This is gonna get interesting! Militia takes over Ore. federal building after protest.

[pnwmystery]

It wasn't a fair trial either. Just look into it.

I have. It was. It was even appealed and if the appelate court found it to be an unfair trail they would've said so and upheld the ruling. What was unfair was them not serving their sentence because they were friends with their local judge when you know if it was anyone else they would've been slammed with the book.

 

[whitebb2727]

Unfortunately you have multiple eyewitnesses - people who were there - say that he did it. What do they have to gain? Or is this going to run into a conspiracy where all of their family friends are now going to get land/water rights for dirt cheap because they put the Hammonds in jail?

You have never been part of a back burn.

Mr Hammond "here take these matches we are going to light a fire and burn this whole area down."

Confused eye witness that has never done a back burn.
"Burn the whole area?"

Now with a little manipulation and threats from the prosecutor you can see how they ended testifying to save their own ass.

It happens all the time. People rat and even lie when threatened with max punishments.

 

[whitebb2727]

I have. It was. It was even appealed and if the appelate court found it to be an unfair trail they would've said so and upheld the ruling. What was unfair was them not serving their sentence because they were friends with their local judge when you know if it was anyone else they would've been slammed with the book.

Then you know that the prosecutor had six days with discovery and defense only one.

You also know that the jury was pushed for a quick verdict.

Appeal was lost. Wow someone lost an appeal against government in a government ran court room.

 

[pnwmystery]

You have never been part of a back burn.

Mr Hammond "here take these matches we are going to light a fire and burn this whole area down."

Confused eye witness that has never done a back burn.
"Burn the whole area?"

Now with a little manipulation and threats from the prosecutor you can see how they ended testifying to save their own ass.

It happens all the time. People rat and even lie when threatened with max punishments.

Two separate incidents. If anything the Hammonds are getting off light. In 2001 they set fire to cover up their illegal killing of deer. That's when their teenage relative who was a part of it testified in court that the elder Hammond (I think) gave out strike anywhere matches. The second time in 2006 was part of a back burn when there was a burn ban because there were fires in the area. Sure, you can say "Well they were just protecting their property!" But the problem here is that a fire like that can very quickly spread out of control -- which it did. Here's the thing on why they're getting off light: They can be charged separately for each incident thus leading to two convictions each 5 years making their prison time 10 years. What did the prosecutor reach with the Hammonds? That they would serve their sentence concurrently, which means that they'd be charged with one count for the two incidents. Moreover...

"Given the seriousness of arson, a five-year sentence is not grossly disproportionate to the offense. The Supreme Court has upheld far tougher sentences for less serious or, at the very least, comparable offenses. See Lockyer v. Andrade,
538 U.S. 63 (2003) (upholding a sentence of fifty years to life under California’s three-strikes law for stealing nine
videotapes); Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11 (2003) (upholding a sentence of twenty-five years to life under California’s three-strikes law for the theft of three golf clubs); Hutto v. Davis, 454 U.S. 370 (1982) (per curiam) (upholding a forty-year sentence for possession of nine ounces of marijuana with the intent to distribute); Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S. 263 (1980) (upholding a life sentence under Texas’s recidivist statute for obtaining $120.75 by false pretenses). And we and other courts have done the same. See, e.g., United States v. Tolliver, 730 F.3d 1216, 1230–32 (10th Cir. 2013) (upholding a 430-month sentence for using arson in the commission of a felony); United States v. Major, 676 F.3d 803, 812 (9th Cir. 2012) (upholding a 750-year sentence for offenses under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 280; United States v. Meiners, 485 F.3d 1211, 1212–13 (9th Cir. 2007) (per curiam) (upholding a fifteen-year sentence for advertising child pornography); United States v. Uphoff, 232 F.3d 624, 625–26 (8th Cir. 2000) (upholding a five-year sentence for arson of a building)."

 

[whitebb2727]

Two separate incidents. If anything the Hammonds are getting off light. In 2001 they set fire to cover up their illegal killing of deer. That's when their teenage relative who was a part of it testified in court that the elder Hammond (I think) gave out strike anywhere matches. The second time in 2006 was part of a back burn when there was a burn ban because there were fires in the area. Sure, you can say "Well they were just protecting their property!" But the problem here is that a fire like that can very quickly spread out of control -- which it did. Here's the thing on why they're getting off light: They can be charged separately for each incident thus leading to two convictions each 5 years making their prison time 10 years. What did the prosecutor reach with the Hammonds? That they would serve their sentence concurrently, which means that they'd be charged with one count for the two incidents. Moreover...

"Given the seriousness of arson, a five-year sentence is not grossly disproportionate to the offense. The Supreme Court has upheld far tougher sentences for less serious or, at the very least, comparable offenses. See Lockyer v. Andrade,
538 U.S. 63 (2003) (upholding a sentence of fifty years to life under California’s three-strikes law for stealing nine
videotapes); Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11 (2003) (upholding a sentence of twenty-five years to life under California’s three-strikes law for the theft of three golf clubs); Hutto v. Davis, 454 U.S. 370 (1982) (per curiam) (upholding a forty-year sentence for possession of nine ounces of marijuana with the intent to distribute); Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S. 263 (1980) (upholding a life sentence under Texas’s recidivist statute for obtaining $120.75 by false pretenses). And we and other courts have done the same. See, e.g., United States v. Tolliver, 730 F.3d 1216, 1230–32 (10th Cir. 2013) (upholding a 430-month sentence for using arson in the commission of a felony); United States v. Major, 676 F.3d 803, 812 (9th Cir. 2012) (upholding a 750-year sentence for offenses under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 280; United States v. Meiners, 485 F.3d 1211, 1212–13 (9th Cir. 2007) (per curiam) (upholding a fifteen-year sentence for advertising child pornography); United States v. Uphoff, 232 F.3d 624, 625–26 (8th Cir. 2000) (upholding a five-year sentence for arson of a building)."

It don't make sense.

They lit the place on fire to cover poaching? Where is the meat from poaching?

So you mean the family went out with a number of people and mowed down a herd of deer then burnt the place to cover it.

I'm not buying it.

That's coming from a lifetime of hunting and listening to stories from a father that was a firefighter and arson investigator.

It don't sit right with me. Sorry, it just doesn't.

 

[pnwmystery]

Then you know that the prosecutor had six days with discovery and defense only one.

You also know that the jury was pushed for a quick verdict.

Appeal was lost. Wow someone lost an appeal against government in a government ran court room.

What the hell are you on about?

This is directly from the Hammond's appeal to the Supreme Court.

"After two years of litigation, in May 2012, the government filed a superseding indictment alleging 9-counts related to four fires. SER-137.

In June 2012, the district court presided over a two-week trial. The government’s case consisted primarily of testimony from Bureau of Land Management [BLM] and other government employees; it was strongly contested by the defense via crossexamination and expert testimony. The evidence established that Steven Hammond had admitted setting two fires on his private land, which had spread to government land: the 2001 Hardie-Hammond fire, which was set to deal with problematic invasive species; and the 2006 Krumbo Butte fire, which Steven set, without BLM permission, as a back burn to stop a lightning-caused fire threatening the Hammonds’ winter feed."

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/hammond-v-united-states/

Two years of litigation. Two years.

 

[whitebb2727]

What the hell are you on about?

This is directly from the Hammond's appeal to the Supreme Court.

"After two years of litigation, in May 2012, the government filed a superseding indictment alleging 9-counts related to four fires. SER-137.

In June 2012, the district court presided over a two-week trial. The government’s case consisted primarily of testimony from Bureau of Land Management [BLM] and other government employees; it was strongly contested by the defense via crossexamination and expert testimony. The evidence established that Steven Hammond had admitted setting two fires on his private land, which had spread to government land: the 2001 Hardie-Hammond fire, which was set to deal with problematic invasive species; and the 2006 Krumbo Butte fire, which Steven set, without BLM permission, as a back burn to stop a lightning-caused fire threatening the Hammonds’ winter feed."

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/hammond-v-united-states/

And no poaching listed.

It doesn't matter they lit fires. Lighting a fire, even if it gets out of control doesn't make it arson.

 

[pnwmystery]

And no poaching listed.

It doesn't matter they lit fires. Lighting a fire, even if it gets out of control doesn't make it arson.

I was incorrect in what term I used when I used poaching, sort of. Steven and Dwight Hammond pretty much admitted to arson. What they did was arson. They started a fire to cover something up, which then burned 139 acres of public land. Then they started a fire during a burn ban without seeking a waiver. Had they seeked a waiver? Would've been fine. What you're not getting is that the Hammonds when they appealed to the Supreme Court were not looking to get the charges dropped, they were looking to get their sentences reduced.

 

[whitebb2727]

What the hell are you on about?

This is directly from the Hammond's appeal to the Supreme Court.

"After two years of litigation, in May 2012, the government filed a superseding indictment alleging 9-counts related to four fires. SER-137.

In June 2012, the district court presided over a two-week trial. The government’s case consisted primarily of testimony from Bureau of Land Management [BLM] and other government employees; it was strongly contested by the defense via crossexamination and expert testimony. The evidence established that Steven Hammond had admitted setting two fires on his private land, which had spread to government land: the 2001 Hardie-Hammond fire, which was set to deal with problematic invasive species; and the 2006 Krumbo Butte fire, which Steven set, without BLM permission, as a back burn to stop a lightning-caused fire threatening the Hammonds’ winter feed."

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/hammond-v-united-states/

Two years of litigation. Two years.

Did you read that.

The person testifying had animosity towards the Hammond's

The kid wasn't even present on the so called poaching or hunting trip.

The first fire only burned public land they had grazing rights.

The second only burned an acre.

There are problems with this case. Read all the pages in the scotus link.

 

[pnwmystery]

Did you read that.

The person testifying had animosity towards the Hammond's

The kid wasn't even present on the so called poaching or hunting trip.

The first fire only burned public land they had grazing rights.

The second only burned an acre.

There are problems with this case. Read all the pages in the scotus link.

I have, and there really are not problems with the case. It doesn't matter if they had grazing rights. What about others that had grazing rights and now they cannot access the land? Moreover it's public land, not theirs to burn. The animosity is hearsay.

You're really not listening to reasoning or facts.

 

[whitebb2727]

The Hardie Hammond fire was something that was already approved by blm. The Hammond's set the fire and then years later there is a problem.

 

[whitebb2727]

The whole thing is due to blm wrong doing and to cover it up.

The Hammond's denied and provided evidence of their innocence.

 

[pnwmystery]

Oh FFS you're reading Infowars aren't you? Yeah, no, sorry. Stop drinking that koolaid. Yeah, if I murdered someone I could present evidence of my innocence but guess what? "A Pendleton jury has convicted two members of a prominent Harney County ranching family of committing arson on federal grazing lands along Steens Mountain." It was a jury trail. The jury found them guilty.

 

[pnwmystery]

The Hardie Hammond fire was something that was already approved by blm. The Hammond's set the fire and then years later there is a problem.

No, no it was not approved by the BLM. They had discussed it, but they didn't go "Go ahead and set fire!"

"The fire later spread to approximately 139 acres of public land, land that happened to be one of Hammond’s grazing allotments. The Hammonds presented evidence that the spread onto public land was not intentional. However, back in 1999, a similar scenario had occurred (a prescribed burn on their land spread to public land), and the Hammonds had been warned that they would face serious consequences should it happen again."

 

[pnwmystery]

 

[whitebb2727]

No, no it was not approved by the BLM. They had discussed it, but they didn't go "Go ahead and set fire!"

"The fire later spread to approximately 139 acres of public land, land that happened to be one of Hammond’s grazing allotments. The Hammonds presented evidence that the spread onto public land was not intentional. However, back in 1999, a similar scenario had occurred (a prescribed burn on their land spread to public land), and the Hammonds had been warned that they would face serious consequences should it happen again."

It is what it is.

To be arson there has to be malicious intent. I don't think there was.

I also think the charges stem from a long fued between Hammond's and blm. Blm had plenty of wrong doing to.

It never hurt the land. The land is better off for it.

The only time wild fires hurt land is when there haven't been any burns and debris builds up. The fire has plenty of fuel and sterilizes the soil.

We will just have to agree to disagree.

 

[757growin]

The grazing rights were part of the deed when they bought the land. Blm forced people to sell and enclosed the Hammond's with rufuge land. When the grazing permits were revoked the Hammond's sold cattle off.

I'm afraid your not getting the point.

I support fish and game. I supports parks and wildlife management areas.

I just don't see the type of person that handed out matches and saying burn it all down just rolling over and peacefully going back to jail.

The government is the wrong here.

So the Hammonds are victims. Maybe, o.k. but what are the bundys and the armed militia then?

 

[757growin]

And no poaching listed.

It doesn't matter they lit fires. Lighting a fire, even if it gets out of control doesn't make it arson.

Here's the definition of arson. Ask dad next time if your not sure.

ar·son
/ˈärs(ə)n/
noun

• 1.the criminal act of deliberately setting fire to property"police are treating the fire as arson"synonyms:pyromania, incendiarism, torching

 

[whitebb2727]

So the Hammonds are victims. Maybe, o.k. but what are the bundys and the armed militia then?

No. I don't support them. That is a separate issue and the Hammond's don't support it either.

They are white supremacist. I don't support that.

Here's the definition of arson. Ask dad next time if your not sure.

ar·son
/ˈärs(ə)n/
noun

• 1.the criminal act of deliberately setting fire to property"police are treating the fire as arson"synonyms:pyromania, incendiarism, torching

I have done stated a crime is not a crime if no one was hurt or damage. Blm testimony states the land was better off after the burn.

Maybe negligence but not arson.

Merriam Webster:

Full Definition of arson

1. : the willful or malicious burning of property (as a building) especially with criminal or fraudulent intent
   

You have to have malicious intent. There was none.

 

[757growin]

No. I don't support them. That is a separate issue and the Hammond's don't support it either.

They are white supremacist. I don't support that.


I have done stated a crime is not a crime if no one was hurt or damage. Blm testimony states the land was better off after the burn.

Maybe negligence but not arson.

Merriam Webster:

Full Definition of arson

1. : the willful or malicious burning of property (as a building) especially with criminal or fraudulent intent

You have to have malicious intent. There was none.

It says willful or malicious, this qualifies under willful