Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues The Legal Forum Let's check in on the cattle abusers, deadbeat grazers, wildlife squatter Bundys

Besides testimony, there were also approximately 800 exhibits of evidence entered into 3 separate criminal cases filed against these boys.

You can review them here.

More physical evidence...... can be found here.

So, it's also inaccurate to say that the Hammonds were convicted on only testimony.

Attempting to destroy evidence and destroying evidence are two different things. As per usual with these SovCit rancher jerks, their attempts at most things in life are generally failures. Pa and son Hammond - couldn't destroy the evidence by fire, apparently. D'oah!

But, but, but...that's what conservative media and conservative blogs tell these folks - so it MUST be true!

A couple of misconceptions and an incorrect assumption. First, destruction of evidence. bigswede assumed the deer were still present when the fire was started. I seriously doubt that. Why would hunters waste perfectly good meat? There may have been carcasses and parts left, and those easily could have been destroyed in an intense fire. Additionally, a barn fire and a forest/grass/brush fire are very different animals. A barn is a largely empty structure and the majority of the "fuel" is above the ground. Animals inside would be cooked, even burnt, but might not be incinerated. A brush fire is a ground fire and most of the fuel remains near the ground, where the heat will be more intense and focused.

Second, the Hammonds claimed that the fire was started on their own property. Much of the evidence (maps, charts, etc.) was directed at refuting that claim. The jury clearly believed that the claim was a falsehood.

Third, sentencing is a different process than a trial, which is why "double jeopardy" doesn't apply. The government objected at sentencing to the terms imposed (or else they could not have appealed it), so the resentencing was not a "surprise" to the Hammonds. As I pointed out earlier, they knew when they turned down the plea deal what sentence they were facing. Yes, the judge's deviation was an error, but not criminal.

I have opined that I thought that additional jail time should not have been imposed "in the interest of justice", but in the greater scheme of things (and, frankly, upon further review), it was not "wrong" - indeed it was inevitable. Truthfully, the Hammonds were seeking "special treatment" and didn't get it. Resentencing occurs all the time in the criminal justice system. The basic argument is one of fairness: if one defendant gets special treatment, how is that "fair" to all the other defendants convicted of the same crime? That's how we got into the morass of determinate sentencing in the first place! (Was, perhaps, the light treatment the Hammonds got due to the lightness of their skin, for example?) Mandatory minimum sentences are created precisely because judges can be fickle, biased or unfair in their sentences, and Congress tried to stop that.

you can present all the evidence in the world including subject testimony and still if I believe the process is flawed, the government is evil, etc then I will not be convinced

why is that hard for reasonable folks to understand????

I think there is a naive assumption that those types who think the "process is flawed" can be reasoned with and convinced otherwise. It ain't never gonna happen - these folks will never see the light - it's coded in their DNA: Differences in negativity bias underlie variations in political ideology

...in short, they were born that way. You can't fight nature.

I'm still very sceptic about the poaching. If they did remove the poached deer, where did they hide it? As in where is the evidence?

About my experience with a barn fire. As I explained, there was about 50 tons of dry hay on a floor above the cows. The whole thing collapsed and all the hay burned to ashes. That is a lot more flammable material than you can find in nature, short of a intense forrest fire. A I-beam rail under the roof running all the way through the building, used for hoisting nets with hay to storage. That beam was the only thing from the building still recognizable after the fire and it looked like a cork screw. Still the cows bodies lied where they dropped.

The claim that the fire was set to disguise poaching is in my eyes not supported by presented evidence.


It is contrary to most all sense of justice I have encountered world wide that a sentence served can be prolonged if the state (any entity of the authorities in power) discovers it made a mistake. Looked at from the opposite side, if a private citizen accepts a refund from the IRS, signs the appropriate documents and then later discovers he should have gotten twice the money in refund, do you honestly think they will say OK and pay up?
The only way to hold the state to it's responsibilities is to not let it off the hook when they do a bad job and especially when they do not follow the law. The agencies and officials thereof most be brought to justice and held accountable for crimes against the people (acting against the constitution or common law). Liberal leniency on this point will result in a reckless state hurting it's people.

This liberal affection for the state (statism) is very disturbing for the future of the nation. I can only guess why. Here comes a bold (?) guess that cold also have been presented in the Ideology or Principle thread.
The middle class (including academic scholars with ordinary jobs to suit their exams) in America is so plagued by how the state is run that they accept no undue relief for anyone else. Especially not for people of low standing in academic circles, such as farmers, ranchers and gun owners. That middle class will happily cry for the most severe punishment available whenever such a low class person is put on trial. Is that your petticoat showing, ah, no it's your petty envy.

In America there are more people incarcerated per capita than in any other country among the Western Democracies. Few, if any others, still have the death penalty. This is very different from how crime and punishment is viewed in any of the New World English speaking countries, Canada, Australia and NZ. Even Old England is more modern in this respect.

I can not for the life of me understand why American liberals differ so much from their cousins in these other countries. American liberals seem to wish for a Scandinavian type welfare state, but they go about it in a manner that would be very conservative or right-wing in those countries. Why, how?

e.g.
There were photos of the shoot. That evidence, however, is inconclusive if you reject the premise in advance.

While I generally agree with that sentiment, it is far more common in justice systems around the world that governments can appeal (remember Amanda Knox??) In most, they can even appeal acquittals. "Double jeopardy" is a fairly unique concept.

And now for the Triple Lutz of fallacious argumentation: non-sequitur, ad hominem, and a syllogistic fallacy all in one go! What does this have to do with the thread? Nada. What is its premise? "Liberalism is inherently bad." What is the logical structure? Your guess is as good as mine.