Quote :

"Man Could Get 35 Years in ‘Arborcide’ Posted Dec 4, 2007, 12:23 pm CST By Martha Neil A 60-year-old Nevada man who was convicted by a jury last month of slaughtering trees worth some $250,000 in one what attorney termed an "arborcide" reportedly faces up to 35 years in prison. However, a lawyer for Douglas Hoffman plans to ask for probation for his client, who is presently jailed without bail awaiting sentencing for malicious destruction of trees, writes the Los Angeles Times. Authorities say Hoffman killed some 500 trees around an upscale Las Vegas area retirement community over the course of a year or so. Reportedly, he was motivated to create this carnage because the trees blocked his view of the Las Vegas strip from his vacation home. "

http://www.abajournal.com/news/man_could_get_35_years_in_arborcide/

Shit is ridiculous. Out here in California a homeowner recently got hit with a $350,000 fine from the city for hiring a landscaper to prune his trees without the city's consent.

Can we stop acting like trees are people?

12/7/2007 8:05:37 PM

can we start acting like we live in a free country....or is it that we dont?

12/7/2007 8:08:23 PM

Sounds like a nasty thing to do.

Prison time, though, seems dubious.

12/7/2007 8:08:59 PM

"carnage"

12/7/2007 8:11:22 PM

The guy destroyed private property.

There's no such thing as arborcide.

Are you all really that dense?

12/7/2007 8:23:23 PM

I just quoted the article's terminology.

Do you think the guy would be facing up to 35 years in prison for another type of vandalism that caused $250,000 in damages?

Are you really that dense?

12/7/2007 8:31:36 PM

a kid got 10 years in prison for getting a consensual blow job. is this really that surprising??

12/7/2007 8:59:18 PM

I wonder how traumatized such criminals will be once they're finally set free.

12/7/2007 9:01:36 PM

Quote :

"Do you think the guy would be facing up to 35 years in prison for another type of vandalism that caused $250,000 in damages? Are you really that dense?"

You realize there are minimum and maximum punishments for the particular crimes this guy committed, right?

So are you saying that no one, ever, in the history of the laws he broke has received a similar sentence? That they reserved the maximum sentence just for this guy?

$250,000 in damages, numerous victims, numerous occasions; 35 years doesn't sound altogether unheard of.

12/7/2007 9:35:47 PM

"Daddy, were you in the 'ArborCaust'?

12/7/2007 10:33:33 PM

Quote :

"Can we stop acting like trees are people?"

No. I hope he enjoys the "butt hut".
I also think it would be fitting for him to spend his time replanting all of those trees one by one to lesson his prison term.

[Edited on December 8, 2007 at 12:36 AM. Reason : .]

12/8/2007 12:35:17 AM

Also, in this case, no one is acting like trees are people. Had the guy killed 500 people I doubt he would have gotten away with just 35 years in the slammer and a fine.

12/8/2007 4:19:19 AM

I hope he dies in prison

from anal rape

12/8/2007 4:31:28 AM

Quote :

"I also think it would be fitting for him to spend his time replanting all of those trees one by one"

That should be his sentence. It's a fucking waste of tax dollars to keep a guy who killed trees in prison. Let's not add to the prison overcrowding problem by keeping minor offenders in prison for decades.

It is kind of amusing to see the liberal emotional response to this, though.

12/8/2007 8:41:44 AM

^
who you callin' liberal?

Quote :

"It's a fucking waste of tax dollars to keep a guy who killed trees in prison."

you're right, let's pass the hat and keep this piece of shit locked up on private money

I'll throw $10 at it.... I'd imagine a million others would also

Quote :

"[spending his time replanting all of those trees one by one] should be his sentence"

except that planting saplings won't replace the trees for many, many years

he should have to pay for full size trees to be planted ($texasalaska)

Quote :

"minor offenders"

property damage is not a minor offense

neither are crimes against nature

nice try, though

12/8/2007 9:00:41 AM

Quote :

"except that planting saplings won't replace the trees for many, many years he should have to pay for full size trees to be planted ($texasalaska)"

I don't disagree with this.

Quote :

"property damage is not a minor offense neither are crimes against nature"

When it's trees, I have to disagree. It's relatively minor compared with the prison term he's facing. 35 years is excessive, considering that many violent criminals do not face anywhere near that much time. Granted, he'll likely get a much lesser sentence, but that much time shouldn't even be on the radar at all.

12/8/2007 9:22:37 AM

how is this any different than abunch of people rotting in jail for smoking some plant.

fuck this shit.

12/8/2007 9:37:24 AM

^
um, there's actually a harm here, in fact, a very serious harm

wtf are you smoking?

(worst comparison ever)

Quote :

"35 years is excessive, considering that many violent criminals do not face anywhere near that much time."

I agree that violent criminals should face longer sentences

much longer

but the fact that they receive sentences that are excessively short

shouldn't make this arborcidal vandal's sentence be considered excessively long simply by comparison



this piece of shit really deserves to die in prison, and judging by his age, he will

12/8/2007 9:43:28 AM

how is there harm in me smoking opium?

unless I shoot someone for it.

which then I committed a different crime.


also eating fatty food and making yourself die of a heart attack is not illegal so saying I'm causing self harm is worthless.

so once again

smoking a plant = serious crime
cutting down alot of trees that are not yours = ?

12/8/2007 9:53:31 AM

^^ well you're certainly entitled to your opinion although it's clearly borne out of emotional rather than rational logic.

12/8/2007 10:26:33 AM

when has our government ever used rational logic?

wtf is rational logic anyways?

12/8/2007 10:33:40 AM

haha, yeah, poor wording on my part.

Basically i was trying to state that his/her/its opinion is emotional and not rational.

12/8/2007 10:42:38 AM

word up.

i would say 5 years.

according to my video tapes you can get 5 years for copying them.

seems reasonable.

12/8/2007 10:54:02 AM

^^
just to be clear

you're talking about my ["his 35 year sentence is appropriate"] opinion, right?

[Edited on December 8, 2007 at 10:55 AM. Reason : ^]

12/8/2007 10:54:03 AM

He destroyed $250,000 worth of private property. That is a lot of money and 35 years is about right.

12/8/2007 11:57:22 AM

35 years seriously?

people dont even get that for rape.

what are some similar cases or destruction of property.

i would say 15 might even be alittle harsh.

12/8/2007 12:05:08 PM

if you're the guy who got ripped for 250000 dollars do you really give a shit how much prison times this guy gets?

give me my fucking money or trees back. whatever he has to do to make that happen should be his punishment

12/8/2007 1:45:48 PM

As probably the biggest treehugger in this forum even I can appreciate the concept of an objective response to this so that those less environmentally conscious can understand. If the man destroyed private property then he should be punished accordingly. Besides I am not seeing anywhere that mentions any nature protection laws so this really comes down to the guy destroying $250,000 of someone else's land.

As for your anecdote pertaining to the guy being fined $350,000 for not adhering to city rules I think it is best summed up by the old adage I always hear from the right. "If he doesn't like the rules then he can geeeeet out!".

Looking over this I fail to see how this is an environmental issue unless there is a part of the story that we are missing.

Quote :

"It is kind of amusing to see the liberal emotional response to this, though."

Who is being "liberally emotion" about this and why is it amusing to you?

12/8/2007 4:47:35 PM

Quote :

"It's like you can murder someone and it's OK," says Hoffman's wife, Debbie, "but you're accused of killing trees, and it's like, execute him."

12/8/2007 5:12:18 PM

I don't think he should go to prison for so much as a day.

12/8/2007 9:47:55 PM

the funny thing is he would probably serve much less time if he did the same thing at a National Park

12/8/2007 10:14:17 PM

Which is tragic.

12/9/2007 3:20:55 AM

Prison is a waste of money. The guy needs to pony up and replace the trees.

I'm more interested in this:

Quote :

"Shit is ridiculous. Out here in California a homeowner recently got hit with a $350,000 fine from the city for hiring a landscaper to prune his trees without the city's consent."

Link?

12/9/2007 8:45:49 AM

^ No need to go to California--that shit happens right here:

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/1700444/

12/9/2007 11:10:38 AM

Quote :

"It's like you can murder someone and it's OK," says Hoffman's wife, Debbie, "but you're accused of killing trees, and it's like, execute him."

aha, wow. who's his wife, TreeTwista10?

12/9/2007 1:34:23 PM

YOU CANT KILL TREES. TREES ARE NOT HUMANS. YOU CAN KILL PEOPLE, YOU CAN KILL A DOG, YOU CAN KILL A CAT, BUT YOU CANT KILL A TREE.


now ima go spark up a tree. peace

12/9/2007 3:07:08 PM

I don't see why there's such a fuss over the use of the term arborcide; it's not as if they wrote a new law, it's simply the hyperbole of a victorious lawyer.

I can see where the 35 years in prison comes from. 10 counts of property destruction, trespassing on property to commit destruction, etc. and the total book value of the sentences back to back could go up to 35 years, especially given the sheer cost in damages. I doubt a prosecutor will throw the entire 35 years at him, maybe just a short period of concurring sentences.

Quote :

"I also think it would be fitting for him to spend his time replanting all of those trees one by one to lesson his prison term."

Agreed. I think a $250,000 in restitution plus whatever fine and hard labor is more appropriate.

12/9/2007 7:14:38 PM

It does show a disturbing lack of concern for anything/body but himself.

[Edited on December 10, 2007 at 2:50 PM. Reason : Bizarre.]

12/10/2007 2:50:34 PM

Quote :

"aha, wow. who's his wife, TreeTwista10?"

1 day in the box

12/10/2007 5:07:58 PM

http://youtube.com/watch?v=HvQ2JF-glvw

12/10/2007 5:10:48 PM

Somebody told me that Barbara Walters did this, and she basically got off for it.

12/11/2007 2:58:37 AM

Quote :

"As for your anecdote pertaining to the guy being fined $350,000 for not adhering to city rules I think it is best summed up by the old adage I always hear from the right. "If he doesn't like the rules then he can geeeeet out!"."

Wat? Flaming liberals and communists.... Government (especially not city governments) shouldn't have that kind of power over your personal property, its fucking un-American.

Or maybe you missed this part:

Quote :

"Out here in California a homeowner recently got hit with a $350,000 fine from the city for hiring a landscaper to prune his trees without the city's consent."

12/13/2007 2:00:29 AM

Quote :

"property damage is not a minor offense neither are crimes against nature"

Crimes against nature?

they are TREES.

They don't think or feel.

12/13/2007 2:29:41 AM

And that has what to do with it being a law against nature? On the base level this is about property rights but the scope of our discussion has broadened to encompass the possibility of the trees being habitat and in such a case more consideration should certainly be given to their existence.

12/13/2007 2:31:46 AM

Unless he drilled holes in the trees and raped them, there were no crimes against nature.

Quote :

"Crime against nature is a legal term used in published cases in the United States since 1814[1] and normally defined as a form of sexual behavior that is not considered to be natural and is seen as a punishable offense in several US states. In the broadest sense, a crime against nature could even include masturbation and unusual sexual positions, but these are not seen as such. Sexual practices that are often considered to be crimes against nature are anal sex, bestiality, homosexual acts, fellatio, cunnilingus and necrophilia. The term is sometimes also seen as a synonym for sodomy or buggery.[2]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_against_nature

12/13/2007 6:10:42 PM