This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

Fail of Your Day

1772773775777778787

Comments

  • So, Ammon and Ryan Bundy filed a legal complaint regarding the Multnomah County Sheriff's office, saying their rights are being violated. Quote:
    All of my First Amendment rights are being violated. My right to freedom of religion is being violated. I cannot participate in religious activities and temple covenants, and wear religious garments. […] My right to freedom of speech is being hampered by monitoring and recording. My right to freedom of assembly is being violated; I am not allowed to see my brother and move about. Yesterday, I attempted to discuss these issues with the U.S. Marshals, and they said that these were simply the jail rules. […] My Second Amendment rights are being violated. I never waived that right.
    I draw your attention to that last line. Their second amendment rights.

    These motherfuckers are so stupid, they can't understand why they're not allowed to have their guns while they're in Jail.
  • edited May 2016
    I love how they think they have to waive the right.
    BITCH, YOU IN JAIL. THEY TOOK THAT RIGHT AWAY.

    Dumbass motherfuckers...
    Post edited by Victor Frost on
  • Yeaaah thats kinda the thing about jail, they tend to take away rights. No shit you can't have your guns in there, why do they think guys gotta make shivs out of toothbrushes?
  • Aren't they sovereign citizen types who insist that the government has no authority over them? Which would presumably include the authority to grant the rights that are being "infringed upon"?
  • If they're sovereign citizens, and the US government has imprisoned them, does that mean that they've been invaded and are now under foreign occupation? Maybe they can petition for a POW care package?
  • I don't know if they consider themselves sovereign citizens but they're pretty close. Only the craziest of the militia types really support them now.
  • zehaeva said:

    If they're sovereign citizens, and the US government has imprisoned them, does that mean that they've been invaded and are now under foreign occupation? Maybe they can petition for a POW care package?

    That would require sympathy, which isn't very common in this story.
  • I do feel bad for the guys that the whole original protest was supposed to be about. They accidentally damaged federal land while doing a controlled burn of some brush, and somehow got hit with a domestic terrorism law instead of just being fined. The whole Bundy thing ended up overshadowing the actual issue they were trying to protest (before the guys said "no thanks", leading to the refuge hissyfit).
  • I do feel bad for the guys that the whole original protest was supposed to be about. They accidentally damaged federal land while doing a controlled burn of some brush, and somehow got hit with a domestic terrorism law instead of just being fined. The whole Bundy thing ended up overshadowing the actual issue they were trying to protest (before the guys said "no thanks", leading to the refuge hissyfit).

    Mandatory minimums are just stupid and ridiculous, regardless of the crime.
  • RymRym
    edited May 2016

    I do feel bad for the guys that the whole original protest was supposed to be about. They accidentally damaged federal land while doing a controlled burn of some brush, and somehow got hit with a domestic terrorism law instead of just being fined.

    Nope.

    There was a lot of evidence that the "controlled burn" was revenge arson motivated by anti-government sentiment. They started fires all over the place.
    The Hammonds also have ignited uncontrolled fires under cover of naturally occurring dry lightning storms which occur on the western slopes of the Steens Mountain in late summers," then-United States Attorney Dwight C. Holton wrote in the indictment. "For more than twenty years, Hammond family members have been responsible for multiple fires in the Steens Mountain area.
    ...witnesses in the trial told a different story. The jury heard from three witnesses who were hunting in 2001 when they saw the Hammonds shoot over their heads to illegally slaughter a herd of deer, according to court documents. A short time later, the hunters testified, they had to abandon their camp because of a fire burning in the area.

    A teenage relative of the Hammonds also testified during the trial that Steven Hammond gave him a box of matches and told him to drop lit matches on the ground to "light up the whole county on fire," Williams wrote.

    They were also not charged with domestic terrorism.
    The U.S. Attorney dismissed arguments that the Hammonds were accused of terrorism.

    "The evidence at trial convinced the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the Hammonds were guilty of the federal crime of arson; that is, maliciously damaging United States property by fire," he wrote. "The jury was neither asked if the Hammonds were terrorists, nor were defendants ever charged with or accused of terrorism. Suggesting otherwise is simply flat-out wrong."

    They were just a generally shit-headed anti-government family sticking it to the man by starting fires and treating federal land like their personal property.

    http://www.kgw.com/news/local/eastern-oregon/inside-the-hammonds-arson-case-at-the-center-of-the-oregon-occupation/11749883
    Post edited by Rym on
  • I do feel bad for the guys that the whole original protest was supposed to be about. They accidentally damaged federal land while doing a controlled burn of some brush, and somehow got hit with a domestic terrorism law instead of just being fined. The whole Bundy thing ended up overshadowing the actual issue they were trying to protest (before the guys said "no thanks", leading to the refuge hissyfit).

    Eh, not so much. They claimed they were doing a controlled burn, but the government disagrees, and has brought forward evidence that they were actually doing it to cover up their poaching. And one of those "Controlled burns" was set during a total fire ban, at night, with a crew of cadet firefighters camped further up the bute, and there was no evidence found that they made any attempt to actually control their supposedly controlled burn.
  • Well that's shitty. I wasn't thinking so much that they were actually charged with domestic terrorism just that a law targeting that ended up applying in a bullshit mandatory minimum kind of way. I thought they were more just kind of irresponsible than doing it maliciously. Even if they do deserve more than I initially thought, I'm still not a fan of mandatory minimums (if that is how they ended up being charged).
  • edited May 2016
    I'm not sympathizing with them but I don't like people calling them terrorists.

    Not that I don't think they fit the definition, I just don't like the use of that word.

    There have been a lot of horrible things done by this country in the name of dealing with terrorists, and the country at large seems pretty cool with it. The last thing I want to start doing is expanding the definition of the word terrorist.

    Why don't we call them lawbreakers, or civil disobedients, or just plain criminals. I mean, that's what they are, right? Can't we use one of those just as accurate words?
    Post edited by Naoza on
  • Civil disobedients dont use firearms.
  • Insurrectionists, then?
  • Greg said:

    Civil disobedients dont use firearms.

    Also, in most cases, civil disobedients are willing to suffer the consequences of breaking the law in order to prove their point. Martin Luther King Jr. and Ghandi didn't just protest and break the law, they were willing to go to prison as a result, to further show the injustices they were fighting against.

    Breaking the law and not willing to suffer the consequences isn't civil disobedience, it's rebellion.
  • Naoza said:

    I'm not sympathizing with them but I don't like people calling them terrorists.

    The Hammonds are just selfish shitheads, harming the land and the people around them. The Bundys are themselves basically organized crime.

    The actual militia that occupied the refuge? They are terrorists.

  • Rym said:

    Naoza said:

    I'm not sympathizing with them but I don't like people calling them terrorists.

    The Hammonds are just selfish shitheads, harming the land and the people around them. The Bundys are themselves basically organized crime.

    The actual militia that occupied the refuge? They are terrorists.

    I'm not disagreeing with you. I just think calling them terrorist opens the door to treat them like terrorists. Actual terrorists, the ones my parents are scared of when fox news reports train bombings over seas. The ones that all kinds of extrajudicial nonsense is allowed when perusing. You call these criminals terrorists, it's only one step away from calling other "criminals" terrorists.
  • It's easy to draw a fine line between crimes of violence or threat committed for the specific reason of effecting political change through fear, and for other reasons.
  • Rym said:

    It's easy to draw a fine line between crimes of violence or threat committed for the specific reason of effecting political change through fear, and for other reasons.

    And it appears the Bundy's did just that. They threatened the lives of law enforcement, used threats of violence to take over a government building, all with the expressed intent of forcing the judicial branches of state and federal governments to bend to their will.

    I don't see how this ISN'T politically motivated terrorism. The fact that thing 1 and thing 2 were too stupid to understand how laws and rights work in this country is their own damn fault. The Hammonds were equally stupid and deserve their consequences, though they are hardly terrorists.
  • If anything, calling these people "terrorists" will do more to dispel the image Americans have of "terrorists" as being "vaguely brown Muslim-lookin' people from the Middle East." Most of the terror actually carried out against US citizens is from right wing white supremacist/miltia groups. They are the real face of terror in the US, yet they are not perceived as such by a lot of people who aren't actually afraid of terror attacks so much as just don't like foreigners.
  • That's a fair point but I think it assumes the best. I'm more of a pessimist. I think it'll be used to increase fear. Once people find out there are actual terrorists right here in our borders just as bad as the ones that are brown and vaguely Muslim-lookin' ones, it could be the second coming of Mccarthy.

    I really don't want that, and so I respectfully disagree with your approach.
  • If all these sovereign citizen anti-revenuer militia nuts were in jail, we'd be a lot better off.
  • Can we release everyone in jails on pot charges to make room for them?
  • edited May 2016
    With all the pseudo-legalize the sovereign citizen types talk trying to say laws don't apply to them, its probably just a matter of time before a lot of them get arrested anyway.

    Also: https://www.reddit.com/r/amibeingdetained
    Post edited by ninjarabbi on
  • Didn't get the university job I applied for two months ago. Got to phone interview stage, didn't hear back, then I was told they made their decision...4 days before the work-hire on date and I didn't get it.

    It would have fixed SO MANY of my problems living with family and dealing with family drama. Oh well, back to the riff-raff.
  • I'm in a similar boat. Been applying to tech jobs and software internships for 2 months. I've done a couple phone interviews and one in person. Totally botched the in-person interview. Looks like I'll be doing grocery for another summer.
  • I was turned down for 90% of the jobs I applied to while I was actually at RIT. The few I got were entirely due to luck.

    I fucking didn't even get the job of painting fire hydrants - something I specifically had experience with - over the summer on campus. Let alone the tech jobs.
Sign In or Register to comment.