It’s probably because of the rule of law that they were acquitted. It’s obvious that what they did was wrong, but the jury’s verdict implies that the prosecution couldn’t prove beyond reasonable doubt that they were guilty of violating the specific, well-defined laws which they were charged with breaking. If the prosecution had brought different charges, we might have seen a different verdict.
8 Likes
It was a federal case. I expect a majority of Oregonians would have convicted the morons. Problem is to many rural Oregonians think like the Bundys and the jury was drawn from that pool.
C’mon now, surely this can’t be “Bundy’s Acquitted” end of story, right? Surely a group of armed individuals can’t forcefully occupy a federal property, make death threats against law enforcement, not to mention causing millions in damage to the property, plus costing millions in paying law enforcement officials to be on duty 24/7 during the occupation. This is just a click bait kind of headline article, right? If the Bundy’s walk away scot free it will embolden other right wing extremists to use similar armed takeovers of federal property. Not to mention the right wing lunatic fringe news echo chamber will use the Bundy case as proof that the U.S. government is a rogue government, never mind the elections. The U.S. Justice Department better being looking into this bullshit acquitted verdict ASAP.
1 Like
The jury must have been made up of the 3 percenter crowd, otherwise no rational oregonian would have found these clowns not guilty.
Neil Wampler beat his father to death with an iron pipe.
1 Like
I believe this is a case of juror intimidation, where they or their families received subtle reminders what could happen to them if convictions were handed down.
1 Like
Back in the 80’s and 90’s there was a term bandied about in NYC, particularly in the Bronx whenever a high profile defendant was acquitted; “A Bronx jury” As an example just Google the case of Larry Davis. It was usually a case where there was enough skepticism about the police and the jury consisted of mostly minorities, some of whom had a bad experience with law enforcement. I would think this jury was sympathetic to the Bundy’s and thought the federal government was overreaching. Even though wildlife refuges are public property and not ment for a bunch of yokels to take over at their whim while claiming a constitutional right to do so.
This!
The scenes of white Malheur refuge occupiers walking free on the same day that police and National Guard officers used mace and batons to arrest and drive away unarmed Native Americans protesting an oil pipeline at the Standing Rock Sioux reservation raised particular ire
It’s pretty heartbreaking (for me, at least) but even more so juxtaposed against the brutality we’ve seen at Standing Rock, as the article notes.
I have some questions for the lawyerly posters, please? Why did the jury pool come from all over the state? I read that at least one of the jurors was from Klamath Falls. You’d be hard pressed to find a juror from K. Falls who isn’t very conservative. Why not from Ashland, a city that is pretty liberal? And since this was a takeover of a federally protected wildlife refuge that belongs to all of us, why were there no Californians or New Yorkers on the jury? I just never heard of this kind of jury selection.
What about the eleven who pled guilty? Does this affect any of that?.
Also, why were the judge, the prosecution and the defense haggling over jury instructions? I thought jury instructions fall within the purview of the judge.
Finally, I wonder what this bodes for the upcoming trial of the Bundys and their fellow defendants.
It is a victory for all Trumpeteers in a divisive election year. Since Bundy was “guided by religion” and “expressing his second amendment rights” against overreach by a government he dislikes, then it is perfectly fine that they disobeyed the “bad” laws. Now, here’s to hoping the Feds fine them anyways for the damage they caused and put them on no fly domestic terrorist watch lists for the rest of their lives. It ain’t over til it’s over!
1 Like
Something went very wrong. This was the most well documented violent crime in history. It was broadcast in real time over the internet. I watched it unfold on my PC. Must be a serious case of white privilege. The Indians at Standing Rock would never get a break like this.
3 Likes
Perhaps they should have been charged with trespassing and destruction of property with weapons. But it seems the jury might have just said “no” to that, too.
1 Like
Can’t appeal a not guilty verdict.
The jury was drawn from the entire state of Oregon since the court was the district court of Oregon. Some jurors who lived over a hundred miles away were put up for the duration of the trial.
I think the problem was that there was no actual violence committed, just a lot of gun brandishing. Also, no federal employees apparently went back to the refuge to try to work and were turned away by the occupiers. Regardless, I’m sure the government is learning from this little episode.
2 Likes
“The jury deliberations also attracted attention Wednesday when a note from the jury alleged another juror was biased and had worked for the Bureau of Land Management, the federal agency that managed Malheur. The judge had the juror replaced.”
…with another one of Ammon’s first cousins…
- ‘Sad day for America’: Internet furious about #OregonStandoff verdict vs. treatment of #BlackLivesMatter and #StandingRock *
Those that quickly started and joined in with the ‘white lives’, ‘all lives’ and especially ‘blue lives’ matter only a few months after cheering on the bundy militia ranch snipers at the ready with loaded semi’s at high ground with law enforcement in the crosshairs of their scopes! Did same as to full support of the bundy militia at the bird sanctuary and stand off with law enforcement and their threats, with loaded weapons, of IED’s and Booby Trapped area’s of The People’s Property!!
#VeteransForKaepernick Thumbs Up!!
Keeping My Oath: USN All Shore '67-'71 GMG3 Vietnam In Country '70-'71 - Independent**
You read my mind. They were definately judged by a jury of their peers.
1 Like
Look, meri, I know exactly what went on. Yet, despite the description you gave of the whole event, they were found not guilty. How is that even possible?! Apparently, that jury didn’t see it the same way.
I was angry when the BLM backed off two years ago during the cattle grazing incident, when those jerks were pointing guns at them, but it ended without a huge blowup. Now did that embolden these guys to take over Malheur? I’m sure, but what did they actually accomplish? And if they’re made to pay for the damages, they’re going to be in a world of hurt.
Now there are more like them out there. But these people are also being egged on by politicians, which I find horrifying. Something needs to be done about that, too.
Anyway, I know this isn’t a good conclusion, and I don’t understand why that verdict was reached. I didn’t even know the trial was in progress, so I don’t know how the case was presented, but the prosecution sure didn’t make a convincing case, did it?
I guess we’ll have to see what happens going forward. These people are not going to get to take over federal lands. That’s their goal.
Don’t.
I’ve been on a couple of juries, one for a trial that got a fair amount of local coverage. I asked my wife to save the newspaper stories covering the trial (I was not supposed to read them at the time, and I kept that promise.) I was there for every minute of the week-long trial. I heard all the evidence and I examined all the exhibits. We convicted on one count, acquitted on one count and hung on the third.
When I read the press coverage of the trial after the verdict was returned, I had a hard time believing the reporter had been in the same courtroom I was in.
I drew some lessons from this experience:
- Jurors (and juries) take their duties seriously.
- The press isn’t there for the whole trial, and they preferentially cover the salacious bits.
- The interpersonal dynamics in deliberations are pretty intense: Twelve Angry Men isn’t necessarily all that hyperbolic.
- I will never, ever second-guess a jury’s decision on the basis of press coverage.
I’m disappointed in the verdict on the Bundys. But I didn’t hear the evidence and I haven’t seen the exhibits.
4 Likes