Switch Theme:

Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit  [RSS] 

Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/10/28 01:43:18


Post by: Ahtman


The men we had video of taking over a federal building with guns were acquitted of taking over a federal building with guns today. Well at least faith in everything is being eroded.


PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) -- The leaders of an armed group who seized a national wildlife refuge in rural Oregon were acquitted Thursday in the 41-day standoff that brought new attention to a long-running dispute over control of federal lands in the U.S. West.

Tumult erupted in the courtroom after the verdicts were read when an attorney for group leader Ammon Bundy demanded his client be immediately released, repeatedly yelling at the judge. U.S. marshals tackled attorney Marcus Mumford to the ground, used a stun gun on him several times and arrested him.

U.S. District Judge Anna Brown said she could not release Bundy because he still faces charges in Nevada stemming from an armed standoff at his father Cliven Bundy's ranch two years ago.

The jury found Bundy, his brother Ryan Bundy and several others not guilty of possessing a firearm in a federal facility and conspiring to impede federal workers from their jobs at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, 300 miles southeast of Portland where the trial took place.


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/10/28 01:44:42


Post by: whembly


wut?

I thought this was practically an "open-shut" case.

o.O


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/10/28 01:50:27


Post by: Spinner


I...

What?


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/10/28 01:53:37


Post by: Vaktathi


My mad is maximum...my only hope is that this means I won't have to be so near them every day at work and they're going back to Nevada soon to face yet more charges.

I honestly have no idea how they weren't found guilty.


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/10/28 02:01:55


Post by: Monkey Tamer


Ladies and gentlemen, the jury system. Where the guilty walk free and the innocent wind up imprisoned.


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/10/28 02:09:02


Post by: d-usa


Was this Jury Nullification in action, or did the feds just really screw this case up that bad?


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/10/28 02:18:13


Post by: LordofHats


And here I thought I'd have to wait till November to lose all faith in my country.

feth it. Don't care anymore. Let it burn.


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/10/28 02:29:36


Post by: Inquisitor Lord Bane


 LordofHats wrote:
And here I thought I'd have to wait till November to lose all faith in my country.

feth it. Don't care anymore. Let it burn.



It's the 2016 Curse. Fething legit witchcraft going on. Maybe the Mayan's were off on that whole end-of-the-world thing by a few years...


Back to the case, how in the world did they get to walk? I'd love to see the transcripts from that courtroom.


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/10/28 02:51:06


Post by: Ustrello


Seriously........? Well feth that jury


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/10/28 02:54:08


Post by: LordofHats


Nope. feth it.

Acquittal. A hung jury wouldn't surprise me. 1 person dumb enough to buy whatever BS the defense was selling kind of seems more likely than less. Acquittal means that there were 12 people who bought this crap. Maybe there really was a prosecutor this inept to, but either way. Don't care anymore.



I'm strictly popcorn from now on.


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/10/28 02:56:57


Post by: Ustrello


I thought it was hilarious that the attorney for Amon was so stupid that he had to be tased and arrested


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/10/28 03:11:35


Post by: BigWaaagh


I think I read that the more serious gun charges are the ones that will be tried in Nevada. These were conspiracy to prevent federal employees from coming to work charges, or something like that. Slightly better explanation below...


http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/jury-acquits-leaders-of-oregon-standoff-of-federal-charges/ar-AAjuxZf?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=ASUDHP


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/10/28 03:41:26


Post by: SlaveToDorkness


Was there a glove and meds not taken or something?


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/10/28 04:19:16


Post by: Tannhauser42


I...I...just....
No words can express what Tommy Lee Jones expresses so well for me:
Spoiler:


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/10/28 05:26:45


Post by: Dropbear Victim


I find it funny the prosecution slipped up in a case that involves a 55 gallon drum of lube.


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/10/28 05:40:40


Post by: Spinner


Oh! That's where it went!

The legal system, because it just got fethed.


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/10/28 05:55:25


Post by: Breotan


Did anyone interview the jury to find out why they acquitted?



Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/10/28 05:58:32


Post by: Maddermax


Hey, anyone want come along for an armed take over of a US federal building? Totally legal, excellent camping spots, and you don't even have to clean up the mess at the end.


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/10/28 06:23:24


Post by: Ouze


what the actual feth

these guys literally filed motions of gibberish, and skated




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Among other things, these chucklefarks got off on "possessing a firearm in a federal facility" despite there being approximately 500 bajillion hours of live video of them doing exactly that. Words fail me.





Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/10/28 06:32:45


Post by: d-usa


My main concern now lies with all the other patriot/militia/dildonian groups out there.

Will they see this verdict and feel vindicated in their thought and feelings of unfair prosecution by the government, and will we see copycat occupations by other groups?


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/10/28 07:37:14


Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That


A disgraceful decision. Travesty!

Armed men seize a Federal building and threaten to overthrow the Federal government and NOTHING happens!

God almighty, what has happened to the US justice system?

Compare and contrast that to individuals who are seized, thrown into G'Bay for years, not charged with any crime, and then let go years later....



Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/10/28 08:00:33


Post by: The Grumpy Eldar


And this is why a jury of civilians doesn't work. How is the US still using this system still? There just have to be some dim lightbulbs in the jury to mess it up?


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/10/28 08:52:58


Post by: Ahtman


I wonder if they would have been acquitted if they were Black/Latino/Asian/Ingenious.


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/10/28 09:12:55


Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That


 The Grumpy Eldar wrote:
And this is why a jury of civilians doesn't work. How is the US still using this system still? There just have to be some dim lightbulbs in the jury to mess it up?


Um, the US is not the only country with a jury system

In fact some countries like Scotland, have 13 in a jury...

9/10 the Jury will usually get it right, but I'm damned if I know what happened here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Ahtman wrote:
I wonder if they would have been acquitted if they were Black/Latino/Asian/Ingenious.


Acquitted? It's more than likely some of them would be dead from the police storming the building.

People took me to task on this on the original thread, but I still maintain that the situation would have been different had these occupiers been non-white.

YMMV.


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/10/28 09:47:39


Post by: jhe90


That's crazy.

They did all that and got off.
Did they use that drum of lube to coat selves in teflon like abilities lol


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/10/28 09:59:03


Post by: Howard A Treesong


Must be a political decision by the jury not evidence based. They wanted to let them go to spite the authorities, facts didn't come into it. How can you find someone innocent of something they're on film doing? Rubbish.


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/10/28 10:02:25


Post by: AlmightyWalrus


Since I'm not very well-versed in US law, what's the likelihood of this being appealed? Surely a more blatantly obvious case would be hard to find?


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/10/28 10:10:15


Post by: Ouze


 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Since I'm not very well-versed in US law, what's the likelihood of this being appealed? Surely a more blatantly obvious case would be hard to find?


It can't be appealed, per se: it would be double jeopardy.

However, there might be some state charges that were not yet pressed, pending the federal trial, and there is tons of stuff out there pending in Nevada for the previous Bundy standoff.



Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/10/28 10:43:40


Post by: d-usa


http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/ammon-bundy-long-testimony-swayed-ore-jury-acquit-article-1.2848300

In part:

The leader of the armed Oregon standoff sat on the stand for more than three days, laying out his views on the Constitution, the federal government and the duty of man in his plain-spoken way .

It was Ammon Bundy’s 10 hours of testimony that likely won over jurors in a trial that concluded with seven people being acquitted Thursday of federal conspiracy and weapons charges, one legal expert said.

“It gave Ammon a chance to explain his side,” Lewis & Clark Law Professor Tung Yin told the Daily News. “And apparently the jury seemed to agree. I think it’s really hard to see this as anything other than jury nullification.”
...
“The fact that they acquitted on everything must be representative of some kind of mistrust of the government or a symbolic protest, or anger at the government,” he said of the jurors.


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/10/28 10:59:44


Post by: LordofHats


Hey man. When a rich white guy sees land, it obviously belongs to him and anyone who disagrees is clearly wrong.

I feel like I'm in a beaten down RV driven by a baby on pills;






Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/10/28 10:59:56


Post by: jhe90


 d-usa wrote:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/ammon-bundy-long-testimony-swayed-ore-jury-acquit-article-1.2848300

In part:

The leader of the armed Oregon standoff sat on the stand for more than three days, laying out his views on the Constitution, the federal government and the duty of man in his plain-spoken way .

It was Ammon Bundy’s 10 hours of testimony that likely won over jurors in a trial that concluded with seven people being acquitted Thursday of federal conspiracy and weapons charges, one legal expert said.

“It gave Ammon a chance to explain his side,” Lewis & Clark Law Professor Tung Yin told the Daily News. “And apparently the jury seemed to agree. I think it’s really hard to see this as anything other than jury nullification.”
...
“The fact that they acquitted on everything must be representative of some kind of mistrust of the government or a symbolic protest, or anger at the government,” he said of the jurors.


Even if you disagree. They got a fair trial and that's that.


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/10/28 11:31:02


Post by: Chute82


I wonder if the sex toys and drum of lube where used as evidence?


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/10/28 12:11:19


Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That


The general sentiment seems to be that because they got off the Federal charges, they'll get off the Nevada charges.

If a jury lets you off with one blatant crime, who's to say they won't acquit again?

Edit: my knowledge of Nevada state law, and American law in general is not that good, so be kind if I've made a major blunder here


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/10/28 13:26:01


Post by: jreilly89


Were his relatives and friends all the jurors??

Screw it, whatever. Let's go all Mad Max


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/10/28 13:29:47


Post by: whembly


 Ouze wrote:
what the actual feth

these guys literally filed motions of gibberish, and skated




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Among other things, these chucklefarks got off on "possessing a firearm in a federal facility" despite there being approximately 500 bajillion hours of live video of them doing exactly that. Words fail me.




Also that one dude in a "sniper's nest" pointing the weapon at the officials. Is that dude among those charged?

If that's not brandishing...


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/10/28 14:20:23


Post by: sirlynchmob


 Ahtman wrote:
I wonder if they would have been acquitted if they were Black/Latino/Asian/Ingenious.


of course not, we only need to look at the peaceful protest going on right now in dakota to see that.

this is my favorite quote from cnn
"As the standoff continued, police deployed bean bag rounds and pepper spray gas and unleashed a high-pitched siren to disperse the crowd. "

talk about some media bias there, they deployed bean bag rounds, in other words they were shooting protesters with bean bag rounds while arresting 117 protesters.

the dakota protesters should arm themselves, and call for the government to be overthrown, that way the police will let them go home from time to time to resupply and stand off without bothering the protesters.


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/10/28 14:23:33


Post by: Kanluwen


If the dildo doesn't fit, you must acquit!


This is a gross miscarriage of justice. Whoever is on that jury should be ashamed of themselves, for acquitting based on their "feelings" instead of the facts of the case.


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/10/28 14:27:36


Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That


 Kanluwen wrote:
If the dildo doesn't fit, you must acquit!


This is a gross miscarriage of justice. Whoever is on that jury should be ashamed of themselves, for acquitting based on their "feelings" instead of the facts of the case.


True, but surely the judge has to direct things a bit as well? Or do you not have that in the USA?


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/10/28 14:32:54


Post by: WrentheFaceless


So did they occupy the jury box as well? Jeeze


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/10/28 14:42:56


Post by: Easy E


My mind was just blown!


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/10/28 14:55:25


Post by: Kanluwen


 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
 Kanluwen wrote:
If the dildo doesn't fit, you must acquit!


This is a gross miscarriage of justice. Whoever is on that jury should be ashamed of themselves, for acquitting based on their "feelings" instead of the facts of the case.


True, but surely the judge has to direct things a bit as well? Or do you not have that in the USA?

It's kind of hard to explain, but in general the judge is there to advise the jury not to overrule them.


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/10/28 14:58:14


Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That


 Kanluwen wrote:
 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
 Kanluwen wrote:
If the dildo doesn't fit, you must acquit!


This is a gross miscarriage of justice. Whoever is on that jury should be ashamed of themselves, for acquitting based on their "feelings" instead of the facts of the case.


True, but surely the judge has to direct things a bit as well? Or do you not have that in the USA?

It's kind of hard to explain, but in general the judge is there to advise the jury not to overrule them.


That's generally the case as well in the UK, but sometimes, the judge will drop a hint e.g Crime X is usually a 5 year jail sentence but use your own discretion.

It's more of a nudge if you know what I'm saying.


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/10/28 15:00:38


Post by: Ouze


Sentencing happens at a totally different phase in the US and the jury does not participate in that part of the trial, at least criminally, with a few small exceptions (capital murder comes to mind, but that's offtopic).


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/10/28 15:18:08


Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That


 Ouze wrote:
Sentencing happens at a totally different phase in the US and the jury does not participate in that part of the trial, at least criminally, with a few small exceptions (capital murder comes to mind, but that's offtopic).


Same for us. What I'm trying and failing to do

is to say that in such a blatant open and shut case, the judge will give the jury a gentle nudge to remind them...

Obviously, we don't want judicial interference here, but I believe it's happened before in the UK. Obviously, can't speak for the USA.


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/10/28 15:27:36


Post by: Easy E


It sounds like the government attorney failed to stop Bundy from rattling off his crazy ideology, and one juror swallowed it all which led to an acquittal.

I am no lawyer, but is there much an attorney can do to stop that type of thing through Objections and what not?


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/10/28 15:31:00


Post by: squidhills


 Ouze wrote:

It can't be appealed, per se: it would be double jeopardy.



No, it can be appealed, and I'd be very surprised if an appeal isn't already being filed. It can't be re-tried; that would be double jeopardy. An appeals court doesn't re-try the case, they look at the extant body of work on the case (opinions, transcript, etc) and decide if (legally speaking) all the Is were dotted and all the Ts crossed. If the appellate court finds that some area of law was miss-applied, or that somebody violated legal procedure during the case, they can overturn the verdict, or in rare cases they can bounce the case back down the ladder for a retrial (and the retrial does a complicated dance and wears a magic hat to prevent it from being double-jeopardy). Usually, the appellate court just says "nope; everything looks kosher here" and the losing party has to suck it up. Most big cases are appealed, and many times the appeals are appealed, which moves things up to higher courts who repeat the process. This is how things eventually get to the Supreme Court.

But as others have said, this could very well embolden more idiots to violently protests the government. The next Branch Dildonian standoff won't end as relatively peacefully as this one did, I'm sure.


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/10/28 17:13:55


Post by: LordofHats


It' extremely rare for an appeals court to overturn a Jury verdict on the grounds of "this verdict is slowed." There have been instances of clear jury tampering where the court has declined to overturn a verdict.


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/10/28 17:38:43


Post by: hotsauceman1


I blame all the damn Wesen in Oregan for them, it is all their fault
Anyway, when I hear "Keep Portland Weird" I didnt think it also meant stupid


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/10/28 17:44:03


Post by: squidhills


 LordofHats wrote:
It' extremely rare for an appeals court to overturn a Jury verdict on the grounds of "this verdict is slowed." There have been instances of clear jury tampering where the court has declined to overturn a verdict.


You're right about that; appeals courts don't often overturn jury verdicts. But it is a power they have. Just to clarify; I'm not saying the case will be overturned here. I'm just saying that it can be appealed (and most likely will be). Just because you file for an appeal doesn't mean that a) it will be granted or b) it will be successful. Most appeals aren't successful, in fact.


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/10/28 17:46:23


Post by: Spinner


I just want to know what happened in there. What possible train of thought could have produced a not guilty for the Branch Dildonians? Was it just three days of listening to Bundy ramble? Did that liquefy the juror's brains?



Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/10/28 17:47:40


Post by: Breotan


Who handled the prosecution? The people from the O.J. Simpson murder trial?



Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/10/28 17:47:51


Post by: whembly


 Spinner wrote:
I just want to know what happened in there. What possible train of thought could have produced a not guilty for the Branch Dildonians? Was it just three days of listening to Bundy ramble? Did that liquefy the juror's brains?


Probably won't know the full story till the court transcripts is released...


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/10/28 17:51:39


Post by: Desubot


I dont want to live on this planet anymore.


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/10/28 17:54:59


Post by: whembly


Jury Nullification is a thing...



Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/10/28 18:02:29


Post by: Frazzled


 Ahtman wrote:
The men we had video of taking over a federal building with guns were acquitted of taking over a federal building with guns today. Well at least faith in everything is being eroded.


PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) -- The leaders of an armed group who seized a national wildlife refuge in rural Oregon were acquitted Thursday in the 41-day standoff that brought new attention to a long-running dispute over control of federal lands in the U.S. West.

Tumult erupted in the courtroom after the verdicts were read when an attorney for group leader Ammon Bundy demanded his client be immediately released, repeatedly yelling at the judge. U.S. marshals tackled attorney Marcus Mumford to the ground, used a stun gun on him several times and arrested him.

U.S. District Judge Anna Brown said she could not release Bundy because he still faces charges in Nevada stemming from an armed standoff at his father Cliven Bundy's ranch two years ago.

The jury found Bundy, his brother Ryan Bundy and several others not guilty of possessing a firearm in a federal facility and conspiring to impede federal workers from their jobs at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, 300 miles southeast of Portland where the trial took place.


What am I missing? Absent jury nullification this is clear. It doesn't sound look they were overcharged. They admit to being there. There is video there. Don't get it.

Next time declare them traitors and napalm the site. We need to shut this down like a virus before it spreads.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 d-usa wrote:
My main concern now lies with all the other patriot/militia/dildonian groups out there.

Will they see this verdict and feel vindicated in their thought and feelings of unfair prosecution by the government, and will we see copycat occupations by other groups?


Indeed, time to treat the next crew as enemy combatants as Washington did with Shay's rebellion and hang them just like Washington did.


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/10/28 18:50:50


Post by: CptJake


I read the Prosecution lied about/hid number of informants and info gotten from them during discovery. There were more CIs than actual defendants. That never helps convince a jury.


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/10/28 18:56:55


Post by: Co'tor Shas


They also charged them with conserpacy instead of the dozen other things that would be much easier to get a conviction with. Brandishing guns, threatening, trespassing on government property, ect. I hope they still can charge them for those crimes even after this decision.


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/10/28 19:01:12


Post by: LordofHats


The state isn't allowed to levy charges on someone one after the other until it sticks. This violates the spirit of disallowing double jeopardy, and I'm pretty sure there's SCOTUS decisions to the effect.

The state only gets one shot at leveling a series of charges, even if they choose not to include all the charges they could have. This does not preclude leveling alternate charges for a different event in another jurisdiction, or presenting new charges with new evidence.


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/10/28 19:14:34


Post by: Monkey Tamer


 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
 Kanluwen wrote:
If the dildo doesn't fit, you must acquit!


This is a gross miscarriage of justice. Whoever is on that jury should be ashamed of themselves, for acquitting based on their "feelings" instead of the facts of the case.


True, but surely the judge has to direct things a bit as well? Or do you not have that in the USA?


This tends to overturn guilty verdicts and results in a remand for a new trial, not reversing an acquital.


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/10/28 19:47:25


Post by: Gordon Shumway


sirlynchmob wrote:
 Ahtman wrote:
I wonder if they would have been acquitted if they were Black/Latino/Asian/Ingenious.


of course not, we only need to look at the peaceful protest going on right now in dakota to see that.

this is my favorite quote from cnn
"As the standoff continued, police deployed bean bag rounds and pepper spray gas and unleashed a high-pitched siren to disperse the crowd. "

talk about some media bias there, they deployed bean bag rounds, in other words they were shooting protesters with bean bag rounds while arresting 117 protesters.

the dakota protesters should arm themselves, and call for the government to be overthrown, that way the police will let them go home from time to time to resupply and stand off without bothering the protesters.


Unless we have another Crazy Horse up our sleeves, that doesnt seem likely.


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/10/28 19:51:14


Post by: whembly


 CptJake wrote:
I read the Prosecution lied about/hid number of informants and info gotten from them during discovery. There were more CIs than actual defendants. That never helps convince a jury.

I read that there were FIFTEEN CIs in that group.

o.O


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/10/28 19:56:49


Post by: Kanluwen


 whembly wrote:
 CptJake wrote:
I read the Prosecution lied about/hid number of informants and info gotten from them during discovery. There were more CIs than actual defendants. That never helps convince a jury.

I read that there were FIFTEEN CIs in that group.

o.O

Just to throw some shade on this nonsense...

If it's true that the majority of the charges had to do with conspiracy, it's actually possible to have more CIs than defendants. Given the number of people that the Branch Dildonians were likely communicating with, there's the possibility for people not actually present at the Malheur Wildlife Refuge to potentially have been charged with conspiracy or aiding and abetting.


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/10/28 20:00:51


Post by: whembly


 Kanluwen wrote:
 whembly wrote:
 CptJake wrote:
I read the Prosecution lied about/hid number of informants and info gotten from them during discovery. There were more CIs than actual defendants. That never helps convince a jury.

I read that there were FIFTEEN CIs in that group.

o.O

Just to throw some shade on this nonsense...

If it's true that the majority of the charges had to do with conspiracy, it's actually possible to have more CIs than defendants. Given the number of people that the Branch Dildonians were likely communicating with, there's the possibility for people not actually present at the Malheur Wildlife Refuge to potentially have been charged with conspiracy or aiding and abetting.

Yeah... that's a good point.

Anyone know if/when the court transcripts would be released?


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/10/28 20:59:15


Post by: Ahtman


 Frazzled wrote:
Next time declare them traitors and napalm the site. We need to shut this down like a virus before it spreads.


We save that kind of response for non-white people.

Anyway...

This bad in many ways. First it emboldens the worse elements of our society, like these idiots or the guy who shot people at the black Church in the South, and makes them think they have more support than they actually do so I expect to to see more incidents. Secondly it erodes whatever belief some may have had in the Justice system and/or government (local/State/Federal) so we could see more people lashing out at symbols of those things, much like the guy who shot at cops a month or so ago. This is going to be a rough couple years at the very least.


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/10/28 21:03:12


Post by: BigWaaagh


This whole narrative changes dramatically if the charges in Nevada bring about guilty verdicts. The fat lady has yet to sing on this matter.

Yo, MODS, let's see if we can get an Orky "Fat Lady Singing" Orkmoticon.


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/10/28 21:24:54


Post by: Dreadwinter


This.... this right here is why kids cannot even.


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/10/28 21:33:16


Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That


I'm playing devil's advocate here, and I freely admit to pure speculation, but maybe the Jury got it spot on?

After looking over various newspaper reports on this, could it be that the prosecution case was so badly handled, so full of holes and horsegak, that the Jury did the right thing?

Perhaps this jury is due an apology for preserving the integrity of the US/Nevada justice system.

I did Jury service last year, and the accused was charged with 9 counts of criminal activity. The judge looked over the prosecution's paper work and said, hold on, forms not filled in properly here, and the 9 counts were reduced to 6 counts...just like that...

Prosecutors are reknown for messing things up. We know that. Murder trials have collapsed because of poor paperwork.

Ordinary people on juries can sometimes be a lot smarter and wiser and able to spot bullgak, than you think.

Like I said, pure speculation, but my gut tells me there's something odd about what happened in this courtroom.


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/10/28 21:43:21


Post by: Spinner


There has to have been something weird that went on in there, but I'm struggling to picture how badly the prosecutor had to have screwed it up for them to just walk on to the next trial (please, please, find them guilty there...). Either the trial was basically the entire middle of "Liar, Liar", or everyone on the jury had a last name that rhymed with Mundy.

Or both.

It's just...it's insane. Shouldn't the firearms in a federal building case at the very least have gone through? It's not like they were subtle about it!


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/10/28 21:55:32


Post by: Ouze


 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
After looking over various newspaper reports on this, could it be that the prosecution case was so badly handled, so full of holes and horsegak, that the Jury did the right thing?





There is no amount of prosecutorial bungling that explains how these guys got acquitted on charges of possessing firearms in a federal facility.


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/10/28 21:57:29


Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That


 Spinner wrote:
There has to have been something weird that went on in there, but I'm struggling to picture how badly the prosecutor had to have screwed it up for them to just walk on to the next trial (please, please, find them guilty there...). Either the trial was basically the entire middle of "Liar, Liar", or everyone on the jury had a last name that rhymed with Mundy.

Or both.

It's just...it's insane. Shouldn't the firearms in a federal building case at the very least have gone through? It's not like they were subtle about it!


I don't want to defend the Bundy family here, but wasn't the building empty?

Don't get me wrong, they should have been punished for their actions, but I can sort of understand why the jury might have overlooked the federal property thing.


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/10/28 22:08:42


Post by: Co'tor Shas


 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
 Spinner wrote:
There has to have been something weird that went on in there, but I'm struggling to picture how badly the prosecutor had to have screwed it up for them to just walk on to the next trial (please, please, find them guilty there...). Either the trial was basically the entire middle of "Liar, Liar", or everyone on the jury had a last name that rhymed with Mundy.

Or both.

It's just...it's insane. Shouldn't the firearms in a federal building case at the very least have gone through? It's not like they were subtle about it!


I don't want to defend the Bundy family here, but wasn't the building empty?

Don't get me wrong, they should have been punished for their actions, but I can sort of understand why the jury might have overlooked the federal property thing.

So I can break into you home if you're not there?


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/10/28 22:15:37


Post by: ScootyPuffJunior


 Ouze wrote:
There is no amount of prosecutorial bungling that explains how these guys got acquitted on charges of possessing firearms in a federal facility.
No, but something else that's been brought up numerous times already can:




Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/10/28 22:19:58


Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That


 Co'tor Shas wrote:
 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
 Spinner wrote:
There has to have been something weird that went on in there, but I'm struggling to picture how badly the prosecutor had to have screwed it up for them to just walk on to the next trial (please, please, find them guilty there...). Either the trial was basically the entire middle of "Liar, Liar", or everyone on the jury had a last name that rhymed with Mundy.

Or both.

It's just...it's insane. Shouldn't the firearms in a federal building case at the very least have gone through? It's not like they were subtle about it!


I don't want to defend the Bundy family here, but wasn't the building empty?

Don't get me wrong, they should have been punished for their actions, but I can sort of understand why the jury might have overlooked the federal property thing.

So I can break into you home if you're not there?


Damn and blast, it's Nevada, they're probably still using VHS.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Ouze wrote:
 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
After looking over various newspaper reports on this, could it be that the prosecution case was so badly handled, so full of holes and horsegak, that the Jury did the right thing?





There is no amount of prosecutorial bungling that explains how these guys got acquitted on charges of possessing firearms in a federal facility.


Again, pure speculation here, and I'm not defending these crooks, but maybe the jury thought: the building was empty, nobody got hurt, so do we really want to waste taxpayers money on this? Let them off with a warning, and if we see them back in court, let's throw the book at them...

Only time will tell...


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/10/28 22:31:06


Post by: Spinner


I'd say the taxpayer's money was wasted more on cleaning up the college-dorm mess they left behind.

I mean, there's clearly guns, they're clearly in a federal building. Seems pretty straightforward to me, but I wasn't in that court room.


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/10/28 22:32:48


Post by: Dreadclaw69


 whembly wrote:
 CptJake wrote:
I read the Prosecution lied about/hid number of informants and info gotten from them during discovery. There were more CIs than actual defendants. That never helps convince a jury.

I read that there were FIFTEEN CIs in that group.

o.O

What were the ratio of CIs to defendants?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Ouze wrote:
 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
After looking over various newspaper reports on this, could it be that the prosecution case was so badly handled, so full of holes and horsegak, that the Jury did the right thing?





There is no amount of prosecutorial bungling that explains how these guys got acquitted on charges of possessing firearms in a federal facility.

Were the items seized as evidence, and proper chain of evidence followed? If not then they may not be entered into evidence a defense attorney might argue that they were replicas and not actual firearms.


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/10/28 22:39:44


Post by: d-usa


The defendants admitted in court that they were carrying firearms while they occupied the building.

They just spend 3 days testifying that the government was mean so it was okay to break the law, and the jurors nullifies the charges.


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/10/29 00:19:22


Post by: Hordini


 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
People took me to task on this on the original thread, but I still maintain that the situation would have been different had these occupiers been non-white.


Just throwing this out there. I'm not claiming that the situations are analogous because they obviously aren't, but I thought you might find it interesting.

Here’s How The Nation Responded When A Black Militia Group Occupied A Government Building


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/10/29 00:36:59


Post by: LordofHats


 Hordini wrote:
 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
People took me to task on this on the original thread, but I still maintain that the situation would have been different had these occupiers been non-white.


Just throwing this out there. I'm not claiming that the situations are analogous because they obviously aren't, but I thought you might find it interesting.

Here’s How The Nation Responded When A Black Militia Group Occupied A Government Building


You don't even have to go back that far.

A black guy with a gun in his hand gets shot by police without hesitation, and the police action is affirmed by onlookers as perfectly legitimate. Only criminals disobey lawful authorities, and only idiots wouldn't listen to police commands. Naturally it's all these corrupt broken urban communities faults that the problem exists, not law enforcement.

A bunch of white guys commit sedition, and not only does law enforcement act with such measured force that many onlookers wondered if they planned to do anything at all, but a 12 person jury acquits them of the charges they confess to doing because "you can't trust the government and we needed our guns to protect ourselves" (aka, lawful authority). The entire perception painted changes instantly when you change your skin, and rant about the government oppressing your poor rural community*.

The biggest difference between the scenarios is the level of government involved. Local cops can go ahead and kill people, and America struggles to consider if it is or isn't a problem. The federal government enforces federal land laws (like having to pay for using public land, or sending people to jail for starting multiple life endangering forest fires), and suddenly a bunch of white guys are the victims of a corrupt state.

*Though one really has to wonder how poor any of these people were with how many guns and bullets they happened to have.


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/10/29 01:27:14


Post by: Prestor Jon


 LordofHats wrote:
 Hordini wrote:
 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
People took me to task on this on the original thread, but I still maintain that the situation would have been different had these occupiers been non-white.


Just throwing this out there. I'm not claiming that the situations are analogous because they obviously aren't, but I thought you might find it interesting.

Here’s How The Nation Responded When A Black Militia Group Occupied A Government Building


You don't even have to go back that far.

A black guy with a gun in his hand gets shot by police without hesitation, and the police action is affirmed by onlookers as perfectly legitimate. Only criminals disobey lawful authorities, and only idiots wouldn't listen to police commands. Naturally it's all these corrupt broken urban communities faults that the problem exists, not law enforcement.

A bunch of white guys commit sedition, and not only does law enforcement act with such measured force that many onlookers wondered if they planned to do anything at all, but a 12 person jury acquits them of the charges they confess to doing because "you can't trust the government and we needed our guns to protect ourselves" (aka, lawful authority). The entire perception painted changes instantly when you change your skin, and rant about the government oppressing your poor rural community*.

The biggest difference between the scenarios is the level of government involved. Local cops can go ahead and kill people, and America struggles to consider if it is or isn't a problem. The federal government enforces federal land laws (like having to pay for using public land, or sending people to jail for starting multiple life endangering forest fires), and suddenly a bunch of white guys are the victims of a corrupt state.

*Though one really has to wonder how poor any of these people were with how many guns and bullets they happened to have.


How does occupying an empty federal building in the woods in the dead of winter qualify as "sedition"?

The case of the Hammonds burn back fires is more nuanced than simple arson as noted by the US district judge who tries their case and refused to impose the 5 year prison sentence because he considered it disproportionate and violating his conscience.
http://landrights.org/or/Hammond/Transcript%20of%20Judges%20ruling.pdf

There is a long history of disputes and disagreements between the Bureau of Land Management and private property owners that contributed to the whole fiasco and it's still an ongoing issue.

The jury returned an unexpected verdict but that can happen with jury trials. The govt can't control the outcome of trials only the process. If the trial was conducted properly then justice was served regardless of the outcome. The process is what matters not the outcome.

When the Buddy people came into direct contact with local police and didn't follow police orders the police fired upon them and killed one of them because that is the most likely outcome when armed people initiate confrontations with cops regardless of race. The restraint showed by local cops in not storming the federal park building full of armed men who weren't threatening anyone, only damaging property and inconveniencing bird watchers is just common sense. Cops aren't going to start gunfights if they can avoid them.


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/10/29 02:06:02


Post by: Hordini


Prestor Jon wrote:
When the Buddy people came into direct contact with local police and didn't follow police orders the police fired upon them and killed one of them because that is the most likely outcome when armed people initiate confrontations with cops regardless of race. The restraint showed by local cops in not storming the federal park building full of armed men who weren't threatening anyone, only damaging property and inconveniencing bird watchers is just common sense. Cops aren't going to start gunfights if they can avoid them.


That's a good point. It's important to remember that one of the protesters, LaVoy Finicum, (who was white) was killed when he did not comply with police instructions.


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/10/29 04:32:32


Post by: squidhills


 Hordini wrote:

That's a good point. It's important to remember that one of the protesters, LaVoy Finicum, (who was white) was killed when he did not comply with police instructions.


He wasn't killed because he didn't comply with police instructions. He was killed because, after repeatedly brandishing a weapon and saying that he would never be taken alive in Dildonian web videos (a fact known to the officers at the scene), he reached inside his jacket while police were pointing guns at him. That is usually called "suicide by cop".


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/10/29 04:45:14


Post by: Hordini


squidhills wrote:
 Hordini wrote:

That's a good point. It's important to remember that one of the protesters, LaVoy Finicum, (who was white) was killed when he did not comply with police instructions.


He wasn't killed because he didn't comply with police instructions. He was killed because, after repeatedly brandishing a weapon and saying that he would never be taken alive in Dildonian web videos (a fact known to the officers at the scene), he reached inside his jacket while police were pointing guns at him. That is usually called "suicide by cop".


I'm pretty sure he wasn't complying with police instructions when he was killed. Are you claiming that he was killed while complying with police instructions?


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/10/29 05:18:33


Post by: cuda1179


Let's not forget Wounded Knee in 1973. This was 1973 (much more racism back then) and Native Americans occupied a town for months. Even after the death of a Federal Agent there wasn't some kind of massive raid. In the end no one got convicted.


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/10/29 05:57:38


Post by: squidhills


 Hordini wrote:

I'm pretty sure he wasn't complying with police instructions when he was killed. Are you claiming that he was killed while complying with police instructions?


No, but usually when I hear of someone being shot for "failure to comply with police instructions" it is referring to a person who may or may not have had a death wish, may or may not have intended harm to the police, may or may not have been inebriated, etc. "Suicide by cop" seems to be used in cases where it seems clear the deceased was intending to die in a police shooting, and deliberately acted in a way to facilitate that result.


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/10/29 07:46:31


Post by: LordofHats


 Hordini wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:
When the Buddy people came into direct contact with local police and didn't follow police orders the police fired upon them and killed one of them because that is the most likely outcome when armed people initiate confrontations with cops regardless of race. The restraint showed by local cops in not storming the federal park building full of armed men who weren't threatening anyone, only damaging property and inconveniencing bird watchers is just common sense. Cops aren't going to start gunfights if they can avoid them.


That's a good point. It's important to remember that one of the protesters, LaVoy Finicum, (who was white) was killed when he did not comply with police instructions.


There's a worlds difference between being killed by law enforcement weeks after something began, and being killed practically as a matter of course.

How does occupying an empty federal building in the woods in the dead of winter qualify as "sedition"?


They weren't occupying a building. They were plotting to co-opt public land with the explicitly stated intent of starting a nation wide rebellion (this is their stated plan, and one they stated over and over again as the occupation of the Refuge went on). It's the exact definition of sedition.


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/10/29 10:53:49


Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That


 Spinner wrote:
I'd say the taxpayer's money was wasted more on cleaning up the college-dorm mess they left behind.

I mean, there's clearly guns, they're clearly in a federal building. Seems pretty straightforward to me, but I wasn't in that court room.


I think the point is that nobody was in that court room except the Bundy family


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 cuda1179 wrote:
Let's not forget Wounded Knee in 1973. This was 1973 (much more racism back then) and Native Americans occupied a town for months. Even after the death of a Federal Agent there wasn't some kind of massive raid. In the end no one got convicted.


When Native American tribes are involved, it's a whole different ball game, what with treaty rights, treaties etc etc

It's complicated


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 LordofHats wrote:
 Hordini wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:
When the Buddy people came into direct contact with local police and didn't follow police orders the police fired upon them and killed one of them because that is the most likely outcome when armed people initiate confrontations with cops regardless of race. The restraint showed by local cops in not storming the federal park building full of armed men who weren't threatening anyone, only damaging property and inconveniencing bird watchers is just common sense. Cops aren't going to start gunfights if they can avoid them.


That's a good point. It's important to remember that one of the protesters, LaVoy Finicum, (who was white) was killed when he did not comply with police instructions.


There's a worlds difference between being killed by law enforcement weeks after something began, and being killed practically as a matter of course.

How does occupying an empty federal building in the woods in the dead of winter qualify as "sedition"?


They weren't occupying a building. They were plotting to co-opt public land with the explicitly stated intent of starting a nation wide rebellion (this is their stated plan, and one they stated over and over again as the occupation of the Refuge went on). It's the exact definition of sedition.


If you're right and it was sedition and/or rebellion and taking over public land, then why weren't they charged with Treason?

I'm looking at my copy of the US constitution: Article III section 3:

I quote " Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them,..."

They hoped for a nation wide rebellion.If that's not war against the United States, then what is? Open and shut case in my book



Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/10/29 11:16:58


Post by: LordofHats


Because treason in US law has a specific definition (US Constitution). Bundy and his cohorts don't meet it. Dislike them, but its a big stretch to go to a jury and argue they were waging war against the state by occupying a Wildlife Refuge. They certainly didn't betray the US to an enemy, or provide aid to one.

Under US law, they did not commit treason.


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/10/29 11:21:32


Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That


 LordofHats wrote:
Because treason in US law has a specific definition (US Constitution). Bundy and his cohorts don't meet it. Dislike them, but its a big stretch to go to a jury and argue they were waging war against the state by occupying a Wildlife Refuge. They certainly didn't betray the US to an enemy, or provide aid to one.

Under US law, they did not commit treason.


Damn it! They are going to get charged and punished with something, aren't they?

On a serious note, if the Bundys walk away from the next set of charges, then the American justice system will be a laughing stock the world over.


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/10/29 11:27:22


Post by: loki old fart


 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
A disgraceful decision. Travesty!

Armed men seize a Federal building and threaten to overthrow the Federal government and NOTHING happens!

God almighty, what has happened to the US justice system?

Compare and contrast that to individuals who are seized, thrown into G'Bay for years, not charged with any crime, and then let go years later....


It makes sense really, in a stupid sort of way. The 2nd amendment right to bear arms, is there too resist oppression.
So how do you prosecute someone for doing what they're supposed to do.


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/10/29 11:32:04


Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That


 loki old fart wrote:
 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
A disgraceful decision. Travesty!

Armed men seize a Federal building and threaten to overthrow the Federal government and NOTHING happens!

God almighty, what has happened to the US justice system?

Compare and contrast that to individuals who are seized, thrown into G'Bay for years, not charged with any crime, and then let go years later....


It makes sense really, in a stupid sort of way. The 2nd amendment right to bear arms, is there too resist oppression.
So how do you prosecute someone for doing what they're supposed to do.


Sadly, a jury in Nevada agrees with you, but this saga has still got some miles in it.

I will bet my entire Forge World collection that we haven't heard the last of this case or the Bundy family.


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/10/29 11:32:08


Post by: LordofHats


The narrow definition of treason is why the US government passed the charge of Sedition (technically Seditious Conspiracy) into law;

"If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof..."

*Edit: As a curious note, right wing radicals in the United States have never been successfully charged with Sedition, only left wing radicals (particularly communists, black nationalists, and independence groups from the Philippines back in the 1920s <which were also communist). Charges have historically been brought against neo-Nazis (and other racist groups), as well as the mother of all crazy militia groups Posse Comitatus. The charges never stuck.


>


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/10/29 11:42:12


Post by: loki old fart


 LordofHats wrote:
The narrow definition of treason is why the US government passed the charge of Sedition (technically Seditious Conspiracy) into law;

"If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof..."

*Edit: As a curious note, right wing radicals in the United States have never been successfully charged with Sedition, only left wing radicals (particularly communists, black nationalists, and independence groups from the Philippines back in the 1920s). Charges have historically been brought against neo-Nazis (and other racist groups), as well as the mother of all crazy militia groups Posse Comitatus. The charges never stuck.

Which conflicts with the constitution in that. You're supposed to keep the government answerable to the people by force of arms, if necessary.


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/10/29 11:52:48


Post by: LordofHats


 loki old fart wrote:
 LordofHats wrote:
The narrow definition of treason is why the US government passed the charge of Sedition (technically Seditious Conspiracy) into law;

"If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof..."

*Edit: As a curious note, right wing radicals in the United States have never been successfully charged with Sedition, only left wing radicals (particularly communists, black nationalists, and independence groups from the Philippines back in the 1920s). Charges have historically been brought against neo-Nazis (and other racist groups), as well as the mother of all crazy militia groups Posse Comitatus. The charges never stuck.

Which conflicts with the constitution in that. You're supposed to keep the government answerable to the people by force of arms, if necessary.


You can imagine why the passage of the Alien and Sedition Act in 1789 caused such a stir Though that one was more a restriction on speech than acts of violence. The "Sedition" of that provision was allowed to quietly expire following Jefferson's victory over Adams in 1800 (the Alien part is still part of US law, and was last executed by FDR to intern Japanese Americans after the US entered WWII).

The current Sedition "law" was passed after WWI (I forget the exact year), in response to troubles in the Philippines and to try to put down Black Nationalists like Marcus Garvey. This specific law was quickly repealed, but revived by the Federal government as the Smith Act in 1940 with the same language (for shutting down communists and fascists). Following a series of SCOTUS cases throughout the 50s and 60s that found the application of the law unconstitutional, it was amended and remains law but has been very rarely used.


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/10/29 12:28:35


Post by: CptJake


 Ouze wrote:
 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
After looking over various newspaper reports on this, could it be that the prosecution case was so badly handled, so full of holes and horsegak, that the Jury did the right thing?





There is no amount of prosecutorial bungling that explains how these guys got acquitted on charges of possessing firearms in a federal facility.


I thought you could have gun in national parks.


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/10/29 12:50:42


Post by: Breotan


 CptJake wrote:
I thought you could have gun in national parks.

Not inside Federal buildings, though. It's actually illegal to do that.

Anyway, this is happened.

http://eastoregon.craigslist.org/apa/5850716850.html

3br - 1600ft2 - Malheur Wildlife Refuge for Rent - $0/month, no deposit! (Princeton)



Quaint, stone cottage in beautiful, country setting! 3 bed, 1 bath (3 if you count 2 latrines dug out by our last tenants) with spacious patio and breathtaking views!

Comes fully furnished with some chairs and maps, and over 4,000 sacred Native-American artifacts! No deposit necessary so don't worry about the artifacts (our last tenants didn't)!

Tenants recently moved - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge is AVAILABLE NOW!

Call FBI to schedule viewing! If no one is there for the open house you can probably just stay.

Rent is $0/month!
No deposit!

All races welcome to apply! But can only guarantee safety for you-know-which-one (wink-wink).

cats - ok
dogs - ok
standoffs w/ FBI - you're an adult

do NOT contact me with unsolicited services or offers




Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/10/29 12:53:07


Post by: Prestor Jon


 LordofHats wrote:
 Hordini wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:
When the Buddy people came into direct contact with local police and didn't follow police orders the police fired upon them and killed one of them because that is the most likely outcome when armed people initiate confrontations with cops regardless of race. The restraint showed by local cops in not storming the federal park building full of armed men who weren't threatening anyone, only damaging property and inconveniencing bird watchers is just common sense. Cops aren't going to start gunfights if they can avoid them.


That's a good point. It's important to remember that one of the protesters, LaVoy Finicum, (who was white) was killed when he did not comply with police instructions.


There's a worlds difference between being killed by law enforcement weeks after something began, and being killed practically as a matter of course.

How does occupying an empty federal building in the woods in the dead of winter qualify as "sedition"?


They weren't occupying a building. They were plotting to co-opt public land with the explicitly stated intent of starting a nation wide rebellion (this is their stated plan, and one they stated over and over again as the occupation of the Refuge went on). It's the exact definition of sedition.


Since wildlife refuge buildings on federally owned Oregonian wilderness lands aren't guarded by police there were no police to oppose the Bundy's when they chose to illegally occupy the building. Once the Bundy people took up residence in the building the cops weren't going to go in guns blazing when there were no hostages or anyone in imminent danger. The wasn't a reason for the cops to risk their lives in a gun battle that would have effectively destroyed the building that they were trying to protect. The police did set up roadblocks and when some of the Bundy people tested those roadblocks and confronted the police it resulted in the cops killing one and arresting the others. So the one police confrontation that happened during the standoff did get lethally violent quickly. The cops weren't going to storm that building regardless of the race of the occupiers.

I stand corrected on the Bundy people committing sedition I didn't have a proper understanding of that point of law and I appreciate you taking the time to explain the difference. You've been more informative on that issue than the last 3 articles I read that reported on the acquittal.


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/10/29 14:03:49


Post by: Ahtman


Prestor Jon wrote:
The cops weren't going to storm that building regardless of the race of the occupiers.


There is always a reason, and it is almost never overt racism, but that doesn't lesson the impact of a long pattern of institutional racism. A black guy selling single cigarettes is dead while a white guy who shot up a theater is alive. A black kid who threw a traffic cone at an unoccupied Police Car is getting five years in prison while a bunch of armed white guys took over a federal building and told the police "come at me bro" are acquitted. There is always a reason, but it doesn't change the overall pattern and it is incredibly frustrating for many people to see it.


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/10/29 14:13:36


Post by: d-usa


They are just lucky they didn't kneel during a national anthem, then they really would have gotten it.


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/10/29 14:51:46


Post by: Prestor Jon


 Ahtman wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:
The cops weren't going to storm that building regardless of the race of the occupiers.


There is always a reason, and it is almost never overt racism, but that doesn't lesson the impact of a long pattern of institutional racism. A black guy selling single cigarettes is dead while a white guy who shot up a theater is alive. A black kid who threw a traffic cone at an unoccupied Police Car is getting five years in prison while a bunch of armed white guys took over a federal building and told the police "come at me bro" are acquitted. There is always a reason, but it doesn't change the overall pattern and it is incredibly frustrating for many people to see it.


You're creating a pattern out of nothing. The cinema shooter in Aurora wasn't killed by cops because they found him unarmed in the parking lot and he didn't resist his arrest. Eric Garner was forcibly subdued by cops because he resisted arrest. Two different circumstances two different police depts in two states. Local prosecutor decides to charge black kid for throwing a traffic cone and in a different state a completely unrelated group of people are out on trial and a jury acquits them. The jury has nothing to do with police procedures or prosecutorial discretion for filing charges. None of your examples show a pattern of institutional anything as your examples don't even involve the same institutions. There are more than enough incidents of actual racism that we don't need to go around creating crazy hyperbolic fundamentally flawed conspiracy theories about it.


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/10/29 15:59:28


Post by: ScootyPuffJunior


Prestor Jon wrote:
You're creating a pattern out of nothing.
No, he really isn't.
The cinema shooter in Aurora wasn't killed by cops because they found him unarmed in the parking lot and he didn't resist his arrest. Eric Garner was forcibly subdued by cops because he resisted arrest.
"Resisting" arrest isn't punishable by death.
There are more than enough incidents of actual racism that we don't need to go around creating crazy hyperbolic fundamentally flawed conspiracy theories about it.
The idea that institutional racism exists and is plainly evident isn't a conspiracy theory.


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/10/29 17:51:45


Post by: LordofHats


Prestor Jon wrote:
Once the Bundy people took up residence in the building the cops weren't going to go in guns blazing when there were no hostages or anyone in imminent danger.


I'm not criticizing law enforcement tactics in their handling of the situation (I mean come on, 20 years ago this could very easily have been a blood bath and as angry as this makes me, I guess I do really prefer this to that). Really I'm suggesting;

The cops weren't going to storm that building regardless of the race of the occupiers.


That similar levels of restraint might see a lot less corpses with law enforcement bullets in them, but that's beside the point that the outcome of this situation paints an unpleasant picture of how we handle different kinds of crime. A guy who gets pulled over for speeding gets gunned down in Tulsa for no apparent reason (and is probably hanging out with a deaf guy right now in Valhalla or wherever), a bunch of guys engaging in crimes against the state (which seems evidently worse) get to hang out, party with lube and dildos (lube AND dildos!), and only one of them dies despite being very heavily armed weeks later after law enforcement shows remarkable restraint in handling their transgression.

That's why I painted this very specifically; a bunch of (mostly white) men from the heartland crying about government land use can violate the law, declare themselves the victims of a corrupt regime, and a jury lets them go. A black kid from the hood gets killed while unarmed, and tens of millions of people don't bat an eye and simple say "he shouldn't have broken the law." It's not so much a conspiracy theory as it is pointing to a very unfortunate coincidence in how these things turned out. One minority community leaders are going to notice, and that general Americans shrug off and take very little (if any) time to think about.


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/10/29 18:26:49


Post by: Prestor Jon


 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:
You're creating a pattern out of nothing.
No, he really isn't.
The cinema shooter in Aurora wasn't killed by cops because they found him unarmed in the parking lot and he didn't resist his arrest. Eric Garner was forcibly subdued by cops because he resisted arrest.
"Resisting" arrest isn't punishable by death.
There are more than enough incidents of actual racism that we don't need to go around creating crazy hyperbolic fundamentally flawed conspiracy theories about it.
The idea that institutional racism exists and is plainly evident isn't a conspiracy theory.


No one said resisting arrest was a capital crime. Dying of a pre existing medics condition while refusing to cooperate with police who are arresting you for a crime you willfully and knowingly committed multiple times isn't a racially motivated execution either.

I never said institutions racism didn't exist. Claiming that the 12 jurors in Oregon that acquitted the Bundy people are racists and part of an institution and therefore an example of institutional racism is absolutely a crazy crackpot conspiracy theory that is blatantly and demonstrably erroneous.


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/10/29 18:39:28


Post by: ScootyPuffJunior


Prestor Jon wrote:
Claiming that the 12 jurors in Oregon that acquitted the Bundy people are racists and part of an institution and therefore an example of institutional racism is absolutely a crazy crackpot conspiracy theory that is blatantly and demonstrably erroneous.
No it isn't.

The rate at which white defendants are seen as more sympathetic by jurors (and therefore receive lesser punishments or aren't convicted) compared to black defendants has been demonstrated.


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/10/29 18:52:56


Post by: Prestor Jon


 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:
Claiming that the 12 jurors in Oregon that acquitted the Bundy people are racists and part of an institution and therefore an example of institutional racism is absolutely a crazy crackpot conspiracy theory that is blatantly and demonstrably erroneous.
No it isn't.

The rate at which white defendants are seen as more sympathetic by jurors (and therefore receive lesser punishments or aren't convicted) compared to black defendants has been demonstrated.


No it's still crazy because those statistics don't do anything to show that those specific 12 jurors in Oregon are in any way racist or part of an institutional effort/program to promote or condone racist behavior.


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/10/29 19:05:07


Post by: Monkey Tamer


 Easy E wrote:
It sounds like the government attorney failed to stop Bundy from rattling off his crazy ideology, and one juror swallowed it all which led to an acquittal.

I am no lawyer, but is there much an attorney can do to stop that type of thing through Objections and what not?


It's mostly up to the judge's discretion on what is relevant. The thing judges fear most is getting overturned on appeal, so they tend to let the defense pursue almost any theory of the case.


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/10/29 19:05:48


Post by: skyth


There doesn't have to be an effort or program for institutional racism to occur. In fact, that makes it not institutional. Instead it is blatant.

Institutional racism occurs at the subconcious level where you are not really aware of it. It isn't something done on purpose.


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/10/29 19:56:38


Post by: ScootyPuffJunior


Prestor Jon wrote:
No it's still crazy because those statistics don't do anything to show that those specific 12 jurors in Oregon are in any way racist or part of an institutional effort/program to promote or condone racist behavior.
Whatever, dude, you clearly don't understand the underlying concept of "institutional racism" so I guess we're done here.


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/10/29 20:59:52


Post by: Prestor Jon


 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:
No it's still crazy because those statistics don't do anything to show that those specific 12 jurors in Oregon are in any way racist or part of an institutional effort/program to promote or condone racist behavior.
Whatever, dude, you clearly don't understand the underlying concept of "institutional racism" so I guess we're done here.


Here is the first definition that comes up when I google it and it fits the definition as I have always understood it to be. Institutional racism is when institutions engage in racist behavior such as when the state enacts segregated schools or Jim Crow laws etc. It's a different form of racism from individuals engaging in racist behavior.

Institutional racism is a pattern of social institutions — such as governmental organizations, schools, banks, and courts of law — giving negative treatment to a group of people based on their race.

http://www.chegg.com/homework-help/definitions/institutional-racism-49


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/10/29 21:09:19


Post by: skyth


It's not how the term is used.


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/10/29 21:12:19


Post by: LordofHats


Prestor Jon wrote:
courts of law.


We are talking about a jury...

Institutional Racism is a broad concept. It's not strictly about actual institutions, but also social conventions and norms that enable and support them. For a straight forward example (assuming both defendants punched another man for calling them a hoser in a bar); Jury A acquits white defendant John of assault because he was having a bad day. He got fired, his wife left him, and he's football team lost the Super Bowl (Come on have a heart). Jury B meanwhile convicts (non-white) Hispanic defendant Jose of assault because they don't like that he's not a US citizen, and who cares that he lost his job (he shouldn't have had it in the first place). The crime is the same, but the jury returns different verdicts because they liked one and disliked the other not necessarily because of the race but because of the circumstances around them. Race is merely coincidental, but given that we almost never think of white people as illegals (even though there's lots of illegals in the US from Eastern Europe), prejudice against illegal immigration is going to hit non-whites harder.

It's a straightforward example of Institutional Racism. Jury's are part of the court system, and juries are pulled from the general population. Their verdicts are part of the institution.

That said, I don't think race is what played the most direct role in this outcome. What I take from these events is that people judge the actions of a perpetrator differently based 1) on how closely they fit the American ideal (down home country boys and service vets vs urban hoods), and 2) what level of government was involved (local law enforcement vs federal agents), and lastly 3) the nature of the transgression (fighting a "corrupt" government for FREEDOM, vs extremely complex social injustice that takes books to explain assuming people even listen to begin with). It is a living embodiment of a whole bunch of societal prejudices, not necessarily all based on race, but that do point to how justice produces one set of results for some people (mostly white) and another set of results for others (quite a few not white). I.E. an example of institutional racism.


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/10/29 21:56:11


Post by: Frazzled


 LordofHats wrote:
Because treason in US law has a specific definition (US Constitution). Bundy and his cohorts don't meet it. Dislike them, but its a big stretch to go to a jury and argue they were waging war against the state by occupying a Wildlife Refuge. They certainly didn't betray the US to an enemy, or provide aid to one.

Under US law, they did not commit treason.

Don't charge them with treason. Declare they are traitors and bomb them. There's a difference.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Breotan wrote:
 CptJake wrote:
I thought you could have gun in national parks.

Not inside Federal buildings, though. It's actually illegal to do that.

Anyway, this is happened.

http://eastoregon.craigslist.org/apa/5850716850.html

3br - 1600ft2 - Malheur Wildlife Refuge for Rent - $0/month, no deposit! (Princeton)



Quaint, stone cottage in beautiful, country setting! 3 bed, 1 bath (3 if you count 2 latrines dug out by our last tenants) with spacious patio and breathtaking views!

Comes fully furnished with some chairs and maps, and over 4,000 sacred Native-American artifacts! No deposit necessary so don't worry about the artifacts (our last tenants didn't)!

Tenants recently moved - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge is AVAILABLE NOW!

Call FBI to schedule viewing! If no one is there for the open house you can probably just stay.

Rent is $0/month!
No deposit!

All races welcome to apply! But can only guarantee safety for you-know-which-one (wink-wink).

cats - ok
dogs - ok
standoffs w/ FBI - you're an adult

do NOT contact me with unsolicited services or offers




They could also have charged them with simple trespass.


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/10/30 20:35:50


Post by: Kilkrazy


Frankly it is likely that this verdict will encourage the Bundys to further adventures involving the grey area of Federal law. Eventually they will meet with an unsympathetic jury and unexpectedly get 10 years in the slammer.


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/10/30 20:36:55


Post by: Vaktathi


 Kilkrazy wrote:
Frankly it is likely that this verdict will encourage the Bundys to further adventures involving the grey area of Federal law. Eventually they will meet with an unsympathetic jury and unexpectedly get 10 years in the slammer.
Well before they do anything else they remain incarcerated pending Federal charges for acts in Nevada. So they're not off scott-free yet.


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/10/30 20:53:40


Post by: LordofHats


Its hard to fathom them getting convicted for those more murkey and less clear offenses when they couldn't be convicted for this.


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/10/30 20:54:45


Post by: Rosebuddy


 Kilkrazy wrote:
Frankly it is likely that this verdict will encourage the Bundys to further adventures involving the grey area of Federal law. Eventually they will meet with an unsympathetic jury and unexpectedly get 10 years in the slammer.


Let's just hope that next time they all get into a shootout with the cops.


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/10/30 21:11:21


Post by: cuda1179


 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:
Claiming that the 12 jurors in Oregon that acquitted the Bundy people are racists and part of an institution and therefore an example of institutional racism is absolutely a crazy crackpot conspiracy theory that is blatantly and demonstrably erroneous.
No it isn't.

The rate at which white defendants are seen as more sympathetic by jurors (and therefore receive lesser punishments or aren't convicted) compared to black defendants has been demonstrated.


I'll see if I can find the study, but someone, at least partially, debunked this. Basically there is still a racial gap in sentencing, however there were a number of factors that were not accounted for in the study you quote. All-white juries are more likely to come from rural communities. The population dispersion of African Americans means that they are less likely to be found in rural communities. Also, rural communities are more likely to aquit and more likely find a defendant (regardless of race) of their community sympathetic. Also, you must also factor in the economic status. Lower income defendants are almost always given less sympathy, regardless of race. Minorities unfortunately make up a disproportionately high number of the lower classes.

Basically, if you have two identical defendents (with the only difference being race) the chances of them getting convicted are within a couple percentage points.


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/10/30 21:24:52


Post by: LordofHats


I remember reading the responding study of which you speak. I think it pointed out important distinctions in how jury outcomes are effected by where the jurors come from, but it didn't account for the other facets of the system (non-whites being more likely to be charged for the same crimes, lower quality of defense among the poor where many minorities are, and the nature of the crimes that people of different ethnic backgrounds tend to be charged with).

A lot of studies have actually continually found that the jury system is very successful by many measures (for example, one was to compare jury verdicts with the Judge's personal opinion on a case, and the study found jurys and judges in agreement 80% of the time).

This case almost certainly falls into the other 20%.


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/10/30 23:50:10


Post by: Hordini


Rosebuddy wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
Frankly it is likely that this verdict will encourage the Bundys to further adventures involving the grey area of Federal law. Eventually they will meet with an unsympathetic jury and unexpectedly get 10 years in the slammer.


Let's just hope that next time they all get into a shootout with the cops.



That seems like a very strange thing to hope for. In this case, nobody was hurt or was ever really in much danger, with the exception of LaVoy Finicum who died doing something quite foolish. I'm not sure why someone would hope that these guys would go for round two, and get into a shootout that could very likely involve people needlessly getting hurt or killed.


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/10/31 00:34:58


Post by: skyth


As much as it blows my mind that they were found not guilty, I would rather guilty people go free than innocent people get punished.


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/10/31 01:27:31


Post by: sebster


 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Again, pure speculation here, and I'm not defending these crooks, but maybe the jury thought: the building was empty, nobody got hurt, so do we really want to waste taxpayers money on this? Let them off with a warning, and if we see them back in court, let's throw the book at them...

Only time will tell...


That is not a defense of the jury. That is speculation that the jury decided to act wildly outside of its role. The jury is there to review the facts and apply the law as instructed. It is not their scope to consider the cost of any jail time, or whether the crime was harmless or excusable in some way.

Now, I'm not saying that isn't a possible explanation of why the jury decided as it did. I am saying it is not a defense of the jury, because if the jury did think that way when they were acting wildly outside of their role.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 loki old fart wrote:
It makes sense really, in a stupid sort of way. The 2nd amendment right to bear arms, is there too resist oppression.
So how do you prosecute someone for doing what they're supposed to do.


That's not how it works at all. The right to bear arms means government can't take guns away from the citizenry, so that citizens might use those guns against government or whoever else if things go really bad. It doesn't mean taking up arms against your government is legal and without consequence.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 LordofHats wrote:
I'm not criticizing law enforcement tactics in their handling of the situation (I mean come on, 20 years ago this could very easily have been a blood bath and as angry as this makes me, I guess I do really prefer this to that).


Yeah, one of the great shames of this is that it appears the FBI really has learned about how to handle armed stand offs with crazies. This new strategy of containment and outlasting the crazies worked well, the only death was a guy who gave police no choice, meanwhile every other guy in the building ended up surrendering, and was then arrested and brought to trial. That would have been remembered as a good result for law enforcement, except then this stupid verdict came in.

Prestor Jon wrote:
I never said institutions racism didn't exist. Claiming that the 12 jurors in Oregon that acquitted the Bundy people are racists and part of an institution and therefore an example of institutional racism is absolutely a crazy crackpot conspiracy theory that is blatantly and demonstrably erroneous.


A long while ago there was a story posted here on dakka about a trial where a prostitute was killed leaving a guy's property. I think she'd taken the money and then failed to deliver as expected or something. The dude killed her as she was leaving the property, he defended himself as trying to prevent a theft and was acquitted. I posted in that thread that it's an unfortunate reality of being on the outskirts of society that people are less outraged at any harm or injustice done to you. They are more willing to entertain abstract legal arguments because they simply feel less for the victim.

Now, in the case of that prostitute there is no evidence that the jury only reached that verdict because of her profession. They might have found a similar conclusion if it was a lawyer leaving the house, having provided unsatisfactory legal advice.

But it is impossible to deny the greater pattern present across multiple cases, and it only makes sense to acknowledge each case when it suits that pattern.


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/10/31 10:45:17


Post by: ulgurstasta


While the race angle on this has some merit, I wonder if if there might be some sympathy for their cause in law-enforcement and the jury? I doubt if they where a white jihadists group or a white communist cell they would have been aquitted by the jury


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/10/31 10:51:31


Post by: Frazzled


 LordofHats wrote:
Its hard to fathom them getting convicted for those more murkey and less clear offenses when they couldn't be convicted for this.


Sure it can. Different jury.


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/10/31 13:06:13


Post by: AllSeeingSkink


 sebster wrote:
The jury is there to review the facts and apply the law as instructed. It is not their scope to consider the cost of any jail time, or whether the crime was harmless or excusable in some way.
So you feel we should never have jury nullification?

It's one avenue of showing law makers that maybe the law is over stepping its bounds or the accused was justified in their actions.

However it's going to occasionally lead to cases which are controversial and/or which much of the population doesn't agree with.

If more juries nullified minor drug charges we may see cops stop trying to enforce them or the laws getting changed which IMO would be a good thing. I think that was one contributor to prohibition not really working out. On larger cases it can be a way of juries showing they don't think the law is correctly or justly applied to the situation being presented.


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/10/31 15:36:55


Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That


 sebster wrote:
 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Again, pure speculation here, and I'm not defending these crooks, but maybe the jury thought: the building was empty, nobody got hurt, so do we really want to waste taxpayers money on this? Let them off with a warning, and if we see them back in court, let's throw the book at them...

Only time will tell...


That is not a defense of the jury. That is speculation that the jury decided to act wildly outside of its role. The jury is there to review the facts and apply the law as instructed. It is not their scope to consider the cost of any jail time, or whether the crime was harmless or excusable in some way.

Now, I'm not saying that isn't a possible explanation of why the jury decided as it did. I am saying it is not a defense of the jury, because if the jury did think that way when they were acting wildly outside of their role.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 loki old fart wrote:
It makes sense really, in a stupid sort of way. The 2nd amendment right to bear arms, is there too resist oppression.
So how do you prosecute someone for doing what they're supposed to do.


That's not how it works at all. The right to bear arms means government can't take guns away from the citizenry, so that citizens might use those guns against government or whoever else if things go really bad. It doesn't mean taking up arms against your government is legal and without consequence.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 LordofHats wrote:
I'm not criticizing law enforcement tactics in their handling of the situation (I mean come on, 20 years ago this could very easily have been a blood bath and as angry as this makes me, I guess I do really prefer this to that).


Yeah, one of the great shames of this is that it appears the FBI really has learned about how to handle armed stand offs with crazies. This new strategy of containment and outlasting the crazies worked well, the only death was a guy who gave police no choice, meanwhile every other guy in the building ended up surrendering, and was then arrested and brought to trial. That would have been remembered as a good result for law enforcement, except then this stupid verdict came in.

Prestor Jon wrote:
 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
I never said institutions racism didn't exist. Claiming that the 12 jurors in Oregon that acquitted the Bundy people are racists and part of an institution and therefore an example of institutional racism is absolutely a crazy crackpot conspiracy theory that is blatantly and demonstrably erroneous.


A long while ago there was a story posted here on dakka about a trial where a prostitute was killed leaving a guy's property. I think she'd taken the money and then failed to deliver as expected or something. The dude killed her as she was leaving the property, he defended himself as trying to prevent a theft and was acquitted. I posted in that thread that it's an unfortunate reality of being on the outskirts of society that people are less outraged at any harm or injustice done to you. They are more willing to entertain abstract legal arguments because they simply feel less for the victim.

Now, in the case of that prostitute there is no evidence that the jury only reached that verdict because of her profession. They might have found a similar conclusion if it was a lawyer leaving the house, having provided unsatisfactory legal advice.

But it is impossible to deny the greater pattern present across multiple cases, and it only makes sense to acknowledge each case when it suits that pattern.


I have no idea if you or other dakka members have done jury duty, but I have, and let me tell you that's it's pretty weird.

You're stuck in a courthouse for hours, for days at a time, and you meet people you can;t believe actually exist. It feels claustrophobic

Most of these people were intelligent, but their world views were strange, and it was hard to believe that some of them ended up on the jury...

I'm not saying things get blase, nor is it a case of what happens on jury duty says on jury duty,

But I know now why some juries do things like acquit the Bundys.

Some people just want to get the hell out of there...


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/10/31 17:38:07


Post by: Prestor Jon


 sebster wrote:


Prestor Jon wrote:
 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
I never said institutions racism didn't exist. Claiming that the 12 jurors in Oregon that acquitted the Bundy people are racists and part of an institution and therefore an example of institutional racism is absolutely a crazy crackpot conspiracy theory that is blatantly and demonstrably erroneous.


A long while ago there was a story posted here on dakka about a trial where a prostitute was killed leaving a guy's property. I think she'd taken the money and then failed to deliver as expected or something. The dude killed her as she was leaving the property, he defended himself as trying to prevent a theft and was acquitted. I posted in that thread that it's an unfortunate reality of being on the outskirts of society that people are less outraged at any harm or injustice done to you. They are more willing to entertain abstract legal arguments because they simply feel less for the victim.

Now, in the case of that prostitute there is no evidence that the jury only reached that verdict because of her profession. They might have found a similar conclusion if it was a lawyer leaving the house, having provided unsatisfactory legal advice.

But it is impossible to deny the greater pattern present across multiple cases, and it only makes sense to acknowledge each case when it suits that pattern.


The attributions in these quotes got messed up but I think you're replying to something I posted so I wanted to respond.

I do remember that case and the thread about it here's an article and another one to help clarify things.

The man who shot the woman in that instance had responded to a CL ad that seemed to advertise prostitution but the woman who responded to the ad wasn't a prostitute and wanted to take the $150 payment the main paid for showing up and spending 20 minutes in his apartment. The man wanted his $150 back and when the dispute escalated he shot the woman to prevent her from leaving with his $150. The reason the man was acquitted wasn't because the woman was a prostitute but was because Texas, being Texas, has a law on the books that allows for the use of lethal force to prevent a theft after dark. Since the woman didn't have a rightful claim to the $150 it was theft and under Texas law lethal force was justified to prevent the theft. The prosecution argued during the trial that the law was only intended to cover thefts that occurred in break ins and robberies not over disputes over illegal activity like prostitution but the jury didn't agree with that interpretation and in the jury's defense no such clarification is written in the law. If Texas didn't have law allowing for lethal force to be justified to prevent theft after dark then the jury could not have acquitted the shooter. The jury's justification for the verdict would be equally valid for instances that involved other criminal activity besides prostitution. The issue that caused the acquittal wasn't the inference of prostitution services, it was the fact that Texas law allows for lethal force to be justified in instances that go beyond what other states allow.

Jury nullification would require that the jury reach a verdict on the grounds that the jury knew that the defendant was legally guilty of a crime but that the state's prosecution represented a transgression against the jury's conscience, that it wasn't possible for the jury to reconcile the legal outcome with a moral one. So that case in Texas isn't similar to the Bundy's because there is no state law in Oregon or Federal law that supports an acquittal of the Bundy's. One case is a jury's interpretation of a law as RAW instead of RAI and the other is a jury's deliberate disregard of clear laws.

I'm not sure what other pattern you think the Bundy's case falls into. Jury nullification is extremely rare so there isn't much of an overall pattern given the small sample size and variety of factors at play in various trials. The woman who was shot in Texas was white so there was no racism involved in the acquittal under the Texas theft law. The Bundy's are white land owning males so they're not fringe members of society. The plaintiff in the case against the Bundy's was the Federal govt which isn't an outsider on the fringe of society either. So I'm not sure how the Bundy acquittal in Oregon can be construed as an example of institutional racism.



Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/10/31 17:44:59


Post by: skyth


Well, if the ad was that the man would pay $150 for the woman to spend 20 minutes in his apartment...Seems like she did have a legal claim on the $150 if she indeed did spend 20 minutes in the apartment


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/10/31 18:01:01


Post by: Prestor Jon


 skyth wrote:
Well, if the ad was that the man would pay $150 for the woman to spend 20 minutes in his apartment...Seems like she did have a legal claim on the $150 if she indeed did spend 20 minutes in the apartment


If the woman was clearly advertising a service that the man clearly didn't want then it strengthens the argument for theft instead of weakening it. Apparently it was vague enough to create the confusion and miscommunication that led to the dispute and vague enough for the jury to consider it theft. Moot point now anyway.


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/11/01 01:31:35


Post by: Relapse


 Ahtman wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:
The cops weren't going to storm that building regardless of the race of the occupiers.


There is always a reason, and it is almost never overt racism, but that doesn't lesson the impact of a long pattern of institutional racism. A black guy selling single cigarettes is dead while a white guy who shot up a theater is alive. A black kid who threw a traffic cone at an unoccupied Police Car is getting five years in prison while a bunch of armed white guys took over a federal building and told the police "come at me bro" are acquitted. There is always a reason, but it doesn't change the overall pattern and it is incredibly frustrating for many people to see it.


I think you are overlooking Waco and Ruby Ridge.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 ulgurstasta wrote:
While the race angle on this has some merit, I wonder if if there might be some sympathy for their cause in law-enforcement and the jury? I doubt if they where a white jihadists group or a white communist cell they would have been aquitted by the jury


I have family down in the area where the Bundys first came to national attention and was told the Feds, with the methods they used, pretty much alienated a good percentage of the people living there. I know trying to sell Bundy cattle at auction here in Utah pissed off the ranchers and government here. I wonder if this verdict was a spill over from that.


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/11/01 02:32:54


Post by: sebster


 ulgurstasta wrote:
While the race angle on this has some merit, I wonder if if there might be some sympathy for their cause in law-enforcement and the jury? I doubt if they where a white jihadists group or a white communist cell they would have been aquitted by the jury


Yes, definitely this. Consider the likely punishment handed out to a KKK member for beating a black man in the deep South today, or what he would have gotten for the same offence 100 years ago. Or consider the light sentences given to the Weather Underground, and what they might have gotten for similar terrorist acts today.

Criminal findings and sentencing follow the whims of the public. As such, the unfortunate reality is that people who are more sympathetic to the public will get easier treatment. We've locked on the scope for racism to impact that, but you are right that there are lots of other sympathies, such as ideology, that also play a part.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
AllSeeingSkink wrote:
So you feel we should never have jury nullification?


Yep. A jury is there as a finder of facts, and muddying that by saying they are there to find facts but also just decide they don't like a law and then they can ignore it is a nonsense.

If there is a real problem with the law as it is applied, then that needs to be addressed through appeals and legislation, not through the jury deciding not to do its job.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I have no idea if you or other dakka members have done jury duty, but I have, and let me tell you that's it's pretty weird.


I got put on a jury for a trial that was expected to go for six weeks, but having had knee surgery two weeks before hand, and needing physio three mornings a week the judge let me off. I was actually looking forward to being on a shorter jury

But I know now why some juries do things like acquit the Bundys.

Some people just want to get the hell out of there...


Which is, again, an explanation of why they might have returned that verdict, but it isn't a defense


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Prestor Jon wrote:
The attributions in these quotes got messed up but I think you're replying to something I posted so I wanted to respond.


Yeah, it was meant for you. I've gotten really crap at setting my quotes right lately... I need to double check more.

I do remember that case and the thread about it here's an article and another one to help clarify things.

The man who shot the woman in that instance had responded to a CL ad that seemed to advertise prostitution but the woman who responded to the ad wasn't a prostitute and wanted to take the $150 payment the main paid for showing up and spending 20 minutes in his apartment. The man wanted his $150 back and when the dispute escalated he shot the woman to prevent her from leaving with his $150. The reason the man was acquitted wasn't because the woman was a prostitute but was because Texas, being Texas, has a law on the books that allows for the use of lethal force to prevent a theft after dark. Since the woman didn't have a rightful claim to the $150 it was theft and under Texas law lethal force was justified to prevent the theft. The prosecution argued during the trial that the law was only intended to cover thefts that occurred in break ins and robberies not over disputes over illegal activity like prostitution but the jury didn't agree with that interpretation and in the jury's defense no such clarification is written in the law. If Texas didn't have law allowing for lethal force to be justified to prevent theft after dark then the jury could not have acquitted the shooter. The jury's justification for the verdict would be equally valid for instances that involved other criminal activity besides prostitution. The issue that caused the acquittal wasn't the inference of prostitution services, it was the fact that Texas law allows for lethal force to be justified in instances that go beyond what other states allow.


Yep, that's the case and I'm actually happy enough with my memory and description of the events

And yeah, the law would be equally applicable to things that aren't prostitution. But my point, again, is that I have a hard time believing a jury would ever find the law applicable with someone who wasn't a prostitute (or kind of pretending to be a prostitute). Consider if someone bought some girl scout cookies, and on opening the packet found they were some knock off brand, and half empty. Do you think a jury would apply the same law for shooting a girl scout walking away with the money?

Of course. Sympathy for the victim, and sympathy for the prosecution, plays a big role in how much people will be willing to entertain various notions of law.

I mean, does anyone believe if the guys who occupied that government building were Islamic Radicals the jury would have reached the same decision?

I'm not sure what other pattern you think the Bundy's case falls into. Jury nullification is extremely rare so there isn't much of an overall pattern given the small sample size and variety of factors at play in various trials.


We actually don't know how common it is, because it's likely in most cases the jury makes its decision but simply doesn't announce it. It's been mentioned that the large number of acquittals on small scale drug charges have little to do with the evidence, but is more likely jury nullification.


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/11/01 07:44:38


Post by: AllSeeingSkink


 sebster wrote:
AllSeeingSkink wrote:
So you feel we should never have jury nullification?


Yep. A jury is there as a finder of facts, and muddying that by saying they are there to find facts but also just decide they don't like a law and then they can ignore it is a nonsense.

If there is a real problem with the law as it is applied, then that needs to be addressed through appeals and legislation, not through the jury deciding not to do its job.
Ideally that might be the case, but realistically there can be a disconnect between the will of the people and that of those making the laws and applying sentencing.

I think it's legitimate for a jury to decide someone did something against the letter of the law but it wasn't immoral or deserving of being convicted for it. In some cases the law may be trying to make an example of someone and jury nullification sends the opposite message.

Cases of jury nullification aren't really all that common as far as I'm aware. It helped lead to the end of prohibition because juries would frequently not convict people on alcohol related charges. It was used in the 1800's it was used in protest against fugitive slave laws, on the flip side it got people off crimes against blacks in the same period (though I'd argue that wasn't a problem with jury nullification itself but rather biased, all-white juries).

While jury nullification is going to lead to outcomes people might not always agree on, I'd much rather live in a world where it exists than one where it doesn't, the law should be a representation of what the people want, not what people in authority want it to be, and jury nullification is one of several avenues to allow for that.

These days I think much of the population things the US drug laws are stupid and bordering on immoral, it seems we are getting more nullifications and hung juries on drug charges which I see as a good thing and hopefully it'll contribute to laws being changed.


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/11/01 07:59:58


Post by: sebster


Relapse wrote:
I think you are overlooking Waco and Ruby Ridge.


I think there's a fair argument to be made that fringe cultists and survivalists are dismissed by the greater public and treated callously by authorities, much the same way that impoverished black people are.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Ideally that might be the case, but realistically there can be a disconnect between the will of the people and that of those making the laws and applying sentencing.


I've got a problem with that because the will of the people is expressed at the ballot box, not in a court of law by just 12 people. Just because you're one of the people, it doesn't mean every decision you make carries the weight of the thoughts of the whole nation behind it.

I think it's legitimate for a jury to decide someone did something against the letter of the law but it wasn't immoral or deserving of being convicted for it. In some cases the law may be trying to make an example of someone and jury nullification sends the opposite message.


I think its dangerous because people and their opinions are very far from perfect. We have built a legal framework that tries to make the law as objective as possible, because people's subjective opinions contain all manner of bias.

Cases of jury nullification aren't really all that common as far as I'm aware. It helped lead to the end of prohibition because juries would frequently not convict people on alcohol related charges.


Cases of it are unknown, because jurors aren't required to explain their verdicts. It's speculated that many drugs cases lead to non-conviction because the jury decided the kid might have committed the crime, but it seems a bit harsh so not guilty.

Consider that, and racial bias, when thinking about which kids are likely to benefit from jury nullification and which are not.

These days I think much of the population things the US drug laws are stupid and bordering on immoral, it seems we are getting more nullifications and hung juries on drug charges which I see as a good thing and hopefully it'll contribute to laws being changed.


Drug laws are very stupid, as are many other kinds of laws (underage kids sexting other underage kids can get both charged with child porn). No argument there. But the way to reform this is through legislation, and allowing people on the wrong side of these laws appeals through natural justice/human rights/constitutional rights etc. Jury nullification doesn't really help in this process, it just gives 12 random jury members the chance to ignore the facts and law put before them in favour of their own personal opinions about stuff.


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/11/01 12:15:16


Post by: kronk


I'm at a complete loss at how this happened.

I guess they got 1 or 2 sympathetic "Gumment is bad, M'Kay" ranchers on the jury and that was that.

fething crazy.


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/11/01 12:38:08


Post by: Frazzled


On the positive, they brought a whole bunch of high end guns with them. Good luck getting them back. Thats substantially higher then any fine they would have likely received.

We should remember this is glorified trespassing. Maybe the jury saw them huddled together in that place and considered it "time served"


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/11/01 18:46:33


Post by: kronk


 Frazzled wrote:
Maybe the jury saw them huddled together in that place and considered it "time served"


"Man, that one guy is such an donkey-cave. Being holed up for a month and listening to him would be like a year or 2 in prison."

"Ay-yup! Time served."

Sadly, that might be how the deliberation went!


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/11/01 21:04:42


Post by: Prestor Jon


 sebster wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Prestor Jon wrote:
The attributions in these quotes got messed up but I think you're replying to something I posted so I wanted to respond.


Yeah, it was meant for you. I've gotten really crap at setting my quotes right lately... I need to double check more.

I do remember that case and the thread about it here's an article and another one to help clarify things.

The man who shot the woman in that instance had responded to a CL ad that seemed to advertise prostitution but the woman who responded to the ad wasn't a prostitute and wanted to take the $150 payment the main paid for showing up and spending 20 minutes in his apartment. The man wanted his $150 back and when the dispute escalated he shot the woman to prevent her from leaving with his $150. The reason the man was acquitted wasn't because the woman was a prostitute but was because Texas, being Texas, has a law on the books that allows for the use of lethal force to prevent a theft after dark. Since the woman didn't have a rightful claim to the $150 it was theft and under Texas law lethal force was justified to prevent the theft. The prosecution argued during the trial that the law was only intended to cover thefts that occurred in break ins and robberies not over disputes over illegal activity like prostitution but the jury didn't agree with that interpretation and in the jury's defense no such clarification is written in the law. If Texas didn't have law allowing for lethal force to be justified to prevent theft after dark then the jury could not have acquitted the shooter. The jury's justification for the verdict would be equally valid for instances that involved other criminal activity besides prostitution. The issue that caused the acquittal wasn't the inference of prostitution services, it was the fact that Texas law allows for lethal force to be justified in instances that go beyond what other states allow.


Yep, that's the case and I'm actually happy enough with my memory and description of the events

And yeah, the law would be equally applicable to things that aren't prostitution. But my point, again, is that I have a hard time believing a jury would ever find the law applicable with someone who wasn't a prostitute (or kind of pretending to be a prostitute). Consider if someone bought some girl scout cookies, and on opening the packet found they were some knock off brand, and half empty. Do you think a jury would apply the same law for shooting a girl scout walking away with the money?

Of course. Sympathy for the victim, and sympathy for the prosecution, plays a big role in how much people will be willing to entertain various notions of law.

I mean, does anyone believe if the guys who occupied that government building were Islamic Radicals the jury would have reached the same decision?

I'm not sure what other pattern you think the Bundy's case falls into. Jury nullification is extremely rare so there isn't much of an overall pattern given the small sample size and variety of factors at play in various trials.


We actually don't know how common it is, because it's likely in most cases the jury makes its decision but simply doesn't announce it. It's been mentioned that the large number of acquittals on small scale drug charges have little to do with the evidence, but is more likely jury nullification.


With all due respect I understand the point you're trying to make with that Texas trial but you're still mischaracterizing it. Your analogy to buying counterfeit Girl Scout cookies is flawed because it has an actual transaction taking place. If the Texas trial involved somebody posting an ad on CL advertising something along the lines of "420 and chilling" and the shooter thought the poster wanted to sell him marijuana and instead the seller showed up at 4:20pm hung out in the apt and then wanted to take the money and leave the jury could have used the same justification. That example still uses an illegal transaction but a similar legal transaction would also work. Somebody posts a CL ad about "check out my car for $2k" and how it's a "reduced price" and needs to paid in cash and some sucker has the poster bring the car over one evening and thinks he's going to buy it for $2k and instead the other person is like no you just get to check it out, you saw it, now I get to keep your money. Same thing, a person feels conned out of his money because carefully worded CL ad, it's semantics. It's not hard to see a 12 person jury equating that kind of dispute as a theft and it's not the jury's fault that Texas passes some messed up laws that make it legal to kill somebody over a theft.

I see the position you're taking on jury nullification and I agree with you on the principle that the people's voice needs to be heard but I disagree with you that the people's voice is only heard at the ballot box. If we wanted our criminal justice system to just have trials to weigh he facts and decide if the prosecution adequately made their case we wouldn't need juries at all we could just have bench trials. We have jury trials so that defendants can be tried by a 12 of their peers, people from the community who can exercise initiative and sentiment. If 12 of your peers believe that the prosecution's case was legally correct but that the govt shouldn't have brought the case in the first place that's good, it's good that the people push back against the govt sometimes, it's good for the govt to lose cases sometimes. We have jury trials to specifically include the human element, to have 12 people reach a consensus on issues like reasonable doubt and guilt and innocence, we don't want them to behave like robots, we need them to be the voice of the people.

We do know that jury nullification is extremely rare in federal trials like the Bundy's because we know that federal conviction rates are extremely high.

http://justicedenied.org/wordpress/archives/3190
Whether tried by a jury or a judge, it is a shaky roll of the dice for a defendant to go to trial in federal court. Only 258 of the 3,024 defendants who went to trial in 2015 were acquitted. Thus a federal defendant who decides to go to trial has about a 1 in 12 chance of an acquittal.

The 41 out of 42 (97.6%) of federal defendants in 2015 whose case was adjudicated without a trial, were convicted by a plea of guilty — a public confession. The federal judge or magistrate were minor participants with the U.S. Attorney’s Office relying on the defendant’s mouth to obtain those convictions.

Between guilty pleas and trials, the conviction rate was 99.8% in U.S. federal courts in 2015: 126,802 convictions and 258 acquittals. That wasn’t an anomaly. In 2014 the conviction rate was 99.76% and in 2013 it was 99.75%.

There is nothing new about the high conviction rate in federal courts, although it has been consistently rising since 1973. The conviction rate has been above 99% since 2003, above 98% since 1995, above 97% since 1985, above 96% since 1982, above 95% since 1975, and above 94% every years since 1955.[4] As the conviction rate has increased, the number of acquittals has precipitously declined. The 2,371 defendants acquitted in federal court in 1973 was more than the 2,362 defendants acquitted in the six years from 2010 to 2015. That was the case even though in 1973 40,493 defendants were convicted, compared with the 850,365 defendants convicted from 2010 to 2015. Even more graphically, in 1973 there were 17 convictions for every defendant acquitted in federal court, while in 2015 there were 493 convictions for every acquittal. So a federal defendant is now about 2,900% more likely to be convicted than in the early 1970s.


US Dept of Justice official statistics
https://www.justice.gov/usao/resources/annual-statistical-reports


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/11/01 22:41:13


Post by: Relapse


@Sebster

I agree with your statement to an extent, but I think if it were Black children killed in the ATM caused fire in Waco, there would have been a huge outcry that would have gone on longer than it did.
In any event, it would be interesting to know what the makeup of the jury was that returned this unexpected verdict.


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/11/01 23:07:43


Post by: cuda1179


 Frazzled wrote:
On the positive, they brought a whole bunch of high end guns with them. Good luck getting them back. Thats substantially higher then any fine they would have likely received.

We should remember this is glorified trespassing. Maybe the jury saw them huddled together in that place and considered it "time served"


Unless any of those guns is a prohibited weapon they will be getting them all back. If you are aquitted of a crime all of your personal property confiscated as evidence (minus anything illegal) must either be returned to you or you are given a reimbursement.


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/11/01 23:18:54


Post by: BigWaaagh


Relapse wrote:
@Sebster

I agree with your statement to an extent, but I think if it were Black children killed in the ATM caused fire in Waco, there would have been a huge outcry that would have gone on longer than it did.
In any event, it would be interesting to know what the makeup of the jury was that returned this unexpected verdict.


African-American, Anglo-American, who cares. What I do know is that this jury was 100% Stupid-American.


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/11/02 02:09:45


Post by: sebster


Prestor Jon wrote:
With all due respect I understand the point you're trying to make with that Texas trial but you're still mischaracterizing it. Your analogy to buying counterfeit Girl Scout cookies is flawed because it has an actual transaction taking place. If the Texas trial involved somebody posting an ad on CL advertising something along the lines of "420 and chilling" and the shooter thought the poster wanted to sell him marijuana and instead the seller showed up at 4:20pm hung out in the apt and then wanted to take the money and leave the jury could have used the same justification. That example still uses an illegal transaction but a similar legal transaction would also work.


Yeah, the details don't line up that closely, I'm happy to grant that. I don't think that matters too much though, as my overall point is pretty broad - juries (and perhaps courts in general) are more willing to listen favourably to abstract legal arguments when they come from someone who is naturally more sympathetic. This can mean people with similar politics, or similar history, or similar skin colour.

I see the position you're taking on jury nullification and I agree with you on the principle that the people's voice needs to be heard but I disagree with you that the people's voice is only heard at the ballot box. If we wanted our criminal justice system to just have trials to weigh he facts and decide if the prosecution adequately made their case we wouldn't need juries at all we could just have bench trials. We have jury trials so that defendants can be tried by a 12 of their peers, people from the community who can exercise initiative and sentiment. If 12 of your peers believe that the prosecution's case was legally correct but that the govt shouldn't have brought the case in the first place that's good, it's good that the people push back against the govt sometimes, it's good for the govt to lose cases sometimes. We have jury trials to specifically include the human element, to have 12 people reach a consensus on issues like reasonable doubt and guilt and innocence, we don't want them to behave like robots, we need them to be the voice of the people.


There is nothing robotic about weighing up evidence, assigning relative importance to conflicting bits of physical evidence, assessing which testimony to believe etc...

The voice of the people isn't heard in random individuals. It has power and merit when it collected in to a singular, through some method of voting.

Jury nullification is effectively saying while we have built a vast and very complex system of legal processes and standards to try and make the finding of guilt and innocence as objective a possible, if a person or persons randomly selected from the public doesn't like result of that process, they can just ignore it.

We do know that jury nullification is extremely rare in federal trials like the Bundy's because we know that federal conviction rates are extremely high.


Fair enough.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Relapse wrote:
@Sebster

I agree with your statement to an extent, but I think if it were Black children killed in the ATM caused fire in Waco, there would have been a huge outcry that would have gone on longer than it did.


Yeah, I think cultists may be an even more maligned section of society than black people.

I know that effect is true to at least some extent, because my own bias and assumptions against cults was a big part of the reason it took me as long as it did to come around to realising the ATF's actions in deciding to raid the Branch Dividians was messed up.


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/11/02 04:10:11


Post by: Relapse


 BigWaaagh wrote:
Relapse wrote:
@Sebster

I agree with your statement to an extent, but I think if it were Black children killed in the ATM caused fire in Waco, there would have been a huge outcry that would have gone on longer than it did.
In any event, it would be interesting to know what the makeup of the jury was that returned this unexpected verdict.


African-American, Anglo-American, who cares. What I do know is that this jury was 100% Stupid-American.


What walk of life the jurors are in might go some way towards explaining the verdict, though, more so than just saying they are stupid.


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/11/02 13:08:02


Post by: skyth


I'd rather have the ability of jury nullification than to not have it. To have jury verdicts overturned means that we are in danger of the pollitically expidant outcome being reality.

The verdict will be whatever the people in power want it to be.


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/11/02 14:51:13


Post by: Easy E


Relapse wrote:
@Sebster

I agree with your statement to an extent, but I think if it were Black children killed in the ATM caused fire in Waco, there would have been a huge outcry that would have gone on longer than it did.
In any event, it would be interesting to know what the makeup of the jury was that returned this unexpected verdict.


..........not sure if serious.



Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/11/02 21:21:48


Post by: BigWaaagh


Relapse wrote:
 BigWaaagh wrote:
Relapse wrote:
@Sebster

I agree with your statement to an extent, but I think if it were Black children killed in the ATM caused fire in Waco, there would have been a huge outcry that would have gone on longer than it did.
In any event, it would be interesting to know what the makeup of the jury was that returned this unexpected verdict.


African-American, Anglo-American, who cares. What I do know is that this jury was 100% Stupid-American.


What walk of life the jurors are in might go some way towards explaining the verdict, though, more so than just saying they are stupid.


I completely disagree. I've served on several juries, one criminal and two civil, been foreman twice and each time the disparity in the make-up of the members of the jury was noteworthy and each time we came to a unanimous verdict within a couple hours, once within about 10 minutes. So, I'm pretty confident the make-up in this case was a similiar melting pot and hence, not a jury of all militia members 100% sympathetic to these clowns. The only thing I can see that nullifies my comment is that the prosecution was somehow inept to the point of incredulousness, leaving the jury no other possible finding.


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/11/02 22:00:09


Post by: Relapse


Here's what a juror had to say about the verdict and how it was reached:

http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/10/juror_4_prosecutors_in_oregon.html#incart_maj-story-1


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/11/02 22:30:02


Post by: Kanluwen



So as suggested, the jurors were morons.


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/11/02 23:16:40


Post by: d-usa


Well, just because they admitted that the goal was to take the park away from the federal government clearly doesn't mean that they planned on keeping the federal government from working there.


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/11/02 23:17:48


Post by: whembly


 Kanluwen wrote:

So as suggested, the jurors were morons.

Yeah... at cursory reading... I agree with Kan...


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/11/02 23:27:21


Post by: AdeptSister


That article hurt my head...

So the only reason that it took 4 days for deliberations was that a former BLM employee was trying to talk sense to the jury? Then he was dismissed for not being impartial?

Wow....


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/11/03 01:26:46


Post by: sebster


 skyth wrote:
I'd rather have the ability of jury nullification than to not have it. To have jury verdicts overturned means that we are in danger of the pollitically expidant outcome being reality.

The verdict will be whatever the people in power want it to be.


I don't think that's where the conversation is really been at. I don't think anyone is talking about overturning cases of jury nullification. I'm certainly not talking about that. I mean, it's just an impossible thing, how would you establish that the jury voted because they believed the law was immoral in this case, as compared to maybe just thinking the evidence wasn't strong enough?

Nah, what I'm talking about is working to get rid of the idea that it is okay for a jury to practice nullification. There's not much that can be done in a formal sense, other than to impress upon juries that they are there to review the facts and apply the law as objectively as possible.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Kanluwen wrote:
So as suggested, the jurors were morons.


I don't see stupidity, I see a fair amount of intelligence being used to rationalise a justification for a verdict that appears to have nothing to do with the law or the actions of the defendants.


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/11/03 06:07:46


Post by: BigWaaagh


 sebster wrote:
 skyth wrote:
I'd rather have the ability of jury nullification than to not have it. To have jury verdicts overturned means that we are in danger of the pollitically expidant outcome being reality.

The verdict will be whatever the people in power want it to be.


I don't think that's where the conversation is really been at. I don't think anyone is talking about overturning cases of jury nullification. I'm certainly not talking about that. I mean, it's just an impossible thing, how would you establish that the jury voted because they believed the law was immoral in this case, as compared to maybe just thinking the evidence wasn't strong enough?

Nah, what I'm talking about is working to get rid of the idea that it is okay for a jury to practice nullification. There's not much that can be done in a formal sense, other than to impress upon juries that they are there to review the facts and apply the law as objectively as possible.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Kanluwen wrote:
So as suggested, the jurors were morons.


I don't see stupidity, I see a fair amount of intelligence being used to rationalise a justification for a verdict that appears to have nothing to do with the law or the actions of the defendants.


I think you're under the false impression that intelligent people can't and don't do stupid things.

CUBS WIN!!!!!!!!!


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/11/03 06:54:43


Post by: AllSeeingSkink


 sebster wrote:
AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Ideally that might be the case, but realistically there can be a disconnect between the will of the people and that of those making the laws and applying sentencing.
I've got a problem with that because the will of the people is expressed at the ballot box, not in a court of law by just 12 people. Just because you're one of the people, it doesn't mean every decision you make carries the weight of the thoughts of the whole nation behind it.
And just because it's law doesn't mean the majority of the nation agrees with it.

We don't vote on every single law that gets made and rarely do we agree entirely with the parties we vote for. We can try lobbying for laws to be changed, but I think it's naive to think there aren't cases where the law is being applied in way the people don't agree with.

In most courts my understanding is you need a unanimous decision to either acquit or convict, so if you're just one of the people on the jury you'll just end up with a hung jury.

I think it's legitimate for a jury to decide someone did something against the letter of the law but it wasn't immoral or deserving of being convicted for it. In some cases the law may be trying to make an example of someone and jury nullification sends the opposite message.


I think its dangerous because people and their opinions are very far from perfect. We have built a legal framework that tries to make the law as objective as possible, because people's subjective opinions contain all manner of bias.
We make the law as objective as possible but just because we make it as objective as possible doesn't mean it's as correct as possible in all situations.

Of course I don't think jury nullification should be encouraged, but I think it should exist and juries should know about it for cases where they deeply feel that the law is being applied You have cases like The Camden 28, where law enforcement could have prevented a crime but instead allowed it to happen so they could try and make an example of the group.

Sure, they could have just convicted them, hoped they got off on appeals (which they probably wouldn't) and then hope they can get them out of jail with protests (has that ever actually happened?) or they could just nullify the law to send a clear message to the FBI that they unanimously would not be a party in their schemes.

I think there's 2 main times for jury nullification...

1. Unpopular laws, like the Fugitive Slave Act, prohibition or the war on drugs. It's not a perfect system for getting the law changed but it allows one more avenue for people to demonstrate their disdain for a law.

2. Laws which in and of themselves might be fine and/or rarely applied but are being applied in a situation which the jurors think is unjust. These are uncommon cases where lobbying is going to do sweet feth all to help the person who's going to be put behind bars.


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/11/03 07:17:47


Post by: sebster


 BigWaaagh wrote:
I think you're under the false impression that intelligent people can't and don't do stupid things.


No, my point is exactly that. These guys did a stupid thing, but we can't assume that's because they are stupid. In fact, looking at their rationalisation it looks like they applied a great deal of intelligence to justifying a very stupid verdict.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
AllSeeingSkink wrote:
And just because it's law doesn't mean the majority of the nation agrees with it.


Obviously, but that's quite irrelevant to jury nullification because it isn't a poll of the whole nation. It is 12 random people deciding if they personally want to apply the law or not.

We don't vote on every single law that gets made and rarely do we agree entirely with the parties we vote for. We can try lobbying for laws to be changed, but I think it's naive to think there aren't cases where the law is being applied in way the people don't agree with.


Of course it isn't perfect. The point is that letting random people decide by themselves if they want the law to apply or not is a really gak alternative, that is very likely to make things worse.

In most courts my understanding is you need a unanimous decision to either acquit or convict, so if you're just one of the people on the jury you'll just end up with a hung jury.


You don't always need a unanimous verdict. It depends on the country and the crime. And even when you do the courts aren't too tolerant of hung juries, they will force juries to stay debating the issue for a long time before they'll allow them to be a hung jury. This puts tremendous pressure on a minority of holdouts to stick to their original decision.

1. Unpopular laws, like the Fugitive Slave Act, prohibition or the war on drugs. It's not a perfect system for getting the law changed but it allows one more avenue for people to demonstrate their disdain for a law.

2. Laws which in and of themselves might be fine and/or rarely applied but are being applied in a situation which the jurors think is unjust. These are uncommon cases where lobbying is going to do sweet feth all to help the person who's going to be put behind bars.


3. Wangrods who are happy to let personal and political bias override the verdict that is demanded by the facts of the case.


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/11/03 14:02:25


Post by: Frazzled


This looks like a combination of bad charging, and jury nullification. The juror is covering for what he wanted to do. Even with a lame charge the evidence quite clear and simple.

When did Oregon become right wing? They are supposed to be granola eating hipsters so pale they reflect starlight. Frazzled confused.


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/11/03 15:28:35


Post by: skyth


That's just the cities. Outside of the cities, they are worse than Texas...


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/11/03 15:56:42


Post by: kronk


 skyth wrote:
That's just the cities. Outside of the cities, they are worse than Texas...


Everywhere is worse than Texas!


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/11/03 16:01:09


Post by: Vaktathi


 Frazzled wrote:
This looks like a combination of bad charging, and jury nullification. The juror is covering for what he wanted to do. Even with a lame charge the evidence quite clear and simple.

When did Oregon become right wing? They are supposed to be granola eating hipsters so pale they reflect starlight. Frazzled confused.
Oregon is really two places, the Willamette Valley, with Portland and Salem, and "the rest of the state". The latter half is often very deep conservative. Medford is one of the big originators of the prepper movements.

That said, one could also ascribe it to Portland's "no harm no foul" attitude in a lot of things, the only person hurt or killed was one ofnthe protestors (who went out exactly the way he had been blabbing to everyone he wanted to go out).

Ultimately it sounds like the Jury was turned off by the Prosecution coming off like arrogant pricks. I can get *maybe* failing to prove conspiracy on that charge, but getting off on the weapons charges largely sounds like giving the finger to the prosecution just because.

http://www.opb.org/news/series/burns-oregon-standoff-bundy-militia-news-updates/trial-not-guilty-verdict-reaction-bundy/


Bundy's Aquitted @ 2016/11/03 16:25:17


Post by: Frazzled


 kronk wrote:
 skyth wrote:
That's just the cities. Outside of the cities, they are worse than Texas...


Everywhere is worse than Texas!


As a Texan, I agree with this statement.