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.
A few weeds, he burnt 140 acres and put other peoples property and lives in danger and he did it twice. He ignored the fact that he couldn't set fires on federal property and ignored a ban on fires period.
He set the fires on his own property and they spread. And yes, 140 acres in the "middle of nowhere" is a few acres. In my state alone the Forest Service owns some 20 MILLION acres.
Now, do you feel that federal workers (and their managers) that let a controlled burn spread and burn 48,000 acres of public and private land, and some 400 homes, should be in prison? I certainly do. Would you care to guess how much time they have served?
Erik Erickson, formerly from Red State and also a frequent contributor on CNN, has penned the following excellent comment on this that I wish to associate myself with:
The double standard doesn't lie just with the media.
Be that as it may, what ever the argument is it needs to be made in court not be capturing a federal building and land. They should do a siege just wait them out don't let anything in or out.
How has making your argument in court worked out for blacks?
I think it is about time the ranch economies of the West paid the rest of us the full cost of providing grazing and irrigation water. We should also cease the crop subsidies and the Gasohol programs. that would save the rest of us quite a lot of money.
We, the rest of the population, do not owe you Westerners anything.
I suggest just placing an absolute siege on these folks. No contacts, nor phones, no power, no food and no water. Then arrest then as they drag their frozen starving carcasses out into the cold. There is no need for a firefight even if they start shooting first. If the shoot anyone than add murder to the insurrection, terrorism and trespassing charges.
BTW - We, operating through our Congress, authorized the Federal government to administer the lands we captured from the native occupants. Most of the time these lands were then developed by the application of tremendous amounts of federal money building dams and irrigation systems that have never paid for themselves thorough water payments. Grazing lands were similarly subsidized. The Federal government (the rest of us) has done far more for the West than it has done for us.
FWIW - As far as I know there is nothing in the Constitution that prevents the Federal government from owing land or anything else.
Not to mention all the infrastructure the Fed Govt built, that we in the East paid for all those dams that supply that desert area water. The Fed Govt acquired that land thru treaties with Mexico, or Russia, or thru conquest. No white Americans lived there, and then the US Army provided these people protection from the Native Americans. These states out west were nothing but Fed property from the beginning, unlike my state which was a British colony. The incredible chutzpah of these ingrates. That land is Federal property, and has been since it was acquired.
He set the fires on his own property and they spread. And yes, 140 acres in the "middle of nowhere" is a few acres. In my state alone the Forest Service owns some 20 MILLION acres.
Now, do you feel that federal workers (and their managers) that let a controlled burn spread and burn 48,000 acres of public and private land, and some 400 homes, should be in prison? I certainly do. Would you care to guess how much time they have served?
The started fires 3 times on federal lands to protect his own property, the 140 acres was out of service for 2 years.
Yes sometimes federal controlled burns get out of control that doesn't give every landowner a license to do as he wishes. There was also the issue with deer poaching being covered up by the fire.
He premeditated this action to cover his tracks, he was convicted by a jury and the first judge was too lenient.
Best explanation I have seen of his actions from DOJ:
Quote:
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.
The started fires 3 times on federal lands to protect his own property, the 140 acres was out of service for 2 years.
Yes sometimes federal controlled burns get out of control that doesn't give every landowner a license to do as he wishes. There was also the issue with deer poaching being covered up by the fire.
He premeditated this action to cover his tracks, he was convicted by a jury and the first judge was too lenient.
Best explanation I have seen of his actions from DOJ:
They served the time they were sentenced to. Retroactively adding time to one's sentence is not how our system is supposed to work.
Agreed! Under the minimum sentencing rules enacted by congress, the original judge screwed up in his original sentence. He was the one at fault here.
However, it seems that the real issue here is the injustice of minimum sentencing requirements, yet none of the whack jobs seem to be talking about this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
They served the time they were sentenced to. Retroactively adding time to one's sentence is not how our system is supposed to work.
Agreed! Under the minimum sentencing rules enacted by congress, the original judge screwed up in his original sentence. He was the one at fault here.
However, it seems that the real issue here is the injustice of minimum sentencing requirements, yet none of the whack jobs seem to be talking about this.
Those minimum sentences were meant to lock up young black men for minor drug offenses, not god-fearing white patriots. By all means, NOW we must reconsider the injustice.
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.
