Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the News

[Jeff Lebowski]

I am not talking about the folks taking over the government building out in Burns, which I think there was a Duck qb from Burns who made the NFL. I am referencing the two ranchers going to prison for arson, who are not the same folks taking over the building. If you read my posts I am critical of that groups methods and believe their emphasis on guns is taking attention away from the real issue/grievance by turning this into Timmy and Duute whine on my facebook about you not doing enough about it.

My opinion on the ranchers is that they should pay some restitution for what damage they did to federal land and some as well if they did in fact poach. I just think the prison sentence is similarly crazy to the prison sentences given to dope dealers of all colors.

Fair enough.

[Jeff Lebowski]

A review of the mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines that were used:

https://reason.com/blog/2016/01/04/r...nspired-oregon

FTR, I hate mandatory minimum sentencing. It should be abolished nationwide.

[Moliere]

From the CNN article Pelado linked above:



There is a 'Conservative Tribune' or something article circulating around my more federal government-loathing FB friends. It claims that there was a vendetta against the Hammonds by either the DA or other federales in Burns, and that is the only reason why they were retried and received the harsher sentence. My wife read it last night, and she said it insinuates that the poaching is a BS allegation.

5 years does sound like a harsh sentence. But if a jury believed that they committed arson to cover up the poaching, I am inclined to believe CNN over the Conservative Tribune.

Im also inclined to believe CNN over some whacko news article, but they weren't convicted of poaching right? The witnesses must have been pretty unsubstantiated for that charge to not lead to a conviction. Granted I'm no lawyer, so I'm sure I'm wrong on this one. It's interesting that the nytimes article I read this morning didn't even mention the poaching. I'd believe the nytimes over cnn any day.

[Northwestcoug]

Im also inclined to believe CNN over some whacko news article, but they weren't convicted of poaching right? The witnesses must have been pretty unsubstantiated for that charge to not lead to a conviction. Granted I'm no lawyer, so I'm sure I'm wrong on this one. It's interesting that the nytimes article I read this morning didn't even mention the poaching. I'd believe the nytimes over cnn any day.

The CNN article was quoting a local editorial that covered the trial. I can't find that online. But JL's Reason article above also mentions the allegation of poaching.

[Northwestcoug]

Here's something official from the federales:

Witnesses at trial, including a relative of the Hammonds, testified the arson occurred shortly after Steven Hammond and his hunting party illegally slaughtered several deer on BLM property. Jurors were told that Steven Hammond handed out “Strike Anywhere” matches with instructions that they be lit and dropped on the ground because they were going to “light up the whole country on fire.” One witness testified that he barely escaped the eight to ten foot high flames caused by the arson. The fire consumed 139 acres of public land and destroyed all evidence of the game violations. After committing the arson, Steven Hammond called the BLM office in Burns, Oregon and claimed the fire was started on Hammond property to burn off invasive species and had inadvertently burned onto public lands. Dwight and Steven Hammond told one of their relatives to keep his mouth shut and that nobody needed to know about the fire.

http://www.justice.gov/usao-or/pr/ea...e-years-prison

[creekster]

why does poaching matter? The conviction was for arson. I dont think arson requires a reason. I guess if you think they were poaching you might feel better about the sentence, but it isn't the basis of the conviction.

The thing that amazes me is how exquisitely bad their timing is. So Obama is about to announce a bunch of new gun regulations by executive fiat and I think a lot of people who otherwise would not be against gun control would be a little uncomfortable with his apparent effort to circumvent congress and possible encroach on 2nd amendment rights but then these yahoos show up, occupy a federal building for a poorly understood reason and do so while waiving around their guns and making not so thinly veiled threats. perfect.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Im also inclined to believe CNN over some whacko news article, but they weren't convicted of poaching right? The witnesses must have been pretty unsubstantiated for that charge to not lead to a conviction. Granted I'm no lawyer, so I'm sure I'm wrong on this one. It's interesting that the nytimes article I read this morning didn't even mention the poaching. I'd believe the nytimes over cnn any day.

What exactly are you arguing? The CNN article did not say that they were convicted of poaching. Rather it said that the government provided witnesses saying that they were poaching and they lit the fire to cover it up. Do a google and you will see that countless other articles report the same thing.

[Eddie]

why does poaching matter? The conviction was for arson. I dont think arson requires a reason. I guess if you think they were poaching you might feel better about the sentence, but it isn't the basis of the conviction....

I think it's relevant based on the defense. They say they were burning bad stuff on their own property and things got out of hand. The prosecution says the fire started on public land. Well - why would they do that? They did that because they wanted to hide something. This was not an accidental fire. They intended to burn a bunch of stuff.

Aside from that - the poaching isn't necessarily an issue. Outside of its own prosecution and punishment, that is to say.

[Northwestcoug]

why does poaching matter? The conviction was for arson. I dont think arson requires a reason. I guess if you think they were poaching you might feel better about the sentence, but it isn't the basis of the conviction.

The thing that amazes me is how exquisitely bad their timing is. So Obama is about to announce a bunch of new gun regulations by executive fiat and I think a lot of people who otherwise would not be against gun control would be a little uncomfortable with his apparent effort to circumvent congress and possible encroach on 2nd amendment rights but then these yahoos show up, occupy a federal building for a poorly understood reason and do so while waiving around their guns and making not so thinly veiled threats. perfect.

To me, the allegation of poaching pretty much destroys the argument that it was an innocent fire to reduce invasive species that went awry. That's the way it's being played out on a few right-wing news organizations, and it is being hyped to make their motive sound more noble and sympathetic to the outside world. I know it has nothing to do with the conviction.

[Moliere]

What exactly are you arguing? The CNN article did not say that they were convicted of poaching. Rather it said that the government provided witnesses saying that they were poaching and they lit the fire to cover it up. Do a google and you will see that countless other articles report the same thing.

My main argument is that there are likely some good reasons for the occupation of the land as a protest even if the people are right wing nut jobs. We shouldn't automatically dismiss the concerns because we think the people are crazy.

The libs are just crawling all over themselves to vilify the protestors but I bet many of them would at least agree with the opinion that serving 5 years in jail for a small fire is insane.

Sometimes it takes nut jobs and whackos to draw enough attention to a real problem before anyone thinks it's a problem.

[Jeff Lebowski]

LDS church issues press release strongly condemning the nuts in Oregon.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/8...n-beliefs.html

"While the disagreement occurring in Oregon about the use of federal lands is not a church matter," church spokesman Eric Hawkins said, "church leaders strongly condemn the armed seizure of the facility and are deeply troubled by the reports that those who have seized the facility suggest that they are doing so based on scriptural principles. This armed occupation can in no way be justified on a scriptural basis. We are privileged to live in a nation where conflicts with government or private groups can — and should — be settled using peaceful means, according to the laws of the land."

lol @ moliere

[creekster]

LDS church issues press release strongly condemning the nuts in Oregon.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/8...n-beliefs.html



lol @ moliere

So the church would not have supported Ghandi or MLK jr. Figures.

[frank ryan]

So the church would not have supported Ghandi or MLK jr. Figures.

I didn't know Ghandi or MLK carried weapons and took over gov buildings.

[Jeff Lebowski]

“We’re not terrorists; we just want what any true patriot wants: to take down the United States of America.”

[creekster]

I didn't know Ghandi or MLK carried weapons and took over gov buildings.

I was sort of joking, Frank. The church's statement said that protests should be peaceful and according to the lasws of the land. Gandhi and MLK both utilized civil disobedience which, while peaceful, intentionally broke the law.

Ok, not a good joke. Sorry