Oregon standoff over?

[Crankbait]

stringer; do the bundy's have the natives interest in mind?

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by stringer

So what's your point.

Hammond broke the law. Was found guilty. Is serving his sentence.

The Bundys are an entirely separate issue.

The Hammonds are not persecuted like Bundy says.

Cheers

Happy you did some reading.

[stringer]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

Great. You say then there are no conspiracies. These are simple issue. One proven criminal and one group to be tried. Therefore the facts stand as shown above with regards to an arson conviction being one event that was settled fairly at law with trial by jury and minimum mandatory sentencing.

Then an alleged unlawful seizure of a public facility. Which facts will come out in that court case.
Should be interesting.

Wrong again as usual.
The charges are
Conspiracy to interfere with a federal worker.
That's all they have.

[stringer]

Originally Posted by Crankbait

stringer; do the bundy's have the natives interest in mind?

They have the constitution of the U.S. And the American people in mind.
I'd say that includes everyone.

[stringer]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

Hammond broke the law. Was found guilty. Is serving his sentence.

The Bundys are an entirely separate issue.

The Hammonds are not persecuted like Bundy says.

Cheers

Happy you did some reading.

Every thing you posted is exactly what I posted in CTH link
Glad you did some reading and discovered that arson was the only charge they were convicted of and not poaching.
Report back if you dig up something that proves the facts I posted are untrue.

[Crankbait]

Originally Posted by stringer

They have the constitution of the U.S. And the American people in mind.
I'd say that includes everyone.

The great thing about the Internet and forums and copy/pasting is that one can figure out if the other is really up to snuff on what they are spouting.

In the article I posted above, I cut out a very important part of it, which is as follows;

Then, Ammon Bundy came to town and staked his claim on another important piece of the Burns Paiutes' ancestral land. The federal government has no authority to own vast tracts of Western land, he said, and its purchase of private land to expand the refuge was an illegal act.

"The land titles need to be transferred back to the people," Bundy said.

The occupation's leaders were arrested – and one was killed – without achieving that goal, but they had already made clear that if they managed to wrest the refuge from federal ownership, none of it would return to the Paiutes.

"The Native Americans had claim to the land, but they lost that claim," Bundy's brother and fellow occupation leader Ryan Bundy told the Associated Press. "There are things to learn from cultures of the past, but the current culture is the most important."

[stringer]

Originally Posted by Crankbait

The great thing about the Internet and forums and copy/pasting is that one can figure out if the other is really up to snuff on what they are spouting.

In the article I posted above, I cut out a very important part of it, which is as follows;

Then, Ammon Bundy came to town and staked his claim on another important piece of the Burns Paiutes' ancestral land. The federal government has no authority to own vast tracts of Western land, he said, and its purchase of private land to expand the refuge was an illegal act.

"The land titles need to be transferred back to the people," Bundy said.

The occupation's leaders were arrested – and one was killed – without achieving that goal, but they had already made clear that if they managed to wrest the refuge from federal ownership, none of it would return to the Paiutes.

"The Native Americans had claim to the land, but they lost that claim," Bundy's brother and fellow occupation leader Ryan Bundy told the Associated Press. "There are things to learn from cultures of the past, but the current culture is the most important."

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/...y-persecution/
This link that I posted earlier but you probably didn't take the time to read it tells the complete story of the land dispute in Oregon
If you notice the Indian reservation was created by the government at the time but was never occupied by the natives.
So in actual fact they didn't have a claim to the land.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by stringer

Wrong again as usual.
The charges are
Conspiracy to interfere with a federal worker.
That's all they have.

Interesting

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2...ildlife-refuge

Looks like felony conspiracy charges to me.

http://www.flashalertnewswire.net/im...t_unsealed.pdf

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by stringer

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/...y-persecution/
This link that I posted earlier but you probably didn't take the time to read it tells the complete story of the land dispute in Oregon
If you notice the Indian reservation was created by the government at the time but was never occupied by the natives.
So in actual fact they didn't have a claim to the land.

So the reason for the armed stand off was the ridiculous arrest of the hammonds. Yet you admit the hammonds were arrested for arson and that arson was to cover up poaching activities.

You also admit to the facts that the government did not find them guilty but rather a jury of peers.

You also realize that there was a minimum sentence of 5 years that was fixed on appeal.

So the whole thing was stupid on the protesters part.

Plus reading through the whole article it is obviously biased with regards to sentencing.

[Shepard..]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

Interesting

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2...ildlife-refuge

Looks like felony conspiracy charges to me.

http://www.flashalertnewswire.net/im...t_unsealed.pdf

I wonder if Hillary Clinton and the Clinton foundation will be charged? She an her foundation are the root cause of this! Taking bribes in self intrest? Maybe she was going to give the money to the natives?lol

[stringer]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

Interesting

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2...ildlife-refuge

Looks like felony conspiracy charges to me.

http://www.flashalertnewswire.net/im...t_unsealed.pdf

That's not what you previously stated the charges would be.
Now your back peddling to look smart.
Read this it might open your eyes a little bit
http://theconservativetreehouse.com/...amily-problem/

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by stringer

That's not what you previously stated the charges would be.
Now your back peddling to look smart.
Read this it might open your eyes a little bit
http://theconservativetreehouse.com/...amily-problem/

Nope. Still right. Baring a typo the Hammonds were convicted of arson to cover up poaching.

The standoff charges are felony conspiracy charges. Your saying Conspiracy to interfere with a federal worker...not covering the felony...

Cheers

[stringer]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

Nope. Still right. Baring a typo the Hammonds were convicted of arson to cover up poaching.

The standoff charges are felony conspiracy charges. Your saying Conspiracy to interfere with a federal worker...not covering the felony...

Cheers

You stated some charge about taking over a government building.
I called your BS and posted the fact that the were charged with conspiracy to interfere with a government employee .
Verdict is still out on that one.
So unlike you and some others on this forum I won't convict anyone of having broken the law until the courts rule on the matter.
You still haven't showed me were the Hammonds were convicted of poaching.
It was brought up but no evidence was found to support the claim

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by stringer

You stated some charge about taking over a government building.
I called your BS and posted the fact that the were charged with conspiracy to interfere with a government employee .
Verdict is still out on that one.
So unlike you and some others on this forum I won't convict anyone of having broken the law until the courts rule on the matter.
You still haven't showed me were the Hammonds were convicted of poaching.
It was brought up but no evidence was found to support the claim

Actually it seems you need to read the charges.

http://www.flashalertnewswire.net/im...t_unsealed.pdf

The taking over the property is part of the charges.

You reference only point d. Point a. Is taking over the facility. Charges go up to g.

I posted the trial verdict. The arson to cover up poaching was included in it. You need to read that also. http://www.justice.gov/usao-or/pr/ea...e-years-prison

You and I are both in agreement they are innocent until proven guilty like the Hammonds were in their trial. These guys could be found not guilty. We can only speculate how a jury will view the reams of evidence. However it was very public.

Cheers.

SDF

[stringer]

http://freedomoutpost.com/2016/02/la...as-shot-video/

[chasingtail]

Video showing the FBI are murderers. Starts at 48 seconds in the video..
To bad we don't stick together.

http://www.infowars.com/shock-cell-p...e-the-vehicle/

[Silvercreek]

Originally Posted by chasingtail

Video showing the FBI are murderers. Starts at 48 seconds in the video..
To bad we don't stick together.

http://www.infowars.com/shock-cell-p...e-the-vehicle/

What does this have to do with hunting, fishing and trapping in Alberta?

[winged1]

Originally Posted by chasingtail

Video showing the FBI are murderers. Starts at 48 seconds in the video..
To bad we don't stick together.

http://www.infowars.com/shock-cell-p...e-the-vehicle/

Who's we? Looks like a clear case of the gang pushing one of their own into the abyss. Nothing new in this vid, other than a fresh new crop of conspiracy experts.

[Unregistered user]

Originally Posted by Silvercreek

What does this have to do with hunting, fishing and trapping in Alberta?

Nothing, and it is not posted in those areas. General discussion.

[elkonthemind]

I just watched that video that cops deserves life in jail for that, u can clearly see him with hands in the air and cop runs up behind him shoots him twice. The FBI knew this that is why they released that video last month so we couldn't see what happened good on the county sheriffs office for releasing the truth of what happened. I don't condone or understand why they where occupying that federal park but by no means does that give any law enforcement the right to just execute someone. That was a execution plain and simple. going to be a lot more backlash from this now that the real video has been released.

[agentsmith]

Originally Posted by elkonthemind

I just watched that video that cops deserves life in jail for that, u can clearly see him with hands in the air and cop runs up behind him shoots him twice. The FBI knew this that is why they released that video last month so we couldn't see what happened good on the county sheriffs office for releasing the truth of what happened.

What video did you watch? The camera from inside the truck shows nothing during the actual shooting, leaving us only the exact same FBI aerial video as before. Notice the cops were telling him to get on the ground, and didn't shoot him until he reached inside his jacket while shouting "you're gonna have to shoot me" over and over. Whether he was actually armed or not, they had to presume he was reaching for a gun, and he gave them no choice.

There's plenty of unjustified police shootings, but this isn't one of them. Seems more like he wanted to be a martyr and chose suicide-by-cop.