Bundy's acquitted in Oregon Case

[tipsntails7]

Well there is much more than just that to the story- obviously....but for sure its not that simple. I'm not saying the ranchers are without blame....ho does anyone know when the facts are being hidden.

I hope all of the history and facts of this case come out. As I understand it these ranchers have been pushed, and pushed and pushed some more...seems the jury agrees....even when the Feds, and the court system is obviously biased against them.

Been i would love for you to enlighten me on what is the "Much More" Part of this story.

This particular case is pretty simple. 2 ranchers poach some deer, then start a fire to cover it up. These dipshits catch wind and ride into town draped in the american flag, proclaiming government over reach and injustice, against the will of the people of that county. They take over a federal building in the name of the citizens. random wackos from all over converge on Malheur for their slice of the pie, while the citizens of the county ask NUMEROUS times for them to leave and they do not represent the people of that area. At this point it has NOTHING to do with why they came in the first place, and really never did. it was just a spring board for their BULLSHIT agenda. exactly like when your father doesn't live up to his obligations to pay grazing fees. That land, Just like Malheur is not yours to do with as you please.

This has nothing to due with the ranchers of that area, and everything to do with Ammon. It is Clear they have zero Knowledge of the history of that area or how it has come to be the way it is.

And the fact that you think a jury comprised up of mostly metropolitan people took a stand for ranchers in eastern Oregon is ridiculous.

 

[tipsntails7]

"Sounds to me like Jury nullification. The government rules by the consent of the people. Sounds like local people have had enough of the federal government being heavy handed in their community and the jury represented that."

Although I am a strong supporter of jury nullification, I dont think that is what happened here...this article explains it best IMO:

As we are now discovering, jury nullification didn’t play a role in the verdict, but clear directions to the jury from the judge on how to deliberate over each charge did.

The judge, prosecutors and defense lawyers haggled for hours over how to word instructions to the jury about interpreting the law to guide their verdict in the Oregon standoff trial.

The instructions explain how the law defines a conspiracy, for instance, and what kind of behavior might amount to intimidation.

The jury of nine women and three men returned not guilty verdicts after five hours of deliberations on Thursday in the high-profile case that riveted the state and drew national and international attention to the federal bird sanctuary in rural eastern Oregon.

Here are some of the key issues covered in more than 30 pages of instructions that U.S. District Judge Anna J. Brown read to jurors and what they used to reach their decision.

CONSPIRACY CHARGE

“A conspiracy is a kind of criminal partnership – an agreement of two or more persons to engage in illegal conduct.”

“It is not enough that they simply met, discussed matters of common interest, acted in similar ways or perhaps helped one another.”

CONSPIRACY TO IMPEDE OFFICERS OF THE UNITED STATES

— The government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was an agreement between two or more persons to prevent officers of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and/or U.S. Bureau of Land Management from discharging the duties of their office by force, intimidation or threat.

— The government must also prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a particular defendant became a member of such conspiracy “knowing of its illegal object” and “specifically intending” to help accomplish that illegal object, regardless whether the defendant or other individuals may have also had other, lawful reasons for their conduct.

A person can become a member of a conspiracy by “willfully participating” in the unlawful plan with the “specific intent to advance or further some unlawful object or purpose of the conspiracy,” even though the person doesn’t have full knowledge of all the details of the conspiracy.

One who willfully joins an existing conspiracy “is as responsible for it as the originators,” the judge told jurors.

On the other hand, “one who has knowledge of a conspiracy, but happens to act in a way which furthers some object or purpose of the conspiracy, does not thereby become a conspirator.” Similarly, someone doesn’t become a conspirator “merely by associating” with one or more people who are conspirators, nor merely “by knowing that a conspiracy exists.”
The article continues on (in mind-numbing detail) explaining how jurors were to regard not just the conspiracy charges brought by the government, but the role of informants (there were 15), the role of the First and Second Amendments in the case, the possession of firearms in federal facilities, and the theft of government property.

The judge made clear that the Second Amendment wasn’t on trial in this case, and that the only relevance firearms had in the standoff is whether they were used to intimidate or threaten government employees, or whether they used firearms in a criminal conspiracy.

As the jury determined that the evidence didn’t support the basic conspiracy charges, then there was no possibility of a conviction on the weapons charges.

Gelton, Everywhere I have read, the Feds absolutely botched this case. The level of ineptitude shown by the prosecution apparently borders on hilarity.

 

[Ray]

"But we were not asked to judge on bullets and hurt feelings, rather to decide if any agreement was made with an illegal object in mind,'' the Marylhurst student wrote. "It seemed this basic, high standard of proof was lost upon the prosecution throughout.''​

Good read here.

If you want a conspiracy, you will see one everywhere you look. Getting 12 other people to see the same conspiracy takes a lot of clear information. You can't allow them to work too hard to come up with the answer.

 

[Backpack Hunter]

Unless you are a federal law enforcement officer or a federal employee with specific work related task that requires a firearm, you cannot be armed inside any federal building. There were several members of the public, who were captured on video to be armed inside federal work offices. That is a felony.

Target shooting is typically restricted at federal refuges. You can hunt and shoot during open season and open areas, but no target shooting. These guys were target shooting at a boat ramp.

I have not kept up with this case, and quite frankly wont, but this statement about firearms in a federal building is incorrect.
18 U.S. Code SS 930 - Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

 

[armadillo66]

My great grandpa was way more like Lavoy Finicum than Obama is like Teddy Roosevelt.
BLM & Nat'l Forest & Nat'l Parks system make horrible decisions about wildlife, resource access and use
They could have allowed harvest of a bunch of this beetlekill we have around here, it was easily accessible, but it never happened so now we wait on the biggest fires ever in Colorado to happen when all this dead crap burns

 

[Beendare]

Been i would love for you to enlighten me on what is the "Much More" Part of this story.

This particular case is pretty simple. .....

Well is it? I really don't know...the jury of his peers [that was acceptable to the prosecution BTW] didn't think so.

Could it be another Ferguson where the cop was slammed in the media for shooting an unarmed kid in the street in front of multiple "Eye witnesses"? It wasn't until much later that- surprise surprise...the whole accurate story came out [to the displeasure of Obama and Holder I'm sure who knew the correct story within the first hour] and the kid had reached into the cop car trying to wrestle away the officers gun...with the "Eye witnesses" turning out to be lying.

Tips; I've seen your posts for years...and respect your opinion. I just don't know if we are getting the whole story from the media. One only has to look at the dirty deeds by Hillary turned up by the freedom of information act that are totally ignored by ABC,NBC,CNN etc...to realize our news is edited. Or the fact that every shooting in the US is portrayed in the mass media as "An Assault Rifle"

 

[tipsntails7]

Well is it? I really don't know...the jury of his peers [that was acceptable to the prosecution BTW] didn't think so.

Could it be another Ferguson where the cop was slammed in the media for shooting an unarmed kid in the street in front of multiple "Eye witnesses"? It wasn't until much later that- surprise surprise...the whole accurate story came out [to the displeasure of Obama and Holder I'm sure who knew the correct story within the first hour] and the kid had reached into the cop car trying to wrestle away the officers gun...with the "Eye witnesses" turning out to be lying.

Tips; I've seen your posts for years...and respect your opinion. I just don't know if we are getting the whole story from the media. One only has to look at the dirty deeds by Hillary turned up by the freedom of information act that are totally ignored by ABC,NBC,CNN etc...to realize our news is edited. Or the fact that every shooting in the US is portrayed in the mass media as "An Assault Rifle"

Been I appreciate that and always enjoy your posts as well, you seem like a straight shooter.

I think this and the Ferguson situation are on polar opposites of the fence regarding the media and their conduct and the BS that goes on with all of that. I think the Bundy's did an exemplary job of getting their message out exactly how they wanted it. I think all Leo involved also conducted themselves well. I personally do not think anything is going to come out (except maybe the conduct of the informants placed in the compound). This went on so long in front of so many cameras, journalists, and other people that I think it will be tuff to misconstrued what actually went on, although I am sure some will try.

Full disclosure my father owns land out in grant county(right next to harney) and was able to attend one of the many gathering that was put on. The residents were thankful for having someone shed light on their situation, but asked that the bundys leave as they do not represent the people of Harney county and are acting in a manor not representative of how they want to solve their issues.

I commend the jury for doing what every jury in the country should do. They absolutely did not let personal bias enter into the decision making, and from everything I've seen the Feds botched this case in an epic way. From the charges they chose to file, to the actual prosecution of the case.

I would have zero issue with what they did if they would have chose to camp or protest outside the refuge building. I absolutely do not agree with their cause but they have every right to protest. But the moment they commandeer the refuge and chose to make it their own mini base I take issue with that.

Supposedly F&W assessed the damages at 4.6 million. now I have no idea if that's lip service or not, but whatever the cost of repairs our taxes are going to be footing the bill.


I agree media, all media is out of control these days and it's s full time job just deciphering what is actually true. But I don't believe that is an issue in this instance.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk