Nate The Surveyor, post: 352292, member: 291 wrote: In all of this, remember if you are on a Jury, you can also decide that you "Don't like that law" and say "Not Guilty" It's called Jury Nullification. It was used by folks during prohibition.
Nate, thanks for bringing attention to this I know I just recently learned about jury Nullification when a representative from this group was on a local talk show http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/23929-jury-nullification-why-every-american-needs-to-learn-this-taboo-verdict
We may need more jurors to know about it if our government stays on the same path. Jp
eapls2708, post: 352649, member: 589 wrote: They would need to prove intent to do some harm. If their intent was to preserve or maintain property, then at worst, the accidental loss of control of the fire is reckless endangerment.
If simply lighting a fire was sufficient for an arson conviction, then every landowner, including the federal government would be guilty of arson for every controlled burn.
I was under the assumption that if you intentionally started a fire that burned onto public land without consent, that it would be considered criminal in nature...Even if it was accidental.
imaudigger, post: 352653, member: 7286 wrote: I was under the assumption that if you intentionally started a fire that burned onto public land without consent, that it would be considered criminal in nature...Even if it was accidental.
I'm not sure about Federal law, what constitutes Arson.
In California it does not require an intention to start a fire, only criminal negligence. There is some controversy about this in the California courts. A recent published Appellate opinion has a dissent by the author, he wrote the majority opinion and the dissent. He says he is following direction from the Supreme Court so he has to affirm then in the dissent he disagrees with the Supreme Court.
Dave Karoly, post: 352696, member: 94 wrote: I'm not sure about Federal law, what constitutes Arson...
I believe that is part of the grievances with the Feds. The inflexible mandatory sentencing for breaking Federal laws. If the prosecutor was able to prove the fire was intentionally set (as in a controlled burn-off of noxious vegetation), the jump to 'arson' is a short one according to the Feds. And mandatory sentencing is, well...mandatory.
Along those lines; if you were rolling down the road in your vehicle (on Federal lands) and happened to nail a bald eagle, you would do just as much jail time as someone that went hunting the eagle and shot it (IF they could catch you). Federal laws have been tailored to be easy to prosecute and hard to defend and appeal.
It's not the Arson charge that carries a 5 year minimum sentence, It's the terrorism charge. At least that's the way I understood it.
James
imaudigger, post: 351857, member: 7286 wrote: Coming from a rural county, I have a different perspective.
That is a good explanation of how things are supposed to work in theory. It's an awesome idea that probably worked very well many years ago.
For small town America today, it is a much different story.Seriously - Find me one person from Burns, Oregon that thinks their vote counts or their voice is being heard (other than at the city/county level).
Around here, the presidential election is already decided before my vote is even counted.
People don't get to vote on federal land management regulations. The NEPA process is a joke. The regulations are dictated from Washington DC.
Contact your representative these days and they send you to a multiple choice form to fill out....click 1 for positive, click 2 for negative...nobody even reads letters anymore. The best you will get is a canned response thanking you for taking the time.We just deal with whatever comes down the pipe.
Am I wrong?
EDIT: I do agree with your idea on this being the best country in the world....and that there is a legal system in place for appeals and it should be utilized. I just don't think this is the type of case the Supreme Court would even hear. I'm also not justifying what they are doing. I just understand the source of frustration.
I grew up in a rural county, moved to the city. I'm a bit late to this party, but it's worth noting that your vote counts far, far more than someone from the city for senate elections. All states get the same number of senators, regardless of population. So you have more influence there.
JaRo, post: 352746, member: 292 wrote: It's not the Arson charge that carries a 5 year minimum sentence, It's the terrorism charge. At least that's the way I understood it.
James
They weren't tried for terrorism. They were convicted of arson, which carries a 5 year minimum.
I think some are grasping at straws. We aren't the Jury, the Jury heard a lot more than we have and none of it from axe-to-grind websites. The Jury was given explicit instructions on the crime charged, any lesser included charges and the elements of each crime that must be proved by the Government. The Hammonds must have been advised by Counsel what the chances of an appeal on the law would be, pretty slender. An appeal on the facts, even more slender (Appellate Courts rarely reverse on the facts deferring to the Trial Court's decision).
Like I said, I'm not familiar with the Federal Arson Statute. In California we have the Statute plus a fairly recent Supreme Court opinion that Arson does not require a direct intention to start the fire, only criminal negligence is required. One complaint is that the lesser charge of Felony Recklessly starting a fire is harder to prove than Arson by negligence. An example is if you start a camp fire with a gallon of gasoline and it flares up and burns up thousands of acres you could be guilty of Arson in California even though you only set out to start a camp fire. A reasonable person could foresee the fire.
According to this website:
http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2015/12/ranchers_fight_with_feds_spark.html
I found this statement:
When the men were indicted in 2010 on federal arson charges, they faced sentencing under the federal Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. Some Hammond backers and a host of recent social media posts translated that to mean the Hammonds were treated as terrorists.
"When you starting bringing in the terrorism act for God-fearing livestock producers in eastern Oregon, something is wrong," said Barry Bushue, a Multnomah County berry farmer and president of the Oregon Farm Bureau.
Federal prosecutors say they did no such thing.
"At no time have I ever called these two men terrorists. Never," Papagni, the federal prosecutor, said in court last October. "They committed arson."
From that, I can see your point. They were not convicted of terrorism, They were not called terrorist, they were simply sentenced by the Antiterrorism guidelines. That is so much better.
James
The chances the Conservative, Law and Order U.S. Supreme Court would overturn these sentences is pretty much slim to none.
What about the chances of the Conservative Law and Order Congress reducing sentences? Not good I would say.
So when a conservative law and order type person encounters these statutes personally I don't have very much sympathy for them.
Heard on the news last night a man from Southern Oregon was recently convicted of arson. The news said he purposely burned someone's car to the ground and proceeded to burn some other private property.
He got 2 years probation.
Another story in my area.
In 2014, a young man started a small campfire in a ring of rocks, along the rail road tracks in Weed California. He kicked dirt over the coals and urinated on it, thinking that was enough. The wind picked up and later in the day it started a wild fire that burned 157 homes and other buildings.
He was sentenced to 3 years in prison.
Dave Karoly, post: 352788, member: 94 wrote: The chances the Conservative, Law and Order U.S. Supreme Court would overturn these sentences is pretty much slim to none.
What about the chances of the Conservative Law and Order Congress reducing sentences? Not good I would say.
So when a conservative law and order type person encounters these statutes personally I don't have very much sympathy for them.
So your sympathy is reserved strictly for those who act or believe as you do? When I find myself thinking or making statements like yours, I use it as a trigger to remind myself to recognize my biases. Right or Left, it is disturbing how quickly good people will condemn others.
I can't comment on this case, but jury nullification should be more widely practiced.
Murphy, post: 352825, member: 9787 wrote: So your sympathy is reserved strictly for those who act or believe as you do? When I find myself thinking or making statements like yours, I use it as a trigger to remind myself to recognize my biases. Right or Left, it is disturbing how quickly good people will condemn others.
You misunderstand.
If you support law and order policies such as determinate sentencincing laws then you should not complain when they apply to you.
I apologize to the Hammonds if they turn out to be liberal left wingers.
imaudigger, post: 352819, member: 7286 wrote: Heard on the news last night a man from Southern Oregon was recently convicted of arson. The news said he purposely burned someone's car to the ground and proceeded to burn some other private property.
He got 2 years probation.
Another story in my area.
In 2014, a young man started a small campfire in a ring of rocks, along the rail road tracks in Weed California. He kicked dirt over the coals and urinated on it, thinking that was enough. The wind picked up and later in the day it started a wild fire that burned 157 homes and other buildings.
He was sentenced to 3 years in prison.
Apparently Ronald Beau Marshell pled guilty to the lesser Felony charge of Recklessly Starting a Fire probably as part of a plea deal. Why a camp fire in September? Anther huge conflagration was started supposedly by a camp fire but there is a stack of other evidence too.
http://m.siskiyoudaily.com/article/20150728/NEWS/150729710
The Court docket seems to be way behind. This kid has had a lot of trouble with the law, mostly minor stuff:
http://www.siskiyou.courts.ca.gov/CaseHistory.asp
I can't link it, here's the case number: MCYKCRBF140001457
Scott Zelenak, post: 352836, member: 327 wrote: I can't comment on this case, but jury nullification should be more widely practiced.
The law will always win and the judge and court officials decide what that is in their courtroom and how it is presented.
Locally when picking a jury, the court will practically take a poll to see what the jury pool would do if chosen and will cede out anyone that does not follow their wanting result. Most of the time they control the pool and practically lead them to eliminate themselves before any jury nullification could happen.
The pool has developed a stand and there are many citizens that will openly verbalize their disgust to the court to taint the process and the pool to end the attempt to choose a jury.
When jury decision comes down, the judge usually has the right to step in and change a jury's decision if they feel within the law that they the jury have not done their job correctly and issue any verdict they want.
Perhaps I've seen too many instances where the sentence for the same crime was not dished out the same for all the guilty participants.
imaudigger, post: 352819, member: 7286 wrote: Heard on the news last night a man from Southern Oregon was recently convicted of arson. The news said he purposely burned someone's car to the ground and proceeded to burn some other private property.
He got 2 years probation.
Another story in my area.
In 2014, a young man started a small campfire in a ring of rocks, along the rail road tracks in Weed California. He kicked dirt over the coals and urinated on it, thinking that was enough. The wind picked up and later in the day it started a wild fire that burned 157 homes and other buildings.
He was sentenced to 3 years in prison.
The difference here is they burned Federal Lands, not private property, which triggered prosecution under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, which specifically states 5 years minimum for arson.
What happened to the Cedar Fire (also in part a Federal Lands burn) arsonist is curious:
SAN DIEGO ÛÓ A federal judge Thursday sentenced a West Covina man to six months in a work-furlough program and 960 hours of community service for starting two small signal fires that erupted into the deadly Cedar fire, which killed 15 people and burned more than 300,000 acres in 2003.
U.S. District Court Judge Roger Benitez said he feels Sergio Martinez, 35, is remorseful and that no purpose would be served by sending him to prison, as many property owners whose homes were destroyed had demanded.
He noted that by setting fires on Oct. 25, 2003, Martinez was doing what he was taught in a hunter safety course.
Benitez could have sentenced Martinez to five years in prison. Instead, he ordered him to spend six months in a halfway house, which will allow him to continue working, attend church and perform community service on weekends.
Sergio initially denied starting the fire and was also charged with lying to a Federal Officer (another 5 years), but plea bargained (pled guilty to count 1 - arson) and had that charge dropped.
The actual section the Hammonds were busted for reads: `
(f)(1) Whoever maliciously damages or destroys, or attempts to
damage or destroy, by means of fire or an explosive, any building,
vehicle, or other personal or real property in whole or in part owned or
possessed by, or leased to, the United States, or any department or
agency thereof, shall be imprisoned for not less than 5 years and not
more than 20 years, fined under this title, or both.
I find it odd that Martinez pled guilty to a Federal arson charge, one would assume the above section, in a Federal court, and did not receive the mandatory sentence. Conversely, the Hammonds were found guilty, the judge gave them light sentences, and the Feds swooped in with an appeal demanding the statutory minimum 5 year sentence.
Dave Karoly, post: 352848, member: 94 wrote: Apparently Ronald Beau Marshell pled guilty to the lesser Felony charge of Recklessly Starting a Fire probably as part of a plea deal. Why a camp fire in September?
I guess he didn't have any land to use as a bargaining chip. Why camp fire in September is a good question. The low that day was 52å¡. Hardly cold enough to warrant a warming fire. Poor judgment seems to be the MO for that guy. Negligence, actual real endangerment of lives, and massive property damage...he gets 3 years in a Calfire fire camp.
I know a guy locally that started a fire (welding) that spread onto public land. There was a lot of money spent putting the fire out. The guy was warned.
Couple years later, the exact same thing happened. He was welding and failed to provide adequate protection - no fire breaks, no sprinklers or hoses.
Fire fighters and pilots were put in danger attempting to stop the spread.
I do know he had a very large fine that he had to pay, but there was no talk about federal prison time.
It appears that the final outcome is dependent largely on the prosecutor involved in the case.
Mike Marks, post: 352884, member: 1108 wrote: The difference here is they burned Federal Lands, not private property, which triggered prosecution under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, which specifically states 5 years minimum for arson.
I guess the moral of the story is that the federal government has the leverage of the law at their disposal. They are the ultimate judge in what is a fair sentence....look the other way and let it rest or pursue additional litigation to enforce the minimum sentence.
That statute calls for malicious intent. Accidental damage should not be able to be prosecuted under that statute.
