Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > Malheur Occupiers acquitted
 Reply to topic
Previous :: Next Topic
Author Message
Humptulips
Member
Member


Joined: 08 Nov 2012
Posts: 234 | TRs | Pics
Humptulips
Member
PostFri Oct 28, 2016 10:25 am 
BigSteve wrote:
Humptulips wrote:
Conspiracy to do what?
Interfering with the official functions of federal employees in violation of a long-standing criminal statute.
So obviously the jury was not convinced they prevented anyone from doing their job. Nobody came to work because they were afraid but does that mean the defendants should be guilty of intimidation just by their mere presence. I believe there was testimony to the effect there were no overt intimidating actions by the defendants and that they walked into unlocked buildings by a government witness no less. Property crimes charges would have been appropriate and I believe they would have been found guilty but that would not have sent the message that protest against the government would not be tolerated at least by a bunch of cowboys. So what was different for most people here I think is that they were carrying guns. That is political in that their exercise of their second amendments rights is of particular importance to these individuals. I see protests that just infuriate me, the ones in ND now come to mind, but I firmly believe anything that puts a damper on our right to speak our mind or organize a protest needs to be quashed. And to the "bought and paid for" posts, seriously get real. The idea that these yahoos are out paying off jurists and getting away with it is ludicrous.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Klapton
Member
Member


Joined: 21 Dec 2006
Posts: 940 | TRs | Pics
Klapton
Member
PostFri Oct 28, 2016 11:34 am 
NacMacFeegle wrote:
The acquittal is a monstrous failure of justice. I've been seething with rage since I saw the news. The evidence against them was overwhelming - there's no way they should have been acquitted. I find it extremely suspicious that just before the verdict the jury got one member thrown off because they accused him of bias. Can the Jury's verdict be overturned? Can the government sue them for damages?
When I saw this news, I thought of you and knew you would be seething. "Can the Jury's verdict be overturned?" ROFL Yeah... screw those pesky human rights and their silly double jeopardy rules!

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Klapton
Member
Member


Joined: 21 Dec 2006
Posts: 940 | TRs | Pics
Klapton
Member
PostFri Oct 28, 2016 11:37 am 
Humptulips wrote:
AlpineRose wrote:
...like the pundit said, white guys with guns are "militia". Those were terrorists who were on MY land, and they should have been treated as such. Their acquittal makes me mad. Maybe the state charges will stick.
It is just as much their land. They were acquitted of conspiracy. Conspiracy to do what? Assemble? Protest? Use their right of free speech? I think they were stupid and their cause of transferring Federal land to States a poor idea. No law against dumb ideas. If they had been charged with property crimes it would have fit better. Say what you want about what they did but I would prefer to err on the side of free speech and public assembly to protest grievances with the government. The alternative seems like a path to totalitarianism.
This. They should have been required to make restitution for any actual damage they caused. Federal Butthurt ("conspiracy") shouldn't count.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
treeswarper
Alleged Sockpuppet!



Joined: 25 Dec 2006
Posts: 11272 | TRs | Pics
Location: Don't move here
treeswarper
Alleged Sockpuppet!
PostFri Oct 28, 2016 1:13 pm 
Dibs on Walupt Lake!

What's especially fun about sock puppets is that you can make each one unique and individual, so that they each have special characters. And they don't have to be human––animals and aliens are great possibilities
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
lee
Member
Member


Joined: 20 Jan 2014
Posts: 85 | TRs | Pics
lee
Member
PostFri Oct 28, 2016 1:29 pm 
You folks are missing the boat...... this incident had NOTHING to do with Land rights, grazing rights, 2nd Amendment rights, 1st Amendment rights, it was all about white privilege,..... BigSteve said it was so.... rolleyes.gif rolleyes.gif rolleyes.gif

Lee
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
DIYSteve
seeking hygge



Joined: 06 Mar 2007
Posts: 12655 | TRs | Pics
Location: here now
DIYSteve
seeking hygge
PostFri Oct 28, 2016 3:18 pm 
lee wrote:
You folks are missing the boat...... this incident had NOTHING to do with Land rights, grazing rights, 2nd Amendment rights, 1st Amendment rights, it was all about white privilege,..... BigSteve said it was so.... rolleyes.gif rolleyes.gif rolleyes.gif
Not surprised this one went over your head. Your so-called "grazing rights," which in reality are taxpayer-subsidized welfare rancher giveaways, are a prime example of privileges that are enjoyed by a handful of white men, e.g., Cliven the Racist Deadbeat Bundy. And are you actually claiming that "land rights" include the right of armed white welfare ranchers to takeover and occupy federal lands? If so, would armed Black Lives Matter members have "land rights" to take over and occupy Yellowstone National Park?

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Pyrites
Member
Member


Joined: 16 Sep 2014
Posts: 1880 | TRs | Pics
Location: South Sound
Pyrites
Member
PostFri Oct 28, 2016 3:46 pm 
Of course race matters. Historical right to land? With a reservation a few miles away? Or Ferguson. 200 non-white people show up and want to go into city hall. Most with Olympic Arms AR-15's. 5 traditionalists with M-1's. 5 with 0.50 caliber sniper rifles. Add in ballistic vests and gas masks. Or just show on the sidewalk. And walk towards the police line like Bundy's friends did in Nevada? And remember what happens when just one guy tries to show his carry permit. Any doubt as to the conclusion?

Keep Calm and Carry On? Heck No. Stay Excited and Get Outside!
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
treeswarper
Alleged Sockpuppet!



Joined: 25 Dec 2006
Posts: 11272 | TRs | Pics
Location: Don't move here
treeswarper
Alleged Sockpuppet!
PostFri Oct 28, 2016 3:58 pm 
BigSteve wrote:
lee wrote:
You folks are missing the boat...... this incident had NOTHING to do with Land rights, grazing rights, 2nd Amendment rights, 1st Amendment rights, it was all about white privilege,..... BigSteve said it was so.... rolleyes.gif rolleyes.gif rolleyes.gif
Not surprised this one went over your head. Your so-called "grazing rights," which in reality are taxpayer-subsidized welfare rancher giveaways, are a prime example of privileges that are enjoyed by a handful of white men, e.g., Cliven the Racist Deadbeat Bundy. And are you actually claiming that "land rights" include the right of armed white welfare ranchers to takeover and occupy federal lands? If so, would armed Black Lives Matter members have "land rights" to take over and occupy Yellowstone National Park?
Please quit putting all ranchers into the deadbeat category. Also, I'm thinking there are Native American and Hispanic ranchers with grazing permits. You are another one who is making general, insulting statements. The Bundy's do NOT represent all ranchers. Two extremes, no compromise. shakehead.gif

What's especially fun about sock puppets is that you can make each one unique and individual, so that they each have special characters. And they don't have to be human––animals and aliens are great possibilities
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Humptulips
Member
Member


Joined: 08 Nov 2012
Posts: 234 | TRs | Pics
Humptulips
Member
PostFri Oct 28, 2016 4:00 pm 
I'm guessing Big Steve would get disqualified from the juror pool. rolleyes.gif

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Malachai Constant
Member
Member


Joined: 13 Jan 2002
Posts: 16088 | TRs | Pics
Location: Back Again Like A Bad Penny
Malachai Constant
Member
PostFri Oct 28, 2016 4:12 pm 
Big Steve is a lawyer and would not normally be disqualified from the jury pool. Lawyers are almost always preemptivly challenged by one side or the other. This is because jurors frequently side with the lawyer who becomes the duty expert for the case. In this case it sounds like juror 4 was the defacto leader who got the judge to disqualify the juror who was for conviction. I read the statement of 4 and it sounds like the kind of gibberish spouted by the OJ jurors. BTW federal conspiracy was frequently used in the 60's against anti war protesters, black panthers, and organized crime. Now it is largely replaced by RICO another form of conspiracy.

"You do not laugh when you look at the mountains, or when you look at the sea." Lafcadio Hearn
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
pcg
Member
Member


Joined: 09 Jun 2012
Posts: 334 | TRs | Pics
pcg
Member
PostFri Oct 28, 2016 4:28 pm 
This is so dis-heartening and so bizarre that it bears waiting for the dust to clear to hear from jurors and analysts to see why this happened. Certainly one for the history books.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
lee
Member
Member


Joined: 20 Jan 2014
Posts: 85 | TRs | Pics
lee
Member
PostFri Oct 28, 2016 4:30 pm 
Humptulips wrote:
I'm guessing Big Steve would get disqualified from the juror pool. rolleyes.gif
Roger that!!!! Just another Race card player....

Lee
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
drm
Member
Member


Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 1376 | TRs | Pics
Location: The Dalles, OR
drm
Member
PostFri Oct 28, 2016 4:41 pm 
Quote:
Robert Salisbury, defense attorney for defendant Jeff Banta, who was one of the final holdouts at the refuge, said that the government might have been more successful if prosecutors had filed “criminal trespassing” charges in state court. He noted that police officials essentially allowed the occupation to go on for weeks, during which time law enforcement stayed away and failed to order the activists to leave in any formal manner. Ammon’s lawyers, for example, noted in court that he was able to leave the refuge and eat at a local Chinese food restaurant without facing law enforcement or arrest. The fact that he and others could move freely in and out of the occupation suggests that the government was not forcibly blocked from carrying out its duties at the refuge, the defense argued.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/28/oregon-militia-standoff-bundy-trial-not-guilty-reactions

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
DigitalJanitor
Dirt hippie



Joined: 20 May 2012
Posts: 792 | TRs | Pics
DigitalJanitor
Dirt hippie
PostFri Oct 28, 2016 4:46 pm 
Again: absolutely no good can come of this. I got dibs on upper Hyas.

~Mom jeans on wheels
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Pyrites
Member
Member


Joined: 16 Sep 2014
Posts: 1880 | TRs | Pics
Location: South Sound
Pyrites
Member
PostFri Oct 28, 2016 4:52 pm 
treeswarper wrote:
Dibs on Walupt Lake!
How do I claim Lake Sekrit, with its population of golden trout, without mentioning the name? Oh the troutmanity.

Keep Calm and Carry On? Heck No. Stay Excited and Get Outside!
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
   All times are GMT - 8 Hours
 Reply to topic
Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > Malheur Occupiers acquitted
  Happy Birthday speyguy, Bandanabraids!
Jump to:   
Search this topic:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum