Author |
Message |
 |
|
 |
Advert
|
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. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/10/31 10:45:17
Subject: Bundy's Aquitted
|
 |
Dakka Veteran
|
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
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/10/31 10:51:31
Subject: Bundy's Aquitted
|
 |
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)
The Great State of Texas
|
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.
|
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/10/31 13:06:13
Subject: Re:Bundy's Aquitted
|
 |
Grizzled Space Wolves Great Wolf
|
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.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/10/31 15:36:55
Subject: Re:Bundy's Aquitted
|
 |
Courageous Grand Master
-
|
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...
|
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/10/31 17:38:07
Subject: Re:Bundy's Aquitted
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
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.
|
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/10/31 17:51:01
Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/10/31 17:44:59
Subject: Bundy's Aquitted
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
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
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/10/31 18:01:01
Subject: Bundy's Aquitted
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
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.
|
Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/11/01 01:31:35
Subject: Bundy's Aquitted
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
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.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/11/01 01:40:45
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/11/01 02:32:54
Subject: Bundy's Aquitted
|
 |
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak
|
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: 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.
|
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2016/11/01 02:47:35
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/11/01 07:44:38
Subject: Bundy's Aquitted
|
 |
Grizzled Space Wolves Great Wolf
|
sebster wrote: 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.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/01 07:50:21
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/11/01 07:59:58
Subject: Bundy's Aquitted
|
 |
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak
|
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.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/11/01 08:14:38
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/11/01 12:15:16
Subject: Bundy's Aquitted
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
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.
|
DA:70S+G+M+B++I++Pw40k08+D++A++/fWD-R+T(M)DM+
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/11/01 12:38:08
Subject: Bundy's Aquitted
|
 |
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)
The Great State of Texas
|
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"
|
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/11/01 18:46:33
Subject: Bundy's Aquitted
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
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!
|
DA:70S+G+M+B++I++Pw40k08+D++A++/fWD-R+T(M)DM+
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/11/01 21:04:42
Subject: Bundy's Aquitted
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
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
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/01 21:05:30
Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/11/01 22:41:13
Subject: Bundy's Aquitted
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
@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.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/11/01 23:07:43
Subject: Bundy's Aquitted
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
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.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/11/01 23:18:54
Subject: Bundy's Aquitted
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
On a surly Warboar, leading the Waaagh!
|
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.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/11/02 02:09:45
Subject: Bundy's Aquitted
|
 |
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak
|
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.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/02 02:12:24
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/11/02 04:10:11
Subject: Bundy's Aquitted
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
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.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/11/02 13:08:02
Subject: Bundy's Aquitted
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
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.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/11/02 14:51:13
Subject: Bundy's Aquitted
|
 |
Battlefield Tourist
MN (Currently in WY)
|
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.
|
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/11/02 21:21:48
Subject: Bundy's Aquitted
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
On a surly Warboar, leading the Waaagh!
|
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.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/02 21:23:38
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/11/02 22:00:09
Subject: Bundy's Aquitted
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/11/02 22:30:02
Subject: Bundy's Aquitted
|
 |
Ollanius Pius - Savior of the Emperor
Gathering the Informations.
|
So as suggested, the jurors were morons.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/11/02 23:16:40
Subject: Bundy's Aquitted
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
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.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/11/02 23:17:48
Subject: Bundy's Aquitted
|
 |
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)
Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!
|
Yeah... at cursory reading... I agree with Kan...
|
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/11/02 23:27:21
Subject: Bundy's Aquitted
|
 |
Missionary On A Mission
|
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....
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/11/03 01:26:46
Subject: Bundy's Aquitted
|
 |
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak
|
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:
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.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/03 01:34:29
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/11/03 06:07:46
Subject: Bundy's Aquitted
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
On a surly Warboar, leading the Waaagh!
|
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:
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!!!!!!!!!
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/11/03 06:28:04
|
|
 |
 |
|