• Trump pardons ranchers that inspired 2016 occupation of wildlife refuge
    27 replies, posted
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-trump-pardon-dwight-steven-hammond-20180710-story.html
King nutcase backs up other nutcases. Whodathought
At least some time was served. I'm not really that concerned about it, I'm sure that if they pull some kind of stunt like that again, the next judge may throw the book at them and I doubt Trump will be in office to pardon them once again. This is pretty much just very low hanging-fruit for Trump to pick for his base.
Is he going to pardon David Koresh posthumously?
I'm sure Ben Carson is trying to convince him.
First they take over land reserved for animals endangered or otherwise, absolutely trash said reserve to the point of having a "refuse" hole in the ground and try to bait FBI and Sherrifs county officers into a gunfight. Yeah, Perfectly innocent group of people you've pardoned there..
Interesting that you can literally set criminals free and conservatives will find a way to eat it up...even though legality was the crux of their justification for mistreating illegals.
Because of course he'd pardon them.
trump loves pardoning domestic terrorists.
i can't believe literally none of you read the fucking article
"tough on crime" apparently the word "crime" doesnt cover domestic terrorism now but hey what do i know
you, either
i did changed it just now but "Dwight and Steven Hammond were convicted in 2012 of intentionally and maliciously setting fires on public lands." imo if you're setting fires you should be fully aware that fire spreads, regardless of whether or not its on your lands.
people also shouldn't have to face getting sentenced time for their crime, serve that time, only to have the DoJ turn around and say "they didn't serve enough" and resentence them for five more years on top of the sentence they had already served
When you're sentenced for a mandatory minimum of five years, and then a judge decides to let you off easy on his last day, and the government says "oh no you don't" and reverses that decision, I can understand being upset that you're getting boomeranged around but the law is the law is the law, they shouldn't have been let out early. Also, good job not reading the article youreself! They weren't sentenced for "five more years on top of the sentence they had already served". Dwight and Steven Hammond were convicted in 2012 of intentionally and maliciously setting fires on public lands. The arson crime carried a minimum prison sentence of five years, but a sympathetic federal judge, on his last day before retirement, decided the penalty was too stiff and gave the father and son much lighter prison terms. Prosecutors won an appeal and the Hammonds were resentenced in October 2015 to serve the mandatory minimum. They were made to finish their original sentence out, not sentenced twice for the same crime -- that would be obvious double jeopardy.
i see, not sure how i read that and missed it yeah that's quite shitty of the prosecuters
i apologize on that front, how i was interpreting this and the other article i had posted lead me to believe that they didn't get time-served credit. i still feel it is a less egregious example of missing something from the article than missing the subject completely
I mean, you have a point in calling out all of the people who think this article and thread are about the Bundys and the Nevada BLM land standoff in 2014, and not the two guys convicted of arson who prompted the Malheur Refuge standoff -- and who were mostly forgotten once the incident kicked off, mainly because they never asked for any of the shit and didn't approve of the occupation and didn't want to be blamed for it but also because the actual occupiers were grandstanders on social media and gathered all the attention. I wouldn't be surprised if most people on FP who were around for the Malheur Refuge standoff have forgotten why it all happened. It all happened because a judge tried to be nice, the DoJ stepped in to enforce the law, and a bunch of people who'd fit in with the alt-right if it was happening now decided this was an abusive government act and took over and fucked up a federal wildlife reserve, including unknowingly excavating an undisturbed Indian burial ground so they could have a hole to throw their trash into.
that was my point from the very beginning, i just got a bit heated so i began to bring up what the hammonds were sentenced for since i think they're far away from terrorists. the Bundys, yeah that group can rot in jail.
I blame the vague headline. Chicago Tribune won't let Europeans visit the link (for whatever reason) and when most people think '2016 oregon wildlife occupation', the Bundys will usually come to mind.
that's dumb, region-locking news is a trash-move. here's an archived page https://web.archive.org/web/20180710160640/http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-trump-pardon-dwight-steven-hammond-20180710-story.html
A number of sites in the US who have no plans to ever achieve GDPR compliance (unless it comes to US law and hahahahahaha) have avoided legal trouble with the EU by just blocking European users. Can't be accused of violating someone's EU privacy rights if you just rangeblock the EU from accessing your non-EU-company site.
I still wouldn't put it past Trump to pardon David Koresh considering he's in regular contact with both the president and a card carrying member of Koresh's fan club.
The Hammond family, well-known in eastern Oregon, had been embroiled for years in a legal dispute over several fires that damaged federal property. Dwight and his son Steven Hammond were convicted of arson and faced a mandatory minimum sentence of five years, mandated by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 domestic terrorists.
He likely won't since Koresh group was Adventist schismatic cultish sect.
i'm sorry but this just reads like backpedalling to me. the most obvious domestic terrorists in this story is the group that took over the oregon wildlife sanctuary. you might argue that because the law they were convicted under is the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, they should be considered domestic terrorists. by the law, the crime does not fit the definition of federal crime of terrorism, found halfway down on 110 STAT. 1293, under Definitions (5). in order for an act to be considered terrorism, by this law, there needs to be (A) is calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct; and ‘(B) is a violation of— (bunch of different sections, you can check that out yourself) the and is important. for an act to be considered an act of terrorism, there must be an element of intimidation, coercion, or retaliation against the government. i would personally include against groups of people as well, but that isn't what this law is about. the law did increase the penalties for arson of federal property to a 5 year minimum, the specific law being 18 U.S.C. § 844(f)(1). however, this is divorced from the other terrorism clauses brought up in the act. throughout the trial and appeals process, terrorism is not mentioned: this is an arson case, not a terror trial. if it were, the attorney would have to have gotten involved, which did not happen. interestingly enough, the AEDPA is most known for significantly modifying the federal writ habeas corpus, significantly gutting it. on a personal level, i think calling them domestic terrorists is a dilution of the word and dishonest.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.