Jan. 5th, 2016

lherelenfeline: (Ritts)
I have few very specific things to point out.

  1. The Hammonds, the Oregon ranchers whose supposedly unjust setntece for multiple acts of arson and poaching is beging used as a pretext for the Bundys' war games don't want them there. neither do the rest of the locals.

  2. The Hammonds got the mandatory minimum for what they did and the feds let them serve the 5 year terms concurrently. Pretty dam generous for numerous acts of arson and poaching. They have reported to prison and are notinvolved in the shitshow.

  3. This whole thing can be described as "When mandatory minimums affect entitled white people." Where the fuck were all these people decrying the injustice of mandatory minimums when the people suffering under them were perceived as all poor ghetto black people? The 9th Circuit opinion upholding the Hammonds' sentences is a freaking walk through the hair raising injustices wrought by the mandatory minimum system as it exists now. We're 'tough on crime", and that means rich white ranchers as well as ghettor drug dealers.

Profile

lherelenfeline: (Default)
lherelenfeline

April 2016

S M T W T F S
     12
3456789
10111213141516
1718 1920 212223
242526 27282930

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 22nd, 2017 04:46 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios