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.
Sigh, you folks should read a LOT more of the details on the case.
For example-they threatened to frame one of the firefighters for it if he reported them. Or that one of the witnesses was their nephew-whom they had abused physically.
These folks aren't exactly the nicest people.
As for the charges...they were found guilty by a jury, the judge imposed a illegal sentence, and it was appealed....and they lost. Additionally they dont want the Yall'queda involved.
No kidding. These Hammonds and their cronies have been involved with blatantly transgressing laws, threatening violence, and destroying property since at least the early 1990s.
You need to do a little more research before making these claims. They were not charged with terrorism or under a 'terrorism statue'. The Hammonds were charged and convicted of arson on federal land, which under a law passed by congress (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996), has a 5 year minimum sentence. The poaching allegations were actually supported by the testimony of 4 witnesses, the relative mentioned previously, two hunters and a hunting guide.
Quote:
Originally Posted by phantompilot
They didn't harm the land, and they already paid a financial settlement to the federal government for damages (??) and costs it claimed were incurred in fighting the fire (some $400K).
The poaching allegation seems to be fabricated by an unreliable witness. But in any case, they are charged under a terrorism statute, the intent of which is plainly stated to combat TERRORISM, which means deliberate and specific intentional acts directed against "government property" or government employees. It is an abuse of the justice system.
The law should only be applied to the subject matter with which it is concerned. Arson laws already existed. There is no reason to invoke terror statutes designed to deter terrorism for incidents which have no nexus to terror. It is abusive.
You might get a better reaction to your claims if you were to use a less partisan source.... just saying.
Quote:
Originally Posted by josie13
No kidding. These Hammonds and their cronies have been involved with blatantly transgressing laws, threatening violence, and destroying property since at least the early 1990s.
The poaching allegation seems to be fabricated by an unreliable witness.
An "unreliable" witness who took the stand, testified, underwent cross examination and in the end 12 men and women found his testimony to be factual and true.
Quote:
Arson laws already existed.
Look, they were convicted of terrorism charges, but rather
Title 18, United States Code, section 844(f)(1):
(f)
(1) Whoever maliciously damages or destroys, or attempts to damage or destroy, by means of fire or an explosive, any building, vehicle, or other personal or real property in whole or in part owned or possessed by, or leased to, the United States, or any department or agency thereof, or any institution or organization receiving Federal financial assistance, shall be imprisoned for not less than 5 years and not more than 20 years, fined under this title, or both.
Not only did the Yahoos get the minimum sentence of 5 years, they were convicted of multiple 844 violations which the Government could have recommended be served consequently. Instead, the government recommended that the sentences be served concurrently.
While I respect law enforcements decision to keep a low profile - at some point they are going to have to step in before this becomes a complete circus. In addition to this new update, the whack jobs have also started driving around in BLM vehicles, which would also add car theft to their growing list of crimes.
While I respect law enforcements decision to keep a low profile - at some point they are going to have to step in before this becomes a complete circus. In addition to this new update, the whack jobs have also started driving around in BLM vehicles, which would also add car theft to their growing list of crimes.
Why is law enforcement even letting people into the occupied area? They need to set up a perimeter around these guys. Otherwise this thing could go on forever with sympathisers dropping off supplies for them.
While I respect law enforcements decision to keep a low profile - at some point they are going to have to step in before this becomes a complete circus. In addition to this new update, the whack jobs have also started driving around in BLM vehicles, which would also add car theft to their growing list of crimes.
It must really increase their feelings of manhood to be able to do something so brazen like this. Just like the good old days.
it is very strange that the government appealed the original sentence.
It's not one bit strange, the sentencing judge knew about the mandatory minimum and decided that it was 'unconstitutional', judges do not have the power to ignore a mandatory minimum because they don't like it- they are bound by the law to impose sentence in accord with statutory guidelines. That kind of arrogance on the part of the judge would have been challenged by the prosecutor in any court, whether state or federal. This particular action went all the way to the Supreme Court which refused to hear the case and let the 9th circuit decision stand.
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.
