Do unarmed, peaceful protesters on what was private land seized under eminent domain (thus becoming federal land?) but then given to a private company, the Dakota Access Pipeline, have the same out. Can their protests be seen as protesting Government overreach. I would think they would have a much stronger case, and if not why not?
btw: Is it even legal for the Government to use eminent domain to benefit a private company.
btw: Is it even legal for the Government to use eminent domain to benefit a private company.
9
I guess next time the feds will have to send in the park rangers to sit at their desks while surrounded by yahoo's with guns. There seems no other way to prove that they're being deprived of their ability to do their jobs. I'm sure that will work out just dandily.
3
" informed by religious belief"
What is that about and why does it have any merit in a case about federally owned land?
What is that about and why does it have any merit in a case about federally owned land?
13
“This case is about people wanting to be heard, and they’re just frustrated with our government.”
Looks to me like if you're white, and wearing a cowboy hat, armed insurrection has just been declared legal. “The government was not here to find the truth,” Robert L. Salisbury, Mr. Banta’s lawyer, told the jury before deliberations began. “This case is about people wanting to be heard, and they’re just frustrated with our government.” When the Occupy Movement returns, this precedent will come in handy.
I'm off to buy me a Stetson!
Looks to me like if you're white, and wearing a cowboy hat, armed insurrection has just been declared legal. “The government was not here to find the truth,” Robert L. Salisbury, Mr. Banta’s lawyer, told the jury before deliberations began. “This case is about people wanting to be heard, and they’re just frustrated with our government.” When the Occupy Movement returns, this precedent will come in handy.
I'm off to buy me a Stetson!
8
I am not a lawyer.
Why charge this crew with conspiracy?
Why not charge them with trespass?
Endangering the spotted-tufted petunia?
My layman's understanding is that conspiracy is a very difficult thing to prove.
Did the DoJ wish to lose this case?
Obama's DoJ has simply empowered another group of miscreants.
Why charge this crew with conspiracy?
Why not charge them with trespass?
Endangering the spotted-tufted petunia?
My layman's understanding is that conspiracy is a very difficult thing to prove.
Did the DoJ wish to lose this case?
Obama's DoJ has simply empowered another group of miscreants.
1
I think, deep down the issue is the impenetrable and arrogant bureaucracy of the BLM! Yes it's public land, but have you ever tried dealing with/reasoning with this particular govt agency? It's NOT public if the public has no say, and if BLM (or any govt management agency) is not responsive to the people they claim to serve. I think the result of the trial reflects the general sentiment of unresponsive and really an un-knowledgeable arm of the govt.
1
Like the OJ Simpson verdict, this is one segment of society sending a message of some sort to another segment. I haven't followed this case that closely, but we can tell already, this is a historic milestone of sorts. Unfortunately, I suspect it is an darkly ominous event with implications which are only bad. We need only stand back and watch the repercussions and how far they reach.
2
This is because nobody thinks they are smart enough to devise a conspiracy.
They couldn't even plan their food budget.
They couldn't even plan their food budget.
2
The predictably knee-jerk response of NY Times readers to the Bundy trial shows they have little understanding of events as they compare this to the Dakota pipeline protests. Bundy was arrested and had a trial. Protestors in North Dakota have been arrested. Those protestors have not yet had a trial. There is no equivalence. In an effort to push victimization, NY Times readers seem to be unaware that Bundy was actually arrested, and that the Dakota activists have not been declared guilty of a crime in a court of law. Until the latter happens, quit whining with your false equivalences.
1
There are so many other charges that could be brought. I hope that happens and they are put away for a very very long time!
4
Just a bunch of hippies?? I remember getting arrested for staging a protest against the Vietnam War and our only weapon was a guitar to sing We Shall Overcome.
50
This has already given conservatives and those that believe that the American people do not own federal land ammunition, so to speak, to commit other acts of aggression against Americans. In Albuquerque where discharging a firearm within city limits is unlawful (and dumb) a group of gun rights advocates is promising to occupy city open space (Elena Gallegos Open Space) so they will be given the right to discharge firearms and hunt where thousands of people hike, bike, and run daily. This in a state where concealed carry and open carry is legal. We can expect this kind of anti-American activity to become much more common. Next time it could be a bloodbath. The real terrorists appear to be mainly white citizens who were born here.
48
I guess the protesters at Standing Rock forgot to be white so they could make a political point and get a free pass- it is painfully obvious that these guys who destroyed property and artifacts in Oregon used the Race Card, i.e., they were all white. Pitiful.
82
This judgement opens all federal property to armed couch-surfing by anyone with a grudge-- at our expense.
56
This is a judicial whiplash. Members of this jury all have broken necks with damage to their optical nerves. Other cerebral functions were compromised as well. Where were the prosecutors in this case? This pumps up anti-government movements across the country in a sinister and dangerous way. One more ingredient added to the cauldron of anarchy now ready to boil over. Good luck to us all.
51
Well it seems that one result of the verdict is to make it necessary, on the part of government, to forcibly evict future "patriots" as, apparently, taking over federal property and restricting access is not a crime unless they resist. Given the necessity to protect law enforcement officers from unreasonable risk it leads one to conclude that future events will not be "standoffs" but full firefights. Regrettable.
25
I've been urging people for a long time to BOYCOTT BEEF. I have not eaten it or even purchased it for my pets, in many years. Ranchers have destroyed this country. Every time you eat a burger or a steak, you are supporting these people.
54
I agree with others asking how a jury could possibly have acquitted them. If you believe in definitions of charges (definitions of words) - you'd have to find them guilty.
40
Here's a clue to the jury's thinking, from the Oregonian, the Portland Paper:
http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/10/how_the_jury_reached_i...
Bottom line, prosecutors didn't prove a difficult charge to make. They could have gotten easy convictions on lesser (trespassing, etc) charges, but they reached high to impose maximum penalties.
http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/10/how_the_jury_reached_i...
Bottom line, prosecutors didn't prove a difficult charge to make. They could have gotten easy convictions on lesser (trespassing, etc) charges, but they reached high to impose maximum penalties.
2
This is an abomination, period. Can't wait until these white terrorists occupy the juror's homes, churches, businesses, and wives! After all, they are just exercising their 1st Amendment rights!
52
Twenty years ago a L.A jury found O.J. Simpson not guilty of murder. This was not necessarily because he was innocent, but because they wanted to censure the racist, heavy-handed LAPD. In my opinion, today’s verdict is the Western rancher’s version of the O.J. Simpson acquittal. Easterners don’t have a clue what a contentious issue land ownership, use and restrictions are in the West.
The federal government has confiscated thousands of acres of state and private lands in the West over the years. I lived in Alaska in the late 90's, and almost everyone knows that federal officials act like little fiefs over what are supposed to be ‘public lands’. Over 60% of Alaskan lands are federally owned and restricted to locals. The people of Alaska have less say over the majority of their own state than do politically appointed bureaucrats in D.C.
Same story with Oregon, 53% of Oregon lands are owned by the Federal Government. In Nevada, over 81% of the territory is federally owned. Think about that. The people of Nevada have jurisdiction over less than 1/5 of their own state. The list goes on: Utah (66%), Idaho (61%), California (47%), Arizona (42%), Wyoming (48%).
In New York, the Federal government owns a mere .7% of the land; in New Jersey 4%, Connecticut .3% and Pennsylvania 2.1%. But in the West, where the economy is land based (farming, mining and ranching) federal ownership has a direct and negative impact on the viability of these small, rural communities.
The federal government has confiscated thousands of acres of state and private lands in the West over the years. I lived in Alaska in the late 90's, and almost everyone knows that federal officials act like little fiefs over what are supposed to be ‘public lands’. Over 60% of Alaskan lands are federally owned and restricted to locals. The people of Alaska have less say over the majority of their own state than do politically appointed bureaucrats in D.C.
Same story with Oregon, 53% of Oregon lands are owned by the Federal Government. In Nevada, over 81% of the territory is federally owned. Think about that. The people of Nevada have jurisdiction over less than 1/5 of their own state. The list goes on: Utah (66%), Idaho (61%), California (47%), Arizona (42%), Wyoming (48%).
In New York, the Federal government owns a mere .7% of the land; in New Jersey 4%, Connecticut .3% and Pennsylvania 2.1%. But in the West, where the economy is land based (farming, mining and ranching) federal ownership has a direct and negative impact on the viability of these small, rural communities.
18
I have lived in the West my entire life. The greatest thing about the West is it's public lands which are under skillful management by both state and federal agencies. Land management objectives are for multiple use of finite resources. This means that nobody gets everything they want. Fortunately most people understand the give and take required for all to use public lands. Unfortunately, there is an minority who refuse to play by the rules and feel they can do as they wish. The Bundy gang and their gun fetish supporters do not represent the views of the majority of Westerners. Not even in Alaska.
9
YES! This is how the justice system (really the JUSTUS) is supposed to work. Look into jury nullification. The federal govt is FAR outside its constitutional limits. Juries are SUPPOSED to rule in favor of defendants if they think the govt is being abusive or cavalier. You all CHEER the vicious racist, pathological liar, major felon and traitor that is the clintons (all PROVEN in public record now), and you WAIL and talk about "disgust" when a jury says "not on my watch" for some average Americans. You had best use some introspection...your soul is twisted. Get it straightened out right now.
12
Clearly the morons in charge of this prosecution couldn't organise a one-person car pool. Doesn't matter how ignorant or obtuse the jury were, surely this was a gimme.
20
The Obama regime's gingerly kid gloves treatment of white Christian terrorists is a policy that foresaw the acquittal of the Bundy gang.
The gang was able to conduct an armed occupation of the Oregon Wildlife Refuge in full view of the nation because they won their 2014 armed confrontation with the feds at the Bundy ranch in Nevada. Armed federal marshals retreated from the battlefield and no one was arrested until this year when Bundy pere, immune in Nevada, made an unwise visit to Portland.
Charging the terrorists with the narrow and whimpy crime of conspiring to keep refuge workers away from their jobs was difficult to prove because their own boss ordered them to stay away and none tried to go to work.
A federal government determined to fight terrorism could have escorted employees through the terrorist lines with as much firepower as deemed necessary if that was the crime they intended to prevent. But, as in Nevada, law enforcement did not even order the terrorists to drop their guns (Oregon offers an "open carry" invitation) or threaten them with arrest.
Instead, Obama's DOJ policy was to wait them out, perhaps because white lives really matter. That meant the prosecution could not present evidentiary proof of actual weapon threats and intimidation by the terrorists and dictated their weak charge.
The gang was able to conduct an armed occupation of the Oregon Wildlife Refuge in full view of the nation because they won their 2014 armed confrontation with the feds at the Bundy ranch in Nevada. Armed federal marshals retreated from the battlefield and no one was arrested until this year when Bundy pere, immune in Nevada, made an unwise visit to Portland.
Charging the terrorists with the narrow and whimpy crime of conspiring to keep refuge workers away from their jobs was difficult to prove because their own boss ordered them to stay away and none tried to go to work.
A federal government determined to fight terrorism could have escorted employees through the terrorist lines with as much firepower as deemed necessary if that was the crime they intended to prevent. But, as in Nevada, law enforcement did not even order the terrorists to drop their guns (Oregon offers an "open carry" invitation) or threaten them with arrest.
Instead, Obama's DOJ policy was to wait them out, perhaps because white lives really matter. That meant the prosecution could not present evidentiary proof of actual weapon threats and intimidation by the terrorists and dictated their weak charge.
30
"Armed Protest" is an oxymoron. Free speech and the right to protest are inseparable. The presence of weapons creates a thereat. The threat is not protected and is unacceptable
49
If Native Americans had occupied the same refuge, there wouldn't have even been a trial - they would have already been shot to death.
Talk about white privilege...
Talk about white privilege...
64
At this very moment, Native Americans are being chased by dogs, beaten and arrested for peacefully protesting a pipeline that would gp through their land and potentially ravish the environment if there were an accident. America is really living up to its racist foundation. Very sad.
9
The Oregonian newspaper provides and explanation:
Juror 4: Oregon standoff prosecutors failed to prove 'intent' to impede federal workers
http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/10/juror_4_prosecutors_in...
Juror 4: Oregon standoff prosecutors failed to prove 'intent' to impede federal workers
http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/10/juror_4_prosecutors_in...
6
Thank you for the link to the Oregon story. It explains this verdict.
...Meanwhile in North Dakota, the ancestral owners of their land are being intimidated by police in riot gear, where are this Patriots defending the land?
47
These people were acquitted by a jury of their peers.
The First Nation protesters in North Dakota should also be tried by a jury of their peers. In fact, the trial should be held on the reservation.
The First Nation protesters in North Dakota should also be tried by a jury of their peers. In fact, the trial should be held on the reservation.
53
How will the "Indians" come out after they blocked a pipeline on private property?
10
This has to be one of the most outrageous verdicts in my lifetime. The idea armed men can take over a federal site and not be convicted is unbelievable.
This indicates that the prosecution blew it by selecting a jury of peers who
subscribe to the Western outlaw version of believing they can override legitimate authority. Very dumb. And what ever happened to the law against
trespassing which in itself on private or public property is illegal and carries penalties. This puts government agencies at a distinct disadvantage and a real threat in carrying out their duties. Bad news!
This indicates that the prosecution blew it by selecting a jury of peers who
subscribe to the Western outlaw version of believing they can override legitimate authority. Very dumb. And what ever happened to the law against
trespassing which in itself on private or public property is illegal and carries penalties. This puts government agencies at a distinct disadvantage and a real threat in carrying out their duties. Bad news!
41
After the OJ and Cassie Anthony Verdicts- Should anything surprise you?
7
As a law student and a citizen, I had heard what a great judicial system we had with a "jury of our peers."
As a licensed attorney, I have come to believe the jury system is not a good one. Juries are now composed of people with an agenda, under-educated individuals who lack the capacity to understand the judges' charges of what the law is or else have a flagrant disregard of such. In addition, a high percentage of jury members see the government as some sort of oppressive enemy, and not the foundation of law and order. Without large industries giving people employment, without unions, without church membership, there seems to be a rugged individualism in this country which precludes juries from doing what is right under the law.
I would prefer a jury composed as it is in Europe, with judges or attorneys as additions to the jury. A few years ago I, as an attorney and officer of the court, was part of grand jury for several months. We were very efficient because I did not tolerate irrelevance and personal opinions, and made the jurors apply the law as codified to the facts.
Alas, many juries are too tendentious, misguided and unpatriotic to do this.
As a licensed attorney, I have come to believe the jury system is not a good one. Juries are now composed of people with an agenda, under-educated individuals who lack the capacity to understand the judges' charges of what the law is or else have a flagrant disregard of such. In addition, a high percentage of jury members see the government as some sort of oppressive enemy, and not the foundation of law and order. Without large industries giving people employment, without unions, without church membership, there seems to be a rugged individualism in this country which precludes juries from doing what is right under the law.
I would prefer a jury composed as it is in Europe, with judges or attorneys as additions to the jury. A few years ago I, as an attorney and officer of the court, was part of grand jury for several months. We were very efficient because I did not tolerate irrelevance and personal opinions, and made the jurors apply the law as codified to the facts.
Alas, many juries are too tendentious, misguided and unpatriotic to do this.
51
Wonderful precedent! Next time my public library cancels another magazine subscription for lack of funding- me and my book club buddies will storm the and occupy the place in protest. If they are going to let those clowns go- Then me and my friends occupying the library for a few days shouldn't be an issue..
32
I'll also bring my own non-dairy creamer !!!!!!
14
Considering their armed take over an acquittal is insulting on many levels. They and their handlers have pushed the envelope ever closer to privatization of federal lands (that belong to all of us) for the pure greed and benefit of the oligharchs who control and fund the entire Republican Party.
38
"...Mr. Mumford said acquitting Mr. Bundy would be a victory for all Americans. “They’re deceiving you,” Mr. Mumford said, gesturing to the prosecutors. “It’s the government that picks and chooses the rules it’s going to comply with...”
Mr. Mumford was able to convince the jury that the prosecution had not proven it's case beyond a reasonable doubt, or the jury indulged in jury nullification. In either case, it was a defeat for democracy and human freedom and a victory for lawlessness and base selfishness by some clearly savage people.
Mr. Mumford was able to convince the jury that the prosecution had not proven it's case beyond a reasonable doubt, or the jury indulged in jury nullification. In either case, it was a defeat for democracy and human freedom and a victory for lawlessness and base selfishness by some clearly savage people.
13
As an older white person, this is about race. If you're a native American, involved in a much less violent protest, on your own land - everyone gets arrested, even the journalists.
There will be violence to reap, from sending a signal that being white and male, while armed and trespassing is ok.
There will be violence to reap, from sending a signal that being white and male, while armed and trespassing is ok.
28
Forgive me if this is a repeat, I scrolled through a number of comments but didn't see this posted. This article from the Oregonian about one juror's perspective on the case sheds some light on what the jurors were thinking and also reinforces the idea some have mentioned that the prosecutors didn't charge the defendants correctly: http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/10/juror_4_prosecutors_in...
8
Seems to me to be a failure on the prosecutors part - either in jury selection or in their presentation of the case. They needed a win here, and should have devoted more effort to ensuring that happened.
12
Will this decision give license to all the Trump supporters, who believe the election is rigged, to become armed vigilantes if their candidate loses?
38
Yes.
15
what a sad depressing little country america has become
little in every way
29
Anyone who has spent any time with people living in the wide open spaces of this country has heard of the resentment that some of them have for lands owned by the people being managed in ways which they feel prevent them from becoming wealthy. They long for the lawless west where the cattle barons of the great plains and the mining companies of the mountains and the great basin took the public's resources without paying a dime for them and leaving wastelands which had lost all productivity. Respecting the lands and compensating the people for the use of those lands is the great injustice which enrages the Bundy's and their followers. There will always be people like these who have absolutely nothing but contempt for anyone who does not stop them cold from their predatory inclinations. The acquittals means that the Bundy Brothers will come back and commit far more heinous crimes in the future.
59
Words of Shawna Cox, one of the defendants acquitted, from the NYT video featured in this article:
"We have to say we are so grateful to those patriots and those jurors who spent their time.. an.. and we know it's a great sacrifice and we're so grateful and we're in tears because we were so happy that they heard the truth and they didn't... and they weren't.. um.. intimidated enough that they didn't come back with the right judgment and we thank God for that."
Wait a second. What was that last part again?
"and they weren't.. um.. intimidated enough that they didn't come back with the right judgment and we thank God for that."
You're right, Shawna. Thank your God that they didn't come back with the right judgment.
"We have to say we are so grateful to those patriots and those jurors who spent their time.. an.. and we know it's a great sacrifice and we're so grateful and we're in tears because we were so happy that they heard the truth and they didn't... and they weren't.. um.. intimidated enough that they didn't come back with the right judgment and we thank God for that."
Wait a second. What was that last part again?
"and they weren't.. um.. intimidated enough that they didn't come back with the right judgment and we thank God for that."
You're right, Shawna. Thank your God that they didn't come back with the right judgment.
13
You can't feed your pet parakeet for $1.35 a month but you could feed your cow for a month on federal lands for $1.35 in 1993 when Cliven Bundy began refusing to pay grazing fees.
Of the roughly 16,000 ranchers who graze cattle on BLM lands, 458 have late grazing bills totaling $237,000, according to agency data. Of those 16,000, less than 1% have grazing bills that are more than two months past due. Compare that to the more than $1 million Bundy owes Uncle Sam for refusing to pay grazing fees, the damages to federal property, the law enforcement costs and the costs to the judicial system.
The Bundys give ranchers a bad name.
Of the roughly 16,000 ranchers who graze cattle on BLM lands, 458 have late grazing bills totaling $237,000, according to agency data. Of those 16,000, less than 1% have grazing bills that are more than two months past due. Compare that to the more than $1 million Bundy owes Uncle Sam for refusing to pay grazing fees, the damages to federal property, the law enforcement costs and the costs to the judicial system.
The Bundys give ranchers a bad name.
31
May have been a different outcome if the jury had been instructed to pretend the defendants were black.
26
Disappointed. These people broke the law. In the meantime treatment of Native Americans standing against the North Dakota pipeline continues to indicate the judicial system is skewed toward certain groups and against others.
What's next? Cows grazing in our National Parks?
What's next? Cows grazing in our National Parks?
16
The Bundy trial acquittal of the conspiracy charge was based on a misunderstanding of the law on intent.
The defense argued that jurors should not: "mix-up the 'effect' of the occupation – which undoubtedly kept federal employees from doing their jobs - from the 'intent' of the occupiers."
But the law of intent is that regardless if you had another purpose in acting, if you knew that a consequence, e,g., impeding federal workers, would result -- you intend that consequence. Otherwise a lawful purpose would shield every kind of consequential crime.
Whether the instructions to the jury or the prosecution argument pointed this out is not apparent at this point. Sadly, the jury did not get it. The juror who wrote to defend the verdict said: "All 12 agreed that impeding existed, even if as an effect of the occupation . . ." As this was a known consequence of the occupation the defendants agreed to, they "intended" it.
The defense argued that jurors should not: "mix-up the 'effect' of the occupation – which undoubtedly kept federal employees from doing their jobs - from the 'intent' of the occupiers."
But the law of intent is that regardless if you had another purpose in acting, if you knew that a consequence, e,g., impeding federal workers, would result -- you intend that consequence. Otherwise a lawful purpose would shield every kind of consequential crime.
Whether the instructions to the jury or the prosecution argument pointed this out is not apparent at this point. Sadly, the jury did not get it. The juror who wrote to defend the verdict said: "All 12 agreed that impeding existed, even if as an effect of the occupation . . ." As this was a known consequence of the occupation the defendants agreed to, they "intended" it.
14
The only question I have is why? Jeesh.
4
Let's face it. If these folks were black, we would be seeing funerals not acquittals.
22
Im headed into the grocery store today armed and barricading the doors to protest the price of avocados. Jesus told me I was right and righteous to hold forth till they drop the price. All my brothers, arise and bring your guns. Avos should be 50 cents, not $2. Fear not, there is NO CRIME in grabbing land by force!
(I mean this figuratively, of course. I wait till avos are on sale.)
(I mean this figuratively, of course. I wait till avos are on sale.)
17
This is 110% OUTRAGEOUS !!!
If you or I took over a City Park, or a Library, or a road-works gravel quarry with a bunch of "our friends" - all heavily armed - and forbid the people working there from entering, and doing their jobs, you or I would be in Jail, and correctly so.
These Bundy Bozos are NOT Patriots. They DID "engage in an illegal conspiracy that kept Federal Workers from BLM, & Fish & Wildlife from doing their jobs", as their Lawyer claims they did not. The Bundys BROKE INTO the main building at THE Mahler Reserve. They threw trash all over the property. They used BLM bulldozers to excavate bunkers on the property. They used "free" electricity and Wi-Fi for over a month. They rummaged through documented Native American artifacts, like they were Smithsonian scientists. They broke security cameras.
The Bundy's original gripe of oppressive "grazing fees", and the need for "open grazing" are rubbish!! Grazing leases are far too cheap as it is, and Public Land IS Public Land - NOT a free landscape to use, at profit, by this bunch of armed free-loaders.
The Bundy's Lawyer goes ballistic in Court, and the Judge talks to him like a 2 year old, but lets it slide. I don't know what the Judge or Jury had for lunch, but their decision absolutely stinks, and lets any thug or crook know it is okay to stick an automatic rifle at anyone on Public Land, saying that the land is "really" theirs.
Judge Anna J. Brown needs to be recalled, and fired, NOW.
If you or I took over a City Park, or a Library, or a road-works gravel quarry with a bunch of "our friends" - all heavily armed - and forbid the people working there from entering, and doing their jobs, you or I would be in Jail, and correctly so.
These Bundy Bozos are NOT Patriots. They DID "engage in an illegal conspiracy that kept Federal Workers from BLM, & Fish & Wildlife from doing their jobs", as their Lawyer claims they did not. The Bundys BROKE INTO the main building at THE Mahler Reserve. They threw trash all over the property. They used BLM bulldozers to excavate bunkers on the property. They used "free" electricity and Wi-Fi for over a month. They rummaged through documented Native American artifacts, like they were Smithsonian scientists. They broke security cameras.
The Bundy's original gripe of oppressive "grazing fees", and the need for "open grazing" are rubbish!! Grazing leases are far too cheap as it is, and Public Land IS Public Land - NOT a free landscape to use, at profit, by this bunch of armed free-loaders.
The Bundy's Lawyer goes ballistic in Court, and the Judge talks to him like a 2 year old, but lets it slide. I don't know what the Judge or Jury had for lunch, but their decision absolutely stinks, and lets any thug or crook know it is okay to stick an automatic rifle at anyone on Public Land, saying that the land is "really" theirs.
Judge Anna J. Brown needs to be recalled, and fired, NOW.
18
They are off the hook this time but I have a feeling the Bundys will be back. Next time they are likely to hurt someone, intentionally or not. Then they'll get their comeuppance.
9
I wonder if a conviction of the Bundy's falls under Trump's concept of 'law & order'?
8
This is great news. The government owns too much land. They claim it's the Americans land. Yea right. Try getting into that land. As an example the state of Nevada, the government owns something like over 85% of that state's land. Way too much. We should sell that land back to the American citizens only for fair market value. We need to look for oil and minerals on that land also. Sell most of that land back to the American Citizens only at fair market value.
Sloppy prosecution!
6
Well, apparently we could not believe our "lying eyes!" We all saw it drag on for weeks. They were guilty and Americans know it. Reminds me of when OJ Simpson was found "not guilty." That's when I lost faith in our so-called judiciary.
7
This is an outrageous miscarriage of justice. Appeal in the works, I hope. They should be jailed for decades for this violent and illegal take over. Let's get over the "wild west" thing, already!
16
I am from Seattle and often birded at Malheur. Why is it OK for these deadbeats to occupy a federal wildlife refuge, trash the area and to get off scot free. What hubris to suggest returning the land to "local control" when their definition of local control is just an extension of their ranch to graze cattle. These people should pay for damages and stay at home
23
stunning - - -
would this jury have let a Bonnie & Clyde go free??
unfathomable ...
were the prosecutors overwhelmed and out of their league?
is this a reflection on the lack of sufficient funding available for our legal defense teams?
or??
grrrr
7
"Armed takeover"... the two words that pretty much sums up the whole thing. Which part of these two words don't the jury understand?
18
These people are nothing but armed thugs and criminals selectively using two amendments to the Constitution to justify their crimes. The Bundy family and their ilk are a band of thieves who have been stealing from the American people for years. Make no mistake, the Bundys were not acting out of a sense of altruism. They are hypocrites who pick and choose their dislike of the federal government. On the one hand, they vilify the federal government because they are being pushed to pay over $1 million in overdue grazing fees for running their cattle illegally on our federal lands. On the other, Ammon Bundy accepts the benefits of federal largess by obtaining a $530,000 loan from the Small Business Administration for a truck fleet repair business.
The jury verdict is a travesty of justice explained only by a jury as lawless as the defendants they acquitted. They have been emboldened by the constant drum beat of right-wing media and irresponsible sympathetic politicians who have made the federal government the hobgoblin of all our ills. It is a blow to the rule of law and civic order. It is an assault not only on federal employees but a siege on our priceless national heritage of public lands. If they ultimately win, we the American people will lose not only one of the greatest benefits of being American but our entire system of federalism.
The jury verdict is a travesty of justice explained only by a jury as lawless as the defendants they acquitted. They have been emboldened by the constant drum beat of right-wing media and irresponsible sympathetic politicians who have made the federal government the hobgoblin of all our ills. It is a blow to the rule of law and civic order. It is an assault not only on federal employees but a siege on our priceless national heritage of public lands. If they ultimately win, we the American people will lose not only one of the greatest benefits of being American but our entire system of federalism.
16
hes a parasite, plain and simple
6
What a travesty!
12
So an armed white group takes over federal property and be aquitted but a black child with a squirt gun is gunned down. So tell me what is rigged for whom in America?
26
When you put this action beside what is going on in North Dakota with DAPL- it is astounding! Who are we? Remember when the German people said they did not know what was happening during WWII? We will also have to answer to our children. I was very disappointed with Hillary's response to DAPL. What kind of country does she want us to be?
4
"But the jury appeared swayed by the defendants’ contention that they were protesting government overreach and posed no threat to the public."....So why were they armed?
21
What's the point of handing out American flags after the verdict? These people and their supporters are traitors, not patriots. They do not believe in the federal government, although they're more than willing to mooch off of taxpayers' largesse by using public lands without paying the same fees as their neighbors do. Their "posse comitatus" politics are identical to terrorists like Timothy McVeigh, who was pulled over driving a car with no license plates because he didn't believe in the state's authority to require them. These are terrorists, pure and simple, and the fact that a "jury of their peers" agrees with them doesn't make them right, or innocent.
22
whats th point of america anymore ?
a barely functioning, utterly bankrupt society, financially and morally
can you possibly look w pride upon what has become of th country ?
6
From another NYT article on the subject "But the jury appeared swayed by the defendants’ contention that they were protesting government overreach and posed no threat to the public." https://goo.gl/6OGUEJ
And that's the problem, in a nutshell. Too many in this nation fail to see that the federal government IS the public, given civil authority through elections in our continuing exercise in self-governance, going on for almost 230 years.
And that's the problem, in a nutshell. Too many in this nation fail to see that the federal government IS the public, given civil authority through elections in our continuing exercise in self-governance, going on for almost 230 years.
21
Next stop for these treasonous thugs, an armed presence at polling places likely to vote Democratic in next month's election.
24
Jury Nullification. The complete abandonment of facts, reason and logic in terms of judicial system and process as a cause in pursuit of the idea as effect: personal liberty besting government overreach.
From cops who run red lights and park at hydrants to grab coffee, to elected representatives whose only end-game is re-election, to increased federal eminent domain. The frustration is real. The logic unsound.
See Trump President-Elect, November 9th. Arbitrary change and the hopes to burn it all down will win over pragmatism and change from within.
From cops who run red lights and park at hydrants to grab coffee, to elected representatives whose only end-game is re-election, to increased federal eminent domain. The frustration is real. The logic unsound.
See Trump President-Elect, November 9th. Arbitrary change and the hopes to burn it all down will win over pragmatism and change from within.
6
I can certainly sympathize with those who feel this verdict sets a dangerous precedent, by appearing to condone armed takeovers of federal government property by self-styled militias. That is a bit scary!
However, a couple of points need to be remembered.
1. They occupied this Wildlife Refuge which is located in the middle of NOWHERE, in the middle of JANUARY. Yes, it was difficult for the small town of Burns, but they didn't take over Yosemite National Park in the middle of August!
2. They have served 9 months in county jail already, and they will (hopefully) not be compensated in any way for that time. I believe 9 months in jail and the stress of an uncertain trial outcome is in fact punishment. It's not something that I would want to go through.
3. I attended the trial for a couple days and I have to admit that calling this a "conspiracy" was a bit of a stretch. Why not criminal trespassing or something that would have been easier to prove?
However, a couple of points need to be remembered.
1. They occupied this Wildlife Refuge which is located in the middle of NOWHERE, in the middle of JANUARY. Yes, it was difficult for the small town of Burns, but they didn't take over Yosemite National Park in the middle of August!
2. They have served 9 months in county jail already, and they will (hopefully) not be compensated in any way for that time. I believe 9 months in jail and the stress of an uncertain trial outcome is in fact punishment. It's not something that I would want to go through.
3. I attended the trial for a couple days and I have to admit that calling this a "conspiracy" was a bit of a stretch. Why not criminal trespassing or something that would have been easier to prove?
6
"They occupied this Wildlife Refuge which is located in the middle of NOWHERE, in the middle of JANUARY."
So? What is your point? That breaking the law is all right, if the law-breakers go to some trouble and don't bother any white people?
So? What is your point? That breaking the law is all right, if the law-breakers go to some trouble and don't bother any white people?
8
By your logic if someone breaks into a rural home in the middle of NOWHERE it's perfectly legal....
2
So these guys are terrorists because they are white and were protesting while the Native Americans doing the same thing in ND are American heros. That is completely illogical, but then again a lot of liberals like myself are sometimes.
I believe both groups of protestors are heros.
I believe both groups of protestors are heros.
3
"That is completely illogical."
In what sense, Jacquie? In the sense that federal land belongs to the people of the United States, whereas Indian land belongs to the Indians only if the federal government - white men - chooses to _let_ them have it?
In what sense, Jacquie? In the sense that federal land belongs to the people of the United States, whereas Indian land belongs to the Indians only if the federal government - white men - chooses to _let_ them have it?
7
If those seven had been black, they'd all be dead now. And their killers would be walking the streets with badges shining.
30
Harbinger of the anti-establishment revolution?
I am shocked to see this in Portland, Oregon, bastion of Democrats with one of the best economies in the country. It here, what about elsewhere?
I am shocked to see this in Portland, Oregon, bastion of Democrats with one of the best economies in the country. It here, what about elsewhere?
2
The Feds can't win. We find in this case that if they don't go in and confront the armed occupants, then there is no proving the intent of the armed occupants. If they do go in and confront the possible offenders, as they did at Waco, and meet violent resistance then they are Nazi storm troopers.
12
take this verdict to be mostly an act of jury nullification. I now realize I know too little about the minutiae of the case to really understand how they come off scot free—and with a defendant as his own attorney no less!
But, having a family member who spent years in Oregon (Bend, OR, to be exact) coming back with harrowing tales of police impunity, shady attorneys, and overall hostility to federal authority, my first guess is the jury didn’t find it hard to imagine the federal charges were ‘trumped up’ (like they always are when it comes to the feds, in their Rush-addled minds) in spite or maybe because of the deliberate attempt by the judge to explain that a charge that can encompass terroristic activities doesn’t mean these defendants are to be considered terrorists (not my personal opinion here).
They probably heard that legalistic argument as yet another fed trying to law-splain how they should think. Presto, we’re setting them free, federales…how you like me now?
It can’t be easy being a prosecutor in that part of the country.
But, having a family member who spent years in Oregon (Bend, OR, to be exact) coming back with harrowing tales of police impunity, shady attorneys, and overall hostility to federal authority, my first guess is the jury didn’t find it hard to imagine the federal charges were ‘trumped up’ (like they always are when it comes to the feds, in their Rush-addled minds) in spite or maybe because of the deliberate attempt by the judge to explain that a charge that can encompass terroristic activities doesn’t mean these defendants are to be considered terrorists (not my personal opinion here).
They probably heard that legalistic argument as yet another fed trying to law-splain how they should think. Presto, we’re setting them free, federales…how you like me now?
It can’t be easy being a prosecutor in that part of the country.
3
In other words, a charge that can encompass terroristic activities doesn’t mean these white, male defendants are to be considered terrorists.
4
There is a whole other level of lawlessness in which the US Attorney
Unfortunately, there is a whole other level, of damage to public property and US treasury by fraudulent, financial crimes by empowered investment community, which launders money creates non -profit foundations for personal gain and influence and avoids taxation without prosecution or criminal penalties. And Bundy's although their actions can hardly be condoned, hardly robs me of my purse and belief in justice as much as the AG refusal to criminalize the behavior of large political donors and mock the idea of humanity with for profit. non profit foundations. It is not these 'seven' park abusers, that terrify me but collusion of government, politics and big money.
Unfortunately, there is a whole other level, of damage to public property and US treasury by fraudulent, financial crimes by empowered investment community, which launders money creates non -profit foundations for personal gain and influence and avoids taxation without prosecution or criminal penalties. And Bundy's although their actions can hardly be condoned, hardly robs me of my purse and belief in justice as much as the AG refusal to criminalize the behavior of large political donors and mock the idea of humanity with for profit. non profit foundations. It is not these 'seven' park abusers, that terrify me but collusion of government, politics and big money.
2
So, it is OK for heavily armed terrorists to take over a Federal property and hold off authorities for weeks? What if these seven white people were of middle eastern descent? They would have been shot at the scene.
What disgrace.
What disgrace.
28
The scary thought is whether a President Trump would even bring charges against this lot.
10
Why were they not also charged with simple trespass? Assault with a deadly weapon, etc? I can see proving conspiracy would be difficult with this group as you have to prove a coordinated and planned event. I mean, look at their pictures: like something out of a Cohen Brothers movie!
17
answer: because the Fed thought a jury would convict a "bunch of yokels with guns" and that any charge would stick. It was an epic flub on the part of the Federal prosecutors.
11
"Why were they not also charged with simple trespass? Assault with a deadly weapon, etc?"
Good questions! Charging members of an armed mob with "conspiracy" looks like a conspiracy to ensure that they wouldn't be convicted.
Good questions! Charging members of an armed mob with "conspiracy" looks like a conspiracy to ensure that they wouldn't be convicted.
3
I don't even know where to start. Those self-centered idiots decided that the rule of law doesn't apply to them and their crackpot "ideals." They tore up the social fabric of the community and damaged the cultural fabric of the Burns Paiute people. I feel I ought to say something about forgiveness here, but I'm too sad right now.
15
This is justice? Did the judge in this case not instruct the jury to ignore their own personal views and uphold the laws of the land?
I can't help but imagine if these people were Black, Native America or any other minority group and strolled into their state and staged an armed seizure of land, if this jury would unanimously acquit them.
This isn't even like the North Dakota pipeline protesters, at least there the native Americans have a valid argument in protecting their water and land. Here was an armed anarchist group going into another sovereign state and occupying federal land, it boggles the mind. At its basic level the very fact that armed intimidation prevented federal employees from doing their jobs was obvious and well documented, what kind of proof did the jury need?
I can't help but imagine if these people were Black, Native America or any other minority group and strolled into their state and staged an armed seizure of land, if this jury would unanimously acquit them.
This isn't even like the North Dakota pipeline protesters, at least there the native Americans have a valid argument in protecting their water and land. Here was an armed anarchist group going into another sovereign state and occupying federal land, it boggles the mind. At its basic level the very fact that armed intimidation prevented federal employees from doing their jobs was obvious and well documented, what kind of proof did the jury need?
11
Well I guess those willfully ignorant and misinformed losers' illegal actions really did get judged by a jury of their peers.
13
Leader Ammon Lundy's defense "that the takeover was spontaneous and informed by religious belief," in spite of evidence that he called for followers across the nation to come to the refuge with guns, rings hollow for refuge workers and locals facing disruptions and intimidation by the heavily armed "religionists."
If religious intent justifies intimidation by weaponry, proselytizing enters a whole new era.
If religious intent justifies intimidation by weaponry, proselytizing enters a whole new era.
16
"If religious intent justifies intimidation by weaponry, proselytizing enters a whole new era."
When has religious intent _not_ justified intimidation by weaponry, whether used against "infidels" or "heretics" or "pagans" or Jews?
When has religious intent _not_ justified intimidation by weaponry, whether used against "infidels" or "heretics" or "pagans" or Jews?
1
This is a very dangerous verdict rendered by the jury. With the emergence of Donald Trump and his self-stated disregard for the laws of any governmental authority, those who support his racist, bigoted presidential campaign will only be encouraged to defy the law and, maybe, resort to violence. This will bear watching after Trump is defeated in the election and he seeks to rouse his followers to disregard the laws of this country.
10
If it's possible for these clowns to be acquitted, who's to say that Trump being elected is impossible? I'm very nervous for our future, especially in light of the FBI re-investigation of Clinton's emails.
17
"especially in light of the FBI re-investigation of Clinton's emails"
If you have the resources of the FBI at your disposal and all the time and the money that you need, anyone can be found to have committed a crime,
If you have the resources of the FBI at your disposal and all the time and the money that you need, anyone can be found to have committed a crime,
5
This is not justice but travesty. All we can hope for is a smarter jury when the other charges are tried. No one should be able to take a Federal Park site hostage for their own personal grudge.
9
The shocking acquittal of these white right wing militants who attacked and occupied government property with firearms and outright threats of violence is an absolute betrayal to the justice system in this country. This at the same time as the reactionary police state violence against a sovereign people in North Dakota who are literally defending their own land and resources. Welcome to AmeriKKKa, where white militants are gently supported and armed violent actions are condoned, while full scale aggression is imposed upon peaceful demonstration. Let's pull it together folks. We are better than this.
13
Native Americans fighting developers to preserve their land : right white fighting to develop preserved land . saddening, maddening
9
Interesting comment on the Native American protests which are taking place on private property( they are trespassing) and they have been court ordered to leave. You right can condemn the right wing militants for their actions on federal property and at the same time applaud the Native Americans actions....Both are breaking or broke the the law. One group was freed by a jury of its peers for various reasons. The History of the American Indian movement has hardly been peaceful.
1
The real problem is what appears to be a serious level of incompetency in the Justice Department. The charges were weak and difficult to prove. What the Federal Prosecutors could have used (should have used) is the law against Sedition or Insurrection.
18 US Code 2384 - Seditious Conspiracy:
"If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both."
The actions of the occupiers were clearly seditious, but the Feds were afraid to call it what it was.
18 US Code 2384 - Seditious Conspiracy:
"If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both."
The actions of the occupiers were clearly seditious, but the Feds were afraid to call it what it was.
17
I have no love for wacky fringe group Mormons who want to take over govt land, but I can see why the JURY in a court of law decided that the group are not terrorists. Wacky protesters, yes. Terrorists, no. The Feds would have had a different case if the group actually fired their guns at someone; but they didnt. That's the key point for the jury.
3
Such a different treatment compare to the Native Americans manifestations over land. No more to say.
5
These are ranchers who bought land next to federal land, were allowed to use the government land - our land - for a fee and with conditions to protect the land, to extend their ranches and incomes but failed to pay the fees and ignored the conditions. They then took over our land, driving out our managers at gunpoint. They're thieves and thugs.
10
So is the jury incompetent, or are the Federal prosecutors so incompetent that they couldn’t win a case the whole world thought only a guilty verdict could of it?
Or, maybe both were in collusion (though not communication) to get the result they really wanted?
Or, maybe both were in collusion (though not communication) to get the result they really wanted?
3
The Federal prosecutors are incompetent is what the jury in this case has implied. Let's hope they get their act together for the next trial against these people and are not so sloppy the jury lets them walk...
3
Many comments here comparing the Bundy standoff to the Standing Rock protest, but there's an important distinction. The Native American protesters are standing in the way of Holy Profit, and have aroused the fury of the capitalists. No money hung in the balance in Oregon. Are we surprised to see which scenario mobilizes the enforcement arm of US power? So disappointing to be reminded of what we truly hold sacred here.
8
Why weren't these people given a felony conviction to join the close to 10% of the population saddled with the same..many for far less egregious actions? No need for more jail time, but a felony conviction with probation, at least. Oh wait, they're not guilty.
3
This is ridiculous. Had these people been black, they would certainly have been brought up on and convicted of terrorist charges.
This will this embolden further extremists. And undoubtedly these 7 criminals will now sue the government they don't believe in.
This will this embolden further extremists. And undoubtedly these 7 criminals will now sue the government they don't believe in.
5
Had these people been black, they would certainly have looted and set on fire the building. And, no, they would not have been charged. And if they had been, a large segment of apologists would've been there to try to justify their actions.
In the OJ case, the excuse was that the jury was motivated by "prosecutorial misconduct" rather than racism. I wonder if any of the jurors chose to party with the defendants. But why should we expect jurors to respect the rule of law when elected officials choose not to obey the law. How many towns, cities, states, and even the federal government have refused to take action against illegal aliens because it doe not suit them? The use of the FBI to conduct political witch hunts against the police further erodes public trust and respect. We reap what we sow.
1
The last time I volunteered for jury duty was many years ago. The crime was armed burglary. The judge explained to us that the fact that guns were used in the crime elevated the charges brought against the defendants, even though the guns were not fired. This was according to the law that was legislated by ballot (People's Initiative). Then came "voire dire," the process by which the lawyers can ask the jurors any question and dismiss any juror without explanation. The defendants' lawyer asked me if I thought that the fact that guns were involved in the crime made the crime worse. My answer: "Are you kidding me??" I looked at him like he was an idiot. I was dismissed immediately. Since then I refuse to even open a jury summons. It goes straight into the trash unopened. I will never respond to a summons until voire dire is eliminated. I am convinced that the branch of government that is the most broken is not the executive, but the judicial branch. It is the branch that keeps the pipeline of corruption and crime open and flowing.
4
A. Malheur National Wildlife Refuge acquittals:
1. We know, from media accounts, the broad outline of events.
2. We do not know what evidence the jury heard. It may have differed from media accounts.
3. Commentary by people who didn't sit through the whole trial should be disregarded as uninformed. It appears The Times had one or more reporters attend it. If so, its accounts are presumptively reliable.
4. A juror says the government failed to prove its case. The verdict wasn't an endorsement of the siege.
B. Standing Rock occupation:
1. Native Americans have gotten a raw deal for centuries.
2. However, we now have an Anglo-American system of private property.
3. The protesting Native Americans would like their land claims to supersede the private property system.
4. It's unclear how much land Native Americans claim to be sacred. It could be all of North America. It may include your house lot.
5. People who think North Dakotans should surrender their land to native claims should ask themselves: is my house on someone's sacred land?
6. If so, would I hand it over on the basis that native claims take priority?
7. If not, why should the North Dakota landowners?
Maybe the Standing Rock confrontation will lead Congress, state and local governments, and the private sector to do much more for native peoples, after centuries of abuse. That's what I would like to see. But asking individual North Dakota landowners to take a hit for society's failings isn't the answer.
1. We know, from media accounts, the broad outline of events.
2. We do not know what evidence the jury heard. It may have differed from media accounts.
3. Commentary by people who didn't sit through the whole trial should be disregarded as uninformed. It appears The Times had one or more reporters attend it. If so, its accounts are presumptively reliable.
4. A juror says the government failed to prove its case. The verdict wasn't an endorsement of the siege.
B. Standing Rock occupation:
1. Native Americans have gotten a raw deal for centuries.
2. However, we now have an Anglo-American system of private property.
3. The protesting Native Americans would like their land claims to supersede the private property system.
4. It's unclear how much land Native Americans claim to be sacred. It could be all of North America. It may include your house lot.
5. People who think North Dakotans should surrender their land to native claims should ask themselves: is my house on someone's sacred land?
6. If so, would I hand it over on the basis that native claims take priority?
7. If not, why should the North Dakota landowners?
Maybe the Standing Rock confrontation will lead Congress, state and local governments, and the private sector to do much more for native peoples, after centuries of abuse. That's what I would like to see. But asking individual North Dakota landowners to take a hit for society's failings isn't the answer.
6
The government lost the case when they enlisted paid governments informants at the refuge during the occupation.
We are becoming a police state where the authorities will win at any cost. The jury system is a thin defense against this type of aggression.
I fear this will not end well.
We are becoming a police state where the authorities will win at any cost. The jury system is a thin defense against this type of aggression.
I fear this will not end well.
3
I am heartsick. In the US there are groups that assure us that they, and they alone, understand the real America. Those of us that live in cities or suburbs (and frankly that is most of us), those of us that have other beliefs, those who have other skin colors or ethnic backgrounds, are somehow less on this scale of patriotism. And now a group of people who took over, with guns, a federal building and stayed there for weeks, who worked to foment rebellion in the area, and who impeded federal, state and local authorities is being allowed to walk. Explain yourselves, Oregon jury. I want to understand how you saw these actions and decided that they were acceptable. I am heartsick. I see racism, I see extremism, I see stealth support of those who would overthrow America. What I do not see is justice.
11
I guess it is now legal fore anyone to occupy a federal facility, destroy government property, threaten federal employees, access personal records of staff and customers, destroy Native American sacred sites, steal government vehicles, and deprive the citizens of access to their property. This decision made me physically ill. I returned from Harney County three weeks ago - an area that is still suffering the lingering affects of this armed insurrection. Half the staff of the refuge has quite or been transferred. I expect the rest will follow. This decision will encourage similar acts on federal lands in the west. Keep in mind these people were NOT from Harney County, Oregon. They were a collection of losers and misfits from around the nation. I can only assume two things: 1) The U.S. Attorney's office of this district was completely incompetent in prosecuting this case; and 2) the jury practiced the same type of action that happened in many civil rights cases - innocent when clearly guilty. I would also point out that if the Burn Paiute Tribe had decided to occupy the refuge, arguing this was part of their ancestral home, the outcome would have been vastly different. This is a sad day for federal employees, federal land managers and those of us who value and want to protect our public lands.
9
Everything has become so race oriented that I feel that if u are white then youbare always evil and always guilty. I mean, not one commenter here actualky talks about the reasons why they believe the group is guilty. Instead, we get 1000 people saying that if they were black theyd go to jail. Thats such an asinine viewpoint, itd mind boggling.
No one cares anymore about truth. Its just blame white people for everything, not blame policy or law. Blame white people. Thats just so childish. I get that racism exists, but if we just jump on the "its racist" train everytime white people arent found guilty, then I think Americans must be more ignorant than I ever guessed.
Im white, and Im also a poor debt-ridden transgender woman. Not all white people are rich racists elitists.
No one cares anymore about truth. Its just blame white people for everything, not blame policy or law. Blame white people. Thats just so childish. I get that racism exists, but if we just jump on the "its racist" train everytime white people arent found guilty, then I think Americans must be more ignorant than I ever guessed.
Im white, and Im also a poor debt-ridden transgender woman. Not all white people are rich racists elitists.
2
How much time and resources has the DoJ spent on this tempest in a tea pot? These are petty criminals posing as protesters and don't deserve the ink they receive. It's time for the DoJ to put the same effort into prosecuting the banking and mortgage system that brought on the 2008 financial crisis. That would involve challenging the elite establishment, however.
3
So happy these obvious criminals were acquitted, robbing the Right and Alt-Right of a group of martyrs to use as bait for the disenfranchised during this election period.
That said, as others here have noted, had these criminals had different colored skin, most of them would already have been buried and labeled as terrorists.
May this be the last time I ever have to read the name Ammon Bundy.
That said, as others here have noted, had these criminals had different colored skin, most of them would already have been buried and labeled as terrorists.
May this be the last time I ever have to read the name Ammon Bundy.
8
Our ubiquitous government, and its belief that it can control the people rather than serve them, has finally gotten the hand slap it deserves. While it would have been preferable to see this play out without the use of fire arms, I (unlike most NYT readers) see this as a positive development. The government, by any reasonable measure, is too big and controls too much. If you question this, you need only look at the growth of the federal budget over the past 50 yrs. or at the explosion of job growth and money in the Washington DC area - Fairfax is now one of the 3 wealthiest counties in the country. This is a victory for the rest of us - the ever shrinking number of private citizens populating the USA.
2
Check the Oregonian online for Juror #4's email to the paper explaining the jury decision.
http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/10/juror_4_prosecutors_in...
http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/10/juror_4_prosecutors_in...
6
this was excellent info: thanks for posting the link.
4
Good post. This give me a better understanding of an otherwise confusing verdict. Once again the government prosecution is so sloppy they fail to produce a conviction. Time for a change...
4
As a white man, when I first read Mr. Ta-Nehisi Coates' "Between The World and Me", I instinctually felt a bit of defensiveness against his 'white privilege' proclamations. This acquittal is a brutal reminder and critical piece of evidence that 'white privilege' is alive and well. Repugnant.
14
The problem is that a scary percentage of Americans have let their minds atrophy and are unable to partake or contribute in a real democracy. The jury was dumber than a box of rocks. The Bundys are dumber than that and obvious cowards. Hey guys, let's see how big you are without your guns!
12
I don't know enough about this to give a definitive opinion about this acquittal but in looking at the big picture I do have some thoughts.
This was an act of civil disobedience. By definition, if you engage in this activity you must be willing to suffer the consequences. These defendants were. By looking back at the history of this area, for almost 200 years this area was open for free use by all, especially cattle folks. It seems to me that this is just one of many incursions by government, federal and local, to tax and control the rest of us This is very different to civil disobedients who protest things like war or cops shooting blacks or the like. This is a governmental control issue. If I'm upset by something some governmental agency does and I go home and burn my local liquor store down, and the government doesn't prosecute me, I have participated in anarchy. But if I point out an injustice, which I think this case does, and the government prosecutes me, then, the jury, if they believe that there was, in fact an injustice by the government, the verdict is not only justified but required. Those who participate in civil disobedience and have much to lose, like these defendants, are there to call attention to a perceived injustice.
I congratulate this jury. They have gone against the political correctness of the big city elite and, as can be seen here, by many who have commented.
This was an act of civil disobedience. By definition, if you engage in this activity you must be willing to suffer the consequences. These defendants were. By looking back at the history of this area, for almost 200 years this area was open for free use by all, especially cattle folks. It seems to me that this is just one of many incursions by government, federal and local, to tax and control the rest of us This is very different to civil disobedients who protest things like war or cops shooting blacks or the like. This is a governmental control issue. If I'm upset by something some governmental agency does and I go home and burn my local liquor store down, and the government doesn't prosecute me, I have participated in anarchy. But if I point out an injustice, which I think this case does, and the government prosecutes me, then, the jury, if they believe that there was, in fact an injustice by the government, the verdict is not only justified but required. Those who participate in civil disobedience and have much to lose, like these defendants, are there to call attention to a perceived injustice.
I congratulate this jury. They have gone against the political correctness of the big city elite and, as can be seen here, by many who have commented.
3
Oh, you mean like at wounded knee, a century of government abuse and death squads, but they weren't white, so arming themselves was "terrorism", not rural rebellion.
4
They were "protesting " the corrected sentence of a local guy convicted of arson by setting federal (read: yours/mine/his/every US citizen's) land on fire. If it was just a protest why bring guns? A sit-in is a protest.
3
You say you do not know too much about this case so I suggest you read up on it. This was not a case of "civil disobedience." This was a criminal action by freeloaders.
2
Yeahhhh, they were innocent and George Zimmerman was just standing his ground. I have faith in the system but clearly no system wrought by man is immune to the bias and prejudice inherent in all men. There are times a jury of peers is not capable of justice, this is one such time.
7
Ah yes, another gang of terrorists using religion as their cover. It's one thing when Muslims do it and apparently something else when white Christians do it. Sure, nobody was hurt--this time--but the double standard is reprehensible.
13
Why are people surprised that these fine young folks were acquitted. Do you not understand the justice industry in the United States? Equal protection under the law? Ha.
I dont think youve been paying attention. Thats only reserved for white folks. Ethnic and religious minorities in the US dont have the same protections that the majority ethnic group.
I dont think youve been paying attention. Thats only reserved for white folks. Ethnic and religious minorities in the US dont have the same protections that the majority ethnic group.
7
AND NOW Trump tyrants everywhere are lockin n loadin and planning to "take back 'our' merka!!" The government made the case hinge on something that would be difficult to prove to begin with... The Refuge was 'collateral' damage in the overarching drama going on over there (i live on the West side of the Cascades).
The MESSAGE this sends though - on top of all the insanity we're seeing with lil Trump Tyrants is chilling... This is already being seen as a victory for the mandates of all these militia groups.
The MESSAGE this sends though - on top of all the insanity we're seeing with lil Trump Tyrants is chilling... This is already being seen as a victory for the mandates of all these militia groups.
9
This is a victory for those who believe in jury nullification. This is a victory for those that believe in federalism and that respect states and local rights. This is a victory for those who oppose government overreach. If you are a liberal/progressive democrat who believes in an all-powerful government, this must sting.
2
It could indeed be jury nullification. We don't know; it would be speculative at this point. Juror #4 said in The Oregonian today that the government failed to prove all elements of the charged crimes. But that could be a fig leaf that the jury agreed on for public consumption so the verdict wouldn't further outrage people who wanted convictions.
Speaking of outrage, I've read the comments in The Oregonian over the months, and dozens, perhaps hundreds of Oregonians were wishing for a Waco-style showdown, in their fanatical fervor. They sounded like armchair vigilantes. Fortunately, law enforcement kept a cooler head.
Speaking of outrage, I've read the comments in The Oregonian over the months, and dozens, perhaps hundreds of Oregonians were wishing for a Waco-style showdown, in their fanatical fervor. They sounded like armchair vigilantes. Fortunately, law enforcement kept a cooler head.
4
Inexplicable verdict. But they are protected by double jeopardy so move further down the food chain. Can they at least be charged with vandalism? Or resisting arrest? They can't possible free of any wrongdoing.
7
The ONLY reason these people were acquitted is because they're (mostly) white male landowners. Period.
10
Just goes to show. So long as you are white, armed and dangerous, you will have your day in court with a good chance of acquittal on all charges by a jury of your peers.
On the other hand, if you're a Native American challenging the treaty-breaking theft of your traditional lands, a descendant of America's black slaves accused of possession of an illicit intoxicating substance or protesting police brutality, or you're an enemy of the state like Private Manning, then expect to be treated very harshly indeed.
On the other hand, if you're a Native American challenging the treaty-breaking theft of your traditional lands, a descendant of America's black slaves accused of possession of an illicit intoxicating substance or protesting police brutality, or you're an enemy of the state like Private Manning, then expect to be treated very harshly indeed.
20
Time to seize more land.
4
As a federal employee of a land management agency, I frankly can't understand what the jury determined but it seems like we can all do whatever we want with our public lands and call it protest. I guess with a verdict like this open carry will make more sense for everyone involved as we battle for our right to do whatever we want on whatever is public. Crazy days ahead for lands held in the public trust for perpetuity.
8
What an outrageous result.
How many environmental activists now rot in our prisons for their "direct Action" on government lands to protect our common natural heritage? too many.
I suppose the Bundy's jury of peers think it's alright to throw an armed tantrum if you're white and right.
How many environmental activists now rot in our prisons for their "direct Action" on government lands to protect our common natural heritage? too many.
I suppose the Bundy's jury of peers think it's alright to throw an armed tantrum if you're white and right.
7
A heartbreaking decision. Vigilantes rule.
9
I guess the FBI was too busy reading Hillary Clinton's emails and collecting student loan debts to properly prosecute this group of armed terrorists.
14
All Federal employees, prosecutors, investigators involved with this case, need to be fired for being incompetent for not being able to build a case to put these terrorists behind bars and for having their heads up their bottoms!
2
One set of consequences for white militia, I guess. These criminals did millions of dollars worth of damage to Malheur, including defecating copious amounts outside, digging trenches, taking down boundary fences, using government vehicles as their own, using a tower that owls nest in as a sniper's lookout, messing up private offices, using employee's computers, using illegal drugs, and profoundly upsetting the surrounding communities. My only hope is that a class action suit is filed against these jerks.
11
Don't worry, as long as you're white you can get away with anything! This morning's New Yorker cartoon summed it up pretty nicely.
8
We deserve it.
I can't imagine how these defendants were found guilty. Perhaps the wrong charges were brought against them. They obstructed the people from using the land and they made it more difficult for the birds who were supposed to be able to use that refuge. They definitely did obstruct the refuge's employees from doing their work.
I can't find any sympathy for them and I hope the government learns how to convict them the next time, because with this verdict there will, no doubt, be a next time.
We do not pay money to build a wildlife refuge for the benefit of the Bundys and their pals. We do it for all people and for wildlife.
This case is an example of the faults in the jury system. People are allowed to go free in order to avoid an illegal conviction. I still support the jury system completely, but in spite of this flaw, not because of it.
I can't find any sympathy for them and I hope the government learns how to convict them the next time, because with this verdict there will, no doubt, be a next time.
We do not pay money to build a wildlife refuge for the benefit of the Bundys and their pals. We do it for all people and for wildlife.
This case is an example of the faults in the jury system. People are allowed to go free in order to avoid an illegal conviction. I still support the jury system completely, but in spite of this flaw, not because of it.
4
I too am shocked at the actions of the jury in this instance. But unlike most of the commentors I do attribute it to the political right. I attribute it to the impression that the government and governmental managers are only concerned with themselves. What happenend in the west is no different then the students that take over college buildings to influence issues that they are concerned.
1
Yes, quite different, due to being armed and dangerous.
3
Except college protestors don't carry guns when they stage a sit-in.
4
I don't understand how their Mormon religion was used as a defense of their actions. Although Ezra,Taft Benson's anti-federalist reading is popular, it's hardly an a priori tenet of the LDS creed.
Keep an eye on Utah's legislators. Much more of an impact, and their religion is clearly a sort of fossil fuel consumption cult.
Keep an eye on Utah's legislators. Much more of an impact, and their religion is clearly a sort of fossil fuel consumption cult.
4
Is this the definition of white privilege? How is it possible that you can takeover a government building, don't leave when told to do so, keep the authorities at bay for several weeks, making statements that if the government tries to take back the property that you would fight back, and be found not guilty? Is there any doubt that if these individuals were black the outrage would be deafening at this verdict.
6
Where were all the municipal Humvees and Mraps and black helicopters when they were standing OUR ground?
1
Every single one of these people should be in jail. Astounding to me how the jury could acquit these people. No wonder people are losing faith in our justice system.
9
Reminds me in some ways of the OJ Simpson case. I hope the NYT is trying to interview some of the jurors. The prosecutors should be embarrassed that they couldn't get a conviction.
4
Too much speculation about why the jury decided the way they did. Keep in mind that they jury found the defendants not guilty of the the offenses for which they were charged, which is not the same as finding them innocent, let alone conferring approval on what the defendants were alleged to have done. Without knowing more, it appears that the jury found that the prosecutor did not substantiate the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecutor may not have argued the case effectively, or charged the defendants inappropriately in the minds of the jurors. When a jury rules against a prosecutor for these reasons even if it believes that the defendants are scoundrels, it is doing the right thing. It is better to start looking there for reasons rather than criticize the jury for not ruling according to the way the newspapers reported the story.
6
Makes me wonder how many death threats the prosecutor and jurors must have received?
1
Thank you Bob for that concise answer to all those howling for blood. The jury ruled the way it did because the government failed to prove it's case as presented. Once again sloppy prosecution leads to criminals walking away from charges. I am confounded by those commenting about race as if it had any bearing on the case.
2
This verdict is terrifying and wrong. Protecting and preserving federal lands in the West is one of the top issues for the coming decades. These states were created from federal land, and public lands retained by the national government for ALL Americans within these state borders were part of the statehood deals. So the battle cry 'return federal lands to the states' is hogwash. The irony is that Westerners who love the open spaces of the West are so willing to see them abused and plundered and sold to private interests. I am throwing myself behind every organization that will fight this travesty!
9
Isn't Portland a 'sanctuary city'?
Why yes it is. This all makes sense then, doesn't it?
Why yes it is. This all makes sense then, doesn't it?
2
No it does not make sense.
Do you know what a sanctuary city is?
I think you are mistaken.
Do you know what a sanctuary city is?
I think you are mistaken.
2
We're reading comments today from jurors that they "didn't like" the prosecutors ... they must have confused the trial with an episode of "The Dating Game."
6
I suppose we are fortunate that the jurors didn't seize and trash the courthouse because they didn't like the prosecutor.
6
This on surface should outrage all law abiding Americans. Can we expect on a go forward basis armed seizure of National Parks, Wildlife Refuges, Wilderness Areas by any group who feels aggrieved for any reason. We are either a nation of laws that are enforced or not. Dangerous precedent.
4
A jury of your peers can do this.
There is quite a negative perspective on the federal government out west.
There is quite a negative perspective on the federal government out west.
3
I think people labeled 'anti government" might argue that they are pro constitutional government. They might argue, they are defending constitutional limits on a Federal government willing to exceed them with the backing of the Federal courts.
1
This decision will embolden armed thugs to desecrate national forests, parks and monuments.
Assuming they are white of course.
Assuming they are white of course.
11
This surprising verdict will only serve to motivate other anti-government terrorists in the future and further divide our nation. I suspect we are in for much more of this, particularly if Hillary Clinton is elected.
6
I'm inclined to withhold judgment about the jury, but it seems the prosecution was misguided at best. A crime was committed, and America saw it in action. Land and people were abused and America saw it in action. The Bundy family are on government welfare and hate the government, and that's OK, they can use violence and desecrate real native history, religion, and tradition. That violation is OK?
It's not OK with me. There are too many killing machines around. There are too many people who believe in might makes right.
Clearly the law the prosecution used was inadequate to the task.
There will be a heavy price to pay in enabling armed bullying, and this is truly terrible timing for such a precedent.
I think I should have the right to walk my streets and vote my preference unafraid.
These guys want me to be very very afraid. They want to return us to a lawless state where white supremacism rules.
Grotesque. But I won't blame the jury. They did their job, and fairness is what we all so desperately need. Not armed dominance.
It's not OK with me. There are too many killing machines around. There are too many people who believe in might makes right.
Clearly the law the prosecution used was inadequate to the task.
There will be a heavy price to pay in enabling armed bullying, and this is truly terrible timing for such a precedent.
I think I should have the right to walk my streets and vote my preference unafraid.
These guys want me to be very very afraid. They want to return us to a lawless state where white supremacism rules.
Grotesque. But I won't blame the jury. They did their job, and fairness is what we all so desperately need. Not armed dominance.
7
Despicable. Black men are shot by law enforcement personnel with impunity on mere suspicion, strangled, bludgeoned to death for no crime or the pettiest of "crimes" (selling onesies, I ask you.). Native American activists and their supporters are hauled away by militarized police units and get the book thrown at them. But WHITE TERRORISTS who openly attack and occupy public buildings and facilities are treated with the gentlest kid gloves and then acquitted?
30
I'm a federal employee, working two blocks from the federal courthgouse in Portland, and have watched the Malheur protesters nearly every day, running around town in the back of their pickup truck, shouting at passersby, and holding up "jury nullification" signs. How does one have a reasonable conversation with people who think it is OK to protest and occupy federal lands while armed with weapons? You can't. The Oklahoma City bombings are never far from the minds of federal workers. Every year, we solumnly remember the168 people murdered by two Americans who hated the federal government. I am afraid- for federal employees, apparently sitting ducks for anyone who doesn't like the government, and for our democracy and tradition of civil discourse.
29
If the Occupy Wall-Streeters and the Black Lives Matter people and all the rioters can take over cities without going to jai, then why should these folks be treated any differently?
6
Because they threatened people with guns. This was an armed insurrection, not a peaceful protest or civil disobedience. Local and state charges should have been brought against each individual found at the refuge for assault, vandalism, destruction of protected sites and any other charges that fit the situation. The Federal charge of conspiracy was too difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt.
6
There is a huge difference -- the Occupiers and the Black Lives Matter protesters were exercising their 1st Amendment rights to PEACEFUL assembly. The Bundy posse was armed and threatening violence AGAINST peaceful citizens.
4
These individuals occupied federal property and caused considerable damage. Although the conspiracy charge has been dismissed, perhaps there are other criminal charges that can still be brought against each individual engaged in this behavior, as well as the civil suits many have proposed. No one should be allowed again to take over public property in this manner.
11
If a group of minorities did this same thing, they wouldn't have lived long enough to be put on trail.
15
Funny how the peaceful and unarmed protesters of the Dakota Access Pipeline are right now being violently arrested for trying to protect their tribal lands. Talk about a double standard!
26
If I was George Washington, I would have sent the military and put down the insurrection in favor of rule of law. I (as George Washington) would have gone after the Clive Bundy supporters who manned a bridge and stopped sheriffs from removing Clive Bundy's cattle from public lands. Because we did not put down the first challenge to government authority, it happened again at this wildlife sanctuary. It will happen again. But not if I was George Washington.
9
"But not if I was George Washington."
That is a mountain of straw you piled there!
That is a mountain of straw you piled there!
1
As an Oregonian I am ashamed that those jury members were from this state. I lived in Burns for a few years in my early teens. I went to the Malheur Bird Refuge on a school field trip. We learned about the migrating birds who stopped there either on there way to other areas to to stay and nest. We were also lucky enough to see a herd of antelope. It was a memorable experience.
These disgusting anarchists left thousands of rounds of spent cartridges, so they were shooting for hours in a refuge. They damaged, destroyed and stole government property. Even the personal items of people who worked there. They defiled Indian holy ground.
What kind of jury would allow that to happen? Is that what they want for our society? People who want something for nothing? Those lands belong to all of us, not to a few free loaders who have no respect for anything. The jury members are a disgrace. They betrayed their fellow Oregonians and I would love the opportunity to tell them that to their faces.
These disgusting anarchists left thousands of rounds of spent cartridges, so they were shooting for hours in a refuge. They damaged, destroyed and stole government property. Even the personal items of people who worked there. They defiled Indian holy ground.
What kind of jury would allow that to happen? Is that what they want for our society? People who want something for nothing? Those lands belong to all of us, not to a few free loaders who have no respect for anything. The jury members are a disgrace. They betrayed their fellow Oregonians and I would love the opportunity to tell them that to their faces.
32
They were emboldened after they threatened the federal officials with weapons at the Bundy ranch to take over federal land with weapons. So how emboldened will they and others be now? How many armed takeovers of federal land are we going to see in the future because of this idiotic jury? What else are wackos going to claim they have a Constitutional right to take while brandishing weapons? This is legal blessing for armed insurrection. Meanwhile, unarmed Native American protestors in North Dakota are being arrested for "rioting".
20
Perhaps this is the difference Emily. The federal government's operation in North Dakota has the powerful support and full force of private Big Oil interests behind it, while in Oregon the federal government is tip-toeing around these domestic terrorists because they don't want to enrage the millions of sympathetic nut-cases that walk into voting booths on election day. Thank you Faux News - anarchy and the "strong man" soon to follow.
7
Here, as in North Dakota, there is a legal process to go through, but when it comes to land use issues out west, jurors seem to be sympathetic.
6
I guess not only is justice blind, but sometimes is is also downright stupid...
15
It is good to be White, Christian and armed.
Can't wait for Mr. Trump to be our President.
Can't wait for Mr. Trump to be our President.
10
"Don't worry. Come to work like it was any other day. I'll be sitting at your desk with my AK-47, but don't mind me."
Appalling verdict. But at least Sean Hannity and Faux News will have something to focus their venom on after Trump is crushed on November 8th.
7
Well, there go their conspiracy theories about the government.
Now what do they have to fret over?
Now what do they have to fret over?
8
No this was government losing to the people who "did the right thing". It reinforces the conspiracy theory.
This decision is not only disappointing, it's quite frightening and I hope not a harbinger of things to come. These people broke the law, plain and simple, but they are now free to continue to act as if we're living in the 1800s, fighting the Revolutionary War all over again. Wonder what's going to happen to all of the American Indians and their supporters who've been arrested protesting the pipeline that's going through their land and has the potential to contaminate their water supply?
13
How does a prosecutor decide not to even charge them with the vandalism damages these nothing-better-to-do yahoos did to the refuge? How does a federal prosecutor lose a case against a man who doesn't even have a lawyer? If one of the charges was having firearms on the property, how does a jury ignore the video and physical evidence showing these men were illegally armed on the property? The prosecutor here ought to be ashamed of his work.
11
I would like to see a civil action brought against the Bundy's. They steal from the american taxpayer and destroy public property. there should be some consequence.
15
The timeline is pretty suspicious... Jurors send a note to the judge stating that a jury member is showing outright "bias" during deliberations. The judge dismisses the juror and replaces him/her with an alternate. A day later the new jury unanimously deems the defendants not-guilty.
So, the jury "votes a guy off the island" who was holding things up so they can head home to their loved ones. Forget about justice!
So, the jury "votes a guy off the island" who was holding things up so they can head home to their loved ones. Forget about justice!
21
My first thought, too.
2
Ladies and Gentlemen, it is clear that WE have our work cut out for us up to and after the election. The hate-anger-fear-lies-war attacks on OUR governments at all levels must stop. They are fueled by BIG democracy-destroying money masters who want to take even more of OUR taxpayer/citizen wealth, resources and property. This sorry lot in the photo clearly did not pay for their own defense and, frankly, are not smart enough to put together this Federal Land grab on their own. BIG money is behind it. Whose is it? The Koch brothers? Other "investors" who want to get it free - through supposed "states rights" - so they can sell it to the highest bidder around the world? It doesn't matter who it is. WE must take steps to protect it and OUR democracy.
There will be more of these takeover attempts of OUR lands and more trials. We must have grassroots synergy to show up and say NO! You cannot have OUR land or resources. NOW is the time.
There will be more of these takeover attempts of OUR lands and more trials. We must have grassroots synergy to show up and say NO! You cannot have OUR land or resources. NOW is the time.
13
Thank you njglea, my suspicions and sentiments as well. The majority of commenters on this site attribute the vast difference in the treatment of these domestic terrorists and the treatment of the Native American protestors to race, and I'm sure that is part of it. But I suspect that Big Money has a lot more to do with it. In North Dakota, the protestors are directly impeding the flow of CASH into company coffers. It's apparent, yet again, whose interests our government truly represents.
4
What a marvelous country we live in! The Government does NOT get to decide where justice resides, the PEOPLE do. I must say I totally disagreed with the protester's methods. The fact is, the prosecutor saw "CONSPIRACY!" where there was only trespassing. The prosecutor saw "WEAPONS CHARGES!" where protesters were carrying guns. The prosecutor decided to make an example out of these yahoos and go for long prison sentences. The people on the jury were the only sane ones in the courtroom and properly restrained the government. Six months in jail would have been sufficient, not 60 years!
6
stands alongside the o.j. simpson criminal trial jury in the "nullification jury hall of fame".
7
I had the same thought.
1
Wait until Trump loses and the insane, armed militias feel validated and empowered....
13
This comes 1 day before 100 protestors are arrested over their occupation at a pipeline construction site in North Dakota. For 41 days, Y'all Qaeda occupied the Malheur Wildlife Refuge, but the feds refused to intervene until late. In the Standing Rock pipeline situation, it is a corporation that is losing money with each passing protest day. And, since corporate America owns our government, this protest will not be tolerated. After all, it's cutting into profits. Secondly, the Bundy verdict travesty was delivered by a JURY OF THEIR PEERS (emphasis mine). Meaning like-minded rednecks let them off scott-free, regardless of the law.
14
Am I reading this right? They were acquitted of all charges? Wow a revolutionary mindset has definitely set in. If this holds true for tens of millions of people then the period after the election is going to be a dangerous one, more so if the election is considered illegitimate.
6
Appalling. Compare this to the Dakota protests and you realize that America has changed very little over the decades.
As millions have noted since yesterday, change their skin color and you have another story.
As millions have noted since yesterday, change their skin color and you have another story.
12
These terrorists being acquitted reminds me of white juries that came back with 'not guilty' verdicts for whites who clearly murdered blacks. Isn't there a way to correct such travesties of justice?
9
How is that possible unless the jury was made up of these knuckle draggers kin.
8
These thugs are acquitted while Native American Standing Rock protesters trying to protect the earth and precious water are pepper sprayed, targeted by snipers, shot with rubber bullets, attacked with dogs and arrested...the country is owned by the corporations. Another sad day in America...
12
I guess it's open season now for armed revolutionaries. Grab your guns, boys and girls, and pursue any reckless end you wish without consequences. Wheeeeeee!
9
This is crazy. Just look at them. I suppose they'll be acquitted again when they go full-automatic, day after election day. Patriots indeed. Well, at least they live far away, in the armpit of Merca, where they belong.
3
When something defies understanding, it usually means we don't have all the facts. In this case, there's a very important snippet towards the end of the article that belongs in the headline, lest we all waste our frustration on the wrong causes of this injustice: "They argued that the presence of paid government informants at the refuge during the occupation muddied the waters and created reasonable doubt about how the decisions of the defendants were made." Oregon Live has much more complete coverage, including the fact that there were up to 15 paid FBI informants involved with the occupation. That means that 25-50% of the occupiers were paid informants, one of whom even ran a shooting range and training for the occupiers! The jury was asked to find conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt. It seems clear that the hefty presence of paid FBI informants, some in leadership roles, is a reasonable source of doubt when weighing whether the defendants were the clear source of a conspiracy. The outcome remains an awful shame, but let's at least get to the true story, instead of assuming 12 jurors made an irrational decision. I'll be staying tuned.
8
Agreed. Note that the defendants still face not one but two more trials, on different kinds of charges, in Oregon and Nevada, and that they have not been released from custody. It's possible the U.S. attorney in this particular case pursued a long-shot strategy surrounding the "conspiracy" aspect of what was otherwise a clear case of broken laws, and the limited definition of "conspiracy" wasn't adequately proven.
4
We're all very lucky this shenanigan did not result in more deaths (than the one). Bundy and his crew have been acquitted by a jury of their peers. We can argue the fine points of how the case was prosecuted but the deal is done. The guys from Nevada picked a bird sanctuary to make their point that Federally managed lands should be more open to mining, ranching, timber, and other "local" financial interests. This is in contrast to established laws that presume Federal lands belong to all Americans and should be managed accordingly. Their argument is self-serving and transparent. Claiming religious motivation is an ironic counterpoint to the view that followers of the Muslim faith should be subject to "extreme vetting" or that a wall at the southern border is needed to keep out "bad hombres". It seems the "good guys with guns" may have normal human failings and selfish motivations, just like the rest of us.
5
I can tell that this legal verdict is important by how may "special interest groups" are jumping on it and staking a claim. Every politcal organization, race baiter, gun lobby (any and all points of view), Soros funded "civil society group", pro and anti federalist, etc., etc.
Looks like this case is hitting the core of American rage square on the head.
Looks like this case is hitting the core of American rage square on the head.
1
I have to take a break from the news while this is a top story. I terrified that this will enable, incite and encourage more of these types of actions. People invariable will be hurt and we will all wring our hands wondering how this could have been prevented.
5
OK, this is ridiculous but what’s done is done. Now let’s just move on to the civil suit. They did a lot of damage. Having been acquitted of criminal charges does not let them off the hook for that damage. They’ll probably use the bogus defense that it’s their land so they don’t have to pay up. Well, guess what—that land is as much my land as their land. I pay plenty of taxes every year, some of which is used to maintain our national lands. If the U.S. Government won’t press a civil suit to recover those costs, tell me where 100 million tax paying Americans and I can file a lawsuit.
11
OK, what is it about the rural West that I don't get? These people were tried by a jury of their peers from an area that is extremely rural and desolate. By returning this verdict, it's like they're sending a message that they would be fine with returning to a time when the West was lawless and you were on your own as far as the administration of justice was concerned. The thing is most people if the Old West sought to set up a law enforcement and justice system as fast as they could, for the Outlaw West was not a good thing. Why would anyone want to go back to that? Crazy.
7
I feel the same incredulity with this verdict that I did 22 years ago when OJ got off. If this lot didn't impede Federal workers from doing their jobs, why were the Feds not working at the refuge during the occupation?
4
Of course the jury acquitted them. They were all friends and neighbors of these law breakers. What would you expect.
The prosecutors should have asked for a change of venue.
Isn't hind sight wonderfu.
The prosecutors should have asked for a change of venue.
Isn't hind sight wonderfu.
4
"Ammon Bundy, 41, a business owner, testified for three days in his defense. He argued that the takeover was spontaneous and informed by religious belief."
What religion is he talking about that allows him to wrest control of public lands from U.S. citizens?
What religion is he talking about that allows him to wrest control of public lands from U.S. citizens?
7
The Bundy family are Mormon.
3
Conservatism?
1
If they were native, they would have been gassed, beaten and imprisoned. If they were black, they would all be dead. America today sickens me.
8
What can we conclude?
1. The prosecutors for some reason failed to convey to the jury the details and the seriousness of the crimes committed.
2. The jury was biased against the rule of law.
3. We no longer have the rule of law in the U.S.
4. People like the Bundys, criminals who consider their own personal commitment to crime and an antigovernment agenda to be more important than the legitimate functions of the government in providing for the common welfare, will now take more and more freedoms in their quest to destroy government and the welfare of the country as a whole.
1. The prosecutors for some reason failed to convey to the jury the details and the seriousness of the crimes committed.
2. The jury was biased against the rule of law.
3. We no longer have the rule of law in the U.S.
4. People like the Bundys, criminals who consider their own personal commitment to crime and an antigovernment agenda to be more important than the legitimate functions of the government in providing for the common welfare, will now take more and more freedoms in their quest to destroy government and the welfare of the country as a whole.
5
This ruling certifies that the criminal justice system is both implicitly and explicitly biased in favor of White males. It's as if the denial of bias is so entrenched and self serving that it intentionally diminishes the perceptions and understanding of significant egregious behave that was actually televised. This disparity is creating a crisis in trust of American institutions and political leadership. As we become increasingly aware of how the culture of White male patriarchy impacts everyone else's rights, liberty, and access to opportunities, while at the same time demeaning others very existence and value of others as a human beings.
5
I am shocked and dismayed by the outcome of this trial, and have a personal reason to be. These people took over a Wildlife Refuge while heavily armed. How could anyone conclude there was no conspiracy? Did they just wake up one day and decide to arm themselves and take over the Refuge? These people are Anti-American right wing religious fanatics who threatened people while being heavily armed. How is that not a crime? My personal reason for being outraged: I'm a Federal Scientist who began his career in Montana 29 years ago. We went through a period when white supremacists weren't just talking the anti-government talk, they were threatening violence against federal employees. We were advised for a time not to drive in a federal vehicle in Montana. Citizens need to know that the assets of their great government, the property of the people, which were already at risk due to right-wing politics, are now even more at risk. Now, any old creep fanatic will feel emboldened to act act his/her violent fantasies.
7
This is what white privilege looks like in the justice system. There's no way at all that if these people had been black or brown and had taken over a federal building and held it with force and threats of violence the verdict would have been exactly the opposite. White privilege. White privilege. White privilege.
7
@EDC, there's a very good chance we wouldn't even be talking about a "verdict" if black men had taken the same actions as the Bundy family. Seriously, with everything we have seen of late, what are the odds a group of black men would make it out of that situation alive?
5
I have mixed feelings about this verdict.
On one hand I think these people are clearly guilty of possession of firearms in a federal facility. They deliberately occupied a federal facility under threat of violence were they to be confronted. This is crystal. I would have preferred to see them found guilty. Clearly the defendants had at least one stalwart sympathizer in the jury room.
On the other hand, I've long been a critic of prosecutorial overreach and misconduct and the charge of "conspiring to impede federal employees" in carrying out their duties is typical for the catch-all tricks overzealous prosecutors and police use to ensure that defendants hauled into a courtroom are convicted of at least something, followed by a sentence way in excess of the apparent seriousness of the charge. I'm glad to see this did not work, this time around.
On one hand I think these people are clearly guilty of possession of firearms in a federal facility. They deliberately occupied a federal facility under threat of violence were they to be confronted. This is crystal. I would have preferred to see them found guilty. Clearly the defendants had at least one stalwart sympathizer in the jury room.
On the other hand, I've long been a critic of prosecutorial overreach and misconduct and the charge of "conspiring to impede federal employees" in carrying out their duties is typical for the catch-all tricks overzealous prosecutors and police use to ensure that defendants hauled into a courtroom are convicted of at least something, followed by a sentence way in excess of the apparent seriousness of the charge. I'm glad to see this did not work, this time around.
2
I have heard that there is also a federal trial upcoming. If so, why is it not mentioned? I think this group is out of line. Federal lands belong to everyone, not just these few renegades. That said, it seems conciliation is in order. Of course if the Bundy group and the government both have completely hard lines, nothing can be done. Hopefully they won't do it again! But why not? Obviously the community is okay with this kind of behavior. They probably also support the Donald.
5
Sounds like jury nullification. Could you imagine if 7 black people took over this refuge? 7 funerals, that's what.
18
Rght, "was rooted in antigovernment fervor and captured the nation’s attention.?" I'm sorry, this standoff captured the MSN attention, force fed to the country 24/7. Coverage of the pipeline standoff up at Standing Rock? Nonexistent (where are you NYT?) and hundreds violently arrested. Oh yeah, not white guys.
8
If you can get away with it, you keep doing it. Simple. Thanks, jury!
9
well now...
selling single cigarettes on the street? choked to death on the spot
armed takeover of a Federal facility? nada
selling single cigarettes on the street? choked to death on the spot
armed takeover of a Federal facility? nada
17
I didn't know being a Caucasian-American was THIS great. Heck, teenagers have gotten in more trouble for throwing a party than these folks did for taking over a federal government building. White fragility wins again.
14
As an Oregonian, don't ask me? I don't get it, other than the jurors came from east of the Cascades, they certainly didn't chose Portlanders, that's for sure.'They're as guilty as anyone can be. It was terribly distressing for all of us in Oregon, and, gives them permission to do this again.
8
Thank God for the jury trial system of justice in this country. You will know that the forces of tyranny have completely won when the succeed in getting rid of the jury trial in America. We live in what amounts to a police state in this country thanks to the war on drugs and the war on terror and all of the environmental laws enforced by federal and state agencies. Agencies like the BLM are particularly onerous. This is a great result for these defendants but is little compensation for the murder of one of the protesters by law enforcement.
4
It is a great result only for those who favor anarchy.
8
Mark, You "thank God." What if armed people were to come to your house and claim it as their own? They'd have guns and move in for months. If you complained, they'd invoke God, that God told them to do it. Maybe you plan a similar takeover of a nearby taxpayer-owned park? That's what they did on public land which is owned and supported by all citizens and is also a wild life sanctuary. And the jury didn't mind at all. Scary!
5
Scary individual right here.
3
The jury system, as we all know, is imperfect. Until we come up with a better system, it's always a roll of the dice.
Lesson: stay out of court.
Lesson: stay out of court.
2
Are not charges of criminal trespass still available? And all the consequential damages? These people could still go to jail and be bankrupted for life. They deserve it.
7
There are several factors that may have played hard on the jury's conscience. The death of LaVoy Finicum was widely regarded through Oregon as an unnecessary result of trickery by law enforcement who had implied he would have safe passage to a public meeting. Some go further and believe it was a planned ambush where Mr. Finicum could be goaded into a compromising position, as a show of force and retribution. The original Court proceedings, convictions and sentencing of the Hammonds shocked many people as unfair and heavy-handed Federal prosecution in the context of what was primarily a landlord-tenant and neighbour dispute between them and the BLM. In addition, why did the prosecutors opt for such serious charges when surely there must have been an option for less jeopardy - public mischief or trespass? I was surprised at the verdict, was offended that individuals would hijack a piece of public land set aside for the recreation and enjoyment of all citizens, but I can also understand how a jury might be pushing back against what was shown to them to be heavy-handed law enforcement against a group of misguided but sincere people who represent a core value of independence and personal freedom that is still very much part of the ethos of the rural West.
6
A surprising but not totally shocking outcome. The lesson here is if you're going to prosecute these cases "out west" , you better have your ducks in order. I spent many years in remote New Mexico and I can tell you that in these areas, generally speaking, cherished concepts of freedom and liberty will almost always outweigh any laws that are perceived as threatening to those ideals. The Fed's case was essentially about allegedly preventing people from getting to their jobs, the sort of inconveniences that happen during all organized protests, left or right - not exactly the crime of the century to these folks.
4
Oh, wait! They might be innocent and overcharged but we don't like it!
2
Great news for champions of the first and second amendment.
1
And advocates for domestic terrorism. A win for them too.
6
Confirms my suspicion that I've moved to one of the most backwards and latently racist states in this union... Anyplace else, you'd have a hard time finding a jury less diverse. This verdict is really a shame.
6
if only the Dakota pipeline protesters had thought to arm themselves and dress up like cowboys everything would have been OK?
7
Absolutely my first thought. My second thought was "... and paint on whiteface."
2
This is called Jury Nulification. To see those two Bundy's go free is realliy galling.
6
High noon in old Oregon and the gun-toting local boys are set free. So much for the idea of sophisticated, liberal Oregon. Guns and land rights still rule once you leave the Pearl District, eh?
5
One, they weren't "local boys" they were from Utah, Idaho and elsewhere. Two, it wasn't an Oregon court decision. Yes, Oregon, like most states, is divided politically, with the cities being much more liberal than the countryside. So what?
2
Just as I was beginning to feel hopeful about the election, this happens. If a jury can find these right wing ignorant "patriots" not guilty, what does that mean for the presidential election? It's just as obvious that Donald Trump is totally unqualified to be POTUS and yet...
7
Imagine the mess if law abiding bird watchers had to arm themselves to take back this bird sanctuary from these thugs. Is that what this country has come to? A Gunocracy? Or is it Gunism?
Way to go NRA. The solution to everything is more guns, BIGGER GUNS.
Way to go NRA. The solution to everything is more guns, BIGGER GUNS.
4
I cannot believe they acquitted these clowns.
Now every yahoo with a God Complex will be pulling these horribly misguided stunts.
Seriously who are the rocket scientists that acquitted these people?
Now every yahoo with a God Complex will be pulling these horribly misguided stunts.
Seriously who are the rocket scientists that acquitted these people?
5
O.J. Simpson can breathe a little easier. The "Greatest Miscarriage of Justice in American History" trophy no longer belongs to him.
4
While I feel that this verdict is breathtakingly inane and incomprehensible, it in no conceivable way be compared to the OJ case: he viciously murdered two innocent people by slicing their throats and stabbing them multiple times. His "innocence" will long reign as The Greatest Miscarriage of Justice in American History."
An insane verdict. The law is clear, and was utterly disregarded by the jury. I hope the government appeals.
5
Anybody remember O.J. Simpson? ? Most of you have not a clue as to what happened here and the fact that the FBI murdered a man during this. Yes shot in the back not holding a gun is murder.
2
This happened in Portland? It's hard to believe. Makes me very worried about the election predictions.
3
Not Portland. It was in the Oregon countryside.
2
The trial took place in the Porland courthouse. Curious if the jurors were from Portland or from throughout Oregon.
1
Please take note that protesters against the pipeline have just been arrested. Will they be tried and acquitted?
2
Jury intimidation? I would be scared to be serving in that jury.
5
Ah, white privilege at it's most obvious. Well anyway, I have to get back to work to pay for the damage they caused and the enormous unpaid grazing fees they still owe.
8
I hope these "protesers" realize that if they lived in a country with a "strong leader" like Putin, or they'd have been in jail for the rest of their lives.
4
This decision makes today one of the darker days in a year of dim light.
4
so... can they still face civil penalties for damages? taxpayers don't have to countenance that.
2
What a phenomenal example of white privilege! These chumps should be in jail for sedition.
8
I missed the memo that announced the repeal of the law that makes it illegal to take firearms into a Federal building.
Whatever happened to commit a crime with a gun go to jail?
A black man or a Native American with a gun would've been shot on the spot. No second guessing!
No wonder our country is going to hell!
Whatever happened to commit a crime with a gun go to jail?
A black man or a Native American with a gun would've been shot on the spot. No second guessing!
No wonder our country is going to hell!
6
Militarized vigilantism will occur more and more often now after this verdict. Having not followed the courtroom presentations closely, I can only believe the prosecutions approach was terribly flawed. I can only hope this is not the end of this case, but it probably is.
5
Yikes! This is like a Proceed With No Caution sign to the Trumpistas who can't wait to take over whatever they want because they're "just" protesting government overreach and God told them to do it.
Absolutely stunning that the North Dakota pipeline protest is responded to with guns and arrests while these welfare prima donnas in cowboy hats play games with federal property that we paid for.
Now if this had been a Koch brothers project, you can bet these dime store cowboys would have been brought up real short.
Absolutely stunning that the North Dakota pipeline protest is responded to with guns and arrests while these welfare prima donnas in cowboy hats play games with federal property that we paid for.
Now if this had been a Koch brothers project, you can bet these dime store cowboys would have been brought up real short.
5
I fear we will see a lot more of this nonsense if Trump gets elected.
3
Just on the basis of this decision, we will see a lot more of this nonsense. With this precedent, it is now legal to use armed force to take over a government facility, just so long as you claim that it is illegal for the government to own and operate facilities.
3
The resentment of the Bureau of Land Management by some locals has a long history. It is based on the conflict between Federal, State and local authorities - and "locals"regarding management of Federal property.
I fear these "locals" will be enabled by the Judge's decision to commit further acts of seizure and destruction of publicly held land.
Unfortunately, much of this country's prosperity since the 1980's has not benefitted the "locals" especially in the areas of jobs, education, and healthcare, to name a few. Their distrust of the Federal government and willingness "to take matters into their own hands" is a metaphor of the little guy and gal being ignored by pretty much all - Federal, State and local programs, and the private sectors. No wonder they are angry. They are not part of our "perfect union".
I fear these "locals" will be enabled by the Judge's decision to commit further acts of seizure and destruction of publicly held land.
Unfortunately, much of this country's prosperity since the 1980's has not benefitted the "locals" especially in the areas of jobs, education, and healthcare, to name a few. Their distrust of the Federal government and willingness "to take matters into their own hands" is a metaphor of the little guy and gal being ignored by pretty much all - Federal, State and local programs, and the private sectors. No wonder they are angry. They are not part of our "perfect union".
3
The article mentions religious beliefs as part of their motivation. But I didn't see any mention of which religion, such as Christian or Mormon or LDS.
1
Of course you didn't, that is the structure of innuendo.
By the way, many do not believe the three are mutually exclusive. Please, unshutter you book learnin', there in Sausalito.
As an Oregonian I am embarrassed, horrified and disgusted by this verdict.
I guess the Bundy tribe really was judged by "a jury of their peers".
I guess the Bundy tribe really was judged by "a jury of their peers".
5
So now we have an open invitation to armed takeover of any Federal land. So, when I am backpacking the High Divide in the Olympic National Park next summer I should not be surprised to be told by some camo-wearing, poorly educated, AR-15 toting wing nut that I am to get off of his land? Can you begin to imagine what would have happened to these people if they were black or native American? Just how incompetent was the prosecution that they could not get THESE people convicted??
8
Disgusting! This acquittal reflects many citizens larger frustration with their government.
2
The jury was from the same state with the same mindset.
1
Your comment is unfounded and unfair. We Oregonians are fair-minded people and are just as shocked by this verdict as east coast Americans.
3
Thank you for your clarification but what else am I do believe?
It's like the last line in Chinatown. "Forget it Jake, it's [America]."
2
The bullying attitude of these COMMENTS scares off possible explanation of the jury's acquittal of the protestors against government overreach who were deemed by that jury to have posed no threat to the public.
I for one have little sympathy with the protestors though it must be acknowledged that federal agents did kill one of them. I have less sympathy for their land-grab attitude but again it must be acknowledged that "free" land was the incentive that Lincoln used to persuade the railroads to open the West, which even today remains 47% owned by the federal government compared to 4% federal ownership east of the Mississippi.
I suspect if the protestors had been the Paiute Indians whose claim to the Malheur is far more legitimate than the Bundy brothers, the tone of the COMMENTS would be different, and justifiably so.
I
I for one have little sympathy with the protestors though it must be acknowledged that federal agents did kill one of them. I have less sympathy for their land-grab attitude but again it must be acknowledged that "free" land was the incentive that Lincoln used to persuade the railroads to open the West, which even today remains 47% owned by the federal government compared to 4% federal ownership east of the Mississippi.
I suspect if the protestors had been the Paiute Indians whose claim to the Malheur is far more legitimate than the Bundy brothers, the tone of the COMMENTS would be different, and justifiably so.
I
4
I can't imagine how I would be treated if I went into a BLM or NF or NM and trashed the buildings and damaged the property which belongs to us ALL. At the very least I would be held responsible for damages. This should have been the least worst case scenario for these brigands, not let off scott free. It sends the wrong message to the wrong people.
5
Everyone get the message loud and clear?
"There is no such thing as JUSTICE in this country!"
There is only "JUST-US!"
Why this verdict makes as much sense as Citizens United and gutting the Civil Rights Act!
Vote Democrat and save what's left...
"There is no such thing as JUSTICE in this country!"
There is only "JUST-US!"
Why this verdict makes as much sense as Citizens United and gutting the Civil Rights Act!
Vote Democrat and save what's left...
8
No justice, no peace.
4
I'm stunned these people were acquitted. Hopefully someone will interview the jury. Was it jury nullification?
4
White Conservative Christian Red Neck Armed Militias Get Special Treatment In USA, always have, always will, until they are the minority.
5
Oh yeah. How will you pay for all of the misery after we're gone? We're the ones footing the bill for everything.
1
Maybe the prosecutors were overly ambitious and overreached on the charges. It seems they did a poor job during jury selection. Perhaps they were overly confident of winning. I don't know; I am not a lawyer. But these people are clearly not innocent. It is a travesty that they were acquitted. The message is that the U.S. is losing its civility and it's OK to "protest" this way. If someone decides to protest and brings a gun to your house and kicks you out, well that's too bad for you.
2
This verdict is unbelievable, and a disgrace to the American justice system. That a small group of armed men could seize an entire wildlife refuge, and threaten anyone who disagreed with their illegal seizure is outrageous. This was a rebellion with deadly weapons against a federal law that was enacted for the good of the greatest number of Americans.
Did these bearded yahoos take their cue from one of the violent TV dramas glorifying the use of AK 15s to get what you want? If Bundy et alia just wanted to change the law--or even the boundaries--there is a way to do that through the courts. But if this crew wanted their 15 minutes of fame--then they did it effectively.
Did these bearded yahoos take their cue from one of the violent TV dramas glorifying the use of AK 15s to get what you want? If Bundy et alia just wanted to change the law--or even the boundaries--there is a way to do that through the courts. But if this crew wanted their 15 minutes of fame--then they did it effectively.
4
Looks like the Bundys et al. were not charged with illegal grazing of their animals on federal land. If they had been so charged, a guilty verdict would have npbewn returned. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/04/the-irony-of-cliven-...
The illegal grazing is the same thing as taking water -- that's what it's all about: free land, free feed, free water for their cattle.
The illegal grazing is the same thing as taking water -- that's what it's all about: free land, free feed, free water for their cattle.
1
Shouldn't there have been deadly force used for non-compliance? That's what they say whenever another group of people is slow to cooperate. And I use slow to cooperate ffacetiousy
4
I do not understand how what they did is legal to do in the United States.
3
It is not legal. But the jury acquitted, so there is no further recourse, barring different charges. The charges should not have been pursued in Oregon, but moved to another venue where more a responsible juror could have been found. Domestic terrorism is a possibility. Civil complaints can be filed, also. However, in that regard, there is likely to be a civil complaint of unlawful death in the case of the terrorist who was shot at the confrontation on the highway.
This is the downside of a jury of peers. My guess is they are all trump supporters too.
4
Complete disbelief at a jury verdict that finds no laws broken in an armed takeover of a wildlife refuge! Anarchy is the most obvious result of this verdict.
6
This acquittal is absurd, unbelievable and dangerous. That these rightwing militia-types who take over a public property under arms and threats of violence to law enforcement can be acquitted in the face of evidence visible to the world bodes ill for emboldening these domestic terrorists and their ilk in the future. In that they're being supported by political allies in Congress and local governments. Apparently that extends to local judiciary. Imagine too these types on the loose after Trump's loss.
7
I simply do not understand how the law can accommodate individuals encroaching on federal land and setting up their own camps without being taken to task for it. Don't these lands belong to ALL Americans? Why should ANY individual be allowed to occupy public land and flaunt standing regulations in the process and not be in clear violation of our laws? Sometimes, ladies and gentlemen, I simply do not understand the logic that was used to formulate our laws and regulations. Wait, did I say "logic"? Clearly I meant "illogic".
3
It seems that it is not the laws and regulations that are at fault, but that the jury disagrees with those laws and regulations. They must be made up of the same sort who committed the crimes. Now we can look forward to more such activities, and there is a legal precedent that will support them.
Woe is us!
Woe is us!
My opinion, they all should be in a penitentiary, but the legal system was applied and they were acquitted by a jury. So it goes. Hopefully, on the pending charges, some of them will be taken off the streets for a long time - or should I say off our public land?
Commentors here who lament this compared to the treatment of blacks and the recent fiasco with Native Americans are justifiably angry. As far as the Bumdy gangs, let's hope for better results as pending cases proceed. Also, for future offenses, law enforcement isn't going away. I wouldn't look for this kind of stuff to end soon, hopefully with better results for the public good.
Commentors here who lament this compared to the treatment of blacks and the recent fiasco with Native Americans are justifiably angry. As far as the Bumdy gangs, let's hope for better results as pending cases proceed. Also, for future offenses, law enforcement isn't going away. I wouldn't look for this kind of stuff to end soon, hopefully with better results for the public good.
1
I would like to know who the lunatics on the jury were and have them explain themselves.
6
Lot's of whining about the verdict - how dare they violate the law in protest! Meanwhile were are about to elect a serial lawbreaker to the presidency. At least the Bundy group was arrested and held for the better part of a year. Not queen Hillary. If you have no problem when the FBI director refuses to enforce the law, you have business claiming outrage at this jury's verdict.
3
Can you give us a list of the laws Hillary Clinton has broken? And exactly which "lie" is it she's always being accused of?
3
25 years ago, as a field biologist, it was understood that you minimized use of state vehicles in certain northern Michigan counties because of the illegal and violent activities of the Michigan militia on public lands. That was where Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols trained for the Oklahoma City bombing. These people are terrorists, pure and simple. They think they can seize public resources for their own private gain, and to advance their neofacist politics. The federal authorities roll over when they see their guns, their white skin, and their "christianity." At least we know where these ones live and what they look like, but you can be sure, these aren't the only ones...
9
Who the heck was on this jury? Disgraceful verdict, terrifying precedent!
4
Clearly, Treason is now legal in the USA, provided it’s committed by white traitors….
7
Ashamed to be an Oregonian today.
2
Meanwhile, a black man is executed by the authorities for having a wallet...
Perhaps this same court and jurors can give the White House to Trump when he loses?
Perhaps this same court and jurors can give the White House to Trump when he loses?
9
The OJ trial for "sovereign citizens". Certainly judged by a jury of their peers, anti-government wackos. Sure Tim McVeigh committed a crime; but he was REALLY MAD at the Government!
5
I'm not an attorney and I don't know the particulars of the case that was brought against these seven individuals. But I do know this. The Malheur National Wildlife Refuge is our property. It belongs to all of us citizens of the United States of America. These seven individuals were part of a group that took over our land and occupied it with armed resistance. Let's imagine another situation. What if an armed group moved into Central Park in New York City, took it over with similar armed resistance, and did so because they believed that it should be private land? That they wanted to build skyscrapers on it? What's the difference between this and Malheur National Wildlife Refuge?
193
Imagine a group of people who crossed our border uninvited and without permission. What we do? Why we would provide them with the benefits they deserve of course. Besides acquittal these folks deserve some free stuff just so we can be consistent in the application of our laws.
1
This is just a step in privatizing everything that belongs to the public. It's neoliberalism at the worst and everything about neoliberalism is bad. But our president likes it and so here we go. So for the last 40 years or so the rich get richer faster and the poor get poorer faster and the middle class fall into poverty too. That's the plan our president and Hillary, a neoliberal on steroids and every president since Jimmy Carter. As a lawyer you should be aware of this. The goal among other horrible things is to sell off public lands and everything else to very wealthy private citizens. WE can kiss our National Parks good bye.
1
the jury of your peers. Your peers in NYC would be a very different set of people than they are in rural Oregon. So while I agree this is an ominous, frightening sign, it is not the case that the justice system did not work.
I can only imagine the thousands of gallons of Busch Light quaffed in celebration by the inhabitants of eastern OR this evening. Anheuser-Busch executives and shareholders are ecstatic for this verdict.
2
With very mixed feelings about this acquittal, I applaud nevertheless the jury who wanted evidently to preserve the spirit of the gunslingers of the Wild West.
2
Imagine if this group of criminals consisted of African-Americans. Wait. There wouldn't even have been a trial because a group of African-Americans - unlike these "acquitted" defendants - likely would have been shot and killed on sight. Justice did not prevail here. I only hope some party will pursue civil actions against these people at the very least for trespass. They admitted they violated the law and yet they got away scot free from the criminal charges against them. Perhaps a monetary damages levied against the "acquitted" may make them see the error of their ways.
5
Except for the blond woman, these are not the best looking examples of US white people. Or perhaps the rest just take bad mug shots.
2
A Jury of Our Peers
I can hardly wait to hear what Donald Trump has to say about this triumph of justice. I'm guessing he will extol the actions of the Malheur-National-Wildlife Refuge-eight and celebrate the wisdom of this jury.
Ya gotta love 21st century America.
I can hardly wait to hear what Donald Trump has to say about this triumph of justice. I'm guessing he will extol the actions of the Malheur-National-Wildlife Refuge-eight and celebrate the wisdom of this jury.
Ya gotta love 21st century America.
2
Watching the Trump campaign and his brotherhood of GOP, NRA, and right-wing media Vietnam draft dodgers, and the last eight years of their anti-Obama racism and obstruction, and things like letting these anarchists off, I've regrettably come to the conclusion that I was a sucker and a fool to serve in this country's military.
3
As a tax-paying American, unlike the Bundys and their ilk, these tax renegades who want to use public land for their personal gain are a threat to me and the government that I support. The Court should set aside this obviously erroneous jury verdict and jail the defense lawyers for contempt and for their outrageous behavior toward the Judge.
2
"This is what happens when the American people see an out-of-control Washington bureaucracy: They ignore them. They ignore the law and decide for themselves that no, these people shall be set free."
Nothing like a little jury nullification to brighten your day! This is why the feds are doing away with jury trials in many instances. They don't want the American people telling them exactly what we think of their law. But remember folks, jury nullification is the real reason Prohibition was overturned: No American would convict the guy bringing him his beer and whiskey.
Nothing like a little jury nullification to brighten your day! This is why the feds are doing away with jury trials in many instances. They don't want the American people telling them exactly what we think of their law. But remember folks, jury nullification is the real reason Prohibition was overturned: No American would convict the guy bringing him his beer and whiskey.
2
I can't think of how this happened. To my mind either jurors lied to get on the jury and were impaneled with the intention of acquitting or the instructions to the jury were inaccurate.
2
I share everyone's outrage, but wonder if the key word here is "conspiracy." That probably gave the jury the room I suspect they wanted to acquit.
1
I would think this sets an incredibly dangerous precedent, one that signals to wannabe militiamen that armed occupation carries no consequences.
5
Armed with guns, assault rifles and occupying federal land, these so-called citizens waged a protest against what they believed to be government overreach, and the jury believed this did not pose a threat?
I will play the race card here and say if those occupiers were black, there would not have been a trial, because they all would have been taken down by federal marshals and local police who would have used all resources at their disposal to eliminate the threat.
This verdict is wrong on so many levels and sends a message that could embolden others to again take up arms against federal authorities if they feel the government is infringing on their rights.
I will play the race card here and say if those occupiers were black, there would not have been a trial, because they all would have been taken down by federal marshals and local police who would have used all resources at their disposal to eliminate the threat.
This verdict is wrong on so many levels and sends a message that could embolden others to again take up arms against federal authorities if they feel the government is infringing on their rights.
7
I significant portion of the US population has become very confused about what the Constitution actually stands for. My guess is those that wave the flag the hardest and claim to be defending the Constitution have never have read it. This is a ridiculous outcome and indicative of a horrible double-standard. If an armed african-american or native-american group took over federal land they would be shot for treason. Ridiculous outcome of this matter and a horrible precedent.
2
Why were they charged with conspiracy? That is an ambiguous charge, and hard to prove without infringements on freedoms of speech and thought.
What they did do (and did not deny doing), were armed hijacking of government (your and my) property, damage to that property, failure to pay fees (again to you and me) for use of that property, failure to obey lawful orders of government employees (again, you and me), threatening same (again), amongst other violations.
There are laws against all the above, are there not?
What they did do (and did not deny doing), were armed hijacking of government (your and my) property, damage to that property, failure to pay fees (again to you and me) for use of that property, failure to obey lawful orders of government employees (again, you and me), threatening same (again), amongst other violations.
There are laws against all the above, are there not?
1
Very disappointing verdict for all of us who treasure and respect our national lands. However, I will not lose faith. Karma is going to kick in for the Bundy gang, big time. Sooner or later, they will get what they deserve.
3
If these guys were Muslims, they'd have been shot dead at the scene on day 1 and the entire nation would have felt righteous about it.
Why do we treat domestic terrorists any differently just because they are white Christians?
There's a one word answer that this country simply won't face: racism.
Why do we treat domestic terrorists any differently just because they are white Christians?
There's a one word answer that this country simply won't face: racism.
6
how on Gods green earth did they get acquitted???? they are in numerous videos committing the crimes they were charged with! Were the jurors selected from the alt right movement??
5
So if the occupation was peaceful why the guns?
5
And, if there were no threats of violence, as the jury found, why the threats to use the guns? They are well documented in video evidence and tweets. Oh, that's right: becaue the jury is a jury of their peers - meaning like-minded rednecks who care nothing about the law and would violate it in exactly the same way had they been in the Bundy's shoes.
2
Those grazing cattle and burrowing owls can be very dangerous.
4
Have you ever met anyone who was more innocent than these people?
Apparently, neither had the jurors.
Apparently, neither had the jurors.
3
While I do not necessarily support this verdict, the irony here is delicious.
When Secretary Clinton evaded indictment this past summer despite ample evidence of criminal conduct, and receiving well documented favoritism from the Justice Department, there was nary a peep from any of you. But when a court of law renders a verdict contrary to liberal's statist agenda, you all have an apoplectic fit.
When Secretary Clinton evaded indictment this past summer despite ample evidence of criminal conduct, and receiving well documented favoritism from the Justice Department, there was nary a peep from any of you. But when a court of law renders a verdict contrary to liberal's statist agenda, you all have an apoplectic fit.
7
Apples and oranges. The FBI Director Comey, using his discretion, came to the conclusion she didn't violate the law. The Bundy verdicts were delivered by a jury of their peers - meaning rednecks of their same ilk in the jury pool let them go scott-free because of their own anti-govt sympathies. They could care less about what the law says, and I'd be willing to bet that most of the jury would violate the law in this way as well. Remember, the jury deliberated for almost a week, when the jury sent a note to the judge complaining that they were deadlocked and that one of the jurors was accused of bias. This was unprecedented, but the judge released the juror in the complaint. Just a few hours later, with the replacement juror in place, they reached unanimous not guilty verdicts. So, apparently, the bias the dismissed juror was accused of was pro-federal govt bias. This is an appalling miscarriage of justice.
2
Breaking News! White Guys With Guns are acquitted and awarded the Nobel Occupation Prize! Parade to follow. Ammon Bundy named to Donald Trump's cabinet! Wheweee! What a wacky world we live in.
3
So armed takeover of federal property is now okay! Great job, jury!
3
If these people were Black or Muslim, there wouldn't have even been a trial. They'd be lying in the ground with multiple bullet holes in them. The Bundys are traitors to America, and both them and their followers ought to be treated as such. These acquittals will only embolden right-wingers to commit further acts of terrorism against this country and everything good it stands for.
3
When you take over and occupy a government facility carrying guns in order to intimidate, you have taken up arms against the government and are engaged in insurrection. It was not an act of civil disobedience ala MLK. Had a number of African American males done the same thing they woulnn't have made it to trial because the would all be dead.
1
This is a disgusting verdict. A baby prosecutor could have brought this verdict in. Conspiracy was a given. Ridiculous.
1
What on earth is going on. So, the message is the taking over federal or public property with guns is OK??? As long as you're making some sort of statement? This decision has got to be appealed. These people aren't advocates or protestors; they're armed thugs who don't trust the government or believe in the rule of law... unless they are the ones who decide what the law should be.
1
So if I pose no threat to the public, can I squat in the White House and call it mine, without being called to be responsible?
1
Just deserts, that's what I hoped for. Now I must struggle with righteous indignation! HOWEVER, who among us trusts the media to accurately report a story? From my work in courts for years (social worker not attorney), I know unless you are there, you cannot assume what the right outcome is based on the story the public sees. Ultimately I really trust our judicial system (racial bias not withstanding), so I chose to believe, at least for now, there was a good reason for this outcome. It is hard to feature, but this is the most likely explanation. To all those emboldened by this decision: good luck with that! If not for some arcane detail of the law, or prosecutorial error, I think the outcome would have been very different.
2
“It is a well-deserved, overwhelming defeat for a corrupt and predatory federal government.”
Out standing!
Out standing!
1
Wonder what would happen if Black Lives Matter protesters attempted an armed takeover of a government facility? I doubt a jury would be so sympathetic.
3
This is what happens when people get a jury of their peers. Even Bundy's lawyer couldn't behave like a civilized person. It's a clear travesty, and will only encourage other mouth-breathing ignoramuses.
1
Well, the worst hing these rude hicks did was laughingly destroy irreplaceable, precious lakota indian relics. Their dad is on record as saying that blacks were better off and meant to be slaves.
1
If they had been black men and women, they would have been shot to death by the police. The police would have been acquitted.
3
Doesn't the judge have the right or responsibility to file a judgment notwithstanding the verdict? These people are domestic terrorists and need to be behind bars forever. Especially when you compare them to some of the people convicted of felonies because of a 3rd misdemeanor. This miscarriage of justice needs to be reviewed as there seems to be jury tampering.
1
This sets an ugly precedent for knuckle-dragging nuts with guns to start taking things they want. Nuts like these prattle on about "takers" in the U.S. when they themselves are among the biggest takers of all. They're like children, only worse: armed.
Grow up, Bundys.
Grow up, Bundys.
4
The only reason these people were acquitted is because (the majority of them) were white male landowners. Period.
3
So, the city of Philadelphia had one of those Indigo bike rental racks placed in front of my building. And I’m annoyed because: 1) I’m inconvenienced by having to walk around the bike rack coming back to my apartment carrying groceries, etc., especially in bad weather when I used to be able to hug the building for shelter; and 2) late at night I can hear (even though I’m several floors up) drunk bicyclists returning their Indigo bikes to the rack, at which time they chat (loudly), have a smoke and drink from paper bags, check their iPhones (I can hear Siri), and for (I assume) pleasurable aesthetic reasons continuously ring the bells on the bicycles. My building management claims we don’t get to have a say in the placement of the rack because the city owns the sidewalk.
So, I’ve decided I’m going to quit paying my city taxes (which I like to think of as grazing fees for the overfed beeves in City Hall), stockpile a cache of firearms and ammunition which I will wave about menacingly/threateningly, and engage in a standoff with City Hall until they get rid of the Indigo bike rack and I get my life back the way I want it. I’m not going to go all MOVE and put a bullhorn in my window and audibly broadcast my intent/demands and disturb my neighbors. It’s 2016; you will be able to follow my progress on my blog, which I intend to update every minute of every day, because I know you care about me and consider my problems more important than anything going on in your own lives.
So, I’ve decided I’m going to quit paying my city taxes (which I like to think of as grazing fees for the overfed beeves in City Hall), stockpile a cache of firearms and ammunition which I will wave about menacingly/threateningly, and engage in a standoff with City Hall until they get rid of the Indigo bike rack and I get my life back the way I want it. I’m not going to go all MOVE and put a bullhorn in my window and audibly broadcast my intent/demands and disturb my neighbors. It’s 2016; you will be able to follow my progress on my blog, which I intend to update every minute of every day, because I know you care about me and consider my problems more important than anything going on in your own lives.
Egregious white privilege.
Although if their skin had been brown, they would never have had a chance to go to court because they would be dead.
Although if their skin had been brown, they would never have had a chance to go to court because they would be dead.
4
Maybe the jury - thanks to the narrow constraint placed on them by the judge's instructions re: conspiracy - just gave the Y'all Qaeda Yahoos enough rope to go hang themselves as this decision has already been interpreted by at least one defendant - and many others, I'm sure - as a green light for more of the same. Only next time they'll do something like they did at the Bundy ranch standoff - point guns at federal employees - and I don't think jury nullification will save them then as a Nevada jury will surely show in the upcoming trial the Bundy's and their friends face for the Bundy Ranch standoff.
This is an aspect of democracy that we take with the good; not getting the outcome of a trial you want. People so easily forget that you are presumed innocent. No one mentions how hard it is to be a juror. Their were 9 government informants in the occupation as well. The possibility of their being an agent provocateur must have cast enough doubt in the jurors mind to acquit.
2
cliven still owes > $ 1 mill in grazing fees
th govt is afraid to try to collect again due to their humiliation in nevada
usa # 1
2
Jury nullification and/or prosecutor incompetence.
4
This is insane - almost beyond belief. The Government must appeal. If laws can be cherry picked and violated with impunity then there is no rule of law and anarchy will surely follow - especially after Trump loses. This highly flawed jury decision will further embolden a loud and angry ultra right wing minority who zealously awaits a 'real' opportunity to use their God given second amendment rights.... The judge should have set aside the verdict.
3
There ought to be a law against armed take-over of public property. Apparently, there isn't.
3
That's a damned shame. We've just encouraged anti government gun nuts to do as they please. This is what happens when you put uninformed people on a jury.
4
This verdict appears to be an absurdity. I hope the New York Times will investigate and publish the reasons behind this verdict. Did the Government overcharge these defendants? Did the jury just ignore the law?
6
What would have happened if Black Lives Matter had taken over the facility? Do we think there would have been 7 acquittals? White Privilege Matters.
9
They would have been called terrorists and just on sight.
Unbelievable. If these people had been black, they would all be dead by now! This is the very essence of White privilege in this country.
6
Take over Federal Lands with an arsenal of weapons and walk FREE. Over 25 million in damages. Lives threatened and endangered.
Imagine if BLM had been guilty of this. It would have been 10 years each for the violators. This is simply ridiculous.
Imagine if BLM had been guilty of this. It would have been 10 years each for the violators. This is simply ridiculous.
3
Good thing for them that they aren't Native Americans protesting a pipeline.
6
As we can see, this country has bigger problems than Donald Trump. Way bigger..
6
25 years ago, as a field biologist, it was understood that you minimized use of state vehicles in certain northern Michigan counties because of the illegal and violent activities of the Michigan militia on public lands. That was where Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols trained for the Oklahoma City bombing.
These people are terrorists, pure and simple. They think they can seize public resources for their own private gain, and to advance their neofacist politics. The federal authorities roll over when they see their guns, their white skin, and their "christianity." At least we know where these ones live and what they look like, but you can be sure, these aren't the only ones...
These people are terrorists, pure and simple. They think they can seize public resources for their own private gain, and to advance their neofacist politics. The federal authorities roll over when they see their guns, their white skin, and their "christianity." At least we know where these ones live and what they look like, but you can be sure, these aren't the only ones...
12
Not asking for a change of venue was a masterstroke.
2
Oregon has turned into the Northwest's Florida.
6
not turned, into always was.
2
I am sure the jury was afraid of retribution
I would be
I would be
2
Good thing these guys weren't black. They would be dead.
3
Excellent. My clan will be celebrating xmas in the Grand Canyon this year. There are a lot of us and we'll be setting up camp for about a month, roasting our feasts over open fires in a giant pit we'll carve out. Invitation only.
5
So now it's not against the law to take over federal land with weapons and vandalize the property for six weeks. I am speechless.
2
I disagree with this decision and it has negative implications for addressing the "occupation" of private and federal land by Native Americans protesting the Dakota Access Pipeline.
1
If they were Black or Latino or Native, they'd mostly be dead; one or two survivors would be put away for life. If there was any justice, these folks would be looking at 5-10 years in prison. This is what white privilege looks like.
1
I am amazed that they were acquitted. But, being a former defense attorney i have to believe that they jury was convinced that the government did not prove their case. This verdict should , but won't silence those Bundyites and Trumpies that they legal system doesn't work. Personally, I'm against all the anti-American attitude and action of the Bundy/Trump followers but they do have the right to protest our government's actions.
2
Yes they have the right to protest!
But they don't have the right to take firearms into Federal buildings or public buildings to protest against our country and to intimidate our government!
But they don't have the right to take firearms into Federal buildings or public buildings to protest against our country and to intimidate our government!
1
White privilege is the only possible reason for this outrageous outcome. Peaceful, praying, unarmed Native Americans have been trying for months to protect their water and sacred burial grounds in North Dakota but they get attacked by dogs and arrested. Black men and women get stopped by police for walking or driving while black and end up dead. My country is out of control.
10
This will lead to bloodshed. Some government employee is already in the sight of these loonies and their ilk. I truly shudder to think what is coming.
5
Any judge with half a brain would have set this verdict aside - and sanctioned the prosecutors for losing an open-and-shut case.
So now it's OK for people who want to protest "government overreach" to take up arms, force out public employees and take over public land? I can't think of any other message this jury has sent, especially to the rabid and heavily armed anti-government folks on the far right. What kind of jury says civilians armed to the teeth don't pose any threat to the public?
The invaders didn't conspire? Oh, you mean they just coincidentally showed up at the same place at the same time with their weapons? They didn't keep federal workers from doing their jobs? Really? What universe was this jury inhabiting?
Which prosecutors selected this jury anyway? Fire them! Then fire the prosecutors. Who could lose a case where the crimes are displayed in living color around the world?
I can't think of a better way to encourage armed rebellion by the violent right wing in this country than to reach a verdict like this. I suppose that if they carry out their threats to take up arms against a Clinton presidency, federal prosecutors will bungle the case and a truly dimwitted jury will find them innocent of conspiracy and preventing government employees from doing their jobs.
This country has gone insane AND incompetent.
So now it's OK for people who want to protest "government overreach" to take up arms, force out public employees and take over public land? I can't think of any other message this jury has sent, especially to the rabid and heavily armed anti-government folks on the far right. What kind of jury says civilians armed to the teeth don't pose any threat to the public?
The invaders didn't conspire? Oh, you mean they just coincidentally showed up at the same place at the same time with their weapons? They didn't keep federal workers from doing their jobs? Really? What universe was this jury inhabiting?
Which prosecutors selected this jury anyway? Fire them! Then fire the prosecutors. Who could lose a case where the crimes are displayed in living color around the world?
I can't think of a better way to encourage armed rebellion by the violent right wing in this country than to reach a verdict like this. I suppose that if they carry out their threats to take up arms against a Clinton presidency, federal prosecutors will bungle the case and a truly dimwitted jury will find them innocent of conspiracy and preventing government employees from doing their jobs.
This country has gone insane AND incompetent.
5
"Radical Christian Terrorism" is clearly in play when the Bundy's call their selfish gambit for theft of federal public property as being motivated by religious beliefs.
Harkening back to the perceptive remarks of Mark Twain,"A Christian is someone who prays on his knees on Sunday and his neighbours the rest of the week." White privilege is clearly evident if one begins to imagine the same actions undertaken by any native or black groups.
Harkening back to the perceptive remarks of Mark Twain,"A Christian is someone who prays on his knees on Sunday and his neighbours the rest of the week." White privilege is clearly evident if one begins to imagine the same actions undertaken by any native or black groups.
7
There is no justice in the justice system. A couple years earlier they and their supporters were pointing loaded weapons at federal agents who were there to collect valid moneys owed for grazing rights. This bunch is getting away with theft, violence, and terrorism. If they weren't white and nominal-cowboys, they'd be dead already.
5
They are nothing more than a bunch of no nothing low lifes as well as the clueless jurors that acquitted them. And now their "handlers" will push the envelope even further with regards to pushing for federal lands to be privatized on behalf of the oligarchs who fund and control the entire GOP.
4
giving this ruling, I hope that someone somewhere passes a law that provides for some form of punishment in a similar incident. Otherwise we are going to see this type of Defiance against the government over and over by the likes of the Bundys and others.
some federal prosecuted sure wasn't doing his job to allow a packed jury like this one.
some federal prosecuted sure wasn't doing his job to allow a packed jury like this one.
2
Bundy and his gang of renegades get away with having their weapons trained on federal officers for days, but a black man selling CDs on a street corner gets executed without a trial. Tell me there's no white privilege! If these outlaws were nonwhite, they would not have lived long enough to stand trial.
7
The implicit precedent this sets is scary... armed gunmen, seizing land and government buildings, defying the law and law-enforcement officers, claiming that they're doing nothing wrong, with a lawyer who brawls in court, no less...
The idea that a group of gunmen taking control of anything, much less Federal property, and defying the law is somehow "no threat" to the rest of us is simply insane and absurd!
The idea that a group of gunmen taking control of anything, much less Federal property, and defying the law is somehow "no threat" to the rest of us is simply insane and absurd!
4
They're not off the hook for their armed confrontation in Nevada. Too bad they were not all shot instead of treated with kid gloves. If they were black or brown they'd be dead.
1
There has to be room for civil disobedience on the left and the right without incarceration. This is a big country with diverse views and diverse interests. To these guys Black Lives Matter looks as strange as us city folk see their cause but in the end both are valid points of view. Our so-called leaders are teaching us to vilify our opponents on the left and the right but it's time to respect those different than us. yes, these guys are WAY different than I, but they have a right. Maybe they took it a bit too far but to many BLM does as well. We have to get back a place where diversity is respected, not just when it conveniently fits our political agenda.
1
Patriots.
A word used way too loosely these days............
A word used way too loosely these days............
2
Let's see what happens if say. a bunch of BLM activists take over a facility in Oregon. Will they get the same "thumbs up" from a jury? Don't think so.
1
So the bullies won. Deplorable!
4
So Bank Robbers -- you can just say you are protesting the monetary policy of the banking system and government.
So Speeders - you can just say you are protesting the auto industry, the FHA, and .....
So Speeders - you can just say you are protesting the auto industry, the FHA, and .....
1
If a group of armed Blacks,Latinos or American Indians had taken over a Western federal facility,they would be on their way to jail now.
White Ultraconservatives have special privileges!
White Ultraconservatives have special privileges!
1
or more likely dead.
1
Outrageous proof that we live in a racist country. If those armed men were black they would be in jail or perhaps worse.
We should be sickened and frightened by this. These people need to be punished. Armed protest? Really? Is that where we are headed after Election Day?
We should be sickened and frightened by this. These people need to be punished. Armed protest? Really? Is that where we are headed after Election Day?
4
How was this case prosecuted? Is an appeal possible? This verdict cannot stand or it will justify any type of armed insurrection people can dream up on behafl of being "right."
2
While we have to live with this jury decision, the acquittal will only embolden the alt right neo-fascists. This will happen again and next time there mayl be violence. We are way beyond the boundaries of civility now.
8
Deeply disappointing. The rule of law continues to unravel in this country.
7
141 arrested in Dakota. Maybe Mumford, the lawyer, could defend them.
4
What "religion" according to Bundy's defense requires this armed takeover and subsequent destruction of federal property? Does it sound like Christianity? I don't think so. I wonder if the jury was asked their religious preferences? That is probably against the law and constitution as well it should be. Then this armed occupancy of US property in the name of "his religion " can't be justified.
What if these had been Muslims? Would the verdict have been the same?
What if these had been Muslims? Would the verdict have been the same?
2
We all know this had nothing to do with religion. Perhaps they were coached.
1
In this thread - a bunch of outraged coastal liberals who don't understand that they support even more violent acts committed by "Black Lives Matter", because of the color of their skin.
1
Oh maybe we should all go out there and take over 'Bundy Land'. That's federal property as far as I know. I don't think it should bother them any more.... We could set up a Bird Observatory.
3
If you weren't on the jury, hearing all of the evidence, receiving the Court's instructions on the law, applying the presumption of innocence and requiring the prosecution to prove each element of each offense beyond a reasonable doubt - well, you're entitled to an opinion but you're not in a position to criticize the
jurors who served.
I'm not happy with the results - but I respect the judge and jurors who applied the rule of law.
jurors who served.
I'm not happy with the results - but I respect the judge and jurors who applied the rule of law.
2
Sorry, jurors are as likely to be idiots as anyone else. Or ignore the law and allow their biases to control the verdict, which obviously happened here.
When Occupy Wall Street seized that city park for weeks on end, some years back, I don't recall quite the same level of enthusiasm for government authority? Could it be that sympathy for OWS, vs the Bundys, has led to a completely different (and entirely hypocritical) view of government power?
3
OWS was unarmed. Bundys were brandishing weapons and threatening to kill. Bundy gang was protesting the fact that they had to pay rent to use public, federally-owned lands to graze their cattle. They wanted to have our resource for free. This was for their own economic benefit; this was not a civil rights protest, as was the OWS event. The police entered the space occupied by OWS and indeed disrupted the protest, including removing items of personal property owned by the protestors, and making arrests. On the other hand Bundy's gang was permitted to have exclusive possession of a massive piece of land, without any intrusion by law enforcement. While there they destroyed property belonging to the public. Do you see any difference now?
1
No. OWS was unarmed. Bundy Gang was armed and threatening. OWS was protesting real inequity. Bundy Gang was complaining about the fact that they had to pay to graze their cattle on public land. The authorities entered the space occupied by OWS during the occupation and made arrests and removed personal property belonging to the protestors. The authorities, on the other hand, permitted the Bundy gang to occupy a large piece of public property, unimpeded, and help themselves to power and heat and water for over 6 weeks. The Bundy crowd destroyed our property. See any difference here?
1
"One of the defendants, Neil Wampler, was congratulated by supporters. 'On to the next one,' he said, alluding to the charges still pending against his fellow defendants."
Perhaps Mr. Wampler was referring to the next armed takeover of public property.
Perhaps Mr. Wampler was referring to the next armed takeover of public property.
2
Clearly, a white supremacist anti-government group can break the law and get away with it. The clear message is to encourage more of the same lawlessness and more justifiable anger by minorities groups convicted of much less serious crimes. Is there any wonder why so many question the fairness of our legal system?
2
White trash, using government property for illegal protest . Destroying government property and threatening public safety officials.
Trail should have been moved to state where average education is higher then 6th grade . How many native Americans were on jury
Trail should have been moved to state where average education is higher then 6th grade . How many native Americans were on jury
3
It is pretty difficult to see this verdict as creditable given what took place. One has to wonder what is the matter with the Federal Prosecutor?
2
Well, clearly the jury selection consultant for the prosecution missed a few things. What's stunning and must be causing such tremendous pain across this country today is what most of us must be thinking--were any of them non-white, they would have probably not lasted through the stand-off. Armed as they were, breaking the law as it stood, criminals without dispute, they should have been cuffed. If cuffing caused a violent encounter--why would they not have been shot? Please understand--I'm not advocating that this should have happened, but the utterly undeniable distinction in the treatment of these armed criminals by law enforcement vs the treatment of so many UNARMED (and sometimes) NON-Criminals with non-white skin in encounters with law enforcement is really sickening.
1
I suspect the jurors' decision was mostly based on fear of retribution which is pretty understandable under the circumstances.
1
I say this jury was severely challenged when it came to applying common sense. The Bundys and their ilk are anarchists and deadbeats. I much prefer to put my trust in U. S. government Fish and Wildlife and Public Lands personnel than to let these wastrels pillage and destroy the flora and fauna. Will take a government employee being wounded or killed before such selfish pigs are brought to heel.
7
With this legal precedent, I guess anybody can take up arms and forcibly occupy any government building or property. I dread what will come next.
I think the verdict was right. They were not conspiring to keep federal employees from working. They did plenty that was illegal, but preventing employees from working wasn't their intent. If a drunk driver kills someone in a car accident, it's a lot of things but not a conspiracy.
1
Why were they not charged with other crimes? Surely their actions constituted a multitude of wrongs!
1
This is a preposterous result. The sort of people who let these defendants off the hook are the mirror image of those who are willing to wrongly convict people not because they are guilty, but because the jury doesn't like them. It could not be more clear: on the face of it these people are guilty. When "religious fervor" is the basis for an acquittal, we may as well let Sharia law rule the land.
2
I wonder where the next armed attack by these patriots will take place. The Congress? The Supreme Court? The White House? State Houses across the country?
After all, according to the Republican nominee, this presidential election and our entire government has been rigged against good, hard working people like these; "...people wanting to be heard, [those] just frustrated with our government."
An armed rebellion seems inevitable and justifiable unless Trump wins.
The clay feet of civilization seems to be crumbling.
After all, according to the Republican nominee, this presidential election and our entire government has been rigged against good, hard working people like these; "...people wanting to be heard, [those] just frustrated with our government."
An armed rebellion seems inevitable and justifiable unless Trump wins.
The clay feet of civilization seems to be crumbling.
2
What were the judge's instructions to the jury? The Justice Department must appeal this to a higher court; the jury has basically decided that the armed seizure of a federal facility is OK, assuming the action didn't interfere with the duties of employees. How about an armed takeover of a federal facility? This decision could end up being a bugle call to all the musket carriers ready to contest the outcome of our election.
1
This is embarrassing for the state (both meanings) of Oregon. These jurors have put the fire out with gasoline as this verdict will only continue to fuel the hypocrisy that is the alt-right. As with Waco, Ruby Ridge and the Nevada standoff at the Bundy Ranch, Malheur Oregon will be a new call to rally the alt-right troops.
2
The federal government had better greatly improve security at every one of its parks, refuges, cemeteries, memorials, monuments, military bases, office buildings, and national estuarine research reserves. Federal workers should now be prepared to being lawfully thrown out of their workplaces by armed militias. They should be prepared to turn over their computers, vehicles, and equipment to the armed occupiers. Visitors to federal lands should now be prepared to make way for armed militias. If you are staying at Yellowstone Lodge, don’t be surprised if you are shooed out of your room by an armed freedom fighter. Of course, there is no reason to limit this to federal property. States, counties, and cities, should be equally subject to having their right to own property questions by armed occupation. Stand down America! There has been a paradigm shift. It has been decreed by this case that armed militias right to government facilities supersedes that of government workers or the public. The acquitted militiamen said it themselves on the courthouse steps, that we have not seen the last of them.
4
I agree with the jury's not guilty verdict. The defendants occupied a seasonally unused building in a protest against federal control of the wildlife refuge. The prosecution failed to convince the jury that they posed any threat to the public. The federal government has grown into a monster that overtaxes, overspends and menacingly oversees the American people.
1
It would be interesting to see the outcome of an incident where an armed group of the black lives matter movement take over a federal facility using assault weapons. Would the jury still consider it to be a legitimate airing of grievances with no intention of harm?
3
Whites hostilely takeover a federal building, are allowed to stay there and receive provisions, leave freely when their right-wing cause isn't receiving the media attention they seek, and are are found not guilty and escape justice. Now imagine if they were any other race. Would they even be alive? Lesson learned again and again in this country is that only white lives matter.
2
Acquitting these insurrectionists will further embolden the alt right fantasy that the 2nd Amendment gives them the right to overthrow democracy. Obamas timidity with these insurrections in Oregon and Nevada who were clearly willing to kill their fellow Americans enraged many who suffered dearly to preserve our great nation.
1
Our nation's justice system is in much worse state than our health system.
It is not a brilliant idea to allow the government and law officials to dictate new rules to the medical profession, on behalf of an insurance industry led by lawyers
It is not a brilliant idea to allow the government and law officials to dictate new rules to the medical profession, on behalf of an insurance industry led by lawyers
So second amendment solutions actually work. Armed takeover is just a protest. Presumably a shooting could be dismissed as mere violent protest.
Then again, I suspect an armed takeover of the local IRS office on the grounds of being "frustrated with out government" would turn out a bit differently.
Then again, I suspect an armed takeover of the local IRS office on the grounds of being "frustrated with out government" would turn out a bit differently.
2
Why the conspiracy charge? Anyone who was there was trespassing, destroying federal property, and keeping federal workers from doing their jobs. Meanwhile, Native Americans are being arrested for protesting the pipeline. It's clear that angry whites can get away with anything, including threatening sedition at the behest of their Presidential candidate. And somehow, they believe they're the oppressed ones.
2
These people were arrested too.
1
Had they been African-American anywhere, or Native American (see: violent response to the mostly peaceful North Dakota pipeline protests), they would have had the book thrown at them despite protesting, and they would certainly have been jailed for an extended term.
What this verdict tells me is two things:
1. Anyone can grab a gun and take over a Federal property with no repercussions.
2. Adds to the supposition of a "just us" justice system, and subtracts from my respect for it.
Absolutely appalling.
What this verdict tells me is two things:
1. Anyone can grab a gun and take over a Federal property with no repercussions.
2. Adds to the supposition of a "just us" justice system, and subtracts from my respect for it.
Absolutely appalling.
2
The Constitution provides for a limited government with enumerated powers.
The question is, does the US government owning vast stretched of land exceed those enumerated powers.
This jury said yes.
The question is, does the US government owning vast stretched of land exceed those enumerated powers.
This jury said yes.
3
That wasnt on trial.
1
These rednecks belong in the big house. They definitely received a jury of their peers--a basket of deplorable Trump voters no doubt. Apparently the only way the nincompoops constituting the jury would have found against the accused is if the defendants were black or leftists of some sort.
4
I followed this from day one. It appeared then and today, they were all guilty and the jury obviously violated their objective responsibilities, including that of the constitution of the United States and of their State.
Next: likely another so-called protest intrusion.
Next: likely another so-called protest intrusion.
2
OJ was guilty, too.
Juries can actually nullify the law. Sounds more like poor prosecution. Again.
Juries can actually nullify the law. Sounds more like poor prosecution. Again.
This verdict is not really surprising at all. What many people need to acknowledge and understand is that the U.S. constitution and civil liberties were designed specifically for white people. I know that we all want to believe that everyone has the same rights, due to the various amendments, but nothing could be further from the truth.
2
Who pays for the Damages?
So I guess they are off the hook for the 6M damages to federal land their little standoff caused? This right-wing militia should be directly held responsible for all the commandeering of federal computers, rummaging through and destroying office records, pillaging American Indian artifacts, bulldozing roads and trenches on tax payer owned lands without permits and approval, and illegally squatting with make-shift living quarters on site – Federal officials say the damage was significant and costly to clean up to the tune of over 6M. And where does this money come from? You guessed it. The Bundy’s complain about the over-reach of Government but sure as heck likes it when it pays for their little self serving charade in the name of "political dissent” and “Civil Disobedience” They may fool many, and even the courts yesterday, but many of us can see the blatant hypocrisy a mile away.
So I guess they are off the hook for the 6M damages to federal land their little standoff caused? This right-wing militia should be directly held responsible for all the commandeering of federal computers, rummaging through and destroying office records, pillaging American Indian artifacts, bulldozing roads and trenches on tax payer owned lands without permits and approval, and illegally squatting with make-shift living quarters on site – Federal officials say the damage was significant and costly to clean up to the tune of over 6M. And where does this money come from? You guessed it. The Bundy’s complain about the over-reach of Government but sure as heck likes it when it pays for their little self serving charade in the name of "political dissent” and “Civil Disobedience” They may fool many, and even the courts yesterday, but many of us can see the blatant hypocrisy a mile away.
1
Wondering if these people will be held accountable for the work lost by employees and visitors inability to come to this refuge because of these armed insurgents? Also are they being held monetarily responsible for the damage they did at the refuge while they took it over?
Finally how can it possibly be legal to take over a public site and hold it hostage with guns?
I can't wrap my head around this "acquittal" at all.
Finally how can it possibly be legal to take over a public site and hold it hostage with guns?
I can't wrap my head around this "acquittal" at all.
1
The timing of this verdict could not have been worse. In a matter of days, the candidate beloved by the extreme right will go down to a crushing and humiliating defeat. Mr. Trump was has made it obvious that he is more a fascist than a conservative or a Republican. He will not accept the outcome of a democratic election. Trump has already advocated the assassination of President Hilary Clinton. His supporters are stoked for an armed uprising.
Now this jury gives right wing extremists something they should never have been given: carte blanche to grab their guns and start their revolution. I’m afraid the next Timothy McVeigh is out there with his bombs and his plans.
And if he carries out those plans and people die, it is not just this jury that will have blood on their hands. Donald Trump will, of course. The Republican party, as a whole, that winked at the violent rhetoric and disgraceful racism of right wing extremists, while embracing them in their effort to ruin Barack Obama’s presidency, must be held accountable as well.
Now this jury gives right wing extremists something they should never have been given: carte blanche to grab their guns and start their revolution. I’m afraid the next Timothy McVeigh is out there with his bombs and his plans.
And if he carries out those plans and people die, it is not just this jury that will have blood on their hands. Donald Trump will, of course. The Republican party, as a whole, that winked at the violent rhetoric and disgraceful racism of right wing extremists, while embracing them in their effort to ruin Barack Obama’s presidency, must be held accountable as well.
This is a symptom of something that is still churning in the psyche of some Americas: contempt for government and any form of civilization, which requires compromise. Selfishness is disguised as individualism.
These are armed anarchists with an agenda.
These are armed anarchists with an agenda.
2
I wonder what the members of this jury will have to say for themselves in five years after these guys decide to stage another 'protest' and end up shooting some federal officers.
This ruling does nothing but encourage aggressive, dangerous behavior. Armed occupation is not a peaceful or justifiable method of protest.
This ruling does nothing but encourage aggressive, dangerous behavior. Armed occupation is not a peaceful or justifiable method of protest.
3
A sub-set of Hillary's "basket of deplorables"? Or are these just her 'hated everyday Americans'?
Would love to see a Venn diagram of how these sets of hers intersect and whether the set of non-deplorables and non-hated everyday Americans is the same as the set of the 1%. I suspect it is.
Would love to see a Venn diagram of how these sets of hers intersect and whether the set of non-deplorables and non-hated everyday Americans is the same as the set of the 1%. I suspect it is.
2
Its funny how being armed was not a factor in their decision.
1
They were charged with the wrong crime/s. Treason. terrorism, sedition all fit better.
1
Not only will Obama not take away people's weapons but his administration did not successfully prosecute those who used them illegally.
This travesty of justice occurs at the same time hundreds of protestors at Standing Rock are being brutalized by police. What is wrong with this country?
3
One juror was dismissed from the jury shortly before the verdict (following an inquiry by another jury about possible bias) because he had previously worked for the Bureau of Land Management and had reportedly made a comment. The juror was replaced by an alternate; the judge instructed all jurors to begin again with a clean slate and Presto!
The verdict seems to have hinged on the jurors' interpretation of the judge's instructions. It appears that the defendants had a "jury of their peers."
The verdict seems to have hinged on the jurors' interpretation of the judge's instructions. It appears that the defendants had a "jury of their peers."
3
Meanwhile, in North Dakota...
5
Breathtaking incompetence on the part of Ethan Knight and the other federal prosecutors in Portland. Reminds me of another "slam dunk" case, the O.J. Simpson trial. But while Mr. Simpson became a pariah after the trial and now resides in a Nevada prison, the Bundy brothers and their fellow travelers will almost certainly be heard from again. Amazing.
1
They were merely undocumented possessors of the federal land. We now understand that being undocumented is not illegal. Federal laws are very flexible. Marijuana is against federal law but the feds don't want to annoy liberal voters where states have made it legal. The FBI chose to ignore Clinton's disregard for protecting classified information. Don't get annoyed with the verdict unless you're annoyed with all the other executive branch decisions.
4
Update. It appears the FBI is looking at the e-mails again. I wonder what the comments will look like for that one.
Praise God! Praise God?? White, "Christian" armed thugs and bullies take over government lands and threaten violence if they don't get their own way, while unarmed Native Americans at Standing Rock, praying on their tribal lands for clean water are confronted with armed white police in riot gear, and are attacked with vicious dogs, mace, and pepper spray and more. Hundreds are arrested, strip searched and end up in jail. Journalists are arrested and also thrown in jail. The Native Americans endure another chapter in a long list of shameful oppressive humiliations that get very little coverage in the mainstream news, while the white Malheur "liberators" (armed thugs) are acquitted of all charges. Hard to understand how these bullies merit front page coverage that will only embolden more white armed liberators to start cleaning their weapons for another standoff. I am embarrassed and outraged.
8
I wonder if the members of the jury were afraid of the Bundys. These Bundy types are called Redoubters up here in North Idaho and have physically threatened supporters of Kate McAlister, a candidate running against Heather Scott for Idaho State Representative. Heather Scott, a fellow Redoubter, made multiple trips to Maher Wildlife Refuge in support of the Bundys. This is an ongoing battle with a group of people best described as right wing anarchists.
Trecy
Trecy
2
This sends a terrible message on the cusp of an election that the apparent loser is claiming will be stolen, potentially spurring his misled, misinformed, well-armed base to similar acts of anti-government violence. If America is to be held hostage by the proudly illiterate 40% - Trump's so-called "movement" - what will happen to us?
3
This is clearly a case of jury nullification which calls into mind the issue of the removal of a juror who was apparently voting guilty because the other jurors said that person was prejudging.
Now these insufferable traitorous morons will be even more insufferable.
Now these insufferable traitorous morons will be even more insufferable.
1
As an Oregonian, I'm appalled at this verdict. To equate the armed and militant takeover and destruction of this wildlife preserve with protests like Occupy actions is ridiculous. This outcome and miscarriage of justice is like granting a carte blanche to any armed cowboy militants to use weapons to intimidate and threaten any Federal or local authority when they decide they have a grievance. How is that any different than insurrection or or a cowboy jihad?
4
I am fairly sure after serving on a jury that the lawyers for Bundy sifted through the prospective jurors and chose gun-culture enthusiasts, somehow asking a question or two that singled such jurors out. And the prosecution did not go near the fact that these were armed people on public land. It's inexplicable otherwise.
2
Ammon Bundy's staged a takeover...
So are they on the hook for the 6M damages to federal land their little standoff caused? They should be directly responsible for all those commandeering federal computers, rummaging through office records, pillaging American Indian artifacts, bulldozing roads and trenches on tax payer owned lands without permits and approval, and illegally squatting with make-shift living quarters on site – Federal officials say the damage was significant and costly to clean up to the tune of over 6M. And where does this money come from? That's right. You and me. Ammon Bundy complains about the over-reach of Government but sure as heck likes it when it pays for his little self serving charade in the name of "political dissent" They may fool many, and even the courts, but many of us can see and know the blatant hypocrisy a mile away.
So are they on the hook for the 6M damages to federal land their little standoff caused? They should be directly responsible for all those commandeering federal computers, rummaging through office records, pillaging American Indian artifacts, bulldozing roads and trenches on tax payer owned lands without permits and approval, and illegally squatting with make-shift living quarters on site – Federal officials say the damage was significant and costly to clean up to the tune of over 6M. And where does this money come from? That's right. You and me. Ammon Bundy complains about the over-reach of Government but sure as heck likes it when it pays for his little self serving charade in the name of "political dissent" They may fool many, and even the courts, but many of us can see and know the blatant hypocrisy a mile away.
3
This is a very dangerous verdict, since is will no doubt embolden other domestic terrorists. Hopefully the Bundy's will be found guilty in the Nevada action.
Our democracy can only function as a nation based upon the rule of law. Allowing armed vigilantes to seize government property is simply anarchy.
Our democracy can only function as a nation based upon the rule of law. Allowing armed vigilantes to seize government property is simply anarchy.
3
As an Oregonian who watched in horror as public property at Malheur Refuge and the rural community surrounding it were held hostage by the armed and delusional Bundys and their violent militia supporters for 41 days I am deeply disturbed by this verdict which emboldens other faux 'patriots' to do the same at other Federal facilities. Domestic terrorism is a much more serious concern for the US and the lack of funding for research and prosecution of criminal gangs like the Bundys will ultimately lead to the deaths of Federal workers who are just doing their jobs. A travesty.
4
This verdict is abhorrent. This makes no sense to me at all. They had a clear plan that they were going to stand their ground. The caused countless dollars worth of damage to the property, the buildings, and equipment. They kept people from doing their jobs, and they terrorized a town. They are vandals not patriots. This is a travesty of justice and I hope new charges are drawn up for their other offenses. They still have to stand trial in Nevada. Perhaps there will be justice served there.
3
The only way I can logically explain this verdict is institutional racism. This would have been an extremely different outcome if these defendants were African American. Could the judge have imposed his own judgement to override the jurors? I do not know since I am not a lawyer. I do know this sets a dangerous precedent with white terrorists in the United States. They will feel emboldened to commit even more devastating acts of terror with impunity.
1
Juries are of your peers, people who represent the citizenry in your locale. So the jury was made up of people who live in this western state and county near federal land. Expect juries of your peers to be supportive of local rights vs the federal government or even their own state. How hard is to remember the juries in the South that never convicted anyone in the lynching days. And in those days there were no laws giving the feds a side route into the system, depriving someone of their civil rights. Have we forgotten the jury of blacks (and 1 or 2 white that the defense obviously hand picked)'who acquitted OJ despite a letter from his murdered wife telling them to convict her husband if she was murdered, his flight on the freeway with a change of clothes etc etc. The jury system is only as strong as the feelings of those on the jury. This one looks like the defense was able to blackball anyone who thought the feds had a need for federal lands, as in to protect them.
So, the armed occupation of federal property is legal? This makes everything better. I love America! All sarcasm aside, I am glad that, with the exception of Finicum, nobody was hurt or killed. Finicum would be alive and free if he had shown faith in our constitution and judicial system. I give the FBI credit for their restraint in handling this matter. However, was the judicial system too restrained in their treatment of this case? This was no sit-in, nor any other type of civil disobedience. It was an armed takeover of public property. This case sets a very bad precedent.
6
All Federal Refuge employees could not work because of this armed takeover. This cost the tax payers a lot of money because the employees were on paid leave for security reasons. They should at least have to pay back the tax payers for the cost of their reckless behavior. This also sends a signal to all the other people on the fringe (Trump supporters) that this behavior is OK.
2
I hope it's occurred to some government officials that they have just helpe pave the way for the Trumpian violence, and armed insurrection he's proposing on, and after election day. Unless, of course he wins. Then we only have his clueless draconian vision of America to deal with.
2
This is an absolute travesty. Ok to trash government property with guns, use force and violence, don't pay what you owe to lease government owned lands, at the expense of the taxpayer. Yet, we have Native Americans peacefully protesting the destruction of their sacred land and water, and being beaten and arrested, including a journalist there to report on it. People have lost their minds, and their integrity.
4
The government's conspiracy case was weak to begin with. With what occured at the wildlife reserve, the best the prosecutors could've reasonably hoped to convince a jury to support was a trespassing charge.
One can argue that what the Bundys and their followers did was morally repugnant, but for better or worse our justice system doesn't care about morality, only legality.
One can argue that what the Bundys and their followers did was morally repugnant, but for better or worse our justice system doesn't care about morality, only legality.
2
More absurdity and incompetence in my states courts. I saw these people use force of arms to take over federal property on my TV as did millions of Americans, Surely the Times can dig deeper and provide an explanation for something no one can understand. Starting with the defense, the judge, and jury. Sadly the Times was apparently not present so we get more desktop reporting. As for the Oregonian, well forget that, the paper is a disaster.
And one would think we can all understand why land is held federally and not handed over to the states so we can return to 120 years ago when the Robber Barons took what they wanted and left the land desecrated.
Do your job NYTs, report on this event properly, this Hallmark card almost congratulating these nut jobs gets an F grade from my tenth grade english teacher.
And include the fact that these people have no intelligent workable ideas, no real backing, no vision for their state's citizens and no roll for the federal government. The whole thing is just more tea party nonsense.
And one would think we can all understand why land is held federally and not handed over to the states so we can return to 120 years ago when the Robber Barons took what they wanted and left the land desecrated.
Do your job NYTs, report on this event properly, this Hallmark card almost congratulating these nut jobs gets an F grade from my tenth grade english teacher.
And include the fact that these people have no intelligent workable ideas, no real backing, no vision for their state's citizens and no roll for the federal government. The whole thing is just more tea party nonsense.
5
You don't sound like any Oregonian I have met in the last 15 years.
I knew you were out there somewhere. :)
I knew you were out there somewhere. :)
We have to remember that for a criminal verdict, it has to be beyond a shadow of doubt. As such conspiracy cases are difficult to prove. It was the controlled and relatively peaceful approach by federal officials that avoided further bloodshed. The sad part is that this verdict will be interpreted as license for others to bring their guns to "protest" in similar fashion. We will see more armed actions in the near future with much more dire consequences where resulting violence will result in a much different verdict.
They all worked together and cooperated with each other during the occupation. That is conspiracy.
1
I noticed their supporters in the video were wearing the Trump supporter "uniforms."
I hope this is just a jury giving a nullification verdict because they hate all federal lands (a tacet rarely mentioned Trump supporter issue) and not an indicator of silent unmeasured Trump support.
I hope this is just a jury giving a nullification verdict because they hate all federal lands (a tacet rarely mentioned Trump supporter issue) and not an indicator of silent unmeasured Trump support.
2
Strange things happen from time-to-time in American courtrooms. A lot of times it all comes down to the legal team getting the trial into a friendly jurisdiction or doing a better job of picking jurors. In many ways a trial is a contest not so much concerned with guilt or innocence but just winning or losing.
While these people were obviously guilty of thumbing their nose at America, so too is that they obviously assembled (or had a lot of help assembling) a great legal team. Anyone who thinks that good lawyers, probably well-financed ones, don't make a difference need only to look at this case.
Don't worry, America, this motley group no doubt feels energized and enabled; they and others like them will continue to push the limits. Eventually, justice will catch up with them.
The system worked in their favor and I accept that.
Donald Trump should be so graceful should he be defeated.
While these people were obviously guilty of thumbing their nose at America, so too is that they obviously assembled (or had a lot of help assembling) a great legal team. Anyone who thinks that good lawyers, probably well-financed ones, don't make a difference need only to look at this case.
Don't worry, America, this motley group no doubt feels energized and enabled; they and others like them will continue to push the limits. Eventually, justice will catch up with them.
The system worked in their favor and I accept that.
Donald Trump should be so graceful should he be defeated.
1
The wildlife refuge is the property owned by the people of America, not the federal government.
2
What a dangerous precedent this sets. They fancy themselves as Robin Hood's merry band, occupying the King's forest and eating the King's deer but they are just thugs breaking the law...and now they, like many with white privilege, have evaded responsibility for their reprehensible actions. Shame on us all.
3
The verdict doesn't bother me as much as the coddling this gang received while they were playing militia.
The BLM should have crashed the party with drones, armed with tear gas, sonic and microwave weapons, and sticky foam. All non-lethal (or, "less-than-lethal). That would have dispelled the silly notion that a bunch of cowboys with AR-15s can overthrow the government.
The BLM should have crashed the party with drones, armed with tear gas, sonic and microwave weapons, and sticky foam. All non-lethal (or, "less-than-lethal). That would have dispelled the silly notion that a bunch of cowboys with AR-15s can overthrow the government.
1
This is a shameful prosecutorial malpractice that manages to take a slam dunk in the public interest and turn it into a victory to a quasi vigilante group; can't wait to see the harmful impact on public ownership of federal lands fallout from this fiasco. Incompetence writ large.
3
I do hope Black Lives Matter or Latinos Lives Matter or Native American Lives Matter or Jewish Lives Matter or Asian Lives Matter groups don't think they can get away with the same takeover and expect to get acquitted. That would be suicide.
2
I'm struck at the difference in the way these free-loading thugs were treated (from the start) and the way the peaceful anti-pipeline Standing Rock Sioux native American protestors are being treated.
Next time lets have the armored humvees, pepper-sprays & attack dogs deployed against these Bundy thugs.
Next time lets have the armored humvees, pepper-sprays & attack dogs deployed against these Bundy thugs.
4
The glaring contrast between the armed removal of the Native Americans over the pipeline and the treatment of the Bundy clan is a neon sign saying "if you're white it's all right". The only answer is for Blacks and Native Americans to open carry guns to demonstrate that they will not stand for this double standard of treatment under the constitution. I am white and I am furious and disgusted by the acquittal of an all white jury in the whitest major city in the country- Portland -and kid glove treatment by the government of the Bundy's over days of stand offs at the refuge and their ranch.
There really are two Americas- one for the rich or white and one for the poor and people of color.
There really are two Americas- one for the rich or white and one for the poor and people of color.
1
No threat to the public? Someone was killed! They were armed to the hilt! There was a standoff! Making heroes of conspiracy activists just validates the conspiracy beliefs and sets up potential for more armed standoffs that will be that much more of a threat to the public.
2
And we are surprised at Trump's electoral successes? These people and the jury that declared them innocent are representative of a large, a very large, portion of the U.S. electorate.
3
black looters are taking what they feel is theirs also
So, forget about peaceful, weapon-free protest. You'll be pepper sprayed and attacked by dogs before you are arrested and fined, as many people are experiencing now in North Dakota. Go in with guns and you'll be eventually acquitted!
Only works if you're white.
Only works if you're white.
3
Different time, same outcome: native Americans lose, deplorables win.
5
For what they did, if these people were anything other than white, they would've been shot dead on the spot. What a joke. Except it isn't in the least bit funny.
5
When I heard this last night, I thought how many juries in the South acquitted white people who committed crimes against blacks during Jim Crow. There are so many parallels here. I'm sure if the Bundys had a darker shade of skin they would have been convicted. But thankfully they got a jury of their peers- white racists. Because that's what the Bundy family and all of their supporters are.
2
No surprise - they were acquitted by a jury of their peers.
What is surprising is that the jury didn't award them compensatory damages for emotional distress and pain and suffering during their standoff with those jack booted armed thugs from the so-called "federal government".
Oh, well - better luck next time.
What is surprising is that the jury didn't award them compensatory damages for emotional distress and pain and suffering during their standoff with those jack booted armed thugs from the so-called "federal government".
Oh, well - better luck next time.
I get it. Law and order is only for Native Americans and black folks. In most of those protests, of course, nobody is armed.
3
Where does this decision leave any actions related to LaVoy Finicum's death? Are there other charges pending?
This not only emboldens lunatics to disregard the rule of law, but it endangers those that respect it. We rely on the justice system to protect us from those who think their freedoms are more important than anybody else. When it fails to uphold the rights of law abiding citizens in such a spectacular fashion like it does here, we become no better than the latest banana republic. This really is a serious development and is a harbinger of what may come after the election.
2
The question is, will these shock troops be out in time to spearhead Trump's march on Washington next month?
2
Whenever someone tells you the law is equally applied, ask them what would have happened if this refuge had been taken over by six black men and a black woman!
5
Why or why were they not charged with destruction/damaging government property?
3
For you liberals who are offended by this verdict I have two words: Angela Davis.
Two words for you: not related.
1
The 'defence lawyer' should have been found in contempt of the court-- and jailed. Can Oregon appeal this decision based on jury misprision? The sleazebag named (Congressman) Joe Walsh declared his intention to commit sedition and violent insurrection on Nov. 9. Indictments, please, and put him on the terrorist list and the no-fly list.
3
Since they all look like the American Dream must have passed them it's o.k. that the court has acquitted them.
1
Whoever picked the jury should have asked them their take on sovereign citizenship. I'm thinking more than a few jurors were of a similar unconstitutional mindset as Bundy and his gang. I mean, I watch on the news that a gang of people with heavy weapons had decided to squat in my office. According to this myopic jury, I'd be foolish to imply that it was dangerous for me to go to work...those well meaning second amendment lovers were just religiously friendly folk. This is ludicrous and those terrorists have just been emboldened.
7
Awesome! My friends and I always wanted Yellowstone Park. Time to take our guns and go on a road trip. Unfortunately I will have to leave my black friends at home as they would be shot on sight.
5
I find myself wondering about jury selection--how were the jurors questioned and prepared for the trial--and, especially, the appropriateness of the charges: were the right charges brought and were the right penalties in the balance? Either--or both--of these elements may have been contributing factors to this farce of a verdict. What an absolute travesty!
1
Wow. I guess the martial law we've lived under for eight years has some weak spots. Supporters of this crew, come out from under your beds. All is OK.
3
This not guilty verdict must really tick off Obama and like minded big government wonks. I guess people clinging to their guns and religion are actually in the right once in a while.
1
So now it is legal protesting to have a group hold public land hostage with their guns pointed at federal agents, BUT ...
the Sioux Native Americans protesting the pipeline in ND is NOT
Occupy Wall Street was NOT
Black Lives Matters is NOT
America, the land of double standards.
the Sioux Native Americans protesting the pipeline in ND is NOT
Occupy Wall Street was NOT
Black Lives Matters is NOT
America, the land of double standards.
9
Contrast the nature and the handling of the Malheur occupation and this subsequent incredulous acquittal, with what is currently happening at Standing Rock: Armed vs. unarmed. White vs. First nations. Primarily male vs. men and women.
White male privilege on full display.
White male privilege on full display.
7
I bet there would be a different outcome if they were 7 African Americans.
2-3 dead, and the rest in prison for 20 years.
I mean, you could not find anything to give a guilty verdict? So are we saying it is okay to occupy federal land, armed and dangerous?
2-3 dead, and the rest in prison for 20 years.
I mean, you could not find anything to give a guilty verdict? So are we saying it is okay to occupy federal land, armed and dangerous?
8
Please explain to the native people trying to protect their lands from being put at risk by DAPL why it is okay for Larry, Darryl and Darryl and, their extended family to occupy Federal property and walk away but, those protecting their lands are sprayed with mace.
12
To a person with little knowledge of the legal intricacies involved in such a case, this outcome seems crazy. How can a gang of people stage an armed takeover of public lands and not be found guilty? There must have been something inappropriate about the charges. The NYT would be doing a service to explain this verdict in greater detail. As a person who does not own, and has no interest in ever owning, a gun, this finding is frightening. More and more it feels as if these gun nuts are running amok; we'll all be living in Westworld before long.
9
I live near Portland, Oregon, and have never been to the Malheur Wildlife Refuge (Oregon is a big state and Malheur is about as far away from Portland and one could get and still be in the state). When I read about the verdict acquitting these non-law abiding people, I was astonished. The Refuge belongs to all Americans. We pay taxes for its upkeep, etc. Yesterday, sadly, a travesty of justice occurred in Portland. Given the mood in this country, stirred up constantly by Trump, and now these acquittals, I fear there will be more attempts by lawless people such as these seven to take over other public lands. Yesterday was a sad day in the history of this country, though one must respect the jury's final say, I guess.
3
What an outrageous verdict.
These people are violent anarchists who want to overthrow our government, our rule of laws, our democracy, and our way of life. They are gun nuts who arm themselves with automatic weapons, thousands of rounds of ammunition, and are spoiling for a fight - they dream of provoking a violent confrontation with Federal law enforcement officers so they can portray themselves as martyrs. There is no form of government or law that these miscreants are willing to live under and they have no qualms about trampling on your rights either, usually by threatening or actually carrying out violent acts.
Unfortunately, this is the Achilles Heel of democracies. They misguidedly tolerate and inadvertently encourage this anarchist behavior by sweeping it under the skirt of "freedom of speech and expression". It is neither and the FBI and the courts should actively hunt down and vigorously prosecute these criminals before it is too late. It wasn't that long ago that a similarly-minded group was thought of and dismissed as a relatively harmless nuisance in Germany toward the end of the Weimar Republic. As they gathered converts and strength once the true threat was recognized it was too late to take effective action against it.
These people are violent anarchists who want to overthrow our government, our rule of laws, our democracy, and our way of life. They are gun nuts who arm themselves with automatic weapons, thousands of rounds of ammunition, and are spoiling for a fight - they dream of provoking a violent confrontation with Federal law enforcement officers so they can portray themselves as martyrs. There is no form of government or law that these miscreants are willing to live under and they have no qualms about trampling on your rights either, usually by threatening or actually carrying out violent acts.
Unfortunately, this is the Achilles Heel of democracies. They misguidedly tolerate and inadvertently encourage this anarchist behavior by sweeping it under the skirt of "freedom of speech and expression". It is neither and the FBI and the courts should actively hunt down and vigorously prosecute these criminals before it is too late. It wasn't that long ago that a similarly-minded group was thought of and dismissed as a relatively harmless nuisance in Germany toward the end of the Weimar Republic. As they gathered converts and strength once the true threat was recognized it was too late to take effective action against it.
2
How in the world could this have happened?! These people were in support of the Hammonds who had been poaching on government lands and decided to cover up their latest by setting a fire and getting sentenced to something this group thought was too much. After their success at the armed outrage against BLM agents there to collect on the scofflaw Bundy's grazing fees they were emboldened to pull this stunt. Father Cliven Bundy was courted by all kinds of lawmakers and interviewed extensively until he speechified about how blacks were better during slavery at which time everyone deserted him except the despicable Hannity. This plays into the so called constitutional sheriffs one of whom was their ally, so called oath keeper law enforcement, Koch brothers support of laws that would overturn federal lands into private hands, various Mormon and western politicians who seek the same, and gun violence and misinterpretation of so called second amendment rights. They showed up with guns, called for reinforcements, threatened and stalked locals, the sheriffs wife, ransacked Paiute Indian artifacts, used wildlife refuge trucks, stole gas cards and money, used people's private offices, broke into computers, stole federal and wildlife and personal documents, tore down fences, set up a latrine in areas sacred to the Paiute and generally acted like reckless bullies. And the prosecution failed by only claiming their crime was that they prevented the workers from doing their jobs.
2
I am the mother of a Federal employee, who works for a bureau of the Interior Department. This acquittal greatly concerns me. As other comments indicate, there will be similar incidents at other Federal properties. Many Trump supporters loathe the Federal government and this acquittal could motivate them.
3
Although these folks are clueless, in that they think we are "close" to a second American Revolution, some of their basic complaints have merit.
These folks are like the millions who support Trump. In both cases, there are real issues that both the political, social, and economic elites on the left and the right have been ignoring for decades.
This case is in some ways a narrow legal victory because the laws broken were very specific. It is in some other ways a very large "canary in the coal mines" telling us that an ill wind is coming and we had better pay attention to it.
The only real question is: Are you listening to the to the canary America?
These folks are like the millions who support Trump. In both cases, there are real issues that both the political, social, and economic elites on the left and the right have been ignoring for decades.
This case is in some ways a narrow legal victory because the laws broken were very specific. It is in some other ways a very large "canary in the coal mines" telling us that an ill wind is coming and we had better pay attention to it.
The only real question is: Are you listening to the to the canary America?
2
Yet another reason defeating Trump is vital to preserving the American way of life. Trump would delegate preservation of public land, water, and wildlife to his Safari Club International trophy-hunting sons and GOP cronies salivating for an opportunity to privatize more public assets. The GOP has a near-perfect track record from James Watt on of attempting to steal the public's land under the guise of "local control. Hapless clowns brandishing assault weapons seize a public wildlife preserve in a peaceful town, disrupting employment, education, travel, leisure--a community's way of life--and get away with it. Their justification? You can do most anything on this land--land Roosevelt set aside to protect birds threatened with extinction because they were being turned into women's hats--except desecrate it with livestock, vehicles, or firearms. If this is excused, can you just imagine the Department of the Interior and Agriculture, not to mention federal courts, stuffed full of Trump, McConnell, and Ryan cronies?
3
One of the beauties of America is that it is large enough to be locally diverse and that common people, via juries have a say.
This case is just the price you occasionally have to pay, for not steam rolling the country coast to coast, into the same mindset.
The jury verdict reflected the local culture - not that o progressive liberals housed in large coastal cities.
America is a very large country and , unlike Japan where a very high population density forced a common culture on everyone, it can afford to house odd balls.
One of whom was shot dead by law enforcement.
This case is just the price you occasionally have to pay, for not steam rolling the country coast to coast, into the same mindset.
The jury verdict reflected the local culture - not that o progressive liberals housed in large coastal cities.
America is a very large country and , unlike Japan where a very high population density forced a common culture on everyone, it can afford to house odd balls.
One of whom was shot dead by law enforcement.
1
To test the alleged object of the conspiracy - the obstruction of Government workers - would have required that sanctuary employees remain on site and try to go about their business. Supposedly to avoid violence, the Feds abandoned the sanctuary as soon as the wackos appeared, leaving jurors to guess what might have happened had they stood their ground. After all, it is perfectly legal to march and protest in a public space.
Would the wackos have peacefully coexisted with the preserve's employees? Jurors need "beyond a reasonable doubt." That was the problem.
Would the wackos have peacefully coexisted with the preserve's employees? Jurors need "beyond a reasonable doubt." That was the problem.
1
Thank goodness that the jury was able to see through the actions of the Bundy's and go to the heart of the issue. The federal government controls to much land, and the manner in which they acquire it is very often questionable. This sends a message that people are tired of it. No one was harmed, the fact that they were armed is irrelevant. Everyone carries a gun in those areas and it's legal to do so. It was a peaceful protest and the decision was the right one.
1
EB wrote: " The federal government controls (too) much land, and the manner in which they acquire it is very often questionable. This sends a message that people are tired of it."
This sends a message that if you are not Indian, black nor Muslim, then you can take the law into your own hands with guns.
It was not the jury's job to determine government philosophy. It was the jury's job to determine if the law was broken. It appears to most around the nation, that the jury did not do their job.
We are blest to live in a nation of laws. It was established on an ancient philosophy that bad laws should be peacefully changed. There is a more recent heritage that we have been given by Henry David Thoreau, Gandhi and Martin Luther King that, if it is not possible to systematically change a bad law, then Peacefully resist it. By bringing guns onto federal property, it is obvious that Bundy and his gang have never read Thoreau, do not value MLK's sacrifices nor have they given much thought to our heritage of faith in the processes of democratic government.
This sends a message that if you are not Indian, black nor Muslim, then you can take the law into your own hands with guns.
It was not the jury's job to determine government philosophy. It was the jury's job to determine if the law was broken. It appears to most around the nation, that the jury did not do their job.
We are blest to live in a nation of laws. It was established on an ancient philosophy that bad laws should be peacefully changed. There is a more recent heritage that we have been given by Henry David Thoreau, Gandhi and Martin Luther King that, if it is not possible to systematically change a bad law, then Peacefully resist it. By bringing guns onto federal property, it is obvious that Bundy and his gang have never read Thoreau, do not value MLK's sacrifices nor have they given much thought to our heritage of faith in the processes of democratic government.
1
These armed persons, occupying federal lands, were almost teetering on the cusp of mutinying against the feds., like homegrown terrorists. They may have their own inveterate sympathizers and grievances, but picking up arms is lamentable. Their acquittal sends an alarming signal to others, who may be emboldened in expressing their harbored ill-wills, rampantly.
Instead, if they harness their untapped energy, by engaging in certain constructive assignments, others might emulate them, perhaps. Another flash point. Overseas terrorists may seize this opportunity, might misconstrue weakness, and might fish out a venue to infiltrate into these types of militia gangs, in some disguise, and wreak havoc.
In order to avoid a corybantic crowd, regular or even sporadic monitoring of federal properties, in order to avoid unpleasant contretemps between the rebels and the feds. This can rapidly degenerate into a security Dunkirk, and may cause mayhem, before anyone realizes.
Instead, if they harness their untapped energy, by engaging in certain constructive assignments, others might emulate them, perhaps. Another flash point. Overseas terrorists may seize this opportunity, might misconstrue weakness, and might fish out a venue to infiltrate into these types of militia gangs, in some disguise, and wreak havoc.
In order to avoid a corybantic crowd, regular or even sporadic monitoring of federal properties, in order to avoid unpleasant contretemps between the rebels and the feds. This can rapidly degenerate into a security Dunkirk, and may cause mayhem, before anyone realizes.
Having lived in Ory-Gun (this is the correct pronunciation, not Ory-Gone) I can easily understand this ruling.
Out West, and in Oregon especially, the Federal gov't has decimated communities because of environmental rules. Counties out there are as big as states (mine was the size of Connecticut) with maybe 20,000 people. It is one of the few states that has In-Residence High Schools (go on Monday, stay all week, go home Friday).
Vast forests of trees that used to supply logs that filled mills and furniture makers have devolved to where the best job in the city is working at the Quickie-Mart out on the highway. First it was the Snowy owl, now it's whatever odd animal the environmentalists can find - the result is no jobs.
They viscerally hate the Federal government out there - with pretty good right. Most out East would not tolerate having 90+ plus of your state "owned and non-productive" by the Federal gov't, yet that is the norm out West.
I am not surprised by this ruling at all and it exposes just how little "Easterners and Urbanites" misunderstand those that are "Westerners and Rulalites"
Out West, and in Oregon especially, the Federal gov't has decimated communities because of environmental rules. Counties out there are as big as states (mine was the size of Connecticut) with maybe 20,000 people. It is one of the few states that has In-Residence High Schools (go on Monday, stay all week, go home Friday).
Vast forests of trees that used to supply logs that filled mills and furniture makers have devolved to where the best job in the city is working at the Quickie-Mart out on the highway. First it was the Snowy owl, now it's whatever odd animal the environmentalists can find - the result is no jobs.
They viscerally hate the Federal government out there - with pretty good right. Most out East would not tolerate having 90+ plus of your state "owned and non-productive" by the Federal gov't, yet that is the norm out West.
I am not surprised by this ruling at all and it exposes just how little "Easterners and Urbanites" misunderstand those that are "Westerners and Rulalites"
1
“This case is about people wanting to be heard, and they’re just frustrated with our government.”
So waving assault rifles and threatening local law enforcement is the way to be heard? These people have learned the wrong lessons about protest.
So waving assault rifles and threatening local law enforcement is the way to be heard? These people have learned the wrong lessons about protest.
1
When you are white you are always right. Hypocrisy in how the law is enforced is outright disgraceful.
2
It's really hard to understand how an armed takeover of a Federal facility, occupying it for 40 days, keeping Federal workers from their jobs, destroying Federal property, is not considered illegal. Either the jurors are brain dead or the prosecutors are incompetent.
In any case this will bring about many more armed takeovers by these types of people, who are best understood as traitors.
In any case this will bring about many more armed takeovers by these types of people, who are best understood as traitors.
2
Attorney Mumford needs to be reported to his Bar disciplinary group for his behavior. He sounds as bad as the Bundys. When you start telling the Judge what to do, you need to find another line of work. And I love the comment from the protester's wife that the Judge was controlling the narrative. Maybe the protesters would prefer some sort of Show trial instead. You know what Bundys et al, I'm pretty sure most of us for not care what your innermost thoughts are.
2
Mr. Bundy's defense was that the takeover was "informed by religious belief"?These seven people were entitled to mount a heavily armed siege of property that does not belong to them because -- religion?
Their defense lawyer is entitled to yell at the Judge, because ... freedom?
I believe in the beyond a reasonable doubt standard, but this is sheer madness. What was the jury thinking? This is what Jesus would do? Buy a ton of weapons and prevent employees working to preserve wildlife from sitting at their desks?
2016 is the year this country lost its mind.
Their defense lawyer is entitled to yell at the Judge, because ... freedom?
I believe in the beyond a reasonable doubt standard, but this is sheer madness. What was the jury thinking? This is what Jesus would do? Buy a ton of weapons and prevent employees working to preserve wildlife from sitting at their desks?
2016 is the year this country lost its mind.
2
I'm not saying anything new here, but as a similar situation heats up in North Dakota this week, I wonder how it will play out. In both situations, the facts are undisputed. But the oil industry (and all of us consumers who love cheap gas) are a much harder fight.
Can you imagine if the Native Americans protesting the pipeline were armed? It would be Wounded Knee and Sand Creek all over again. Rather than being blind, justice in this country keeps a watchful eye out for the welfare of white people (with guns).
1
From what I know and have read, it sounds like the government prosecutors went for a charge of conspiracy which may have been too sophisticated to prove to the local jurists. It recalls a time in the deep south where juries would acquit white perpetrators for committing racial crimes. Possibly the selection of jury members could have been done differently or to charge the Bundys et al with a less serious crime that would stick. Some times it is better to hit a stand up double then to be tagged out at home base!
I hope the prosecutors learn from this trial when they go to court for round 2 in February
I hope the prosecutors learn from this trial when they go to court for round 2 in February
This is Tea Party country and a Tea Party jury and Tea Party justice.
If the defendants were black, they'd ben in jail this minute.
If the defendants were black, they'd ben in jail this minute.
1
Meanwhile at Standing Rock, the non-white protestors trying to protect their land and the water they drink are being subjected to a government ordained full-scale militarized assault
I think the dust kicked up by the Trump campaign may have been a factor in the verdict. Placating vigilantes now to avoid more trouble on Nov 9.
Imagine the results if this group of terrorists was black, native american, or moslem.
Does that mean I can take over one of the houses on Governor's Island and move in for awhile?
3
The prosecution's case was "conspiracy to impede federal employees from discharging their duties". That's the best they could come up with? This group of heavily armed clowns took over and controlled a federal facility by force. I guess any federal facility is fair game from now on. This verdict should encourage all of the armed malcontents out there.
The verdict seems ridiculous. But were there lesser charges that would more likely have received a verdict of guilty? Did prosecutors botch the case?
How many millions of dollars of damage and police overtime would right-wing domestic terrorists need to cost us, in order to be guilty of something?
How many millions of dollars of damage and police overtime would right-wing domestic terrorists need to cost us, in order to be guilty of something?
1
We are appalled out here in Portland Oregon. These folks traumatized the locale where they decided to stage a not so subtle armed insurrection. Their supporters intimidated the townsfolk in the stores, streets and schools of the surrounding area.
We were concerned when the jury selection was discussed; they seemed to be looking for people who had no prior knowledge to what had happened in the reserve with the takeover, instead of people who were fair minded. So what did they get?
They got a jury who was inclined not to take an interest in civil affairs, in their neighborhoods and in their country. It is the only way that they could avoid knowledge of the long long occupation.
I would add that my wife and I suspect that we will find out that some of the jury were in fact predisposed against government and hid this during the selection process. There is also the chance that one or two jurors held the others in sway. I have seen that process before.
Very very disappointed in this offhand treatment of disrespect; I think it bodes poorly for the rest of us citizens... Birds will come home to roost, if I may...
We were concerned when the jury selection was discussed; they seemed to be looking for people who had no prior knowledge to what had happened in the reserve with the takeover, instead of people who were fair minded. So what did they get?
They got a jury who was inclined not to take an interest in civil affairs, in their neighborhoods and in their country. It is the only way that they could avoid knowledge of the long long occupation.
I would add that my wife and I suspect that we will find out that some of the jury were in fact predisposed against government and hid this during the selection process. There is also the chance that one or two jurors held the others in sway. I have seen that process before.
Very very disappointed in this offhand treatment of disrespect; I think it bodes poorly for the rest of us citizens... Birds will come home to roost, if I may...
250
No, they got a jury who is tired of being governed by an unaccountable bureaucracy three thousand miles away, who presumes to tell them how they can use their land. East of the Mississippi the Feds own less than 20% of the land, while west of the Mississippi the Feds own more than 80% of the land!
Jury nullification the last recourse of the people to tell the Feds exactly what we think of their laws. Jury nullification is the primary reason Prohibition was overturned.
Jury nullification the last recourse of the people to tell the Feds exactly what we think of their laws. Jury nullification is the primary reason Prohibition was overturned.
1
In a local community its hard to find a group of people who have knowledge on a subject AND haven't formed an opinion on it. So in order to find a group of people who haven't formed an opinion, they had to find people who had no knowledge at all.
1
It looks like the Bundys did indeed get a jury of their peers. ha ha
Outrageous! My state of Iregon watched in horror as public property at the Refuge was trashed to the tune of six million dollars and the rural community nearby was held hostage at gunpoint by the Bundys and their violent militia supporters for 41 days earlier this year. The Bundys are a criminal gang like the Mafia or a drug cartel using violence and intimidation to advance their selfish agenda. The affirmation if these domestic terrorists (America's version of ISIS with their delusional cult like beliefs) by this jury will embolden others to do the same, endangering law enforcement, law abiding citizens and Public Lands Rangers and Scientists who are just doing their job. A darks day for democracy and the rule of law.
4
Seven thugs who disrupted the peace for over a month and caused millions of dollars in damage walk free.
One must wonder whether the jury felt intimidated.
One must wonder whether the jury felt intimidated.
2
This group reminds me of the Gerhardt family in the second season of Fargo.
They really must have found a jury of their "peers"... another case that makes you wonder about how well that system works...
Pretty much any criminal thinks whatever the government does to him or her is "overreach", I guess...
Pretty much any criminal thinks whatever the government does to him or her is "overreach", I guess...
1
What stands out for me is the dismissal near the end of the trial of a juror who was claimed, as I understand it, to have 'bias' because he had at one time worked for the Bureau of Land Management. The other jurors evidently couldn't bear the idea of some pesky former government employee making waves and not voting for acquittal of the gun toting renegades.
5
Talk about setting the Republic up for reaping the Whirl Wind. What is to prevent any armed crack-pot group to walk into any Federal Center and declare they are "Liberating the Center for the sake of the people" (meaning their small fringe constituency)?
4
I'm a little confused. Does this mean that armed takeovers of wildlife sanctuaries are legal? Did these people break ANY laws? It kind of boggles the mind that "peacefully"occupying federal property with firearms somehow doesn't result in a crime being committed. Are we confident that, upon release, these people won't go back to the refuge occupy it again?
9
There really aint no privilege like white privilege. Native Americans protest for their rights to ancestral tribal lands the hammer is brought down - hard! Had these occupiers been armed black men they would've been killed on the first day.
7
Absolutely appalling. While we should all cheer peaceful protest, even if we disagree with the sentiment behind the protest, that's not what these people were doing by a long shot. One need only to look at the disproportionately cruel response to the actually-peaceful protests in North Dakota to see how absurd this result is. These people have done a grave disservice to the boundary between civil disobedience and complete anarchy. Shame on them and shame on the jury.
6
These "magnificent seven" disrespected the laws. They were found innocent. They should have been found guilty. Its not how they were charged, or how the case was presented. It was the jury. This has happened plenty of times. If the defendants were black and the victim white, they would have been found guilty. If the victim was black and the perpetrators white, they would have been found innocent. The jury pool was selected from "god-fearing gun lovers" The ones who think the bible gives them the right to mistrust the government and take the law into their own hands, because they own guns, while the rest of us don't. We"re the sheep, as they see us. They're smart.
Scalia and his ilk have made sure that the second amendment means that everyone can carry guns. Not just "an organized militia" as was intended by our founders
Scalia and his ilk have made sure that the second amendment means that everyone can carry guns. Not just "an organized militia" as was intended by our founders
6
FREE!!
Free to do it again. As punishments decrease in severity and populations increase in density the inevitable is approaching.
When there are 20-billion on the planet folks like these will not be afforded anything longer than a ten-minute trial under the hanging tree -- if that!
Free to do it again. As punishments decrease in severity and populations increase in density the inevitable is approaching.
When there are 20-billion on the planet folks like these will not be afforded anything longer than a ten-minute trial under the hanging tree -- if that!
1
Oregon wins. The Bundy's are now Nevada's problem. The Civil case (Bundy's owe millions in fines and damages) has not even started. Will be decades before the Bundy's get free (if ever).
3
One can only hope.
From my 30,000 ft view, clearly they were guilty, and the prosecutor blew it. Ironic that the bumbling occupiers were tried by an even more bumbling prosecutor.
5
As an Oregonian I find this verdict to be totally offensive and very wrong.
Here's my reasons:
There is so much overwhelming evidence that they were all incredibly well armed and mean't to use those guns, even in show, as a means to intimidate and prevent. All filmed and seen around the world.
Then, I believe deeply that they fully intended to hold siege to The Malheur well before the standoff actually took place. I believe that Bundy's exploratory trip to visit Police Chief Ward prior was a scouting trip to check out both the capability of local law enforcement but also a cover story, visiting Ward, to lay groundwork later for an excuse should it become a legal thing later. And to scout the refuge Headquarters area itself to see what they needed.
And, although there are many more reasons, the next primary one is their absolute and belligerent disrespect, handling and destroying Burns Paiute artifacts and burial ground. And our publicly owned property.
For their acquittal I blame a jury that could not have weighed the facts properly. And I blame the prosecutors for picking the wrong charges and executing their case poorly. Bust mostly that jury, for they could not have weighed the evidence in full especially considering that they needed to start over with a replacement juror that very morning.
Unbelievable. And a sign of much trouble to come.
Here's my reasons:
There is so much overwhelming evidence that they were all incredibly well armed and mean't to use those guns, even in show, as a means to intimidate and prevent. All filmed and seen around the world.
Then, I believe deeply that they fully intended to hold siege to The Malheur well before the standoff actually took place. I believe that Bundy's exploratory trip to visit Police Chief Ward prior was a scouting trip to check out both the capability of local law enforcement but also a cover story, visiting Ward, to lay groundwork later for an excuse should it become a legal thing later. And to scout the refuge Headquarters area itself to see what they needed.
And, although there are many more reasons, the next primary one is their absolute and belligerent disrespect, handling and destroying Burns Paiute artifacts and burial ground. And our publicly owned property.
For their acquittal I blame a jury that could not have weighed the facts properly. And I blame the prosecutors for picking the wrong charges and executing their case poorly. Bust mostly that jury, for they could not have weighed the evidence in full especially considering that they needed to start over with a replacement juror that very morning.
Unbelievable. And a sign of much trouble to come.
9
I am sorry. I don't understand the acquittal. These people prevented the public from accessing their lands. They took the law into their own hands. This was not a simple protest. They were armed with weapons. I will stand up for public lands against these self centered folks who decided to take the law into their own hands. Sometimes justice is not served.
5
Kind of fascinating to me. Who takes on the Feds and wins? As for those complaining about people with guns, this seems to fall in line with what the Bill of Rights allows. Yes, I would be nervous around such action, but I can’t say it isn’t legal or justified. And I echo the concerns regarding it happening often. Mostly, I am just struck by the deeply different perspectives we all have, made evident by the comments vs the defendants.
1
Just wait. A very large percentage of the voters are going to vote for someone known to violate wage and hour laws with impunity, not to mention lots of others for which he is now on trial. Think about his treatment of women, his treatment of gullible students who turn out to have been nothing but patsies with access to a line of credit.
I'll add another comment in agreement with others here who assert that this outcome would be much different were these defendants black or hispanic or native Americans. This is insulting. I hope an appeal is possible.
6
This decision will no doubt contribute to the shenanigans planned for Election Day by the Trumpinistas. Now that the armed take-over of Federal facilities is on the table as an acceptable form of civil disobedience, can the armed take-over of polling places be far behind?
12
Looks like this crowd had a real jury of their peers. Sometimes it’s a problem.
3
This judicial decision represents a travesty that will be repeated again and again by people who have no regard for Federal Laws and regulations and are willing to use violence to intimidate others, even the Fed Government! Our judicial System is broken and this is a prim example.
2
Not prim! As far from it as one can get.
Having moving to Oregon just prior to this takeover, I follow d the horrifying events daily: the disruption to the workings of the refuge that provides wildlife sanctuary, the loss of property and employees' livelihood, the intimidation of citizens in the community, and so on and on.
That there will be no restitution or payment is astounding as the fact that we have a person like Trump running for president.
There has to be some justice, and some recompense.
That there will be no restitution or payment is astounding as the fact that we have a person like Trump running for president.
There has to be some justice, and some recompense.
7
Jessie James and his gang must be turning over in their graves right now, lamenting . . . . "where was this sheriff when we were in town."
3
Meanwhile, there is a peaceful protest in North Dakota (on private land!) trying to protect drinking water from being contaminated, are being met with a militarized police force with armored vehicles and dogs. Of course no surprise here, for these protestors are Americans original landowners.
8
And the invaders are all powerful oil corporations that rule the courts from judges' chambers a good deal of the time. That's my cynical side talking - based on recent events in the gulf.
1
Someone here wrote: "Wait-- so if these men had been black and had been in a city and staged an armed take over of a city police precinct the outcome would be......?" Funny, but an unarmed take over of a city street for hours, not weeks, can and has resulted in felony convictions. But, of course, the demographic is different, and we all know or should know sentencing disparities along racial lines in this country. Jail, injure, or kill the unarmed; free the armed. American as apple pie. The norm. The fulcrum rests on the valorization of protection of private vs. protecting public land or the commons. This culture privileges private property and will throw all its might to protect and maintain this privilege, property gotten by violence, maintained by violence, and protected by it. Laws follow this principle. Apparatuses such as police and militaries back this principle, and taxes are wrestled from citizens based on it (property taxes). The commons, however, are even under assault from this norm (think: the Dakota Access Pipeline recent arrests). Illusions, rhetoric, and amnesia about this norm are empty rationalizations.
1
I am disgusted by this verdict. I guess they had a jury of their peers who are similar in their thinking....
1
A nice example of the fundamental problems with the Trial-by-Jury system. How can anyone expect that justice will be served by asking random people off the street to make the final judgements on potentially complex legal issues? It amounts to trial by random committee of non-experts. This isn't a rational way to make any important decision, let alone attempt to apply the laws of the land.
3
These people are disgusting. They believe that they are entitled to whatever they want to take because they are white. At the same time, they get angry when they see a minority receiving what they view as "handouts". They hate immigrants for taking jobs they don't want. Their dream is to scam their way into a disability payment before they're 40 so they can watch tv all day. They claim that they hate entitlements, but actually only they only hate those entitlements that they are not receiving themselves. And the problem is so prolific, you cannot even find 12 people to staff an impartial jury. What happened to this country??!!
6
A society is doomed when it allows one and only one class of terrorists to get away with crimes scot-free or with only a minor slap on the wrist.
Yes, think back to Germany. In 1922, the Foreign Minister, Walther Rathenau (who happened to be Jewish) was murdered by what we'd call "Alt-Right" today when they threw a bomb into his car. Despite assassinating the Foreign Minister (same as Secretary of State), the conspirators got small sentences, like 3 1/2 years. The actual killer who threw the bomb, got 15 years.
When, in 1923, Hitler staged his inept Beer Hall Putsch, a clear-cut case of violent insurrection and treason, he was sentenced to 5 years and served only one.
The problem was that the judges in the Wiemar democracy were mainly left over from the Kaiser's era, didn't like or trust Democracy, and viewed the violent reactionaries as "patriots" rather than the criminals they were.
This emboldened the NSDAP and other alt-right groups that felt they had a get-out-of-jail-free card from the courts.
End result? Tyranny and the end of German democracy.
Sound familiar?
Yes, think back to Germany. In 1922, the Foreign Minister, Walther Rathenau (who happened to be Jewish) was murdered by what we'd call "Alt-Right" today when they threw a bomb into his car. Despite assassinating the Foreign Minister (same as Secretary of State), the conspirators got small sentences, like 3 1/2 years. The actual killer who threw the bomb, got 15 years.
When, in 1923, Hitler staged his inept Beer Hall Putsch, a clear-cut case of violent insurrection and treason, he was sentenced to 5 years and served only one.
The problem was that the judges in the Wiemar democracy were mainly left over from the Kaiser's era, didn't like or trust Democracy, and viewed the violent reactionaries as "patriots" rather than the criminals they were.
This emboldened the NSDAP and other alt-right groups that felt they had a get-out-of-jail-free card from the courts.
End result? Tyranny and the end of German democracy.
Sound familiar?
4
What a bloody travesty! Every once in a while a court case goes sideways and this court truly did. Blame the Feds for putting on a lousy case. Now these people will be running around the countryside like cock's o' the walk for the next 20 years, advocating others take laws they don't like into their own hands.
I wonder what will happen when they—or some others like them—try to take over Yosemite National Park or maybe squat on some other piece of ground protected in the name of the American people.
I wonder what will happen when they—or some others like them—try to take over Yosemite National Park or maybe squat on some other piece of ground protected in the name of the American people.
5
So some people purporting religious motivations take armed control of Federal property, under the implicit threat of violence and face no consequences for it and are even celebrated within their cloistered community.
Is this Afghanistan or the United States of America? These people are our own Taliban.
Is this Afghanistan or the United States of America? These people are our own Taliban.
12
Clearly lawbreakers and no punishment? Am I glad I have no children to whom to leave this country's disrepair.
4
I grew up in the county seat of Malheur County. Worked for the BLM.
I am an American, not an OregonIan.
The ruling is outrageous.
I am an American, not an OregonIan.
The ruling is outrageous.
10
Are there statements from the jurors? Did they think that they had some sensible factual reason for acquittal, or is this a simple naked case of nullification?
1
Can we get Donald Trump to condemn this decision? He's supposed to be the law-and-order candidate.
9
Trump might claim that "Crooked Hillary" was actually the one who persuaded Obama to bring, um, trumped-up charges against the totally innocent and noble Bundys in the first place. And jury verdict means that Hillary will lose the election.
This was a very poor decision and only encourages Trump followers to take matters into their own hands if they feel that Trump was cheated in some way out of the Presidency or feel so strongly against a Clinton Presidency.
This group clearly conspired to take over government land and did so with threats to use their weapons if government officials interfered with them. That alone seems like a clear threat to public safety.
If this is going to be the way that our federal courts act in the future we are headed for anarchy.
This group clearly conspired to take over government land and did so with threats to use their weapons if government officials interfered with them. That alone seems like a clear threat to public safety.
If this is going to be the way that our federal courts act in the future we are headed for anarchy.
7
And I shutter to think what the outcome would have been had they been African-American.
4
So...if you're white and heavily armed, you can take possession of government property and threaten law enforcement officers with your automatic weapons without being held accountable. And if you're black and unarmed and not threatening anyone, you can be shot and no one held responsible. Meet white privilege.
11
Yes, surprising verdict--jury nullification--since the trial took place in Portland and not, say, Burns. Would like to know more about the jury.
4
What comes to mind immediately is the jury that handed Dan White manslaughter for the assassination of George Moscone and Harvey Milk in San Francisco in 1978. The famous "Twinkie Defense" that got White sympathy by claiming eating copious amounts of junk food were in large part to blame for his murder of two officials.
What I want to know is how did the defense con these people with this obfuscation regarding "government overreach?" Just when and where did THIS act of overreach actually occur in the hazy minds of the "occupiers?" This whole thing reads with the broadness of the worst type of political propaganda and is an utter disgrace to everyone who participated in it.