And federal public lands, which Trump has also shown hostility towards.
Adds “Armed takeovers of buildings” to the list of things that the GOP has changed it’s opinion on.
if there were words bad enough to express how I feel about this, they would not be allowed in the pit.
:dubious:
I think we should all bookmark this day.
Trump’s gimmicky use of presidential pardon is going to incite anti-law enforcement extremists, and in doing so he’s putting people’s lives in danger.
But this is now seemingly republican orthodoxy: we support “real” law enforcement like local sheriffs and state troopers, but the ‘deep state’ has to be broken and reconstituted into……what, the American SS?
Conservatives claim to be pro police, pro law enforcement, pro justice, but I guess it depends on the skin color of people getting arrested. Before long, it’ll depend on the political affiliation of the people getting arrested.
Also depends on if you wear a cowboy hat and got a good ‘ole’ six shooter. These people think justice is a John Wayne movie.
…
There’s a saying that could and should apply to them…
Be careful what you wish for, you might get it. I imagine if their world turned into a Clint Eastwood movie, they’d last about two minutes.
What? These aren’t the guys that took over the building or orchestrated the standoff. It looks like they started brush fires on their ranch, arguably on federal land, pissed off some Feds who decided to charge them with arson which carries a mandatory minimum five year sentence.
I’m not that familiar with the case, but it screams of prosecutorial overreach.
How so? They set fires, they were prosecuted for setting fires, and they got the minimum sentence for setting fires.
If there’s overreach, it’s from people in this thread saying that Trump is condoning terrorism. The two men he pardoned had supporters who took over a wildlife refuge, but that doesn’t make those two men terrorists.
I’m no fan of Trump; just want to get the details right.
It’s been a while since I reviewed the facts of the case, but IIRC the minimum sentencing did seem harsh. I do think there’s some level of injustice given the crime.
Above said, there’s lots and lots of injustice Trump could be addressing – the failed war on drugs, mandatory minimum sentencing for non-violent crimes, felony murder convictions for teenagers, etc. Like all of Trump’s pardons, this one isn’t about righting an injustice, it’s about sending a message to his supporters, “I’m listening and I’ve got your backs.” And in this case, the supporters in question are domestic terrorists. He should not have their backs, and he should not be sending this message.
Can’t find any good sites, but the story I remember was that the Hammonds set the fire to cover up their illegal poaching activities (not sure how that’s supposed to work). So yeah, if that’s the case I have NO problem with at least the minimum sentence.
Colorado has 14 wildfires burning now. One was 5 miles from my work, another is 15 miles from my home. This is serious business.
Here is a good/quick reference to current fires. So yeah, this kind of shit pisses me off.
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.
Didn’t the GOP once go to war over this very issue. Place called errr Dumpster, Munster something?
Eight fucking years. Plus a year in custody before trial. He’s still locked up.
Thats fucking harsh. Your country is all-manner-of-fucked up.
Yes, that is pretty harsh. But - at least tell the story -
Burglary and theft as well.
The Hammonds also set their fire during a burn ban. There is VERY good reason to take this shit seriously. There are 300 square miles of fires burning right now in Colorado.
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.
I’d have to go digging in the archives, a few seconds of google doesn’t find it, but iirc, some of the fires that they set also endangered firefighters engaged in another fire at the time.
I’m wondering what sort of evidence poaching leaves, and how it can be obliterated by fire.
After much reading, I wish to retract this statement specifically regarding the Hammonds and their pardons:
Here is the most succinct description of why: I was incorrect regarding the law that the Hammonds were convicted of (and I’m not alone in this, I think).
The author, Lee Kovarsky (a professor at U Maryland), details how the law was quickly formulated in the aftermath of the Oklahoma City bombing and singed into law by President Clinton.
Seperating them from the Bundy clan, who’s actions they never sought, endorsed or encouraged, I cannot in good conscience refer to the Hammonds as terrorists, not with the facts as I know them now.
I do think that Donald Trump’s pardon of them sends a message to others tho, and I think that message is deliberate and purposeful on his part, so I still think he’s a loathsome douchebag.
I’m not a poacher (or hunter), but if they were hunting for meat or trophy antlers, they’d leave the guts behind, which could be burned up.