EL PRESIDENTE
Username Retired in Honor of Lanny.
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2010
- Messages
- 50,346
- Likes
- 22,533
- Points
- 113
I really didn't follow this much.
But not Guilty on All Charges.
But not Guilty on All Charges.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Hard to understand that verdict. Either we got a dumber than usual jury, or the prosecutors fucked up in a epic way.
barfo
Hard to understand that verdict. Either we got a dumber than usual jury, or the prosecutors fucked up in a epic way.
barfo
OR PERHAPS WHAT THEY DID DID NOT MEET THE BURDEN OF PROOF
WHITE PRIVILEGE
So I did follow the trial pretty closely. They sure seemed guilty to me. Where I think the government lost the case was the amount of paid government informants that were at the refuge. Just like the Bundy's and their followers have made a career sucking off of the government's tit and while screaming for more, the also is a rather large group of losers who the government pays to hang out with the Bundy's. It's this giant weird industry of right wing whack jobs and the government paying to keep track of them.
Olson said Mumford was getting animated, but he did nothing physical. He didn't charge the bench, or block marshals from his client. "He raised his arm as if to say, what the hell...And they grabbed him, Tased him and took him down. It was just shocking. It was completely inappropriate,''Olson said.
Defense lawyer Matthew Schindler, standby counsel for defendant Kenneth Medenbach, said he was disappointed by Mumford's challenge to his client's return to custody, considering he faces more serious federal charges in Nevada.
Schindler said Mumford was exhausted, having "put out everything he had,'' during the past six weeks of the case.
"Unfortunately he let his passion and desire and belief in his client overcome his good judgement,'' Schindler said.
Margaret "Margie" Paris, a University of Oregon law professor and former dean, said she couldn't believe what occurred when she learned of the confrontation.
"It just blows my mind,'' Paris said. "To have a lawyer who's making an argument in court physically restrained and taken down is extraordinary. He's entitled to make these arguments. If he was repeating himself over and over, the more typical response is to hold him in contempt. But to physically accost him is just shocking.''
The jury returned unanimous verdicts of "not guilty'' to conspiracy charges against all seven defendants. Each was accused of conspiring to prevent employees of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Bureau of Land Management from carrying out their official work through intimidation, threat or force during the 41-day occupation.
Juror 4 noted the panel couldn't simply rely on the defendants' "defining actions'' to convict.
"All 12 agreed that impeding existed, even if as an effect of the occupation,'' he wrote.
"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.''
It seems that the prosecution failed to make its case that the intent was to prevent government employees from doing their jobs:
http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-st...prosecutors_in_oregon.html#incart_maj-story-1
While I think the Bundys and crew are a-holes, it seems to me that the decision is a good one for our civil rights. Even though I don't agree with these folks' protest or the way they went about it, using a law like this could be used to attempt to quash other civil protests.
Yeah. The conspiracy charge with the specter of entrapment (who knows what the informants were saying while they were there?) made that a pretty big reach. If they would have gone for criminal trespass and vandalism it would have been much easier to prosecute.Seems like the prosecution got greedy and went for some charges that were much more difficult to prove.
Yeah. The conspiracy charge with the specter of entrapment (who knows what the informants were saying while they were there?) made that a pretty big reach. If they would have gone for criminal trespass and vandalism it would have been much easier to prosecute.
Well, also wasn't it something to do with trying to prove that they were preventing federal employees from doing their job while there weren't any federal employees out there? It's hard to prevent someone from doing something if they're not actually there.
Would you show up to your job if people armed with guns had taken over your office?
One could argue that the people that worked at the refuge had work tied to computers on the premises. I can freely admit as a contractor for FWS that not everything gets stored on a network (very little in fact).Well, also wasn't it something to do with trying to prove that they were preventing federal employees from doing their job while there weren't any federal employees out there? It's hard to prevent someone from doing something if they're not actually there.
Refuges have work they do year round.Wasn't the occupation during the time of the year when it's shut down? I didn't really follow the occupation or the trial because, frankly, I don't give a shit about a bunch of rednecks that took over a government building in the middle of nowhere.
Refuges have work they do year round.
I'm sure that there's work to be done at the refuge year around, but the case hinged on proving that the intent of the protest was to keep federal workers from doing their jobs. That seems like a pretty high bar to prove. And, would you want them to be jailed on such a charge? The next BLM protest in DC might keep federal workers from doing their jobs.
