Its a RESENTENCING.
Criminal Law 101.
Common practice in the justice system when a sentence is either too long or too short depending on whatever the sentencing law is.
Missing Person must have taken law lessons from the movie Double Jeopardy.
The fire that damaged the 127 acres was started on private land, and the local government was notified ahead of time that it was going to occur.
The 2006 fire was started, on private land, in response to an existing wildfire. The DA even dropped the charges related to this one. Nobody was endangered.
Expert witnesses were denied admission as evidence, to top it off.
The Hammond brothers did nothing wrong.
So the 127 acres that was damaged was private land?
How does whether the area was private or public make burning all of that acceptable?
It was local/state Government land. Outside Federal jurisdiction. However, the local Government took no action against the Hammonds at the time.
Charges for these fires did not surface until 2011 when the Federal government stepped in.
The entire point is that these matters were never pursued originally and the Federal government is interfering where it has no power.
Mech, have you ever lived in a rural area? 127 acres of wilderness is nothing.
Why is one of the demands for the government to give up the national Forrest? Was their private property bordering the land? Didn’t really start reading on this until now.
So Steven’s own nephew who said they started the fire on BLM lands, to which he said he was given matches to help, to cover up illegal deer hunting was lying?
And the second fire? Yes it was in response to an existing wildfire…in which the BLM had issued a burn ban to protect the firefighters that were already fighting said wildfire.
But fuck them if the fire we set endangers them; we do what we want…
Could be, we’ll never know, honestly.
I’ll concede that they did wrong and acted against bans. It was a clearly incorrect statement to make.
In any case, charges were not brought up by the owners of the damaged land. The matters were settled.
Honestly, considering the kind of stuff the family did to that boy I’m inclined to believe him; its always the younger ones to go against the shady shit the family does.
If they did do that illegally on BLM lands then the owners of the property is the federal gov’t so they are settling it lol.
I’m still not seeing how this is terrorism.
These fuccbois dont meet the new age requisite for being labeled true terrorists.
Just a bunch of phaggots enjoying a massive circle jerk because they know if they went near a real installation with security they would all be dead meat.
Because we’ve been conditioned to think if no one is getting shot up, blown up or death at all isn’t involved its not terrorism.
At its most simple terms, terrorism is using violence or the threat of violence for a political agenda which is exactly what this is. Regardless of what Bundy says, the men who he has with him have stated they’re are ready to pull triggers if people try to remove them. A man stated he didn’t come here to shoot, he came here to die so some clearly want a confrontation.
One of them most extreme ones is actually being monitored by the FBI after posting a video last year of him with a gun saying he was gonna go confront a small newspaper in New York blasting his anti-muslim speech and protests and calling him American Taliban.
Bundy can talk all he wants but you are the company you keep…
That’s…not really true, but ok.
Am just posting dumb stuff I find amusing from affiliated links I find whilst browsing news on this story. Like this…
It isnt terrorism. And stop lying, or muddleing the truth. They said they are willing to take action against the state, not the people. That alone makes it not terrorist in nature.
These attacks are not aimed at the public, but at the state. They aren’t aimed at an individual or group of people with the Intention incite fear within the general public.
And this is the UN definition, and by definition, this isn’t terrorism no matter how hard you try and say it is. You’d have to commit to idiotic levels of stupidity to extend the definition to label these people that.
So the media and the people who subscribe the the paradigm, one that is willing to use these labels, don’t understand the definitions at all. Either you check the criteria, or you dont. You can’t be half a terrorist.
It’s easy to spin this into white privilege, I’m already seeing it unfold. But it really isn’t and shouldn’t be treated like that, because there’s a more important question that will set the national paradigm for decades.
-Do we change the definition of terrorism to be any entity with the intention to use force against the state, terrorists.
-if so, is the state a entity that can be treated with personhood
-If so, how do we as a people secure the right to forcefully remove unfair government, if the law automatically labels us terrorists.
If you label people like you do, that makes the black lives .after movement a terrorist organization. It makes people who support the Sanders idea of rallying in Washington and demanding changes to the law, acts of terrorism, because a mob is powerful due to its numbers and ability to lash violently. That’s violence, it’s a threat of violence.
Do we really need to go down this road just so people can feel good about themselves and show they are such progressive and open minded people?
So please tell me, how is this terrorism, because it isn’t, and appealing to the idea of mass conditioning won’t cut it, when the basic definition isn’t met.
This whole thing is just showing that the circle jerk for progressive and liberal outlets is as delusional and out of touch as the neoconservative and conservative outlet.
2016 trully is a trash year politically.
These dudes took over a federal building using weapons, and you’re arguing semantics over what they should be labeled?
Yeah but you mostly seem to condone violence against white people, which is in line with liberalism.