# The Bundys are at it again.
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bundys-are-at-it-again/742043
**Category:** The BBQ Pit
**Created:** [January 3, 2016, 4:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bundys-are-at-it-again/742043 "2016-01-03T04:49:43Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 181
### Author:  [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)
#### Post date: [July 11, 2018, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bundys-are-at-it-again/742043/3601 "2018-07-11T16:55:32Z")
> [@Son\_of\_a\_Rich](#):
>
> I’m wondering what sort of evidence poaching leaves, and how it can be obliterated by fire.
They were suspected of killing and butchering game; the fire was set to destroy the evidence (entrails, skin, bones, etc.).
---
### Author:  [@TroutMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TroutMan)
#### Post date: [July 11, 2018, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bundys-are-at-it-again/742043/3602 "2018-07-11T17:02:59Z")
> [@steronz](#):
>
> Reading up on it, in order to get the mandatory minimum sentence they wanted they used an anti-terrorism law that was passed after the first WTC attack. That’s the part that was an injustice. The government shouldn’t get to use fear to expand its powers and then use the powers for something completely different than their initial justification. Whatever the Hammond brothers did, calling it terrorism is a stretch beyond reason.
This is incorrect. The arson law they were charged under was grouped with other laws, including a mix of anti-terrorism laws and laws unrelated to terrorism. Terrorist activity is not a requirement under the law, and being charged with it doesn’t imply they were terrorists. See Snowboarder Bo’s post a few after yours.
---
### Author:  [@74westy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/74westy)
#### Post date: [July 11, 2018, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bundys-are-at-it-again/742043/3603 "2018-07-11T19:21:42Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#):
>
> … singed into law by President Clinton.
Now that’s arson!
---
### Author:  [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)
#### Post date: [July 11, 2018, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bundys-are-at-it-again/742043/3604 "2018-07-11T20:43:38Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#):
>
> Short version: they started fires on their own land during a burn ban. The fire spread to federal lands and caused extensive damage. There is substantial evidence that they intended the fire to spread because it destroyed evidence that they were poaching game on federal land illegally.
>
> Five years is pretty rough for an accidental fire. It’s pretty light for arson that caused millions of dollars in damage.
I see your point, but the law should make a difference between the burning of a dwelling and the burning of wild brush. I agree with the District Court judge that five years mandatory minimum shocks the conscience given the facts.
---
### Author:  [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)
#### Post date: [July 11, 2018, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bundys-are-at-it-again/742043/3605 "2018-07-11T21:02:05Z")
> [@UltraVires](#):
>
> I see your point, but the law should make a difference between the burning of a dwelling and the burning of wild brush. I agree with the District Court judge that five years mandatory minimum shocks the conscience given the facts.
If you start a wild brush fire, and that gets out of control, and burns down some dwellings, did you still just start a brush fire?
If[there are people](https://www.opb.org/news/article/hammond_witness_describes_setting_fire_in_2001/)in the way of the fire that you set, is that just burning some wild brush?
> [@](#):
>
> The indictment also alleges a fire the pair started in 2006 threatened to trap four BLM firefighters, one of whom confronted Dwight Hammond at the fire scene.
If you are setting the fire in order to cover up another crime, is that just burning some wild brush?
Fire is dangerous, and even with the best intentions, can cause a great deal of harm. I see nothing wrong with strongly discouraging people from setting wild fires.
---
### Author:  [@Folacin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Folacin)
#### Post date: [July 11, 2018, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bundys-are-at-it-again/742043/3606 "2018-07-11T21:03:25Z")
> [@UltraVires](#):
>
> I see your point, but the law should make a difference between the burning of a dwelling and the burning of wild brush. I agree with the District Court judge that five years mandatory minimum shocks the conscience given the facts.
But these guys are all in favor of mandatory minimums for other crimes - do those shock the judge’s conscience also?
---
### Author:  [@enipla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/enipla)
#### Post date: [July 11, 2018, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bundys-are-at-it-again/742043/3607 "2018-07-11T21:04:34Z")
> [@UltraVires](#):
>
> I see your point, but the law should make a difference between the burning of a **dwelling and the burning of wild brush**. I agree with the District Court judge that five years mandatory minimum shocks the conscience given the facts.
I don’t think that any structures where threatened in the Hammonds fire. THIS time. But forest/brush fires are very unpredictable.
The fire a month ago not 5 miles from where I work cause 1500 people to evacuate. Hundreds of structures where threatened. Not one casualty or structure lost.
So, where do you draw the line?
My department (County GIS) are the folks that create the evac route maps, we determine the number of structures threatened and where. And just about any ad-hoc map that is needed. This shit hits close to home.
---
### Author:  [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)
#### Post date: [July 12, 2018, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bundys-are-at-it-again/742043/3608 "2018-07-12T00:58:24Z")
> [@enipla](#):
>
> I don’t think that any structures where threatened in the Hammonds fire. THIS time. But forest/brush fires are very unpredictable.
>
> The fire a month ago not 5 miles from where I work cause 1500 people to evacuate. Hundreds of structures where threatened. Not one casualty or structure lost.
>
> So, where do you draw the line?
>
> My department (County GIS) are the folks that create the evac route maps, we determine the number of structures threatened and where. And just about any ad-hoc map that is needed. This shit hits close to home.
I agree. However, the federal arson law is so broad that it could apply to almost anything:
> [@18 USC 844 (i)](#):
>
> Whoever maliciously damages or destroys, or attempts to damage or destroy, by means of fire or an explosive, any building, vehicle, or other real or personal property used in interstate or foreign commerce or in any activity affecting interstate or foreign commerce shall be imprisoned for not less than 5 years and not more than 20 years, fined under this title, or both;
It seems like smoking a cigarette is arson punishable by a mandatory minimum of 5 years in prison, or indeed, burning an American flag.
---
### Author:  [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)
#### Post date: [July 12, 2018, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bundys-are-at-it-again/742043/3609 "2018-07-12T01:17:55Z")
I don’t agree at all that a five year minimum shocks the conscience if you intentionally use fire during a burn ban. Those bans exist for a reason. They can get unpredictable.
And I think you are leaving out the word “maliciously” in the interpretation of the law, **UltraVires**. Someone smokes for their own pleasure, not for malicious intent. And flag burning is either the proper way to get rid of a flag or protected speech. Only if either one were used for some other purpose could I see their being counted as arson under that law.
In all, I think it’s a pretty decent definition of arson. You should not maliciously start fires.
---
### Author:  [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)
#### Post date: [July 12, 2018, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bundys-are-at-it-again/742043/3610 "2018-07-12T01:24:17Z")
> [@BigT](#):
>
> I don’t agree at all that a five year minimum shocks the conscience if you intentionally use fire during a burn ban. Those bans exist for a reason. They can get unpredictable.
>
> And I think you are leaving out the word “maliciously” in the interpretation of the law, **UltraVires**. Someone smokes for their own pleasure, not for malicious intent. And flag burning is either the proper way to get rid of a flag or protected speech. Only if either one were used for some other purpose could I see their being counted as arson under that law.
>
> In all, I think it’s a pretty decent definition of arson. You should not maliciously start fires.
How is burning brush malicious? I’m just trying to keep my property looking neat. If it spreads and harms people or buildings, then I would argue that I am negligent in tending to the fire, but not malicious.
ETA: What if I smoke for the secondary purpose of irritating non-smokers around me or I burn a flag to upset war widows and veterans? Malicious?
---
### Author:  [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)
#### Post date: [July 12, 2018, 5:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bundys-are-at-it-again/742043/3611 "2018-07-12T05:15:19Z")
Under a burn ban? You’re just clearing brush on your land so you burn it during a burn ban? What swampy part of the country are you from?
---
### Author:  [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)
#### Post date: [July 12, 2018, 5:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bundys-are-at-it-again/742043/3612 "2018-07-12T05:34:19Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#):
>
> And so Donald J. Trump, the President of the United States of America, becomes a sponsor of terrorism.
He always was. When he called for Hillary to be murdered with a “Second Amendment solution” that was terrorism.
But he was running as a Republican, so naturally it was ignored. Terrorism is perfectly acceptable if you are right wing in the US.
---
### Author:  [@enipla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/enipla)
#### Post date: [July 12, 2018, 1:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bundys-are-at-it-again/742043/3613 "2018-07-12T13:30:27Z")
> [@UltraVires](#):
>
> How is burning brush malicious? I’m just trying to keep my property looking neat. If it spreads and harms people or buildings, then I would argue that I am negligent in tending to the fire, but not malicious.
>
> ETA: What if I smoke for the secondary purpose of irritating non-smokers around me or I burn a flag to upset war widows and veterans? Malicious?
:sigh: Under a BURN BAN, it’s NOT about negligence in tending the fire. You are guilty the minute you set it. It doesn’t mater if it gets out of control or not.
Was it malicious? Only those who started it know for sure I suppose. The thought is they started it deliberately letting in move to federal property to cover up their poaching. We take poaching seriously in the west too.
---
### Author:  [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)
#### Post date: [July 12, 2018, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bundys-are-at-it-again/742043/3614 "2018-07-12T15:24:54Z")
> [@UltraVires](#):
>
> How is burning brush malicious? I’m just trying to keep my property looking neat. If it spreads and harms people or buildings, then I would argue that I am negligent in tending to the fire, but not malicious.
>
> ETA: What if I smoke for the secondary purpose of irritating non-smokers around me or I burn a flag to upset war widows and veterans? Malicious?
That is true. But the jury in this case did not find that the Hammonds were negligent, but that they acted with malice, or else they would not have voted to convict on the arson charges (they did in fact vote to acquit on others, and the rest were disposed of via a mid-trial plea agreement).
You know better than I do that malice is a well-defined term of art in criminal law. Its inclusion in the statute clearly rules out a conviction for unintentional acts.
---
### Author:  [@asahi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asahi)
#### Post date: [July 12, 2018, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bundys-are-at-it-again/742043/3615 "2018-07-12T15:44:07Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#):
>
> That is true. **But the jury** in this case did not find that the Hammonds were negligent, but **that they acted with malice** , or else they would not have **voted to convict on the arson charges** (they did in fact vote to acquit on others, and the rest were disposed of via a mid-trial plea agreement).
That’s what needs to be remembered: it was a jury that weighed the evidence and convicted them. They weren’t waterboarded and forced to confess.
If people want to have a debate on mandatory minimum sentencing, I’m all for it, as I tend to dislike the practice except for the most extreme crimes. Nor am I saying that juries and the justice system are infallible - far from it.
But Trump has already established a disturbing practice of pardoning people just because he can, and he’s clearly doing this out of spite toward the very justice system that’s bearing down on him. I actually expect as much from a career con artist like Trump, but I would have hoped that at least some Republicans would have challenged him. They have not - not the meaningful ones anyway. Only those who have already raised the white flag of defeat and decided to retire.
---
### Author:  [@madsircool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/madsircool)
#### Post date: [July 12, 2018, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bundys-are-at-it-again/742043/3616 "2018-07-12T17:04:36Z")
> [@asahi](#):
>
> That’s what needs to be remembered: it was a jury that weighed the evidence and convicted them. They weren’t waterboarded and forced to confess.
>
> If people want to have a debate on mandatory minimum sentencing, I’m all for it, as I tend to dislike the practice except for the most extreme crimes. Nor am I saying that juries and the justice system are infallible - far from it.
>
> But Trump has already established a disturbing practice of pardoning people just because he can, and he’s clearly doing this out of spite toward the very justice system that’s bearing down on him. I actually expect as much from a career con artist like Trump, but I would have hoped that at least some Republicans would have challenged him. They have not - not the meaningful ones anyway. Only those who have already raised the white flag of defeat and decided to retire.
You obviously have forgotten about the Marc Rich pardon.
> **[Marc Rich](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Rich)**
>
> Marc Rich (born Marcell David Reich; December 18, 1934 – June 26, 2013) was an international commodities trader, financier, and businessman. He founded the commodities company Glencore, and was later indicted in the United States on federal charges of tax evasion, wire fraud, racketeering, and making oil deals with Iran during the Iran hostage crisis. He fled to Switzerland at the time of the indictment and never returned to the United States. He received a widely criticized presidential pardo
---
### Author:  [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)
#### Post date: [July 12, 2018, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bundys-are-at-it-again/742043/3617 "2018-07-12T17:20:57Z")
> [@madsircool](#):
>
> You obviously have forgotten about the Marc Rich pardon.
>
> [Marc Rich - Wikipedia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Rich)
Can you explain how this establishes a pattern, when your example is a pardon on the last day of office?
---
### Author:  [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)
#### Post date: [July 12, 2018, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bundys-are-at-it-again/742043/3618 "2018-07-12T17:40:20Z")
> [@madsircool](#):
>
> You obviously have forgotten about the Marc Rich pardon.
>
> [Marc Rich - Wikipedia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Rich)
Let’s go to the quarry and throw stuff down there! Nice rebuttal! :rolleyes:
A single instance on the last day of Clinton’s presidency shows what, exactly? And the fact that ddamned near everyone in the world, eventually including even Cinton himself, agreed it was lame makes your point what now?
---
### Author:  [@madsircool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/madsircool)
#### Post date: [July 12, 2018, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bundys-are-at-it-again/742043/3619 "2018-07-12T18:08:26Z")
FTR regardless of the D or R if you pardon a guy who was charged with giving aid and comfort to the enemies of the country (Iran was still holding the hostages) as well as a multitude of other crimes, and was still a fugitive, for money then that’s about as bad as it can get. Trump is horrible but the hysteria surrounding him blinds us to how corrupt the system can be.
---
### Author:  [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)
#### Post date: [July 13, 2018, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bundys-are-at-it-again/742043/3620 "2018-07-13T01:57:12Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#):
>
> He always was. **When he called for Hillary to be murdered with a “Second Amendment solution”** that was terrorism.
>
> But he was running as a Republican, so naturally it was ignored. **Terrorism is perfectly acceptable if you are right wing** in the US.
On the other hand, don’t you ever get uppity and tell a Repug to leave your restaurant.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bundys-are-at-it-again/742043.md?page=180)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bundys-are-at-it-again/742043.md?page=182)