5 yrs for burning 139 acres of BLM
- Thread starter Cross-7
- Start date
Help Support CattleToday:
- Status
hurleyjd
Well-known member
W.T":3n7habdj said:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/7/14/884176/-
W.T. have you every read Jefferson's Bible.
gimpyrancher
Well-known member
Part of the problem seems to be that Bundy and crew were just looking for a fight. Any fight. At least that is the FBI's complete case. All the videos and social media the Bundy's and crew is the FBI's indisputable evidence. They invited themselves into a situation they were not wanted. The ranchers in question didn't want or ask for their help. They were embarrassed by what they we in legal trouble over. A huge illegal wildlife poaching operation that needed evidence to disappear so they set a fire that got out of control and ended up costing taxpayers a bunch. Investigating the fire, the evidence was uncovered. As is the case in many places, the defendants were rich, white and well connected. They were given a very special friends-only sentence, (if we don't get caught). It was eventually exposed and they had to finish a mandatory minimum sentence. They got lucky, then they got caught again sort of.
After the area was taken over by these outsiders, the ranchers asked them to disappear and let them be.
Perhaps there are far more issues we don't know about in this case. Rarely does one take a plea bargain on all charges. I'm betting that there were enough "extra" issues and I'll bet that part of the sentence was including not charging others. It's kind of unfair to question the decision of the person involved without knowing more than we have a right to know. Sometimes a heavier sentence for fewer defendants in order to keep others out of jail. Large poaching operation does not spell out only 2 people involved.
After the area was taken over by these outsiders, the ranchers asked them to disappear and let them be.
Perhaps there are far more issues we don't know about in this case. Rarely does one take a plea bargain on all charges. I'm betting that there were enough "extra" issues and I'll bet that part of the sentence was including not charging others. It's kind of unfair to question the decision of the person involved without knowing more than we have a right to know. Sometimes a heavier sentence for fewer defendants in order to keep others out of jail. Large poaching operation does not spell out only 2 people involved.
gimpyrancher
Well-known member
farmguy":2e5dr9d9 said:
Great question considering:
56 men that signed the Declaration of Independence knew when they signed they were risking everything. In the last paragraph: "we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor."
Were they patriots or criminals? They were also fighting for personal gain.
TexasBred
Well-known member
gimpyrancher":iv60tz59 said:
What I've said from the beginning. The Hammonds did not ask the Bundy's to come. Like Sharpton and Jackson they just saw an opportunity to fuel the fire. Looks like they were very successful.
fenceman
Well-known member
The Hammond s disassociated themselves with the Bundy s because they were told to do so by federal authorities.
Why in the he'll would anyone light a fire to cover a deer poaching operation. It would just draw attention. What evidence in shooting deer needs a wildfire to.put it out.?
The Hammond s put out that fire themselves
They also put out the fire caused by lightning while the fire department sat on hill camping out singing kumbaya and eating smoothes probably.
Lavoys shooting was justified, but make no mistake he wasn't looking for a fight. He could have ramed the roadblock, he could have gotten out guns blazing. That man desired to hurt no one. He desired to being a martyr over prison. He got his wish
Nobody knows all the facts, but it is very obvious that the blm wanted the Hammond ranch and have pretty much broken the Hammond s down.
I just can't imagine any redblooded American believing that charging the Hammonds as terrorist is just.
It sickens me
Why in the he'll would anyone light a fire to cover a deer poaching operation. It would just draw attention. What evidence in shooting deer needs a wildfire to.put it out.?
The Hammond s put out that fire themselves
They also put out the fire caused by lightning while the fire department sat on hill camping out singing kumbaya and eating smoothes probably.
Lavoys shooting was justified, but make no mistake he wasn't looking for a fight. He could have ramed the roadblock, he could have gotten out guns blazing. That man desired to hurt no one. He desired to being a martyr over prison. He got his wish
Nobody knows all the facts, but it is very obvious that the blm wanted the Hammond ranch and have pretty much broken the Hammond s down.
I just can't imagine any redblooded American believing that charging the Hammonds as terrorist is just.
It sickens me
fenceman":3l82uzja said:
Agreed many ranchers have been disputing the BLM and there over reach for years. Burns Oregon was just the place things happened. Was Lavoy Fincum wrong or was he right. The history books will tell us in time.
JMJ Farms
Well-known member
I too don't believe they were looking for a fight. I believe the fight was brought to them. And they weren't backing down anymore. Just my two cents.
And the terrorist charge reeks of gov corruption.
And the terrorist charge reeks of gov corruption.
JMJ Farms
Well-known member
The whole situation is a mess, to put it nicely.
With true sincerity, what can we as normal everyday folks on the east coast, or Texas, or Missouri, etc, do to actually help the cause? Besides calling elected officials, who probably will dismiss the thought as soon as the phone hangs up, what can we do? Again, I'm asking sincerely.
With true sincerity, what can we as normal everyday folks on the east coast, or Texas, or Missouri, etc, do to actually help the cause? Besides calling elected officials, who probably will dismiss the thought as soon as the phone hangs up, what can we do? Again, I'm asking sincerely.
fenceman
Well-known member
For anyone who hasn't seen it.
This is the original Bundy standoff were the Bundy s took back their cattle in Arizona. The blm had tried to sell the Bundy cattle across several states and could not find a sale barn or ranch that would touch em.
Bundy Ranch Standoff, exclusive video report by M…: http://youtu.be/8ADdToI9Akw
This is the original Bundy standoff were the Bundy s took back their cattle in Arizona. The blm had tried to sell the Bundy cattle across several states and could not find a sale barn or ranch that would touch em.
Bundy Ranch Standoff, exclusive video report by M…: http://youtu.be/8ADdToI9Akw
True Grit Farms
Well-known member
And if there's no lease payments to the government, and it's public property, I should be able to turn my cows loose there right along with the Bundy's? Seems to me I should have as much right as the Bundy's to graze the land or am I missing something?
fenceman
Well-known member
True Grit Farms":2cskrezb said:
There s several videos shot that day grit. One Ammon basically answered that question with a yes, sure you can.
There are many families that have deals with the government that go back generations, very similar to mineral rights.
Exxon can drill for oil in the gulf. Can't i
True Grit Farms
Well-known member
There are many families that have deals with the government that go back generations, very similar to mineral rights.
Exxon can drill for oil in the gulf. Can't i[/quote]
How can you have a deal with the government when you say they have no right to the land? ExxonMobil pays a lease on the land and also pays the government royalties. The ranchers don't want to pay anything. We should lease all the BLM land to the oil companies, at least the government would get their lease money and maybe some royalties to boot.
Exxon can drill for oil in the gulf. Can't i[/quote]
How can you have a deal with the government when you say they have no right to the land? ExxonMobil pays a lease on the land and also pays the government royalties. The ranchers don't want to pay anything. We should lease all the BLM land to the oil companies, at least the government would get their lease money and maybe some royalties to boot.
- Status
