Originally Posted by bigswede
Originally Posted by Bored Member
They said the fire was started in an attempt to conceal or destroy evidence of the illegal hunting expedition..... You are mincing words.

The first judge was trying to go easy on the Hammonds, the Feds stepped in a cried foul. The Hammonds knew what the cost of their folly could be, they chose to ignore it.
Yeah, they said it was started for the purpose of destroying evidence. The evidence must have still been there to gather to make a strong case. But they didn't Why not?
The Hammonds had already served the time sentenced upon them when the feds cried foul. That foul was made by their own people, the state in general. That's where they should have looked for people to punish, if they wanted to preserve the citizens faith in the judicial system.
No, lets punish the already punished guys instead. That's much easier!

There are some things about this case that just chafes my sense of right and wrong.

While my senses would not be offended if the first judge received some sort of reprimand, the fact remains that the law indeed says the minimum sentence is 5 years apiece and they are out nothing more than the preferential treatment originally received in error. They knew what the federal sentence should have been when they committed the crime.

The Hammonds, to their credit, went knowingly and voluntarily back to jail and further, they denounced the actions of the Bundy group in holding a standoff at Malhuer.

The Hammonds have had a history of interfering with federal employees going back to 1994. They have been handled with kid gloves which only served to embolden them to push the envelope to the next level of criminality.

I hope this will not be the case with the Bundy clan who also have acted egregiously against federal authorities in Nevada and Oregon.