Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sir Wearer of Hats

Gunmen occupy Federal building

765 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

alaiodevalle

The Bundy's sound more like a radical bunch of yee haw red necks to me.

*snip* Those yee haw rednecks backed down the U.S. Government and called them out on their dirty deeds. Whether you like it or not......it is only going to get worse with situations like this one and the final analysis is going to be met with the threat of violence. Everyday in this country citizens are met with violence from cops, government and etc.....*snip*

Edited by rashore
rules 3f, 5a, 5c, 5e
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77

*snip*Those yee haw rednecks backed down the U.S. Government and called them out on their dirty deeds. Whether you like it or not......it is only going to get worse with situations like this one and the final analysis is going to be met with the threat of violence. Everyday in this country citizens are met with violence from cops, government and etc....*snip*

The coming years will make strange bedfellows no doubt. I certainly agree these guys are yee haw rednecks but who gives a rats ass if their actions are correct?

Edited by rashore
edited Alaiodevalles qoute
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
preacherman76

One death sentence would be fine with me.

Ok, I just wanted to make sure you weren't worth talking to on this subject. Thanks for confirming it.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mbrn30000

Being sentenced twice still falls under double jeopardy/ex-post facto

spoken like a jailhouse lawyer. you are reading one article of dubious pedigree. you like it because it fulfills your world view of paranoid anti government delusions. it is not double jeopardy because he was found guilty in his trial and resentencing or appealing a trial judge's sentence is very common. Ex-post facto means being held accountable for a law passed after the offense. paranoia runs deep. People need to follow the law or leave.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rashore

*snip* Those yee haw rednecks backed down the U.S. Government and called them out on their dirty deeds. Whether you like it or not......it is only going to get worse with situations like this one and the final analysis is going to be met with the threat of violence. Everyday in this country citizens are met with violence from cops, government and etc.....*snip*

alaiodevalle- welcome to UM :st Please, read the site rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
preacherman76

spoken like a jailhouse lawyer. you are reading one article of dubious pedigree. you like it because it fulfills your world view of paranoid anti government delusions. it is not double jeopardy because he was found guilty in his trial and resentencing or appealing a trial judge's sentence is very common. Ex-post facto means being held accountable for a law passed after the offense. paranoia runs deep. People need to follow the law or leave.

I don't know anyone who has a world view where they think its just to sentence anyone twice for the same crime. Well other then you. And like I said, it clearly makes you not worth talking to.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77

spoken like a jailhouse lawyer. you are reading one article of dubious pedigree. you like it because it fulfills your world view of paranoid anti government delusions. it is not double jeopardy because he was found guilty in his trial and resentencing or appealing a trial judge's sentence is very common. Ex-post facto means being held accountable for a law passed after the offense. paranoia runs deep. People need to follow the law or leave.

The problem with the above mindset is the legal doesn't equal moral. Pretty much everything Hitler did was legal at the time, same with Stalin and pretty much every other dictator ever.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mbrn30000

The problem with the above mindset is the legal doesn't equal moral. Pretty much everything Hitler did was legal at the time, same with Stalin and pretty much every other dictator ever.

and your point is, keep an eye on trump. he is a hitler.

the problem with your observation is, you and these folks always hate government. you do not think you react. there is no government that would satisfy them. You could give them everything they wanted and in a few years they would be complaining again if it took that long. Take Alaska, someone brought up. There are two small secessionist movements. One by the indigenous people and one by all the nuts from the lower 48. These nuts are like these ranchers. They don't like rules. They were most likely hated by their neighbors back in Ohio and Indiana because they were always causing trouble. Then they move to Alaska and after a few years think they are Alaskan patriots. WE need better mental healthcare. Some people need to be locked up before they hurt someone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mbrn30000

I don't know anyone who has a world view where they think its just to sentence anyone twice for the same crime. Well other then you. And like I said, it clearly makes you not worth talking to.

then stop talking to me. there are plenty of cases that the prosecutor appeals a light sentence. this is the only case you object to. I guess conservative rags did not tell you about that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShadowSot

Is there even a legal precedent for a judge to issue a further sentence years after a ruled sentence has been served? I know Double Jeopardy laws state no crime can be tried twice. Which law states a crime can be sentenced twice, especially at two intermittent times?

Just listened to a radio commentary on this, and while I dont have something to read on it from what they were saying is it was done at the state level and given one year.

It was appealed or taken to the Federal level which has a minimum sentence of five years.

Going to read up on it after work.

Edited by KolchacktheNightStalker
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
preacherman76

Never mind

Edited by preacherman76

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
preacherman76

Just listened to a radio commentary on this, and while I dont have something to read on it from what they were saying is it was done at the state level and given one year.

It was appealed or taken to the Federal level which has a minimum sentence of five years.

Going to read up on it after work.

That's worse. That's being tried twice for the same crime. How can the state try the case, then have the fed give the sentence? SMH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77

and your point is, keep an eye on trump. he is a hitler.

the problem with your observation is, you and these folks always hate government. you do not think you react. there is no government that would satisfy them. You could give them everything they wanted and in a few years they would be complaining again if it took that long. Take Alaska, someone brought up. There are two small secessionist movements. One by the indigenous people and one by all the nuts from the lower 48. These nuts are like these ranchers. They don't like rules. They were most likely hated by their neighbors back in Ohio and Indiana because they were always causing trouble. Then they move to Alaska and after a few years think they are Alaskan patriots. WE need better mental healthcare. Some people need to be locked up before they hurt someone.

I grew up in AK there will always be a secession movement there. But no my point was that laws in America are being made for the benefit of corporations and those in power. Just because something is a law doesnt mean its right or should be obeyed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mbrn30000

I grew up in AK there will always be a secession movement there. But no my point was that laws in America are being made for the benefit of corporations and those in power. Just because something is a law doesnt mean its right or should be obeyed.

then elect people who share your point of view. failing that accept it. a minority does not govern the majority. as bad as you feel, apparently you are part of a minority. grabbing weapons and taking over a federal building because you cannot get your way, is criminal at best, treason at worst. we put up with too much from the crazies on both sides. I cannot help it if you are bitter about something. I can only tell you, nothing will satisfy you. internal unhappiness requires an internal action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShadowSot

That's worse. That's being tried twice for the same crime. How can the state try the case, then have the fed give the sentence? SMH

State and Federal handle things differently.

The defendants appealed to the Federal government after the State ruled against them.

By doing so they also accepted what would happen if after Federal review they were still found guilty.

Federal has a minimum charge of five years.

State courts have a similar thing, if you've ever tried to contest a ticket.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
preacherman76

State and Federal handle things differently.

The defendants appealed to the Federal government after the State ruled against them.

By doing so they also accepted what would happen if after Federal review they were still found guilty.

Federal has a minimum charge of five years.

State courts have a similar thing, if you've ever tried to contest a ticket.

Wow, if that's the case, then that was a bone head move. Wouldn't the fed have to try the case again though? The fed didn't find them quilty of anything. At most the fed should have upheld the sentence

Edited by preacherman76

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wickian

I'm sure they had an intelligent reason for taking over a wildlife refuge..

If I remember right(this is all from memory so I don't know how accurate it is) it had something to do with protesting over a family being sent back to jail a second time by a judge because he deemed they didn't spend enough time there over burning the weeds and dry brush away from their proper. The controlled fire ended up on government land they leased for grazing. No damage to any buildings occurred.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
preacherman76

then elect people who share your point of view. failing that accept it. a minority does not govern the majority. as bad as you feel, apparently you are part of a minority. grabbing weapons and taking over a federal building because you cannot get your way, is criminal at best, treason at worst. we put up with too much from the crazies on both sides. I cannot help it if you are bitter about something. I can only tell you, nothing will satisfy you. internal unhappiness requires an internal action.

LoL sorry but a guy who thinks the death penalty should be implemented for starting a brush fire that hurt nothing, should never lecture people about being happy. You must be as miserable as they come

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77

then elect people who share your point of view. failing that accept it. a minority does not govern the majority. as bad as you feel, apparently you are part of a minority. grabbing weapons and taking over a federal building because you cannot get your way, is criminal at best, treason at worst. we put up with too much from the crazies on both sides. I cannot help it if you are bitter about something. I can only tell you, nothing will satisfy you. internal unhappiness requires an internal action.

Ahh the old "elect someone who will make a difference" argument is a fallacy :

The elections are fixed in the favor of the corporations.

As for being bitter, bruh I am about as laid back as you can get. Im just seeing what is wrong with this nation and am willing to step outside of my comfort zone to continue to learn how this nation is really being run. As Jefferson said the tree of liberty must be refreshed with the blood of tyrants from time to time.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
preacherman76

If I remember right(this is all from memory so I don't know how accurate it is) it had something to do with protesting over a family being sent back to jail a second time by a judge because he deemed they didn't spend enough time there over burning the weeds and dry brush away from their proper. The controlled fire ended up on government land they leased for grazing. No damage to any buildings occurred.

Wait, the sentence was already served????

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShadowSot

Wow, if that's the case, then that was a bone head move. Wouldn't the fed have to try the case again though? The fed didn't find them quilty of anything. At most the fed should have upheld the sentence

I'm going from what I remember, but they were found guilty of arson, and the judge examining the case found them guilty again of a Federal crime, the destruction of public land.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
preacherman76

I'm going from what I remember, but they were found guilty of arson, and the judge examining the case found them guilty again of a Federal crime, the destruction of public land.

My question now is, was the first sentence already served?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Deirdre Alexandra143

What is the point.of taking over federal building..?and as for a crackdown on ..the government anticipated civil unrest hence the patriot act.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
preacherman76

What is the point.of taking over federal building..?and as for a crackdown on ..the government anticipated civil unrest hence the patriot act.

From what it sounds like, they are hoping it sparks something bigger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77

What is the point.of taking over federal building..?and as for a crackdown on ..the government anticipated civil unrest hence the patriot act.

So you're saying the government knew it was going to do something that would upset its citizens so it put laws in place to crack down on the citizens response to what they did? and thats OK with you?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.