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.
Starting forest fires out here is illegal, the brave men and women who fight these fires risk their lives each time there is a new one. So 5 years in prison is very much justified for the lives they put in danger.
Agreed. Forest fires are a huge problem in Oregon just about every year.
We don't need dumb rednecks who think they're above the law making the situation worse and putting firefighters lives at risk.
Starting forest fires out here is illegal, the brave men and women who fight these fires risk their lives each time there is a new one. So 5 years in prison is very much justified for the lives they put in danger.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JasonF
Agreed. Forest fires are a huge problem in Oregon just about every year.
We don't need dumb rednecks who think they're above the law making the situation worse and putting firefighters lives at risk.
If anything they're getting off light.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JasonF
Let's say the claim is false, despite the multiple witnesses, including a relative, who testified about the reason for the arson.
So what? That doesn't make arson suddenly not a crime.
The Hammonds are claiming that they were clearing overgrowth, this was not a deliberate act of arson. Use of controlled burns is a very common practice in land management.
There are claims that this is being done because the Hammonds will not sell their land, and that the government has been used to harasses them.
If the government is using bogus claims of arson to supposedly cover up poaching, to harass people because they refuse to sell their land, you could understand why people would be protesting.
They give patriots a bad name with their phony excuses for armed resistance.
A jury of their peers have found the Hammonds guilty. The state has sentenced them. The phony patriots want to paint a picture of these poor homesteaders not giving up their land to the evil government. that is patently false.
What actually happened is that the Hammonds slaughtered a whole herd of deer on federal land, killing 7 in a random shoot and leaving numerous blood trails for the many more who were wounded and crawled away. they did it so there wouldn't be any large herds on the land so they could graze their cattle and make more money. They wanted that grazing land for their own use when in reality, the land and all the resources on it belonged to the people and not to the Hammonds.
They convinced a cousin to set fire to the area of the wildlife slaughter to cover it up as they knew it was a heinous crime against the wildlife resources and done strictly out of greed. They wanted the wild herds to disappear from that land so they could use the land for their cattle. They already served one year but the state thought it was so heinous a crime that they gave them another 4 years.
Any other piece of bovine pie the phony patriots try to feed you is just that. Pure excrement. Both Hammonds are scheduled to voluntarily return to jail tomorrow, Monday and they said they would comply.
In a very Palenesque way, the Bundy's are trying to capitalize on the whole incident with lies and distortions just to further their agenda of armed conflict with the government.
Government should go in with force and remove those false patriots from public land. they want an armed fight, give it to them.
I don't think the arson is legitimately an act of terrorism. It was arson though. They did not burn their own private land, they were burning leased public land that is not theirs alone without the proper permits. They put firefighters' lives at risk because they, on their own, without adequate resources to control a controlled burn, started fires in a dry area with high wildfire danger. Grazing cattle on public land is a privilege not a right and it comes with many strings attached that need to be accepted by the ranchers.
But the posters calling people derogatory terms like "rednecks" and those who make this a second amendment issue are not doing anyone any favors.
01-03-2016, 01:19 PM
i7pXFLbhE3gq
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by stburr91
The Hammonds are claiming that they were clearing overgrowth, this was not a deliberate act of arson. Use of controlled burns is a very common practice in land management.
We don't let random yokels start their own controlled burns. The 2006 incident that the son got convicted for was apparently supposed to be a controlled burn that got way out of hand (hence why we don't let random yokels start their own "controlled" burns - he lost control and put firefighters' lives in danger).
Quote:
There are claims that this is being done because the Hammonds will not sell their land, and that the government has been used to harasses them.
Even if that's true (maybe it is - their land is apparently mixed in with BLM land), so what? That doesn't excuse being a couple of serial arsonists.
Quote:
If the government is using bogus claims of arson to supposedly cover up poaching, to harass people because they refuse to sell their land, you could understand why people would be protesting.
Even the people who committed the arson admit that the claims aren't bogus. They're just butt hurt that they actually have to serve significant jail time for it, in addition to the $400,000 bill they have to pay for firefighting costs as part of a settlement with BLM.
Sucks for them, but there are consequences to setting federal land on fire.
The Hammonds are claiming that they were clearing overgrowth, this was not a deliberate act of arson. Use of controlled burns is a very common practice in land management.
There are claims that this is being done because the Hammonds will not sell their land, and that the government has been used to harasses them.
If the government is using bogus claims of arson to supposedly cover up poaching, to harass people because they refuse to sell their land, you could understand why people would be protesting.
That doesn't matter if it was deliberate or accident, it is still dangerous and puts lives at risk.
They give patriots a bad name with their phony excuses for armed resistance.
A jury of their peers have found the Hammonds guilty. The state has sentenced them. The phony patriots want to paint a picture of these poor homesteaders not giving up their land to the evil government. that is patently false.
What actually happened is that the Hammonds slaughtered a whole herd of deer on federal land, killing 7 in a random shoot and leaving numerous blood trails for the many more who were wounded and crawled away. they did it so there wouldn't be any large herds on the land so they could graze their cattle and make more money. They wanted that grazing land for their own use when in reality, the land and all the resources on it belonged to the people and not to the Hammonds.
They convinced a cousin to set fire to the area of the wildlife slaughter to cover it up as they knew it was a heinous crime against the wildlife resources and done strictly out of greed. They wanted the wild herds to disappear from that land so they could use the land for their cattle. They already served one year but the state thought it was so heinous a crime that they gave them another 4 years.
Any other piece of bovine pie the phony patriots try to feed you is just that. Pure excrement. Both Hammonds are scheduled to voluntarily return to jail tomorrow, Monday and they said they would comply.
In a very Palenesque way, the Bundy's are trying to capitalize on the whole incident with lies and distortions just to further their agenda of armed conflict with the government.
Government should go in with force and remove those false patriots from public land. they want an armed fight, give it to them.
Do you have proof that they were poaching? Why were there no poaching charges? You seem to be making a lot of claims without proof.
The Hammonds were leasing land from the government, and had the right to graze their cattle there. They weren't trying to steal the land like you are implying.
Quote:
Originally Posted by arctichomesteader
I don't think the arson is legitimately an act of terrorism. It was arson though. They did not burn their own private land, they were burning leased public land that is not theirs alone without the proper permits. They put firefighters' lives at risk because they, on their own, without adequate resources to control a controlled burn, started fires in a dry area with high wildfire danger. Grazing cattle on public land is a privilege not a right and it comes with many strings attached that need to be accepted by the ranchers.
But the posters calling people derogatory terms like "rednecks" and those who make this a second amendment issue are not doing anyone any favors.
You know, I agree with you that the Hammonds acted irresponsibly by burning in the dry season, but 5 years in prison seems pretty harsh.
If there is any truth to the claims that this is being done to put them out of business, because they wouldn't sell their land, that would be a despicable act by a tyrannical government.
]Do you have proof that they were poaching? Why were there no poaching charges? You seem to be making a lot of claims without proof[/u].
Quote:
Originally Posted by stburr91;42493136[B[U
[/b]
The Hammonds were leasing land from the government, and had the right to graze their cattle there. They weren't trying to steal the land like you are implying.
You know, I agree with you that the Hammonds acted irresponsibly by burning in the dry season, but 5 years in prison seems pretty harsh.
If there is any truth to the claims that this is being done to put them out of business, because they wouldn't sell their land, that would be a despicable act by a tyrannical government.
Glad to oblige.. I have more if you need further verification but this is from the Office of the Attorney General of the State of Oregon.
"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."
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.
