FBI to Bundys: Let’s settle this standoff peaceably

posted at 11:21 am on January 4, 2016 by Ed Morrissey

Standoff in this case may overstate reality. The latest conflict between the Bundy clan and the federal government has certainly played out with more drama on the media stage than it has in the remote area of Oregon in question. According to the Oregonian, it’s hardly a siege, and law enforcement hasn’t even shown up in force as of yet:

And though the Bundys are involved in the Oregon occupation, the scene can hardly be described as a standoff. The 20 or so militants at the refuge come and go as they please. No police were apparent Sunday anywhere between Burns and the 30-mile drive to the refuge.

On top of that, the two men at the center of the proximate cause for the demonstration — the resentencing of Dwight and Steven Hammond — want nothing to do with the seizure of the unmanned federal outpost in the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. The Hammonds will surrender themselves today to serve their longer sentences in federal prison, and their attorneys want as much distance from the Bundys as possible:

A family friend who asked not to be publicly identified told The Oregonian/OregonLive that Dwight Hammond Jr., 73, and Steven Hammond, 46, left Harney County over the weekend to report. He said they were traveling to California. …

The Hammonds have said through their attorneys that Ammon Bundy doesn’t speak for them. That didn’t stop Cliven Bundy, who demanded by letter that Harney County Sheriff Dave Ward take Hammond men into protective custody to shield them from reporting for prison. Bundy engaged in his own standoff last year when federal agents tried to seize his cattle.

Even other militia leaders in the region aren’t exactly rushing to side with the Bundys in this standoff:

Militia groups through the day Sunday continued to distance themselves from the occupation through press statements.

“These actions were premeditated and carried out by a small group of persons who chose to carry out this takeover,” said 3% Idaho, whose president helped organized Saturday’s rally and parade.

In other words, the Bundys are hardly leading a massive revolt. That has the FBI hopeful that a peaceful end to the standoff can be arranged before it escalates into something uglier:

Federal law enforcement officials on Monday sought to bring a peaceful end to the weekend occupation of a headquarters of an Oregon U.S. wildlife refuge by self-styled militiamen, while authorities said all staff at the facility were safe. …

“Due to safety considerations for both those inside the refuge as well as the law enforcement officers involved, we will not be releasing any specifics with regards to the law enforcement response,” the Federal Bureau of Investigation said in a statement.

What if you called for a war but no one showed up? That seems to be the strategy behind the FBI and BLM response. The Bundys have no hostages, and the facility isn’t exactly a critical outpost. They can afford to wait, and wait a long time, for the Bundys to get bored and slip away. That strategy may be the product of hard-learned lessons at Ruby Ridge and Waco, where federal agents turned fringe groups into causes célèbres, and fueled the extremism that they had hoped to confront. Thus far the only real standoff is in the form of press-release salvos, and the FBI would almost certainly prefer to keep it that way.

And why shouldn’t they? At least for now, this is nothing much different than the Occupy protests that seized public land for extended periods of time in 2011-12. The Bundys aren’t squatting on parks and public facilities for weeks or months on end, nor are they blocking major traffic arteries in urban areas, as the Black Lives Matter protesters routinely do for their own purposes. Those protests got shrugged off, despite their illegal nature, and few if any of their leaders prosecuted for it. As long as this protest remains peaceful, there’s no need to storm the Bundys’ position, especially given its remote location and the lack of impact on public services. Their extremist cause may get fewer up-twinkles from the media than Occupy’s radical causes, but they’re both fringe movements with little sympathy from the mainstream — so why would the FBI or BLM want to make martyrs out of them?

The Hammonds, however, have a better case to make with the public, which may be why their attorneys want to keep their distance from the Bundys. Reason’s Jacob Sullum argues that sentencing mandates have led to an injustice, especially given the lack of real damage done by the Hammonds in the first place:

The first fire set by the Hammonds, which was intended to eliminate invasive species on their property, ended up consuming 139 acres of federal land. The second fire, which was aimed at protecting the Hammonds’ winter feed from a wildfire sparked by lightning, burned about an acre of public land. Although the Hammonds did not seek the required government permission for either burn, the damage to federal land seems to have been unintentional. In 2012 they were nevertheless convicted under 18 USC 844(f)(1), which prescribes a five-year mandatory minimum sentence for anyone who “maliciously damages or destroys, or attempts to damage or destroy, by means of fire or an explosive,” any federal property.

Viewing that penalty as clearly unjust given the facts of the case, U.S. District Judge Michael Hogan instead imposed a three-month sentence on Dwight Hammond, who was convicted of one count, and two concurrent one-year sentences on Steven Hammond, who was convicted of two counts. Those terms were within the ranges recommended by federal sentencing guidelines that would have applied but for the statutory minimum, which Hogan rejected as inconsistent with the Eighth Amendment. Last year the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, responding to a government appeal, disagreed with Hogan, saying he had no choice but to impose five-year sentences on both men, since “a minimum sentence mandated by statute is not a suggestion that courts have discretion to disregard.” That is why the Hammonds, who had already completed their original sentences, were ordered back to federal prison, the development that led to Saturday’s protest.

Perhaps the focus should be on the government’s insistence on putting a 73-year-old man in prison for five years for protecting his own land. This should have been a civil case from the beginning to get fair restitution for the damage caused by the Hammonds. If that approach had been taken from the beginning, none of what followed would have happened — or at the very least, it would have even less sympathy than it has now.

Update: I agree with my friend and former colleague Erick Erickson in his Facebook post. Just because a media double standard exists — and it clearly does — does not mean I’m going to be sympathetic to people who break the law and threaten law-enforcement personnel:

Second, just because there is a double standard does not mean any conservatives should be cheering the one when opposing the other. I’m pro-life, but I’m not going to cheer someone shooting up an abortion clinic. I support the sell off of federal land and giving priority water and land use rights to farmers. But I’m not going to cheer taking over a park visitor center or threatening marshals.

There are nuances to many situations some people have a vested interest in treating as binary, pitting American against American. While I’m sympathetic to the concerns of those in Oregon, I’d no more cheer on their lawbreaking than I would cheer on the law breaking of leftwing hoodlums trying to block abortion votes in Texas or union reform votes in Wisconsin.

Third, for those on the right hailing these guys, there is a pretty big and distinct difference between armed protest and unarmed protest. Based on media reports, these guys are not only armed, but threatening violence. I’m not going to be cheering these guys. The media will always treat the leftwing protestors more sympathetically. But adding arms and threats of bodily harm make this something more. No, I will not use the word terrorism for it because it is not terrorism. But it certainly is an unlawful, armed protest for which no one should be rooting.

Exactly.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

The 20 or so militants at the refuge come and go as they please.

Before he got sent to Purgatory yesterday, DrivelDiscourse was telling is the “100’s” of militants were “waving guns around”.

How dare a judge apply mandatory minimums to an old white guy! It’s not as though “mandatory” means “mandatory.” And, besides — everyone knows that mandatory minimums are only for yiungvafrican Americans committing minor drug offenses.

urban terrorist on January 4, 2016 at 11:43 AM

The original sentence was the result of a plea deal that the gov’t agreed to. The Hammonds agreed to the deal under the assumption that the sentences would be final and the case over. The Hammonds waived right to an appeal.

Evidently the Hammonds did not notice that the gov’t did not waive its right of appeal. The re-imposition of the mandatory sentences came after the Hammonds had served the time agreed to, because the gov’t turned around and appealed the case, essentially reneging on the original deal.

The government appeals the sentences of Steven and Dwight Hammond, whom a jury convicted of maliciously damaging the real property of the United States by fire, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 844(f)(1). The convictions carried minimum sentences of five years of imprisonment, but citing Eighth Amendment concerns, the district court sentenced Steven to only twelve months and one day of imprisonment and Dwight to only three months of imprisonment. Because the sentences were illegal and the government did not waive its right to appeal them, we vacate the sentences and remand for resentencing.

While the jury deliberated on the remaining charges, the parties reached an oral agreement and presented it to the court.1 The government told the court that the Hammonds had agreed to “waive their appeal rights”—except with respect to ineffective assistance of counsel claims—“and accept the verdicts as they’ve been returned thus far by the jury.” In return, the government promised to “recommend” that Steven’s sentences run concurrently and agreed that the Hammonds “should remain released pending the court’s sentencing decision.”The Hammonds agreed with the government’s summary of the plea agreement. Their attorneys also added that the Hammonds wanted the “case to be over” and hoped to “bring th[e] matter to a close.” According to the defense, the “idea” of the plea agreement was that the case would “be done with at the sentencing” and that the “parties would accept ․ the sentence that’s imposed.” The district court then accepted the plea agreement and dismissed the remaining charges.

At sentencing, the court found that the guidelines range for Steven was 8 to 14 months and for Dwight was 0 to 6 months. Yet their convictions carried five-year minimum terms of imprisonment. See 18 U.S.C. § 844(f)(1). The government accordingly recommended five-year sentences of imprisonment and argued—both in its sentencing memorandum and at sentencing—that the court lacked discretion to impose lesser sentences.The court, however, concluded that the Eighth Amendment required deviation from the statutory minimum. Observing that Congress probably had not intended for the sentence to cover fires in “the wilderness,” the court reasoned that five-year sentences would be grossly disproportionate to the severity of the Hammonds’ offenses. The court then sentenced Steven to two concurrent terms of twelve months and one day of imprisonment and Dwight to three months of imprisonment.

Scumbags.

Joseph K on January 4, 2016 at 1:28 PM

You betcha black lives matters shouted hateful rhetoric calling to kill cops, death to whites etc… Ferguson riots burned cars, businesses, and people looted and assaulted cops (harm/damage done means domestic terrorism). Those guys in Oregon are staying in a federal building, built for the public. They aren’t breaking any laws, they are peacefully protesting. They are cowboys, acting like cowboys and the media calls them terrorists while at same time bend over backward to ignore black lives matter racist hateful rhetoric???? At this point the media is taking itself out of news/journalism and is just another activist/advocate for the left!

soapyjeans on January 4, 2016 at 1:29 PM

A little info on control burns (mixed in with other Forest Service stuff)

Forest Service announces new South Platte District ranger
Ranger to oversee land in Jefferson, Douglas, Teller, Park and Clear Creek counties

Posted: Friday, December 18, 2015 2:12 pm | Updated: 2:18 pm, Fri Dec 18, 2015.
Walter L. Newton, Staff writer

The United States Forest Service recently announced that the Pike and San Isabel National Forests, Cimarron and Comanche National Grasslands – South Platte Ranger District’s new ranger is Brian Banks.

“This urban District has both unlimited recreational opportunities and precious natural resources in Denver’s backyard,” Banks said. “I’m eager for this management challenge and thankful for our excellent team.”

Banks will oversee 460,000 acres of USFS land in Jefferson, Douglas, Teller, Park and Clear Creek counties.

“I want to continue the tradition of being leaders in landscape-scale restoration and take it to the next level,” Banks said.

Banks explained what his job as a ranger encompasses.

“It’s where policy meets the ground,” Banks said. “I am directly responsible for seeing that the public interest is being met when it comes to what is happening on Forest Service land.”

The USFS mission, according to the Multiple-use Sustained-yield Act of 1960, states, “national forests are established and shall be administered for outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, and wildlife and fish purposes.”

Banks, 43, is a Colorado native, born in Pueblo and attended the University of Colorado, where he graduated with his bachelor’s degree in physical geography. He is married and his wife and two daughters share his love for the outdoors.

“It’s an annual event with the family to camp at Turquoise Lake near Leadville,” Banks said.
Banks has been with the USFS for 17 years. He started with the USFS as an intern in the Rocky Mountain Regional Office working with Geographical Information Systems. He developed a water rights tracking database and managed the Inland West Water Initiative, a four-Region watershed assessment.

Banks began working at the South Platte District in 2001. He has since then served as the Zone GIS Coordinator, the Project Manager for the Hayman Restoration Project, Natural Resources Staff manager and as acting District Ranger on both Leadville and South Platte Districts.

During the Hayman Fire restoration project he oversaw the reconstruction of two and one-half miles of Trail Creek, abating the out of control sediment that was threatening the town of Westcreek’s water supply and other parts of the creek.

One of his goals has been to reintroduce fire as a maintenance component of landscape restoration.
“[I want to] continue restoration at the landscape scale,” Banks said. “And work toward fire as a maintenance tool to those lands using prescribed burns. The public is very sensitive to prescribed burns and I want to educate the public.”

Banks acknowledges that fires, like the Lower North Fork fire, are a huge set-back to the public perception of proscribed burns.

“It [the forest] is going to burn eventually,” Banks said. “We are trying to control how it burns.”
GIS helps model fire conditions of the land, enabling the Forest Service to prioritize where, when and how to use fire to treat the landscapes.

Banks intends to continue to build public trust in the USFS and trying to get the public more engaged in discussions about national forests.

“I’m so humble to be in charge of a district that has so much history,” Banks said. “And working with so many talented people every day.”

FYI even though not directly related to this case.

A wildfire is not a wildfire when used for conservation purposes.

A wildfire is not arson when used for creating a fire break, on your own property, especially when another wildfire is burning toward your property.

The BLM and Forset service has been hamstrung (as this article points out) by those progressive idiots like everdisco, Verbluce and urban elitist who wouldn’t recognize Smoky Bear if they trip over him.

Hey progressive boys. The big, wild west is not your local urban playground.

Walter L. Newton on January 4, 2016 at 1:31 PM

Joseph K on January 4, 2016 at 1:28 PM

CivilDiscourse was banned yesterday?

Which thread?

gwelf on January 4, 2016 at 1:32 PM

Looks like the one’s most hurt by this not going nuclear are the frothing at the mouth “burn it down” people.
.
.
.
And the trolls.

Can we just lock them up in here and go play?

cozmo on January 4, 2016 at 1:35 PM

FYI even though not directly related to this case.

A wildfire is not a wildfire when used for conservation purposes.

A wildfire is not arson when used for creating a fire break, on your own property, especially when another wildfire is burning toward your property.

The BLM and Forset service has been hamstrung (as this article points out) by those progressive idiots like everdisco, Verbluce and urban elitist who wouldn’t recognize Smoky Bear if they trip over him.

Hey progressive boys. The big, wild west is not your local urban playground.

Walter L. Newton on January 4, 2016 at 1:31 PM

+1

gwelf on January 4, 2016 at 1:36 PM

my friend and former colleague fellow Anti-Trumper Erick Erickson

Heh

TheMadHessian on January 4, 2016 at 1:36 PM

Dan333 on January 4, 2016 at 12:20 PM

Why are liberals so bitterly angry all the time? What’s missing in your life Dan? Who are you really angry at? The first step is admitting you have a problem. Be honest and try it. No more people will hate you for it than already hate you. What do you have to lose? You can do it Dan…YOU CAN DO IT!!

Mimzey on January 4, 2016 at 1:37 PM

The first post about this topic. The “ban” was temporary. The idiot is back.

blink on January 4, 2016 at 1:40 PM

Obviously, he’s someone’s sock puppet. The only other time I recall a ban being reversed was when Schadenfreude got the hammer and everyone lobbied the HA staff for his return.
Can’t imagine anyone wanting CD back.

CurtZHP on January 4, 2016 at 1:43 PM

The first post about this topic. The “ban” was temporary. The idiot is back.

blink on January 4, 2016 at 1:40 PM

Did he actually do anything ban worthy?

gwelf on January 4, 2016 at 1:46 PM

“Perhaps the focus should be on the government’s insistence on putting a 73-year-old man in prison for five years for protecting his own land.”

Apparently you aren’t aware of the charges that were made and for which they were prosecuted, Ed.

The one, IIRC, in 2001, was for starting a fire to cover up their poaching of deer on the refuge. A relative, a younger kid who indicated he barely escaped the fire, testified to the poaching and the reason for setting the fire which burned 139 acres of the refuge.

The other, a back burning, was done during a “forest fire” (I use that term loosely as it didn’t appear to me from the description I read of it that it was a big out of control fire) when back-burning was explicitly banned due to the nature, location, and current conditions of the “forest fire”. Fire fighters noticed the back-burning which the Hammonds set behind the fire-fighters early enough and the fire-fighters were able to put it out before it could cause them problems, you know, like becoming trapped and dying. At least that is my understanding of the record.

That kind of activity is not what I call “protecting their own land”. The post at Reason, which you excerpt, also notes the poaching allegation as an update, which may have been posted after you read it. It might behoove you, now, to note there is reasonable argument for a criminal charge, instead of a simple civil charge.

Dusty on January 4, 2016 at 1:46 PM

Obviously, he’s someone’s sock puppet. The only other time I recall a ban being reversed was when Schadenfreude got the hammer and everyone lobbied the HA staff for his return.
Can’t imagine anyone wanting CD back.

CurtZHP on January 4, 2016 at 1:43 PM

Jazz reversed himself…decided to be merciful.

Rogue on January 4, 2016 at 1:46 PM

Did he actually do anything ban worthy?

gwelf on January 4, 2016 at 1:46 PM

Pretty much called for the Oregon protesters to be shot on sight.

cozmo on January 4, 2016 at 1:53 PM

Did he actually do anything ban worthy?

gwelf on January 4, 2016 at 1:46 PM

His discourse was uncivil.

Serious Drivel on January 4, 2016 at 1:55 PM

Did he actually do anything ban worthy?

gwelf on January 4, 2016 at 1:46 PM

Pretty much called for the Oregon protesters to be shot on sight.

cozmo on January 4, 2016 at 1:53 PM

He also said during the CO Springs shooting that conservatives owned it.

gwelf on January 4, 2016 at 1:56 PM

The first post about this topic. The “ban” was temporary. The idiot is back.

blink on January 4, 2016 at 1:40 PM

Did he actually do anything ban worthy?

gwelf on January 4, 2016 at 1:46 PM

He suggested if all things were equal, we can’t have justice and Ferguson without the feds open firing on the ranchers.

itsspideyman on January 4, 2016 at 1:56 PM

Pretty much called for the Oregon protesters to be shot on sight.

cozmo on January 4, 2016 at 1:53 PM

Just more proof that the gun control crowd isn’t really anti-gun. They just want the guns in the hands of people they think they can control.

CurtZHP on January 4, 2016 at 1:56 PM

Dusty on January 4, 2016 at 1:46 PM

I don’t really buy the poaching angle. I have land in the country. Poachers are operating out there all the time. They bury the carcass in a shallow grave after they have stripped it. Setting a fire is massive overkill, and a fire of the temperature they could attain is rarely hot enough to incinerate bone. Why call attention to yourself by setting a fire when you can just quietly bury the evidence?

Serious Drivel on January 4, 2016 at 1:58 PM

Pretty much called for the Oregon protesters to be shot on sight.

cozmo on January 4, 2016 at 1:53 PM

Just more proof that the gun control crowd isn’t really anti-gun. They just want the guns in the hands of people they think they can control.

CurtZHP on January 4, 2016 at 1:56 PM

Cha…Ching.

And they want CERTAIN PEOPLE leashed and controlled.

itsspideyman on January 4, 2016 at 1:59 PM

Third, for those on the right hailing these guys, there is a pretty big and distinct difference between armed protest and unarmed protest. Based on media reports, these guys are not only armed, but threatening violence. I’m not going to be cheering these guys. The media will always treat the leftwing protestors more sympathetically. But adding arms and threats of bodily harm make this something more. No, I will not use the word terrorism for it because it is not terrorism. But it certainly is an unlawful, armed protest for which no one should be rooting.

Exactly.

Such an position could have obtained in 1775. Ed and Erick might have made perfect Tories back then. I would bet that there was a large population of folks both in the Colonies and in England who were horrified by a bunch of anti-royal armed irregular nutjobs.

What is clear is that the law is being both selectively and electively applied today by the Federal DOJ. I am not here arguing for support of the Bundy’s hijacking the Hammond case. That a few folks would react in an extreme way does not require an invalidation of what is actually happening at the Federal level.

Note that in general, and not particular to this single case, it might be argued that by the time armed protest becomes a socially acceptable move to a significant proportion of society it’s likely too late for it to be effective. Most rebellions die in their cribs.

I wonder if Ed or Erick’s position has any reflection here:

At one end of the continuum of opinion were such men as Sam and John Adams of Massachusetts and Richard Henry Lee of Virginia who already favored independence. At the other end of that continuum were such men as John Dickinson of Pennsylvania who hoped for a quick settlement and reconciliation with Great Britain.

Difficultas_Est_Imperium on January 4, 2016 at 2:08 PM

[Serious Drivel on January 4, 2016 at 1:58 PM]

I understand it is arguable. That’s why it was in court to be argued and I don’t know all the testimony given. I just put it up to note that this wasn’t just a simple he-said/government said back-burn question. Heck, I don’t even know what the jurors found the Hammonds guilty of in terms of all the likely bevy of charges made.

Dusty on January 4, 2016 at 2:20 PM

FBI to Bundys: Let’s settle this standoff peaceably

But they got you the press coverage you’ve needed for decades, so now you’ve ripped the smiley face mask off the evil empire.

DFCtomm on January 4, 2016 at 2:32 PM

Pretty much called for the Oregon protesters to be shot on sight.

cozmo on January 4, 2016 at 1:53 PM

Just more proof that the gun control crowd isn’t really anti-gun. They just want the guns in the hands of people they think they can control.

CurtZHP on January 4, 2016 at 1:56 PM

Cha…Ching.

And they want CERTAIN PEOPLE leashed and controlled.

itsspideyman on January 4, 2016 at 1:59 PM

This is all thoroughly untrue and not at all an accurate representation of my comments nor Jazz’s decision. I mean, do carry on with whatever you want to think, but my comment was along the lines of: if the militia in Oregon aren’t shot on sight (by LEOs), then they’ve received far more benefit of the doubt than Tamir Rice ever did. Jazz initially interpreted this as perhaps a call for deadly force by someone other than FBI or LEOs, and said as much right from the beginning, indicating that he was open and considering his decision.

He and I talked very amiably, and I made clear the intent of my comment, which, by the way is NOT advocating violence toward anyone—it’s simply highlighting the inequity of treatment of LE response to two recent incidents. Ill-considered rhetorical wording? Perhaps. Call for violence? Decidedly not. I abhor authoritarian unnecessary force and would never advocate it.

CivilDiscourse on January 4, 2016 at 2:39 PM

Also: cozmo was the first to intentionally misrepresent my comment, saying that it called for violence; I suspect that he ran crying to the mods, but of course that’s unsubstantiated.

CivilDiscourse on January 4, 2016 at 2:42 PM

Did he actually do anything ban worthy?

gwelf on January 4, 2016 at 1:46 PM

If I had, I trust I wouldn’t be here. I find the mods to be pretty fair, and Jazz was especially deliberate in his decision. Another commenter in the same thread bluntly called for Bundy to be hang3d, and that commenter was banned. My hypothetical conditional isn’t even in the same ballpark as that.

CivilDiscourse on January 4, 2016 at 2:47 PM

I mean you guys know that the vandals in baltimore and ferguson are all facing charges, and many have already been convicted, right?

everdiso on January 4, 2016 at 11:59 AM

Repeating your posts verbatim in multiple threads doesn’t make them any more true than the last time they were responded to:

The municipal court judge in Ferguson, Missouri, on Monday announced sweeping changes to the city’s court system, including an order to withdraw all arrest warrants issued in that city before December 31, 2014.

The Schaef on January 4, 2016 at 2:49 PM

I don’t really buy the poaching angle.

Serious Drivel vJan 04, 2016 at 1:58 pm

It doesn’t matter what you think. The jury heard the evidence, summarized by the prosecution at the link below, and convicted both men.
http://www.justice.gov/usao-or/pr/eastern-oregon-ranchers-convicted-arson-resentenced-five-years-prison

cam2 on January 4, 2016 at 2:51 PM

He was openly cheering for the deaths of all the occupiers. This shouldn’t surprise anyone. Leftists always want the federal government to kill anyone that questions their authority.

blink on January 4, 2016 at 2:50 PM

Did you even read my comments above? Your lie is self-evident. You’re ridiculous.

CivilDiscourse on January 4, 2016 at 2:55 PM

blink on January 4, 2016 at 2:55 PM

You are constructing whole communities of straw men. Sorry, I won’t play the part of your fantasy leftist boogieman.

CivilDiscourse on January 4, 2016 at 2:57 PM

Aw shucks CD, I haven’t run to anybody for anything in a long time.

Though it looks like you libs are still more equal than others. Congratulations.

I ain’t like you libs.

I don’t care enough to go look up your comment, but it didn’t take any interpretation to get the meaning of it.

cozmo on January 4, 2016 at 3:00 PM

If you think this statement:

if the militia in Oregon aren’t shot on sight (by LEOs), then they’ve received far more benefit of the doubt than Tamir Rice ever did.

. . . equates to

hoping for these men to be shot dead by federal agents because Tamir Rice got shot.

. . . then you have a severe reading comprehension disability and should probably rethink whether having Internet access is right for you. Maybe invest in a remedial 7th-grade-level reading course? I’m thankful that Jazz is more reasonable than you.

CivilDiscourse on January 4, 2016 at 3:02 PM

everdiso on January 4, 2016 at 12:13 PM

That teenage relative was 13, has mental problems that would normally disqualify him as a federal witness, but the second judge allowed him to testify anyway.

SDN on January 4, 2016 at 3:04 PM

I suspect that he ran crying to the mods, but of course that’s unsubstantiated.

DrivelDiscourse on January 4, 2016 at 2:42 PM

Then why say it? Cozmo has never displayed a single trait that would make one think that he runs to Mommy when he’s upset.

You, on the other hand:

I did complain about one commenter once.

DrivelDiscourse on December 9, 2015 at 7:51 PM

Here is DrivelDiscourse, dancing on DavidK’s grave:

Seriously. Owes me some kickback. Bettah have my money!

DrivelDiscourse on December 9, 2015 at 7:05 PM

Joseph K on January 4, 2016 at 3:18 PM

. . . then you have a severe reading comprehension disability and should probably rethink whether having Internet access is right for you. Maybe invest in a remedial 7th-grade-level reading course? I’m thankful that Jazz is more reasonable than you.

DrivelDiscourse on January 4, 2016 at 3:02 PM

…says the guy who got banned. Given your inability to tone it down after barely of day of being treated graciously, I don’t think it will be too long before you get pushed permanently into the abyss.

Joseph K on January 4, 2016 at 3:23 PM

I suspect that he ran crying to the mods, but of course that’s unsubstantiated.

DrivelDiscourse on January 4, 2016 at 2:42 PM

Then why say it? Cozmo has never displayed a single trait that would make one think that he runs to Mommy when he’s upset.

You mean, besides the fact that cosmo was the one who first misrepresented my comment, posted about it, then shortly thereafter Jazz exercised the banhammer, and cozmo (even in the same thread) routinely calls for commenters to be banned? But yeah, he never displayed a single trait . . .

CivilDiscourse on January 4, 2016 at 3:23 PM

…says the guy who got banned. Given your inability to tone it down after barely of day of being treated graciously, I don’t think it will be too long before you get pushed permanently into the abyss.

Joseph K on January 4, 2016 at 3:23 PM

The two statements aren’t remotely the same. Do you expect me to just rollover and allow myself to be mischaracterized? Sorry, I don’t play that.

CivilDiscourse on January 4, 2016 at 3:26 PM

The two statements aren’t remotely the same. Do you expect me to just rollover and allow myself to be mischaracterized? Sorry, I don’t play that.

DrivelDiscourse on January 4, 2016 at 3:26 PM

I know. Defending yourself takes away from quality time, when you mischaracterize others.

Joseph K on January 4, 2016 at 3:28 PM

So Montel Williams is calling for the National Guard to shoot these people down.

Can’t have 20-30 rednecks with guns and not have someone get hurt. It would make the urban dwellers look bad.

WryTrvllr on January 4, 2016 at 3:31 PM

This is all a misunderstanding regarding global warming, BLM, PETA, EPA and the Unions/La Raza.

Goodie on January 4, 2016 at 3:33 PM

Yep, the battle with BLM needs fighting, but not from this hill.

petefrt on January 4, 2016 at 11:40 AM

If not here, where; if not now, when?

Another Drew on January 4, 2016 at 3:35 PM

You mean, besides the fact that cosmo was the one who first misrepresented my comment, posted about it, then shortly thereafter Jazz exercised the banhammer, and cozmo (even in the same thread) routinely calls for commenters to be banned? But yeah, he never displayed a single trait . . .

DrivelDiscourse on January 4, 2016 at 3:23 PM

Cozmo hardly called for you to be banned; he made an observation, that if you didn’t get banned while others did, it would be evidence of injustice and favoritism:

I coulda’ swore some goofball that I didn’t actually dislike got banned for something about ropes and lamp posts.

Much more tame than that statement by CD.

If CD ain’t banned, then it is another bit off proof that trolls are more equal than others here.

cozmo on January 3, 2016 at 1:01 PM

I notice that you are basically saying that Jazz chastised you based on Cozmo’s mischaracterization of your post. Like Jazz isn’t smart enough or diligent enough to base his decision on your original. Don’t you think it is bad form to call the guy who gave you a break stupid and lazy?

Joseph K on January 4, 2016 at 3:38 PM

Oh BS CD, nobody mischaracterized your statement. Even the little bit that you quoted shows that.

Consider yourself special in that you can get away with what others cannot.

Instead of bragging, like you usually do, you are whining, though, that is something else you do all the time.

We know you are special. We know you get away with things that would get others banned. We deal with your ignorant comments because we haven’t found a place that has a limit to your special kind of idiocy, yet.

Deal with it, and keep riding the special bus.

cozmo on January 4, 2016 at 3:48 PM

Nobody move or the duck gets it.

What a bunch of clowns.

Marcus Traianus on January 4, 2016 at 3:50 PM

As you can see from some remarks above and from people like Montel Williams, it’s not about justice.

It’s about revenge on people who did nothing bad as payback for people of the same race who are alleged to have done bad things.

Kind of like

Meremortal on January 4, 2016 at 4:02 PM

The Montel Williams types and self-loathing white liberals aren’t looking for justice.

They are looking for racial revenge.

Meremortal on January 4, 2016 at 4:05 PM

Hey Ed, great job of not mentioning the FORTY YEARS of harassment and attacks and terrorism perpetrated by the BLM on this family and other families in order to get them to vacate their land.

It’s nice to know that we have people on our side that are interested in the truth.

Unfortunately, HotAir isn’t one of them.

fossten on January 4, 2016 at 11:54 AM

Yep.

The real story? The feds want the land. Will use any means to acquire it. Has been going on for forty years.

Feds will abuse the land and give it to political cronies and crony capitalists. Doesn’t matter who is prezzie, left or right.

I can’t agree with what the militia is doing – but kudos for bringing the real story to light.

Turtle317 on January 4, 2016 at 4:06 PM

Cozmo hardly called for you to be banned; he made an observation, that if you didn’t get banned while others did, it would be evidence of injustice and favoritism:

Joseph K on January 4, 2016 at 3:38 PM

I thought this statement was a rather brilliant piece of mockery, since this is the EXACT stance I take on my own comments about the militia and Tamir Rice. I was about to give you credit for being so clever to come up with it. Then I realized that you probably weren’t being satirical in the least, that the hypocrisy of your statement was most likely totally lost on you, and then I got sad, because I realized you’re not so clever after all. Shame.

CivilDiscourse on January 4, 2016 at 4:13 PM

cozmo on January 4, 2016 at 3:48 PM

Aw. Woe is you. I nearly get banned and you cry about special status? How much is that victim card worth to you?

CivilDiscourse on January 4, 2016 at 4:16 PM

Look, I get that you’re ashamed of the fact that you cheer for the watermelons at EPA, FWS, and BLM. I get that you’re ashamed of your hypocrisy. I get that you want to try to deny it now.

But everyone, including you, know what you meant.

blink on January 4, 2016 at 4:25 PM

Besides not understanding what you mean by watermelons at the alphabet agencies—and again, if we were able to have an actual discussion about this rather than my having to constantly respond to your troll-bait, you might be surprised at my thoughts about them. After all, as I said on another thread, I live in a state with one of the highest acreage of BLM land, and I’m friends with many ranch families—I know the issues and I have much sympathy for their cause. But they’re not represented by the Bundy’s and their militia buddies.

Besides that, I’ll simply repeat—if you think this statement:

if the militia in Oregon aren’t shot on sight (by LEOs), then they’ve received far more benefit of the doubt than Tamir Rice ever did.

. . . equates to:

hoping for these men to be shot dead by federal agents because Tamir Rice got shot.

. . . then you have a severe reading comprehension disability and should probably rethink whether having Internet access is right for you. Sorry for it.

CivilDiscourse on January 4, 2016 at 4:37 PM

CivilDiscourse on January 4, 2016 at 4:37 PM

Watermelons is a term meaning that the “environmental movement” is really a front for a communist/statist agenda (green on the outside, red on the inside).

You’ve grossly mischaracterized both the similarity between Rice and this standoff (and the law enforcements response) and you’ve also grossly mischaracterized the conservative response to both – especially in that original thread. For one who claims to despise being mischaracterized you seem to do a lot of it yourself.

gwelf on January 4, 2016 at 4:50 PM

Hey Ed, great job of not mentioning the FORTY YEARS of harassment and attacks and terrorism perpetrated by the BLM on this family and other families in order to get them to vacate their land.

It’s nice to know that we have people on our side that are interested in the truth.

Unfortunately, HotAir isn’t one of them.

fossten on January 4, 2016 at 11:54 AM

Yep.

The real story? The feds want the land. Will use any means to acquire it. Has been going on for forty years.

Feds will abuse the land and give it to political cronies and crony capitalists. Doesn’t matter who is prezzie, left or right.

I can’t agree with what the militia is doing – but kudos for bringing the real story to light.

Turtle317 on January 4, 2016 at 4:06 PM

Yeah – I remember when the left was freaking out over Bundy last time it came to light that some developers were getting special deals from the feds (with help from Harry Reid’s son) to ignore environmental regulations that were being used to hammer the Bundy’s.

gwelf on January 4, 2016 at 4:55 PM

I don’t know if this was posted already but, it is a good history on what this is all about:

DontTreadOnM3 on January 4, 2016 at 4:56 PM

Apparently it removed my link…

theconservativetreehouse dot com/2016/01/03/full-story-on-whats-going-on-in-oregon-militia-take-over-malheur-national-wildlife-refuge-in-protest-to-hammond-family-persecution/

Replace the dot with a .

DontTreadOnM3 on January 4, 2016 at 4:57 PM

I’m sure your rancher friends are leftist idiots just like you.

blink on January 4, 2016 at 4:56 PM

So, are the Hammonds leftist idiots as well, since they claim the Bundys don’t speak for them and reject their movement? Is anyone who disagrees with you a leftist idiot? My rancher friends are about the furthest from it. You can keep trying to say you know my position on the matter because you think I’m calling for violence against the militiamen, but you’re simply repeating a lie.

grossly mischaracterized the conservative response to both

The conservative response to both can be found throughout the comment threads here at HA. It’s not monolithic, but it generally ranges from questioning whether the militia are heroes or the greatest rootin’-tootin’ heroes of all time.

If you don’t think either of those things, then I don’t have a beef with either of you on this issue.

CivilDiscourse on January 4, 2016 at 5:08 PM

The conservative response to both can be found throughout the comment threads here at HA. It’s not monolithic, but it generally ranges from questioning whether the militia are heroes or the greatest rootin’-tootin’ heroes of all time.

If you don’t think either of those things, then I don’t have a beef with either of you on this issue.

CivilDiscourse on January 4, 2016 at 5:08 PM

Oh, so, you’re just going to repeat your gross mischaracterization and think that makes it true?

Most people are pointing out the rank hypocrisy of the left on this issue (you seem completely mum on the left’s serious call to kill these people) primarily pushed by everdiso, urban elitist and you and that the Hammond’s are getting a really raw deal that constitutes injustice. Practically no one is calling for an armed insurrection or saying that the milita men who took over an empty building in the middle of nowhere are heroes. What you do see are lefties calling them terrorists and then others – correctly so – pointing out that this is utter nonsense. Which for some reason you’re interpreting – apparently – as hero worship.

We saw a similar patter of dissembling from you on the Tamir Rice threads too. You make outlandish claims of “fact”, you are rebutted, you make generalized statements condemning “the right”, then get upset when people respond to it. Eventually you retreat to trying to have it both ways – insisting on your mischaracterization while also saying you didn’t include certain specific commenters who keep engaging with you.

gwelf on January 4, 2016 at 5:16 PM

The Hammonds are saying what they need to say in order to optimize their situation.

Tell us again how this is like Tamir Rice brandishing an airsoft gun in a park, and that racism will be the only reason why agents don’t shoot these guys dead. I want to hear more about that.

blink on January 4, 2016 at 5:22 PM

Be prepared for CivilDiscourses typical move now of completely dodging the real discussion he’s eternally claiming he wants to have – to instead keep insisting we talk about how we talk about things.

Or maybe CivilDiscourse will use his other move of saying that he didn’t say something he said.

gwelf on January 4, 2016 at 5:25 PM

The conservative response to both can be found throughout the comment threads here at HA. It’s not monolithic, but it generally ranges from questioning whether the militia are heroes or the greatest rootin’-tootin’ heroes of all time.

CivilDiscourse on January 4, 2016 at 5:08 PM

Well said, I won’t fire nor support those who fire the first shot.

Rogue on January 4, 2016 at 11:26 AM

The BLM is a major problem because they are basically enforcing the anti-cattle policies of the Obama administration, however this standoff is misplaced.

Oil Can on January 4, 2016 at 11:27 AM

Maintaining a siege in the middle of winter in rural Oregon would be a waste of resources. If those idiots are still there in Spring after the snow melts, then maybe do something about it.

myiq2xu on January 4, 2016 at 11:28 AM

I’m hoping the Bundys surrender, do their jail time for trespassing, and bring an end to this.

Magicjava on January 4, 2016 at 11:38 AM

Yep, the battle with BLM needs fighting, but not from this hill.

petefrt on January 4, 2016 at 11:40 AM

F*ck the Bundys who are badly missing their earlier 15 minutes of fame.

Dan333 on January 4, 2016 at 12:20 PM

The best response from the government would be NO RESPONSE.

GarandFan on January 4, 2016 at 1:08 PM

I am not here arguing for support of the Bundy’s hijacking the Hammond case. That a few folks would react in an extreme way does not require an invalidation of what is actually happening at the Federal level.

Difficultas_Est_Imperium on January 4, 2016 at 2:08 PM

All from this thread. Most of the comments I left out are ones that don’t address the Bundys at all, but are arguing either the justice of the sentencing/charges, or the overall BLM encroachment onto ranchers’ lands in that part of the country. Probably the two closest people you have to “supporters” in this thread are fossten and njrob.

So no, your characterization of the “general range” of reactions doesn’t exactly square with the written record.

The Schaef on January 4, 2016 at 5:56 PM

What level of injustice would be required before you would “be sympathetic to people who break the law and threaten law-enforcement personnel”?

spmat on January 4, 2016 at 7:46 PM

Dusty on January 4, 2016 at 1:46 PM

You might want to also note that the younger relative was about 16-17 at the time; and is now 11 years older – and known (to the family and community) as beset by severe “mental problems”. He was coached by the government lawyers to testify to the somewhat mythical “poaching cover-up”.
The Hammonds have said that there was no poaching; and they seem a bit more reliable than a known nutcase.

Solaratov on January 4, 2016 at 9:33 PM

if the militia in Oregon aren’t shot on sight (by LEOs), then they’ve received far more benefit of the doubt than Tamir Rice ever did.

. . . equates to:

hoping for these men to be shot dead by federal agents because Tamir Rice got shot.

. . . then you have a severe reading comprehension disability and should probably rethink whether having Internet access is right for you. Sorry for it.

CivilDiscourse on January 4, 2016 at 4:37 PM

Are you speaking to Blink there…or to Jazz Shaw. Jazz must have seen the same damned thing in your post as everyone else. Had he not, you wouldn’t have been banned – temporarily or not.
Why don’t you just thank your lucky stars that it was Jazz and he gave you a break…AND SHUT THE HELL UP. At this point, you’re only digging a deeper hole. Try to remember the first rule of holes, boy.

Solaratov on January 4, 2016 at 9:53 PM

Jazz must have seen the same damned thing in your post as everyone else.

Solaratov on January 4, 2016 at 9:53 PM

In fact, no—that’s not how Jazz interpreted it. I don’t need to relay our conversation to you, as I’ve already clarified for the forum about LE, as was requested, but Jazz was not as seemingly confused as blink and others who can’t wrap their minds around conditional statements and their meanings.

CivilDiscourse on January 5, 2016 at 2:39 AM

i think the bundy boys should walk peacefully away from the “occupation” and state that their objective was made in that the obama government should take notice that many CITIZENS are willing to take these kinds of actions against his unconstitutional executive orders that violate the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. here is a very good description of the LYING MUSLIM POS POTUS from another poster on HA;sorry i forgot his name
This next year will be what a hostile, Muslim advocate,
American hating affirmative action hire looks like when
a Congress that has been terrified of this black man for
the last 7 years will be humping his leg along with the
media for his last year. I believe the Republic is in peril

bilker on January 5, 2016 at 12:30 PM

I never even thought of the ” burns ” in a water conservatory manner.

How ironic that the feds are creating a water supply issue again when there is a solution. This time instead of minnows they are protecting weeds.

the Watermelons created huge wildfires in Australia by not allowing people to clear brush. it would seem they would be perfectly happy to have overgrown lands burn out the farmers.

whatever happened to the leftist’s concern for farmers?

Mr Soames on January 5, 2016 at 2:15 PM

Simple. They’re not government farmers.

The Schaef on January 5, 2016 at 2:20 PM

Comment pages: 1 2