I come up with Killboner and your respond with Farm... Boner? Come on man, I'm almost insulted at the lack of effort. You can do better.
You call me Killboner, when you're the one defending the group sending out terroristic threats and endangering people's lives. It's funny, but not surprising coming from you!
You spend a lot of time on a farm, and have a constant [rage] boner about things you don't understand, so I guess the shoe fits! Sad. You hate to see it!
You have fundamentally butchered the entire conversation. Like last time.
Yes, in your own mind, you are correct.
I know the Hammonds were sentenced under mandatory minimums for arson, a mandatory minimum that was legislated for arson in a terrorism statute. As if mandatory minimums are such a great American triumph in the first place. The Hammonds, who yes, do not like the Bundys(no surprise) lit a fire(s) for the purpose of concealing the fact that they were poaching the state's deer(wow that's old school). Now, you and I might have a different understanding of the appropriate scope of terrorism, but it's a political tool, and trying to be not noticed seems to fall well outside its proper range.
The Hammonds lit two fires that they were prosecuted for, one in 2001 and one in 2006. The one in 2001 was lit to cover up the illegal deer slaughter, but the one in 2006 was an illegal backburn they set off to protect their winter feed against a natural wildfire. The thing is, they lit these fires at night knowing that firefighters were camped out nearby to defend against the natural wildfire, endangering their lives, and the Hammonds were confronted by the firefighters after they fled to safety. Then the Hammonds threatened to frame BLM employees for the arson:
Both Dwight and Steven Hammond later set more fires, one in 2001 and one in 2006, that would lead to eventual convictions of arson on federal land:
[17][18] The 2001 Hardie-Hammond fire began after hunters in the area witnessed the Hammonds illegally slaughtering a herd of deer.[19] Less than two hours later, a fire erupted, forcing the hunters to leave the area but also intending to conceal evidence of the deer herd slaughter.[20] Steven's nephew Dusty Hammond testified his uncle told him to "light the whole countryside on fire," and that he was "almost burned up in the fire," having to flee for his life.[16][21] The Hammonds claimed they started the fire to stop invasive plants from growing onto their grazing fields.[22] The 2006 Krumbo Butte fire started out as a wildfire, but several illegal backburns were set by the Hammonds with an intent of protecting their winter feed. The backfires were set under the cover of night, without warning the firefighters they knew were camped on the slopes above.[20][23] The fires threatened to trap four BLM firefighters. One of those later confronted Dwight Hammond at the fire scene after he had moved his crews to avoid the danger.[20][21] Two days later, Steven Hammond threatened to frame a BLM employee with arson if he didn't terminate the investigation.[22]
If you wanna go further back, you clearly see a pattern of criminal behavior and terroristic threats on the part of the Hammonds:
In June 1994, the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge manager, Forrest Cameron, notified Dwight Hammond that his permit to graze his cattle and grow hay on the refuge was revoked. Two months later, Hammond and his son Steven obstructed the completion of a refuge boundary fence intended to keep their cattle out of the refuge's protected marsh and wetland, prompting their arrest by federal agents. The fence was needed to stop the Hammonds' cattle from moving onto the refuge after the ranchers had repeatedly violated the terms of their special permit, which limited those times when they could move their cattle across refuge property.
[12][15] Officials also reported that Dwight had made death threats against refuge managers in 1986, 1988, 1991, and 1994, stating, "he was going to tear his head off and **** down his neck," and that Steven Hammond also made incendiary remarks against them, calling the employees and managers, "worthless cocksuckers" and "*******s."
After the arrest, locals were given the names and phone numbers of refuge employees, and encouraged to harass them. One caller threatened to wrap the Camerons’ 12-year-old boy in a shroud of barbed wire and stuff him down a well. Other callers warned his mother that she ought to move out before something "bad" happened to her family. She gathered their four children, one wheelchair-bound, and fled to Bend, 135 miles west. The families of three other refuge employees received telephone threats after a meeting held in support of the Hammonds, where the workers' phone numbers were circulated. Businesses in Burns displayed signs warning, "This establishment doesn’t serve federal employees." Voters recalled a pair of Harney County commissioners because they wouldn’t put the county "supremacy" ordinance on the ballot or intervene against the refuge managers.
[11][12][15] Oregon's then-Congressional District 2
U.S. Representative,
Robert Freeman Smith, protested the arrests to President
Bill Clinton's
United States Secretary of the Interior,
Bruce Babbitt.
[12] In 1999 Steven started a fire, intending to burn off juniper trees and sagebrush, but the fire escaped onto BLM land. The agency reminded him of the required burn permit and that if the fires continued, there would be legal consequences.[16]
The funny thing is, the Hammonds had an opportunity to avoid these mandatory minimums, but chose to go to trial, knowing that was on the table:
In 2012, the Hammonds were tried in
federal district court on multiple charges.
During a break in jury deliberations, a partial verdict was rendered finding the Hammonds not guilty on two of the charges, but convicting them on two counts of arson on federal land.[20] Striking a plea bargain, in order to have the four remaining charges dismissed and for sentences on the two convictions to run concurrently, the Hammonds waived their rights to appeal their convictions. This was with their knowledge that the trial would proceed to sentencing where the prosecution intended to seek imposition of the mandatory five-year minimum sentences.[20][24]]
I guess, to some extent, they were okay with serving out their sentence, and knew they had done something bad and deserved a time out. Listening to whiners like you, you make it seem like the big bad gubbermint wanted to kick their asses right from the beginning, when in reality for almost 20 years they were treated more or less with kid gloves. Sad! You hate to see it.
Now, your little milita that you apparently like to talk about, yes, was prompted to its last round of protests by this case whether the Hammonds wanted them or not.
You hump Ammon Bundy's leg every chance you get, yet you refer to the Bundys as "my militia"?
And I guess you're right, the Hammonds had no control over the Bundys since they're Mormon zealots and claim their domestic terrorism is a divine message from God. They're too crazy even for mainstream Mormons, and the LDS church denounced their occupation. Sad! You hate to see it.
And then, here's the moment in time we're referencing, the majority(which is what I was talking about in the first post that 'roused you to the matter at hand) howled for blood.
Majority?
What majority? A majority of the American public? A majority of Oregonians, or Harney County residents? A majority of trolls on twitter? Are you talking about a 51% majority, or a 99% majority? You don't provide any information about this "majority", no clues as to who they are, but you seem awfully certain that they exist, somehow?
People were certainly howling however, especially the people affected by these dumb criminals:
https://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-s...anger_frustrat.html#incart_river_index_topics
BURNS - The divide among friends and neighbors over the refuge occupation boiled into the open here Tuesday night in a community meeting that crackled with emotion.
What residents have feared and only whispered about in recent days took center court at the Burns High School gymnasium.
In sometimes highly personal remarks, speaker after speaker vented anger - at public officials, at the federal government and at the man in the brown cowboy hat sitting high in the bleachers to take it all in - Ammon Bundy.
He and other armed militants on Jan. 2 seized the headquarters compound of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, situated 30 miles southeast of Burns. The refuge is managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
He sat on the second row from the top as County Judge Steve Grasty, microphone in hand, strode to the foot of that bleacher section.
"It is time for you to go home," Grasty said to Bundy, vowing to meet with Bundy anytime, anyplace - outside of Harney County.
A chant then grew in the gymnasium: "Go, go, go, go, go."
That was a message Bundy heard repeatedly through the evening, one he once vowed to heed. He sat expressionless, making no move to respond or to comment.
But the audience of perhaps 300 people had plenty to say, and it seemed the cork had come out of the county.
One woman said she appreciated the attention Bundy has brought to rural issues but told him, "Get the hell out of my county."
Another man gestured at Bundy and gave him the same message.
"Are you happy you did this to our community?" he said.
Another woman, shaking in anger, called out Bundy for the fear he's caused in local schools, which closed for a week after the occupation began. She yelled across the gym at him, telling him to leave and "go to jail where you deserve to be!"
At one point, someone yelled, "Let Ammon speak." Another retorted: "He's not from Harney County."
Bundy's brother, Ryan, and a leading militiaman, Jon Ritzheimer, sat in bleachers across the gym. After one woman gave an impassioned speech, Ryan Bundy stood, shook her hands, and sat down. Ritzheimer raised his hand for a turn to speak but didn't get the chance.
Police presence was heavy, with uniformed officers inside the gymnasium, lining the entry hall, and posted outside.
Ammon Bundy wasn't the only one catching brickbats. Public officials, particularly Grasty and Harney County Sheriff Dave Ward, took a verbal pummeling.
One man, who said he was from Eugene, pressed Ward about what he was doing to end the occupation and what was the role of the FBI.
"Just tell the truth," he barked.
One speaker pressed Grasty and others to not ignore questions posed by the audience.
"We deserve a response when we ask a question of our local officials," said the woman, shaking and in tears as she spoke.
But the prosecution of rancher Dwight Hammond Jr. and his son Steven also drew heated comments. Some speakers were incensed that the Hammonds had to return to prison recently to serve a longer sentence after a court found their original sentencing was illegal.
One speaker said the sentence revealed "an overreaching federal government." Instead of talking about who needs to go home from Harney County, she said, "we need to talk about who needs to come home."
A 25-year resident of Harney County said Bundy "hijacked the Hammonds" for his own cause. He said as long as Bundy and his group hold the refuge, the Hammonds have no hope for clemency or any other relief.
Rancher Tom Sharp noted that Bundy and others had "lectured" local ranchers the night before on the need for them to repudiate their federal grazing permits.
Such a move would be "terribly destructive," Sharp said.
He noted that Bundy's impact on the community hasn't been good.
"Our personal relationships have been damaged," Sharp said.
You say that "the majority" wanted these people to die, and I'm sure a few trolls on twitter said that, since twitter is a garbage website.
However, here's what the residents were saying should happen, and here's what I wanted to happen:
He said it was time for patient law enforcement agents to act against "an active crime scene" at the refuge. He urged the refuge be isolated, services be cut off, and supplies no longer allowed in. His proposal drew applause and cheers from some in the crowd.
Seems like a good idea to me. No one goes in, and no one comes out unless they surrender. If they did that instead of allowing them to move freely around the area, the one militiaman who provoked the cops into shooting him might still be alive!
A militia they might occasionally tolerate, but one with a momentarily decent point about sentencing minimums?
lol no, militias taking over federal land and spreading terror in rural communities are not "making a decent point" about anything, let alone mandatory minimums.
If the Bundys were so pissed about mandatory minimum sentencing they could take their militia to Washington DC, camp out in front of the DEA/DOJ and protest mandatory minimums against non-violent drug offenders. Instead, they decided to terrorize a community where they weren't welcome to defend violent criminals who more or less chose the sentence they received. Sad! You hate to see it.
The immediate rise of the term ya'll'queda or however you spell that is pretty indicative. It immediately brands them as a group Americans were already comfortable killing and were in fact doing so, and the missapplication of a commonly understood southern mode of speech show two more things. One that even though the groups are wrong for it, they're "close enough" and two, what other group the majority would kind of also like to see get killed on the news. It was a despicable display.
Oh man, this is really sad. Are you this much of a snowflake?
You've gotta stretch super far and wide to misinterpret jokes on the Twittersphere with actual murderous intent! I know you wish everyone on twitter praised the Yokel Haram as heroes and humped their legs, but not everyone shares your uninformed opinion and most people could clearly see that these guys were clowns to be made fun of.
Let me guess, you think that when the militia got a bunch of dildos and dick-shaped candies in the mail, that was also a death threat? "Wahh they didn't send food or ammo that means they want them to die waaaahhh"
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...y-malheur-wildlife-refuge-social-media-videos
Militia leader
Ammon Bundy and his rightwing followers, who have been stationed at the headquarters of the Malheur national wildlife refuge since 2 January, have used Facebook, YouTube and live-stream videos to get their message out directly to the public and to call on anti-government activists to support their cause.
In the process, they’ve attracted significant media coverage from across the globe while also holding daily press briefings at the entrance to the refuge that draw huge crowds of hungry reporters each morning.
But their public relations strategy has repeatedly suffered from bizarre self-aggrandizing videos that rogue militiamen continue to post to their followers. The steady feed of rambling selfie videos have prompted widespread mockery and scorn and in some cases have clearly further distracted from the plight of Harney County ranchers whom the militia claim to be backing.
Most recently,
militiaman Jon Ritzheimer, the prominent anti-Islam activist from Arizona, posted a Facebook video of himself opening hate mail sent to the refuge, including a box filled with dildos. “It’s really ridiculous. This one was really funny – a bag of dicks,” he said in the video before angrily shoving a bunch of packages off the table. “They just spend all their money on hate, hate, hate, hate!” he shouted.
The episode made the rounds on
social media this week and became the
subject of many
gifs.
I guess it's easy to misinterpret jokes and mockery as death threats when you lack a sense of humor. Sad! You hate to see it.
The majority ultimately got their corpse. Unsurprising. They got convictions. Foregone. That they're still not happy with things being "tough enough" can only be justified with some sort of mealy "black people have it worse" at which point, again, treating people like ******s is the point. Gross.
No, the point is that these people were white enough to be handled with kid gloves by the police, and were allowed to come and go from the range as they pleased, up until they were arrested. Are you really disputing that if the Bundys and their militia were black, Latino, Native American or anything but white that they wouldn't have been crushed much more quickly and severely?
That's it. That's the start and the end of my point. Go on about how crappy the Bundys are all you want. Tim's not wrong when he claims "within tribe" differences probably mean that these fine fine ranching people probably get along worse with stupid religious prairie farmers than random city folk(it's even a cliche, but w/e).
I think this is a typo, and you meant "get along better", not worse?
People who hate black people, or gay people, or trans people can't seem stop talking about them, so it seems a normal sort of psychological thing.
What?
I suppose in an uncommonly not-completely-idiotic move, Assclown seems to have pardoned the Hammonds. That's pretty funny in a way, but I guess I'm not super surprised. He's Assclown, and this is the forum I found somebody willing to defend the actions of the Federal government in chasing the "little mountain racist" in Ruby Ridge, so it takes all types.
True, president Dotard pardoned the Hammonds in 2018 and his appointed Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke fast tracked the approval of their grazing permits in early 2019, but in December 2019 their grazing permits were revoked:
https://www.oregonlive.com/crime/20...l-grazing-permit-for-hammond-ranches-inc.html
A federal judge on Friday revoked the grazing permit for Hammond Ranches Inc., finding that former Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke’s order renewing it early this year was an “abuse of discretion.''
Dwight Hammond Jr. and his youngest son, Steven Hammond, can reapply for a new permit and go through the proper process to obtain one, U.S. District Judge Michael H. Simon said.
Neither Zinke or the U.S. Bureau of Land Management made a finding that the Hammonds were in “substantial compliance’’ with federal grazing regulations or had a “satisfactory history of performance’’ as required, the judge found.
“Secretary Zinke simply avoided the issue altogether. Under federal law and agency regulations, he may not do this,’’ Simon wrote in a 41-page ruling issued after he heard oral arguments on Thursday.
“The Secretary’s failure to comply with the governing statutes and regulations, acknowledge his departure from agency policy and practices, and provide a reasoned explanation for that departure are all serious errors,’’ the judge found.
Three environmental advocacy groups -- Western Watersheds Project, the Center for Biological Diversity and WildEarth Guardians -- had sued the interior secretary and the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, arguing that Zinke acted as if he was “above the law’’ by failing to consider the Hammonds’ unsatisfactory record or do proper environmental reviews before ordering the renewal of the grazing permit in February.
“Secretary Zinke’s errors were egregious. He simply ignored the law. He ignored the regulations and invented a rationale out of thin air,’’ the groups’ lawyer David Becker argued in court this week. “He renewed a permit for a grantee who has a demonstrable record of not being a good steward of public lands.’’
Simon agreed. Federal law directs that a reviewing court “shall set aside agency action’’ that’s found to be arbitrary or an abuse of discretion, the judge noted in court.
His ruling suspends future grazing on the federal land that the Hammonds used for cattle grazing until the BLM conducts a comprehensive environmental analysis and accepts public input on whether to grant a new permit.
Earlier this year, Zinke, on his last day in office, authorized the U.S. Bureau of Land Management to reissue a permit within 30 days to Hammond Ranches Inc., allowing grazing to resume on lands administered by the federal government from Feb. 1, 2019, through Feb. 28, 2024. Zinke’s decision on Jan. 2 of this year came during a government shutdown that ended on Jan. 25, providing limited time for the BLM to do a necessary review before renewing the Hammond grazing permit.
The renewal followed
President Donald Trump’s pardon of the Hammonds in July 2018. Dwight and Steven Hammond had been convicted of arson and were serving out five-year mandatory minimum sentences for setting fire to public land where they had grazing rights. Both were convicted of setting a fire in 2001, and the son was convicted of setting a second fire in 2006.
Simon made a preliminary finding this past summer that the environmental groups were likely to succeed in proving that Zinke’s action was “arbitrary and capricious’’ and placed limits on the Hammond Ranch grazing.
U.S. Department of Justice lawyer Luther Langdon Hajek argued that Zinke had the authority to order the renewal and that vacating the permit now wouldn’t be practical.
Zinke, according to Hajek, considered a significant change in circumstances in approving the permit: the presidential pardons, the years the Hammonds already had served in prison, the substantial civil penalty they had paid and a lack of violations since 2014 while their cattle grazed on their private land that’s intermingled with or adjacent to public land.
When they walked out of prison in July 2018, Dwight Hammond had served two years and nine months in prison and his son had served three years and four months. In 2015, the Hammonds also paid $400,000 to settle a civil suit brought by the government to recoup damages caused by the fires.
Vacating the grazing permit now would have destructive consequences, including an increased risk of fire due to untouched vegetation and grass, Hajek said. The limited grazing on the Hammond allotments hasn’t had a negative effect on sage grouse or trout based on a BLM analysis from October, he argued.
But the judge found the circumstances hadn’t changed since the BLM last decided not to renew the Hammonds grazing permit in 2014.
“BLM’s 2014 permit nonrenewal for the same conduct was not done
instead of civil and criminal penalties, but
in addition to them,’’ Simon wrote.
Zinke should not have relied on the presidential pardons of the Hammonds to renew their grazing permit, the judge said.
“Secretary Zinke was required to evaluate HRI’s record of performance and failed to do so. Secretary Zinke also provided no explanation for relying on the post-permit fact of the pardons, which is a departure from agency norms,’’ Simon wrote.
Hajek had argued that it wouldn’t be practical to vacate the grazing permit now, as the next grazing season is set to begin in April.
It's good to know that even a pardon from Dotard can't erase decades of criminal behavior from public record.
Here's an interesting last part:
But Simon said the consequence wouldn’t be financially disastrous for the Hammonds.
Hammond Ranches Inc. was able to maintain its ranching operation and obtain private grazing for the previous five years when it had no federal permit and, presumably, during this past year when it was allowed only reduced grazing, the judge noted.
"When ranchers break the law and abuse public lands, they should lose their grazing permit every time,'' said Erik Molvar, executive director of Western Watersheds Project, in a statement Friday. "Restoring grazing leases to ranchers who violate the terms and conditions of their leases encourages the livestock industry to continue abusing public lands and degrading habitat for native fish and wildlife, and fans the flames of extremism, the likes of which resulted in the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge debacle.''
Susie and Dwight Hammond bought their ranch in 1964. Hammond Ranches Inc. has operated on a combination of private and public land -- 12,872 acres of deeded territory and another 26,421 acres on grazing allotments -- before the federal government curtailed its permits.
Steven Hammond, now president of Hammond Ranches, has called the suit a “personal attack" on his family rather than a legitimate argument for environmental protections.
The family’s acres of private land east of the Malheur refuge is largely unfenced and intermingled with the acres of public land that it has permission to use for grazing, he said in court papers.
Since Hammond Ranches believed it could graze on the public lands, it didn’t renew private leases it had been using for the past five years and would have to make other arrangements, Steven Hammond said.
Harney County’s attorney, a commissioner, the sheriff and some residents came to the defense of the Hammonds in the case, arguing that much is at stake for southeastern Oregon’s high desert expanse, still reeling from the armed takeover of the Malheur wildlife refuge in 2016. The court orders for Dwight and Steven Hammond to return to prison in January 2016 to serve out five-year sentences incited a 41-day armed occupation of the wildlife sanctuary, which abuts the Hammond family ranch.
Susie Hammond, reached Friday, said she was disappointed to learn of the judge’s ruling just before Christmas. "It just seems like the politics of the day to me to shut down agriculture and to have no positive alternative means to use of the public lands,'' she said.
Hmm, preventing the Hammonds from trashing public lands doesn't seem to impact them much economically, so why have they spent over 20 years trying to circumvent the law? Maybe these Vanilla ISIS clowns are just greedy criminals who want to have their cake and eat it too. Sad! You hate to see it.
.
