Militia takes over Malheur National Wildlife Refuge headquarters in Oregon

[thør]

Are they done?

 

[CyranoJ]

This thread was a fucking hoot.

I, for one, was fascinated to learn that deer carcasses are apparently completely immune to the effects of combustion. Not being a hunter I would have never guessed that.

 

[thør]

https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xlt1/v/t1.0-9/1173603_168279013532409_5359120195909461739_n.jpg?oh=b048479cf977a7d5fdadcf7d636aa4d4&oe=570F5D43

 

[Que]

I, for one, was fascinated to learn that deer carcasses are apparently completely immune to the effects of combustion. Not being a hunter I would have never guessed that.

There is a very good reason that cremation is not a do-it-yourself task. Fire will remove trace evidence but not structure. If you ever have a need to get rid of a body, fire is not the way to go. -I've heard.

 

[CyranoJ]

I guess in certain cases you might just have to hope the structure would be hard to spot in several hundred acres of blasted wasteland unless you knew just where to look, particularly after scavengers had been at work. But then I wouldn't know these things and apparently neither would the Hammonds' lawyers. Maybe they're not hunters, either.

 

[thør]

https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xap1/v/t1.0-9/12524003_10156431060915080_7216067223404720051_n.jpg?oh=674bc5daeaf93231ce9019ae34bbac5b&oe=574120B5

 

[Sean Renaud]

There is a very good reason that cremation is not a do-it-yourself task. Fire will remove trace evidence but not structure. If you ever have a need to get rid of a body, fire is not the way to go. -I've heard.

So have I. But that's with humans which are treated differently. Without knowing any details of the alledeged poaching what would they even be looking for and ultimately WHY. A dead person, even in a fire generally gets an investigation if only to identify the body for loved ones. Would people be out looking for deer following a fire and presuming they found bodies would they bother investigating cause of death or just assume any number of non-illegal causes and move on with their day?

 

[Que]

So have I. But that's with humans which are treated differently. Without knowing any details of the alledeged poaching what would they even be looking for and ultimately WHY. A dead person, even in a fire generally gets an investigation if only to identify the body for loved ones. Would people be out looking for deer following a fire and presuming they found bodies would they bother investigating cause of death or just assume any number of non-illegal causes and move on with their day?

To have anything but a surface effect on a body you need something like 1600 degrees fo a couple of hours. A grass fire won't even hit the 600 degrees you need to melt a beer can.

A bullet hole and / or butchering would be immediately and obviously apparent.

 

[Sean Renaud]

To have anything but a surface effect on a body you need something like 1600 degrees fo a couple of hours. A grass fire won't even hit the 600 degrees you need to melt a beer can.

A bullet hole and / or butchering would be immediately and obviously apparent.

I've spent enough time to see both deer after they've been shot, and deer hours and days after they've been dead. You have to beat the maggots there or actually care enough to look if they were just shot. Scavengers do a lot as well. I know nothing of the wildlife in the area mind you but at the moment my point is would anybody have even given a shit?

And ultimately do you know these people well enough to know that they wouldn't believe that a fire would sufficiently cover their tracks? It's not like you can settle at proving the animal was poached. Somewhere in Africa an elephant just got it's face cut off but I'm confident that you didn't do it.

 

[Sean]

https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xap1/v/t1.0-9/12524003_10156431060915080_7216067223404720051_n.jpg?oh=674bc5daeaf93231ce9019ae34bbac5b&oe=574120B5

That. Is. Awesome.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xap1/v/t1.0-9/12524003_10156431060915080_7216067223404720051_n.jpg?oh=674bc5daeaf93231ce9019ae34bbac5b&oe=574120B5

"Yeah but Mars ins't an actual planet. I know, because I'm about to tell you the physics of why it isn't, but not really, because I'm not going to do your homework for you. For one thing, you can't burn a Forrest on Marrs. And the terriorsts can't breathe air there. Also because Twitter/Facebook memes aren't real answers to the solution of the problem of how I explained it all to you. Stop making it all about race."

 

[zipman]

It seems the Rancho Stupido supporters have gotten mighty quiet.

Maybe they're busy bringing them snacks?

 

[phrodeau]

I guess in certain cases you might just have to hope the structure would be hard to spot in several hundred acres of blasted wasteland unless you knew just where to look, particularly after scavengers had been at work. But then I wouldn't know these things and apparently neither would the Hammonds' lawyers. Maybe they're not hunters, either.

They don't have to obliterate the bodies. They only have to make them look like the deer wandered into the fire by accident.

 

[VaticanAssassin]

I, for one, was fascinated to learn that deer carcasses are apparently completely immune to the effects of combustion. Not being a hunter I would have never guessed that.

I guess in certain cases you might just have to hope the structure would be hard to spot in several hundred acres of blasted wasteland unless you knew just where to look, particularly after scavengers had been at work. But then I wouldn't know these things and apparently neither would the Hammonds' lawyers. Maybe they're not hunters, either.

So have I. But that's with humans which are treated differently. Without knowing any details of the alledeged poaching what would they even be looking for and ultimately WHY. A dead person, even in a fire generally gets an investigation if only to identify the body for loved ones. Would people be out looking for deer following a fire and presuming they found bodies would they bother investigating cause of death or just assume any number of non-illegal causes and move on with their day?

I've spent enough time to see both deer after they've been shot, and deer hours and days after they've been dead. You have to beat the maggots there or actually care enough to look if they were just shot. Scavengers do a lot as well. I know nothing of the wildlife in the area mind you but at the moment my point is would anybody have even given a shit?

And ultimately do you know these people well enough to know that they wouldn't believe that a fire would sufficiently cover their tracks? It's not like you can settle at proving the animal was poached. Somewhere in Africa an elephant just got it's face cut off but I'm confident that you didn't do it.

They don't have to obliterate the bodies. They only have to make them look like the deer wandered into the fire by accident.

Quoted for the humor...

 

[Que]

They don't have to obliterate the bodies. They only have to make them look like the deer wandered into the fire by accident.

You are in rare form today.

Are you under the impression that people poach deer to just kill them and leave them lying unbutchered in the field?

 

[Aglaopheme]

Okie dokie

Quoted for accuracy.

Inside the arson case
According to an indictment filed June 17, 2010, the BLM issued the Hammonds a rangeland grazing permit in 2004, which allowed the ranch's cattle to graze on public land in addition to the private land owned by Hammond Ranches.
Prosecutors alleged in the indictment the Hammond family set fire to the rangeland after complaining the BLM was taking too long to complete required environmental studies before conducting controlled burn operations.
"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."
A jury convicted the pair of starting the 2001 Hardie-Hammond Fire that burned 139 acres of BLM land. Steven Hammond was also convicted of intentionally starting the 2006 Lower Bridge Creek Fire. Despite the five-year mandatory minimum for a federal arson conviction, Judge Michael Hogan sentenced the elder Hammond to three months behind bars and his son to a year and a day.
But after prosecutors appealed the decision, both men were resentenced in October to the five-year mandatory minimum. They were allowed to self-surrender after the holidays.
Acting United States Attorney Billy J. Williams wrote in a Dec. 7 op-ed in the Burns Times Herald that the Hammonds' backers did not have the whole story.
"I understand that there are some individuals and organizations who object to the Hammonds returning to prison to serve the remainder of their sentences mandated by statute," he wrote. "I respect their right to peacefully disagree with the prison terms imposed. However, any criminal behavior contemplated by those who may object to the court's mandate that harms someone will not be tolerated and will result in serious consequences."
Supporters of the two men maintain the Hammonds started fires to destroy invasive species and protect their property by removing wildfire fuels, and that flames spread to public lands inadvertently.

But 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.
Williams says photographs and testimony from the hunting guide proved the fires were set hours before Steven Hammond called the BLM to report he was about to conduct a burn of invasive species in the area.
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."
The second arson in 2006 came as firefighting crews were battling lightning-started wildfires on BLM land. A burn ban and red flag warning was in effect in the area at the time.
"Despite the burn ban, and knowing that firefighters were in the area, Steven Hammond set fires at night without notifying anyone," Williams wrote. "He did so to save his winter feed. After seeing the fires, the firefighters moved to a safer location."
When confronted by a firefighter the following day, Hammond admitted to starting the fire, Williams wrote.
Williams argues the Hammonds' sentences follow the law and are not excessive, considering the danger in which the Hammonds' actions placed the hunters and the firefighters. He also suggested that much of the outcry after the resentencing came from those who have not bothered to follow the case.
"Much has been said and written by persons who were not in the Pendleton courtroom during the trial or in Eugene during the sentencing hearings," he wrote. "Much of it is inaccurate."

http://www.kgw.com/news/local/easte...-the-center-of-the-oregon-occupation/11749883

 

[Queersetti]

This thread was a fucking hoot.

I didn't say that I said that you said that I ever said that!

 

[phrodeau]

You are in rare form today.

Are you under the impression that people poach deer to just kill them and leave them lying unbutchered in the field?

I know that hunters make illegal kills that they then try to cover up. They may be honest mistakes, but drunk dudes don't always think clearly.

 

[Queersetti]

You are in rare form today.

Are you under the impression that people poach deer to just kill them and leave them lying unbutchered in the field?

In some places deer are considered pests who raid crops, so, yeah, people sometimes kill them just to bring down their numbers.

 

[Disgustipated]

Cool. Now we have 3 fire expert, rancher, poacher, gun law, deer carcass, dudes.

 

[putzpotus]

They don't have to obliterate the bodies. They only have to make them look like the deer wandered into the fire by accident.

unlike YOU

deer are smart

they DONT wander INTO fire

 

[Sean]

Quoted for accuracy.



http://www.kgw.com/news/local/easte...-the-center-of-the-oregon-occupation/11749883

You mean Ish's whelp is full of shit? That can't be true, after all, he's the only one that knows the true facts of the case.

 

[oggbashan]

Cool. Now we have 3 fire expert, rancher, poacher, gun law, deer carcass, dudes.

But, but...

All this has NOTHING to do with the occupation of the wildlife refuge.

Nor the Hammonds.

It is only some idiots grandstanding about their own issues.

Which idiots? The ones at the refuge? Or some of those contributing to this thread?

Your call.

 

[Aglaopheme]

You mean Ish's whelp is full of shit? That can't be true, after all, he's the only one that knows the true facts of the case.

It would seem so. How about we all peacefully hop over to his place with our long guns and snacks?

 

[VaticanAssassin]

You mean Ish's whelp is full of shit? That can't be true, after all, he's the only one that knows the true facts of the case.

Ha!!!

Drunky the truck driver thinks that article shows something new.

Please reach deep in to your pretend degrees and tell me what?

Does it show they were not sentenced under the 1996 anti-terrisom act?