Discussion: Oregon Judge Won't Let Bundy Out Of Custody Until Standoff Ends

TPM Article Topics
1

Discussion for article #245276

2

“until the standoff is over and the remaining militiamen have gone home.”

They are terrorist, we should be talking about large amount of years in jail, not going home.
They need to have long jail sentences plus big fines for the huge amount of money they wasted.

19 Likes
4

I kind believe what kind of deference they treat these right wing terrorists with. They should be going to Guantanamo not home!

10 Likes
6

They want to occupy governmentally owned buildings…let 'em occupy some jails.

14 Likes
7

I suspect with all the violent rhetoric coming out of the Refuge from the remaining unbalanced lunatics, there’ll be a few more arrests before this is over. I mean, the charges against the ones already held are threats of violence against federal officials.

Well, the threats from the last four or five bozos are, if anything, becoming even more extreme and unhinged. Not all of 'em are going to go home without a stop in the jail first, at minimum.

2 Likes
8

Why should they get bail at all? They’re clearly a flight risk as well as a danger to the public. Keep their sorry asses in jail.

18 Likes
9

Yeah. Let them out. What could possibly go wrong?

3 Likes
10

I keep hoping and expecting that there will be more charges. But they have had them for two days now and they all have just one charge that carries a max of 6 years in prison? Surely they can be brought up on a string of federal felonies, and thrown away for good. When will we see more charges?

3 Likes
11

Definitely. Is the judge taking drugs??!

1 Like
12

These are correct standards, yes. And they have clearly been met here. Is this judge out of his mind???

3 Likes
13

When the indictments are handed up or unsealed.

8 Likes
14

That’s what I’d like to know. Surely they can find other things to charge them with. the thought did occur to me that maybe they would bring other charges if they knew which ones committed which offenses. You would think they’d literally “throw the book at 'em” as they say.

15

Considering they think the Federal government doesn’t exist/has no power/has no authority, and they’re up on Federal charges, I say FUCK NO, do not let them out, PERIOD. No bail, because of the risk of flight and the high probability that when it comes time to go to court they’ll simply say “the Federal government has no jurisdiction over us” and refuse to show.

Hell no, Hell No, HELL NO!

9 Likes
16

I agree with that part. We don’t know who was rifling the files, etc. But Bundy did a lot of illegal stuff on film. At the very least they have a destruction of federal property charge handed to them in a box with a bow for the video of the fence destroying incident. As the well-documented leader, Bundy should already have a slew of charges against him.

1 Like
17

Why on earth are they even considering letting them out of jail??? They will go back to their homes, which are armed fortresses, and hole up in a standoff once again when they are supposed to report for trial. That is the definition of insanity. Surely they can be held without bail until trial if past behavior is considered? Of course I imagine they will be required to ‘remove’ guns from the home but their sympathizers will just provide them with more after law enforcement has checked the home.

4 Likes
18

Couldn’t agree more, bail denied for posing a significant flight risk.

19

It doesn’t matter who did what, they are all part of a conspiracy.

3 Likes
20

Because in the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution there is a clause prohibiting excessive bail. According to the SCOTUS, bail cannot be set higher than an amount “reasonably calculated” to guarantee the defendant’s appearance at trial.

It’s not clear how one goes about “reasonable calculation”, but in some cases SCOTUS has allowed preventive detention. That’s what the judge is applying here: holding Bundy & Co until the refuge is cleared prevents them from forming up with their allies to continue the “occupation”.

As an aside, judges in this country routinely set excessive bail amounts. If someone needs to be held in preventive detention, I’d prefer for the judge to simply say so, and lay out the reasoning supporting her conclusion rather than setting bail at $1.5M cash-only for a defendant who has two nickels to rub together.

1 Like
21

This is a badly worded article.

On Wednesday the original 7 were arraigned, denied bail and ordered held over for trial. The Thursday arraignment was only for the 3 that were more recently arrested.

3 Likes
22

Exactly! What in the actual F…