Bundy Brothers Acquitted

[GMDino]

Figured those strong against terrorism would be in here talking about this.

I wonder why they aren't?

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/28/us/bundy-brothers-acquitted-in-takeover-of-oregon-wildlife-refuge.html?_r=0

Quote:PORTLAND, Ore. — Armed antigovernment protesters led by Ammon and Ryan Bundy were acquitted Thursday of federal conspiracy and weapons charges stemming from the takeover of a federally owned wildlife sanctuary in Oregon last winter.


The surprise acquittals of all seven defendants in Federal District Court was a blow to government prosecutors, who had argued that the Bundys and five of their followers used force and threats of violence to occupy the reserve. But the jury appeared swayed by the defendants’ contention that they were protesting government overreach and posed no threat to the public.

In a sign of the tension that ran through the trial, Ammon Bundy’s lawyer, Marcus R. Mumford, frustrated that the Bundys were not being released, was restrained by four United States marshals after an outburst.

“I knew that what my husband was doing was right, but I was nervous because the judge was controlling the narrative,” said Ryan Bundy’s wife, Angela Bundy, 39, in a telephone interview from the family ranch in Bunkerville, Nev. “But they saw the truth. I am just so grateful they saw it.”

It was not immediately clear how the not-guilty verdicts would affect the government’s strategy in another case stemming from the Oregon occupation, or a trial in Nevada that the Bundy brothers and their father, Cliven Bundy, face for an armed standoff there.

The Oregon occupation, at a remote and frigid reserve in the southeastern part of the state, was rooted in antigovernment fervor and captured the nation’s attention. It had a Wild West quality, with armed men in cowboy hats taking on federal agents in a tussle over public lands and putting out a call for aid, only to see their insurrection fizzle.

In a monthlong trial here, the defendants never denied that they had occupied and held the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge headquarters for nearly six weeks, demanding that the federal government surrender the 188,000-acre property to local control. But their lawyers argued that prosecutors did not prove that the group had engaged in an illegal conspiracy that kept federal workers — employees of the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Bureau of Land Management — from doing their jobs.

Eleven people had already pleaded guilty. One participant, LaVoy Finicum, was killed by the authorities during the standoff.

Ethan D. Knight, an assistant United States attorney, argued that the case was simple: Ammon Bundy had been selective in deciding which laws applied to him and had led an armed seizure of property that did not belong to him.

Mr. Mumford said acquitting Mr. Bundy would be a victory for all Americans. “They’re deceiving you,” Mr. Mumford said, gesturing to the prosecutors. “It’s the government that picks and chooses the rules it’s going to comply with.”

Ammon Bundy, 41, a business owner, testified for three days in his defense. He argued that the takeover was spontaneous and informed by religious belief. But prosecutors, through witnesses and their final arguments, said the group had used the threat of force and violence, crystallized by Mr. Bundy’s call for followers across the nation to come to the refuge with guns.

All seven defendants in the case were charged with conspiracy to impede federal employees from discharging their duties, and they also faced federal weapons charges and could have been given long prison sentences. The unanimous acquittals covered all the charges but one, a theft of government property charge against Ryan Bundy for removing cameras mounted at the refuge, with no verdict rendered on it.

In a statement, Oregon’s governor, Kate Brown, said she was disappointed.

“The occupation of the Malheur Reserve did not reflect the Oregon way of respectfully working together to resolve differences,” the governor said.

After asking each of the defendants to rise, Judge Anna J. Brown read off the string of not-guilty verdicts. “It has been a long road,” she told the jury afterward.

Ammon Bundy’s lawyer, Mr. Mumford, then requested that the Bundy brothers be immediately released. Judge Brown denied the request and said that because of pending charges in Nevada, the brothers would remain in federal custody.

Mr. Mumford became agitated. “He is going to be released,” he said in a raised voice.

Judge Brown rebuked him. “Mr. Mumford, you really need to not yell at me, now or ever again,” she said.

As Mr. Mumford continued his protest, four court officers surrounded him, and in the ensuing scuffle, documents and other items on the defense table were knocked to the floor and Judge Brown ordered the courtroom cleared.

Shawna Cox, the only woman among the defendants, expressed fury at the treatment of Mr. Mumford. “I am happy to be free,” she added.

Outside the courthouse, 75 to 100 people gathered after the verdict. One woman handed out American flags. Supporters of the protesters chanted: “Praise God. Praise God.”

One of the defendants, Neil Wampler, was congratulated by supporters. “On to the next one,” he said, alluding to the charges still pending against his fellow defendants.

Ammon Bundy, of Emmett, Idaho, and his brother Ryan, 43, of Cedar City, Utah, and their father were the poster images of the anger over federal control of vast stretches of Western lands. And the armed protesters — later co-defendants — who joined the brothers in their occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge all had similar longstanding distrust of the government.

Mr. Wampler, of Los Osos, Calif., described himself as a 68-year-old hippie, and Kenneth Mendehbach, of Crescent, Ore., a woodworker by profession, boasted of spending at least two decades protesting federal power. Jeff Banta of Yerington, Nev., was one of the last holdouts at the refuge. At 27, David Lee Fry left a job at his parents’ dental practice in Blanchester, Ohio, to join the protest. Ms. Cox has a history of protesting federal involvement on Western lands and is a friend of the Bundys.
WRITE A COMMENT
In closing arguments last week, the defense lawyers in the case and Ryan Bundy, who represented himself, passionately argued that the government had not made its case. They argued that the presence of paid government informants at the refuge during the occupation muddied the waters and created reasonable doubt about how the decisions of the defendants were made.

“The government was not here to find the truth,” Robert L. Salisbury, Mr. Banta’s lawyer, told the jury before deliberations began. “This case is about people wanting to be heard, and they’re just frustrated with our government.”

I wonder what will happen if they decide more laws just don't apply to them?

[fredtoast]

(10-28-2016, 09:09 AM)GMDino Wrote: I wonder what will happen if they decide more laws just don't apply to them?

This was the decision of an impartial jury, not Bundy and his followers.

[*bfine32*]

There were a very few of us that understood this was not Terrorism as it was occurring. Of course we all have varying levels of understanding.

[GMDino]

(10-28-2016, 11:41 AM)bfine32 Wrote: There were a very few of us that understood this was not Terrorism as it was occurring. Of course we all have varying levels of understanding.

Just an armed insurgence on federal land.

[CKwi88]

I guess the people in Standing Rock should have loaded up on guns.

[Vas Deferens]

I'm sure the result will be the same for the fine brown people protesting the dakota pipeline

[Mike M (the other one)]

(10-28-2016, 11:41 AM)bfine32 Wrote: There were a very few of us that understood this was not Terrorism as it was occurring. Of course we all have varying levels of understanding.

Yep.

(10-28-2016, 12:04 PM)GMDino Wrote: Just an armed insurgence on federal land.

*Sighs it was explained.

(10-28-2016, 12:49 PM)CKwi88 Wrote: I guess the people in Standing Rock should have loaded up on guns.

They could, but they will get much more attention if they don't. No one wants/wanted anyone to die at either place (Oregon or ND).

(10-28-2016, 12:54 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: I'm sure the result will be the same for the fine brown people protesting the dakota pipeline

I certainly hope so. Why do you think otherwise?
The only thing that I am not a fan of is blocking the road. The Bundy's didn't do that, so there is some minor differences.
Sitting peacefully on the land where the Pipeline is supposed to go, no problem.

[Belsnickel]

Based on the charges filed against them, I don't get the acquittal. I mean, seemed pretty cut and dry to me given we watched them do the very things they were charged with.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-28-2016, 02:42 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Based on the charges filed against them, I don't get the acquittal. I mean, seemed pretty cut and dry to me given we watched them do the very things they were charged with.

I concur.  This is why I've said here on multiple occasions that if you're guilty go with a jury trial all day.  If you're innocent ask for a bench trial.  As for the Bundy's they are hardly out of the woods. the Nevada case against them is much stronger.  Why their lawyer thought he could get them released with the other charges they have pending is beyond me.

[*bfine32*]

(10-28-2016, 02:42 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Based on the charges filed against them, I don't get the acquittal.

(10-28-2016, 11:41 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course we all have varying levels of understanding.

You just have to look at things with an open mind.

[GMDino]

(10-28-2016, 02:42 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Based on the charges filed against them, I don't get the acquittal. I mean, seemed pretty cut and dry to me given we watched them do the very things they were charged with.

Jury of their peers.

[Benton]

I'm going to protest this decision by taking over a post office. Free stamps, y'all!

[Belsnickel]

(10-28-2016, 04:03 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You just have to look at things with an open mind.

I just look at what they were charged with, and their actions. Based on the law, they were guilty. But the job of a defense attorney is to introduce a grain of doubt into the minds of the jurors. Since I wasn't privy to the defense attorney's likely bastardization of the law and/or events, I don't have that doubt.

[*bfine32*]

(10-28-2016, 04:29 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I just look at what they were charged with, and their actions. Based on the law, they were guilty. But the job of a defense attorney is to introduce a grain of doubt into the minds of the jurors. Since I wasn't privy to the defense attorney's likely bastardization of the law and/or events, I don't have that doubt.

I suppose it was because they posed no threat to the public; yet, many closed-minded labeled them as Terrorists prior to having all the info. Proud to say I never joined the lynch mob. 

As SSF said. I'm sure they will be found guilty of the appropriate crime(s). 

[GMDino]

(10-28-2016, 04:29 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I just look at what they were charged with, and their actions. Based on the law, they were guilty. But the job of a defense attorney is to introduce a grain of doubt into the minds of the jurors. Since I wasn't privy to the defense attorney's likely bastardization of the law and/or events, I don't have that doubt.

Well you're just not open minded enough to look past what they did and admitted to doing.

Clearly they were no threat to anyone simply because they took over a federal building and were armed to the teeth. 

[Belsnickel]

(10-28-2016, 04:36 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I suppose it was because they posed no threat to the public; yet, many closed-minded labeled them as Terrorists prior to having all the info. Proud to say I never joined the lynch mob. 

As SSF said. I'm sure they will be found guilty of the appropriate crime(s). 

I'm glad you are feeling proud over something irrelevant to this news. Since the charges were not about them posing a threat to the public, that is also irrelevant.

As SSF said, when you are guilty, you should always go with a jury trial. He didn't explain why, but I'm betting it's likely because ignorance of the law and manipulation by defense attorney provides a guilty party a good chance of acquittal.

[*bfine32*]

(10-28-2016, 05:27 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I'm glad you are feeling proud over something irrelevant to this news. Since the charges were not about them posing a threat to the public, that is also irrelevant.

As SSF said, when you are guilty, you should always go with a jury trial. He didn't explain why, but I'm betting it's likely because ignorance of the law and manipulation by defense attorney provides a guilty party a good chance of acquittal.

Sure it was about posing a threat, as one of the charges was preventing folks from coming to work. How else where they to have done this? I'll equally glad that you are doubling-down on this.

But you're right it is most likely due to ignorance because it differs with your POV.

Bottom line when this thing started the usual suspect were yelling "Terrorists, terrorists, terrorists", they have now not even be found guilty of stopping someone from coming to work.

Despite the overtones of a couple in this thread it was most likely based on rule of law and not race.

Kudos to Fred for recognizing this.

EDIT: I read this as the primary charge:

http://www.opb.org/news/series/burns-oregon-standoff-bundy-militia-news-updates/ammon-bundy-verdict-oregon-standoff-malheur-court/

Quote:A 12-person jury found occupation leaders Ammon and Ryan Bundy not guilty Thursday of the government’s primary charge: conspiracy to impede federal officers by force, threat or intimidation.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-28-2016, 05:27 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: As SSF said, when you are guilty, you should always go with a jury trial. He didn't explain why, but I'm betting it's likely because ignorance of the law and manipulation by defense attorney provides a guilty party a good chance of acquittal.

Precisely.  A much better chance at acquittal at least.

[fredtoast]

They argued that the presence of paid government informants at the refuge during the occupation muddied the waters and created reasonable doubt about how the decisions of the defendants were made.



This fact is what most likely swayed the jury.

[fredtoast]

(10-28-2016, 04:03 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You just have to look at things with an open mind.

Is that what you told everyone after OJ Simpson was acquitted?