Patterico's Pontifications

10/27/2016

Bundys Acquitted

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 11:43 pm



Wow.

Armed antigovernment protesters led by Ammon and Ryan Bundy were acquitted Thursday of federal conspiracy and weapons charges stemming from the takeover of a federally owned wildlife sanctuary in Oregon last winter.

The surprise acquittals of all seven defendants in Federal District Court was a blow to government prosecutors, who had argued that the Bundys and five of their followers used force and threats of violence to occupy the reserve. But the jury appeared swayed by the defendants’ contention that they were protesting government overreach and posed no threat to the public.

In a sign of the tension that ran through the trial, Ammon Bundy’s lawyer, Marcus R. Mumford, frustrated that the Bundys were not being released, was restrained by four United States marshals after an outburst.

Not just “restrained.” He was tased and placed into custody for a brief while.

It’s a fool’s errand to speculate on the reasons for this verdict without knowing the details. So I won’t.

41 Responses to “Bundys Acquitted”

  1. Ding.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  2. If Hillary wins her AG will skip the tanks and go straight to drone strikes.

    Pinandpuller (b42f34)

  3. This fiasco has yet to see the full light of day. Finicum may have been intent on suicide by cop, but there is another explanation. After he got out of the car that was buried in the snow bank, and as he was raising his hands, an FBI “sharp shooter” opened up on him. We know that two rounds struck the car right next to him, but they apparently missed him. A few seconds later, after he’d moved to the rear of the car, he made the fatal decision to reach into his coat, and he was shot down by Oregon State Troopers from the front and rear with rifle fire from close range. I have great doubts as to whether the post mortem is trustworthy. That “sharp shooter” may have kept firing and finally managed put a few rounds in other parts of Finicum that we haven’t heard about. He could have been responding to those wounds.

    It is also true that killing ground had been prepared in advance by the FBI and the Oregon State Troopers. It was a neatly orchestrated killing. And now those who’d done everything that Finicum did, except for Finicum’s last 10 or 15 seconds of life, have been judged not guilty.

    This episode is much worse than any of the black lives matter incidents. Even the ones where the cop shot without good reason. In all of those cases the victim was not in a previously prepared killing ground, and the cop had to deal with a very volatile and uncertain situation where his own fears may have over come his training. In that Oregon snowbank, the cops were hunting humans plain and simple. Everything went exactly as planned.

    BobStewartatHome (b2bab4)

  4. If the trial had been held in a “sanctuary city” and under the control of that city, the two men would have been released if they were illegal immigrants, even if they had prior felonies and Federal warrants. Clearly the Federal government is capable of wielding an iron fist when it feels it is threatened. But illegals released into a sanctuary city threaten only the citizens of that city, not the awesome authority of the Federal government. And, there is the consideration that perhaps as many as six percent of these catch and release illegals may be willing to further their life of crime by casting illegal votes for Democrats, which would be icing on the cake.

    This sort of over reaction, including the tasing of the lawyer by Federal Marshalls, seems to be more of an admission of weakness by our Federal overlords than a show of strength. They apparently feel that they must make an example of these men and their legal teams lest the flood gates open. Do our masters go to bed every night with dreams of angry mobs waving torches and pitch forks chasing them through the streets?

    BobStewartatHome (b2bab4)

  5. Sixth Amendment, baby!

    “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed…”

    I assume that they feds had to prove something about criminal intention and couldn’t, at least to the satisfaction of jurors who were from all over Oregon.

    The panel includes eight women and four men who come from a wide cross-section of the state. Most of them had little prior knowledge about the occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in eastern Oregon, according to statements they made during jury selection.

    Four of the 12 jurors are from the tri-county Portland area. Three are from the Eugene/Springfield area, and others live in St. Helens, Klamath Falls, Baker City and Hood River.

    http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/09/jury_selected_for_oregon_stand.html

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  6. All your gubmint overreach are belong to us.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  7. Just say “No!”

    nk (dbc370)

  8. This is what got the Bundys acquitted, Patterico: Pattern Jury Instructions for the Ninth Circuit, which BTW the trial judge, Anna J. Brown, helped draft. http://federalevidence.com/pdf/JuryInst/8.2010.Final.Criminal.pdf The one we want is Instruction 8.3 on print numbered page 125.

    From the jury instruction notes:

    The statutory language states that the crime can be committed by one who “forcibly
    assaults, resists, opposes, impedes, intimidates or interferes,” but the Ninth Circuit has held that regardless of the circumstances, the conduct is not criminal unless it includes an assault. UnitedStates v. Chapman, 528 F.3d 1215, 1221 (9th Cir.2008). Similarly, the court has held that a
    proper instruction may not reduce the concept of force or threatened force to the mere appearance of physical intimidation. United States v. Harrison, 585 F.3d 1155, 1160 (9th Cir.2009).

    nk (dbc370)

  9. Tased and held the lawyer that did his job.

    Really?

    NJRob (a07d2e)

  10. Now, I don’t know how federal prosecutors prepare their cases, but when I researched the law on mine, my starting point was always the Illinois Pattern Jury Instructions. Maybe these feds should have done that before bringing the indictment and saved everybody a lot of time and trouble. Or maybe they did and just went right on ahead, anyway.

    nk (dbc370)

  11. When “the law” is perceived as lawless, people will take it into their own hands. The doj does not inspire confidence. Too bad the Bundy’s did not sell state secrets. Maybe it would not have gone to trial?

    Jim (a9b7c7)

  12. Here’s another view of the trial written prior to the verdict:

    http://redoubtnews.com/2016/09/26/explaining-malheur-protest-trial/

    Judge Brown must be outraged at the members of this jury. She did everything she could to ensure a conviction, and yet they bolted. Is it normal procedure to threaten to charge the defense lawyer $1000 for every mention of the events surrounding the arrest of some of those on trial? Is this a form of Clinton’s Pay to Play? And heaven help us if the jury is reminded of the Bill of Rights.

    I doubt that we have heard the last of this. Is it unreasonable to be concerned that the runaway 12 will now be arrested and held for trial themselves? And will these arrests be made by SWAT teams in the middle of the night? The world wonders.

    BobStewartatHome (b2bab4)

  13. They were apparently charged with a conspiracy to keep federal workers from working (!) (talk about square pegs and round holes) as well as some weapons charges. Amnon Bundy testified that the takeover was spontaneous. The defense lawyers also argued that paid government informants at the refuge during the occupation muddied the waters as to who was responsibe for any decisions made.

    They were acquitted on all but one charge, on which the jury returned no verdict (was hung?) That was a theft of government property charge against Ryan Bundy for removing cameras mounted at the refuge.

    They were not released because the judge said they faced other charges in Nevada. Their lawyer got very disturbed at that, I don’t know why.

    Sammy Finkelman (592d97)

  14. Another court case where prosecutors (in state court in New Jersey) tried to use an inapplicable law:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/10/nyregion/conviction-thrown-out-for-rutgers-student-in-tyler-clementi-case.html

    That one got overturned on appeal, as is more usual, and the rest of the charges were also thrown out on the grounds that the invalid charges had tainted the jury’s verdict. Rather than hold a re-trial, the prosecutors negotiated a plea bargain to a relatively minor charge, still a felony, with the punishment limited to fines paid and time served.

    It probably only got prosecuted because he a suicide may have happened because of what the defendant did, although everyone acknowleged that he couldn’t be prosecuted for the suicide.

    Sammy Finkelman (592d97)

  15. The left is very worried that the Bundy result means “rightwing zealots can break the law and won’t be punished.” Hilarious. Every word of that except “rightwing” applies to the Occupy movement an the left doesn’t complain about it.

    DRJ (15874d)

  16. DRJ, somewhere along the line, our whole society has lost the ability to see through other people’s eyes.

    It drives the jaw-dropping hypocrisy in everyday life.

    Also, the weirdest level of confirmation bias. Here is an example:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anNWYPfK2oU

    I don’t think this is faked, either.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  17. Empathy is a sign of intelligence and both are in short supply.

    DRJ (15874d)

  18. With Clinton replacing Obama in the Oval Office, jury nullification becomes a necessary rebuttal to the Department of Corrupt Clowns attempts at show trials. I look forward to more jury nullification as well as a sharp increase in the number of hung juries. The Department of Injustice has certainly earned the contempt it now enjoys and nothing exhibits the contempt better than juries just saying no.

    Rick Ballard (bca473)

  19. I don’t think this was jury nullification. The government simply failed to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that federal officials were assaulted.

    nk (dbc370)

  20. Although it may have proved that the federal officials involved in this case are asshats.

    nk (dbc370)

  21. “It’s a fool’s errand to speculate on the reasons for this verdict without knowing the details.”

    That sounds like a challenge and I’m just the guy. Let me see what I can come up with.

    I think the place to start is with “tased and arrested.” Those federal marshals and, of course, the presiding judge were none to happy, were they? If you can’t jail the defendants, why not their councel? Oh, that’s right, the defendants are still jailed.

    All this, while at the same time, the DOJ is protecting trespassing protesters in Dakota. This has nothing to do with justice. It’s all about power.

    ThOR (c9324e)

  22. A little editing, nk?

    “(F)ederal officials involved in this case are asshats.”

    ThOR (c9324e)

  23. I’m still trying to figure out why the possession of firearms on federal property didn’t stick. IIRC, there was video evidence that they had firearms in the building. I can understand a firearms rider on the conspiracy charge not coming through when the conspiracy charge fails. But I’m pretty sure waving a gun around on federal property is illegal.

    Semper Why (61d231)

  24. My guess is that the firearms charge was under 18 USC 111(b) which required the predicate of a finding of guilty under Section 111(a). But it’s just a guess.

    nk (dbc370)

  25. Simon, the young people being interviewed appeared to be unaware that amounts owed for insurance are considered “premiums”. This was really a case of ignorance. As the interview continued they were given some hints and a chance to reevaluate the response, but I’d say they simply weren’t able to connect the dots quickly enough to realize that paying more something is not a good thing.

    The bias came from their attempt to understand the question by putting it in some context. In this case, they assumed that anything Obama was associated with was good. I don’t think this conclusion will hold should they ever realize that they will be paying more for something, because they do buy stuff and they’ve no doubt had to forego some purchase due to its cost. But with our welfare system so pervasive and all-encompassing, they may never have to pay for many things with their own money, which means they will continue to function in a state of blind ignorance. This doesn’t mean that they will be satisfied with the crumbs that the Democrats feed them, but on their plantation, this will be the way life is lived.

    So I suppose this could be the simplest, least nuanced, form of confirmation bias (Obama+anything=good,) but I would attribute it to ignorance bordering on stupidity, and not hypocrisy.

    BobStewartatHome (b2bab4)

  26. The Jury has spoken, the Bundy’s are not guilty, despite all the lies the press and the government tainted the proceeding with.

    lol

    Steven Malynn (5c1dae)

  27. @Sammy Finkleman:They were apparently charged with a conspiracy to keep federal workers from working (!)

    Every person who has hired anyone for the Federal government is guilty of THAT one.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  28. The left is very worried that the Bundy result means “rightwing zealots can break the law and won’t be punished.” Hilarious. Every word of that except “rightwing” applies to the Occupy movement an the left doesn’t complain about it.

    Indeed, DRJ, from what I read the prosecutor in this case summarized his argument by insisting that citizens should not be allowed to pick and choose which laws they follow and which ones they ignore. Imagine that. A prosecutor in Barack Obama’s government making an argument that people can’t selectively choose which laws to obey and which ones to flout. Had I been on the jury, that statement alone would have likely pushed me to acquit.

    JVW (6e49ce)

  29. I am told by my alt-right rumor mill that the jury was also not very delighted with the fact that more than half of the protesters were Federal agents provocateur of one sort or another.

    When there were 15-30 people there and you’re charging only 7 and 8-23 were Feds from various agencies and you already shot a guy, what the hell?

    Ingot9455 (e5bf64)

  30. I’m still trying to figure out why the possession of firearms on federal property didn’t stick. IIRC, there was video evidence that they had firearms in the building. I can understand a firearms rider on the conspiracy charge not coming through when the conspiracy charge fails. But I’m pretty sure waving a gun around on federal property is illegal.

    Maybe the jury understands the second amendment. Or maybe tbey’ve walked in forested land filled with various critters who consider humans potential food, like for example, where this incident took place.

    gospace (812f3b)

  31. A lot of people don’t understand the amount of animosity toward Feds in rural West.

    SPQR (a3a747)

  32. A lot of people don’t understand the amount of animosity toward Feds in rural West.

    But, wow, Oregon? The young lefties must have all ignored their jury summons.

    JVW (6e49ce)

  33. @31.A lot of people don’t understand the amount of animosity toward Feds in rural West.

    Fortunately, a lot more do.

    “Come down to Crazy Eddie’s! His prices are– insane!!!” – Crazy Eddie TV & radio ads, NYC, 1980’s

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  34. Oregon especially. I know the guy from the Bureau of Reclamation who had to order a shutdown in Oregon of irrigation canals because of an endangered species of fish. Living in another state, years later he still got threats. A lot of people see their livelihoods destroyed by Federal policies.

    SPQR (a3a747)

  35. @34… A lot of people see their livelihoods destroyed by Federal policies.

    They see Bigfoot, too.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  36. Yeah, I get that rural Oregon is way different from coastal Oregon, in the same way that coastal California is way different from interior California, but the trial was in Portland so I thought that doomed the Bundy in terms of jury pool.

    JVW (6e49ce)

  37. Portland can surprise – they had enough to prevent a drivers licenses for illegals plan in the 2014 election ballot. But as the noted urbanographer Aaron R. Renn once quipped, given that Portland’s inmigration is largely from California, Portland is white flight writ large (although I would say beta-male white flight writ large).

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  38. There is some questions being asked by observers that the court tried to pack a jury with already biased individuals. Since it appears that a former BLM employee was on the jury and tried to bias the jury towards convection.

    http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/juror-dismissed-in-oregon-standoff-trial-over-bias-concern/

    So the not guilty charges may have came more from the fact that if a mistrial was declared the whole affair would have carried on even longer. Also, questions of a fair or impartial court case could be raised when the both the defense and prosecution left in what appears to a layman as a poisoned juror instead of dismissing them during the racking and stacking of potential jurors for the case.

    Charles (3b2307)

  39. Maybe these feds should have done that before bringing the indictment and saved everybody a lot of time and trouble. Or maybe they did and just went right on ahead, anyway.

    Hey, they got a lot of guilty pleas, so the tactics worked!

    Kevin M (ba98c9)

  40. But, wow, Oregon? The young lefties must have all ignored their jury summons.

    Young lefties don’t go very far from downtown Portland and it’s a big state.

    Kevin M (ba98c9)

  41. #38: See #5

    Kevin M (ba98c9)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0955 secs.