5 yrs for burning 139 acres of BLM

[ram]

I not familiar with what's going on out there. But 5 years in prison seems a bit much.
Barry needs to sign his control bill now for sure.

 

[Cross-7]

Government lawyers appealed the sentence, arguing that the mandatory minimum was constitutional and that the Hammonds deserved the five year prison terms because they put lives at risk in Harney County

The convictions were punishable by a mandatory minimum sentence of five years in prison under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, which followed the Oklahoma City bombing and other deadly acts of domestic terrorism.

The terrorism label attached for burning BLM land but a Muslim shoots a bunch of people at a Christmas party and it workplace violence, not terrorism


The fishy thing about it is that they had to agree that if they had to sell their ranch that BLM had the first option to buy it.
How is that legal ?

 

[JMJ Farms]

This has obviously gotten pretty serious. I'm gonna assume that the protestors know the details of the story better than me and are standing up for a cause worth fighting for. If so, I hope all goes well for them.

 

[ike]

The Brannans plan on reporting to jail in the morning according to the Daily Mail newspaper.

 

[Cross-7]

The whole story

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/201 ... rsecution/

 

[JMJ Farms]

The whole story

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/201 ... rsecution/

I sure as he!! Don't know what the "real" truth is but I know I don't trust the 1)press or 2)govt. I want to believe that they were being pushed out and are standing up for what is theirs. It hpjust really sounds to me like the BLM is out to get the land and they are the last of the holdouts. If the Hammonds are in the right, I wish all those involved well.

 

[boondocks]

The defendants in question have said they do not agree with the protestors, who are not speaking for them...Interesting.
It seems they had a bit of a history of treating government (a/k/a/ our) land as theirs and been been repeatedly warned.
The sentence seems harsh from some angles, but I wonder if it seems harsh to the families of the young firefighters camped above where they set the fires, at night, with no notice or warning. Luckily, one of the firefighters saw it and they moved in time, but could've been bad...
At any rate, I hope it's resolved without bloodshed---anyone's.

 

[Red Bull Breeder]

Just who do you think the government land belongs to. The government is piss poor at land management. The Federal government shouldn't be in the land business anyway.

 

[Cross-7]

They both ( BLM & Steve) couldn't play nice and get along
From Steve setting fires and butting heads with the BLM
Th BLM blocking roads they didn't own, fencing off water, challenging water rights that were purchased legally to diverting water and flooding ranches
They are like a group of thugs
If it had been anyone else doing all that, they'd be jailed
Same as fencing cattle out law but since it's government land that doesn't apply to them
They make the rules but yet they don't have to abide by the same rules

Laws don't apply to the BLM. They can hang a terrorist label on the Hammonds,

Based on what I see it's more about the BLM wanting the Hammond ranch

(u) During the court preceding the Hammonds were forced to grant the BLM first right of refusal. If the Hammonds ever sold their ranch they would have to sell it to the BLM.

(v) Dwight and Steven are ordered to report to federal prison again on January 4th, 2016 to begin their re-sentencing. Both their wives will have to manage the ranch for several years without them.

To date they have paid $200,000 to the BLM, and the remainder $200,000 must be paid before the end of this year (2015). If the Hammonds cannot pay the fines to the BLM, they will be forced to sell the ranch to the BLM or face further prosecution.

Edit
http://www.oregonfb.org/2015/10/07/stat ... al-prison/

 

[boondocks]

Read today that they set the fires to cover up illegal poaching. A good point to remember here is that the sentence was set by the judge, but it's a jury of their local peers that convicted them. I sure don't have enough facts to say the jury was wrong, sittin here on a computer many miles away...

 

[Cross-7]

Once they were tagged with the " terrorist" that's when the minimum of 5 yrs came into play
The judge gave Steve 1 year and Dwight 3 months but the terrorist label made it mandatory of a min of 5 yrs
I don't believe the judge nor the jury intended on such a sentence

 

[Jogeephus]

Once they were tagged with the " terrorist" that's when the minimum of 5 yrs came into play
The judge gave Steve 1 year and Dwight 3 months but the terrorist label made it mandatory of a min of 5 yrs
I don't believe the judge nor the jury intended on such a sentence

Had they been muslim it would have probably been written off as misdemeanor work place arson I suspect.

 

[boondocks]

"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." http://heavy.com/news/2016/01/dwight-st ... os-family/

The statute under which they were charged relates to malicious destruction of federal property. It's not some "terrorist" label that set the mandatory minimum; in fact, the prosecutor has explicitly said that they have never called the Hammonds terrorists. Rather, it's the fact that they were found guilty of each element of the crime with which they were charged (the title of the statute is meaningless). Clearly, the jury didn't buy their story that it was a fire set on their own property that got out of hand; apparently, their own family contradicted that story.

For all those law-and-order folks who were pro-mandatory minimums for other crimes (not involving defendants who seem more "like us"), this is the flip side of that: if you take away the judge's discretion to adjust the sentence a bit, there will be times you get results you don't like, when the defendant is someone you feel is more deserving of a break.

 

[Cross-7]

The convictions were punishable by a mandatory minimum sentence of five years in prison under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, which followed the Oklahoma City bombing and other deadly acts of domestic terrorism.

 

[boondocks]

The convictions were punishable by a mandatory minimum sentence of five years in prison under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, which followed the Oklahoma City bombing and other deadly acts of domestic terrorism.

Cross, I know what the act is titled. My point is, one isn't sentenced to X years in jail for being called a terrorist, or even, really, for being a terrorist. It's not the status of the person, but his/her acts, and whether they meet the required elements of the crime. The statute makes punishable malicious destruction of federal property. The jury found that they did so. Whether that is, or is not, a "terrorist" act, and how one defines that, is an interesting philosophical discussion, but largely beside the point, legally.

You could have a criminal statute called The Heinous Murder Prevention Act, which prohibits stepping on an ant with the intention (mens rea) of killing it. If someone is charged under that statute, and duly convicted by jury, he is guilty of violating that statute, even though most people wouldn't call him a murderer, in the usual sense of the word. The result would be the same if the title was The Unicorns and Lollipops Act.

 

[Cross-7]

The convictions were punishable by a mandatory minimum sentence of five years in prison under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, which followed the Oklahoma City bombing and other deadly acts of domestic terrorism.

Cross, I know what the act is titled. My point is, one isn't sentenced to X years in jail for being called a terrorist, or even, really, for being a terrorist. It's not the status of the person, but his/her acts, and whether they meet the required elements of the crime. The statute makes punishable malicious destruction of federal property. The jury found that they did so. Whether that is, or is not, a "terrorist" act, and how one defines that, is an interesting philosophical discussion, but largely beside the point, legally.

You could have a criminal statute called The Heinous Murder Prevention Act, which prohibits stepping on an ant with the intention (mens rea) of killing it. If someone is charged under that statute, and duly convicted by jury, he is guilty of violating that statute, even though most people wouldn't call him a murderer, in the usual sense of the word. The result would be the same if the title was The Unicorns and Lollipops Act.

10-4 I savy what you're saying

 

[True Grit Farms]

I don't because the Hammonds are not terrorist.
The government is the one spreading terror. IMO

 

[Cross-7]

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... orney.html

 

[boondocks]

I don't because the Hammonds are not terrorist.
The government is the one spreading terror. IMO

Point being, whether they committed the crime set forth in the statute, and whether they are, or are not, "terrorists", are 2 different things. What one person will call an act of terrorism, another will call justified civil obedience. So, the statutes list the "requirements" which must be found in order for the charged crime to have been found to have been committed, regardless of your, or my, opinion as to whether those acts constitute quote-unquote terrorism, as we traditionally think of the term.

To put it another way, you can say they are not terrorists but still find that they committed the crime set forth in the statute named by Cross-7 above.

 

[Cross-7]

I'm getting conflicting stories on whether the jury and the judge were aware that if found guilty that the minimum mandated sentence was 5 yrs
Based on the judge's sentence of 1 yr for Steven and 3 months for Dwight
Instead of the mandated 5 yrs then I don't believe they were aware a guilty verdict meant a 5 yr sentence