Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I would recommend reading the details of what they were convicted of doing before standing up for these poor ranchers:
Quote:
A jury sitting in Pendleton, Oregon found the Hammonds guilty of the arsons after a two-week trial in June 2012. The trial involved allegations that the Hammonds, owners of Hammond Ranches, Inc., ignited a series of fires on lands managed by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), on which the Hammonds had grazing rights leased to them for their cattle operation.
The jury convicted both of the Hammonds of using fire to destroy federal property for a 2001 arson known as the Hardie-Hammond Fire, located in the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area. Witnesses at trial, including a relative of the Hammonds, testified the arson occurred shortly after Steven Hammond and his hunting party illegally slaughtered several deer on BLM property. Jurors were told that Steven Hammond handed out “Strike Anywhere” matches with instructions that they be lit and dropped on the ground because they were going to “light up the whole country on fire.” One witness testified that he barely escaped the eight to ten foot high flames caused by the arson. The fire consumed 139 acres of public land and destroyed all evidence of the game violations. After committing the arson, Steven Hammond called the BLM office in Burns, Oregon and claimed the fire was started on Hammond property to burn off invasive species and had inadvertently burned onto public lands. Dwight and Steven Hammond told one of their relatives to keep his mouth shut and that nobody needed to know about the fire.
So, yeah these guys were found guilty by a jury of intentionally setting fire to public land. The more recent issue is the sentencing for these crimes and 'mandatory minimum sentences' leading to a 5 year jail term. I am not sure I agree with mandatory minimum sentences, but that in no way makes these ranchers the good guys here.
It was started on private property and they got permission to do so, it spread to BLM land. Thats jail worthy while being an accomplice to the boston bombing is not? LOL
If you read the whole story, they burned it to cover up poaching.
If you read the whole story, they burned it to cover up poaching.
Bunk. Poaching has never been an issue in this case.
And the charges of "terrorism" stemmed from a backburn the Hammonds started in 2006 during a wildfire that threatened their place. Not the prescribed burn for which they had a permit.
Rural Oregonians take arson very seriously. The only thing less popular than a firebug is a cattle rustler, though murderers are almost as unpopular. I'm sure the Hammonds know they will be much safer in prison.
Bunk. Poaching has never been an issue in this case.
And the charges of "terrorism" stemmed from a backburn the Hammonds started in 2006 during a wildfire that threatened their place. Not the prescribed burn for which they had a permit.
Go with documented facts.
Go read the trial transcript. Several witnesses testified, including one of his relatives, that they burned It to cover poaching.
My gut instinct tells me that the Feds are about done playing this game. Attaching the name "Bundy" to any cause immediately raises speculation. There little "show down" in Nevada attracted some real problems...Two of their alleged outcasts, ultimately assasinated two police officers in cold blood. It is reported that Hammond found Bundys intrusive presence, unwelcome...enough said !
I'd be curious how many of those "occupiers" are armed...I wish only for the safety of all parties concerned...However do not believe the Bundy clan wants a peaceful resolution...they want cheap press...time for the Feds to stop catering to their antics !
01-03-2016, 05:00 PM
i7pXFLbhE3gq
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by branDcalf
Yeah. It's a ridiculous situation there. The Hammond men already did jail time from the first sentencing. Then the Feds come back, after the guys are out, and demand and get additional time.
How does that even happen legally? If that doesn't scare people...
Simple. The judge in the case ignored the law and handed them a slap on the wrist. The prosecution appealed and easily won, so now they have to serve the minimum sentence mandated by federal statute.
It was started on private property and they got permission to do so, it spread to BLM land. Thats jail worthy while being an accomplice to the boston bombing is not? LOL
Woah there, I never made any comment on whether it was jail worthy.
I was pointing out you intentionally misled in your thread title. You said "controlled burn and back burn on private property" but you now acknowledge it wasn't in control and spread to property that wasn't private.
The sentence being unjust doesn't make you any less of a liar.
So, yeah these guys were found guilty by a jury of intentionally setting fire to public land. The more recent issue is the sentencing for these crimes and 'mandatory minimum sentences' leading to a 5 year jail term. I am not sure I agree with mandatory minimum sentences, but that in no way makes these ranchers the good guys here.
Agree. I don't agree with the government trying to put these guys back in jail for the same crime. I mean the government let them out right? Too bad so sad for the US Government. But idolizing these ranchers isn't the smartest move either. IMO this "patriot group" are just exploiting the Hammond angle for their personal gain.
Woah there, I never made any comment on whether it was jail worthy.
I was pointing out you intentionally misled in your thread title. You said "controlled burn and back burn on private property" but you now acknowledge it wasn't in control and spread to property that wasn't private.
The sentence being unjust doesn't make you any less of a liar.
The lit the fire on private property, it MAY HAVE spread to federal property and a whole acre burned .
It is not entirely clear if it did actually spread as the burn was set to control an ongoing fire and if it did, lol a whole acre? oh no.
The 1st fire has less clear justifications around it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. 
