‘Off the charts unbelievable': Will acquittal of Oregon refuge occupiers embolden extremists?

[NaturalHigh]

“I had been telling my client you can count on being convicted,” said Matthew Schindler, a lawyer for one of the men on trial for the armed takeover of Oregon’s Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. “You don’t walk into a federal court and win a case like this. It just doesn’t happen.”

But win they did and even Schindler thought it “off the charts unbelievable,” he told the Seattle Times.

“I fear this ruling will embolden other militants to use the threat of violence and I worry for the safety of employees at our public land- management agencies,” said John Horning, executive director of WildEarth Guardians, in a statement. “It is entirely possible there will be threats or intimidations from militants that believe such actions are justified by this verdict.”

As Leah Sottile reported for The Post, the trial for the leader of the armed occupation, Ammon Bundy, his brother Ryan and five others took six weeks. The verdict — not guilty of federal conspiracy charges — came in five days. While Ammon and Ryan Bundy face charges in Nevada for a 2014 standoff with Bureau of Land Manager officers at the family’s ranch, and seven additional defendants face their own trial, the others walked free.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/%e2%80%98off-the-charts-unbelievable-will-acquittal-of-oregon-refuge-occupiers-embolden-extremists-militias/ar-AAjvWDD?li=BBnbcA1&ocid=spartanntp

[muntrv]

1. Time to treat these folks as terrorists. Don't care if they are white krischins.

[beachbumbob]

2. Don't overlook implied jury intimidation by the supporters

Of these zealots...That should be foremost in all discussions

[atreides1]

6. Or?

A jury that had made its decision...and needed to get rid of the one juror who wouldn't make it unanimous!

Remember the former BLM employee who was removed and then replaced by an alternate? How much would it take to convince the new juror to vote with the majority?


Either scenario is possible!

[beachbumbob]

8. Both could still be a result of intimidation...funny how I haven't heard

That discussed....

[geek tragedy]

9. No, this was a unanimous acquittal. Each and every juror was a nutjob extremist nt

[ghostsinthemachine]

3. Damn right it will

Election day will be the signpost.

[Hugin]

4. Yes. They're already making plans on FB.

Nothing more to say.

[Hugin]

5. Additional point: They attribute their win to God's Will.

Good luck reigning that shit in from now on.

[NaturalHigh]

44. Do you have any specifics?

I don't have FaceBook so I wouldn't know.

[Hugin]

62. It's all over the place on the usual Bundy pages. Probably, out on the Extremist websites, too.

You see, it's totally legal in their eyes to do this sort of thing, now. They don't feel the need to hide it. It's "God's Will".

You can read all about it on the SPLC and right-wing watch sites very soon.

Nice job, Federal Courts.

Note to the FBI: It's really not hard to find. Much easier than say, anything actionable in HRC's emails.

[geek tragedy]

7. FBI just needs to Waco them next time nt

[appal_jack]

15. Um, wtf?

You are advocating burning women and children along with men not threatening anyone in particular at the moment when the fires were started?

Waco is a stain on this nation's history, and your advocacy of a reprise is despicable.

-app

[geek tragedy]

17. Branch Davidians burned themselves by setting those fires.

those inclined towards armed insurrection need to have an appropriate measure of its consequences. If juries are going to encourage it, then the state has to turn to other means to prevent it.

Maybe I should have cited Gordon Kahl or Chris Dorner.

The criminal justice system has proven itself incapable of addressing the act of armed insurrection. It needs to be treated more urgently than as a mere trespassing offense.

[NaturalHigh]

21. I have no sympathy for the Koresh types...

but Waco was an unfortunate clusterfuck. I don't think it needs to be repeated just because these few nuts got off.

[geek tragedy]

24. obviously laying siege to a residential compound with children inside isn't called for

But armed men at a government building should be met with a swift and armed response.

[Jason1961]

53. We should have let them freeze

Cut the power, water, electricity, etc and put up road blocks

Let them freeze up there with no incoming supplies

[vi5]

10. What was the rationale for this?

Was there not enough evidence that they took over federal sites? Was there not enough evidence that they were armed?

[jmowreader]

47. There's plenty of evidence sovereign citizens are armed and dangerous

And also a lot of evidence they're capable of destroying the lives of anyone who gets in their way. I have to wonder if knowledge that plenty of people who've crossed sovereign citizens have spent $25,000 to $40,000 removing malicious liens from their homes had anything to do with the acquittals.

[Hayduke Bomgarte]

11. Will acquittal of Oregon refuge occupiers embolden extremists?

Of course it will.

Just as with pug pols, each little victory, real or perceived, emboldens them to push a little further next time. This is bad.

[Moral Compass]

12. Incomprensible verdict

These jurors simply ignored the law and acquitted these thugs. They've sent a message out to all of the armed right wing crazies that it is just fine to show up and invade someone's property and occupy it if you've decided that you have a right to do so.

This puts me in an apocalyptic frame of mind.

God, this country is starting to resemble Weimar Germany more with each passing day.

[appal_jack]

16. This is a jury's right.

Google 'jury nullification,' as your understanding of American jurisprudence seems lacking.

-app

[geek tragedy]

18. which is why cases of armed insurrection should not be trusted to juries, outsourcing

the stability of the Republic to 12 wackos in a room is unwise. The criminal justice system exists to prosecute crime, not to prevent armed rebellion and armed insurgencies.

Armed insurrections should be defeated via force, not prosecuted.

[appal_jack]

23. Fine: advocate murderous dictatorship if you want.

Bookmarking this response of yours. What shall we use instead of juries of peers? Secret tribunals? Star Chambers, perhaps?

I hope other DU'ers distance themselves from your autocratic, anti-democratic position. I visit this site as an American who believes in Constitutional governance first, and an advocate for progressives and Democrats to pursue that end second. You, on the other hand, seem to be here to advocate murdering innocents who happen to disagree with your positions.

-app

[geek tragedy]

25. lol, the Bundy occupiers are now 'innocents' in your estimation? cool story bro

They should have been dealt with in Nevada.

Very simple rule: if you use armed force against the US government, you should be dealt with harshly and decisively so that future insurrectionists draw the appropriate lesson.

that jury of anti-government fanatics just put other federal workers in danger through their waving of pom-poms for armed insurrection.

As I said, when it comes to armed attacks and insurrection, juries are not an appropriate tool for prevention

[appal_jack]

27. Please try to keep up.

No Bundys were murdered, so why would you think I was referring to them as 'innocents'? It seems to me that the Malheur Bundy bunch acted criminally, but I was not on the jury. It was the prosecutor's job to convince the jury that they committed the crimes he charged them with, and he failed. Oh well, them's the breaks.

On the other hand, in my post above, I was talking about the women and children in Waco. Your assertion that the fires were set by the Branch Davidians is ludicrous. The Feds shooting flammable gas into buildings were the cause of the fires. Plus, the raid occurred while the people inside were threatening no one.

But I guess since it was a Clinton who ordered the raid, those people deserved to die.

Your posts are every bit as anti-Constitutional as Trump's advocacy for canceling the election. I expect better than that sort of "my team good, your team bad" gutter-level politics here.

-app

[geek tragedy]

32. "The Feds shooting flammable gas"

Did they do so from black helicopters?

The Danforth Report[edit]

The Oklahoma bombing in April 1995 made the media revisit many of the questionable aspects of the government's actions at Waco, and many Americans who previously supported those actions were now asking for an investigation.[99] By 1999—as a result of certain aspects of the documentaries discussed above, as well as allegations made by advocates for Branch Davidians during litigation—public opinion held that the federal government had engaged in serious misconduct at Waco. A Time poll conducted on August 26, 1999, for example, indicated that 61 percent of the public believed that federal law enforcement officials started the fire at the Branch Davidian complex. In September of that year, Attorney General Reno appointed former U.S. Senator John C. Danforth as Special Counsel to investigate the matter. In particular, the Special Counsel was directed to investigate charges that government agents started or spread the fire at the Mount Carmel complex, directed gunfire at the Branch Davidians, and unlawfully employed the armed forces of the United States. A yearlong investigation ensued, during which the Office of the Special Counsel interviewed 1,001 witnesses, reviewed over 2.3 million pages of documents, and examined thousands of pounds of physical evidence.

In the "Final report to the Deputy Attorney General concerning the 1993 confrontation at the Mt. Carmel Complex, Waco Texas" of November 8, 2000, Special Counsel Danforth concluded that the allegations were meritless. The report found, however, that certain government employees had failed to disclose during litigation against the Branch Davidians the use of pyrotechnic devices at the complex, and had obstructed the Special Counsel's investigation. Disciplinary action was pursued against those individuals. Allegations that the government started the fire were based largely on an FBI agent's having fired three "pyrotechnic" tear gas rounds, which are delivered with a charge that burns. The Special Counsel concluded that the rounds did not start or contribute to the spread of the fire, based on the finding that the FBI fired the rounds nearly four hours before the fire started, at a concrete construction pit partially filled with water, 75 feet (23 m) away and downwind from the main living quarters of the complex. The Special Counsel noted, by contrast, that recorded interceptions of Branch Davidian conversations included such statements as "David said we have to get the fuel on" and "So we light it first when they come in with the tank right [...] right as they're coming in." Branch Davidians who survived the fire acknowledged that other Branch Davidians started the fire. FBI agents witnessed Branch Davidians pouring fuel and igniting a fire, and noted these observations contemporaneously. Lab analysis found accelerants on the clothing of Branch Davidians, and investigators found deliberately punctured fuel cans and a homemade torch at the site. Based on this evidence and testimony, the Special Counsel concluded that the fire was started by the Branch Davidians.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_siege#The_Danforth_Report

[emulatorloo]

33. Stop stuffing words in other people's mouths

"But I guess since it was a Clinton who ordered the raid, those people deserved to die."

That's pretty egregious.


If you want to have a rational discussion with someone you disagree with, have a discussion.

Don't fabricate hyperbolic bullshit and put those words in your fellow DU'ers mouths.

[appal_jack]

35. "FBI just needs to Waco them next time" -geek tragedy

"FBI just needs to Waco them next time" -geek tragedy

Given that a Clinton is likely to be president again in around three months' time, my conclusion was not a huge leap.

-app

[emulatorloo]

36. No, your "conclusion" was OTT hyperbole.

I am sympathetic to your position, but you do yourself no favors with this kind of dishonest rhetoric.

Between that and your easily disproven claims regarding who set the fire at the compound, you are ruining your credibility.

JMHO, of course. These tactics may work well for you in the future.

[Calculating]

29. So you want to take away their constitution rights?

Such as a Trial by a jury of their peers?

[geek tragedy]

34. No, I'm saying the wait them out, peaceful approach has proven

to be a failure. It failed in Nevada, and it failed in Oregon.

The Constitution does not mandate such an approach. There's nothing in the constitution that prevents the federal government from simply ordering them out, and then sending in SWAT teams to take them out if they refuse.

[roamer65]

31. I agree with you on this point.

We didn't outsource the Civil War to a jury. The National Guard should have moved in on Malheur and the minute a shot was fired by Bundy's nutbags, the national guard should have returned fire until the job was complete.

[Nay]

55. Agreed. It was obvious from the beginning that these nuts were going to be

treated with kid gloves by the Feds, and now we can't even get a conviction against them when they did it all ON TV. Time to send in SWAT indeed.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

45. grow up

[drm604]

37. It may be their right

but that doesn't mean they made a good decision.

[WinkyDink]

13. Well, they are white.

[maryellen99]

14. I read a comment on Kos saying that now due to the Bundys being acquitted

He would be shocked if Trump loses.

[drm604]

22. That's just some random poster on Kos.

I don't think this will have much affect on the election.

[maryellen99]

28. I hope not but don't think it will either nt

[NaturalHigh]

41. One has nothing to do with the other.

Trump is going to lose and lose big.

[wordpix]

19. so RW militants can take over fed facil's with rifles and

that's OK. Not my Amerika

[barbtries]

20. of course it will.

the same players will be back at it if/when they get out of jail.

this decision saddens me greatly. the whole basis for justice in this country is all torn up. the law don't mean shit. it is applied grotesquely inequitably.

[lapfog_1]

26. almost inevitable

When this guy wasn't shot outright by the police, what did they expect to happen?

[JonathanRackham]

30. What was the estimate on damages?

I smell jury tampering.

[awoke_in_2003]

42. We need to rid ourselves

of this whole "jury of peers" nonsense. The only people who serve on juries are those dumb enough not to figure out how to get themselves out of it. Replace them with people whose job is being and have at least a little bit of knowledge of the law.

[NaturalHigh]

43. That's like throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

No need to change the Constitution over this one verdict.

[awoke_in_2003]

57. You're right, of course

Something needs to change, though. Too many people try to get out of it, mainly because of pay. Who can afford to lose the work? I get paid by my company (minus my 10% shift bonus) if I get picked (which I never do- my sister is a sheriff), so I can afford it. Most people aren't that lucky.

[NaturalHigh]

58. I get paid by my company too.

It would really suck if you lost the pay. I can understand wanting to skip it if you did.

[awoke_in_2003]

59. I really wish I would get picked once

One, to perform my civic duty, and two, to get paid my salary for just sitting around

[NaturalHigh]

60. I was on a jury for a civil case.

It was pretty boring. A criminal case would have been more interesting.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

46. Juries in free states used to refuse to convict under the Fugitive Slave Act.

For not reason other than they disapproved of the law on moral grounds.

[NaturalHigh]

48. Good point.

[awoke_in_2003]

56. Valid point. nt

[dembotoz]

61. what is guilty here might be innocent there

it should be remembered that donald trump will win a number of states

so there are large chunks of this land where rational thought is not a number one priorty

[spanone]

49. does the pope shit in the woods?

[NaturalHigh]

50. Not to my knowledge.

[Eleanors38]

51. One of these jerks asked me, after he heard I was left-of-center:

"Bet you want gun control."

I answered:

"I can control all 9 of mine quite well. But thanks for asking."

Best conversation stopper yet.

[NaturalHigh]

52. LOL...good retort.

[DonCoquixote]

54. is water wet?

Keep in mind, many of the alt right whackos there have no problem if Native Americans, Feds, or non compliant Politicos get shot. Their only regret is that they had to use snipers instead of firing squads, and they are working towards the day when they can do EXACTLY THAT.