Quote:
Originally Posted by Brush Okie
Agreed.
I do understand your concerns over farther reaching government control and the fact that they were give a sentence now the government is saying they need to go back for more. As I think about it the govt should have given them the time up front and now it should be to late. It sets up to much of a precedent after the fact. They did their time already no more should be added. I allowed the time I fought fires get in my way of objectivity on that part. It may cloud my judgement even now on this specific case.
|
I'd disagree also in response to post #8. To charge them with arson for setting a back burn doesn't quite add up to what I'd think reasonably constitutes arson. Arson means, or my understanding of it, deliberately setting a fire for the purpose of malevolent destruction. Such as the individual down in houston who torched the mosque located there, that'd be a bonafide example of arson. These individuals here were trying to stop a fire, protect grazing per the article.
BLM wasn't trying to stop that from happening and they were "on scene" to do so per the article. It appears these individuals got fed up with that and took action on thier own. I agree, IF they did not coordinate with whoever was on scene and let them know what they were doing. What they did was horribly dangerous although there is in the article they did contact at least once.
The article doesn't make clear if they did or didn't in this instance, I suspect there might've been communication and were told no without any good reason. These folk might've simply said "eff that, we're not going to stand here and watch it burn for no good reason"
Now we're stuck between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law.
Under the letter of the law, had they done this without any communication, "if you people aren't going to do anything about the fires which are closing in on grazing located at XYZ, then we will take care of it" Whatever criminal negligence within the law would probably be a far more correct charge, as it would endanger firefighters there given they wouldn't know what was about to happen. In addition to that, under the letter of the law they did not have the 'legal' authority to make that decision on thier own.
Spirit of the law? Why should these individuals be forced to stand there and watch needed grazing burn for no good reason because someone in "authority" told them to? Why should they be criminalized for protecting thier private property when the "authorities" who's job it is to do so refused to? "The Law" says no, however in this case was that correct? Maybe they didn't have enough assets on hand, although there were firefighters nearby per the article. What were they doing at the time? I don't assume they were told no for what might've been beauracratic arbitrary reasons although I'd allow for the possibility.
charging them now with something akin to terrorism? First off is the issue of double jeapardy, per the constitution. They were already charged, tried, and convicted. If you wish to accept the original legal charges as bonafide or appropriate. Going back again under any pretext is unconstitutional.
I don't agree this would constitute any kind've terrorism by any worthwhile standard.
As for the previous thing "burn the whole country down" That doesn't sound plausible from the get-go. Witnesses? What family member? what is that individuals name and why was't it specifically mentioned as well as the other supposed witnesses? They 'claim' they heard this being said? That's hearsay,
I view that with a jaundiced eye as that doesn't quite smell right.
I will add, I can understand your emotions in regards to how dangerous what they did is, under the circumstances. IF they just up and did as much without letting the firefighters know, they could have quite easily created another storm king mtn scenario. Had it created a scenario such as that, I don't see why they couldn't be charged with criminal manslaughter or something along those lines, and they would in my eyes be rightfully charged.