PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: JeffDG on October 27, 2016, 04:38:14 PM
-
Not Guilty
http://twitchy.com/samj-3930/2016/10/27/breaking-jury-finds-oregonstandoff-seven-including-bundy-brothers-not-guilty-on-all-counts/
Sent from my iPad . Squirrel!!
-
Jury nullification.
-
I would have expected an urban-drawn Portland jury to be more sympathetic to the government's case. (I presume that's where the trial took place.)
Yeah, definite case of jury nullification. I guess the defense lawyers and the Bundy boys did a heck of a good job to elicit that kind of result.
Edited to add this link into the strategies of the lawyers on both sides (written before the verdict was known, and interesting to see now how the defense strategy paid off):
http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/10/legal_experts_weigh_in_on_ammo.html (http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/10/legal_experts_weigh_in_on_ammo.html)
-
Found some info on the composition of the jury:
http://www.opb.org/news/series/burns-oregon-standoff-bundy-militia-news-updates/jury-refuge-occupation-trial-makeup/ (http://www.opb.org/news/series/burns-oregon-standoff-bundy-militia-news-updates/jury-refuge-occupation-trial-makeup/)
"[...]12 trial jurors — eight women and four men — and eight alternate jurors have been selected for the trial of Ammon Bundy and six other defendants.
[...]
The jury is mostly white and includes a Mormon mother of four from Eugene as well as a former Bureau of Land Management firefighter from Baker City, who said the occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in January “happened in my backyard.”
Another juror, a woman from Hood River, claimed she doesn’t read the news and lives “in a world of art,” as an explanation for her limited knowledge about the occupation.
[...]
Four jurors are from the Portland metro area. Other jurors include an African-American man from Klamath Falls, a state employee, a woman who works at Boeing and another juror who lives in St. Helens.
[...]
Defense attorneys said it’s unusual to get a jury in Portland that’s from all over the state."
Wasn't expecting that geographic diversity.
-
I'm surprised that they were all found not guilty. Given the circumstances surrounding the case and the fact that one of them was shot and killed, it's a little surprising. The Bundy's got involved in the wrong case and only damaged their credibility. Of course being acquitted is likely to bolster them now.
-
I really don't know what charges they were accused of, nor what evidence was presented against them. So I cannot buy into a charge of jury nullification.
-
I really don't know what charges they were accused of, nor what evidence was presented against them. So I cannot buy into a charge of jury nullification.
Looks like there is a wikipedia entry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammon_Bundy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammon_Bundy)) and it says "Bundy was charged with a total of three offenses: conspiracy to impede officers of the United States by force, intimidation, or threats; possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in federal facilities; and using and carrying firearms in relation to a crime of violence. The latter offense carries a possible life sentence."
Later on "Judge Brown dismissed one of two firearms charges against Bundy and seven other militants, finding that the underlying conspiracy charge does not meet the legal definition of a "crime of violence" as defined by Ninth Circuit case law."
Wikipedia article ends with:
"On October 27th 2016, Ammon Bundy was found not guilty of firearms charges and conspiracy to impede federal workers."
The oregonlive.com article in my earlier post has some info on some of the defense, but what arguments were made for and against the conspiracy to impede federal workers isn't mentioned there. It may be that the Feds case wasn't factually convincing.
-
It looks like Bundy's attorney was tackled by the U.S. Marshals after the acquittal when he asked them for the paperwork of why his client was about to be re-arrested.
http://www.kgw.com/news/local/bundys-attorney-tackled-by-us-marshals-during-heated-argument-with-judge/343359074
-
It looks like Bundy's attorney was tackled by the U.S. Marshals after the acquittal when he asked them for the paperwork of why his client was about to be re-arrested.
http://www.kgw.com/news/local/bundys-attorney-tackled-by-us-marshals-during-heated-argument-with-judge/343359074
Bundy was acquited, but he still has cases going on in Nevada. He was already in custody and was not about to be re-arrested. Even then, there is no legal requirement to show someone an arrest warrant before they are about to be arrested. Here's another article with more info.
http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/10/as_trial_ends_surreal_scene_le.html
-
Don't mess with the gestapo. Unbelievable, Mumford may or may not have been wrong, but what happened in that court room is scary and americans should be outraged.
-
Bundy was acquited, but he still has cases going on in Nevada. He was already in custody and was not about to be re-arrested. Even then, there is no legal requirement to show someone an arrest warrant before they are about to be arrested. Here's another article with more info.
http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/10/as_trial_ends_surreal_scene_le.html
How was he free to begin with then? Bail? Was his bail rescinded? Further, it's incredibly bad practice to throw a lawyer down on the ground, tase and arrest him in the court room when he wasn't being physically confrontational and still speaking to the judge. The charges against the lawyer also seem pretty ridiculous and I'd be surprised if they weren't thrown out.
I'm not on anybody's side here, I'm just curious why the U.S. Marshals felt the need to react the way they did.
-
This kind of crap happens every day, but you don't see it reported. For those who think cops will not enforce the illegal actions of their overlords (like gun confiscation) you need to think deeper.
-
How was he free to begin with then? Bail? Was his bail rescinded? Further, it's incredibly bad practice to throw a lawyer down on the ground, tase and arrest him in the court room when he wasn't being physically confrontational and still speaking to the judge. The charges against the lawyer also seem pretty ridiculous and I'd be surprised if they weren't thrown out.
I'm not on anybody's side here, I'm just curious why the U.S. Marshals felt the need to react the way they did.
Because they can. Like Tommy Lee Jones' Deputy Samuel Gerard, they "don't care" if you're guilty of anything or not. What are you going to do about? Sue them? They are immune, as blunt instruments of the State.
-
This kind of crap happens every day, but you don't see it reported. For those who think cops will not enforce the illegal actions of their overlords (like gun confiscation) you need to think deeper.
In many instances, police are just legalized MAFIA. They will obey whomever pays them, and gives them a pension with full benefits. Today police demand immediate submission, as typically there is no recourse to their abuse.
-
Because they can. Like Tommy Lee Jones' Deputy Samuel Gerard, they "don't care" if you're guilty of anything or not. What are you going to do about? Sue them? They are immune, as blunt instruments of the State.
Invalid comparison. In the movie, "The Fugitive", Deputy U.S. Marshal Samuel Gerrard was hunting down a convicted murderer, Dr. Richard Kimble, who escaped from custody. In this court case, Ammon Bundy was acquitted of the crimes he was charged with and his lawyer was arguing his case before the judge to release him. Prior to being arrested for the Oregon stand off, he was already released on bail (I assume) and was free, pending his court case in Nevada.
-
Invalid comparison. In the movie, "The Fugitive", Deputy U.S. Marshal Samuel Gerrard was hunting down a convicted murderer, Dr. Richard Kimble, who escaped from custody. In this court case, Ammon Bundy was acquitted of the crimes he was charged with and his lawyer was arguing his case before the judge to release him. Prior to being arrested for the Oregon stand off, he was already released on bail (I assume) and was free, pending his court case in Nevada.
You're missing the point. To these apes, it doesn't matter if you're not "officially" convicted of anything.
-
How was he free to begin with then? Bail? Was his bail rescinded? Further, it's incredibly bad practice to throw a lawyer down on the ground, tase and arrest him in the court room when he wasn't being physically confrontational and still speaking to the judge. The charges against the lawyer also seem pretty ridiculous and I'd be surprised if they weren't thrown out.
I'm not on anybody's side here, I'm just curious why the U.S. Marshals felt the need to react the way they did.
He wasn't free. He was in custody. The lawyer was arguing he should be freed, but the court in Nevada has jurisdiction over him now, and they already denied bond in him. I'm not going to get into why they tased him and threw the lawyer down, I wasn't there. But I did start my career in that office, and know the guys who are there, and unless they completely changed, I'm sure there was more to the story than what is being reported.
-
He wasn't free. He was in custody. The lawyer was arguing he should be freed, but the court in Nevada has jurisdiction over him now, and they already denied bond in him. I'm not going to get into why they tased him and threw the lawyer down, I wasn't there. But I did start my career in that office, and know the guys who are there, and unless they completely changed, I'm sure there was more to the story than what is being reported.
If he wasn't free then how did he end up in Oregon? Escape from custody? If that's the case then he absolutely should've been arrested.
I'm sure there is more to the story. Like I said, I'm not taking sides but based on what's being reported, something seems off.
-
If he wasn't free then how did he end up in Oregon? Escape from custody? If that's the case then he absolutely should've been arrested.
I'm sure there is more to the story. Like I said, I'm not taking sides but based on what's being reported, something seems off.
He might have been free when he went to Oregon, but after his arrest there, Nevada probably revoked his bond and filed a detainer, which is why the judge was unable to release him after the verdict.
-
How was he free to begin with then? Bail? Was his bail rescinded? Further, it's incredibly bad practice to throw a lawyer down on the ground, tase and arrest him in the court room when he wasn't being physically confrontational and still speaking to the judge. The charges against the lawyer also seem pretty ridiculous and I'd be surprised if they weren't thrown out.
I'm not on anybody's side here, I'm just curious why the U.S. Marshals felt the need to react the way they did.
Because the federal branch has become a corrupt cesspool of pigs and dogs trying steal all they can before the hammer comes down. The courts, the DOJ and the FBI are corrupt to the core these days.
-
One of the jurors has emailed OregonLive.com an explanation of their decision. It looks like a simple case of the prosecution fucking up because of an attempt to maximize the sentence with a charge they couldn't make stick:
http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/10/juror_4_prosecutors_in_oregon.html (http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/10/juror_4_prosecutors_in_oregon.html)
-
One of the jurors has emailed OregonLive.com an explanation of their decision. It looks like a simple case of the prosecution fucking up because of an attempt to maximize the sentence with a charge they couldn't make stick:
http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/10/juror_4_prosecutors_in_oregon.html (http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/10/juror_4_prosecutors_in_oregon.html)
Interesting. It appears as if the jury did their job and looked at everything in the case and deliberated accordingly. It's interesting that Juror 4 noted that "not guilty" doesn't mean "innocent". I also find it interesting that Juror 4 indirectly correlated the federal government going for the max possible sentence in this case to that of the Hammonds when they were convicted and faced a mandatory 5 year minimum sentence.
-
But I did start my career in that office, and know the guys who are there, and unless they completely changed, I'm sure there was more to the story than what is being reported.
Can you give an example of why you would use a taser on an officer of the court and throw him to the ground?
-
Can you give an example of why you would use a taser on an officer of the court and throw him to the ground?
No? Don't feel bad, neither could I. At the basic level, you assume that an attorney is a person of character, current presidential candidates excepted.
-
Can you give an example of why you would use a taser on an officer of the court and throw him to the ground?
I can. Let's just say that if a lawyer gets too upset with the proceedings in court, let's their emotions get the better of them, and proceed to charge toward the bench in a threatening manner. You don't approach the bench without permission of the judge. I've personally seen a lawyer get held in contempt by a judge, and we had to physically restrain him and cuff him. This was before we had tasers, but his actions at the time would have led him to get hit with it if we had them.
-
I can. Let's just say that if a lawyer gets too upset with the proceedings in court, let's their emotions get the better of them, and proceed to charge toward the bench in a threatening manner. You don't approach the bench without permission of the judge. I've personally seen a lawyer get held in contempt by a judge, and we had to physically restrain him and cuff him. This was before we had tasers, but his actions at the time would have led him to get hit with it if we had them.
Or, just the fact that they are lawyers and are currently breathing is sufficient grounds to taze them IMO.
-
I can. Let's just say that if a lawyer gets too upset with the proceedings in court, let's their emotions get the better of them, and proceed to charge toward the bench in a threatening manner. You don't approach the bench without permission of the judge. I've personally seen a lawyer get held in contempt by a judge, and we had to physically restrain him and cuff him. This was before we had tasers, but his actions at the time would have led him to get hit with it if we had them.
That sounds like it would warrant that reaction. Based on what information we know about this particular incident, it doesn't seem like it would warrant that type of reaction. Even reporters were mystified by the U.S. Marshal's response. That being said, I wasn't there nor do I have all of the information.
-
Or, just the fact that they are lawyers and are currently breathing is sufficient grounds to taze them IMO.
That, too. I know some ok lawyers, but there have been more than a few I've been at odds with. They like to think they are important, and don't like it when you don't kiss their ass.
-
That sounds like it would warrant that reaction. Based on what information we know about this particular incident, it doesn't seem like it would warrant that type of reaction. Even reporters were mystified by the U.S. Marshal's response. That being said, I wasn't there nor do I have all of the information.
I don't have all the info, either. But since I worked there, and know the guys there, I have a hard time thinking they just overeacted. And I really don't trust the account written in the paper.