What's your opinion on an Oregon militia occupying federal land as protest?

I tried to find a purely factual source to provide details on what is happening in Oregon.

In short, in protest of two men's imprisonment due to starting a (controlled) fire on federal land, a group of people have seized a federal wildlife reserve in protest.

Do you think their protest is valid?
Do you think their method of protest is just?
Any other thoughts?


Most Helpful Girl

  • It's a violent protest, and they should be apprehended and punished. People can't go around taking things with guns and thinking they're actually in the right.


Most Helpful Guy

  • Do you think their protest is valid? No

    Do you think their method of protest is just? No

    The authorities should wait them out (whatever food they have in the building -- if any -- will eventually run out). When they get tired of their hissy fit and come out they should be arrested and prosecuted.


Have an opinion?

What Girls Said 3

  • They need to leave Burns and leave Oregon. The people they're "protesting for" already turned themselves in. Willingly. It's so stupid.

    They're not even *from* Oregon so how would they know what we want.

  • They did the crime, so they should do the time.

    Let's say there was no poaching, and the reason given is real and true.

    There are other ways of handling it other then arson.

    If that was a neighbours land, would they have just burned it?

  • I think it's fine. I mean in my state the federal government "owns" like 80% of the lands. It's getting a bit extreme.

    • so because the government owns a substantial piece of land it makes it ok to take it upon yourself to seize it? why not file a suit? go through the legal process as opposed to committing a crime

    • Show All
    • I love that! @thisandthat unfortunately most people don't understand this.

    • You're right they don't which is why we are becoming slaves. She understands it though being a constitutional lawyer.

What Guys Said 5

  • They aren't protesting the men's imprisonment - the defendants served prison terms already, and there was no protest when they were originally sentenced and sent to prison. No one is disputing that they committed crimes (though minor ones).

    What is being protested is the fact that the judge originally sentenced them to terms he found reasonable, because he felt the "mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines" were incredibly harsh given the magnitude of the "crime" (ultimately, around 1 acre of federal land, which adjoined the defendant's property, was accidentally burned). Clearly a punishment was warranted, but not the overly excessive minimums. So, the judge gave them lowered sentences, which they've served and were released.

    Then, (and what is actually being protested here), the district attorney sued to have the mandatory minimum sentence enforced, causing the defendants, who had served their initial terms and had been released, to be re-arrested and thrown back into prison.

    Mandatory minimum sentencing is wrong, and it takes away a judge's discretion to make the sentence reflect the crime. And LOTS of people who commit very minor crimes get caught up by these laws and have to endure incredibly harsh sentences when similar crimes that don't fall under a mandatory minimum may result in a sentence that is 1/20th or less. That's wrong, and it needs to be addressed.

    Having said that, I think an unarmed protest would have been just as effective - maybe moreso. I think bringing weapons into the protest at this stage was very premature, though I also think that the protesters are legit when they say they only have them for self-defense. They've not been violent in any way, or pointed weapons at anyone, etc.

    Unfortunately, the media is making a much bigger deal over the guns then they are about the subject of the protest - which is evident because even here, people don't understand what the protest is actually about.

    • well they are calling themselves a militia so i think the media does have a good reason to mention those details. the protest being about the Hammond men seems to only be a small part of the entire matter, as teh Hammond family has stated they do not support and did not ever suggest that there should be protest.

      I agree unarmed protest, or legal action regarding the property clauses in the Constitution would be the best method of getting things done.

  • I always love to see people take on the government. Go militia go! Let's hope it spreads.

    • You must have loved the blacklivesmatter uprisings and the OWS occupations

    • Show All
    • @ArtDent
      I'm not going to argue with you about those idiots. And I don't buy into any propaganda. I think for myself.

    • Oh really? So you went to your local Occupy and took part in the General Assembly process and that's how you came to your opinion? From first hand experience?

      Sure buddy.

  • I think some of them are classified as "freeman". there's a very small percentage of freemen in this country. They have privileges the same as native American indians. They subject themselves to descipline, the same as Amish people who live life without being relying on technology. The media calls freemen "bush people".

    They can do whatever the f*ck they want. I've seen one in a video that walked in a courtroom and shutdown the trial, sent the judge home.

    • being a "freeman" does not mean you can seize federal lands (nor can native americans)

  • #RealTalk , if they weren't white they would have been apprehended by force or even killed!

    • very true. if they were muslims they'd be terrorists, if they were mexicans they'd be deported, if they were black they'd be arrested... people would not cite centuries old land arguments (that have been constitutionally thwarted each and every time). people wouldn't defend them as protesters but label them as thugs, terrorists, or otherwise.

  • If I understand it right the feds or BLM took property that belongs to the ranchers designating it as a safe zone for some endangered rat or turtle and then they put the ranchers in jail from the ranchers trying to clear their own land like they've always done. Now the feds have charged the ranchers with a crime of burning on the ranchers own property to clear the land of dabre.

    • the ranchers did not own the land. the lease the right to farm, ranch or whatever the land. but as with any lease it comes with terms and the terms relevant in this case were that the Hammond family illegaly were burning federal lands about which they'd been warned. The Hammonds, the family who the militia claim are the reason for their occupation and protest, actually don't support the occupation.

      please don't take my statement as blind support of the government but just an explanation of the facts in the situation. the land never belonged to the ranchers, just as a rented apartment doesn't belong to the tenants

    • The MSM was long bought and paid for by corporate interest so you will never get the truth from them. So if you really want to know where this is headed here is all you need to know. Global agenda 21. Have a google and a read of that.

    • the US Constitution, obviously written long before 1992 has a property law that gives Congress the right to manage any and all public lands.

Loading... ;