I fully agree that the federal government should not be confiscating land.
But that does not justify taking control of a welcome center and egging on the feds.

I fully agree that the federal government should not be confiscating land.
But that does not justify taking control of a welcome center and egging on the feds.

Yep, we should not seize a ship that doesn't belong to us and dump property that isn't ours into the harbor. It doesn't matter that we have no representation,that's just not the proper way to handle things.

What kind of fires did they set? Fires to destroy private or public property (real case of arson) or were they some kind of controlled burn fires to improve the habitat (which would not be arson)?

Thanks.

First, they didn't set fire to their land. It was federal land. They set the fires. They never denied it. They are in no way involved in these protest. Again, they are in no way involved in these protest. Maybe one more time, they are not involved in these protest.

This is a group of people trying to use their case as a reason to fight the government. They group is oissed that the government will not renew leases or is cancelling leases on FEDERAL land. They ranchers consider it their land. But, they have no ownership interest in it.

A federal judge did not "decide" they needed more time. The trial judge gave them an illegal, liberal soft on crime, below the manditory minumum sentence set by congress. The law required a 5 year sentence. He gave them less than one year.

As a result of the illegal sentence, the government appealed. The 9th circuit court of appeals, first as a 3 judge panel and then en banc (all judges on the court) ruled the original sentence was not allowed by law and that the law required them to serve 5 years. They appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court denied their appeal. That means they agreed with the 9th circuit. So the case was sent back to the trial judge with an order to give them a sentence that compiled with the law.

Look at it like this, a judge gives a child molestor probation when the law clearly says he has to get 10 years. Are all you guys okay with the judge sentencing him to less than the law requires? Or is it just when you like the people, or sympathize with them?

See, that is a proble with reading articles.

They were not charged with terrorism. Federal arson is included in the portion of the United States Code for terrorism. No one ever said they were terrorist.

I have handled federal arson cases. The federal arson statute is very broad. My client was charged for damaging an AT&T substation with a fire. You know the little boxes you see on the side of the road set on a concrete pad Ina small cluster?
Because that was a public utility, it was covered under the federal arson statute. Even though he had no intent to damage it.

that so-called article is so full of spelling and punctuation errors, i cannot take it seriously. that is not to say that the federal government does not abuse all kinds of situations to build and maintain power.

See, that is a proble with reading articles.

They were not charged with terrorism. Federal arson is included in the portion of the United States Code for terrorism. No one ever said they were terrorist.

I have handled federal arson cases. The federal arson statute is very broad. My client was charged for damaging an AT&T substation with a fire. You know the little boxes you see on the side of the road set on a concrete pad Ina small cluster?
Because that was a public utility, it was covered under the federal arson statute. Even though he had no intent to damage it.

So hypothetically,

If one were to start a fire on there own property with good intent and it got off there property onto federal land or public utility land they can be charged as a terrorist?

If so.......and it can't be proven it was intentional to harm other property then that's a little messed up.

We had a neighbor just recently in our area do a controlled burn and the wind picked up..bad. It burnt around 10 acres off one land owner and 40 on my neighbor.

We all showed up to fight it as it was heading towards my land.

We fought in from 2 -3 pm until 11 pm at night.

At least 75-100 acres on the land that it started as well as my other 2 neighbors.

We also had to back burn as well as clear firebreaks with bulldozers and tractors.

It jumped the dang line TWICE!

We just all dealt with it. we certinly ddnt call some BLM arsewipes and start a goshdarn problem. We were ALL out there fighting it together! LIKE NEIGHBORS! and none of us blamed or sued the dang farmer who it got out of control on!

127 aces and people in prison and a stand off??? Really??? Thank the lord my friends didnt have the BLM as freaking neighbors!!!!

See, that is a proble with reading articles.

They were not charged with terrorism. Federal arson is included in the portion of the United States Code for terrorism. No one ever said they were terrorist.

I have handled federal arson cases. The federal arson statute is very broad. My client was charged for damaging an AT&T substation with a fire. You know the little boxes you see on the side of the road set on a concrete pad Ina small cluster?
Because that was a public utility, it was covered under the federal arson statute. Even though he had no intent to damage it.

My hypothetical came from your words.........not the Nevada situation. Nothing in my question related to the Nevada situation..........you apparently put those two together.