Question for the barristers re Oregon occupation.

As Finicum was killed in connection with what has been declared felonious activities, what are the odds that any occupiers will be charged with Felony Murder?

Possible. The charges may be put on the table as part of a plea bargain deal. I think that doing so is horsechit, but it could very likely happen.

If they can send a man to prison for five years for burning off some grass on his lease, anything is possible.

Originally Posted by Stormin_Norman

If they can send a man to prison for five years for burning off some grass on his lease, anything is possible.

He wasn't sent to prison for that; not that facts matter.

Originally Posted by 4ager

Originally Posted by Stormin_Norman

If they can send a man to prison for five years for burning off some grass on his lease, anything is possible.

He wasn't sent to prison for that; not that facts matter.

Take a minute and read the court case, that's exactly what he was sent to jail for, they called it arson on federal land. I call it burning some brush to control weeds and do it on my land every year.

Originally Posted by Stormin_Norman

Originally Posted by 4ager

Originally Posted by Stormin_Norman

If they can send a man to prison for five years for burning off some grass on his lease, anything is possible.

He wasn't sent to prison for that; not that facts matter.

Take a minute and read the court case, that's exactly what he was sent to jail for, they called it arson on federal land. I call it burning some brush to control weeds and do it on my land every year.

I have, and clearly have a better concept of facts than you do. Hint: wasn't his land.

Originally Posted by Stormin_Norman

Originally Posted by 4ager

Originally Posted by Stormin_Norman

If they can send a man to prison for five years for burning off some grass on his lease, anything is possible.

He wasn't sent to prison for that; not that facts matter.

Take a minute and read the court case, that's exactly what he was sent to jail for, they called it arson on federal land. I call it burning some brush to control weeds and do it on my land every year.

It was my land and lots of other folks and we didn't want it burnt.

Saw an article when this first started, stating that the Feds had given approval for the burn then changed their mind. IIRC the sheriff was involved in the whole Charlie Foxtrot early on during the approval for burn. Have not been able to find the article again and am wondering if anyone here knows the facts.

he set fires on the refuge at least twice. once when there was a fire weather red flag warning posted, and another time when there was a camp in the path of the fire.

that goes well beyond 'burning some brush to control weeds'

And then there was the poaching.

Doesn't look like the Oregon felony murder rule would apply.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_murder_rule_(Oregon)
Death has to be of a non-participant.(according to wiki)

You liberals from the east side just don't get it. The fires were on BLM land, not a refuge. He started the fires because BLM was dragging their feet and not doing their jobs. He had AU's for the land and it needed to be burnt to support them. The poaching claims were made by a reporter, never entered into the legal case, and may very have just been slander.

The folks at the Oregon farm bureau and Oregon cattlemen's association agree it was BS sentence. I for one support America's ranchers and farmers.

Take a minute and read the pdf from the federal courts on the actual facts. Understand this remote desert were neighbors are miles apart. Burning is accepted management tool and a natural occurrence. Understand the government is not the solution, it's problem.

Originally Posted by Stormin_Norman

Understand the government is not the solution, it's problem.

Who knew?

Originally Posted by Stormin_Norman

You liberals from the east side just don't get it. The fires were on BLM land, not a refuge. He started the fires because BLM was dragging their feet and not doing their jobs. He had AU's for the land and it needed to be burnt to support them. The poaching claims were made by a reporter, never entered into the legal case, and may very have just been slander.

The folks at the Oregon farm bureau and Oregon cattlemen's association agree it was BS sentence. I for one support America's ranchers and farmers.

Take a minute and read the pdf from the federal courts on the actual facts. Understand this remote desert were neighbors are miles apart. Burning is accepted management tool and a natural occurrence. Understand the government is not the solution, it's problem.

Not so,

and the BLM belongs to me too.

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.

Originally Posted by callnum

Originally Posted by Stormin_Norman

Originally Posted by 4ager

Originally Posted by Stormin_Norman

If they can send a man to prison for five years for burning off some grass on his lease, anything is possible.

He wasn't sent to prison for that; not that facts matter.

Take a minute and read the court case, that's exactly what he was sent to jail for, they called it arson on federal land. I call it burning some brush to control weeds and do it on my land every year.

It was my land and lots of other folks and we didn't want it burnt.

How may have you talked to about that?

Originally Posted by Stormin_Norman

You liberals from the east side just don't get it. The fires were on BLM land, not a refuge. He started the fires because BLM was dragging their feet and not doing their jobs. He had AU's for the land and it needed to be burnt to support them. The poaching claims were made by a reporter, never entered into the legal case, and may very have just been slander.

The folks at the Oregon farm bureau and Oregon cattlemen's association agree it was BS sentence. I for one support America's ranchers and farmers.

Take a minute and read the pdf from the federal courts on the actual facts. Understand this remote desert were neighbors are miles apart. Burning is accepted management tool and a natural occurrence. Understand the government is not the solution, it's problem.

All that parroted rhetoric doesn't change the fact they were convicted of two counts of arson on federal property.

That's all that really matters

I support ranchers too. I had steak for supper

Food for thought, read through this:

http://freedomfromgovernment.org/th...ow-about-the-standoff-in-oregon/#more-51

The govt would never do anything against the citizens of the US. We need larger govt to take care of us. We need more govt.

Originally Posted by Snyper

Originally Posted by Stormin_Norman

You liberals from the east side just don't get it. The fires were on BLM land, not a refuge. He started the fires because BLM was dragging their feet and not doing their jobs. He had AU's for the land and it needed to be burnt to support them. The poaching claims were made by a reporter, never entered into the legal case, and may very have just been slander.

The folks at the Oregon farm bureau and Oregon cattlemen's association agree it was BS sentence. I for one support America's ranchers and farmers.

Take a minute and read the pdf from the federal courts on the actual facts. Understand this remote desert were neighbors are miles apart. Burning is accepted management tool and a natural occurrence. Understand the government is not the solution, it's problem.

All that parroted rhetoric doesn't change the fact they were convicted of two counts of arson on federal property.

That's all that really matters

I support ranchers too. I had steak for supper

5 years in federal prison and 400k in fines for burning 139 acres grass range land is nuts. That's why the original plea deal was for 6 months and I think that was out of line. Coming back after the fact and sending them to prison for another 4.5 years by liberal judge in Eugene is the problem.

If you think 5 years in prison and 400k in fines is reasonable for burning some grass that probably needed to be burnt, you are the very definition of a window licker.

Originally Posted by Stormin_Norman

5 years in federal prison and 400k in fines for burning 139 acres grass range land is nuts. That's why the original plea deal was for 6 months and I think that was out of line. Coming back after the fact and sending them to prison for another 4.5 years by liberal judge in Eugene is the problem.

You're mostly spot on here. The original sentence is what it is, and it got served. Good, bad or otherwise, that was the deal that was struck. The fact that the prosecutor - in an absolutely unprecedented move - appealed the already served sentence is beyond the pale. That is a gross miscarriage of justice and completely without any parallel.

Of course, all of that is now buried and seriously compromised by the Bundy bunch. The Hammonds have suffered the worst at the hands of the Bundys, and there's no denying that.

The Hammonds should have gotten probation at most. There is clearly a govt agenda at work against them, for whatever reason.

Originally Posted by Fireball2

The Hammonds should have gotten probation at most. There is clearly a govt agenda at work against them, for whatever reason.

The Hammonds cut a deal, and the prosecutor crawfished on it. Of course, the Hammond case is now hamstrung to a severe degree due to the Bundys (whom the Hammonds never wanted there in the first place).

Originally Posted by Stormin_Norman

You liberals from the east side just don't get it. The fires were on BLM land, not a refuge. He started the fires because BLM was dragging their feet and not doing their jobs. He had AU's for the land and it needed to be burnt to support them. The poaching claims were made by a reporter, never entered into the legal case, and may very have just been slander.

The folks at the Oregon farm bureau and Oregon cattlemen's association agree it was BS sentence. I for one support America's ranchers and farmers.

Take a minute and read the pdf from the federal courts on the actual facts. Understand this remote desert were neighbors are miles apart. Burning is accepted management tool and a natural occurrence. Understand the government is not the solution, it's problem.

So sorry that you liberals out west have equally liberal judges.
But as mentioned prior, I did eat steak last night[in support of ranchers].

Originally Posted by callnum

Not so,

and the BLM belongs to me too.

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.

Communism

Originally Posted by 4ager

Originally Posted by Stormin_Norman

5 years in federal prison and 400k in fines for burning 139 acres grass range land is nuts. That's why the original plea deal was for 6 months and I think that was out of line. Coming back after the fact and sending them to prison for another 4.5 years by liberal judge in Eugene is the problem.

The fact that the prosecutor - in an absolutely unprecedented move - appealed the already served sentence is beyond the pale. That is a gross miscarriage of justice and completely without any parallel.

This isn't quite what happened. To pic nits-
During the middle of trial the defendant's were informed by the court that they had been found guilty of two counts and the jury was deadlocked on additional counts. Having the two counts the prosecutor agreed to run the two counts concurrent and let the jury go home.
nothing in the Ninth Circuits opinion purports that the prosecutor agreed to 6 months when the mandatory minimum was 5 years.
Prosecutor did not wait until the 6 months was served before filing the appeal, as noted by the Ninth Circuit the prosecutors argued even before the original sentence that the mandatory minimum was 5 years. The sentencing judge determined to not follow the mandatory minimums and sentenced the defendant to 6 months. The Ninth Circuit disagreed.(three judge panel, the authoring judge from the Eastern District of Michigan)
Defendant was sentenced October 30, 2012, United States Appealed November 6.

Originally Posted by ]On June 21, 2012, following an eight-day trial, a jury found Dwight Hammond guilty of one count, and Steven Hammond guilty of two counts of, Use of Fire to Damage and Destroy Property [*3

of the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 & 844(f)(1). On October 30, 2012, a sentencing hearing was held before the Honorable Michael R. Hogan. Judge Hogan declined to apply the five-year mandatory minimum sentence for the offense, finding it grossly disproportionate to the severity of the offense, in violation of the Eight Amendment. (Sentencing Hr'g Tr. at 26:3-6, Oct. 30, 2012.) Instead, Dwight Hammond was sentenced to three months in prison and Steven Hammond was sentenced to twelve months and one day in prison for each offense. On November 6, 2012, the United States appealed the sentences to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The parties submitted appellate briefs in the matter and are awaiting oral argument.

You can disagree with what happened and the outcome and even be outraged by the law but changing the facts and making stuff up doesn't help anyone.

Bundy's didn't do the Hammonds any favors when they attached their name to the case.

There are issues out there that do need the good fight.

But, the issues worth fighting for are not the ones where sympathizers become the aggressors.

It's hard be the "victim" when you are the aggressor.

Originally Posted by 4ager

Originally Posted by Fireball2

The Hammonds should have gotten probation at most. There is clearly a govt agenda at work against them, for whatever reason.

The Hammonds cut a deal, and the prosecutor crawfished on it. Of course, the Hammond case is now hamstrung to a severe degree due to the Bundys (whom the Hammonds never wanted there in the first place).

THIS!!!

Originally Posted by Scott F

Originally Posted by 4ager

Originally Posted by Fireball2

The Hammonds should have gotten probation at most. There is clearly a govt agenda at work against them, for whatever reason.

The Hammonds cut a deal, and the prosecutor crawfished on it. Of course, the Hammond case is now hamstrung to a severe degree due to the Bundys (whom the Hammonds never wanted there in the first place).

THIS!!!

Not affiliated with the case nor was I privy to any discussions but the oral agreement was put on the record. No mention is made in any of the cases regarding a purported sentence nor does that information appear supported by the procedure.

Originally Posted by Ninth Circuit

Although the Hammonds did not enter guilty pleas, the Hammonds agreed not to contest the jury verdicts in exchange for the government moving to dismiss other charges. The resulting posture is the same as that following a plea agreement. We thus will refer to the oral agreement here as a plea agreement and apply to it the law governing plea agreements.

The Hammonds agreed with the government's summary of the plea agreement. Their attorneys also added that the Hammonds wanted the "case to be over" and hoped to "bring th[e] matter to a close." According to the defense, the "idea" of the plea agreement was that the case would "be done with at the sentencing" and that the "parties would accept . . . the sentence that's imposed." The district court then accepted the plea agreement and dismissed the remaining charges.

Originally Posted by KRAKMT

Originally Posted by Scott F

Originally Posted by 4ager

Originally Posted by Fireball2

The Hammonds should have gotten probation at most. There is clearly a govt agenda at work against them, for whatever reason.

The Hammonds cut a deal, and the prosecutor crawfished on it. Of course, the Hammond case is now hamstrung to a severe degree due to the Bundys (whom the Hammonds never wanted there in the first place).

THIS!!!

Not affiliated with the case nor was I privy to any discussions but the oral agreement was put on the record. No mention is made in any of the cases regarding a purported sentence nor does that information appear supported by the procedure.

Originally Posted by Ninth Circuit

Although the Hammonds did not enter guilty pleas, the Hammonds agreed not to contest the jury verdicts in exchange for the government moving to dismiss other charges. The resulting posture is the same as that following a plea agreement. We thus will refer to the oral agreement here as a plea agreement and apply to it the law governing plea agreements.

The Hammonds agreed with the government's summary of the plea agreement. Their attorneys also added that the Hammonds wanted the "case to be over" and hoped to "bring th[e] matter to a close." According to the defense, the "idea" of the plea agreement was that the case would "be done with at the sentencing" and that the "parties would accept . . . the sentence that's imposed." The district court then accepted the plea agreement and dismissed the remaining charges.

Damn facts aren't near as much fun as rumors.

Originally Posted by ironbender

Originally Posted by callnum

Originally Posted by Stormin_Norman

Originally Posted by 4ager

Originally Posted by Stormin_Norman

If they can send a man to prison for five years for burning off some grass on his lease, anything is possible.

He wasn't sent to prison for that; not that facts matter.

Take a minute and read the court case, that's exactly what he was sent to jail for, they called it arson on federal land. I call it burning some brush to control weeds and do it on my land every year.

It was my land and lots of other folks and we didn't want it burnt.

How may have you talked to about that?

It was probably on the ballot.

325 million owners, kinda slow going.

Originally Posted by KRAKMT

Originally Posted by Scott F

Originally Posted by 4ager

Originally Posted by Fireball2

The Hammonds should have gotten probation at most. There is clearly a govt agenda at work against them, for whatever reason.

The Hammonds cut a deal, and the prosecutor crawfished on it. Of course, the Hammond case is now hamstrung to a severe degree due to the Bundys (whom the Hammonds never wanted there in the first place).

THIS!!!

Not affiliated with the case nor was I privy to any discussions but the oral agreement was put on the record. No mention is made in any of the cases regarding a purported sentence nor does that information appear supported by the procedure.

Originally Posted by Ninth Circuit

Although the Hammonds did not enter guilty pleas, the Hammonds agreed not to contest the jury verdicts in exchange for the government moving to dismiss other charges. The resulting posture is the same as that following a plea agreement. We thus will refer to the oral agreement here as a plea agreement and apply to it the law governing plea agreements.

The Hammonds agreed with the government's summary of the plea agreement. Their attorneys also added that the Hammonds wanted the "case to be over" and hoped to "bring th[e] matter to a close." According to the defense, the "idea" of the plea agreement was that the case would "be done with at the sentencing" and that the "parties would accept . . . the sentence that's imposed." The district court then accepted the plea agreement and dismissed the remaining charges.

They cut a deal with a federal judge, then another judge reneged on the deal. Exactly what everyone is PO about. Chit deal in my book and miss application of the statute.