Bundys Acquitted
October 27, 2016 5:10 PM   Subscribe

 
Oh, no. This is only going to encourage others to do this kind of thing. I'm worried it's going to result in real violence. Well, more than it did this time.

Does anyone with a legal education want to rule in on this? Is this is a 'letter of the law' situation where the law might be interpreted differently or is it transparent jury nullification.
posted by Mitrovarr at 5:12 PM on October 27, 2016 [17 favorites]


Can they be sued for the damage they did? And also, WTF. How do these monsters keep getting away with this kind of shit?

I am feeling a lot of despair right now.
posted by Belle O'Cosity at 5:13 PM on October 27, 2016 [17 favorites]


Good god.

It's going to be moon law all the time now.
posted by rewil at 5:14 PM on October 27, 2016 [28 favorites]


Is there some technicality that matters here? Is there some framing of the actual law that's lost in translation to that summary? Because from that description of what they were charged with, I'm having a hard time understanding how they could be acquitted of doing something that they were on video doing for day after day after day.

Well, they were doing it while being white people.
posted by airish at 5:19 PM on October 27, 2016 [167 favorites]


I'm sitting in a community center in East Portland watching online as these folks walk free from the courthouse downtown. I try to not get disgusted about this kind of thing, but there's really no other response. Unless you're a federal government hatin', gun totin', white Christian militant. Seems to be a good time in history to be a federal government hatin', gun totin', white Christian militant.
posted by vverse23 at 5:20 PM on October 27, 2016 [6 favorites]


This is completely insane.

(That website destroyed chrome on android, id be wary.)
posted by kittensofthenight at 5:20 PM on October 27, 2016 [1 favorite]


Meanwhile in N. Dakota.
posted by adamvasco at 5:20 PM on October 27, 2016 [37 favorites]


Pretty bad timing. Ugh.
posted by AwkwardPause at 5:21 PM on October 27, 2016


they're still due to be tried in nevada in a few months and i really really hope the feds can nail em but this doesn't give me a whole lot of hope
posted by burgerrr at 5:22 PM on October 27, 2016 [3 favorites]


How do these monsters keep getting away with this kind of shit?

whiteness
posted by poffin boffin at 5:22 PM on October 27, 2016 [37 favorites]


Meanwhile:
An attorney for the leader of the occupation at an Oregon wildlife refuge has been hit by a stun gun multiple times and tackled by federal authorities in a courtroom after his client was acquitted.

Ammon Bundy's defense lawyer Marcus Mumford demanded his client be released immediately after Bundy and six others were found not guilty Thursday. Mumford kept yelling at the judge and wouldn't calm down, so U.S. marshals used their stun guns on the attorney and then wrestled him to the floor.
posted by zippy at 5:23 PM on October 27, 2016 [33 favorites]


Armed mayhem is all good constitutional fun if you're wearing a cowboy hat.
posted by Liquidwolf at 5:23 PM on October 27, 2016 [4 favorites]


Is there some technicality that matters here? Is there some framing of the actual law that's lost in translation to that summary?

During the trial, it was revealed that the feds had informants on-site, which the defense used to muddy the reality of whose idea it was to have weapons there, thereby raising a question of whether or not having weapons on-site was the Bundy's intent. Seriously.
posted by Thorzdad at 5:28 PM on October 27, 2016 [45 favorites]


this is what happens when the justice system becomes politicized - verdicts that go against the evidence, juries who won't convict and a system unable to enforce the law

the worst part is that if it had been a bunch of drunken teenagers throwing a kegger there, they'd have all been convicted, even if white

but mention a political belief that the jury pool has sympathy for and you get a free get out of jail card

it's a warning to all of us - there are plenty of political motives around that are attempting to work the system and there is no guarantee that your politics will be the only one to sway the verdicts
posted by pyramid termite at 5:31 PM on October 27, 2016 [11 favorites]


I figure this is kind of a not-unrelated legal blind spot ("technicality") that effectively legalizes bad banker behavior.
posted by rhizome at 5:32 PM on October 27, 2016 [1 favorite]


Behold the garden where I grow my evens, and see that it is bare.

Also, why did they get the lead singer of Mumford and Sons as a lawyer.
posted by jferg at 5:32 PM on October 27, 2016 [15 favorites]


i wonder if there's people in the government that didn't want these people convicted and were willing to twist things so they wouldn't be
posted by pyramid termite at 5:33 PM on October 27, 2016 [1 favorite]


thought exercise: imagine this same exact scenario, including the rhetoric and firearms, with black folk or muslim folk and tell me justice is blind
posted by entropicamericana at 5:33 PM on October 27, 2016 [29 favorites]


I'm reading through what little information has come out and I'm not entirely clear on what precisely they were charged with and why they were found not guilty. Can somebody with a bigger brain break it down for a dumb guy?
posted by Joey Michaels at 5:34 PM on October 27, 2016 [1 favorite]


Not good. As others have said, this will encourage more of these assholes to pull more stunts like this. And the comparison with what's going on in North Dakota is truly sickening. Seeing this on the heels of reading Shane Bauer's Mother Jones piece is very discouraging. I think the aftermath of this election is going to be very ugly and this verdict will not help.
posted by leslies at 5:35 PM on October 27, 2016 [15 favorites]


Who funded the defense?
posted by stinkfoot at 5:38 PM on October 27, 2016 [9 favorites]


At some point someone is going to have to decide the law applies to these fuckers or just cede democracy and the role of law to them in vast tracts of lands. Sadly the latter looks pretty likely.
posted by Artw at 5:38 PM on October 27, 2016 [6 favorites]


This is awful and depressing and horrible.
posted by rtha at 5:41 PM on October 27, 2016 [10 favorites]


Does anyone know if there are plans to prosecute anyone involved for possible violations of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA), or any related acts? When this all went down I assumed there would be some charges on that front due to their mishandling of artifacts and the whole "literally driving a bulldozer through burial grounds" thing, but I haven't heard anything about it since.

This verdict is just absolutely astonishing.
posted by giizhik at 5:45 PM on October 27, 2016 [17 favorites]


If park employees don't carry sidearms now, I have a feeling they soon will.
posted by Thorzdad at 5:47 PM on October 27, 2016 [1 favorite]


The whole thing has been an utter systematic failure where everyone failed to do their jobs from top to bottom, this is like the turd cherry on top of the shit pie.
posted by Artw at 5:48 PM on October 27, 2016 [4 favorites]


I have no more places to put my despair.
posted by firstdrop at 5:49 PM on October 27, 2016 [6 favorites]


This country is going off in two opposing directions at warp speed.
posted by gwint at 5:49 PM on October 27, 2016 [4 favorites]


I worry enormously for my friends and colleagues across the country who go out in all weather, working hard to protect, monitor, manage and learn about the land, water, and air of this nation. They aren't doing it to get rich. They are doing it because they love what they do, and know that is is important work. Even more than it was before, being a federal employee, especially if that means that you have to head out in the field, far from help, means that you have a target on your back. It is really scary.
posted by rockindata at 5:50 PM on October 27, 2016 [51 favorites]


This is heinous. A jury of their peers indeed, and my own sense is that lucky for them they did not get in the way of a massive corporations attempt to monetize the environment.
posted by Phlegmco(tm) at 5:50 PM on October 27, 2016


found White by a jury of their peers
posted by beerperson at 5:51 PM on October 27, 2016 [43 favorites]


During the trial, it was revealed that the feds had informants on-site, which the defense used to muddy the reality of whose idea it was to have weapons there,

That's defensible. in fact, I'd like it if the presence of police provocateurs was also recognized as grounds for acquittal of people who are not white.
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 5:52 PM on October 27, 2016 [29 favorites]


I wonder if the prosecution took a dive on this one -- either in jury selection or in the trial itself.
posted by tclark at 5:52 PM on October 27, 2016 [1 favorite]


That article inexplicably fails to mention a super weird thing that happened yesterday, and seems like it must shed some light (murky, perhaps) on what seems to me like an utterly irrational verdict: during deliberations, a juror was removed from the case for bias (he had previously been employed by the Bureau of Land Management) after another juror complained to the judge.
posted by dersins at 6:01 PM on October 27, 2016 [10 favorites]


They were acquitted of breaking laws that they clearly (with video and photo evidence) broke. That they openly and publicly declared they were breaking.

This follows with the same court's earlier decisions re Water being Wet (overturned on a technicality), Up Being Not Down (acquittal, and Down was charged court fees), and Fire Being Hot (mistrial).

That, or, fuck. Fuck everything. This is beyond fucking ridiculous. It's like the beginning of some stupid action movie (cough Walking Tall cough) where the corrupt judges let the bad guys off even though they were clearly guilty. Except it's not, it's real fucking life, and our real fucking life is as bad as a goddamn Joe Don Baker movie. I can't stop trying to equate it to bad fiction because it's so absurd on it's face that I would prefer a different reality, please.
posted by Ghidorah at 6:01 PM on October 27, 2016 [33 favorites]


I wonder if the prosecution took a dive on this one -- either in jury selection or in the trial itself

That or couldn't be arsed/incompetent, much like law enforcement.
posted by Artw at 6:02 PM on October 27, 2016 [3 favorites]


"United States Attorney for the District of Oregon Billy J. Williams reacted to the decision on Thursday saying, “While we had hoped for a different outcome, we respect the verdict of the jury and thank them for their dedicated service during this long and difficult trial.” "

The Bunkerville trial is coming up in February. That'll be the big one.

"A total of 19 defendants, including Bundy patriarch Cliven Bundy and four of his sons, were indicted by a federal grand jury in the Bunkerville standoff. They were charged with conspiring to assault BLM agents on April 12, 2014, and taking back impounded Bundy cattle that had been grazing on federal land.
posted by the Real Dan at 6:02 PM on October 27, 2016 [2 favorites]


What about the final four holdouts?
posted by dhens at 6:04 PM on October 27, 2016


Brain.exe has stopped working. Switching to auxiliary potato now.
posted by Flippervault at 6:05 PM on October 27, 2016 [26 favorites]


Is there some technicality that matters here?

WHen they excluded a juror the other day, there was something about how the jury wasn't free to acquit some defendants and convict others, which I don't understand, but maybe this had something to do with the verdict?
posted by thelonius at 6:05 PM on October 27, 2016


If they didn't do anything illegal they should give them their guns back and drop them back off at the wildlife center to keep doing their legal activities.
posted by 445supermag at 6:06 PM on October 27, 2016 [18 favorites]


I was just worried the the Clinton administration would be obstructed by a hard line Republican house. Didn't think about a repeat of things like Waco and Oklahoma City. This does not bode well.
posted by Bee'sWing at 6:07 PM on October 27, 2016


Jebus H Fucking Christ on a flaming bike, America.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 6:08 PM on October 27, 2016 [4 favorites]


There's one way to at least make it not repeat at that particular location.

Offer the Reserve to the Paiutes.

They never gave up their claim to the land. Not a single one of them was willing to sign on the line that is dotted, for over a 100 years. All it takes is one bill in Congress and the Reserve is theirs.
posted by ocschwar at 6:10 PM on October 27, 2016 [20 favorites]


no, it doesn't bode well - someone, even possibly the bundys, are going to conclude that they can get away with this sort of thing - and i'm afraid that the feds are going to conclude that they might as well use their police privilege card and shoot the next bunch, betting that they won't be convicted either

i wouldn't want to be the bundys right now - their continued existence is becoming inconvenient to some people
posted by pyramid termite at 6:11 PM on October 27, 2016 [6 favorites]


There are no words. Okay, maybe there's one word, and that word is FUCK.
posted by palmcorder_yajna at 6:12 PM on October 27, 2016 [9 favorites]


someone, even possibly the bundys, are going to conclude that they can get away with this sort of thing

Well, it's not like they would be wrong, is it.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 6:13 PM on October 27, 2016 [13 favorites]


Somewhere in the shadows, Peter Thiel is laughing his ass off.

Soon everything will be for sale.
posted by Yowser at 6:19 PM on October 27, 2016 [2 favorites]


i wouldn't want to be the bundys right now - their continued existence is becoming inconvenient to some people


Fuck them, they're going to be absolutely fine in all circumstances, barring massive overconfidence, and everyone has hent over backwards to see that does hurt them so far. Care about everyone else they impact.
posted by Artw at 6:20 PM on October 27, 2016 [5 favorites]


I hope more information comes out soon about why the case collapsed so dramatically. Right now there just doesn't seem to be much to go on in the articles I have read.
posted by Dip Flash at 6:20 PM on October 27, 2016 [2 favorites]


From the News & Observer:

On technical grounds, the defendants said they never discussed stopping individual workers from accessing their offices but merely wanted the land and the buildings. On emotional grounds, Ammon Bundy and other defendants argued that the takeover was an act of civil disobedience against an out-of-control federal government that has crippled the rural West...

He said the plan was to take ownership of the refuge by occupying it for a period of time and then turn it over to local officials to use as they saw fit.

Bundy also testified that the occupiers carried guns because they would have been arrested immediately otherwise and to protect themselves against possible government attack.

posted by RobotVoodooPower at 6:20 PM on October 27, 2016 [3 favorites]


the feds had informants on-site, which the defense used to muddy the reality of whose idea it was to have weapons there,

looking forward to every domestic GWOT conviction being overturned shortly
posted by BinGregory at 6:22 PM on October 27, 2016 [8 favorites]


goddamn, it's good to be white....
posted by photoslob at 6:23 PM on October 27, 2016 [3 favorites]


I wonder if the prosecution took a dive on this one ... That or couldn't be arsed/incompetent

Unless we have some actual evidence that can be produced suggesting prosecutorial misconduct or ineptitude, can we refrain from badmouthing them, especially if one has only read a single, very light on detail article? The situation inside the courthouse spun out of control in ways the prosecutor didn't really have control over and when that happens, juries can deliver wacky results.

The defendants basically argued for jury nullification, which is pretty popular in these parts.. sometimes that means that bad guys are going to get away with things too.
posted by Candleman at 6:25 PM on October 27, 2016 [16 favorites]


This could have more impact on the remaining years of the Union than a hundred dunderheaded SCOTUS decisions.
posted by Jessica Savitch's Coke Spoon at 6:28 PM on October 27, 2016 [3 favorites]


Bundy also testified that the occupiers carried guns because they would have been arrested immediately otherwise

Well, yes.
posted by Artw at 6:29 PM on October 27, 2016 [10 favorites]




Didn't they try to escape? There has to be consequences for that.
posted by robocop is bleeding at 6:31 PM on October 27, 2016


Sounds like jury nullification. One of the charges was very simple -- possession of firearms within a federal facility. They had pictures and videos of them with guns in the building, about as clear cut as you can get. Conspiracy charges are always dicey, but the possession of firearms charge was not. The jury simply nullified the law.

It will be interesting if they can get some juror interviews.
posted by JackFlash at 6:32 PM on October 27, 2016 [9 favorites]


Justice does not exist.
posted by tobascodagama at 6:32 PM on October 27, 2016 [4 favorites]


I am astonished.
posted by interrobang at 6:34 PM on October 27, 2016


Is nullification legal in Oregon? Some states specifically disallow it.
posted by Thorzdad at 6:34 PM on October 27, 2016 [2 favorites]


OPB This Land Is Our Land

Is a podcast series that followed the trial and offers many insights and reporting on the proceedings.
posted by phoque at 6:34 PM on October 27, 2016 [10 favorites]


Unless we have some actual evidence that can be produced suggesting prosecutorial misconduct or ineptitude, can we refrain from badmouthing them, especially if one has only read a single, very light on detail article?

Ah, chill out. Being an utterly incompetent moron who is incapable of doing their job isn't a crime, and let's face it everyone involved was probably white so they'd get away with it if it was anyway.
posted by Artw at 6:37 PM on October 27, 2016 [4 favorites]


Although, I am glad to see the proud tradition of Sovereign Citizens being tased has been upheld. I hope that gets worked in to Moon Law somehow. "I am a Free Man travelling across the land! Now anoint my freedom with electricity!"
posted by robocop is bleeding at 6:39 PM on October 27, 2016 [21 favorites]


Civil disobedience means accepting the consequences of breaking the law in the pursuit of higher justice. As Thoreau said:
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison.
These scoundrels aren't interested in civil disobedience or justice. They want to flout the law with impunity, and in this case, sadly, they got what they wanted.
posted by audi alteram partem at 6:43 PM on October 27, 2016 [23 favorites]


I would accept "not guilty by reason of insanity".
posted by jabo at 6:46 PM on October 27, 2016 [1 favorite]


During the trial, it was revealed that the feds had informants on-site

Well, that's just ducky. On the other hand, maybe it will take a little air out of the tires of future aspirants toward RWNJ stunts if they're always wondering if there's a Judas in their own ranks.
posted by Halloween Jack at 6:55 PM on October 27, 2016


What the everliving fuck.
posted by Skorgu at 6:56 PM on October 27, 2016


During the trial, it was revealed that the feds had informants on-site, which the defense used to muddy the reality of whose idea it was to have weapons there, thereby raising a question of whether or not having weapons on-site was the Bundy's intent.

i.e. Entrapment?


Is there some technicality that matters here?

i.e. Did procedural due process work here?


(NB: I don't like these dickheads either but, geez, how 'bout a little intellectual honesty?)
posted by ZenMasterThis at 6:58 PM on October 27, 2016 [3 favorites]


It is not in any way feasible whatsoever that these idiots required FBI provocation to keep their guns with them whilst on their extended crime spree.
posted by Artw at 7:00 PM on October 27, 2016 [16 favorites]


Halloween Jack: "During the trial, it was revealed that the feds had informants on-site

Well, that's just ducky. On the other hand, maybe it will take a little air out of the tires of future aspirants toward RWNJ stunts if they're always wondering if there's a Judas in their own ranks.
"

Why would it? Having a federal informant is a get out jail free card. A smart leader would actively recruit informants while keeping them isolated in a high security informant cells.
posted by Mitheral at 7:00 PM on October 27, 2016 [4 favorites]


intellectual honesty? they had guns - i saw with my own eyes that they had guns - YOU saw with your own eyes they had guns

having guns where they had guns wasn't legal

due process? are we allowed to process reality in this country anymore?
posted by pyramid termite at 7:02 PM on October 27, 2016 [11 favorites]


Is nullification legal in Oregon? Some states specifically disallow it.

I don't think any state disallows it, or can explicitly disallow it without second-guessing the verdict of the jury. Usually courts discourage it by not including it in juror instructions, and for filtering potential nullifiers during jury selection. There's also an earlier thread that might be interesting.
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 7:04 PM on October 27, 2016 [3 favorites]


It's worth noting that the Bundy patriarch has a million dollars in unpaid grazing fees to all other American ranchers having $200,00ish. Hopefully he's the outlier, and most ranchers will work in the system.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 7:09 PM on October 27, 2016 [1 favorite]


John Sepulvado (who reported extensively on the occupation) doesn't mince words in reaction on twitter.

Asked if the verdict hurt his heart a little bit, responds
I stopped reporting on this because I couldn't be "fair." I saw many of these guys as thugs and dummies. So yes, 💔

Another response
It seems to me the message here is be white, armed to the teeth, and inspired by God, and you can do whatever you want.

Other initial reaction
I didn't think they would be convicted outside of Ryan Bundy and Ammon. The government had a really horrible case. Did awful presenting it
and thought
The US DOJ contacted me and OPB halfway through to get me to testify. It was pretty clear at that point the govt had no idea what to do


The informant was assigned to oversee the shooting range.
posted by phoque at 7:12 PM on October 27, 2016 [4 favorites]


Between this, Standing Rock, and some Confederate flag hijinks at my Indiana high school, I think it may be time to step away from the internet, because I keep thinking about the utility of firearms, and I hate guns.
posted by mwhybark at 7:13 PM on October 27, 2016 [5 favorites]


Well fuck it! There are no fucking laws! Who cares!


*moons nun, steals Camaro, rubs Chicago-style Italian beef sandwich all over naked chest*
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 7:13 PM on October 27, 2016 [17 favorites]


It seems to me the message here is be white, armed to the teeth, and inspired by God, and you can do whatever you want.

What's that, Lord?
posted by mwhybark at 7:14 PM on October 27, 2016 [4 favorites]


The Bundy's go to trial in February in Nevada for the Bundy Ranch standoff. If the Feds can't get a conviction in Portland, Oregon, what do you think the chances are in Nevada?
posted by JackFlash at 7:15 PM on October 27, 2016 [7 favorites]


*moons nun, steals Camaro, rubs Chicago-style Italian beef sandwich all over naked chest*

Celebrating a Penn State victory? I think you're in the clear.
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 7:15 PM on October 27, 2016 [10 favorites]


I don't see how it is possible the government could fail to present enough evidence to justify the charge of "having guns in a federal facility" (YouTube would suffice to prove this without any doubt), so this has to have been jury nullification. Which sadly doesn't surprise me.
posted by thefoxgod at 7:19 PM on October 27, 2016 [7 favorites]


There are a lot more right wingers in Portland, and in Oregon, than Portlandia might lead you to believe. They're not that different from Nevada is my guess.
posted by Bee'sWing at 7:19 PM on October 27, 2016 [7 favorites]


Jury nullification is constitutional (it is certainly not illegal in certain states) and is not new, having a long and storied and sometimes very depressing and horrible (this, freeing of white defendants who were obviously guilty of lynching murders) but other times very awesome and great (refusal to convict under the Fugitive Slave Act, refusal to convict anti-war demonstrators during Vietnam) history in the U.S.

This is a bad, bad, dumb, shitty verdict, and it will send a bad message to people, and put federal workers more in danger than they already are, and all of those things - yes. But it is not some new awfulness, or a sign our justice system is collapsing. It's the newest application of an old remedy (that remains very controversial in the legal system).
posted by sallybrown at 7:22 PM on October 27, 2016 [19 favorites]


How does jury nullification work? It's the idea that the jury can think someone broke the law but shouldn't be punished, correct? How does a jury get to that conclusion in a case like this?
posted by gucci mane at 7:30 PM on October 27, 2016


David Fry? Confused guy with the phone? Did he plead guilty previously like those others?

Nope! He's one of the Lucky Seven.
posted by notyou at 7:33 PM on October 27, 2016


From the WaPo account, it seems they had a skillful lawyer and the prosecution must have been pretty lame. The story also has more details on the swapped jury member.
posted by binturong at 7:34 PM on October 27, 2016


How does jury nullification work? It's the idea that the jury can think someone broke the law but shouldn't be punished, correct? How does a jury get to that conclusion in a case like this?

One way to think of it is as an expression of a community's strong belief that the conduct that occurred should not be against the law, or at least does not deserve whatever the given penalty is. It's a strong sign of differing values between the judicial system and the community, as represented on the jury. (John Peter Zenger's trial for libel is one of the earliest examples in what's now the US.)

It's also not black and white - maybe some of these jurors actually didn't believe the defendants did the things the prosecution outlined. Maybe others did, and thought it was mildly wrong, but thought they didn't deserve jail time for it. Maybe some went full-on jury nullification.

I do wonder what voir dire was like that they ended up with this particular jury.
posted by sallybrown at 7:43 PM on October 27, 2016 [10 favorites]


Skillful lawyer? I thought Amon Bundy was representing himself? Didn't I see just a few days ago a "legal filing" from Bundy going step by step through standard SovCit bullshit about secret bank accounts and the US government being a corporation?

I'm shocked and appalled. If there was ever an open and shut case this was it, they **LITERALLY** had videos on YouTube of the criminals committing their crimes.

I mean, I've known for a long time that the criminal justice system has different standards for white people and black people, but this sort of blatant "you're white, heavily armed, and Christian so do whatever you want" shit is new to me.

It reminds me of the bad old days when all white juries in the South would acquit blatantly guilty white people of any crime the committed against black people.

Fuck this jury nullification shit. If it really is a legal thing, its just like the filibuster: more bullshit that helps the enemy but we don't get to use for our cause.

There's men from Tulia Texas still in prison and doing hard time for trumped up drug charges on nothing but the word of a white cop who is known to have lied in every testimony he ever gave. Yet the Bundy assholes walk free.

What the actual fuck America?
posted by sotonohito at 7:43 PM on October 27, 2016 [25 favorites]


@JohnLGC: They sent me an email - an email - saying my testimony was gonna make their case. About a week before they rested. First time contacting me.

Sounds like the prosecution was pretty bad. Should have sent the A-team that they get to convict Muslim teenagers that push fake "detonate" buttons.
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 7:45 PM on October 27, 2016 [4 favorites]


During the trial, it was revealed that the feds had informants on-site, which the defense used to muddy the reality of whose idea it was to have weapons there, thereby raising a question of whether or not having weapons on-site was the Bundy's intent. Seriously.

Given the FBI's history of hand-holding compete incompetents through the process of getting radicalized up through planning an attack and only then swooping in and charging them with full-blown terrorism... I'm not entirely unsympathetic to giving them a gimlet eye on that sort of thing. Of course the fact that this only seems to matter now that it's a buncha white dudes is a whole other matter.

We know someone in the FBI who is going to be working on the Bunkerville trial. Before they left this area to move back to their old home in Nevada they were talking about how they were going to have to get a security system and beef up the house in anticipation of possible threats. Their girls are six and three.
posted by phearlez at 7:45 PM on October 27, 2016 [4 favorites]


I was sorta making a joke with David Fry, but if the jury was tasked with convicting all or none, I can see how they might look at a guy like Fry and say WTF, the only thing he conspired to do was get his data cap lifted.
posted by notyou at 7:48 PM on October 27, 2016 [3 favorites]


Fuck this jury nullification shit. If it really is a legal thing, its just like the filibuster: more bullshit that helps the enemy but we don't get to use for our cause.

Not so.
posted by phearlez at 7:48 PM on October 27, 2016 [3 favorites]


Let's just declare open season on federal employees! That would be great!

The unintended effect of this verdict then is going to be for first line managers of federal employees to send their workers in, even in the face of armed militias hot for their blood, because otherwise, what evidence is there to convict?

I'm sorry - has the judge and the jury taken total leave of their senses?
posted by newdaddy at 7:48 PM on October 27, 2016


maybe some of these jurors actually didn't believe the defendants did the things the prosecution outlined

I don't see how thats possible if they were mentally competent. From what I read the government did at least show some of the video, which clearly shows them "possessing firearms in a federal facility".

The conspiracy charge stuff --- ehh, mayybe I could be convinced the jury didn't buy it. But the possession charge?
posted by thefoxgod at 7:49 PM on October 27, 2016


I'm angry because I'm afraid.

Very bad people who wish to do me and those I love harm are empowered, armed, emboldened, and now seemingly immune to the law. Already they can "stand their ground" and murder my wife or child with impunity. Already they can carry guns everywhere, intimidating everyone and making us fear for our lives, and this is held by the government to be a sacred right.

I am afraid because I think the country is falling apart and I fear that if it does me and my family will be murdered by our kind and loving neighbors. I have read about Rwanda, Bosnia, and I do not doubt for an instant that it can happen here too.

I am afraid because now, thanks to this incomprehensible and appalling decision, every right wing militia member will feel emboldened and secure in their belief that they are immune from the law. And I am afraid because they are right.

For the first time since George Zimmerman was acquitted I am seriously wondering if I should have fled the country long ago. And I know I don't have the money or in demand skills to flee now. We're stuck here, not even in a good place but in fucking Texas, and there is no way my family will ever have the money it takes to move again.

We had our chance and we moved to San Antonio instead of somewhere safe, somewhere that the gun carriers don't rule, somewhere that the militias don't have all the power.

Why the fuck did I ever think staying in Texas was a good idea?
posted by sotonohito at 7:53 PM on October 27, 2016 [29 favorites]


Skillful lawyer? I thought Amon Bundy was representing himself?

Yes, and he apparently knew his audience. Well, he spent three days persuading them. From the National Post article:

"Federal prosecutors took two weeks to present their case, finishing with a display of more than 30 guns seized after the standoff. An FBI agent testified that 16,636 live rounds and nearly 1,700 spent casings were found.

Bundy testified in his defence, spending three days amplifying his belief that government overreach is destroying Western communities that rely on the land.

Bundy also testified that the occupiers carried guns because they would have been arrested immediately otherwise and to protect themselves against possible government attack."
posted by binturong at 7:54 PM on October 27, 2016 [2 favorites]


If the Feds can't get a conviction in Portland, Oregon, what do you think the chances are in Nevada?

Having been called for both local and federal jury duty -- and the proceedings in Nevada are federal -- I can tell you it's a night and day difference. I'm not surprised the lawyer threw a temper tantrum about getting his peeps released into the wild after this verdict because it's really their last chance. The feds don't bother bringing a case unless it is wrapped in iron and plutonium. Their selection pool for jurors is wider and their criteria are different. It won't end up the same way.
posted by Bringer Tom at 7:55 PM on October 27, 2016 [8 favorites]


maybe some of these jurors actually didn't believe the defendants did the things the prosecution outlined

I don't see how thats possible if they were mentally competent.


I don't know these jurors, so I won't cast aspersions on them in particular, but if you've served on a jury, you know it's not always an assembly of the sharpest knives in the drawer. It would have benefited the defense to assemble a jury made up of conspiracy nuts and anti-feds and those kind of people very much do end up on juries.
posted by sallybrown at 7:55 PM on October 27, 2016 [3 favorites]


These criminal fucks just got away with an armed occupation of a federal site and will not for even one second stop believing themselves to be the poor, downtrodden, misunderstood and much abused martyr that is the heavily armed and shit-ignorant white terrorist.
posted by EatTheWeek at 7:59 PM on October 27, 2016 [16 favorites]


I don't know these jurors, so I won't cast aspersions on them in particular
... It would have benefited the defense to assemble a jury made up of conspiracy nuts and anti-feds and those kind of people very much do end up on juries.


I think you may actually have cast aspersions, but there's no shame here, own it!
posted by mwhybark at 8:02 PM on October 27, 2016


Having been called for both local and federal jury duty -- and the proceedings in Nevada are federal -- I can tell you it's a night and day difference.

The Oregon trial was a federal prosecution, just as it will be in Nevada. Federal judge and federal prosecutors. No difference from Oregon.
posted by JackFlash at 8:08 PM on October 27, 2016 [3 favorites]


I wonder if Timothy McVeigh would have been convicted had he not killed children.

This is why judges are so skittish about jury nullification. It's practically never used to acquit medical marijuana users. It's pretty much only used to acquit white terrorists, especially ones who kill black people.

That right-wing terrorism is legal has been re-affirmed today. God help us on November 8th and beyond.
posted by dirigibleman at 8:11 PM on October 27, 2016 [26 favorites]


How does jury nullification work? It's the idea that the jury can think someone broke the law but shouldn't be punished, correct? How does a jury get to that conclusion in a case like this?
What it boils down to is that a jury cannot be punished for finding a "wrong" verdict. There is no such thing, the verdict is what the jury says it is.
posted by Hatashran at 8:11 PM on October 27, 2016 [4 favorites]


i'm afraid that the feds are going to conclude that they might as well use their police privilege card and shoot the next bunch

They shot some of this bunch. Finicum is in the ground.

Why the fuck did I ever think staying in Texas was a good idea?

Buffalo, man. If you can find a job and just want to be a boring grownup, this place is fucking paradise. Yeah, the Mexican food kinda blows, but OTOH we have pierogi. Like, a whole freezer section of the supermarket, with its own little sign like the PIZZA and ICE CREAM have. O brave new world!
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 8:13 PM on October 27, 2016 [4 favorites]


Jury of their peers, indeed.

Fucking bullshit.
posted by MysticMCJ at 8:23 PM on October 27, 2016 [2 favorites]


Man, I gotta buy a hat and move to Oregon. You can get away with ANYTHING there.
posted by valkane at 8:23 PM on October 27, 2016 [3 favorites]


They shot some of this bunch. Finicum is in the ground.

Finicum is dead because he had a gun, showed people his gun, threatened to kill law enforcement officers, publicised his and gun and his threats, ran through a roadblaock, attempted to run over officers, and then reached for his gun during an arrest - not once, but three times.

The authorities in this case went far and above the usual steps to not kill these idiots.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 8:26 PM on October 27, 2016 [43 favorites]


I would have liked to see them charged and punished for trashing the place and illegally excavating, if nothing else. Some of the charges seem like a stretch, or maybe just heavy handed way -- conspiracy? Really?

That the charges were all or nothing for the whole group surprises me, also. I can easily see a jury thinking that some of them were guilty but that others were not. Is that a common approach?

I'd love to see the use of provocateurs ended generally, though I don't know if it is clear in this case if the government was using provocateurs or just under cover agents and informants
posted by Dip Flash at 8:35 PM on October 27, 2016 [2 favorites]


Some of the charges seem like a stretch, or maybe just heavy handed way -- conspiracy? Really?

Conspiracy just means they made a plan. Which, I mean, clearly not much of one, but still.
posted by dersins at 8:41 PM on October 27, 2016 [2 favorites]


Another half a day, another shockingly open demonstration of the power of White Privilege in America.
posted by TwoStride at 8:42 PM on October 27, 2016 [3 favorites]


I gotta buy a hat and move to Oregon. You can get away with ANYTHING there.

Or New Jersey. (Everything is legal in New Jersey.)

Except, as in Oregon, pumping your own gas. Hmm. There must be a connection.
posted by rokusan at 8:46 PM on October 27, 2016 [10 favorites]


I really did not think it would go this way. I'm sure i said as much in some of the threads. I was wrong.
posted by mountmccabe at 8:49 PM on October 27, 2016 [3 favorites]


Welp. I was already having that evening where I was having impulse control issues. I suppose I may as well add this frustration to 'em.
posted by Archelaus at 8:50 PM on October 27, 2016


rubs Chicago-style Italian beef sandwich all over naked chest*

Hot peppers, or sweet?
posted by hwyengr at 8:55 PM on October 27, 2016 [3 favorites]


Both, and a side of mashed potatoes.
posted by Rat Spatula at 8:59 PM on October 27, 2016 [1 favorite]


The conspiracy charge stuff --- ehh, mayybe I could be convinced the jury didn't buy it. But the possession charge?

The charge was possession with intent to do a criminal act. The criminal act here was the conspiracy stuff. So if the conspiracy charge is unsuccessful, they can't be guilty of the firearms charge.
posted by jpe at 9:03 PM on October 27, 2016 [2 favorites]


Michele Fiore NOT GUILTY!!! YES YES YES OUR COWBOYS "THE BUNDYS" IN OREGON NOT NOT GUILTY NOT GUILTY!!! VERDICT IN... YES YES YES WE WIN!!!

Kirk Siegler Nev. State Rep. Michelle Fiore just told me the verdict is a message that Americans need to stand up to unlawful behavior by govt employees"
posted by phoque at 9:05 PM on October 27, 2016 [3 favorites]


My other worry, now that I've taken a few minutes to turn my brain off "low simmer" is: if we demonstrate that the justice system can't deal with these kinds of crimes in a way that produces convictions, after we make the effort to not have a shootout, what incentive is there for the enforcement end of the law to avoid the shootout next time?

I mean, those guys have -got- to be pretty incensed. I know I am, and I didn't have to put myself in danger so these jackasses could be properly charged.
posted by Archelaus at 9:12 PM on October 27, 2016 [2 favorites]


Serious question here: how does one draw a line from Waco and Ruby Ridge to the Bundys? It's like no middle ground can exist between "Feds kill people to end standoff" and "white militants get off scot-free."
posted by xyzzy at 10:24 PM on October 27, 2016 [5 favorites]


[...] what incentive is there for the enforcement end of the law to avoid the shootout next time?

I mean, those guys have -got- to be pretty incensed. [...]
posted by Archelaus


Archelaus "the time that fucker what's-his-face walked" is as common a story to cops as "the time that table of 8 fuckers didn't leave me a tip" is to waiters. I know a number of cops/corrections and they've all had an attitude of "fuckin' juries dude... eh, what're you gonna do?" that started shortly after they got out of the academy.

Yes, knowing cops & corrections (and having both in my family) has always made me more cautious/skeptical/critical of cops instead of less, and even as a small child I was told (by officers) this was the right way to think.
posted by Hiding From Goro at 10:35 PM on October 27, 2016 [3 favorites]


Serious question here: how does one draw a line from Waco and Ruby Ridge to the Bundys? It's like no middle ground can exist between "Feds kill people to end standoff" and "white militants get off scot-free."
posted by xyzzy


xyzzy one draws the line by doing things by the book and pleading it out, and failing that bringing one's A game to jury selection because as we've seen many times juries are unpredictable. Note that there can be some... collateral damage (to minorities and the poor) when doing it this way, as we can also see when we look at the Machine as It exists today. There's an old saying that it's better 100 guilty men go free than 1 innocent man is jailed, maybe these are part of the 100? Jury nullification is a thing I'd like to see more of, in fact, especially in cases where the jury can send a strong message about equality and systemic unfairness. Of course, that's exactly the message they sent, only they sent it supporting the side I disagree with.

Then again I'm the wrong guy to ask. I'm the one who works for prison reform, after all. I'd have been the guy leading the charge to make sure these Oregon guys got spared the abuses often found in our prisons, and got treated the way they deserve to be treated.

No, this doesn't mean that I agree with their actions or beliefs- just like I don't agree with the actions or beliefs of most of the inmates whose rights I strive to protect (and increase).

This case is a good example of what you're really getting yourself into if you've read some of my posts are thinking about getting into the fight WRT prison reform.

You see, not all of the people you will be fighting for are weedsmokers or wrongly convicted. Many are convicted of serious offenses from arson to rape to being a straight-up hitman for a drug cartel or the Aryan Brotherhood. And all that's without even scratching the surface of offenses involving small children, fatal or otherwise. Some of these inmates have done things you wouldn't fucking believe. I know this because even after all these years behind prison walls (on both sides of the bars) there are offenses that I don't fucking believe, until I see the file or (more commonly) hear it from the inmate's mouth or the victim's mother's mouth.

This is a point I have been wanting to make ever since some of you expressed interest in my prison posts here and/or my posts from the SA forums, and the point is this:

Join the fight. We need the help, and we love you for even caring enough to ask. But remember while some of these inmates got screwed and shouldn't be here, there are also a lot of inmates who did unbelievable violence and much of it was for pay, gang-related, hate-related, extreme sex crime related, or much worse. Also there might be some Oregon militia members along with the serial pedophiles, violent racist extremist killers, Mexican Mafia shot-callers and Nazi Low-Riders contract killers, etc...

The fight is not to support those offenses, it's to support how inmates are treated in general, and to protect the ability of people to join this fight (even if by jury nullification).

Are you still in?
posted by Hiding From Goro at 11:47 PM on October 27, 2016 [37 favorites]


Fuck this jury nullification shit. If it really is a legal thing, its just like the filibuster: more bullshit that helps the enemy but we don't get to use for our cause.

Not so.


And what color is the guy in that video?

Jury nullification, like the filibuster, has historically functioned almost exclusively in favor of white people. Citing Reason of all sources doesn't exactly work against that fact.

(The possession charge was possession in the commission of a crime, so needed them to be found guilty on the conspiracy charge, AFAIHR)
posted by PMdixon at 11:53 PM on October 27, 2016 [1 favorite]


Conspiracy just means they made a plan. Which, I mean, clearly not much of one, but still.

I can see getting the Bundy's on that one, because they are scheming grifters with ambitions. But some of those other sad sacks couldn't conspire to tie their own shoes, and definitely not in the colloquial sense of "conspiracy" as an actual criminal enterprise.

From the small amount of information available, it sounds like they stacked the charges in a way that would have maximized jail time but didn't work out, while skipping what seem like more obviously slam dunk charges on lesser issues.
posted by Dip Flash at 1:43 AM on October 28, 2016 [2 favorites]


OMG, padlock the John Deere!
posted by clavdivs at 1:56 AM on October 28, 2016 [1 favorite]


Fuck this jury nullification shit. If it really is a legal thing, its just like the filibuster: more bullshit that helps the enemy but we don't get to use for our cause.

I sat on a jury that was a mere two votes short of voting for nullification, for good cause and reason, because the defendant was being railroaded by a prosecutor out to put another notch in his belt of convictions.

There's a huge difference between nullification and a jury simply not buying the prosecution's story. Nullification exclusively deals with a situation where a jury believes the actual law being used by the prosecution is unjust. It has nothing to do with whether they think the prosecutor made their case. The jury must be unanimous in their opinion that the law is unjust or in error.

Eliminating nullification would serve to open the door to even more shit-crazy laws by legislatures.
posted by Thorzdad at 3:36 AM on October 28, 2016 [2 favorites]


Yeah, but see Thorzad, your jury was two votes short. Because nullification, like the filibuster, isn't something we're allowed to benefit from.

Maybe, possibly, you can dig up one or two cases where it helped the good guys. But the main function of the filibuster and jury nullification is to empower the bad guys.

If you could show me parity I might be able to swallow a bitter pill and go along with jury nullification. But there isn't parity.

Look at the pipeline protesters. Do you think they'll benefit from jury nullification?

I say of course not. They're not white, they're not right wing, they're not gun fans, they'll be convicted and sent to prison for very long prison sentences. Nullification won't even be a possibility.

The notion that possibly, if we hope hard enough, if we get really super mega lucky, this horrible thing that only helps the enemy and exists only to harm us might, possibly, be used to our advantage is the political equivalent of the poor person defending tax cuts for the rich by hoping that one day they'll be rich too.

Jury nullification will never help people like us. Hoping that it will is just empowering our abusers.
posted by sotonohito at 4:18 AM on October 28, 2016 [3 favorites]


I don't see how nullification could be eliminated. Once the jury acquits, the case is over regardless of why the jury acquitted.
posted by jpe at 4:29 AM on October 28, 2016


Yeah, but see Thorzad, your jury was two votes short. Because nullification, like the filibuster, isn't something we're allowed to benefit from.

We were two votes short only because we had two law-n-order jurors (and they hated the law, too). We ended-up hung on one of the seven counts, and acquitted on the rest. Jury Nullification is written into Indiana's Constitution. It's not something a jury can just do. It has to be legally allowed.
posted by Thorzdad at 4:44 AM on October 28, 2016 [1 favorite]


I don't see how nullification could be eliminated. Once the jury acquits, the case is over regardless of why the jury acquitted.

No, but valorization of it by the left could (but probably won't) be.
posted by PMdixon at 4:55 AM on October 28, 2016


. It's not something a jury can just do. It has to be legally allowed.

It's definitely something a jury can just do. It's an inherent power of the jury: the jury can acquit for whatever reason it wants, and the judge can't order a retrial or punish the jurors.

If it's allowed in some jurisdictions, that likely just means that it can be raised at trial. Otherwise, nullification can't be raised by counsel and doing so could be grounds for a mistrial, the attorney can be sanctioned, etc.

But there's no way to stop a jury from nullifying.
posted by jpe at 5:13 AM on October 28, 2016 [5 favorites]




I was really hoping to come back here this morning and find a well reasoned answer by one of the brighter MeFite legal minds as to why this happened and after reading to the bottom I'm still at a loss. Angry entitled white men will wake up this morning emboldened that they can ignore the rule of law however they see fit. I'm not even outraged any more. Just confused and sad.
posted by photoslob at 6:18 AM on October 28, 2016 [14 favorites]


The Oregon trial was a federal prosecution, just as it will be in Nevada. Federal judge and federal prosecutors. No difference from Oregon.

Ah, I had not been following the whole thing closely and didn't realize this. That explains the ... indirectness of the charges I suppose. This was really a very uncharacteristically weak case for a federal prosecution then. Conspiracy is more of a rider than a charge of its own, as it requires the conspirators to commit another crime, and the weapons charge is going to be iffy in any part of the country where there is a lot of NRA flag-waving activity. I'm surprised they couldn't come up with more charges considering the amount of damage the occupiers did at Malheur. But I guess most of that falls more under state law.
posted by Bringer Tom at 6:24 AM on October 28, 2016


The only good thing I've heard so far regarding this is that a lot of hunters are upset about the whole thing. One guy interviewed on NPR said he couldn't afford 50 thousand dollars to go hunting on a private ranch and hunting on public lands was his only option. Hunters can be a pretty active constituency when they feel their rights are threatened, so definitely a good group to have lobbying against these jackasses. Otherwise this is horrible news. I hope the Nevada trial goes better.
posted by TedW at 6:48 AM on October 28, 2016 [6 favorites]


It's an inherent power of the jury: the jury can acquit for whatever reason it wants,

That's not nullification. In nullification, a jury must state for the record that they believe the law being used for prosecution is in some way unjust, fucked-up, or whatever. In fact, the entire jury may feel the defendant is actually guilty under the particular law, but they feel the law itself is improper/unjust/immoral/etc. and to find the accused guilty would be wrong. Not all states allow juries to have this sort of leeway. I have no idea if Federal juries have nullification allowed.

Being acquitted merely means they didn't buy the story the prosecution laid-out and found the accused not-guilty. It's a standard jury result. It's not nullification.
posted by Thorzdad at 7:05 AM on October 28, 2016 [1 favorite]


Being acquitted merely means they didn't buy the story the prosecution laid-out and found the accused not-guilty.

officially, anyway - but the true motive could be nullification; they just don't want to come out and say it
posted by pyramid termite at 7:12 AM on October 28, 2016 [2 favorites]


In nullification, a jury must state for the record

I think that's a quirky understanding, but no matter. What I meant is that a jury can effectively nullify, finding a clearly guilty defendant to be not guilty because the jury disapproves of the law.

That is a power of the jury that can't be taken away.
posted by jpe at 7:15 AM on October 28, 2016 [3 favorites]


I'd also be genuinely surprised if there were any jurisdictions in which a jury can state for the record that they nullified.
posted by jpe at 7:17 AM on October 28, 2016 [1 favorite]


I'd also be genuinely surprised if there were any jurisdictions in which a jury can state for the record that they nullified.

It's a specific jury power written into the Indiana State Constitution.
posted by Thorzdad at 7:20 AM on October 28, 2016


Not really. The Indiana constitution provides that the jury gets to determine the law, and the IN Supreme Court has expressly said that's not a power to "disregard" the law.

This was in a decision refusing to allow a jury instruction permitting jury nullification. (Holden v State)
posted by jpe at 7:25 AM on October 28, 2016 [2 favorites]


This is how Trumps get elected. If there's enough of the cognitively dissonant to fill a jury, there's enough to give the same type of nutjob a shot at real power.
posted by prepmonkey at 7:58 AM on October 28, 2016 [2 favorites]


rubs Chicago-style Italian beef sandwich all over naked chest

Hey, could you send me video of that? It's for a friend.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 8:02 AM on October 28, 2016 [4 favorites]


As to the case, the real problem is people deciding that there's laws they're not going to follow and then using violence or the threat of it to break the law. It's a strain of thought that's been slowly injected into America and is now throughout the entire system. Note the US Senate refusing to vote on twice elected President's Supreme Court pick.

As women gain more equality and brown people multiply in America, this will only get worse over the next 20 years. After that, hopefully things will get a bit better.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 8:17 AM on October 28, 2016 [3 favorites]


Outrageous. Pathetic. Bah!
posted by chance at 8:43 AM on October 28, 2016


Jury nullification is a double-edged sword, for sure. It was used extensively prior to the Civil War to protest the Fugitive Slave Act, and is being used today in drug charges. The Civil Rights-era acquittals of white murderers wasn't so much jury nullification as jury packing with other racists.
posted by Johnny Wallflower at 8:43 AM on October 28, 2016 [1 favorite]


What is "moon law"? I've seen several references in the thread. Googling it only brings up space law, which is not, I think, what y'all are referencing.
posted by fiercecupcake at 8:48 AM on October 28, 2016


moon law is the jokey term mefites use to describe the Sovereign Citizen movement, and all their wacky beliefs.

Lots of crazy ideas of how the law works. Stuff like: "a flag with fringe is actually an admiralty court, and hence doesn't have jurisdiction over me", and: "When I'm born, the US registers a corporation with the same name as me, and if I refer to myself super tricky-like, then the government can't actually hold me accountable for my actions".

More on it:

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/ideology/sovereign-citizens-movement
posted by cschneid at 8:52 AM on October 28, 2016 [6 favorites]


Perhaps "moon law" warrants an entry in the wiki?
posted by zakur at 9:28 AM on October 28, 2016 [1 favorite]


This verdict. Huh.

And yet, let me as a black man be walking down the street, minding my own business and have a police officer or concerned citizen be of the opinion that I'm acting suspiciously. Not even acting criminally. Acting suspiciously.

According to the opinion of the vast majority of my fellow Americans, at that point the police can run up on me in full battle mode, and if I don't immediately, silently, and meekly comply with all of their commands, any of various negative outcomes -- from a severe beating to an outright execution to leaving me to die in jail or sending me to rot in some hellhole of a prison -- is fully, 100%, absolutely justified, amen forever and ever, book it done, no further questions. (And a great many think those outcomes are fine even if I do docilely comply.)

Dr King was right: this country is sick.
posted by lord_wolf at 9:34 AM on October 28, 2016 [29 favorites]




Fuck that. If they weren't white and right wing nobody would have given a shit why they did what they did.
posted by OverlappingElvis at 9:51 AM on October 28, 2016 [3 favorites]


So I guess all the noDAPL protestors need to do is turn their protest into a music festival, and say that their "intent" is to groove out to some sweet sounds, not to stop the pipeline.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:52 AM on October 28, 2016 [5 favorites]


One thing I wish was repeated in every article about these guys is that the supposed "dispute" over government land management is actually a dispute between a few extremists and society. Most other ranchers pay their fees. My understanding is that the government has permitted public land and charged fees for grazing since like, forever and the elder Bundy just decided to stop paying in the 90s as a way to express his wacky views. If he doesn't want to pay to graze on public land, he has two options: fewer cattle or buy more land himself. If he has too many cattle that just seems like poor planning on his part.

As for the Oregon case, by creating an armed standoff the defendants proved that they are lacking in courage or any true conviction born of any real injustice. They were too cowardly to just chain themselves to a fence and talk to the media like other protestors, and too disorganized to run for office and try to gets rules changed or improved. So 1) not very compelling cause, and 2) not exactly a principled, rousing protest that I can get behind or respect. I don't want people with guns pushing their views on me or anyone else.
posted by freecellwizard at 10:00 AM on October 28, 2016 [5 favorites]


Juror 4's remarks illustrate the difficulty of trial by jury. Law students are exposed to hundreds of cases during their education so that they have context for the burden of proof required for conviction. But off the street citizens don't have that experience. They only have the instructions given to them by the judge. One person on the jury, like number 4, can then latch on to some word or some phrase in the instructions and stubbornly parse them in such a way that allows them to convince the rest of the jury that the burden of proof was not provided by the prosecution.

For example, the conspiracy charge requires some agreement among the conspirators. So the jury can latch onto the idea of agreement and find lacking any written agreement, any signed document, any sworn oath, any detailed plan. Conspiracy does not actually require these overt actions, but a jury without the background of previous conspiracy cases could easily be persuaded by one juror obsessing on these details.

The fault is with the prosecution for inadequately explaining the grounds for conspiracy and with the judge in allowing ambiguous jury instructions.
posted by JackFlash at 10:02 AM on October 28, 2016 [9 favorites]


So because the prosecution was "triumphalist" the poor jurors had no choice but to let the terrorists go free because the jurors precious little fucking feelings were hurt? The prosecution, I guess, should have been all apologetic "I'm sorry guys, I know these are good, amazing, wonderful, people who properly hate the government and black people and worship guns like an idol, but regrettably, they did break the law (even though the law is bad and evil and should be overturned) so would you please find it in your hearts to convict them even though you love them and agree with their hateful anti-government anti-everything agenda?"

What the actual fuck?
"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"
In what bizarro universe is "forcibly occupying land belonging to other people" not an illegal object?

I think I'm more enraged by the pathetic, transparent, excuses of the terrorist enabling white supremacist jury than I was by the original decision.

How dumb do they think I am? Do they really, genuinely, think anyone on the entire planet will fall for such transparent and blatant lies?

They're torturing, mauling, and arresting the peaceful, unarmed, protesters at Standing Rock. Those protesters will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. The people arrested there will be convicted and do hard time in a prison system designed to brutalize and torment them.

And the Bundy scum walk free.

If the right wing keeps this shit up, eventually someone is going to turn to vigilantism since clearly the so-called "criminal justice system" is horribly, blatantly, broken, and isn't a good outcome for anyone.
posted by sotonohito at 10:18 AM on October 28, 2016 [6 favorites]


Given juror 4's comments, I am less persuaded that this was a case of overt nullification but a case of a runaway citizen jury led down a mistaken path by poor prosecution arguments and poor jury instructions. The jury simply misinterpreted the grounds and requirements for conspiracy. All it takes is one Dunning–Kruger "expert" who speaks with conviction to lead everyone else down the garden path. I don't think it was intentional. It was likely just one persuasive idiot on the jury.
posted by JackFlash at 10:21 AM on October 28, 2016 [8 favorites]


Mod note: Comment removed. I know this is an angry-making situation but let's keep the rhetoric from getting too shitty in response.
posted by cortex (staff) at 10:30 AM on October 28, 2016


juror 5

"well, it happens to the best of us - they're just going down the road in some godforsaken desert in BFE armed to the teeth, and they all just happened to be in the neighborhood and saw each other and all got tired of driving at the same time - for 41 days - it could happen to anybody

"and it's not like they were really stopping federal workers from doing their jobs - i mean they could have stepped around the guys with guns and the jack daniels bottles and the boxes of nilla wafers, right?

"it's just like the old south where people would run so fast they'd trip over a tree, fall, and their neck would get caught in a rope

"shit happens, right?"

(fake)
posted by pyramid termite at 10:34 AM on October 28, 2016 [4 favorites]


Note that juror 4, who is arguing in defense of the verdict, is the same person who was successful in booting off the jury the one juror who it seems was opposing him. It would be interesting to hear evicted juror 11's view of the proceedings.
posted by JackFlash at 10:37 AM on October 28, 2016 [14 favorites]


Reading the comment (way) above from the juror on "not guilty" vs "innocent" (where they essentially say "these people may have been guilty, but the prosecution failed to show it"), this doesn't really sound like jury nullification, it sounds like the prosecution failed to make a case to 12 laypeople.

The juror was saying "you need to take us from point A to point B, we aren't allowed to make that leap ourselves." And the prosecution, from the jury's perspective, went straight to B.
posted by zippy at 10:55 AM on October 28, 2016 [2 favorites]


I don't think these charges were all that much of a slamdunk. It's a motive crime and conspiracy adds a veneer of specific intent. So the prosecution had to show specific intent to do something based on a particular motive.

That's not easy from the outset, and I'm surprised the prosecution didn't have some fallback charges.
posted by jpe at 11:08 AM on October 28, 2016 [1 favorite]


The juror was saying "you need to take us from point A to point B, we aren't allowed to make that leap ourselves." And the prosecution, from the jury's perspective, went straight to B.

And the B didn't stand for "black" in this case.
posted by Etrigan at 11:09 AM on October 28, 2016 [1 favorite]


From that oregonlive.com article:
He said many of the jurors questioned the judge about why the federal government chose the "conspiracy charge.'' He said he learned that a potential alternate charge, such as criminal trespass, wouldn't have brought as significant a penalty.

The charge of conspiring to impede federal employees from carrying out their official work through intimidation, threat or force brings a maximum sentence of six years in prison.

"We all queried about alternative charges that could stick and were amazed that this 'conspiracy' charge seemed the best possible option,'' Juror 4 said.
It sounds like the prosecution gambled and lost. Appalling outcome but I'm not sure the jury screwed this one up.
posted by theodolite at 11:14 AM on October 28, 2016 [3 favorites]


It makes perfect sense that Juror 4 is a business student.

Prosecution should have had a better ppt deck, apparently.
posted by PMdixon at 11:51 AM on October 28, 2016 [4 favorites]


Is nullification legal in Oregon? Some states specifically disallow it.

I've never been on a jury, but my understanding is there's no legal power that would force a juror to say why they vote not guilty. If a single juror thinks the law is unjust, she or he can just refuse to vote guilty until the rest of the jury agrees or it's declared a hung jury.
posted by straight at 12:58 PM on October 28, 2016


"...carried guns because they would have been arrested immediately otherwise and to protect themselves against possible government attack."

Okay. That makes a lot of sense. We now can remove firearms from the equipment belts of police officers and send all the SWAT teams back to traffic control. Or we could assume that nobody who's not white could EVER conceive of this as a good idea. Even comfortably ensconced in entitlement as I am, being a white male oldfart, it scares me, truly. Trap door scenarios will follow, of course--Pick the Bizarro Universe of your choice.

Juries ought to obey guidelines of "reasonable doubt" or "likely (to have committed the crime)" when discussing their verdict. The judge indeed ought to instruct them as to how the charges relate to the laws--you have to be charged with a specific crime, not just being generally criminal. Juries ought to be reluctant to render a guilty verdict if the prosecution hasn't made its case.

My question is, did these federal prosecutors actually go to law school, or were they just absent the day theory of case was being taught? I get my legal instruction from Jack McCoy, so I could be on shaky ground here.

A sense of blinding outrage helpfully masks a growing sense of helplessness.
posted by mule98J at 1:01 PM on October 28, 2016




The Dakota Access comparison seems odd to me. The feds worked to remove the Bundy clan while they've allowed the Dakota Access protesters to set up camp on federal land indefinitely.
posted by jpe at 1:27 PM on October 28, 2016 [1 favorite]


The feds worked to remove the Bundy clan while they've allowed the Dakota Access protesters to set up camp on federal land indefinitely.

what? that's most definitely not the case right now
posted by burgerrr at 1:52 PM on October 28, 2016 [3 favorites]


Their camp is on federal land, and the feds have thrown up their hands and said they can stay.

Your link is about their protests on private land. They reside on federal land and then protest on private land.
posted by jpe at 2:10 PM on October 28, 2016


"All 12 agreed that impeding existed, even if as an effect of the occupation,'' he wrote.

How in the world could they have done things as simple as rotating crews to stand watch or deciding where different people were going to sleep within the government building they were occupying, without coordinating together.

That's all you need for "conspiracy" and they were very clearly clearly doing all that and more in a coordinated manner.

As mentioned above, it's not as though you need an oath signed in blood to show conspiracy. It's enough that they were working together to illegally occupy the government buildings and land, and keep others out. It's just obvious on the face of it that they were indeed doing this. They were living and working closely together in a relatively small space over an extended period of time.
posted by flug at 3:00 PM on October 28, 2016


That's all you need for "conspiracy"

The charge was conspiracy to keep fish and wildlife officials away. I doubt that's what they were concerned about at that point.
posted by jpe at 3:02 PM on October 28, 2016 [1 favorite]




The Oceti Sakowin Camp is on treaty land now claimed by the Army Corps of Engineers.

Which, in reality, means federal land. It's been federal land for a century. Unjust or not, as a matter of law it's federal property. And, unlike in the Bundy case, the feds have just let people occupy it.
posted by jpe at 3:25 PM on October 28, 2016


>It's worth noting that the Bundy patriarch has a million dollars in unpaid grazing fees to all other American ranchers having $200,00ish.

I've mentioned this in other threads, but my ancestors lived with and ran cattle and sheep with Bundy's ancestors in an area of southern Utah, northern Arizona, and the adjacent area of SE Nevada. There is even a town called Bundyville, named after one of Cliven Bundy's ancestors--where back in the 1910s and 20s, my shepherd grandfather used to head on weekends to pick up his mail, enjoy some company, and join in dances at the local one-room schoolhouse (still standing).

Anyway, in the 1850s through early 1900s, my ancestors, and Bundy's and a bunch of others basically grazed the shit out of this entire area. In just a few decades, it went from holding vast expanses of waist-deep grassland to practically bare--close-cropped and eroded, extremely vulnerable to regular flash-flooding, and losing topsoil by the ton with every rain. And this in a low-precipitation, desert environment that has but a thin layer of topsoil to begin with.

So, by the early 1900s, everyone could see that grazing restrictions were both much needed and inevitable. Livestock ranching was already starting to self-limit just because the carrying capacity of the land had decreased noticeably.

Apparently the federal restrictions started in the 1900-1910 period and got really serious with the 1934 Taylor Grazing Act. You can read about all this from a local perspective in "Vermilion Dreamers, Sagebrush Schemers", pp 65-74 & elsewhere, which deals specifically with the eastern end of the Arizona Strip--but the situation was similar throughout the region. This brief history of land use on the Arizona Strip covers many of the same points.

By 1900, anyone with two eyes in their head could see that if the livestock industry was to survive at all in the region, it had to be restricted and limited. The way the federal government handles it is not always the smoothest, but still it works and everyone (except absolutely numbskulls, like the Bundys) grumbles but accepts it.

It is important to understand that in almost all cases, livestock operations in these areas do not own anything like all the land they operate and graze on. Rather, they "control" it by owning parcels that contain springs and other key locations--or simply by holding water rights to the springs, or perhaps a mining claim to the area with the spring--and holding grazing rights to adjacent government land. See pp 68-69 and elsewhere in Vermilion Dreamers for specific examples of livestock outfits exploiting this type of technique.

Most often private land and government land (BLM, usually) is arranged in a checkerboard pattern along township lines. Private owners hold certain squares on the checkerboard--generally up to 50% of the squares in an alternating pattern, but in sparsely populated and desolate areas, often far less than 50%. The federal government owns the rest. To operate a going livestock concern, you need to be able to run the livestock on your (small-ish) area of land and many thousands of acres of adjacent federal land. To run livestock on the government land, you MUST have a grazing permit. If you don't, you are simply stealing.

Which is exactly what Cliven Bundy and his crew are doing.

They should be treated like common thieves and nothing more.

And when they bleat about the "government taking my land" at least 50% of the land they are talking about--if not far more--is actually federally owned land that Bundy wants to control and profit from as though he owns it, when he actually does not.

Common, lying thieves and nothing more . . .
posted by flug at 3:53 PM on October 28, 2016 [26 favorites]


>>That's all you need for "conspiracy"

>The charge was conspiracy to keep fish and wildlife officials away. I doubt that's what they were concerned about at that point.

Well, they were obviously organizing among themselves to keep a regular armed watch on entrances to the place. Which was pretty obviously to keep the fish & wildlife officials, as well as everyone else, away.

It's pretty hard to understand it as anything else.
posted by flug at 4:07 PM on October 28, 2016 [2 favorites]




Which was pretty obviously to keep the fish & wildlife officials, as well as everyone else, away.

The testified it was in case police or FBI came, which sounds pretty plausible and doesn't support the conspiracy charge.
posted by jpe at 4:44 PM on October 28, 2016


And why would the police or FBI be coming?
posted by Artw at 4:50 PM on October 28, 2016 [1 favorite]


Don't Shoot Portland Protestors and Bundy Clan Fans Briefly Squared Off Downtown This Afternoon

Before long, members of her cohort had stepped in, accusing Don't Shoot protestors of breaking the law by burning the flag. Things got racist very, very quickly, with one man telling protestors to "go back to Jamaica," and using uglier slurs.

A protestor grabbed an American flag and burned it. Article says "plucked up" so I don't know if that means "picked up off the ground" or "took it from somebody'/ hands", but damn.
posted by gucci mane at 4:59 PM on October 28, 2016


Six weeks is a long time for a juror to wonder how much less time they might have had to spend in a courtroom if the prosecution had gone for lesser charges. Resentment is a helluva drug.
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 5:36 PM on October 28, 2016


Off-topic but does anyone know what the deal is with the federal investigation into former governor Kitzhaber and his partner? They have never filed charges but have also not concluded. Supposedly it was no longer actively pursued as of last spring. Relevant to the competence and professionalism of BillWilliams' team there.
posted by mmiddle at 6:26 PM on October 28, 2016


>>Which was pretty obviously to keep the fish & wildlife officials, as well as everyone else, away.

>The testified it was in case police or FBI came, which sounds pretty plausible and doesn't support the conspiracy charge.


Well, next time this happens (which will hopefully be never, but whatever . . . ) I suppose the fish & game people should just come waltzing into work every day, just walking right past the armed guards--who I am just 100% sure won't do anything, oh no--and into the building where they can kind of elbow all the other armed folks out of their way to get into their regular desks and filing cabinets, shove all the armed occupiers bedrolls and sleeping bags out of the way to reclaim their usual workspace, and scoop up all the food, utensils, and various trash the armed occupiers brought with them and just deposit it unceremoniously in the trash where it belongs. And the numerous armed folks hanging around guarding the place and declaring that it will never be returned to he federal government &c will just smile and cheer and say, "Hey, thanks for cleaning up the kitchen, guys--nobody else wanted to do that!"

And the fish & game folks will just go about their regular workday as usual, just sort of stepping around or over or whatever the armed militia members, and in general completely ignoring all the armed nitwits threateningly hanging about the place and muttering evil words about the federal government and its minions.

I'm sure this will go swimmingly for everyone, because the occupiers were only carrying their guns about to "keep out police and the FBI" and since the fish & game officers aren't police or FBI, the occupiers will just completely ignore them or maybe welcome them with happy smiles and offers to join them for some fun times at the shooting range during lunch hour.

Yeah, this could totally happen here in the real world . . . .
posted by flug at 7:29 PM on October 28, 2016 [5 favorites]


Ah the Utah take on the thing.
posted by Oyéah at 10:22 PM on October 28, 2016


The Iraq Bonus Clawback was posted this week so this isn't the most infuriating thing I've heard this week but that is just because the bar was set so high.

flug: " To run livestock on the government land, you MUST have a grazing permit. If you don't, you are simply stealing."

Around here feral pigs and invasive species in general have open, no bag limit hunting seasons. Require ear tags for cattle on federal land; have a public database of tags that are no less than 3 months behind on grazing fees; and then declare an open season on cattle found on federal land but not in the DB. Then just let nature take its course.
posted by Mitheral at 7:50 AM on October 29, 2016 [4 favorites]


I like that. Let's add- drone/mortar/artillery strikes on watering holes, and you could shut a cattle grazing op down for good within a week. With votes, I meant to say........
posted by ergomatic at 12:40 PM on October 29, 2016


I was really hoping to come back here this morning and find a well reasoned answer by one of the brighter MeFite legal minds as to why this happened and after reading to the bottom I'm still at a loss. Angry entitled white men will wake up this morning emboldened that they can ignore the rule of law however they see fit. I'm not even outraged any more. Just confused and sad.

Me too. What are the chances that this verdict is part of a strategic move on the part of The Feds to a) deny the Bundys the chance to repeat their ideological arguments in front of various appeal courts, and interfere with b) their trial on more serious (?) charges in Nevada in February? The optics are terrible, but maybe someone thinks it will put a stop to the larger land grab issue we learned about in the Malheur threads?
posted by sneebler at 1:12 PM on October 29, 2016


sneebler I think that seems like a really unlikely scenario.

Most likely is just that the jury was infested with enough militia types to convince the other jurors to acquit. The area the (all white) jury came from isn't exactly known as a bastion of cosmopolitan civilization, and the whole NRA conspiracy thing is very much a part of the landscape there.

The fact is that the fringe right is flexing its muscle these days, and one way of doing that is by refusing to convict white Christian terrorists.
posted by sotonohito at 1:36 PM on October 29, 2016 [4 favorites]


Forgive me if this was covered earlier, but the eleven defendants who plead guilty... this doesn't affect their cases, and their guilty pleas remain intact, right?
posted by blueberry at 1:05 AM on October 31, 2016


Today's Democracy Now! (alt link, .torrent, transcript) covered a variety of anti-DAPL protest developments—including bizarre scary footage of a lone guy with an assault rifle and a bandanna over his mouth facing off against protectors, pointing it at the indigenous military veterans trying to de-escalate, later arrested by BIA police, who apparently left behind the ID badge of a DAPL security employee—and a discussion comparing the North Dakota standoff to the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.

The discussion was with Kieran Suckling, executive director of the Center for Biological Diversity, who was a counter-protestor in Oregon during the militia occupation, and Steve Russell, a retired judge and professor and citizen of the Cherokee Nation who wrote a piece for Indian Country Today Media Network entitled "Malheur v. DAPL: Jury Nullification or Prosecutor Overreach?"

Russell acknowledges abuses of jury nullification but seems to strongly support it as a counterbalance within the justice system. He also manages to mention Alexander Hamilton.
posted by XMLicious at 1:51 PM on October 31, 2016 [3 favorites]




“The only peaceful resolution to all this is for them to obey the Constitution,” he said. “Read it, understand it, abide by it.

Let's have a debate on the topic between Ryan Bundy and Marty Lederman.
posted by rhizome at 10:11 AM on November 2, 2016


rhizome: Let's have a debate on the topic between Ryan Bundy and Marty Lederman.

Part of the problem is the version of the Constitution they carry around is the version annotated by anti-Communist conspiracy theory nut W. Cleon Skousen, who misinterprets it to argue there is no legal support for the creation of the EPA, National Parks, the Federal Reserve, etc. Unfortunately, this court ruling has only reinforced their belief that they're the only ones who truly understand the Constitution and the rest of us are dummies who just don't get it.
posted by bluecore at 10:22 AM on November 2, 2016 [5 favorites]


And of course, at this stage of the game, they're highly invested in sticking to that interpretation, since the alternative is that they are, in fact, wrong. (And also owe the government money)
posted by Archelaus at 10:44 AM on November 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


« Older Running While Female   |   Very prophetic but it is a watermelon Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments