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

[Blackjack200]

You calling me an idiot? Just what I would expect from a keyboard warrior who proves the point that there are people whose existence is 100% dependent on what they see on the internet. I would invite you, Blackjack 200, to come out of your parent's basement and become involved in real life for an hour or two.

I can guarantee you 100% that you would not call me an idiot to my face and walk away consequence free like you do here. Loser.

ronbo613 I think that there is only one thing that I am more glad of than the fact that you are not here in my face kicking my ass for calling you an idiot. It is that my internet connection is not down, as my existence is apparently 100% dependent on it.

Since your sense of self worth seems linked in some way to what losers like me say about you, I'll give you a special chance to elevate yourself out of idiotville by participating in the conversation in a more constructive way than you did in post #40. I'll offer a little coaching: this thread is pondering legal concepts and trying to understand the legal reasoning of the jury. It is not people '[saying] for certain what is right and wrong by reading what [they] see on the internet'. If you think the occupiers were right or wrong, stating as much and offering your reasoning is better than just saying that if 'we don't understand their resentment, then we don't understand how something like this could happen'.

If you want to say America is 'divided down the middle', say what you mean by that. A vague statement like that is just a crass suggestion that you understand the social dynamics in play, but can't be bothered to explain them to us unsophisticated folks.

 

[SMOGZINN]

No, for the conspiracy charge, they had to prove that there was an agreement to "intimidate government workers and prevent them from doing their jobs." There was no dispute over whether they all agreed to simply be there. The defense claimed that the reason they were there was to establish "adverse possession." That is a civil doctrine whereby squatting on someone else's land for a certain period of time (typically 7 years) entitles you to ownership of that land under certain conditions. It's a rather bizarre argument but evidently the jury bought it. The article says the prosecution was arrogant and did not take the defense argument seriously.

As I pointed out adverse possession can not be a defense here and anyone that thinks about it for 10 seconds can see that. I can show you in once sentence: If I get a group of my buddies together and we get our guns and kick down your door and force you out of your home at gun point can I claim I was just taking adverse possession of your home? The jury just said that is fine.

 

[Blackjack200]

No, for the conspiracy charge, they had to prove that there was an agreement to "intimidate government workers and prevent them from doing their jobs." There was no dispute over whether they all agreed to simply be there. The defense claimed that the reason they were there was to establish "adverse possession." That is a civil doctrine whereby squatting on someone else's land for a certain period of time (typically 7 years) entitles you to ownership of that land under certain conditions. It's a rather bizarre argument but evidently the jury bought it. The article says the prosecution was arrogant and did not take the defense argument seriously.

It boggles the mind. Weren't they tweeting threatening stuff from inside the facility? I think Smogzinn said it best: "None of these claims hold up to even casual scrutiny."

I don't understand how the arrogance of the prosecution is relevant. The facts either support the charges or they don't. Like, you would never hear a jury come out and say "well, yeah the facts, but you see the prosecutor was super respectful and competent so we convicted anyway."

Further, I'd suggest that a sarcastic tone is appropriate when the other side is making highly dubious legal arguments. A more respectful tone could make it seem like those arguments deserve more serious consideration than is appropriate.

jury nullification is the ultimate check against government over reach and is good. I dnt think it was used correctly here but id rather these dumb hilbillies go free then live in a world without jury nullification.

I don't even understand why we're talking about jury nullification. The jury (or, at least the one juror that spoke out) said that the prosecution failed to prove it's case, not that it nullified what would have been a conviction.

 

[Victorian Gray]

I don't agree that America is that divided. Most of us have far more shared values and principles than we have conflicts. The Bundys are sociopath outliers.

Then explain the roughly 40%+ of probable American voters who claim to support Trump. Remember that number includes a heck of a lot of self professed religious folks who, if they cast their vote for Trump, would be voting against their morals/religious beliefs. That indicates a pretty big division to me.

 

[MongGrel]

You calling me an idiot? Just what I would expect from a keyboard warrior who proves the point that there are people whose existence is 100% dependent on what they see on the internet. I would invite you, Blackjack 200, to come out of your parent's basement and become involved in real life for an hour or two.

I can guarantee you 100% that you would not call me an idiot to my face and walk away consequence free like you do here. Loser.

After that response I'll call you very confused and triggered I suppose.

 

[woolfe9998]

As I pointed out adverse possession can not be a defense here and anyone that thinks about it for 10 seconds can see that. I can show you in once sentence: If I get a group of my buddies together and we get our guns and kick down your door and force you out of your home at gun point can I claim I was just taking adverse possession of your home? The jury just said that is fine.

I'm not trying to defend the jury's verdict. It was a stupid one. But the issue was not, based on the defendants' actions, whether they could have met the legal definition of adverse possession. It's that the jury bought that this was their intent, as opposed to the intent that the prosecution had to prove, which was an intent to intimidate federal employees.

 

[dank69]

Right on cue:
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a50246/oregon-bundy-revolution-call/