the western States, and it has caught both
the Hammonds and the Bundys in its trap. . they were
invited to occupy their own land, as well as Nevada and
Oregon land, and the feds moved in on them. -- j
.
to occupy our land -- like my 34 acres -- in peace
for decades. . recently, they have conjured up
reasons for modifying that peace like water rights
and environmental rule changes. . I view this as a
bait-and-switch situation, where the feds have
changed their side of the contract without any
due process with the land-owners. . my source
is business school (MBA, 1984) and I fear that
these unilateral changes are tantamount to a
challenge to the land-owners' property rights. -- j
.
of our employees, senators and representatives,
who have failed to follow-through on their campaign
promises. . we need more accountability here! -- j
.
As for my position, Federal law enforcement officers have had every opportunity for weeks to engage in dialogue with the protesters. They had those same weeks to effect an arrest at the refuge. That they chose instead to collude with local law enforcement and offer a peaceful discussion only to turn around and reneg on that commitment shows blatant dishonesty and ulterior motives. I can not defend any such - regardless of its purported "legality".
As for your example, do you really want to argue that a Sheriff is going to offer alleged bank robbers the chance for an escort into a neighboring county to talk with the citizens there? You're reaching...
I live about 300 miles from the site of all this stuff and have been hearing about it from people who have been there. I don't necessarily agree with the takeover of the office, but I can understand the frustration of the ranchers and having looked at the long train of abuses and usurpations over the last 40 years in that area, I can come to a reasonably informed decision that the Federal government is way out of bounds and needs to be called on this. The problem is that they are judge, jury, and executioner and there is no court of appeals. Such took place prior to the Declaration - when the colonists petitioned for redress of grievances and were pointedly ignored by government at the time.
As for the bank robber (or any other suspected felon), cops uses ruses, lies, misdirection, false promises, fraudulent assertions, etc. all the time to effect arrests or gain confessions. There seems nothing out of the ordinary in this case in that respect. The defendants better come up with better defenses if they wish to avoid prison in this matter.
.
.
of him and no one else will dare misbehave! -- j
.
.
out of bounds in a big way. -- j
.
This should be a national "Front Page" issue.
Will anyone bring this up in the debates?
I am going to try.
.
Our local hospital (only one with adequate emergency room) was on lockdown all night awaiting casualties during and after the incident. None came. Perhaps the Feds were expecting a higher body count.
Latest word (rumor, but published) is that LeVoy took off in his pickup after the traffic stop and came upon another roadblock down the road, went off the road into a snow bank, and was shot while "reaching for his waistband." If they release the cam results, this may clarify things. The lefties around here are going nuts with fist pumps and hallelujahs. A sordid mess, for sure, whatever the results of the investigation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wA18...
-- j
.
--
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wA18...
Towards the end of the interview, it was stated that the vehicle was all shot up. I doubt the FBI will allow any pictures of it however.
what is sad is that thousands did not show up with their guns to defend the resisters in Oregon...
The only positive outcome I can now imagine is if someone like Pacific Legal Foundation takes the case and sues the government.
Jan
.
Jan
.
We should be glad Janet Reno wasn't still around...the body count would have been MUCH higher.
What the Bundy Bunch were apparently shooting for (no pun intended) was, after failing to do so at their home turf in Nevada, they wanted to provoke an armed confrontation with the government (a'la Waco, Texas) in Oregon. They want to be the new-day Koresh's so they will be looked on as "heroes". Meanwhile, the people in Harney County, Oregon, wanted nothing to do with these assorted rabble rousers, and the US government people they attracted, and wanted them all gone. The Bundys - wanted none of THAT - they needed a firefight.
The Bundy clan got their wish - they poked the hornet next, and kept poking at it, until they got the firefight they wanted so desperately (and felt were "cheated out of") at home. Notice how they're calling the dead guy (who committed "suicide by cop") a martyr for the cause? Bah.
I just wish these out of stater southern Nevadans and their Ilk would pack up, go home, and leave the locals in peace to deal with what they have to deal with. Unfortunately - the locals (who DO value their liberty and privacy) will have the dotgov down their throats for a long time to come. Nice Job, guys.
who has given it all for the cause, whose name will be
part of a "remember the cause" call ringing in our ears.
this needs to become a part of a popular uprising
against an oppressive government, does it not? -- j
"Remember LaVoy Finicum"
.
Sure, it gave them a voice and platform... but it also ruined their lives, something they saw coming. But don't take it from me... go up there yourself and ask. Good people, they'll talk to you. See how THEY feel about this insanity.
tennessee. . the horrible thing is that it's the feds who
are ruining their lives, and the double-jeopardy re-sentencing
of the Hammonds started it. . the nevadans should
never have been involved ... except that they wanted
the platform to resist the feds. . sad sad sad. -- j
.
http://tinyurl.com/jotplr4
and
http://tinyurl.com/hf42g9m
.