Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.


>

 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.

 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.

 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.

 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

 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.

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.

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

 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.

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.

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.

 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.

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.

 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.

 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.

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.

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.

 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

It's not how the term is used.

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.

 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.

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.

 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.

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

 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.

 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.

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%.

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.

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.

 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.