Forum Index > Stewardship > Malheur Occupiers acquitted
Previous :: Next Topic  
Author Message
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 27 May 2005
Posts: 8307 | TRs
Location: tacoma
Ski
><((((°>
PostThu Nov 03, 2016 12:00 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Klapton wrote:

up.gif  lol.gif  lol.gif  lol.gif  lol.gif  lol.gif  lol.gif  lol.gif  lol.gif  lol.gif  lol.gif  lol.gif  lol.gif  lol.gif  lol.gif  lol.gif  lol.gif  lol.gif  lol.gif  lol.gif  lol.gif  lol.gif  lol.gif  lol.gif  lol.gif  lol.gif  lol.gif  lol.gif  lol.gif  lol.gif  lol.gif  lol.gif  lol.gif

--------------
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. 
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
trestle
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Aug 2008
Posts: 1930 | TRs
Location: the Oly Pen
trestle
Member
PostThu Nov 03, 2016 4:45 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
NacMacFeegle wrote:
A jury isn't necessary for a fair trial.

Amanda Knox might disagree with you. And she's not the only example.

NacMacFeegle wrote:
Other countries do just fine with less use of juries, radically different juries, and no juries at all.

Again, check with Amanda Knox. Again, not the only example.

--------------
"Life favors the prepared." - Edna Mode
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
treeswarper
Alleged Sockpuppet!



Joined: 25 Dec 2006
Posts: 8076 | TRs
Location: Don't move here
treeswarper
Alleged Sockpuppet!
PostThu Nov 03, 2016 5:04 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Does anybody know the caliber of a lawyer that they had?  I did hear that he was tazed on the last day.  But, to cheer me up about this, was it a cheap or spendy attorney?  Can I think that this might be a case where the one with the most money did not win? 

It isn't juries that depress me, it is the system where if you can afford a spendy attorney or team of attorneys, you can get away with crimes, sometimes, or a lesser sentence than those of us with normal finances. 

I'm thinking of taking over the Chelan Forest Service station this summer when it is hot.  I'll charge admission to the lake access.   lol.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
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
RandyHiker
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 5176 | TRs
Location: Greenlake
RandyHiker
Snarky Member
PostThu Nov 03, 2016 7:23 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
The charges brought against the Bundy's for the occupation were for the charge of interfering with Federal officials performing their duty.   The defense made an argument that, since federal officials didn't even attempt to enter the site and perform their duties -- that the Bundy's didn't actually interfere.   

I think the prosecution dropped the ball and should have made a stronger counter argument.   If I'm going to be annoyed with anyone in this case -- it is with the prosecutor.

However I think the main goal of this particular set of charges was to obtain a warrant for the arrest of Bundy and his crew and take them into custody, get them off the refuge and strongly discourage them from attempting any similar actions.   I think those goals have probably been met.

Bundy and his crew are still in custody awaiting trail for the earlier stand off with BLM officials at Cliven Bundy's ranch.   I hope that the prosecutor makes a stronger case during that trial.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
DIYSteve
mere tourist



Joined: 06 Mar 2007
Posts: 11859 | TRs
Location: here now
DIYSteve
mere tourist
PostThu Nov 03, 2016 10:07 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Malachai Constant wrote:
I have to agree I have been in many trials where the jury was far wiser [and] knowledgeable.  .  .  than the Court.

Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Klapton
Member
Member


Joined: 21 Dec 2006
Posts: 928 | TRs

Klapton
Member
PostThu Nov 03, 2016 1:19 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
BigSteve wrote:
Malachai Constant wrote:
I have to agree I have been in many trials where the jury was far wiser [and] knowledgeable.  .  .  than the Court.


I'll see your rich celebrity and raise you some sadistic cops.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6yaeD-E_MY

A better critique of juries would be conviction of someone innocent, rather than acquittal of someone guilty.  Our founders (and I agree with them on this) found it better that a guilty person goes free than any innocent person ever be convicted.  This is the foundation stone of any civilized justice system.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
drm
Member
Member


Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 1199 | TRs
Location: The Dalles, OR
drm
Member
PostSat Nov 05, 2016 7:07 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
The US justice system is designed with the attitude that it is better to acquit the guilty than convict the innocent. I'm not sure that actually works as so many convicted people have been shown to be innocent in recent years as DNA methods became available. I think that for some kinds of cases that are highly technical, judges may administer justice better than juries, but the choice between the two sits with the accused. For all their necessity, juries can be highly flawed but this may result partly from the way juries are chosen. I'm a computer programmer and I've heard that no lawyer would ever let me sit on a jury for their case because I'm not seen as being as easily manipulated by emotion. So the jury selection process could probably use reform. And the way lawyers have learned to play on juries emotions can be a problem. I'm not sure if there is a solution to this or not.

Btw, I think many police charged with various cases of excessive violence have been choosing judges rather than juries recently.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Visit poster's website Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
KekistaniProphet
LOL I WIN



Joined: 25 Sep 2016
Posts: 223 | TRs

KekistaniProphet
LOL I WIN
PostSat Nov 05, 2016 6:48 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
NacMacFeegle wrote:
Malachai Constant wrote:
Nat, while juries can be a pain they are also constitutionally required by the bill of rights. To get rid of them requires a constitutional amendment, not likely.

I realize that, but it's something that needs to happen.

LOL such an idealist. How old are you like 19?
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
drm
Member
Member


Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 1199 | TRs
Location: The Dalles, OR
drm
Member
PostSun Nov 06, 2016 9:00 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Let's also remember that (1) a number of people plead to avoid a trial and thus were guilty, they have not been sentenced yet, and (2) some occupiers who did not plead remain to be tried. The Bundys were the prominent defendants but the Feds now have the opportunity to change the charges against the untried defendants and go with a simpler case, while the Bundy's (including the father) have to deal with the Nevada confrontation case. These are the charrges for the 2014 standoff according to Wikipedia:

  • Conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States – maximum penalty 5 years' imprisonment, $250,000 fine
  • Conspiracy to impede and injure a federal law enforcement officer – 6 years, $250,000 fine
  • Assault on a federal law enforcement officer – 20 years, $250,000 fine
  • Threatening a federal law enforcement officer – 10 years, $250,000 fine
  • Use and carry of a firearm in relation to a crime of violence – 5 years minimum, life sentence maximum, and consecutive
  • Obstruction of the due administration of justice - 10 years, $250,000 fine
  • Interference with interstate commerce by extortion - 20 years, $250,000 fine
  • Interstate travel in aid of extortion – 20 years, $250,000 fine
I wonder if any of these might be adjusted due to the recent acquittal. Still, the standoff was a very different kind of event since authorities were prevented from implementing a lawful court order.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Visit poster's website Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
WANative
Member
Member


Joined: 09 May 2016
Posts: 277 | TRs

WANative
Member
PostSun Nov 06, 2016 8:28 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
drm wrote:
The US justice system is designed with the attitude that it is better to acquit the guilty than convict the innocent. I'm not sure that actually works as so many convicted people have been shown to be innocent in recent years as DNA methods became available. I think that for some kinds of cases that are highly technical, judges may administer justice better than juries, but the choice between the two sits with the accused. For all their necessity, juries can be highly flawed but this may result partly from the way juries are chosen. I'm a computer programmer and I've heard that no lawyer would ever let me sit on a jury for their case because I'm not seen as being as easily manipulated by emotion. So the jury selection process could probably use reform. And the way lawyers have learned to play on juries emotions can be a problem. I'm not sure if there is a solution to this or not.

Btw, I think many police charged with various cases of excessive violence have been choosing judges rather than juries recently.

The system works fine. I think some people just don't agree with the political views of those who were acquitted and wanted to see the government put some hurt on them regardless of whether they did anything wrong or not.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
RandyHiker
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 5176 | TRs
Location: Greenlake
RandyHiker
Snarky Member
PostSun Nov 06, 2016 8:45 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Meanwhile there are over 2 million americans serving long prison terms, many for mearly having small personal amounts weed and other controlled substances.  Weed only became illegal in 1971, when Congress made it schedule 1 (same a heroin) largely IMHO so that anti-war protestors could be locked up.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
DIYSteve
mere tourist



Joined: 06 Mar 2007
Posts: 11859 | TRs
Location: here now
DIYSteve
mere tourist
PostSun Nov 06, 2016 9:14 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
RandyHiker wrote:
Meanwhile there are over 2 million americans serving long prison terms, many for mearly having small personal amounts weed and other controlled substances.  Weed only became illegal in 1971, when Congress made it schedule 1 (same a heroin) largely IMHO so that anti-war protestors could be locked up.

The criminalization of marijuana started long before that. If one were to recite the history of the criminalization of marijuana on this thread, he would be condemned by some for playing the race card. See, e.g., https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/in-theory/wp/2016/04/28/how-racism-and-bias-criminalized-marijuana/
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
WANative
Member
Member


Joined: 09 May 2016
Posts: 277 | TRs

WANative
Member
PostSun Nov 06, 2016 9:27 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
BigSteve wrote:
RandyHiker wrote:
Meanwhile there are over 2 million americans serving long prison terms, many for mearly having small personal amounts weed and other controlled substances.  Weed only became illegal in 1971, when Congress made it schedule 1 (same a heroin) largely IMHO so that anti-war protestors could be locked up.

The criminalization of marijuana started long before that. If one were to recite the history of the criminalization of marijuana on this thread, he would be condemned by some for playing the race card. See, e.g., https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/in-theory/wp/2016/04/28/how-racism-and-bias-criminalized-marijuana/

You can drink alcohol and not get drunk. People smoke weed to get high.

Laws are made against drugs that only get used in order for the person to alter their state of mind.

Are you comfortable with the idea of 4 year old sally and 6 year old Timmy playing in a house where there are bags of weed on the table with their single mother sitting on the couch sparking up a fat bong hit?
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
WANative
Member
Member


Joined: 09 May 2016
Posts: 277 | TRs

WANative
Member
PostSun Nov 06, 2016 9:41 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bj75IkYXJj0

Marshalls tried to intimidate the defense attorney by throwing him on the ground in tazing him.

Here is the video of Lavoy Finicum getting shot and killed. They are even shooting at the vehicle randomly. Notice the young kids excitement with having their vehicle shot at and the driver being killed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cax0ed1PqE0
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 27 May 2005
Posts: 8307 | TRs
Location: tacoma
Ski
><((((°>
PostMon Nov 07, 2016 12:57 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
WAnative wrote:
Laws are made against drugs that only get used in order for the person to alter their state of mind.

errr... you mean like alcohol, right?

dizzy.gif

Randy, weed was outlawed in the late 1930s. if you've never seen it, I'd highly recommend watching "Reefer Madness". Steve mentions one of the primary motivating factors above, which is played up in the movie, that aspect of which had a significant effect on public opinion at the time.

--------------
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. 
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
  Display:     All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Forum Index > Stewardship > Malheur Occupiers acquitted
  Happy Birthday Maria!
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
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
   Use Disclaimer Powered by phpBB Privacy Policy