# Major damage from standoff at Malheur



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

The cost of the standoff will likely run into the millions of dollars, with local and state agencies looking to the federal government - and the arrested occupiers - to shoulder the bulk of the bills. 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/oregon-militia-cultural-refuge-feces_us_56c3f2c9e4b0b40245c870c2


----------



## MDKatie (Dec 13, 2010)

What a shame. They have absolutely no respect for natural resources and public property that WE ALL own. They treated it like trash. They should be held 100% liable for the costs of clean up and repair.


----------



## FireMaker (Apr 3, 2014)

Charge those that held out. Consequences.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

MDKatie said:


> What a shame. They have absolutely no respect for natural resources and public property that WE ALL own. They treated it like trash. They should be held 100% liable for the costs of clean up and repair.



Where do you get this idea ? From what I understand it was their DEEP respect for natural resources that precipitated the takeover.


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

AmericanStand said:


> Where do you get this idea ? From what I understand it was their DEEP respect for natural resources that precipitated the takeover.


Sadly, any time you have an uprising against the feds, a hand full of nuts with no clue show up and ruin it for everyone... 

Just like Occupy, this started out with great intentions, but then the idiots showed up and gave the whole thing a bad name.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

AmericanStand said:


> Where do you get this idea ? From what I understand it was their DEEP respect for natural resources that precipitated the takeover.


Are you being facetious? I can't tell.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

They were a bunch of slobs. You don't just go and poo out in a place and keep doing it you DIG a Hole poo in that, and when you leave you COVER IT UP. This was a Group of dudes not just one or two out in the woods for a day or two. If they had such respect they would have taken care of things WAY better.
What a bunch of idiots these were No respect no respect at all for what they left behind for others to clean yup after them. Such a shame. And the whole occupy thingy was dumb as well and they were slobs as well.


----------



## cfuhrer (Jun 11, 2013)

Just playing devil's advocate. How do we know the occupiers are actually the ones who did the damage? Or in fact that damage was actually done? The linked article didn't provide photos. 

Seems to me there are some who would benefit greatly from the perception that the occupiers were disrespectful and unless a neutral third party was the first one through the door it could have been anybody who did the damage. The FBI in conjunction with the tribe are not exactly without biases of their own.


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

cfuhrer said:


> Just playing devil's advocate. How do we know the occupiers are actually the ones who did the damage? Or in fact that damage was actually done? The linked article didn't provide photos.
> 
> Seems to me there are some who would benefit greatly from the perception that the occupiers were disrespectful and unless a neutral third party was the first one through the door it could have been anybody who did the damage. The FBI in conjunction with the tribe are not exactly without biases of their own.


I would normally agree with you about this, but after seeing a video of some idiot taking a government vehicle from there and doing donuts and such in it and rambling like a moron, I tend to believe what is being reported


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

arabian knight said:


> They were a bunch of slobs. You don't just go and poo out in a place and keep doing it you DIG a Hole poo in that, and when you leave you COVER IT UP. This was a Group of dudes not just one or two out in the woods for a day or two. If they had such respect they would have taken care of things WAY better.
> 
> What a bunch of idiots these were No respect no respect at all for what they left behind for others to clean yup after them. Such a shame. And the whole occupy thingy was dumb as well and they were slobs as well.



Not familer with slit trench sanitation ?


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

MDKatie said:


> What a shame. They have absolutely no respect for natural resources and public property that WE ALL own. They treated it like trash. They should be held 100% liable for the costs of clean up and repair.





FireMaker said:


> Charge those that held out. Consequences.


I thought they should have done that to the rioters and looters in Ferguson, but they won't
They'll make these guys pay though.
Some are held accountable, some aren't, but we've come to expect that from this "administration"


----------



## Fennick (Apr 16, 2013)

Irish Pixie said:


> The cost of the standoff will likely run into the millions of dollars, with local and state agencies looking to the federal government - and the arrested occupiers - to shoulder the bulk of the bills.
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/oregon-militia-cultural-refuge-feces_us_56c3f2c9e4b0b40245c870c2


I can't open that link. 

What kind of damages did they do?


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Fennick said:


> I can't open that link.
> 
> What kind of damages did they do?


They pooped somewhere near (or not) a place where there may or may not be artifacts


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

AmericanStand said:


> Not familer with slit trench sanitation ?


I thought the same.

I did see videos posted by the occupiers taking down some fencing, which struck me as destruction of property and I'm not keen on the idea they created a road for their use. 

I would hope they left the artifacts and burial grounds undisturbed because neither has anything to do with their cause.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Fennick said:


> I can't open that link.
> 
> What kind of damages did they do?





> The FBI said it has found a trench of human feces and a road excavated on or next to a sensitive cultural site with artifacts at the Oregon wildlife refuge where armed men staged a standoff with authorities, according to court records filed on Tuesday.
> 
> The filing came after the FBI on Friday said it was working with the Burns Paiute Tribe to identify damage to the tribe's artifacts and sacred burial grounds at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge during the six-week occupation.


I read somewhere they had damaged some things in the building too, but I don't have that article.

They found guns and explosives at the site also


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

I wonder if the blm removed artifacts that they shouldn't have touched in the first place and were hiding them? Maybe the blm folks got upset that they may have violated policies about native artifacts and were exposed by these protesters. Wouldn't surprise me one bit. Look what the NPS did to little girls when they took one of the channel islands a few years back!

Crystal Graybeel, a 15-year-old sheep hunter who had slept in Tuesday, said officers wearing ski masks burst into her room carrying machine guns in the late morning. "They started screaming, 'Put your hands where we can see them.' They unzipped my sleeping bag and I had to get face down on the floor and they handcuffed me."

But Owens, the island's hunting concessionaire for 12 years, derided the raid as government overkill, a waste of taxpayers' money and part of a Park Service effort to seize the Gherini Ranch and close down the hunting operation.

"They're still in my house right now, raising hell," Owens said Wednesday evening. "These people are totally out of control."

The arrests occurred as the National Park Service is seizing the Gherini Ranch by order of Congress.

On Feb. 10, the government is scheduled to close down Owens' lucrative hunting and camping operation. *They will seize Oxnard attorney Francis Gherini's ownership interest in the ranch*, which comprises the eastern 10% of the 25-mile-long island off the Santa Barbara coast.

The federal government already owns 75% of the ranch, having purchased shares from other members of the Gherini family. After years of fruitless debate over the value of Francis Gherini's interest, *Congress decided to take the property.*


----------



## Fennick (Apr 16, 2013)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I read somewhere they had damaged some things in the building too, but I don't have that article.
> 
> They found guns and explosives at the site also


Thanks. I also heard/read the above news too and there was some arial videos of the damaged building on the news. 

My biggest concern now is that there might be more unfound explosives somewhere in the ground, either by carelessness or intention. I hope the authorities do an intensive search of the area.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

And these slit trenches like those used by our military all the time are destruction of property? I've seen no photos that show anywhere near millions of dollars in damage. Now, look at the after photos of Ferguson Mo and you will see millions of dollars in damage. But, the people destroying Ferguson did it to protest unfair treatment by government and were pretty well given a pass. However these guys did it to protest unfair treatment by the government.......wait, it seems they did it for the same reason! Why did one group get a pass and the other one gets prison? Could it be skin color?


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

poppy said:


> And these slit trenches like those used by our military all the time are destruction of property? I've seen no photos that show anywhere near millions of dollars in damage. Now, look at the after photos of Ferguson Mo and you will see millions of dollars in damage. But, the people destroying Ferguson did it to protest unfair treatment by government and were pretty well given a pass. However these guys did it to protest unfair treatment by the government.......wait, it seems they did it for the same reason! Why did one group get a pass and the other one gets prison? Could it be skin color?


I was of the impression that charges were laid in Ferguson.


----------



## keenataz (Feb 17, 2009)

poppy said:


> And these slit trenches like those used by our military all the time are destruction of property? I've seen no photos that show anywhere near millions of dollars in damage. Now, look at the after photos of Ferguson Mo and you will see millions of dollars in damage. But, the people destroying Ferguson did it to protest unfair treatment by government and were pretty well given a pass. However these guys did it to protest unfair treatment by the government.......wait, it seems they did it for the same reason! Why did one group get a pass and the other one gets prison? Could it be skin color?


I don't know how we got to Ferguson from Malheur, but ok? Some were arrested in Ferguson-of course not near all of them. But remember a lot of those rioters were locals and now they have to live in the mess they made and now the inconvenience.

Also it is a question of circumstances and numbers. In Mahleur you had a small group of stationary people for a long period of time. And I think the opposite in Ferguson. Not saying they were right in any ways but it is an apples/oranges kind of situation.


----------



## haley1 (Aug 15, 2012)

Cornhusker said:


> They pooped somewhere near (or not) a place where there may or may not be artifacts


Poop! No not poop... Millions of dollars of damage from poop.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

keenataz said:


> I don't know how we got to Ferguson from Malheur, but ok? .


 They'd rather talk about black people causing problems.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

greg273 said:


> They'd rather talk about black people causing problems.


The double standard from the racist left.
You'd rather think a bunch of old white guys sitting in a public park is worse than hundreds of black people destroying a town and assaulting police.
That's ok with you?


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I read somewhere they had damaged some things in the building too, but I don't have that article.
> 
> They found guns and explosives at the site also


I'll bet they "found" explosive.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

wr said:


> I was of the impression that charges were laid in Ferguson.


Do you think any of them are held financially responsible?
Have there been any convictions?
Did Obama have any of them shot?


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Cornhusker said:


> Do you think any of them are held financially responsible?
> 
> Have there been any convictions?
> 
> Did Obama have any of them shot?



I don't know if they were or were not held financially responsible but if convicted they should be. 

Our justice system is pretty slow so I wouldn't have expected them to be tried yet. Do you know if they have been? 

I would think a choice or serving time would be fair sentencing but I'm not certain both would be appropriate but that may be based on opinion and not case law.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

wr said:


> I don't know if they were or were not held financially responsible but if convicted they should be.
> 
> Our justice system is pretty slow so I wouldn't have expected them to be tried yet. Do you know if they have been?
> 
> I would think a choice or serving time would be fair sentencing but I'm not certain both would be appropriate but that may be based on opinion and not case law.


I'll bet you a dollar none of them get anything more than a slap on the wrist and maybe a small fine in Ferguson.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Cornhusker said:


> I'll bet you a dollar none of them get anything more than a slap on the wrist and maybe a small fine in Ferguson.


I'll bet you a dollar none of them committed multiple federal felonies
It should be public record though, if you want to look up some facts instead of just guessing


----------



## haley1 (Aug 15, 2012)

With all the damage and arson in Ferguson chances are there were many people who committed multiple felonies


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I'll bet you a dollar none of them committed multiple federal felonies
> It should be public record though, if you want to look up some facts instead of just guessing


Why would federal felonies matter more than state statutes, and a quick perusal of federal statutes says many could be charged just based off tv coverage.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

One federal charge of arson, several others state charges, similar to the Oregon bunch, although strangely, a totally different presentation by the media and civil rights groups.
Imagine that?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ferguson-charges-famous-photos_us_55dbc185e4b08cd3359d1fc1

http://fox4kc.com/2015/02/12/federa...ainst-man-accused-of-arson-in-ferguson-riots/


----------



## TraderBob (Oct 21, 2010)

Well, while I supported them at the beginning, I was seriously disappointed at the end... that last hold out was an absolute idiot and did more to discredit the movement than anyone ...Seriously? Wouldn't surrender until he got pizza and marijuana?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

haley1 said:


> With all the damage and arson in Ferguson chances are there were many people who committed multiple felonies


If they had made videos of themselves, and held news conferences beforehand, they would all be under arrest like the Bundy's
Some like to pretend there were *no *arrests in Ferguson.
It's apples and oranges, along with distraction from the topic here


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

coolrunnin said:


> Why would federal felonies matter more than state statutes, and a quick perusal of federal statutes says many could be charged just based off tv coverage.


See my previous post


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

TraderBob said:


> Well, while I supported them at the beginning, I was seriously disappointed at the end... that last hold out was an absolute idiot and did more to discredit the movement than anyone ...Seriously? Wouldn't surrender until he got pizza and marijuana?


Yeah. He should have held out for a bacon double cheeseburger


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> If they had made videos of themselves, and held news conferences beforehand, they would all be under arrest like the Bundy's
> Some like to pretend there were *no *arrests in Ferguson.
> It's apples and oranges, along with distraction from the topic here


I guess it was the videos and news conferences that made all the difference then?
Unless the protesters did that as well........... 
:whistlin:
(Time for a "sammich"?)

Adding arson and attempted murder of law enforcement vs. non violent occupation IS apples and oranges, I admit.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> I guess it was the videos and news conferences that made all the difference then?
> Unless the protesters did that as well...........
> :whistlin:
> *(Time for a "sammich"?)*
> ...


I'm not playing this boring game again


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2015/02/12/man-charged-in-ferguson-arson/

Federal charges and and Federal grand jury indictment of a Ferguson offender. I have no problem with this prosecution and hope he pays fully for any crimes he is convicted of. Just as I hope the same for any of the Malheur "protestors".


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

mmoetc said:


> http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2015/02/12/man-charged-in-ferguson-arson/
> 
> Federal charges and and Federal grand jury indictment of a Ferguson offender. I have no problem with this prosecution and hope he pays fully for any crimes he is convicted of. Just as I hope the same for any of the Malheur "protestors".


I wonder if he'll be forced to pay for the damages?
I watched dozens of people looting stores, I wonder if they'll be held financially responsible?
I wonder if they'll be charged also?


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

Cornhusker said:


> I wonder if he'll be forced to pay for the damages?
> I watched dozens of people looting stores, I wonder if they'll be held financially responsible?
> I wonder if they'll be charged also?





Go dig up an old Ferguson thread or start a new one, this one is about *Major damage from standoff at Malheur*, try and stay on topic.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Cornhusker said:


> I wonder if he'll be forced to pay for the damages?
> I watched dozens of people looting stores, I wonder if they'll be held financially responsible?
> I wonder if they'll be charged also?


I hope that they are. Just as I hope the Bundy's and their followers are. Their race doesn't matter to me. If laws were broken the perpetrators should be punished. To advocate, as you seem to do, that because someone you don't like wasn't punished properly is reason not to punish someone you do like is the height of hypocracy. Either all deserve punishment or none do.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

mmoetc said:


> I hope that they are. Just as I hope the Bundy's and their followers are. Their race doesn't matter to me. If laws were broken the perpetrators should be punished. To advocate, as you seem to do, that because someone you don't like wasn't punished properly is reason not to punish someone you do like is the height of hypocracy. Either all deserve punishment or none do.


I think they should all be held accountable.
Higher powers seem to disagree, but when your president is a bigot, that will happen.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Cornhusker said:


> I think they should all be held accountable.
> Higher powers seem to disagree, but when your president is a bigot, that will happen.


You've shown no evidence that Ferguson protestors have been held to a different standard. In fact, posts have shown that both state and federal charges have been brought against numerous of them. Other than what appears to be your own biased opinion you've offered nothing to prove your contentions.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

mmoetc said:


> You've shown no evidence that Ferguson protestors have been held to a different standard. In fact, posts have shown that both state and federal charges have been brought against numerous of them. Other than what appears to be your own biased opinion you've offered nothing to prove your contentions.


If I'm biased, I am because Obama approved the violence and crime in Ferguson.
His handler Soros paid to have "protesters" shipped in.
Obama's buddy Sharpton was instrumental in inciting the riots which is actually a crime.
Liberals far and wide have been justifying the destruction of a town because a Grand Jury ruling didn't go their way.
So yeah, maybe I'm a little biased when I read the feds "found" explosives, or that there was "millions of dollars" damage in Oregon and those people will likely lose everything they own because some protesters are treated differently by this "administration" than others.
I don't like bigots of any color.


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

Cornhusker said:


> If I'm biased, I am because Obama approved the violence and crime in Ferguson.
> His handler Soros paid to have "protesters" shipped in.
> Obama's buddy Sharpton was instrumental in inciting the riots which is actually a crime.
> Liberals far and wide have been justifying the destruction of a town because a Grand Jury ruling didn't go their way.
> ...


I don't understand how you can forget what you say sometimes, you just repeat the same thing over and over.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Cornhusker said:


> If I'm biased, I am because Obama approved the violence and crime in Ferguson.
> His handler Soros paid to have "protesters" shipped in.
> Obama's buddy Sharpton was instrumental in inciting the riots which is actually a crime.
> Liberals far and wide have been justifying the destruction of a town because a Grand Jury ruling didn't go their way.
> ...


I don't think its "if". When I see terms like "handler", history being revised and labels being thrown around the bias is obvious.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Originally Posted by Cornhusker View Post
> I wonder if he'll be forced to pay for the damages?
> I watched dozens of people looting stores, I wonder if they'll be held financially responsible?
> I wonder if they'll be charged also?


Have you wondered enough to actually look for answers, or just enough to keep asking here?


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

If I'm not mistaken, the damage in question is on native grass and reclaiming it can be very costly. 

Native grass is comprised of unique species and the only way to restore without allowing weeds to take over is to graft it and the grafts have to come from the same species. The only process I'm aware of is to graft in a checkerboard pattern and invasive weeds have to be carefully managed for a couple years. 

It's ecologically sensitive enough that unless the trenches, road and ruts are filled in correctly, they will be clearly visible for years to come. 

I can't speak to cost for such programs in the US but the last time I dealt with the process on a site reclamation, the associated costs are about 500% higher than restoring a comparable area of tame grass.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Cornhusker said:


> The double standard from the racist left.
> You'd rather think a bunch of old white guys sitting in a public park is worse than hundreds of black people destroying a town and assaulting police.
> That's ok with you?


 Jeez where do you come up with that garbage? That was MY town that got destroyed by racist thugs in Ferguson, how you make the leap that I am 'ok' with that is beyond me. Perhaps you need to THINK before you post occasionally. 

As to 'Vanilla ISIS', they are a bunch of idiots. The Constitution they try to hide behind and use for their own purposes takes a dim view of insurrectionists. Too bad they had to ruin their lives trying to play revolutionary. Luckily no one else got hurt.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

Just as blacks shouldn't use blm as their standard bearers, I wouldn't suggest constitutionalist use those "ranchers" for their standard bearers.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I'm not playing this boring game again


Game?
I don't see any game going on here. I see a government on the edge of tyranny, showing no fear of public opposition and starting to treat human lives 
as if they were worthless.
This isn't a game to me.



oneraddad said:


> Go dig up an old Ferguson thread or start a new one, this one is about *Major damage from standoff at Malheur*, try and stay on topic.





wr said:


> If I'm not mistaken, the damage in question is on native grass and reclaiming it can be very costly.
> 
> Native grass is comprised of unique species and the only way to restore without allowing weeds to take over is to graft it and the grafts have to come from the same species. The only process I'm aware of is to graft in a checkerboard pattern and invasive weeds have to be carefully managed for a couple years.
> 
> ...



It's hard to believe that a bunch of homesteaders honestly think a latrine ditch is some catastrophic damage worth millions of dollars.:shrug:
I probably did more damage to my driveway this month getting in and out with a foot and a half of snow! I wouldn't trade my 4WD's for anything, but ya gotta put your foot in it to get the job done sometimes.:heh:




mmoetc said:


> You've shown no evidence that Ferguson protestors have been held to a different standard. In fact, posts have shown that both state and federal charges have been brought against numerous of them. Other than what appears to be your own biased opinion you've offered nothing to prove your contentions.


I found less than 10 charged in total, out of hundreds, only one facing federal charges.
But to try and answer you question, what would it take to prove it to you?
What evidence would you have to see to change your mind and declare the two were treated differently?


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

farmrbrown said:


> What evidence would you have to see to change your mind and declare the two were treated differently?


 I know they were treated differently. One group was tear gassed and billy clubbed, in most cases justifiably, while one group was coddled and allowed to remain holed up for over a month, making death threats against the government the whole time.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

http://nypost.com/2014/08/21/just-4-percent-of-arrested-protesters-are-from-ferguson/



> Aug 21, 2014 Â· *FERGUSON, Mo*. &#8212; Unrest in Ferguson since Michael Brown&#8217;s death has resulted in *163 arrests* in the area where protesters have gathered nightly


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

farmrbrown said:


> Game?
> I don't see any game going on here. I see a government on the edge of tyranny, showing no fear of public opposition and starting to treat human lives
> as if they were worthless.
> This isn't a game to me.
> ...


Here's a few hundred more for you. http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0J80PR20141126

The groups were treated differently. Riot gear, military vehicles, tear gas , arresting reporters vs allowing criminals to come and go as they wished to news conferences and town meetings. The federal government in Malheur was as non confrontational as the the police and national guard were confrontational in Ferguson. I'm convinced. The two groups were treated differently. The Bundyites were treated much too softly. Even the arrest was designed to limit confrontation and any collateral damage and if one member of the armed insurrection hadn't insisted on getting himself killed it would have happened quietly and peacefully.

I'm no fan of government overreach and abuse. I'm also no fan of idiots wrapping themselves in flags and claiming rights and privileges they don't have.


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

Different situations, different approaches.

One was a spontaneous eruption of frustration and rage fomented in the moment of participating in an unplanned riot. No question there was a great deal of damage done to the town of Ferguson. All who can be identified as participating in the destruction should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

The other was a *planned takeover* of a federal facility and land. The perpetrators planned it for months, threatened to use all deadly force at their disposal and held the facility for their own use. They prevented federal employees from doing their jobs, threatened their lives and those of the townsfolk. They deliberately and with forethought chose to destroy land that belongs to all the people. The charges against them include *conspiracy* to commit an offense against the United States, *conspiracy* to impede or injure a federal officer, weapon use and possession, assault on a federal officer, threatening a federal law enforcement officer, obstruction, extortion to interfere with commerce, and interstate travel in aid of extortion.

That word, conspiracy? Right there is the difference between Ferguson and Malheur.

All who can be identified as participating in the destruction should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

I can think of two main reasons why the Feds took their time in Malheur and the Cattle Battle in Nevada: First, there was no way they were going to risk another Waco or Ruby Ridge. Second, they wanted to learn who supported and sympathized with these idiots. Makes it much easier to keep tabs on them in future.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Raeven said:


> Different situations, different approaches.
> 
> One was a spontaneous eruption of frustration and rage fomented in the moment of participating in an unplanned riot. No question there was a great deal of damage done to the town of Ferguson. All who can be identified as participating in the destruction should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
> 
> ...


The learning experience goes both ways.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

mmoetc said:


> Here's a few hundred more for you. http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0J80PR20141126
> 
> The groups were treated differently. Riot gear, military vehicles, tear gas , arresting reporters vs allowing criminals to come and go as they wished to news conferences and town meetings. The federal government in Malheur was as non confrontational as the the police and national guard were confrontational in Ferguson. I'm convinced. The two groups were treated differently. The Bundyites were treated much too softly. Even the arrest was designed to limit confrontation and any collateral damage and if one member of the armed insurrection hadn't insisted on getting himself killed it would have happened quietly and peacefully.
> 
> I'm no fan of government overreach and abuse. I'm also no fan of idiots wrapping themselves in flags and claiming rights and privileges they don't have.





Raeven said:


> Different situations, different approaches.
> 
> One was a spontaneous eruption of frustration and rage fomented in the moment of participating in an unplanned riot. No question there was a great deal of damage done to the town of Ferguson. All who can be identified as participating in the destruction should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
> 
> ...





Well, I was really looking for an answer in terms of what you wanted for "more evidence".
If y'all are already convinced with what you have seen, I don't know what chance there is if more WAS shown.:shrug:

But I looked around anyway.
No doubt hundreds were arrested, in Oakland, Boston, Cincinnati, Atlanta and elsewhere as well as Ferguson.
Were they prosecuted to the full extent of the law, as some said they should have?
:umno:
I don't have every arrest record, but almost everywhere I looked, the charges were dropped. The recent and one of the more serious, was dropped last month before the trial was to begin.

Not only that, the DOJ has an investigation open on civil rights violations by the Ferguson police. This was stated publicly by Eric Holder while the protests were ongoing.
Several police officers were fired or forced to resign for their actions during the protests.

If you still see no difference in how it was treated, then I doubt posting links to what I said would matter either, but I may go back and retrieve a few of the ones that show the starkest contrast in how the rioters were viewed.

ETA

http://www.naacpldf.org/news/naacp-...dismissal-charges-against-ferguson-protesters
*"Wednesday, August 19, 2015
By: ACLU
Source: ACLU
JOINT STATEMENT ON CHARGES ISSUED BY ST. LOUIS COUNTY
AGAINST PROTESTERS ARRESTED LAST YEAR


St. Louis County is marking the one-year anniversary of the death of Michael Brown by charging hundreds of people arrested by the St. Louis County Police in protest actions that occurred since August of 2014. The State Prosecuting Attorney has refused to pursue these charges. The City of Ferguson, where most incidents occurred, has not pursued charges. 

Nonetheless, the newly-appointed County Counselor has stepped in to file ordinance violations. This is the same entity that currently defends St. Louis County Police Department Chief Jon Belmar against numerous civil rights lawsuits stemming from these protests. 

It is unclear why the St. Louis County Counselor has reached a different conclusion from other local prosecutors who have rightly decided not to pursue charges. But, it is clear that many protesters will not receive notice of these delayed charges and will ultimately be issued arrest warrants. 

We condemn this action as a blatant violation of constitutional rights and an appalling misuse of our already overburdened court system. 

We urge the St. Louis County Counselor's office to do the right thing and help heal the region by dismissing all of these cases immediately. 

Those who have been charged and need legal representation should complete an online form at: http://bit.ly/1JWkTnZ



ACLU of Missouri 

Arch City Defenders 

Advancement Project 

American Civil Liberties Union 

Black Movement Law Project 

Center for Constitutional Rights

Missouri NAACP 

Mound City Bar Association 

NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund 

National Association for Public Defense

National Lawyers Guild

National Lawyers Guild &#8211; St. Louis Chapter

National Press Photographers Association

Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press

St. Louis University Civil Litigation Clinic"*

..............................................................

http://fox2now.com/2016/01/22/charges-dropped-against-6-ferguson-protesters/

*"FERGUSON, Mo. (AP) &#8211; Charges have been dropped against six activists who were arrested during a protest in Ferguson, just as their trial was about to begin. The case was expected to include allegations of police brutality, claims of missing evidence and discussions about the shortcomings of body cameras.

The charges had included property damage, resisting arrest, disorderly conduct and third-degree assault. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports that Ferguson prosecutor Stephanie Karr dismissed the charges Thursday without explanation.

Later Thursday, the defendants filed a federal lawsuit alleging that Ferguson destroyed evidence and violated the constitution.

Protests were common in Ferguson after the August 2014 fatal shooting by a white police officer of 18-year-old Michael Brown, who was black and unarmed. Officer Darren Wilson was not charged in his death."*


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wr said:


> If I'm not mistaken, the damage in question is on native grass and reclaiming it can be very costly.
> 
> Native grass is comprised of unique species and the only way to restore without allowing weeds to take over is to graft it and the grafts have to come from the same species. The only process I'm aware of is to graft in a checkerboard pattern and invasive weeds have to be carefully managed for a couple years.
> 
> ...


i grew up in malhuer county.... The precious native grasses in that part of the state is cheat grass which is not at all rare or difficult to replant. Just let the wind blow add a winters snowfall and it will reseed itself. The BLM burns thousands of acres intentionally to get rid of it and the sagebrush in order to plant modern nonnative grasses on a regular basis.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> i grew up in malhuer county.... The precious native grasses in that part of the state is cheat grass which is not at all rare or difficult to replant. Just let the wind blow add a winters snowfall and it will reseed itself. The BLM burns thousands of acres intentionally to get rid of it and the sagebrush in order to plant modern nonnative grasses on a regular basis.




I was thinking along the lines too.
Imagine my surprise when I went to the Malhuer website and found this bit of history........

http://www.fws.gov/refuge/malheur/about/CCC.html

*"An excellent description of the construction of the permanent camp at Refuge Headquarters comes from the May-June 1936 Camp Sod House Narrative:

&#8220;Sod House Camp was established here on May 5, 1936, having been moved from Cottonwood Camp in Idaho.

Approximately 121 boys are in camp for duty. The picture shows the mess hall, most of the boys&#8217; quarters and officer&#8217;s quarters, is shown, with the Blitzen river in the right foreground. Malheur Lake is beyond the trees in the left foreground and next to the low hills in the distance.

The three CCC camps on Malheur Refuge left behind an incredible legacy that remains today. Initial projects undertaken by the camps included fencing over 200 miles of the Refuge boundary; some of this fence is still in use today. Cattle guards were installed at all access points to the Refuge to prevent trespass by adjacent cattle. At refuge headquarters, work began on construction of four stone buildings (two residences, an office and a barn) to better manage the Refuge. The CCC also extended the telephone lines from the Narrows to refuge headquarters, and then on to the communities of Diamond and Frenchglen. 

The telephone lines followed improved or new roads. Major portions of Highway 205 south of the Narrows were surveyed and constructed by enrollees from all three camps. This not only improved access to the camps and made transportation of materials more efficient, but enhanced the transportation network used by refuge neighbors. The enrollees also improved access to the community of Diamond as bridges were constructed across the Donner und Blitzen River. Along portions of the river channelized by the Eastern Oregon Land and Livestock Company in the early part of the century, enrollees used dozers to sculpt the dredge piles into a network of roads that would traverse the center of the valley. Over 35 miles of road would provide access to the center of the refuge for better management of the newly acquired lands. Seven bridges were constructed by the CCC along this newly created Center Patrol Road. 

As work progressed over the next seven years the CCC enrollees would construct five concrete diversion dams on the Donner und Blitzen River. Several of these dams replaced existing smaller wood structures left over from the ranching days. All five dams improved diversion of irrigation water along hundreds of miles of new or revamped irrigation ditches. Major diversion ditches, including the Buena Vista Canal, the East and West Canals, Ram Ditch and the Stubblefield Canal, increased the amount of water that could be diverted over a greater distance in the Blitzen Valley. Much of this water was directed to new ponds (the Buena Vista Ponds, Wrights Pond, the Knox Ponds, and Boca Lake) that were crafted from the valley floor. "*


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

farmrbrown said:


> Game?
> 
> I don't see any game going on here. I see a government on the edge of tyranny, showing no fear of public opposition and starting to treat human lives
> 
> ...



I believe you can do with your property as you wish but I'm pretty fond of my native grass and my comment reflects the fact that someone may not be fond on filling a natural setting with crested wheat. 

I'm actually quite surprised that a homesteader would be unaware of the advantages of native grass but we base our opinions on our own experience and background.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

greg273 said:


> I know they were treated differently. One group was tear gassed and billy clubbed, in most cases justifiably, while one group was coddled and allowed to remain holed up for over a month, making death threats against the government the whole time.


And then the feds shot one


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Cornhusker said:


> And then the feds shot one


 Yeah, thats what happens when you reach for a weapon when the cops tell you to freeze.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

wr said:


> I believe you can do with your property as you wish but I'm pretty fond of my native grass and my comment reflects the fact that someone may not be fond on filling a natural setting with crested wheat.
> 
> I'm actually quite surprised that a homesteader would be unaware of the advantages of native grass but we base our opinions on our own experience and background.


I would be surprised too, if I was unaware.
You can learn a lot about native grass from a native American.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

farmrbrown said:


> I would be surprised too, if I was unaware.
> 
> You can learn a lot about native grass from a native American.



I learned from my ancestors as well.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

farmrbrown said:


> Well, I was really looking for an answer in terms of what you wanted for "more evidence".
> If y'all are already convinced with what you have seen, I don't know what chance there is if more WAS shown.:shrug:
> 
> But I looked around anyway.
> ...


You don't really help your case by bringing up the federal investigation into police misconduct. Isn't such misconduct something that should be investigated and punished if it happened. Isn't it the same sort of thing you'd want investigated if the federal agents at Malheur were accused of the same things. Or is only some police misconduct worthy of scrutiny.

The same goes for the story of the dropped charges. It would have been interesting to see the defendants bring forth their evidence of police misconduct in the courtroom. I can't blame the prosecutor for not wanting such things aired in open court. You should be upset that they weren't. The defendants may be people worthy of your support.

The Bundys and their supporters were treated with great restraint by the federal authorities. The Bundys will have their day in court. They'll get the opportunity to convince a jury of their peers of their righteousness. I wish them luck buts it's about all they can hang their hats on.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> i grew up in malhuer county.... The precious native grasses in that part of the state is cheat grass which is not at all rare or difficult to replant. Just let the wind blow add a winters snowfall and it will reseed itself. The BLM burns thousands of acres intentionally to get rid of it and the sagebrush in order to plant modern nonnative grasses on a regular basis.


Cheatgrass is native to Asia, not to north America. It's a noxious weed everywhere in the US.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

AmericanStand said:


> Where do you get this idea ? From what I understand it was their DEEP respect for natural resources that precipitated the takeover.


I think they had a deep respect for something. I'm not sure if that was for natural resources.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

heritagefarm said:


> i think they had a deep respect for something. I'm not sure if that was for natural resources.


*snacks!!*


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

mmoetc said:


> You don't really help your case by bringing up the federal investigation into police misconduct. Isn't such misconduct something that should be investigated and punished if it happened. Isn't it the same sort of thing you'd want investigated if the federal agents at Malheur were accused of the same things. Or is only some police misconduct worthy of scrutiny.
> 
> The same goes for the story of the dropped charges. It would have been interesting to see the defendants bring forth their evidence of police misconduct in the courtroom. I can't blame the prosecutor for not wanting such things aired in open court. You should be upset that they weren't. The defendants may be people worthy of your support.
> 
> The Bundys and their supporters were treated with great restraint by the federal authorities. The Bundys will have their day in court. They'll get the opportunity to convince a jury of their peers of their righteousness. I wish them luck buts it's about all they can hang their hats on.



Actually, I included that in the hope you would see the difference more clearly.:shrug:

Maybe you aren't aware of the gross misconduct of the government officials which led up to the Oregon incident, but it has been documented more than once in other threads.
The fact is, *I am* aware of the misconduct in Ferguson and it still continues today, according to the latest reports from the media and the DOJ.
And I was upset that the case was dismissed without hearing some of that evidence, it sounds like the corruption there is deep and well protected.
I don't know if it would be bad enough to condone attacking the police or getting violent. Arson, vandalism and looting aren't what I consider legitimate actions to take, but a non violent confrontation with authorities and the publicizing of such, is acceptable if the situation warrants it, IMO.

So I do see things a little differently than you might expect, and different than others, even you.
I don't see the need, or even the right, to arrest, jail, threaten violence or kill a non violent protester of gov't corruption.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> i grew up in malhuer county.... The precious native grasses in that part of the state is cheat grass which is not at all rare or difficult to replant. Just let the wind blow add a winters snowfall and it will reseed itself. The BLM burns thousands of acres intentionally to get rid of it and the sagebrush in order to plant modern nonnative grasses on a regular basis.



I was of the impression that cheatgrass is a brome species but perhaps I'm thinking of something different.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

farmrbrown said:


> Actually, I included that in the hope you would see the difference more clearly.:shrug:
> 
> Maybe you aren't aware of the gross misconduct of the government officials which led up to the Oregon incident, but it has been documented more than once in other threads.
> The fact is, *I am* aware of the misconduct in Ferguson and it still continues today, according to the latest reports from the media and the DOJ.
> ...


I've read what you've brought forth as "gross misconduct". I disagree that anything you've put forth rises to anywhere near the levels you think. Most of the misconduct by the authorities in Ferguson does. The actions of the looters, rioters and arsonists deserve punishment. But none of those criminals forced an armed occupation of a federal facility. Thus I don't expect a federal response to those crimes. Such a response would be overreach. And you've shown nothing to indicate federal authorities haven't done their jobs.

The Bundys were treated with kid gloves. The government made every attempt to not escalate the situation and to resolve it peacefully. The Bundys staged an armed occupation of a federal facility. Federal response was warranted. The loss of life was unfortunate but could have been avoided. The only fatality, indeed the only injury, was largely self inflicted. The Bundys will now have their day in court as they should. They will get to air their grievances in a public forum as they wished. If we are a nation of laws those laws should apply to all. You've shown me nothing to show they were misapplied in the Bundys case or ignored in Ferguson.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

mmoetc said:


> I've read what you've brought forth as "gross misconduct". I disagree that anything you've put forth rises to anywhere near the levels you think. Most of the misconduct by the authorities in Ferguson does. The actions of the looters, rioters and arsonists deserve punishment. But none of those criminals forced an armed occupation of a federal facility. Thus I don't expect a federal response to those crimes. Such a response would be overreach. And you've shown nothing to indicate federal authorities haven't done their jobs.
> 
> The Bundys were treated with kid gloves. The government made every attempt to not escalate the situation and to resolve it peacefully. The Bundys staged an armed occupation of a federal facility. Federal response was warranted. The loss of life was unfortunate but could have been avoided. The only fatality, indeed the only injury, was largely self inflicted. The Bundys will now have their day in court as they should. They will get to air their grievances in a public forum as they wished. If we are a nation of laws those laws should apply to all. You've shown me nothing to show they were misapplied in the Bundys case or ignored in Ferguson.


I understand.
Showing "nothing" isn't the same as saying what was shown, is considered "nothing". One man's trash is another man's treasure.

I would call what was done to the Hammonds over generations more than "nothing", but I can see that you don't agree.
The Missouri National Guard isn't federal, you are correct, but the highest level of state force WAS called in to occupy and restore order in response.
That and the public property that was occupied briefly in Ferguson, also is not in any way similar to the events in Oregon either.............at least as you see it anyway.





http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/0...police-station-guess-what-happens-next-video/

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ional-guard-michael-brown-jay-nixon/14219621/


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

farmrbrown said:


> I understand.
> Showing "nothing" isn't the same as saying what was shown, is considered "nothing". One man's trash is another man's treasure.
> 
> I would call what was done to the Hammonds over generations more than "nothing", but I can see that you don't agree.
> ...


The Hammonds had their day in court. In fact, they had numerous days. They lost. You say the the system was rigged and they they were treated unfairly but other than the outcome, which you don't like, you can't say why or how they didn't get a fair trial. Were they not allowed to mount a defense? Were they not allowed to call witnesses, present evidence or testify as to their own actions? The Hammonds were a victim of changing times. To expect things like government land use policy to remain as they were 50 or 100 years ago and not adapt to changing times is a fools errand. Any business that relies on resources provided and controlled by another operates at the whim of that other. It's not abuse or overreach. It's life.

The job of law enforcement is to enforce laws. They should have and did arrest protestors in Ferguson and elsewhere. Some like to pretend otherwise but the evidence of those arrests has been presented. Even if was just for peacefully blocking traffic the arrests were justified. Protestors are not immune from the law because they are protesting. This is the standard you seemed to wish applied to the Bundys and their followers. They were breaking the law with their occupation. They were threatening law enforcement officials with violence pointing to the weapons they carried. The price of protest is often arrest and incarceration. Ask me how I know. The Bundys will now get their days in court and get to face their accusers and get to make their case. They might lose and go to jail but that isn't the sign of a corrupt system. It is simply our system at work.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Cornhusker said:


> And then the feds shot one


I thought the OSP shot him.
It really makes little difference since he gave them no choice


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Unfortunately, I figured this was going to be your reply.
And yet, "the system" in Ferguson, where you have to go to "have your day in court" is EXACTLY why people got fed up and decided not to go that route anymore. As I said, it's STILL going on as we speak.

My separate replies to some of this are in red below.


mmoetc said:


> The Hammonds had their day in court. In fact, they had numerous days. They lost. You say the the system was rigged and they they were treated unfairly but other than the outcome, which you don't like, you can't say why or how they didn't get a fair trial.
> 
> Actually, I can and already have said why.
> 
> ...



You mean like eminent domain?
Or better yet, as in the Hammond's case, when the gov't defies the law and court orders on those policies, until they finally decide to fabricate evidence in order to jail their opponents, who won legally in court up to that point in time?






mmoetc said:


> The job of law enforcement is to enforce laws. They should have and did arrest protestors in Ferguson and elsewhere. Some like to pretend otherwise but the evidence of those arrests has been presented. Even if was just for peacefully blocking traffic the arrests were justified. Protestors are not immune from the law because they are protesting. This is the standard you seemed to wish applied to the Bundys and their followers. They were breaking the law with their occupation. They were threatening law enforcement officials with violence pointing to the weapons they carried. The price of protest is often arrest and incarceration. Ask me how I know. The Bundys will now get their days in court and get to face their accusers and get to make their case. They might lose and go to jail but that isn't the sign of a corrupt system. It is simply our system at work.


As I said, I understand, but I disagree.
:runforhills:


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Originally Posted by AmericanStand View Post
> Where do you get this idea ? From what I understand it was their DEEP respect for natural resources that precipitated the takeover.


The Hammonds were convicted of arson while trying to cover up illegal hunting.
It seems they have no respect for anything


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> The Hammonds were convicted of arson while trying to cover up illegal hunting.
> It seems they have no respect for anything


You say that, and yet it was the Hammond's who were the ones who voluntarily went back to prison and tried to defuse the situation. If anyone had the right to an armed standoff, it was them, but they chose not to.

Earlier you posted about people you heard comments from who supposedly knew them and confirmed how they were criminals who got what they deserved.

I wonder what you would say if someone posted just the opposite, that there are people they know on the internet that had a different opinion.

Hearsay, irrelevant, and parroting comes to mind for some reason............:icecream:


----------



## cfuhrer (Jun 11, 2013)

Bearfootfarm said:


> The Hammonds were convicted of arson while trying to cover up illegal hunting.
> It seems they have no respect for anything


Much like the BLM that carried out their own burns that killed and injured cattle, destroyed homes and other private property with no compensation. All during the height of fire season and the growth cycle of those precious native grasses.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

cfuhrer said:


> Much like the BLM that carried out their own burns that killed and injured cattle, destroyed homes and other private property with no compensation. All during the height of fire season and the growth cycle of those precious native grasses.


This is actually what the Hammonds did. Other ranchers also pulled down fences that the BLM installed to prevent cattle from getting in the road. They were tired of cleaning up road pizza, I guess.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

cfuhrer said:


> Much like the BLM that carried out their own burns that killed and injured cattle, destroyed homes and other private property with no compensation. All during the height of fire season and the growth cycle of those precious native grasses.


I've heard those claims, mostly on anti-Govt type sites not noted for their credibility


----------



## cfuhrer (Jun 11, 2013)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I've heard those claims, mostly on anti-Govt type sites not noted for their credibility


Have you seen the video?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I've heard those claims, mostly on anti-Govt type sites not noted for their credibility


 Yogurt that right. Misrepresented some heavy edited videos also from those sites, sure doesn't make any case that the government burned torched or did anything bad. But those dudes that thought they were above the law sure as heck ruined things for years to come.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Heritagefarm said:


> This is actually what the Hammonds did. Other ranchers also pulled down fences that the BLM installed to prevent cattle from getting in the road. They were tired of cleaning up road pizza, I guess.


I think you may be confusing them with the Bundys. What the gov't did to the Hammonds was put up barricades to prevent their cattle from getting to water, which under Oregon state law, was illegal. The gov't claimed IN COURT that they didn't have to follow the law, but the judge made them take down the barricades and fences, THAT'S when they decided to play dirty and put the Hammond's in prison on bogus charges.
After making them sign "first right of refusal" papers for their ranch before going to prison, 2 years later they were still able to make the payments on their $400,000.oo fine, so the feds appealed the sentence and sent them back for MORE time, hoping they default on their ranch.
The gov't has been trying to get them to sell since the 1970's.

The story is there for anyone who wants to read it. If y'all want to read only the part where they got a disgruntled nephew to say the Hammonds committed poaching and arson, believe whatever you want.
Believe the gov'tr can do no wrong and everyone is in court because they committed the crimes they are accused of.
I'd rather see ALL the facts before I make that decision.






arabian knight said:


> Yogurt that right. Misrepresented some heavy edited videos also from those sites, sure doesn't make any case that the government burned torched or did anything bad. But those dudes that thought they were above the law sure as heck ruined things for years to come.



See above reply.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

farmrbrown said:


> I think you may be confusing them with the Bundys. What the gov't did to the Hammonds was put up barricades to prevent their cattle from getting to water, which under Oregon state law, was illegal. The gov't claimed IN COURT that they didn't have to follow the law, but the judge made them take down the barricades and fences, THAT'S when they decided to play dirty and put the Hammond's in prison on bogus charges.
> After making them sign "first right of refusal" papers for their ranch before going to prison, 2 years later they were still able to make the payments on their $400,000.oo fine, so the feds appealed the sentence and sent them back for MORE time, hoping they default on their ranch.
> The gov't has been trying to get them to sell since the 1970's.
> 
> ...


ANY story is there for anyone who wants to read and believe it. Alien abduction, sheep giving birth to humans, etc. Valid sources and a questioning mind make all the difference. Believing the ridiculousness that comes out of the Ya'll Quaeda supporter blogs is entirely up to you, but don't expect everyone else to take you seriously when you spout it.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

farmrbrown said:


> I think you may be confusing them with the Bundys. What the gov't did to the Hammonds was put up barricades to prevent their cattle from getting to water, which under Oregon state law, was illegal. The gov't claimed IN COURT that they didn't have to follow the law, but the judge made them take down the barricades and fences, THAT'S when they decided to play dirty and put the Hammond's in prison on bogus charges.
> After making them sign "first right of refusal" papers for their ranch before going to prison, 2 years later they were still able to make the payments on their $400,000.oo fine, so the feds appealed the sentence and sent them back for MORE time, hoping they default on their ranch.
> The gov't has been trying to get them to sell since the 1970's.
> 
> ...


The Hammonds repeatedly threatened BLM agents with death threats for a number of years, and the BLM turned a blind eye to much of the idiocy they committed. It was other ranchers who tore down fences. Also, I have been unable to find a reputable source stating that the BLM forced buyouts by flooding land. That bit of info is all over the Bundys blog, however, which oddly enough _uses itself as a citation_. The Bundys weren't even there to defend the Hammonds so much as to prove a point against the government. Unfortunately, it backfired on them and someone was shot by the FBI, which then led to claims that they were like "Jesus." Pardon me, but I am reasonably sure that Jesus didn't try to overthrow the government and kill people.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

cfuhrer said:


> Have you seen the video?


No, I haven't watched the video since I've found most online videos from such sites are a waste of effort, and generally don't prove what they claim.

It's too easy to edit and make things appear to be something other than they truly are.

If you have *actual* news reports or court cases to show, I'd be happy to look at those. The last video I saw someone post had a guy supposedly setting cows on fire with a flamethrower for the "screenshot"


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> No, I haven't watched the video since I've found most online videos from such sites are a waste of effort, and generally don't prove what they claim.
> 
> It's too easy to edit and make things appear to be something other than they truly are.
> 
> If you have *actual* news reports or court cases to show, I'd be happy to look at those. The last video I saw someone post had a guy supposedly setting cows on fire with a flamethrower for the "screenshot"


Ah that sounds perfectly reputable to me.:bandwagon:


----------



## kuriakos (Oct 7, 2005)

poppy said:


> I've seen no photos that show anywhere near millions of dollars in damage.


The claim is not that they did millions of dollars in damage, but that the standoff cost millions of dollars.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

basketti said:


> ANY story is there for anyone who wants to read and believe it. Alien abduction, sheep giving birth to humans, etc. Valid sources and a questioning mind make all the difference. Believing the ridiculousness that comes out of the Ya'll Quaeda supporter blogs is entirely up to you, but don't expect everyone else to take you seriously when you spout it.


Do numerous court cases in Oregon between the Hammonds and BLM count?
Or were those documents planted by aliens?




Heritagefarm said:


> The Hammonds repeatedly threatened BLM agents with death threats for a number of years, and the BLM turned a blind eye to much of the idiocy they committed. It was other ranchers who tore down fences. Also, I have been unable to find a reputable source stating that the BLM forced buyouts by flooding land. That bit of info is all over the Bundys blog, however, which oddly enough _uses itself as a citation_. The Bundys weren't even there to defend the Hammonds so much as to prove a point against the government. Unfortunately, it backfired on them and someone was shot by the FBI, which then led to claims that they were like "Jesus." Pardon me, but I am reasonably sure that *Jesus didn't try to overthrow the government* and kill people.



Well, when the gov't is the crook trying to take everything you have, how much sympathy and patience do you show them?
They are lucky to still be alive. 

As for Jesus?
You DO realize the very thing you said was the reason He WAS killed, don't you?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Heritagefarm said:


> The Hammonds repeatedly threatened BLM agents with death threats for a number of years, and the BLM turned a blind eye to much of the idiocy they committed. It was other ranchers who tore down fences. Also, I have been unable to find a reputable source stating that the BLM forced buyouts by flooding land. That bit of info is all over the Bundys blog, however, which oddly enough _uses itself as a citation_. The Bundys weren't even there to defend the Hammonds so much as to prove a point against the government. Unfortunately, it backfired on them and someone was shot by the FBI, which then led to claims that they were like "Jesus." Pardon me, but I am reasonably sure that Jesus didn't try to overthrow the government and kill people.


I haven't heard any reports of the hammonds or the bundies firing any shots nor trying to over throw the government. They have some legitimate complaints and were peacefully demonstrating.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

mmoetc said:


> I've read what you've brought forth as "gross misconduct". I disagree that anything you've put forth rises to anywhere near the levels you think. Most of the misconduct by the authorities in Ferguson does. The actions of the looters, rioters and arsonists deserve punishment. But none of those criminals forced an armed occupation of a federal facility. Thus I don't expect a federal response to those crimes. Such a response would be overreach. And you've shown nothing to indicate federal authorities haven't done their jobs.
> 
> The Bundys were treated with kid gloves. The government made every attempt to not escalate the situation and to resolve it peacefully. The Bundys staged an armed occupation of a federal facility. Federal response was warranted. The loss of life was unfortunate but could have been avoided. The only fatality, indeed the only injury, was largely self inflicted. The Bundys will now have their day in court as they should. They will get to air their grievances in a public forum as they wished. If we are a nation of laws those laws should apply to all. You've shown me nothing to show they were misapplied in the Bundys case or ignored in Ferguson.


I agree that we are a nation of laws, and that we should all obey those laws.... Stariting with the federal government. Perhaps you could direct me to the article in our nations highest law (our U.S. Constitution) that grants the federal government any authority to control any lands other than the ten mile square known as the district of Colombia, military forts and territories not yet achieving statehood. I have read and re read it and can't seem to find that part. To the best of my knowledge all of malhuer and harney counties are a part of the state of Oregon and have been since 1859.


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I agree that we are a nation of laws, and that we should all obey those laws.... Stariting with the federal government. Perhaps you could direct me to the article in our nations highest law (our U.S. Constitution) that grants the federal government any authority to control any lands other than the ten mile square known as the district of Colombia, military forts and territories not yet achieving statehood. I have read and re read it and can't seem to find that part. To the best of my knowledge all of malhuer and harney counties are a part of the state of Oregon and have been since 1859.


Of course you are aware that Article Four, section 3, clause 2 is the governing law contained in the Constitution that permits the Federal Government to retain ownership over that land. Unless you can show me where the State of Oregon purchased it or a land grant came from the Feds, ownership of it remains with them and will. Meaning we *all* own it, not just the Bundys and the Hammonds.

To see it your way, one must *assume* that all lands automatically transfer to state ownership upon recognition of that state as one of these United States. Historically, this has not been the case -- so you're going against a good deal of legal precedent here. Too much to overcome, in my opinion. You may disagree, but the Supreme Court has very consistently upheld the right of the Federal Government to retain ownership over these lands. See 185 U.S. 47 French Glenn Live Stock Company v. Alva Springer (1903) and 295 U.S. 1 United States v. State of Oregon (1935). I mean, unless you think the legal precedents set by the Supreme Court are immaterial, too.

If the Feds stole it from anyone, it was from the Paiute Indians at the time ownership was "granted" to the United States under the Oregon Treaty with Britain in 1848. 

Interestingly, the Paiutes never complained as loudly as the Bundys -- over grazing rights, not land ownership, mind you, just grazing rights -- that were not even granted to them, but to the Hammonds.

ETA: (Wait for it. Here comes the Enclave Clause.)


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

farmrbrown said:


> Do numerous court cases in Oregon between the Hammonds and BLM count?
> Or were those documents planted by aliens?
> 
> 
> ...


They took over a government facility. The Bundys are idiots and have a history of extreme tax evasion. They don't want change, they just want to keep the millions they owe in taxes and grazing fees!


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I haven't heard any reports of the hammonds or the bundies firing any shots nor trying to over throw the government. They have some legitimate complaints and were peacefully demonstrating.


They took over the Malheur reserve and stated they would be willing to die for their convictions. It was anything but peaceful, and yes they did have some good ideas, but they didn't go about it in the right manner. 
When the FBI arrested the people, one person was killed in the standoff.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Raeven said:


> If the Feds stole it from anyone, it was from the Paiute Indians at the time ownership was "granted" to the United States under the Oregon Treaty with Britain in 1848.
> 
> Interestingly, the Paiutes never complained as loudly as the Bundys -- over grazing rights, not land ownership, mind you, just grazing rights -- that were not even granted to them, but to the Hammonds.
> 
> ETA: (Wait for it. Here comes the Enclave Clause.)


The Paiutes had their day in the white man's court already, about 150 years ago.
As you might have guessed, it turned out just a little worse than this go-round for the Bundy clan.

Almost every Native tribe eventually learned the treachery and power of the U.S. government.

No, as much as I admire the courage to stand and openly oppose the Feds, the only success my ancestors had was to creep into the woods and sneak up on them later.
It does pay to learn from history.
Good thread.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Heritagefarm said:


> but I am reasonably sure that Jesus didn't try to overthrow the government and kill people.



Well as long as you don't belive the bible you can feel that way. 
But then why bring Jesus up.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

AmericanStand said:


> Well as long as you don't belive the bible you can feel that way.
> But then why bring Jesus up.


http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friend...s-and-moses-says-nevada-lawmaker/?repeat=w3tc



> From Moses who killed an Egyptian for abusing his people, to Jesus who died on a cross as a condemned criminal, many of those who operate outside the box and promote love and justice over the current form of government are treated as outcasts and many times murdered.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Raeven said:


> Of course you are aware that Article Four, section 3, clause 2 is the governing law contained in the Constitution that permits the Federal Government to retain ownership over that land. Unless you can show me where the State of Oregon purchased it or a land grant came from the Feds, ownership of it remains with them and will. Meaning we *all* own it, not just the Bundys and the Hammonds.
> 
> To see it your way, one must *assume* that all lands automatically transfer to state ownership upon recognition of that state as one of these United States. Historically, this has not been the case -- so you're going against a good deal of legal precedent here. Too much to overcome, in my opinion. You may disagree, but the Supreme Court has very consistently upheld the right of the Federal Government to retain ownership over these lands. See 185 U.S. 47 French Glenn Live Stock Company v. Alva Springer (1903) and 295 U.S. 1 United States v. State of Oregon (1935). I mean, unless you think the legal precedents set by the Supreme Court are immaterial, too.
> 
> ...


article four section three is about governing "territories" not states. When a territory becomes a state the Feds grants to the state the rights to govern and control those lands.... Or are you forgetting that each state is a separate sovereign nation unto itself?


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> article four section three is about governing "territories" not states. When a territory becomes a state the Feds grants to the state the rights to govern and control those lands.... Or are you forgetting that each state is a separate sovereign nation unto itself?


 Best re-read that section. The 2nd paragraph clearly states "... territory OR other property belonging to the United States".

And no, each state is not a 'separate soveriegn nation'. 

The original framers did not advocate anarchy, they made clear insurrection was to be dealt with by force.


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> article four section three is about governing "territories" not states. When a territory becomes a state the Feds grants to the state the rights to govern and control those lands.... Or are you forgetting that each state is a separate sovereign nation unto itself?


 You&#8217;re hanging your hat on the word, &#8220;territories,&#8221; and that's your mistake. There&#8217;s nothing in the Constitution that bootstraps you from &#8220;territories&#8221; to the assumption that the Constitution grants all lands to states automatically when they become sovereign. Or did I miss that somewhere? Could you point me to the specific language in the Constitution where that is spelled out?

The Constitution grants final say in disputes brought before it, such as questions of lands ownership, to the SCOTUS. They have consistently decided in favor of the federal government in these matters. 

Do you believe we are a nation of laws or not? Or do you just ignore SCOTUS decisions you don&#8217;t agree with?

ETA: Ninja'd by Greg. Exactly.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

farmrbrown said:


> Unfortunately, I figured this was going to be your reply.
> And yet, "the system" in Ferguson, where you have to go to "have your day in court" is EXACTLY why people got fed up and decided not to go that route anymore. As I said, it's STILL going on as we speak.
> 
> My separate replies to some of this are in red below.
> ...


I really didn't want to readjudicate the Hammonds court case here. They had two weeks in court to present their case. When two guilty verdicts had already been returned and more seemed forthcoming they made a deal. It turns out it was a bad deal for them but leaving their fate to the jury might not have turned out better for them. They would have retained the right to appeal on all the grounds of unfairness but they willingly signed that away. Unless you can show me the guns pointed at their heads the choices were theirs. I give the Hanmonds credit for fighting within the system. I give them credit for facing their punishment with dignity. I find them much more worthy of admiration than the Bundys.

All that being said- what does anything that happened to the Hammonds have to do with anything that happened to the Bundys and their followers during the standoff at Malheur? What abuses did the federal government inflict on them. They allowed them to come and go rather freely for a month. They allowed them to recieve aid and sustenance from the outside. They allowed reporters and press access to the "protestors" letting them freely tell their stories. They finally attempted to make arrests in a remote area where any bystanders wouldn't be in danger and did it in a way so as to minimize danger to the Bundys and law enforcement. Those that peacefully cooperated weren't harmed. You claim mistreatment and that others in another place recieved different, preferential treatment. You're wrong. Others did recieve different treatment, but it was far from preferential.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

greg273 said:


> Best re-read that section. The 2nd paragraph clearly states "... territory OR other property belonging to the United States".
> 
> And no, each state is not a 'separate soveriegn nation'.
> 
> The original framers did not advocate anarchy, they made clear insurrection was to be dealt with by force.


"Other property" is referring to the capitol and or military installations. Those being the only properties specified in the constitution. I refer you to the tenth amendment that clearly limits the powers of the federal government to those powers specifically authorized in the constitution itself, all other powers are retained by the states or the people. 
If the states are not separate and individual entities what are their purpose? Why does each one have its own government and laws? Why are there distinct boundaries between each one?
I agree that insurrection is not part of the game.... But the right to peaceful assembly and redress of grievances are very well addressed in our constitution. 
I am also well aware that the Supreme Court has managed to get very creative with their "interpretations" of our constitution in order to allow the Feds to userp powers not granted them..... But those desicions are not what I asked about.... I asked where the constitution granted them power to control any lands within a state othe than military bases?


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> "Other property" is referring to the capitol and or military installations.


 You're thinking of Article 1, section 8 where it lays out the process for securing a federal district for the capitol. Article 4, Section 3 is the part I referenced, otherwise known as the 'Property Clause'.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

mmoetc said:


> All that being said- what does anything that happened to the Hammonds have to do with anything that happened to the Bundys and their followers during the standoff at Malheur? What abuses did the federal government inflict on them. They allowed them to come and go rather freely for a month. They allowed them to recieve aid and sustenance from the outside. They allowed reporters and press access to the "protestors" letting them freely tell their stories. They finally attempted to make arrests in a remote area where any bystanders wouldn't be in danger and did it in a way so as to minimize danger to the Bundys and law enforcement. Those that peacefully cooperated weren't harmed.
> 
> 
> *You claim mistreatment and that others in another place recieved different, preferential treatment. You're wrong. Others did recieve different treatment, but it was far from preferential.*



Dropped charges, NAACP, ACLU and DOJ support in defending them, the news media NOT labeling them as terrorists, the gov't NOT seeking millions of dollars in "damage"............

Do I need a BIGGER list?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

farmrbrown said:


> Dropped charges, NAACP, ACLU and DOJ support in defending them, the news media NOT labeling them as terrorists, the gov't NOT seeking millions of dollars in "damage"............
> 
> Do I need a BIGGER list?


Maybe just one that shows the Bundys were treated unfairly by the federal authorities at Malheur. Should they not have been arrested and charged for an armed occupation of a federal facility? Should they not be held accountable for any damage they did? The DOJ investigated abuses by local police in Ferguson. Since there were no such allegations in Malhuer I don't expect they will investigate there. You can stomp your feet and repeat yourself as much as you like. But until you can show me specifically how the response to an armed occupation and threats to law enforcement was handled innappropriately by the Federal authorities in Malheur you're just making so much more useless noise. You can complain that more Federal response might have been appropriate in Ferguson( I'll disagree), but to try to twist that into an argument that the response in Malheur was abusive or overreaching is specious at its best.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

farmrbrown said:


> Dropped charges, NAACP, ACLU and DOJ support in defending them, the news media NOT labeling them as terrorists, the gov't NOT seeking millions of dollars in "damage"............
> 
> Do I need a BIGGER list?


 Actually the ACLU did defend some of the Oregon protesters, and why on earth would you expect the NAACP to have anything to do with them?? I don't know what 'media' you listen to, but I didn't hear any of the so-called mainstream outlets refer to them as 'terrorists'.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

greg273 said:


> Actually the ACLU did defend some of the Oregon protesters, and why on earth would you expect the NAACP to have anything to do with them?? I don't know what 'media' you listen to, but I didn't hear any of the so-called mainstream outlets refer to them as 'terrorists'.


"Terrorist" is the big buzzword on the anti-Govt sites due to the title of the bill containing the 5 year mandatory sentence:



> Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiterrorism_and_Effective_Death_Penalty_Act_of_1996

Some will whine about WIKI, but it gives a pretty unbiased version of the case history without pushing any agendas:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_the_Malheur_National_Wildlife_Refuge


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

greg273 said:


> You're thinking of Article 1, section 8 where it lays out the process for securing a federal district for the capitol. Article 4, Section 3 is the part I referenced, otherwise known as the 'Property Clause'.


Nope, I read article four again just to be sure. While article four mentions other property it must be referring to the Capitol and forts because territories, forts and the Capitol are the ONLY properties the federal government is allowed to own that is specified in our constitution.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

mmoetc said:


> *Maybe just one that shows the Bundys were treated unfairly by the federal authorities at Malheur. *
> 
> Should they not have been arrested and charged for an armed occupation of a federal facility? Should they not be held accountable for any damage they did? The DOJ investigated abuses by local police in Ferguson.
> 
> ...


To repeatedly ignore the abuse by authorities *BEFORE* the occupation is akin to turning a blind eye to the abuses in Ferguson prior to the riots.
Failure to acknowledge that both circumstances were run through the courts, complaints filed against the authorities and dismissed, both ended in the same results - civil disobedience.
I wasn't saying it was unfair to arrest them. It was unfair to allow the government to abuse people until they feel no other recourse is left.

Unless and until that evidence is acknowledged as true, there isn't any way to change your mind.

I think the cops and court WERE taking advantage of the people in Feruson and the people in Oregon as well.
In both cases the gov't employees should have been arrested instead. At least if Ferguson the appearance of an investigation is being done.
In think you're right about Burns Oregon, though.
There won't be one at all.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

greg273 said:


> *Actually the ACLU did defend some of the Oregon protesters,* and why on earth would you expect the NAACP to have anything to do with them?? I don't know what 'media' you listen to, but I didn't hear any of the so-called mainstream outlets refer to them as 'terrorists'.


One actually, Pete Santilli, as a journalist on 1st amendment grounds.
Not legal defense, per se, but a letter to the judge for a bail hearing.
http://www.opb.org/news/series/burn...ete-santilli-malheur-refuge-occupier-defense/

If you get a chance, scroll to the bottom and check out the related stories, clicking < or >.
On the left is how the counter protesters weren't arrested and on the right, how a local sheriff is being investigated for just being in the same room as the occupiers.

I wasn't expecting the NAACP to go to the defense of the Oregon protesters. 

That was in response when asked how they were being treated differently in general.

As to the media calling them terrorists, is it OK if I just link the google search, rather than all the links individually?

https://www.google.com/search?clien...s+referred+to+as+terrorists&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8


----------

