Bundy Brothers Acquitted

[*bfine32*]

(10-28-2016, 06:01 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Is that what you told everyone after OJ Simpson was acquitted?

Of course I did. Hell I didn't even label him a murderer BEFORE the trial. I know that tactic would be frowned on many here.

[Belsnickel]

(10-28-2016, 05:51 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 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/

The act of the occupation itself is an impediment to the work of the federal employees.

As for the race bit, don't care, haven't been involved in any of that.

[BmorePat87]

(10-28-2016, 06:00 PM)fredtoast Wrote: 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.

Juror 4 states that the jurors all agree that the occupation intimidated federal employees and prevented them from working, but the prosecution did not prove intent to do so. They were not sure if the group's intent was to come together to prevent the employees from working and the prosecution made no attempt to prove it. He suggests the prosecution was too cocky and even implies the jurors thought criminal trespassing were more appropriate charges.

"Don't they know that 'not guilty' does not mean innocent?'' he wrote. "It was not lost on us that our verdict(s) might inspire future actions that are regrettable, but that sort of thinking was not permitted when considering the charges before us.''



http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/10/juror_4_prosecutors_in_oregon.html

cliffnotes: Jurors say they did impede and intimidate,  but they don't know if that was their intent. 

[BmorePat87]

(10-28-2016, 06:21 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The act of the occupation itself is an impediment to the work of the federal employees.

Something the jurors agreed on.

[*bfine32*]

(10-28-2016, 06:21 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The act of the occupation itself is an impediment to the work of the federal employees.

Without getting into semantics; I assume that is where the "by threat" comes in. At work this morning someone occupied my parking spot, this impeded me as I had to park further away, but I was under no threat so we most likely wont take it to court.  

[Belsnickel]

(10-28-2016, 06:32 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Without getting into semantics; I assume that is where the "by threat" comes in. At work this morning someone occupied my parking spot, this impeded me as I had to park further away, but I was under no threat so we most likely wont take it to court.  

I hadn't seen the latter part of the charge, but it does specify intimidation and force as well. Force doesn't have to be violence, just a physical action, which occupation is. It seems like the jury agreed the impediment occurred and a violation of the law happened, the prosecution just didn't prove intent.

[*bfine32*]

(10-28-2016, 06:39 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I hadn't seen the latter part of the charge, but it does specify intimidation and force as well. Force doesn't have to be violence, just a physical action, which occupation is. It seems like the jury agreed the impediment occurred and a violation of the law happened, the prosecution just didn't prove intent.

I suppose that's how someone with an open mind would view it. I saw it more as a no threat was demonstrated and they couldn't rule on inference.

Given the link provided by Pat pretty much supported my exact position on the matter.

[Belsnickel]

(10-28-2016, 06:47 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I suppose that's how someone with an open mind would view it. I saw it more as a no threat was demonstrated and they couldn't rule on inference.

Given the link provided by Pat pretty much supported my exact position on the matter.

No, the link Pat provided said that the charge of 'conspiracy' was not proven. The jurors all agree that there was a violation of the law, just not potentially the law they were charged with. Had the conspiracy part been taken off they would have been found guilty.

[*bfine32*]

(10-28-2016, 06:54 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: No, the link Pat provided said that the charge of 'conspiracy' was not proven. The jurors all agree that there was a violation of the law, just not potentially the law they were charged with. Had the conspiracy part been taken off they would have been found guilty.

Okey Doke, you've been proven right in this matter to date, no need to doubt your inference now.

[BmorePat87]

(10-28-2016, 06:54 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: No, the link Pat provided said that the charge of 'conspiracy' was not proven. The jurors all agree that there was a violation of the law, just not potentially the law they were charged with. Had the conspiracy part been taken off they would have been found guilty.

More accurately, they said that the intent for conspiracy was never proven. The juror said that intimidation and impediment occurred, but the prosecution never proved the occupation intended to do any of those things. 

As Juror 4 said, he hopes this doesn't encourage future behavior like this and more occupations. The prosecution in the other case would be wise to learn from this prosecution's mistakes.


Also, apparently a juror was dismissed. Somehow they let a juror on that had previously worked for the bureau of land management or something. A few days in, he's telling the others "yea, I'm pretty biased". 

[GMDino]

(10-28-2016, 06:04 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course I did. Hell I didn't even label him a murderer BEFORE the trial. I know that tactic would be frowned on many here.

How often do you have to take your halo in for cleaning?

[Vas Deferens]

(10-29-2016, 12:31 PM)GMDino Wrote: How often do you have to take your halo in for cleaning?

Washes it in a public sink so everyone knows he has it.