E T
1:08 AM CST
Tough case. Public buildings are open to the public, and these were reportedly unlocked. There is no such crime as "breaking and entering" in Oregon. It doesn't even become trespassing until they are asked to leave. Once they are trespassed, it might be stretched to burglary; assuming the purpose of the burgle was to trespass, or vandalize the building by laying out bedrolls.
It reminds me of all those people who get arrested and beaten for nothing but "resisting arrest."
I would have felt much better if they were arrested for something other than "disobeying the gubment." I'm a firm supporter of the "no harm-no crime" doctrine of administering justice. In this case, it appears that the only measurable harm they caused was in the form of added government expenditures towards trying to control the situation. When the basis for accounting their actual harm caused is the government saying "look what you've made us do," it feels like the government is partially at fault for allowing/causing their actions to have such measurable consequences.
For the record, I share some of their sentiments regarding the need for publicly held lands to be available for the people to use in a prosperous manner, but think this particular course of action was a poor choice in venue and timing. People should be able to harvest lumber from forests, instead of paying to try putting out forest fires. People should be able to use viable grasslands for forage to raise food animals, but they should severely limit access of hoofed animal herds to naturally flowing stream banks; instead opting for stock ponds and reservoirs served by pumps or diversion ditches.
They might have done better to pick a place closer to population density, in a warmer season, and for a much more defensible instigating factor than the Hammonds' arson case. Land use rights is an important and relevant issue if we wish not to be enslaved by corporate oligarchs controlling the means of production.
It reminds me of all those people who get arrested and beaten for nothing but "resisting arrest."
I would have felt much better if they were arrested for something other than "disobeying the gubment." I'm a firm supporter of the "no harm-no crime" doctrine of administering justice. In this case, it appears that the only measurable harm they caused was in the form of added government expenditures towards trying to control the situation. When the basis for accounting their actual harm caused is the government saying "look what you've made us do," it feels like the government is partially at fault for allowing/causing their actions to have such measurable consequences.
For the record, I share some of their sentiments regarding the need for publicly held lands to be available for the people to use in a prosperous manner, but think this particular course of action was a poor choice in venue and timing. People should be able to harvest lumber from forests, instead of paying to try putting out forest fires. People should be able to use viable grasslands for forage to raise food animals, but they should severely limit access of hoofed animal herds to naturally flowing stream banks; instead opting for stock ponds and reservoirs served by pumps or diversion ditches.
They might have done better to pick a place closer to population density, in a warmer season, and for a much more defensible instigating factor than the Hammonds' arson case. Land use rights is an important and relevant issue if we wish not to be enslaved by corporate oligarchs controlling the means of production.
No comments:
Post a Comment