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

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

Testimony in court is the source.



Thats the same as lamesteam media. Libtards btfo.
 
not gonna pardon the guy who got shot?
 
My mom told be we are distant relatives with the Bundy gang. Guess that explains a lot about my views.....
Your mom is lying. Everyone in your family is very closely related.
 
Take that libtards. Arson on public land makes you so mad, it will be so fun to see your reactions. Not Being on Fire BTFO!

It's kind of crazy left wingers haven't gone as crazy as the trumpets pretend they are.

I was sort of expecting to see old school ELF activism over what this administration had done, kind of baffling really.

Anyway. We can all enjoy that hilarious video of tarp man being taken out lol.
 
Not a fan of the bundy bunch, but destroying evidence isn't really terrorism.
 
Maybe he can pardon Lavoy "Blue Tarp" Finicum. For all the good it'll do...
 
The Trumpbots are applauding lawlessness like it's freedom. It's disgusting.

I saw a Right wing friend on fb post that the man who drove what was called the killdozer. A bulldozer fitted with armor. He called that man a hero. Lmao. The man terrorized and destroyed a town.
 
Appealing to the "banjo playing, applesauce through a straw eating, sister married, farm animal fucking" part of his base.

photos.medleyphoto.7892759.jpg

So his entire base?
 
My prediction:
Pages of liberals impotently wailing, gnashing their teeth and clawing at the turf.

My prediction: pages of conservatives cheer leading the pardon of criminals and arsonists
 
They were sentenced to only a few months in jail by a sympathetic retiring judge. However, the crime they were convicted of has a MANDATORY minimum sentence of 5 years in jail. So an appeals court obviously won that appeal and they had to serve the rest of their sentence.

It's really not that hard to understand and is not double jeopardy.

I agree with your straightforward explanation, but you didn't explain how it isn't double jeopardy. They were sentenced twice for the same conviction. Judges screw up in many cases, but we don't necessarily retry defendants who were acquitted because of such screw us, because that would be double jeopardy. Resentencing a person who served their sentence and were freed because one thinks the judge screwed up seems to be a variant of this.

For the sake of comparison, can you think of any other examples of situations in which a person who was sentenced, served that time, was then later resentenced based on the same conviction? It seems extraordinary to me, but perhaps it is commonplace. How often does it happen that a prosecutor appeals to have sentences increased?
 
I agree with your straightforward explanation, but you didn't explain how it isn't double jeopardy. They were sentenced twice for the same conviction. Judges screw up in many cases, but we don't necessarily retry defendants who were acquitted because of such screw us, because that would be double jeopardy. Resentencing a person who served their sentence and were freed because one thinks the judge screwed up seems to be a variant of this.

For the sake of comparison, can you think of any other examples of situations in which a person who was sentenced, served that time, was then later resentenced based on the same conviction? It seems extraordinary to me, but perhaps it is commonplace. How often does it happen that a prosecutor appeals to have sentences increased?

If a convicted pedophile is accidentally let out of jail years early not serving his/her whole term, the cops has every right to go and retrieve them and put them back in jail. That's not double jeopardy. That's simply serving their sentence. But according to you, they already served their sentence and should be let go?

And no, I'm not going to look up any cases for you. You can do it.

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/
 
False. They did serve their sentences. They went to court, were sentenced, and served those sentences. Later, someone decided the judge screwed up and they were resentenced. Can you think of another example of such a thing? I can't, which is why I asked whether anyone knew if this is a normal part of our justice system.
Yes, getting resentenced to a larger (or shorter) amount happens. It's a little unusual, but that's because it's unusual for judges to fuck up mandatory minimums, and the government doesn't usually bother challenging the sentence otherwise. It's also unusual for someone to be out of prison by the time that the error was caught, but that's a function of how long most sentences are compared to the length of the process. It's not exceptional. I've come across several instances of sentences being changed after someone has been released, for better or for worse. It's something people get warned about in habeas cases: you can challenge your sentence, but if you had a good deal, you can get more time when resentenced.

It's definitely not double jeopardy, because they're not being convicted of the same crime twice. They got credit from the time served before the resentencing against the correct one.
 
If a convicted pedophile is accidentally let out of jail years early not serving his/her whole term, the cops has every right to go and retrieve them and put them back in jail. That's not double jeopardy. That's simply serving their sentence. But according to you, they already served their sentence and should be let go?

And no, I'm not going to look up any cases for you. You can do it.

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/
1. The Hammonds weren't pedophiles. Needlessly inflammatory example.
2. The Hammonds did serve their entire sentence. I understand the argument that their sentence should have been longer. But in point of fact it was not, which is why they were initially released from prison. That part of their case was subsequently re-adjudicated, which is why it seems like a species of double jeopardy.
3. All pardons (or most, perhaps there are exceptions) involve people who have been convicted, usually of fairly serious crimes. This pardon to me seems akin to trump's pardon of Alice Johnson, in that while what happened to Johnson and to the Hammond's was in accordance with the law, it is perceived by much of the population to be unjust. It is a lawful corrective to legally supported injustice.
 
Yes, getting resentenced to a larger (or shorter) amount happens. It's a little unusual, but that's because it's unusual for judges to fuck up mandatory minimums, and the government doesn't usually bother challenging the sentence otherwise. It's also unusual for someone to be out of prison by the time that the error was caught, but that's a function of how long most sentences are compared to the length of the process. It's not exceptional. I've come across several instances of sentences being changed after someone has been released, for better or for worse. It's something people get warned about in habeas cases: you can challenge your sentence, but if you had a good deal, you can get more time when resentenced.

It's definitely not double jeopardy, because they're not being convicted of the same crime twice. They got credit from the time served before the resentencing against the correct one.
Thank you, solid response. Can you elaborate a bit more on the highlighted portion? On what grounds other than a judge ignoring mandatory minimums can a sentence be challenged by the prosecution?
 
1. The Hammonds weren't pedophiles. Needlessly inflammatory example.
2. The Hammonds did serve their entire sentence. I understand the argument that their sentence should have been longer. But in point of fact it was not, which is why they were initially released from prison. That part of their case was subsequently re-adjudicated, which is why it seems like a species of double jeopardy.
3. All pardons (or most, perhaps there are exceptions) involve people who have been convicted, usually of fairly serious crimes. This pardon to me seems akin to trump's pardon of Alice Johnson, in that while what happened to Johnson and to the Hammond's was in accordance with the law, it is perceived by much of the population to be unjust. It is a lawful corrective to legally supported injustice.

You just read on some right wing blog that's it's double jeopardy so that's why you are saying this. The case wasn't completely finished. The appeals process wasn't done.

The Appeal, Writ and Habeas Corpus Petition Process

https://criminal.findlaw.com/crimin...-writ-and-habeas-corpus-petition-process.html

"In criminal cases, an appeal can target the conviction itself or just the sentencing portion of the decision without regard to the underlying conviction. For example, if a defendant is properly convicted of manslaughter but a judge sentences the defendant to a prison term that is beyond the limit of the law, the defendant will only appeal the prison term while leaving the conviction itself intact.

An appeal may be filed only after a final judgment or order has been reached by the trial court. This is quite simply for reasons of efficiency, so that the court system isn't bogged down by delays and trials aren't constantly put on hold while waiting for appeals of a judge's every ruling."

Does an appeal constitute a new trial?

"No. In an appeal there are no new issues presented or witnesses called to testify. The appellate court will only review the trial's transcript and evidence presented during the trial to determine whether there were errors in either procedure or application of the law. "
 
Back
Top