Why were the defendants found not guilty in the Oregon Standoff Trial?

[TheSiege]

http://patch.com/oregon/portland/oregon-standoff-trail-jurors-reach-unanimous-verdict-all-one-county

It seemed pretty clear and obvious that they violated the law. But I am having a hard time finding out why exactly the jury thought they weren't guilty...

 

[Thebobo]

Makes no sense to me they were illegally occupying a gov installation and impaired government employees form doing there job. How can there be any debate in that matter?

Just boggles the mind.

 

[JSt0rm]

Because white rural people are crazy.

 

[Commodus]

White.

(Seriously: Black Lives Matter protestors have faced worse consequences for less serious acts, or even when they were innocent)

 

[fleshconsumed]

Jury nullification. The jury doesn't have to find them guilty even if the law says so. What is jury? Jury is people. If the people find the law inherently unjust or if the people think that the punishment is disproportionate to the crime committed, I would argue it is their duty to find the defendant not guilty.

Note, I'm not saying that this specific case was appropriate application of jury nullification, but if the jury thought so, well, the system worked the way it was supposed to.

 

[Blackjack200]

Here's the best explanation you'll find:

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-oregon-malheur-legal-defense-20161028-story.html

Doesn't do it for me though. It was an outrageous verdict.

 

[PokerGuy]

Because white rural people are crazy.

White.

Yep, those righties are bigoted and racist. You lefties sure make that clear. I'm sure if we insert some other race in there instead of white everyone would be equally fine with it. Yep, sure thing.

 

[dullard]

I assume it was partly just to stop the chain of events.

1) The government changed policies, so the defendants got mad.
2) The defendants (and / or their family members) broke the law in revenge.
3) The government took action and arrested the defendants (and / or their family members).
4) The defendants got mad.
5) Go to step 2.

That cycle can continue for an eternity. See just about any ongoing feud that is revenge-based around the world. Or, the adults in the room can break the chain. The crime was real and indefensible but the jury probably just wanted them out of Oregon to stop the problem.

 

[JSt0rm]

The main issue is we are getting dumber all the time. Mixed with...

Yep, those righties are bigoted and racist. You lefties sure make that clear. I'm sure if we insert some other race in there instead of white everyone would be equally fine with it. Yep, sure thing.

No. it would be dumb regardless. However only rural whites would get the results we see here.

 

[glenn1]

Makes no sense to me they were illegally occupying a gov installation and impaired government employees form doing there job. How can there be any debate in that matter?

Just boggles the mind.

You would need to ask the jury why they voted to acquit. Could be as simple as the jury thought the punishment would be too severe compared to the crime they were being tried for, so they engaged in some jury nullification.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

#whiteprivileges

 

[glenn1]

White.

(Seriously: Black Lives Matter protestors have faced worse consequences for less serious acts, or even when they were innocent)

Depends on how you define less serious. Which is more "serious", peacefully using masses of bodies to stop all traffic on a major interstate, or having some armed guys take over a wildlife refuge in the middle of nowhere?

We also have the paradigm that the "Occupy Wall Street" folks engaged in similar acts of area denial (and closer to civilization than the wildlife reserve) and weren't convicted of it, so perhaps the Bundy folks got the same treatment from the jury.

 

[Commodus]

Yep, those righties are bigoted and racist. You lefties sure make that clear. I'm sure if we insert some other race in there instead of white everyone would be equally fine with it. Yep, sure thing.

No, not all right-wing people are racist (I honestly couldn't tell you the demographics). There are lefties who are racist, too. But the truth is that courts and juries tend to treat civil disobedience by white people differently than they do when it comes from black people, native Americans or other minorities. If you're white, you're not a land-occupying terrorist, you're just upset at the direction the country is going! But don't you dare march in the streets to protest police murdering unarmed black people, or try to block the construction of an oil pipeline running through native American territories.

Yes, where and how a protest happens has an impact, but at the same time... the Oregon occupiers broke the law. There's literally no questioning this, and they're getting off scot-free. Just because it was in a quiet area doesn't mean it wasn't illegal.

 

[MajinCry]

If you're white and obstruct the Government, you might get a slap on the wrist. If you're red and obstruct the destruction of the environment, you get to partake in having canine teeth embedded in you.

 

[HomerJS]

If you're white and obstruct the Government, you might get a slap on the wrist. If you're red and obstruct the destruction of the environment, you get to partake in having canine teeth embedded in you.

+1

 

[Commodus]

Depends on how you define less serious. Which is more "serious", peacefully using masses of bodies to stop all traffic on a major interstate, or having some armed guys take over a wildlife refuge in the middle of nowhere?

We also have the paradigm that the "Occupy Wall Street" folks engaged in similar acts of area denial (and closer to civilization than the wildlife reserve) and weren't convicted of it, so perhaps the Bundy folks got the same treatment from the jury.

To me, this is more serious. BLM and Occupy Wall Street protestors aren't invading government spaces with guns and threatening to kill any law enforcement that comes to shut them down. Doing that in the countryside doesn't make it any less vicious.

 

[Blackjack200]

I assume it was partly just to stop the chain of events.

1) The government changed policies, so the defendants got mad.
2) The defendants (and / or their family members) broke the law in revenge.
3) The government took action and arrested the defendants (and / or their family members).
4) The defendants got mad.
5) Go to step 2.

That cycle can continue for an eternity. See just about any ongoing feud that is revenge-based around the world. Or, the adults in the room can break the chain. The crime was real and indefensible but the jury probably just wanted them out of Oregon to stop the problem.

Acquitting criminals because someone might get mad if you convict them is a terrible idea. For #1, when you say "The government changed policies", do you mean that they began enforcing laws already on the books?

Depends on how you define less serious. Which is more "serious", peacefully using masses of bodies to stop all traffic on a major interstate, or having some armed guys take over a wildlife refuge in the middle of nowhere?

We also have the paradigm that the "Occupy Wall Street" folks engaged in similar acts of area denial (and closer to civilization than the wildlife reserve) and weren't convicted of it, so perhaps the Bundy folks got the same treatment from the jury.

Occupy Wall Street was a peaceful protest, and did not involve any area denial. Were you there? I have a picture of myself standing in Zucotti park during the protest. I was not a protester, never felt threatened or denied anything. Are you saying that was OWS did was equivalent to an armed takeover of a federal facility?

 

[dank69]

You would need to ask the jury why they voted to acquit. Could be as simple as the jury thought the punishment would be too severe compared to the crime they were being tried for, so they engaged in some jury nullification.

Juror #4 explained their reasoning in the link in post 6. Looks like the prosecution screwed the pooch.

 

[Blackjack200]

Juror #4 explained their reasoning in the link in post 6. Looks like the prosecution screwed the pooch.

This is the key quote:

“All 12 jurors felt that this verdict was a statement regarding the various failures of the prosecution to prove 'conspiracy' in the count itself – and not any form of affirmation of the defense's various beliefs, actions or aspirations,'' Juror 4 wrote in an email to the Oregonian.

I'm curious what's involved in proving conspiracy. From a layperson's perspective, I don't understand how a group of armed men taking over a federal facility could not involve a conspiracy.

 

[woolfe9998]

This is the key quote:

“All 12 jurors felt that this verdict was a statement regarding the various failures of the prosecution to prove 'conspiracy' in the count itself – and not any form of affirmation of the defense's various beliefs, actions or aspirations,'' Juror 4 wrote in an email to the Oregonian.

I'm curious what's involved in proving conspiracy. From a layperson's perspective, I don't understand how a group of armed men taking over a federal facility could not involve a conspiracy.

http://www.federalcriminallawyer.us...greement-is-necessary-for-conspiracy-charges/

From the LA Times article:

The most significant of the charges against the occupation’s leaders was a count of felony conspiracy to intentionally intimidate government workers and prevent them from doing their jobs.

The conspiracy count was actually a double-whammy: If the defendants could persuade the jury that no criminal conspiracy had occurred, then they could not be convicted of the accompanying weapons charge — which requires the government to prove the guns had been brought on federal property to commit a crime.

The defendants said they were not trying to intimidate or hurt anyone by occupying the refuge. Ammon Bundy claimed that he was trying to take ownership of the land by way of “adverse possession” — a legal process of gaining ownership of something by occupying it.

That’s an unusual legal argument, and one that prosecutors disputed at trial. But ultimately, the jury agreed that the government was unable to prove the intent required to establish criminal conspiracy.

 

[dullard]

Acquitting criminals because someone might get mad if you convict them is a terrible idea. For #1, when you say "The government changed policies", do you mean that they began enforcing laws already on the books?

You need to pick your battles. Even the government needs to pick its battles.

A lot of this started when the government decided to use the governments own land for other purposes. Instead of letting them be used by the ranchers for whatever the ranchers wanted.

 

[woolfe9998]

Because white rural people are crazy.

By "rural whites" are you referring to the defendants or to the jury? The cased was tried in Portland, a city of over 600,000, so I doubt the jury was what you'd call "rural."

 

[Sonikku]

They failed to prove that the guy arrested driving a stolen truck had in fact stolen a truck.

Derp.

 

[hal2kilo]

http://www.federalcriminallawyer.us...greement-is-necessary-for-conspiracy-charges/

From the LA Times article:

Oh no conspiracy. They all just independently decided to show up there randomly.

 

[Pens1566]

If you're white and obstruct the Government, you might get a slap on the wrist. If you're red and obstruct the destruction of the environment, you get to partake in having canine teeth embedded in you.

Nailed it. See current pipeline situation in ND.

/thread