10 Jan 2016, 7:34 pm
I'm not an American, I am a Pole, I live in Poland. In our news bulletins talk about, riots, armed militia in the US state of Oregon.
Apparently it went about a farmer who allegedly accidentally set fire on government land..
And the farmer received one year in prison and his son six months, which is similar judgment that Polish courts rule in similar cases.
But apparently he got them, increased sentence to 5 years. I wonder whether America can convict people twice for the same offense, something's not right.
I know that the courts in my country can not judge twice the same case, if there was a validation of the judgment, which means that no one filed an appeal on time.
I think that the American government wanted to do a show trial, in every country there are such cases from time to time.
But it looks like s**t stinks more and more, and the atmosphere is getting dangerous.
I'm beginning to wonder why Obama is simply not pardon them, and those who come to defend this convinced Farmer would be happy and lost cause for fight???
: It was our evening news, and were also reprints mainly right-wing newspapers.
Some right-wingers, they want to change the Polish constitution, and specifically to give the Polish nation a right similar to the American 2nd Amendment, in their opinion, so that you will be able to hold in check the post-communists and liberals 
10 Jan 2016, 10:58 pm
11 Jan 2016, 12:55 am
12 Jan 2016, 8:43 pm
12 Jan 2016, 10:28 pm
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,796
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
13 Jan 2016, 12:56 am
13 Jan 2016, 2:13 am
Kraichgauer wrote:
LKL wrote:
The ranchers (the Hammonds) in question were tried and convicted, once, for deliberately setting two fires that spread to public land. Given that this is wide-open territory, and that the area is extremely dry, and the time of year that the fires were set, the ranchers could *not* claim that they did not expect the fires to spread. In the second case, they forced an encampment of wildland firefighters to flee from the new fire because the ranchers neither asked permission nor warned the firefighters. The government claims that at least one of the fires was set to destroy evidence of illegal poaching; the Hammonds claim that they were setting fires to clear brush and prevent the spread of other fires. A jury of their peers found the government's claims more believable.
The 'mandatory minimum' for arson and destruction of federal property is five years. The initial judge disagreed with the federally mandated minimum,* and decided to impose a lesser sentence. The state appealed the sentence, and eventually the state won after several rounds of appeals and won the right to impose the actual mandated minimum sentence, minus time already served.
As for the Bundys, they're a bunch of freeloaders who simultaneously think that the federal government should give ranchers thousands and thousands of acres of land for free, and that the welfare state is illegal and socialistic; that the federal government is illegal and eeevil, and that they themselves are the true patriots of America; that the Feds need to give the land "back," and that they should give it to people whose families never owned it in the first place. They fly American flags while preaching treason and sedition.
edit: I live in Oregon.
*regardless of what you think of mandatory minimum sentences, they are the current law and these guys are exactly the type to back mandatory minimum laws for other people.
The 'mandatory minimum' for arson and destruction of federal property is five years. The initial judge disagreed with the federally mandated minimum,* and decided to impose a lesser sentence. The state appealed the sentence, and eventually the state won after several rounds of appeals and won the right to impose the actual mandated minimum sentence, minus time already served.
As for the Bundys, they're a bunch of freeloaders who simultaneously think that the federal government should give ranchers thousands and thousands of acres of land for free, and that the welfare state is illegal and socialistic; that the federal government is illegal and eeevil, and that they themselves are the true patriots of America; that the Feds need to give the land "back," and that they should give it to people whose families never owned it in the first place. They fly American flags while preaching treason and sedition.
edit: I live in Oregon.
*regardless of what you think of mandatory minimum sentences, they are the current law and these guys are exactly the type to back mandatory minimum laws for other people.
Believe you me, I trust you, as a resident of Oregon, implicitly about this situation. As I live in the Spokane area of Washington state, which is very close to the state line with Idaho, I had a better vantage point regarding Randy Weaver and his family, and the siege at Ruby Ridge than any of the people who still defend Randy Weaver, even today. The thing is, country people who spout racist idiocy, and whose twisted view of the Constitution inspires them to take on the federal government, or who get orders directly from God rarely - if ever- are in the right frame of mind.
I think it's been explained to you enough times that we weren't' necessarily defending Weaver but condemning the actions of federal law enforcement in that case.
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,796
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
13 Jan 2016, 2:24 am
Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
LKL wrote:
The ranchers (the Hammonds) in question were tried and convicted, once, for deliberately setting two fires that spread to public land. Given that this is wide-open territory, and that the area is extremely dry, and the time of year that the fires were set, the ranchers could *not* claim that they did not expect the fires to spread. In the second case, they forced an encampment of wildland firefighters to flee from the new fire because the ranchers neither asked permission nor warned the firefighters. The government claims that at least one of the fires was set to destroy evidence of illegal poaching; the Hammonds claim that they were setting fires to clear brush and prevent the spread of other fires. A jury of their peers found the government's claims more believable.
The 'mandatory minimum' for arson and destruction of federal property is five years. The initial judge disagreed with the federally mandated minimum,* and decided to impose a lesser sentence. The state appealed the sentence, and eventually the state won after several rounds of appeals and won the right to impose the actual mandated minimum sentence, minus time already served.
As for the Bundys, they're a bunch of freeloaders who simultaneously think that the federal government should give ranchers thousands and thousands of acres of land for free, and that the welfare state is illegal and socialistic; that the federal government is illegal and eeevil, and that they themselves are the true patriots of America; that the Feds need to give the land "back," and that they should give it to people whose families never owned it in the first place. They fly American flags while preaching treason and sedition.
edit: I live in Oregon.
*regardless of what you think of mandatory minimum sentences, they are the current law and these guys are exactly the type to back mandatory minimum laws for other people.
The 'mandatory minimum' for arson and destruction of federal property is five years. The initial judge disagreed with the federally mandated minimum,* and decided to impose a lesser sentence. The state appealed the sentence, and eventually the state won after several rounds of appeals and won the right to impose the actual mandated minimum sentence, minus time already served.
As for the Bundys, they're a bunch of freeloaders who simultaneously think that the federal government should give ranchers thousands and thousands of acres of land for free, and that the welfare state is illegal and socialistic; that the federal government is illegal and eeevil, and that they themselves are the true patriots of America; that the Feds need to give the land "back," and that they should give it to people whose families never owned it in the first place. They fly American flags while preaching treason and sedition.
edit: I live in Oregon.
*regardless of what you think of mandatory minimum sentences, they are the current law and these guys are exactly the type to back mandatory minimum laws for other people.
Believe you me, I trust you, as a resident of Oregon, implicitly about this situation. As I live in the Spokane area of Washington state, which is very close to the state line with Idaho, I had a better vantage point regarding Randy Weaver and his family, and the siege at Ruby Ridge than any of the people who still defend Randy Weaver, even today. The thing is, country people who spout racist idiocy, and whose twisted view of the Constitution inspires them to take on the federal government, or who get orders directly from God rarely - if ever- are in the right frame of mind.
I think it's been explained to you enough times that we weren't' necessarily defending Weaver but condemning the actions of federal law enforcement in that case.
And I've explained again and again, the person ultimately responsible for what had happened there was Randy Weaver. His own lawyer later said Weaver had admitted such to him.
13 Jan 2016, 4:39 am
Kraichgauer wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
LKL wrote:
The ranchers (the Hammonds) in question were tried and convicted, once, for deliberately setting two fires that spread to public land. Given that this is wide-open territory, and that the area is extremely dry, and the time of year that the fires were set, the ranchers could *not* claim that they did not expect the fires to spread. In the second case, they forced an encampment of wildland firefighters to flee from the new fire because the ranchers neither asked permission nor warned the firefighters. The government claims that at least one of the fires was set to destroy evidence of illegal poaching; the Hammonds claim that they were setting fires to clear brush and prevent the spread of other fires. A jury of their peers found the government's claims more believable.
The 'mandatory minimum' for arson and destruction of federal property is five years. The initial judge disagreed with the federally mandated minimum,* and decided to impose a lesser sentence. The state appealed the sentence, and eventually the state won after several rounds of appeals and won the right to impose the actual mandated minimum sentence, minus time already served.
As for the Bundys, they're a bunch of freeloaders who simultaneously think that the federal government should give ranchers thousands and thousands of acres of land for free, and that the welfare state is illegal and socialistic; that the federal government is illegal and eeevil, and that they themselves are the true patriots of America; that the Feds need to give the land "back," and that they should give it to people whose families never owned it in the first place. They fly American flags while preaching treason and sedition.
edit: I live in Oregon.
*regardless of what you think of mandatory minimum sentences, they are the current law and these guys are exactly the type to back mandatory minimum laws for other people.
The 'mandatory minimum' for arson and destruction of federal property is five years. The initial judge disagreed with the federally mandated minimum,* and decided to impose a lesser sentence. The state appealed the sentence, and eventually the state won after several rounds of appeals and won the right to impose the actual mandated minimum sentence, minus time already served.
As for the Bundys, they're a bunch of freeloaders who simultaneously think that the federal government should give ranchers thousands and thousands of acres of land for free, and that the welfare state is illegal and socialistic; that the federal government is illegal and eeevil, and that they themselves are the true patriots of America; that the Feds need to give the land "back," and that they should give it to people whose families never owned it in the first place. They fly American flags while preaching treason and sedition.
edit: I live in Oregon.
*regardless of what you think of mandatory minimum sentences, they are the current law and these guys are exactly the type to back mandatory minimum laws for other people.
Believe you me, I trust you, as a resident of Oregon, implicitly about this situation. As I live in the Spokane area of Washington state, which is very close to the state line with Idaho, I had a better vantage point regarding Randy Weaver and his family, and the siege at Ruby Ridge than any of the people who still defend Randy Weaver, even today. The thing is, country people who spout racist idiocy, and whose twisted view of the Constitution inspires them to take on the federal government, or who get orders directly from God rarely - if ever- are in the right frame of mind.
I think it's been explained to you enough times that we weren't' necessarily defending Weaver but condemning the actions of federal law enforcement in that case.
And I've explained again and again, the person ultimately responsible for what had happened there was Randy Weaver. His own lawyer later said Weaver had admitted such to him.
By that logic, if someone cuts me off in traffic and I catch up to them and empty a magazine into thier car they are responsible for me shooting them. That's called victim blaming and here you are doing it.
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,796
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
13 Jan 2016, 5:16 am
Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
LKL wrote:
The ranchers (the Hammonds) in question were tried and convicted, once, for deliberately setting two fires that spread to public land. Given that this is wide-open territory, and that the area is extremely dry, and the time of year that the fires were set, the ranchers could *not* claim that they did not expect the fires to spread. In the second case, they forced an encampment of wildland firefighters to flee from the new fire because the ranchers neither asked permission nor warned the firefighters. The government claims that at least one of the fires was set to destroy evidence of illegal poaching; the Hammonds claim that they were setting fires to clear brush and prevent the spread of other fires. A jury of their peers found the government's claims more believable.
The 'mandatory minimum' for arson and destruction of federal property is five years. The initial judge disagreed with the federally mandated minimum,* and decided to impose a lesser sentence. The state appealed the sentence, and eventually the state won after several rounds of appeals and won the right to impose the actual mandated minimum sentence, minus time already served.
As for the Bundys, they're a bunch of freeloaders who simultaneously think that the federal government should give ranchers thousands and thousands of acres of land for free, and that the welfare state is illegal and socialistic; that the federal government is illegal and eeevil, and that they themselves are the true patriots of America; that the Feds need to give the land "back," and that they should give it to people whose families never owned it in the first place. They fly American flags while preaching treason and sedition.
edit: I live in Oregon.
*regardless of what you think of mandatory minimum sentences, they are the current law and these guys are exactly the type to back mandatory minimum laws for other people.
The 'mandatory minimum' for arson and destruction of federal property is five years. The initial judge disagreed with the federally mandated minimum,* and decided to impose a lesser sentence. The state appealed the sentence, and eventually the state won after several rounds of appeals and won the right to impose the actual mandated minimum sentence, minus time already served.
As for the Bundys, they're a bunch of freeloaders who simultaneously think that the federal government should give ranchers thousands and thousands of acres of land for free, and that the welfare state is illegal and socialistic; that the federal government is illegal and eeevil, and that they themselves are the true patriots of America; that the Feds need to give the land "back," and that they should give it to people whose families never owned it in the first place. They fly American flags while preaching treason and sedition.
edit: I live in Oregon.
*regardless of what you think of mandatory minimum sentences, they are the current law and these guys are exactly the type to back mandatory minimum laws for other people.
Believe you me, I trust you, as a resident of Oregon, implicitly about this situation. As I live in the Spokane area of Washington state, which is very close to the state line with Idaho, I had a better vantage point regarding Randy Weaver and his family, and the siege at Ruby Ridge than any of the people who still defend Randy Weaver, even today. The thing is, country people who spout racist idiocy, and whose twisted view of the Constitution inspires them to take on the federal government, or who get orders directly from God rarely - if ever- are in the right frame of mind.
I think it's been explained to you enough times that we weren't' necessarily defending Weaver but condemning the actions of federal law enforcement in that case.
And I've explained again and again, the person ultimately responsible for what had happened there was Randy Weaver. His own lawyer later said Weaver had admitted such to him.
By that logic, if someone cuts me off in traffic and I catch up to them and empty a magazine into thier car they are responsible for me shooting them. That's called victim blaming and here you are doing it.
I think you know that's comparing apples to oranges. The feds regrettably went into overkill after the local law enforcement was too afraid of that racist cracker to bring him in for thumbing his nose at his day in court. And that was because Weaver had threatened his neighbors at gun point, either because they were of mixed race, or because they had disagreed with his lunatic racism. The feds admittedly fell on their faces when they didn't check out his story that he had served with special forces in Vietnam - he hadn't - but everyone took his lie about being a trained killer seriously. That, and the fact that he was associated with other violent racists in the Aryan Nations made federal law enforcement believe they had to go in with the anticipation of a shootout. The idea that Randy Weaver and his insane wife (who by the way claimed she received visions from God that they would be safe from the apocalypse in the mountains out west) were harmless eccentrics just wanting to be left alone is a lie told by the far right in their zeal to worship anti-government types, and to villainize the federal government.
13 Jan 2016, 11:46 am
Many right-wing people want to have universal right to bear arm like in America.
In part because our government does not care about the citizens, that is, but only cares about those with thick wallets 
When will communism important were the connections and family ties, now we have democracies but rather could be called corrupted plutocracy,
Many Poles, including myself, would like to be more direct democracy.
Many wanted to or not a limited right to bear arms, maybe then the government would be better heard from citizens if one of our VIPs ended up with a bullet in their head
13 Jan 2016, 1:16 pm
Kraichgauer wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
LKL wrote:
The ranchers (the Hammonds) in question were tried and convicted, once, for deliberately setting two fires that spread to public land. Given that this is wide-open territory, and that the area is extremely dry, and the time of year that the fires were set, the ranchers could *not* claim that they did not expect the fires to spread. In the second case, they forced an encampment of wildland firefighters to flee from the new fire because the ranchers neither asked permission nor warned the firefighters. The government claims that at least one of the fires was set to destroy evidence of illegal poaching; the Hammonds claim that they were setting fires to clear brush and prevent the spread of other fires. A jury of their peers found the government's claims more believable.
The 'mandatory minimum' for arson and destruction of federal property is five years. The initial judge disagreed with the federally mandated minimum,* and decided to impose a lesser sentence. The state appealed the sentence, and eventually the state won after several rounds of appeals and won the right to impose the actual mandated minimum sentence, minus time already served.
As for the Bundys, they're a bunch of freeloaders who simultaneously think that the federal government should give ranchers thousands and thousands of acres of land for free, and that the welfare state is illegal and socialistic; that the federal government is illegal and eeevil, and that they themselves are the true patriots of America; that the Feds need to give the land "back," and that they should give it to people whose families never owned it in the first place. They fly American flags while preaching treason and sedition.
edit: I live in Oregon.
*regardless of what you think of mandatory minimum sentences, they are the current law and these guys are exactly the type to back mandatory minimum laws for other people.
The 'mandatory minimum' for arson and destruction of federal property is five years. The initial judge disagreed with the federally mandated minimum,* and decided to impose a lesser sentence. The state appealed the sentence, and eventually the state won after several rounds of appeals and won the right to impose the actual mandated minimum sentence, minus time already served.
As for the Bundys, they're a bunch of freeloaders who simultaneously think that the federal government should give ranchers thousands and thousands of acres of land for free, and that the welfare state is illegal and socialistic; that the federal government is illegal and eeevil, and that they themselves are the true patriots of America; that the Feds need to give the land "back," and that they should give it to people whose families never owned it in the first place. They fly American flags while preaching treason and sedition.
edit: I live in Oregon.
*regardless of what you think of mandatory minimum sentences, they are the current law and these guys are exactly the type to back mandatory minimum laws for other people.
Believe you me, I trust you, as a resident of Oregon, implicitly about this situation. As I live in the Spokane area of Washington state, which is very close to the state line with Idaho, I had a better vantage point regarding Randy Weaver and his family, and the siege at Ruby Ridge than any of the people who still defend Randy Weaver, even today. The thing is, country people who spout racist idiocy, and whose twisted view of the Constitution inspires them to take on the federal government, or who get orders directly from God rarely - if ever- are in the right frame of mind.
I think it's been explained to you enough times that we weren't' necessarily defending Weaver but condemning the actions of federal law enforcement in that case.
And I've explained again and again, the person ultimately responsible for what had happened there was Randy Weaver. His own lawyer later said Weaver had admitted such to him.
By that logic, if someone cuts me off in traffic and I catch up to them and empty a magazine into thier car they are responsible for me shooting them. That's called victim blaming and here you are doing it.
I think you know that's comparing apples to oranges. The feds regrettably went into overkill after the local law enforcement was too afraid of that racist cracker to bring him in for thumbing his nose at his day in court. And that was because Weaver had threatened his neighbors at gun point, either because they were of mixed race, or because they had disagreed with his lunatic racism. The feds admittedly fell on their faces when they didn't check out his story that he had served with special forces in Vietnam - he hadn't - but everyone took his lie about being a trained killer seriously. That, and the fact that he was associated with other violent racists in the Aryan Nations made federal law enforcement believe they had to go in with the anticipation of a shootout. The idea that Randy Weaver and his insane wife (who by the way claimed she received visions from God that they would be safe from the apocalypse in the mountains out west) were harmless eccentrics just wanting to be left alone is a lie told by the far right in their zeal to worship anti-government types, and to villainize the federal government.
And I thnk you know this is about the feds, not Weaver. I've studied up on this case and have a pretty good idea what happened from the beginning and apparently I can look at the case with a more analytical non-partisan mind than you. Big surprise there.
All you're doing here (again) is trying to build a weak case justifying murder at the hands of federal agents by vilifying the victims (i.e. victim blaming). You're really not bothered by the gross lack of discipline within federal law enforcement agencies as long as their victims are being naughty. Tap dance around it all you want but that's the gist of it. We've been over all his before more than once.
13 Jan 2016, 1:26 pm
pawelk1986 wrote:
Many right-wing people want to have universal right to bear arm like in America.
Fortunately, our forefathers had the foresight to include the right of the citizenry to keep and bear arms as an enumerated right in our constitution. Of course, the liberals have tried their damndest to misinterpret and or just remove this right from the constitution.
Quote:
In part because our government does not care about the citizens, that is, but only cares about those with thick wallets
The only time our government cares is when elected officials in charge fear being replaced in office by angry voters in their districts. Right and wrong means little to them but keeping thier office does.
13 Jan 2016, 2:43 pm
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,796
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
13 Jan 2016, 6:05 pm
Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
LKL wrote:
The ranchers (the Hammonds) in question were tried and convicted, once, for deliberately setting two fires that spread to public land. Given that this is wide-open territory, and that the area is extremely dry, and the time of year that the fires were set, the ranchers could *not* claim that they did not expect the fires to spread. In the second case, they forced an encampment of wildland firefighters to flee from the new fire because the ranchers neither asked permission nor warned the firefighters. The government claims that at least one of the fires was set to destroy evidence of illegal poaching; the Hammonds claim that they were setting fires to clear brush and prevent the spread of other fires. A jury of their peers found the government's claims more believable.
The 'mandatory minimum' for arson and destruction of federal property is five years. The initial judge disagreed with the federally mandated minimum,* and decided to impose a lesser sentence. The state appealed the sentence, and eventually the state won after several rounds of appeals and won the right to impose the actual mandated minimum sentence, minus time already served.
As for the Bundys, they're a bunch of freeloaders who simultaneously think that the federal government should give ranchers thousands and thousands of acres of land for free, and that the welfare state is illegal and socialistic; that the federal government is illegal and eeevil, and that they themselves are the true patriots of America; that the Feds need to give the land "back," and that they should give it to people whose families never owned it in the first place. They fly American flags while preaching treason and sedition.
edit: I live in Oregon.
*regardless of what you think of mandatory minimum sentences, they are the current law and these guys are exactly the type to back mandatory minimum laws for other people.
The 'mandatory minimum' for arson and destruction of federal property is five years. The initial judge disagreed with the federally mandated minimum,* and decided to impose a lesser sentence. The state appealed the sentence, and eventually the state won after several rounds of appeals and won the right to impose the actual mandated minimum sentence, minus time already served.
As for the Bundys, they're a bunch of freeloaders who simultaneously think that the federal government should give ranchers thousands and thousands of acres of land for free, and that the welfare state is illegal and socialistic; that the federal government is illegal and eeevil, and that they themselves are the true patriots of America; that the Feds need to give the land "back," and that they should give it to people whose families never owned it in the first place. They fly American flags while preaching treason and sedition.
edit: I live in Oregon.
*regardless of what you think of mandatory minimum sentences, they are the current law and these guys are exactly the type to back mandatory minimum laws for other people.
Believe you me, I trust you, as a resident of Oregon, implicitly about this situation. As I live in the Spokane area of Washington state, which is very close to the state line with Idaho, I had a better vantage point regarding Randy Weaver and his family, and the siege at Ruby Ridge than any of the people who still defend Randy Weaver, even today. The thing is, country people who spout racist idiocy, and whose twisted view of the Constitution inspires them to take on the federal government, or who get orders directly from God rarely - if ever- are in the right frame of mind.
I think it's been explained to you enough times that we weren't' necessarily defending Weaver but condemning the actions of federal law enforcement in that case.
And I've explained again and again, the person ultimately responsible for what had happened there was Randy Weaver. His own lawyer later said Weaver had admitted such to him.
By that logic, if someone cuts me off in traffic and I catch up to them and empty a magazine into thier car they are responsible for me shooting them. That's called victim blaming and here you are doing it.
I think you know that's comparing apples to oranges. The feds regrettably went into overkill after the local law enforcement was too afraid of that racist cracker to bring him in for thumbing his nose at his day in court. And that was because Weaver had threatened his neighbors at gun point, either because they were of mixed race, or because they had disagreed with his lunatic racism. The feds admittedly fell on their faces when they didn't check out his story that he had served with special forces in Vietnam - he hadn't - but everyone took his lie about being a trained killer seriously. That, and the fact that he was associated with other violent racists in the Aryan Nations made federal law enforcement believe they had to go in with the anticipation of a shootout. The idea that Randy Weaver and his insane wife (who by the way claimed she received visions from God that they would be safe from the apocalypse in the mountains out west) were harmless eccentrics just wanting to be left alone is a lie told by the far right in their zeal to worship anti-government types, and to villainize the federal government.
And I thnk you know this is about the feds, not Weaver. I've studied up on this case and have a pretty good idea what happened from the beginning and apparently I can look at the case with a more analytical non-partisan mind than you. Big surprise there.
All you're doing here (again) is trying to build a weak case justifying murder at the hands of federal agents by vilifying the victims (i.e. victim blaming). You're really not bothered by the gross lack of discipline within federal law enforcement agencies as long as their victims are being naughty. Tap dance around it all you want but that's the gist of it. We've been over all his before more than once.
Ah, you seem to have a problem with victim blaming as long as that victim isn't someone you'd deem a wimp or sissy who doesn't fight back. Remember those famous words, "The meek shall inherit the earth." I'm pretty certain the "meek" doesn't include gun toting, racist psychopaths.
And in closing, there is more than enough partisan, right wing crap out there making Randy Weaver out to be a victim, but that doesn't make it right. And law enforcement does take action when people are "naughty."
13 Jan 2016, 8:45 pm
