dun":1ihdomqk said:From what I read the oaching stuff wasn;t even allowed during the trial.W.T":1ihdomqk said:gimpyrancher":1ihdomqk said:Dave,
> The problem with all this is it was done wrong and took the attention away from the original issue of the Hammonds.
And yet the Hammonds wanted nothing to do with the protesters.
> You have a fire to burn a little trash in your backyard, it gets away and burns your neighbor's roses, you don't get five years as a terrorist. You have to pay for some roses.
Perhaps you misrepresented the facts of the situation. The Hammond were part of a large scale poaching ring. Not sure who's land they hunted on. However, apparently they started the fire to hide the evidence of the poaching operation. The fire got out of control. It was mostly federal land that was damaged. They had their day in court. Got a sentence far under mandatory guidelines. Their short time inside got noticed. It was looked into and corrected, without the perpetrators getting their hands slapped.
Were the Hammond's ever convicted of poaching???
Pay for a few roses and get a free pass? Okay.
So where does the innocent until proven guilty apply with the poaching incident. If it was not admitted in the trial, how can it be part of the sentence. or the crime???