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

[antihelten]

Some rank (but seemingly quite reasonable) speculation regarding the acquittal:

https://www.reddit.com/r/law/commen...ur_refuge_occupiers_acquitted_on_all/d9arogo/

TLDR:

• The government had at least 15 informants on the inside
• Some of these people may have not just taken part in, but actively encouraged the offense.
• One of them may have been the one to bring the large number of additional weapons to the refuge, which were later seized by the FBI

All this possibly created an appearance of impropriety on the part of the government, which lead to a possible jury nullification.

 

[IronWing]

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.

Jury nullification is just a fancy term for mob rule.

 

[fleshconsumed]

Jury nullification is just a fancy term for mob rule.

Say what you want about this specific case, but there are times when jury nullification is appropriate tool to combat overreaching prosecutors/state/government.

 

[IronWing]

Say what you want about this specific case, but there are times when jury nullification is appropriate tool to combat overreaching prosecutors/state/government.

That's what appeals and elections are for. Jury nullification short circuits the appeals process and allows bad laws or legal procedures to continue.

 

[fleshconsumed]

That's what appeals and elections are for. Jury nullification short circuits the appeals process and allows bad laws or legal procedures to continue.

Disagree. Jury nullification is a feature of the system.

 

[IronWing]

Disagree. Jury nullification is a feature of the system.

No, it's an usurps the Constitution. A small group of people take it upon themselves to void the laws passed by their elected representatives to get the result they want.

 

[fleshconsumed]

No, it's an usurps the Constitution. A small group of people take it upon themselves to void the laws passed by their elected representatives to get the result they want.

Point me to the place in constitution that says jury has to find defendant guilty if the law says so.

That's the problem with the laws - they can be inherently unjust or applied improperly. Think teen sexting. Jury nullification is a tool that people can use to protect themselves against overly oppressive laws without having to wait for the legislative process to fix them.

 

[bshole]

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...

I wonder if people are going to die when these terrorists are released out on the public again. I fear this result may embolden them to get even more violent.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Off for jury duty tomorrow, voted early today just in case it's a long trial.

 

[Roflmouth]

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...

To anger you, of course.

 

[glenn1]

That's what appeals and elections are for. Jury nullification short circuits the appeals process and allows bad laws or legal procedures to continue.

Surely then you think Bill Clinton should have been convicted after being impeached for lying to a grand jury since doing otherwise would be "jury nullification" and short circuiting justice.

 

[Jaskalas]

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...

Same reason Hillary is not in prison today.

The BS excuse of intent was bollocked beyond reason for partisan purpose.

Oregon standoff prosecutors failed to prove 'intent' to impede federal workers​

 

[IronWing]

Surely then you think Bill Clinton should have been convicted after being impeached for lying to a grand jury since doing otherwise would be "jury nullification" and short circuiting justice.

Bill Clinton never faced a jury trial for lying to a grand jury. Impeachment and trial by the Senate are a political exercise, not a judicial exercise.

 

[bshole]

Surely then you think Bill Clinton should have been convicted after being impeached for lying to a grand jury since doing otherwise would be "jury nullification" and short circuiting justice.

I thought the prosecutor should have been prosecuted and jailed. He was appointed to investigate some investment by Hillary Clinton. He exceed his authority and investigated something that had NOTHING to do with his original purpose. I believe he committed a crime by doing so.

 

[ronbo613]

Pretty easy to get on one side or the other and say for certain what is right and wrong by reading what you see on the internet. In fact, if is wasn't for the internet coverage and social media, this whole deal at the wildlife preserve probably would have never happened. If you are not familiar with this area and the resentment some people have towards being governed by officials who would not be able to point the place out on a map, then you will not understand how something like this could happen. Oregon and Washington, like most of America, is divided right down the middle. Whichever side you are on, the divide is real and something you experience every day. No doubt there will be more trouble ahead.

 

[Blackjack200]

Bill Clinton never faced a jury trial for lying to a grand jury. Impeachment and trial by the Senate are a political exercise, not a judicial exercise.

glenn rarely lets facts get in the way of a good talking point

Pretty easy to get on one side or the other and say for certain what is right and wrong by reading what you see on the internet. In fact, if is wasn't for the internet coverage and social media, this whole deal at the wildlife preserve probably would have never happened. If you are not familiar with this area and the resentment some people have towards being governed by officials who would not be able to point the place out on a map, then you will not understand how something like this could happen. Oregon and Washington, like most of America, is divided right down the middle. Whichever side you are on, the divide is real and something you experience every day. No doubt there will be more trouble ahead.

Actually, this rambling, quasi paranoid word salad helps me understand the verdict a little bit better. Just need 11 more idiots like this one.

 

[Jaskalas]

Actually, this rambling, quasi paranoid word salad helps me understand the verdict a little bit better. Just need 11 more idiots like this one.

Speaking OF something is not the same as speaking FOR something.
All he really told you is how divided America is. What, you don't agree?

 

[IronWing]

Speaking OF something is not the same as speaking FOR something.
All he really told you is how divided America is. What, you don't agree?

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.

 

[bshole]

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.

One thing that people like the Bundys have in common also is a very low IQ. To hold the beliefs that they do, you have to be dumb as a box of rocks. I have two brothers who didn't pay taxes because they thought the IRS was a conspiracy, that bunkered down for Y2K, that worship God, guns, country, etc.... My brothers are decent guys they are just sooooo fucking stupid. People below a certain IQ level cannot be reasoned with and will believe a tremendous amount on faith.

 

[hal2kilo]

I'm not really that worried that they got off this time. I'm pretty sure we will be seeing more of these chuckleheads pulling some more stunts in the future that will finally put them away for a long time. I just hope no one gets killed in the meantime.

Edit: Just think about where OJ is today. Karma's a angry female.

 

[SMOGZINN]

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.

He can't claim Adverse Possession. "Dispossession by armed invasion does not establish a claim of adverse possession against the true owner." You can't point a gun at someone and claim you are not trying to intimidate or hurt anyone. None of these claims hold up to even casual scrutiny.

 

[Jaskalas]

None of these claims hold up to even casual scrutiny.

They don't have to hold up, they just have to be decided by a supporter.
Perhaps they learned how to abuse "intent" from Director Comey.

 

[ronbo613]

Actually, this rambling, quasi paranoid word salad helps me understand the verdict a little bit better. Just need 11 more idiots like this one.

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.

 

[woolfe9998]

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

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.

 

[JSt0rm]

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.