Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Monday January 04 2016, @04:21PM   Printer-friendly
from the seeds-of-revolution dept.

NPR is reporting on this tale of direct action:

A self-styled militia in eastern Oregon grabbed national headlines Saturday when they broke into the headquarters of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. There the armed group remains Sunday, occupying the federal building in protest of what it sees as government overreach on rangelands throughout the western United States.

"We stand in defense," Ammon Bundy, the group's apparent leader and spokesperson, told Oregon Public Broadcasting. "And when the time is right we will begin to defend the people of Harney County, [Ore.,] in using the land and the resources."

Ammon's brother, Ryan, has reportedly used harsher rhetoric, saying members of the militia are willing to kill or be killed.

Their last name may ring a bell. Ammon and Ryan Bundy are sons of rancher Cliven Bundy, who notably took part in an armed standoff with the federal Bureau of Land Management, or BLM, in Nevada in 2014.

Ammon Bundy now is part of a group of 15 to 150 people — depending on which source you believe — who are protesting the arson convictions of two Oregon ranchers, Dwight Hammond Jr. and his son, Steven.

Also at Oregon Live, NYT, and the Associated Press.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Informative) by VLM on Monday January 04 2016, @05:22PM

    by VLM (445) on Monday January 04 2016, @05:22PM (#284598)

    The ranchers may be common criminals, (they were convicted as such)

    Oh I wouldn't say that, based on the facts.

    They were sentenced to more than half a murder conviction and almost half a million bucks because the government doesn't like them. Not exactly "common criminals".

    They may or may not have poached a deer, and they definitely did a controlled burn of invasive species without filling out all the permits. That's all they did.

    If they were being treated as common criminals, here's a stereotypical state land enforcement action:

    http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/field-notes/wisconsin-pair-convicted-of-poaching-40-deer [fieldandstream.com]

    So killing a deer means one day in the slammer per deer, two hours of community service per deer, a hundred bucks per deer, and no legal hunting for half a decade, if the state prosecutes you.

    On the other hand, if the feds prosecute you, and you've been declared an enemy of the state, its a half a million bucks and half a decade in prison.

    That seems juuuuust a little unfair.

    Its hard to get a straight answer on fire code violation enforcement. I suppose if you treat what they did as a rather severe violation of OSHA rules by a major business, then $50K violation fee might not have been out of line. Of course if they didn't remove the invasive species, they'd get cited just as bad, so they'd have to hire $50K worth of illegal immigrants to hand pick the invasive weeds. Either way they'd be out tens of thousands of dollars.

    Nope they're definitely not being treated like common criminals. They are getting the enemy of the state treatment.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +4  
       Informative=4, Total=4
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 04 2016, @06:34PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 04 2016, @06:34PM (#284638)

    They were sentenced to more than half a murder conviction and almost half a million bucks because the government doesn't like them. Not exactly "common criminals".

    They were given the minimum sentence based on being convicted of their crime. They poached, they started a fire to cover up the crime and burned hundreds of hectares of public land, they were duly convicted beyond a reasonable doubt of these activities, and were given the minimum sentence.

    Perhaps you're right. Had they been "common" criminals they would have gotten a heavier sentence ... something in the mid-range maybe ... instead of the minimum reserved for the privileged.

  • (Score: 3, Informative) by M. Baranczak on Monday January 04 2016, @08:08PM

    by M. Baranczak (1673) on Monday January 04 2016, @08:08PM (#284691)

    They may or may not have poached a deer, and they definitely did a controlled burn of invasive species without filling out all the permits. That's all they did.

    That's not what the federal prosecutors are saying. I'm certainly not assuming that the prosecutors are telling the truth, but it seems that a jury agreed with them, so at the very least you should read their side of the story: http://www.justice.gov/usao-or/pr/eastern-oregon-ranchers-convicted-arson-resentenced-five-years-prison [justice.gov]