Trump to pardon the Hammonds (catalysts for the Bundy stand off)

[gatchaman]

You are conflating the title of the act with what it actually describes. It describes arson on federal property, which the Hammonds did.


No, being imprisoned five years for arson is not "cruel and unusual." An action that can and did endanger people and cause lots of damage? Five years is normal.


Setting aside your silly attempt to minimize the crime, your premise is wrong. Five years is not more than the mandatory minimum for rape in Oregon, which starts at 6 years, 3 months, and goes up from there, with higher minimums for different factors. In the federal system, someone with no criminal history would generally get at least nine years for rape.

Personally, I think mandatory minimums are bad policy. That doesn't make them "cruel and unusual" or mean that the Hammonds were unjustly sentenced.


Nonsequitor. Please start a different thread if you want to discuss a different topic.

How much time did the Hammonds serve and how much would you like them to serve?

You accuse me of minimizing the severity of their crime, but you refuse to discuss the crime of torture. It is you who is doing the minimizing.

 

[Quipling]

How much time did the Hammonds serve and how much would you like them to serve?

You accuse me of minimizing the severity of their crime, but you refuse to discuss the crime of torture. It is you who is doing the minimizing.

The Hammonds were not tortured or accused of torture. Your post makes no sense. This is not "minimization," this is me ignoring your bizarre irrelevancies.

 

[gatchaman]

The Hammonds were not tortured or accused of torture. Your post makes no sense. This is not "minimization," this is me ignoring your bizarre irrelevancies.

Obama stated that the government agents conducted torture and that there would be no prosecution for these tortures.

Ergo torture by government agents is not seen to be as bad as burning government grass by the Hammonds.

Why will you discuss rape but not torture?

Also, I repeat my question from my previous post:
How much time did the Hammonds serve and how much would you like them to serve?

 

[mrsenor]

Law and order president.

 

[mrsenor]

Different culture, hard to judge.
He should not have done this, it was a wrong thing to do

i lol irl

 

[Hog-train]

You have not quoted my entire original post as well.

I would appreciate your input on the part that you did not quote from my original post. Here it is again:
The decision by Obama to not prosecute government workers who engaged in torture was unjust, and there are innocent victims, who were killed or harmed (including Americans Donald Vance and Nathan Ertel), of this unjust decision. Trump has compounded this injustice by making one of the workers, who destroyed evidence of torture (not of poaching, of torture!), the director of the CIA.

Did any of the torturers or the people who destroyed evidence of torture deserve to spend even one day in a cage? Who is really trying to minimize crime here?

What the hell does the Hammond's case have to do with government torture?

This is not related and a complete misdirection.

It's like a kid got caught red handed stealing for his mom's purse and then he turns around and says "well how about the dog who shit on the rug?"

What the hell does one have to do with the other?

You keep saying the Hammond's sentence is double jeopardy, but it's not. What part of mandatory minimum sentence don't you understand?

 

[Hog-train]

This thread is about Trump going easy on the Hammonds, but I think the worse thing is how easy Trump and Obama have gone on torturers and those who destroyed evidence of torture.

What's worse is us killing hundreds of thousands in the Middle East in collateral war damage, but that still has nothing to do with the topic. Stick to the discussion and start another thread if you want to discuss gov't torture.

How much time did the Hammonds serve and how much would you like them to serve?

I would like them to serve the exact same 5 years that everyone else convicted of the same crime does. No special treatment.

 

[SammyPops]

Just like every other politician . . .

Na, he's way better than most at it.

 

[jamel]

Man..

This thread is all over the place.

How we go from talking about the early release of a bunch of squatting welfare babies to talking about torture?

I hope yall kept this same energy in the thread about ol rand paul getting his ass beat for fucking with his neighbors property.

No way yall could have sided with the neighbor... Cause yall sound like a bunch of Rand Pauls right now.

A bunch of aint shit neighbors with too much free time.

 

[Gunny]

The Truth About the Oregon Rancher standoff:


Using anti-terrorism laws to prosecute a brush fire that got a little out of control is clearly Federal overreach.

BTW, for those who don't know, range fires are a necessary part of any natural cycle in grasslands. Not only is it necessary to promote new growth, but it actually increases the value of land.

I’m interested in this take but can’t watch a half hour of Stefan Molyneux

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

I’m interested in this take but can’t watch a half hour of Stefan Molyneux

It's a topic that will require more than ten minutes of study to fully grasp, comprehend, and understand.

Everything in the video is sourced with full citations.

 

[pinger]

Off all the inbred sovereign citizen dipshits he chose this bunch. Lol

 

[44nutman]

Since I live in Florida, I am going to kill a herd of Manatees, burn the ocean and wait for Trumps pardon.

 

[HomerThompson]

...

The reason is that they deserve to serve that time. It's a perfectly reasonable minimum sentence for the offense they committed.

Fuck those guys.

 

[gatchaman]

The reason is that they deserve to serve that time. It's a perfectly reasonable minimum sentence for the offense they committed.

Fuck those guys.

That's two who have answered one of my questions. @Quipling you liked Hog-train's post #135 and in post #139 he is also in support of a full five years for the Hammonds to preserve the sanctity of mandatory minimums. Are you going to just like that post too and be the first-place most cowardly?

Here is my question again in case you want to prove your half-courage:
How much time did the Hammonds serve and how much would you like them to serve?

 

[BrotherClaudio]

Fire used as a management tool, fucking lol. The fire was used to destroy evidence, plain and simple, but the yarn some are spinning in this thread is making me laugh. Thanks for that.

You should look into how nature works, it's not only necessary, it's a vital part in the wheel of life

 

[Limbo Pete]

No more derails plz

 

[gatchaman]

No more derails plz

Hello Limobo Pete.

1) Your post is not in blue. Is your request as a poster or as a moderator?

2) Do you consider this question considered to be a derail?:
How much time did the Hammonds serve and how much would you like them to serve?

3) Would you consider a discussion of the contents of the Molyneux video to be a derail?

 

[Limbo Pete]

Hello Limobo Pete.

1) Your post is not in blue. Is your request as a poster or as a moderator?

2) Do you consider this question considered to be a derail?:
How much time did the Hammonds serve and how much would you like them to serve?

3) Would you consider a discussion of the contents of the Molyneux video to be a derail?

Hello Gatchaman

The derail was a multi-person descent into some crap about torture, etc.
This isn't something i'm going to litigate. Just stay on topic. Any further questions should be delivered via PM.

 

[gatchaman]

According to the Molyneux video posted earlier by @Farmer Br0wn (starting at 24:12 below)

the judge cited the following precedents to support upholding the 5-year minimum sentence for the Hammonds.

Spoiler

The Supreme Court has upheld far tougher sentences for less serious or, at the very least, comparable offenses.

See Lockyer v. Andrade (upholding a sentence of fifty years to life under California’s three-strikes law for stealing nine videotapes); Ewing v. California (upholding a sentence of twenty-five years to life under California’s three-strikes law for the theft of three golf clubs);

Hutto v. Davis (upholding a forty-year sentence for possession of nine ounces of marijuana with the intent to distribute); Rummel v. Estelle (upholding a life sentence for under Texas’s recidivist statute for obtaining $120.75 by false pretenses).

My understanding of the argument is that, in these precedents, it was correctly decided that the punishments were not cruel and unusual enough to evoke 8th amendment protection against the imposed mandatory minimum and so it should be for the Hammonds.

For those of you willing to come forth and be outraged that a mere three (or four) years is deemed enough (Only a full five years behind bars will do for the Hammonds!), please tell me the sentence you would like for Leandro Andrade for stealing five children's videotapes from a K-Mart store in Ontario, California. He is sentenced to a mandatory minimum of fifty years.