Trump to pardon the Hammonds (catalysts for the Bundy stand off)

Great pardon. What the feds did to that family was wrong then and it is wrong now.

Which part, the original conviction or the resentencing? The original conviction seemed by the book even if it was unpopular with some. The resentencing makes me uncomfortable, but the judge had not followed the law. Perhaps he should have been punished.
 
Would it be ok for people in the inner city to burn down their neighborhoods when they are booted by imminent domain?
Eminent*
Not if they were paid fairly for the property. Most of the time folks are paid more than the property worth in those cases though from what I gather.
 
I cant remember all of the details, but wasn't the land theirs to begin with and the govt basically forced them off it?

Nobody had legal claim, it was used by many ranchers. Then, in 1908 Roosevelt made is a national refuge. Since then ranchers have gotten permits to us it. The Hammond found the permits too restrictive and when do far as to threaten to murder park rangers multiple times and even brought guns to a confrontation over a fence the park service had put up. The park service backed down to prevent injuries.
 
Last edited:
Charging them with terrorism was pretty lame. I can't find myself caring too much about this.
 
President encouraging anarchy. Maga!
 
Eminent*
Not if they were paid fairly for the property. Most of the time folks are paid more than the property worth in those cases though from what I gather.

The point is still the same; people being forced off property they or their family have owned for generations? Is setting things in fire an appropriate response? And if so should everyone doing so be pardoned?
 
Range fires are a natural and necessary part of the grassland ecosystem.

I support allowing natural fires to occur and also, for that matter, floods.

but

Hunters saw the Hammonds illegally slaughter a herd of deer. Two hours later Hammond coincidently told his nephew to “light the whole countryside on fire” to control invasive plants which had the suspicious side affect of running the hunters out and hiding the poaching evidence. Later, the Hammonds illegally set back fires during a natural fire that almost trapped BLM firefighters. Hammond threatened to frame the BLM firefighter for arson for if he didn’t drop the investigation. The back fires were set to protect winter feed areas so clearly,the Hammonds were not fans of natural range fires.
 
The Truth About the Oregon Rancher standoff:


Using anti-terrorism laws to prosecute a brush fire that got a little out of control is clearly Federal overreach.

BTW, for those who don't know, range fires are a necessary part of any natural cycle in grasslands. Not only is it necessary to promote new growth, but it actually increases the value of land.


No one will watch that video unless they want both sides. And there is a side that does not want to hear both sides.

They want to also punish these men for the acts of others also
 
The fire got out of control. To charge them with terrorism was unjust

This pardon is fine

The fire was lit to hide the fact that a groups of hunters had just seen them 2 hours earlier slaughter a herd of deer illegally. Hammond told his nephew to “light the whole countryside on fire.” It was never meant to be a controlled burn.
 
The fire got out of control. To charge them with terrorism was unjust

This pardon is fine

I'm sorry, I'm sure if I accidentally set my local park on fire and it got out of control I'd be getting punished.
 
Yeah, but like, it wasn't their land to start fires on my dude.
They're planned range fire spread to 139 Acres of government grassland. That's not even a quarter mile.

In court it was revealed that the damages were less than $100.

The BLM also independently came to the conclusion that the fire had actually raised the value of the property.



Considering no one can realistically demonstrate any damages, charging them under terrorism laws is clearly Federal overreach.

If they do owe a debt to society, it shouldn't be much more than $100. 5 years for 139 Acres of burned Sage Brush is a perversion of Justice. This pardon was justified and long overdue.
 
The point is still the same; people being forced off property they or their family have owned for generations? Is setting things in fire an appropriate response? And if so should everyone doing so be pardoned?
I guess it depends. I would likely judge it case by case. But mostly no, it's not appropriate. If they are compensated fairly, I don't see any reason they should commit arson. If the govt fucks them over and takes their land for peanuts, then I can see why they would want to burn shit.
 
The fire got out of control. To charge them with terrorism was unjust

This pardon is fine

In 1999 Steven started a fire, intending to burn off juniper trees and sagebrush, but the fire escaped onto BLM land. The agency reminded him of the required burn permit and that if the fires continued, there would be legal consequences.

Both Dwight and Steven Hammond later set more fires, one in 2001 and one in 2006, that would lead to eventual convictions of arson on federal land:[17][18] The 2001 Hardie-Hammond fire began after hunters in the area witnessed the Hammonds illegally slaughtering a herd of deer.[19] Less than two hours later, a fire erupted, forcing the hunters to leave the area but also intending to conceal evidence of the deer herd slaughter.[20] Steven's nephew Dusty Hammond testified his uncle told him to "light the whole countryside on fire," and that he was "almost burned up in the fire," having to flee for his life.[16][21] The Hammonds claimed they started the fire to stop invasive plants from growing onto their grazing fields.[22] The 2006 Krumbo Butte fire started out as a wildfire, but several illegal backburns were set by the Hammonds with an intent of protecting their winter feed. The backfires were set under the cover of night, without warning the firefighters they knew were camped on the slopes above.[20][23] The fires threatened to trap four BLM firefighters. One of those later confronted Dwight Hammond at the fire scene after he had moved his crews to avoid the danger.[20][21] Two days later, Steven Hammond threatened to frame a BLM employee with arson if he didn't terminate the investigation.[22] Following their release from jail on their own recognizance, a rally attended by 500 other cattle ranchers was held in Burns, Oregon in support of the Hammonds. Some charges against the Hammonds were later dropped..

Even if we ignore Dusty Hammond testimony, these guys were warned and done it multiple times. Not charging them with terrorism? maybe. But they shouldn't get off easy
 
I support allowing natural fires to occur and also, for that matter, floods.

but

Hunters saw the Hammonds illegally slaughter a herd of deer. Two hours later Hammond coincidently told his nephew to “light the whole countryside on fire” to control invasive plants which had the suspicious side affect of running the hunters out and hiding the poaching evidence. Later, the Hammonds illegally set back fires during a natural fire that almost trapped BLM firefighters. Hammond threatened to frame the BLM firefighter for arson for if he didn’t drop the investigation. The back fires were set to protect winter feed areas so clearly,the Hammonds were not fans of natural range fires.

It was a rangeland manager that said he was threatened.
 
Even if we ignore Dusty Hammond testimony, these guys were warned and done it multiple times. Not charging them with terrorism? maybe. But they shouldn't get off easy

Why do you think damn near every cattle rancher supports them? This was brewing for a long time and the Feds were not any help at all

AGAIN. Charging them with terrorism was unjust. Plain and simple
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,047
Messages
55,463,597
Members
174,786
Latest member
JoyceOuthw
Back
Top