Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Political Action Forum' started by double limit, Jul 10, 2018.
Will do thx. ^^^
The judge retired. It has his last gig. He had nothing to lose. #activistjudge
You're seriously saying you see no issue with them violating laws and rules, after repeated warnings NOT to violate the laws and rules? And you're an attorney? I'm at a loss...
I have a feeling, it's more about WHO is supporting these idiots, that has you defending them, not WHAT their actions were, that landed them in the clink.
I think some are just as wrapped around terms here, as truth or logic. We probably don’t have some kids with Roman candles and a red Ryder, that killed a sparrow and burned the neighbors’ boxwoods. On the other hand, some are insisting they’re arsonists, deer ‘mass murderers’, and of general low moral fiber. The Hammonds are probably better than those pinching either extreme on this, and worse than your average non-lefty, but it’s hard to know which.
Hypocrisy? Here? On the PAF? Noooo! Say it ain't so!
ALMO, Kennedy, et al, my responses are purely for the sake of discussion. As I stated previously, the pardon has been done, and at no point was I outraged over the pardon. Every president has the power to pardon, and as has been stated on here, way worse folks have been.
My confusion lies with the same folks on here (and in the real world) who I generally consider good, law-abiding folks, who strive to uphold the Constitution, laws, and values of this nation. Those same folks are defending these guys just to toe the party line. "Them's the rules" comes to mind. There's a group (here especially) who think members of the gov't woke up one day, and said "Let's go mess with the Hammonds for a few years, and see just how far we can push them". I just don't see that being the case. Like I said before, I think these guys see a lot of grey in the law. They are no better than the farmer that digs a hole in his back pasture and dumps 55 gallons of used oil into it, "cuz that's the way it's always been done". They had a back-and-forth with the agencies out there for years, but they did just as much giving as they did taking. If these guys had a deer problem, why not request the nuisance permits to light them up? Instead, they doubled-down on stupid, shot all the deer, then set an illegal/unauthorized fire to cover it up. As for the back-burn, it probably was a necessary evil (as you stated, they were able to save their winter food). But that doesn't make the way they conducted it right. What was the problem with phoning the forestry service/FD and requesting permission to conduct a back-burn to save their feed? I totally get the "It's better to ask for forgiveness than permission" attitude they took, but in this case, it wasn't better, and it bit them in the azz. Were they afraid they would have been told no? Is that a justifiable excuse? I'd imagine had they been told no, and their winter crop destroyed, they could have had their day in court against BLM/whomever.
Again, we can spend hours parsing out how good of people these guys are to their neighbors, how evil the BLM was to them, etc. But as far as then reason they were ordered to do 5 years, it seems cut-and-dry to me.
Two cases of arson in 2001 and 2006.
Found guilty of both.
Given a reduced sentence that didn't meet federal guidelines.
Correction made, and re-sentencing set.
I can't, for the life of me, figure out why I'm supposed to feel bad for them. "'Cuz them's the rules".
Steven they would not have recieved a yes or no in a timely manner expedient to the situation and anyone who has dealt with these agencies understand that. Not defending just point out reality. I didn'tagree with their actions in how they protested but I get the issue regarding the feds lack of common sense.
I have no doubt that if the Fed wanted to expand Malheur, it wasn't directly messing with them, but the Fed wasn't going out of its way to be accommodating either. In my experience with a few agencies, State and Federal, if you aren't on the good side, things can take a long time.....bureaucracy knows how to slow roll and cause distress. You need a permit to thin out the deer grazing on your cattle feed? Hmmm...yeah, I know you turned that in...let's see...well, you'll have to resubmit that...must've gotten put in another file somewhere. Your pastures flooded out? Wow...that's too bad...we can talk to the Refuge manager and see if something can be done...but he's on vacation for two weeks, and then is on a temporary assignment. If they flooded, those might be wetlands under Corps jurisdiction...you might need a permit to keep that as pasture, you know...and grazing on it may be difficult.
From reading on here, it sounds like other ranches were pushed to the point of selling out.
In that light, it doesn't seem too far fetched to think that in the case of the back burn the Hammonds might have known they were in a lose-lose, expecting to either lose their feed ($$) or get in trouble personally for lighting a backing fire, but not losing the feed.
Totally concur that is the most likely scenario. We all know the marvels of gov't inefficiency. What we don't know is if that would have been the answer, as the request was never made. I'd wager that the Hammonds would have been denied, just given their previous history with the BLM/fed gov't folks. It's odd though... Do other ranchers in Oregon not experience these same issues? How is it that all of them aren't locked up? Is it because the USG is picking on the Hammonds, or is it because the other ranchers try a little harder to stay within the law? Would the right be defending these guys if their illegal fires had killed those hunters or those fire fighters or their own nephew/grandson? The 2001 fire burned the hunters camp shortly after they fled the area (and the Hammonds knew they were there, because they had flown a plane over them earlier that day). The 2006 fire(s) were spotted by fire fighters, moving toward them, so they evacuated. The next day, the Hammonds admitted they started the fires, and admitted they knew those guys were up there.
All fair points. And I have zero issue with the BLM being investigated to see if that is what went on. Obviously the prosecutor had enough evidence against them in this case, to convict. I'd imagine a few on here would tell a member who posted his cousin didn't deserve the mandatory minimum on felony possession with the intent to distribute when he was caught with a pound of meth in his vehicle, because the mandatory minimums are archaic, and he was only trying to make money to feed his family, that the defense of it was absurd. I personally draw no distinction between the two. Both federal crimes, with minimum sentences.
The only parts of this that I have any real sympathy for the Hammonds' is that they were charged with an act of terrorism (they should not have been) and when they were convicted the jury did not know there was a mandatory sentence of 5 years under that law. They got terrible representation from their attorney and the judge in not adequately communicating to them what their plea meant. Both deserve serious criticism for that negligence. Small town judges and lawyers playing high stakes poker with the Feds will lose. It sucks but doesn't change the fact that they agreed.