I am sickened and infuriated by this outcome. I don’t understand it at all.
Exactly how does a bad court decision equate to “white privilege”? I guess that means OJ is proof of “black privilege”?
Poor decisions made by juries are usually the result of “home cooking” or just plain stupidity, and neither of those reasons is racially exclusive.
do you doubt that multiple members of the jury did not take into account massive corruption at the DoJ,FBI, and the White House and who is persecuted/prosecuted and who can not only break the law but reach the position of the highest office in the land? it is called jury nullification. and as you know human nature and personal beliefs and understandings influence not only juries but judges too. expect to see more and more of this until a major cleaning up is done at the FBI and the DoJ. (I will not hold my breath waiting)
I’ll respect the verdict because I am an American; but it is getting more and more difficult to hope that the justice system will actually come nearer to actual justice. Now I fear that people like the Bundys will be encouraged to armed revolt whenever they disagree with their fellow citizens, let alone the government.
lakewashington, the solution is removing the DoJ and the IRS as weapons of 1600 Pennsylvania ave. when no matter how bad the criminal activity by any federal agency is and or their allies and nobody even gets fired let alone arrested, the best option is to change these organizations to a completely independent non administration controlled branch.
maybe the DoJ attorney general should be elected? maybe the IRS head too? (every 4 years)
I think the Feds and the Oregon state police acted well during this whole confrontation. This was no Waco or Ruby Ridge, and it was no Nevada standoff either with nothing being done.
It is just wrong for jurors to conflate a simple case with their perceived notions of government overreach and ignore glaringly obvious evidence. I have no faith in the Utah jurors who will be coming up either. How awful it is to have no faith in juries!
Restructure the government? That ain’t happening. The verdict is an embarassment
“Poor decisions made by juries are usually the result of “home cooking” or just plain stupidity, and neither of those reasons is racially exclusive.”
We’re not talking about usually. We’re talking about this case. If the outcome in this case would have been different if the defendants were black (or American-born, dark-skinned Muslims), then that’s white privilege.
I think you know that black or dark-skinned Muslims staging an armed anti-government insurrection in Oregon would have been convicted by this jury, if they made it out alive.
If you have to question how this whole case is white privilege, you are the blind beneficiary of it.
Sorry…I choose to not make assumptions about what “would have happened if the defendants were fill-in-the-blank”. That’s the kind of crap that causes more harm than good to necessary discussions that we need to have in this country regarding racism, sexism, etc. Those who choose to see “isms” and read intent into every single situation they don’t agree with live a miserable existence IMO. Hopefully their “indignation” keeps them warm at night.
I keep reading the news reports and trying to understand. Have they been cleared of all charges brought against them?
There are photos and video of the destruction and filth at the preserve when they left. Reports have claimed the clean-up will cost millions. Are they not being held responsible for any of that cost? Are tax payers picking up the bill?
To me, it looks like they trashed “our” land and now we get to pay for clean up. And maybe next time they get to keep “our” land for themselves.
If people from other areas of the country move out there, can they claim some land? Maybe we could have a lottery? Why do the Bundy’s get first pick? If folks who have been living there have first dibs, what about the Native Americans still in the area? Why isn’t it theirs?
Complicated.
I do not know if it was used in this case but if I was a defense attorney in a federal case you better believe I would bring up all the shenanigans and corruption at the D o J, white House, IRS, etc etc etc…and as a juror maybe 5 years ago i would dismiss it as a defense attorney trying to win a case for their client, but now I would listen and take it into the level of trust i have in the process including both the federal agencies like the FBI who investigate as well as the prosecutor.
it can not be ignored that the system is corrupt and their are different rules and laws for different people.
@zobroward:
If a defense attorney did that, the judge would sustain the objection of the prosecution, because unless they can prove that there are ties to this particular case (ie the defendents were part of the IRS case, had been denied tax exempt status) it would be meaningless, you can’t argue ‘government corruption’ unless you have some sort of proof that the defendents were being singled out and could be tied to government malfeasance. A court of law is not right wing talk radio or blog space, the defense pointing out where the government was corrupt currently or in the past would be like a black defendent pointing out the various injustices against blacks over the centuries and expecting that would be a legal point, without proof it is just ranting.
"Exactly how does a bad court decision equate to “white privilege”? The answer to your question is what happened in similar cases, where armed groups took over federal property? In the early 1970’s, native american activists did in fact take over government property, claiming it was theirs (alcatraz, Wounded Knee), and look at the response, those doing the capturing were killed, and those that survived were generally sent to jail. White privilege is as others say, the jury obviously sympathized with the defendents but given history it doesn’t take a genius to figure out had these not been seen as ‘good folk fighting for their rights from the federal goverment’ (ie white, rural types), people on that jury would likely throw the book at them, and if they were muslim, want to charge them with terrorism and have them sent to supermax.
Here is the key to the verdict:
“The 12 jurors, many drawn from outside Portland, found Ammon Bundy, Shawna Cox, David Lee Fry, Jeff Wayne Banta, Kenneth Medenbach and Neil Wampler not guilty on all counts. They found Ryan Bundy not guilty of conspiracy and possession of firearms but could not reach a verdict on a theft charge.”
So the Jury pool likely was from the parts of Oregon where there is strong anti government feeling, I don’t know the rules on federal juries but sounds to me the like defense was allowed to pick jurors sympathetic and the judge allowed it, you had jury picking that worked I would bet, since outside Portland Oregon has a large swath of very conservative, very anti government leaning people.
So you’re saying you’re cool with jury nullification?
Well, that’s…uncomfortable. And problematic.
Music print law is philosophy and opinion every judge and jury does what they feel is ok/right.
Their is no science in law. I stopped believing long ago that a judge,jury,prosecutor etc…
Is somehow guided by fairness truth and justice.
That is why if you had everything identical that the same case would have different outcomes based on who is hearing the case.
I believe in the system we have in america…but the system is made up of humans and humans are just that human.
@zobroward:
The rule of law is supposed to be based on logic and precedent, it is supposed to be based on centuries of legal tradition to weed out that that doesn’t work (for example, trial by fire or trial by judge alone unless requested by a defendent), It weeded out prosecutors with ‘secret evidence’ and ‘secret witnesses’ (prosecutors have to share their information with the defense, you can’t have surprise witnesses and such unless the defense is then given time to prepare), and so forth.
The idea of trial by jury is that the people on the jury are reasonable and willing to listen to arguments and rationally come to a conclusion. That said, of course the law is flawed, it is run by human beings, and the passions of human beings often run counter to that. This trial is a perfect example of that, the jurors IMO did let their opinion and passion override common sense, there is indisputable proof these people took over a federal preserve, they were armed, they apparently forced the people working there out, and they resisted when the feds stepped in to arrest them, yet they were found innocent. This was all duly recorded on the evening knews, so they can’t claim that witnesses lied, it played out in the media. The Jury didn’t believe the government was lying, they basically nullified, not just the verdict, but the law and in a sense said these people had the right to occupy federal land like that, which is rewriting law.
What is needed to prove jury misconduct?
Jury nullification is nothing new. It was a regular occurrence in Jim Crow South. No white man could be convicted of killing a black man back then even if there were incontrovertible evidence to prove it.
I wonder if the purging of juror #11 by juror #4 could be considered misconduct. Have there been any interviews with jury members? I heard that some of them were reporting harassment before the trial was over.