buckbull
Veteran member
- Jun 20, 2011
- 2,170
- 1,360
Hammonds pardoned
- Thread starter AT Hiker
- Start date
About 3-4 years each in jail and 400k in fines. Seems plenty to me. They were certainly not let off easy given the time served and fines. It’s a fair debate about whether or not there should have been a pardon, but to act like they got off with nothing simply ignores the facts. I’d say what they got was more than enough to punish them, reimburse the govt., deter poaching if in fact they did in this case, and deter future similar behavior.
mallardsx2
Veteran member
- Jul 8, 2015
- 3,941
- 3,259
they got the pardon, therefore , they were let off easy.
there is no doubt they are criminal scum, therefore, they should not have been pardoned.
if there was some reasonable doubt ,I possibly might feel different . but there is no doubt.
that is where pardons belong, to right a wrong. the hammonds were not wronged . they made a series of stupid AND criminal decisions, and IMHO should take responsibility for it. they have not and to this day think they had every right to break the law .and I have no doubt they will do so again.
just because they have a "cowboy story" and the feds are idiots doesn't make them innocent.
and IF they intentionally started those fires and put lives at risk, there is NO sentence to light.
they are no more angels then the murderer claude dallas was. I simply cannot understand the need of some to idolize criminals.
TRUMP has done many fine things as president and I have no doubt HE will do many more, this was not one of them.
Last edited:
Actually they asked for a commutes sentence due to age and the fact they were tried under a law intended for the likes of the ok city bomber. Trump decided the pardon. There was never any doubt they set the fires the question was always why and the feds made up all kinds of accusations but no evadince. Saying they endangered fire fighters by setting a back burn is like saying you endangered a cop by driving when they were. They were aquitted (spelling) or had charges dropped because there was no evadince for most of the charges. As for Dallas nobody knows the true story and that's why it was manslaughter not murder because the wardens could have been the aggressors.
rotflmao! yeah the game wardens caught a poacher and decided to kill him . poor ol claude was just defending himself.
the man was just another dirtbag who had zero respect for the law or human life. he and the Hammond are one and the same
QuazyQuinton
Active Member
By all accounts, the Hammonds are well-respected in the community. You don't get respect in small-town eastern Oregon if you're a dirtbag. I don't know all the facts, and I'm not laying out who or what I agree or disagree with, but you have begun painting with a very broad brush.
QQ
buckbull
Veteran member
- Jun 20, 2011
- 2,170
- 1,360
Respected????? Good grief, didn't realize so many would turn a blind eye to child abuse.
QuazyQuinton
Active Member
they have clearly shown (at least to me) the brush is not to broad and dirtbags is a perfect description.
if you do not agree, then ,I guess ,we will just have to agree to disagree
QuazyQuinton
Active Member
I was primarily objecting to the fact that you equated the Hammonds to a guy who murdered two game officers.
QQ
well,they've got a lot in common. poaching, zero respect for the law, zero respect for the lives of others and the belief they did nothing wrong..
I stand by my "dirtbag" statement
RICMIC
Veteran member
Not to hijack the thread, but some here may not know anything about Claude Dallas that was referred to. I was a police officer for 30 years, and have a bro-in-law who was a warden not too far from where the murders took place. Dallas was a professional poacher, and had moved into an area of the Owyhee Desert in N. Nevada and was actually barely into Idaho. A local ranch couple had called the CO's on Dallas, and while checking him in his camp, he drew down on them and shot each 3 times with a .357. He later claimed self defense as the "wardens were aggressive." He must have thought that they were still a threat as they laid there dying, because he took the time to go into his tent to get a .22 revolver and put one shot at contact distance into their heads. After that he drove into the Nevada desert and buried the bodies and disappeared. None of this is supposition, as Dallas had a buddy in camp and he told it all, and none of his testimony was refuted by Dallas. The locals and the media of the time (35+ years ago) made a folk hero of him. They had to do a full survey to determine which state the camp was in, and if the trial had ended up in his home county of Nevada, he may well have walked out a free man. As it was, the Idaho trial judge was shocked at the manslaughter verdict and went out of the guidelines to give Dallas the maximum sentence. The man served his time and is out and may well still be alive somewhere.
I have no comment on the Hammonds, as all I know is what has been reported or discussed on blogs such as this. Likely, the truth is lost somewhere in the middle of all the "news" that gets thrown around.
I have no comment on the Hammonds, as all I know is what has been reported or discussed on blogs such as this. Likely, the truth is lost somewhere in the middle of all the "news" that gets thrown around.
mallardsx2
Veteran member
- Jul 8, 2015
- 3,941
- 3,259
Actually, Dallas buried Pogues body, then threw officer Elms in the Owyhee River (after he contemplated "quartering" his body to make it lighter to pack).
Dallas also didn't use a .22 revolver to shoot them both in the head, but rather a .22 rifle.
If you want the whole story, read the book, "Give a boy a gun" by Jack Olsen.
Real folk "hero"...about like the Hammonds and Bundy's.
The whole bunch are equally worthless.
Dallas also didn't use a .22 revolver to shoot them both in the head, but rather a .22 rifle.
If you want the whole story, read the book, "Give a boy a gun" by Jack Olsen.
Real folk "hero"...about like the Hammonds and Bundy's.
The whole bunch are equally worthless.
