Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: What exactly are the Oregon Arsonists guilty of? [View all]sunnystarr
(2,638 posts)8. This is the background ...
The jury convicted both of the Hammonds of using fire to destroy federal property for a 2001 arson known as the Hardie-Hammond Fire, located in the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area. 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.
The jury also convicted Steven Hammond of using fire to destroy federal property regarding a 2006 arson known as the Krumbo Butte Fire located in the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge and Steen Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area. An August lightning storm started numerous fires and a burn ban was in effect while BLM firefighters fought those fires. Despite the ban, without permission or notification to BLM, Steven Hammond started several back fires in an attempt save the ranchs winter feed. The fires burned onto public land and were seen by BLM firefighters camped nearby. The firefighters took steps to ensure their safety and reported the arsons.
By law, arson on federal land carries a five-year mandatory minimum sentence. When the Hammonds were originally sentenced, they argued that the five-year mandatory minimum terms were unconstitutional and the trial court agreed and imposed sentences well below what the law required based upon the jurys verdicts. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, however, upheld the federal law, reasoning that given the seriousness of arson, a five-year sentence is not grossly disproportionate to the offense. The court vacated the original, unlawful sentences and ordered that the Hammonds be resentenced in compliance with the law. In March 2015, the Supreme Court rejected the Hammonds petitions for certiorari. Today, Chief Judge Aiken imposed five year prison terms on each of the Hammonds, with credit for time they already served.
http://www.justice.gov/usao-or/pr/eastern-oregon-ranchers-convicted-arson-resentenced-five-years-prison
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
44 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Actually, they set the fires intentionally to cover up poaching on public land.
OregonBlue
Jan 2016
#11
It doesn't make that much different the act that they did to cover it up was arson on
LiberalArkie
Jan 2016
#12
You are correct now. South Dakota is sparsely populated and so is eastern Oregon (and Montana).
PufPuf23
Jan 2016
#31
A major claim of the militia is they believe they have a constitutional right to the land.
PufPuf23
Jan 2016
#30
Nice try. Ohio is mid EAST. It is 2/3 of the way from the center of the country
Ms. Toad
Jan 2016
#43
the judge that gave the first reduced sentence was a wingnut who had no RIGHT to do so.
JanMichael
Jan 2016
#35