Jump to content

Menu

Bundy Brothers Acquitted. What comes next?


poppy
 Share

Recommended Posts

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

 

I'm a little stunned.  They say they didn't mean to hurt anyone ,but they had guns that they said they were prepared to use if law enforcement moved against them (in other words: did their jobs).

On the other hand...... let's be real, white guys get away with things other guys wouldn't get away with. 

 

But, who is this going to embolden? It makes me nervous to think about people who like guns, who dislike the government, seeing this and wanting to stake their own claims.

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am stunned. My guess is all white jury from certain areas of Oregon? When we lived there, Portland was diverse, but the western part of the state had a lot of militia type groups hanging out in the desert area and often they were not only anti-government, but also pretty racist. That's been over 20 years though so I don't know if that has changed. But there were several of these groups when we were there in the early 90's.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They were found not guilty of conspiracy to prevent government employees from doing their jobs. I don't exactly understand why that was the charge, but there you have it. They weren't conspiring, they were just protesting with guns while white.

:banghead:  :banghead:  :banghead:  :banghead:  :banghead:

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I genuinely cannot wrap my head around this. How could a jury possible find them not guilty of charges that they are clearly guilty of and even admitted to on the stand? There had to be some kind of sympathizers on the jury.

Conspiracy charges can be tricky, and this is a tougher conviction than you would think based on the reading of the relevant laws and the jury instructions. And the underlying gun charges were based on the conspiracy charges.

 

I thought there was enough for a conviction, but I can see where the prosecution may have had holes in their case. The fact that the jury was unanimous (excluding the former BLM employee removed from it) says a lot.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand why the charges chosen were ones that were apparently so hard to prove. I mean, surely it's illegal to threaten people with guns, shut down a federally owned and operated nature center, do damage to federal property (including archaeological sites), and even to protest without a permit. I do not get this. There's no way what they did didn't break a ton of laws.

 

I feel like this is adding to the pile of stuff making me lose faith in our justice system. And I don't like that. :(

  • Like 16
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm pretty surprised that the prosecutors failed so hard on this one.  I think they picked the wrong charges.  They should have gone for a more specific set of charges, and split up the trials (though I'm no attorney, nor do I play one on TV). 

 

I think these guys belong in jail for a WHILE.  On the other hand, now they are not martyrs.  I bet they'd have networked all over the prison system and come out worse.  Now they are just doofuses (what's the plural of doofus?) who got off due to lawyers' incompetence.  Back into obscurity, boys!

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand why the charges chosen were ones that were apparently so hard to prove. I mean, surely it's illegal to threaten people with guns, shut down a federally owned and operated nature center, do damage to federal property (including archaeological sites), and even to protest without a permit. I do not get this. There's no way what they did didn't break a ton of laws.

 

I feel like this is adding to the pile of stuff making me lose faith in our justice system. And I don't like that. :(

 

Wait a minute.  You know nothing about the charges, the elements that must be proved, the evidence that was (or was not) presented, or the instructions given by the court but, because you don't like the result, you conclude that the justice system has failed?

 

What would you suggest instead?  A Facebook poll in lieu of trials?

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait a minute.  You know nothing about the charges, the elements that must be proved, the evidence that was (or was not) presented, or the instructions given by the court but, because you don't like the result, you conclude that the justice system has failed?

 

What would you suggest instead?  A Facebook poll in lieu of trials?

 

Huh? No. I'm saying that it's pretty undisputed that they did the things I listed - they harmed property, they had no permit to be there, they threatened to use their guns, etc. Obviously the government prosecutors have to choose charges based on what happened. I'm saying that even having read a couple of articles I don't understand why conspiracy was the primary charge they picked if it was so difficult to prove and why there weren't other charges - like destruction of property - that would have been better. And I'm genuinely throwing it out there as a question. I can't imagine that destruction of property isn't an actual charge that could potentially have been used. How does that, in any way, imply that I think I should decide or FB polls should decide?

 

My sense that the justice system has failed is not just about this case.

  • Like 18
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it possible that they needed a "group charge" because other charges would require that each specific individual be indisputably tied to a specific act? (Say, 'destruction of this exact doorframe in the building' for one person and some other exact action for another.) I would imagine all of that would be equally hard to prove. Perhaps other charges are fairly specific too. (Just thinking out loud.)

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a dumb questions, but what is the jury pool for federal trials as far as locality? Is is obtained the same way as for local/county or state level trials or is the pool a bigger area? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not following the case now, but, I used to, so I am sketchy on the facts. But it is not fair when you do not like a court ruling to through race in to it. If I recall this case, isn't it the one where the government immiment domained their property to make in to a sanctuary and then started seizing their cattle? It is not about race. There is a big fight over that property from the American Indians, the native rural people, environmentalists, and the federal government. There is a big legal question over whether the federal government has/had the right to do what they are doing. Also, I do not think it is ok to jump to "it must be about race" when not all the facts are out. Just because he is white does not mean he should have been convicted, or let off. If you are just looking at a white guy on trial and stating that he must be found guilty because he is white, then THAT is racist. 

Edited by Janeway
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Huh? No. I'm saying that it's pretty undisputed that they did the things I listed - they harmed property, they had no permit to be there, they threatened to use their guns, etc. Obviously the government prosecutors have to choose charges based on what happened. I'm saying that even having read a couple of articles I don't understand why conspiracy was the primary charge they picked if it was so difficult to prove and why there weren't other charges - like destruction of property - that would have been better. And I'm genuinely throwing it out there as a question. I can't imagine that destruction of property isn't an actual charge that could potentially have been used. How does that, in any way, imply that I think I should decide or FB polls should decide?

 

My sense that the justice system has failed is not just about this case.

 

I don't know, but I do know that the Feds only have jurisdiction over a limited range of things.  Maybe the vandalism charge would not be for the feds to pursue, but the state.  If so, possibly the state could try them separately for the state crimes.  Or possibly they have some plea bargain or other deal in the works at that level.

 

I don't know the facts enough to agree or disagree that they met the elements of any particular state crime.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think they're guilty because they're white. I think they're guilty because they were armed and took over federal property, which was well documented in the media and freely admitted to by the men. I think that people of color wouldn't get away with doing the same thing.

Edited by Amira
  • Like 20
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That brings up an interesting thought; if these were federal charges and thus dealt with in federal court, is there still a state trial for state-based charges? Or are the only charges federal because it was on federal land? If the latter, does that mean people do not have to follow state laws on federal land? That seems like it would open the door to all sorts of trouble. I'm not too familiar with the American legal system, so I'm not quite sure what the options were as far as charges go in this case.

Edited by SproutMamaK
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not following the case now, but, I used to, so I am sketchy on the facts. But it is not fair when you do not like a court ruling to through race in to it. If I recall this case, isn't it the one where the government immiment domained their property to make in to a sanctuary and then started seizing their cattle? It is not about race. There is a big fight over that property from the American Indians, the native rural people, environmentalists, and the federal government. There is a big legal question over whether the federal government has/had the right to do what they are doing. Also, I do not think it is ok to jump to "it must be about race" when not all the facts are out. Just because he is white does not mean he should have been convicted, or let off. If you are just looking at a white guy on trial and stating that he must be found guilty because he is white, then THAT is racist. 

 

Eminent domain. And no, that's not what happened at all. The land was federal land all along. The Bundy family just decided they were special snowflakes and didn't have to pay their grazing fees anymore.

 

ETA: Are you talking about the Bundy land or the Oregon refuge?

Edited by Mergath
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know, but I do know that the Feds only have jurisdiction over a limited range of things. Maybe the vandalism charge would not be for the feds to pursue, but the state. If so, possibly the state could try them separately for the state crimes. Or possibly they have some plea bargain or other deal in the works at that level.

 

I don't know the facts enough to agree or disagree that they met the elements of any particular state crime.

 

The only reason I assumed that it would be federal charges is that it was federal property. If state law should apply, I'd love to hear it...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That brings up an interesting thought; if these were federal charges and thus dealt with in federal court, is there still a state trial for state-based charges? Or are the only charges federal because it was on federal land? If the latter, does that mean people do not have to follow state laws on federal land? That seems like it would open the door to all sorts of trouble. I'm not too familiar with the American legal system, so I'm not quite sure what the options were as far as charges go in this case.

 

The applicable laws do depend on where you are in the USA.  There are some places where certain laws don't apply, e.g., Native American reservations.  That said, yes it is possible to be tried in two different jurisdictions for different elements of the same overall event.

 

[Not responding to the quoted poster here]:  As far as the race thing goes, people of color have certainly been involved in incidents of intimidation / not letting people pass by.  I am not aware of whether this is normally considered a Federal crime.  I would think in most contexts it is not.  But in this case Federal land was involved.

Edited by SKL
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not following the case now, but, I used to, so I am sketchy on the facts. But it is not fair when you do not like a court ruling to through race in to it. If I recall this case, isn't it the one where the government immiment domained their property to make in to a sanctuary and then started seizing their cattle? It is not about race. There is a big fight over that property from the American Indians, the native rural people, environmentalists, and the federal government. There is a big legal question over whether the federal government has/had the right to do what they are doing. Also, I do not think it is ok to jump to "it must be about race" when not all the facts are out. Just because he is white does not mean he should have been convicted, or let off. If you are just looking at a white guy on trial and stating that he must be found guilty because he is white, then THAT is racist. 

 

The government didn't eminent domain THEIR property. They eminent domained SOMEONE ELSE's property like a century ago.

 

They have had cattle seized for not paying grazing fees, which are required to graze on public land.

 

If you think this acquittal has nothing to do with race, explain what was going on at Standing Rock on the same day.

  • Like 16
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The applicable laws do depend on where you are in the USA.  There are some places where certain laws don't apply, e.g., Native American reservations.  That said, yes it is possible to be tried in two different jurisdictions for different elements of the same overall event.

 

[Not responding to the quoted poster here]:  As far as the race thing goes, people of color have certainly been involved in incidents of intimidation / not letting people pass by.  I am not aware of whether this is normally considered a Federal crime.  I would think in most contexts it is not.  But in this case Federal land was involved.

 

It's possible to be tried in two different jurisdictions for the exact same elements of the exact same events.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not following the case now, but, I used to, so I am sketchy on the facts. But it is not fair when you do not like a court ruling to through race in to it. If I recall this case, isn't it the one where the government immiment domained their property to make in to a sanctuary and then started seizing their cattle? It is not about race. There is a big fight over that property from the American Indians, the native rural people, environmentalists, and the federal government. There is a big legal question over whether the federal government has/had the right to do what they are doing. Also, I do not think it is ok to jump to "it must be about race" when not all the facts are out. Just because he is white does not mean he should have been convicted, or let off. If you are just looking at a white guy on trial and stating that he must be found guilty because he is white, then THAT is racist.

Your facts are way way off.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The government didn't eminent domain THEIR property. They eminent domained SOMEONE ELSE's property like a century ago.

 

They have had cattle seized for not paying grazing fees, which are required to graze on public land.

 

If you think this acquittal has nothing to do with race, explain what was going on at Standing Rock on the same day.

What do you mean?m I looked up Standing Rock and I saw a report from the AP that protesters at Standing Rock have burned three vehicles, and one woman shot a pistol three times, narrowly missing a deputy. The officers did not shoot back, and it sounds like the police are trying to handle it with the least force necessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not going to speak to the verdict, as I did not follow the case that closely. I do know people from that area and all they say now is that their entire community was and is torn apart, and they are not sure things will ever heal. Oh, and apparently the protestors left a huge mess behind and not a small amount of damage.

 

I do remember wondering (when the armed protestors took over the Wildlife Refuge) why they were treated with kid gloves. I mean, seriously, if a bunch of African-Americans (coming from the exact same circumstances) were armed and occupied/took over a federal building, how long would they have been allowed to stay peacefully? Or (better yet, to illustrate that demographics do matter) what if it had been a bunch of armed Muslims (again, coming from the exact same circumstances)? Can you even imagine how FB would blow up over that one? They'd probably grenade them out before nightfall. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not following the case now, but, I used to, so I am sketchy on the facts. But it is not fair when you do not like a court ruling to through race in to it. If I recall this case, isn't it the one where the government immiment domained their property to make in to a sanctuary and then started seizing their cattle? It is not about race. There is a big fight over that property from the American Indians, the native rural people, environmentalists, and the federal government. There is a big legal question over whether the federal government has/had the right to do what they are doing. Also, I do not think it is ok to jump to "it must be about race" when not all the facts are out. Just because he is white does not mean he should have been convicted, or let off. If you are just looking at a white guy on trial and stating that he must be found guilty because he is white, then THAT is racist. 

 

Nope. 

 

The Bundys, who are Nevada ranchers, were angry that a pair of Oregon ranchers, the Hammonds, were sentenced to jail for committing arson on BLM land. So they headed to Oregon — against the explicit wishes of the Hammonds — and called for various other right-wing militia types to join them in "reclaiming" government land. The Malheur Wildlife refuge was just an easy target; it had nothing to do with the Hammonds. In fact, the ranchers whose lands adjoin the refuge were very much opposed to what the Bundys did. The Bundys and their fellow "patriots" damaged government property, including computers, bulldozed trenches through Native American archaeological sites, damaged Native American artifacts, and left behind tons of garbage and human feces. They significantly set back the research and restoration work the government was doing, and left a mess that will cost millions of tax dollars to clean up.

 

The reason the two Bundy brothers were not immediately released after the Oregon verdict is because they, along with their father, are still wanted on charges in Nevada related to an armed standoff over grazing fees. And no, the land Cliven Bundy was illegally grazing his cattle on, called the Bunkerville Allotment, was never his — it was not seized from him through eminent domain, it has belonged to the Federal government since they bought it from Mexico in 1848. But the Bundys do not recognize the right of the Federal government to own land; they believe that only states have the right to own land, so they have been grazing cattle illegally on BLM land since 1993, without paying grazing fees. When the government attempted to round up the cattle that were grazing illegally, they were met with armed resistance. Cliven, Ammon, and Ryan Bundy are still in jail awaiting trial on charges related to that incident.

  • Like 13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not following the case now, but, I used to, so I am sketchy on the facts. But it is not fair when you do not like a court ruling to through race in to it. If I recall this case, isn't it the one where the government immiment domained their property to make in to a sanctuary and then started seizing their cattle? It is not about race. There is a big fight over that property from the American Indians, the native rural people, environmentalists, and the federal government. There is a big legal question over whether the federal government has/had the right to do what they are doing. Also, I do not think it is ok to jump to "it must be about race" when not all the facts are out. Just because he is white does not mean he should have been convicted, or let off. If you are just looking at a white guy on trial and stating that he must be found guilty because he is white, then THAT is racist. 

 

To the bolded....um, no.  I don't believe there is any such case.  This is the case where some armed yahoos took over a federal refuge (which had been one for some time) to protest the conviction of some local ranchers/criminals.  The armed yahoos did try to argue that they had the right to seize the refuge via adverse possession so there was no issue about property being seized via eminent domain.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a dumb questions, but what is the jury pool for federal trials as far as locality? Is is obtained the same way as for local/county or state level trials or is the pool a bigger area?

I got called for federal jury duty one time, and there were people there from a fairly wide swath of the state. As I understand it, the nation is divided into districts that each have a federal courthouse. I'm not sure how many or if any cross state lines, but it wouldn't surprise me if some states had just one while California and Texas have like a gazillion each. I'm sure I could google it easily, which would take less effort than typing all this, but I'm an odd sort of lazy atm.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I got called for federal jury duty one time, and there were people there from a fairly wide swath of the state. As I understand it, the nation is divided into districts that each have a federal courthouse. I'm not sure how many or if any cross state lines, but it wouldn't surprise me if some states had just one while California and Texas have like a gazillion each. I'm sure I could google it easily, which would take less effort than typing all this, but I'm an odd sort of lazy atm.

I have to wonder if it's a narrow enough pool if juror intimidation played any type of factor. I personally would not want to be on the bad side of these guys or their supporters if I was local. I would rather crawl under a rock in that case. If you're going to take over federal land and have an armed stand off, it doesn't seem like bullying a juror is much of a stretch, you know?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you mean?m I looked up Standing Rock and I saw a report from the AP that protesters at Standing Rock have burned three vehicles, and one woman shot a pistol three times, narrowly missing a deputy. The officers did not shoot back, and it sounds like the police are trying to handle it with the least force necessary.

 

The police moved in with riot gear, pepper spray, sonic cannons, and, according to some protesters, rubber bullets and/or other nonlethal projectiles, with were used against people and horses.

 

The individual who fired a firearm was arrested--and the leadership of the Standing Rock tribe has made it clear that they are not condoning armed resistance. Stuff like that, and burning tires, etc., does absolutely nothing to help their cause. But the police reaction has been, to put it mildly, overzealous.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/US/tensions-mount-protesters-police-controversial-pipeline/story?id=43078902

 

http://sacredstonecamp.org/blog/2016/10/28/police-from-5-states-escalate-violence-shoot-horses-to-clear-1851-treaty-camp (yes, I realize this is a blog and not a mainstream news source, but they've been posting video footage, etc.) 

 

The Standing Rock tribe contest ownership of the piece of land they were just driven off of. Without going into the entire history of land loss, a lot of their treaty loss was stolen from them over the decades. The former recent owners of that land were forced out by eminent domain and the land sold to the company building the pipeline. It's dirty dealing when eminent domain is used to benefit corporations.  

 

The Bundy crew occupied the refuge for weeks without direct confrontation from law enforcement. They destroyed property, including archaeological sites. The Bundys aren't even from Oregon, and that land was not handed over to a corporation for development, but kept in the public trust to preserve the wildlife habitat, archaeological sites, etc. They were trespassing every bit as much as the Water Protectors were trespassing at the camp that was cleared. The response by authorities was starkly different.

  • Like 11
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think they're guilty because they're white. I think they're guilty because they were armed and took over federal property, which was well documented in the media and freely admitted to by the men. I think that people of color wouldn't get away with doing the same thing.

Given the very well documented phenomenon of black, hispanic, and NA defendents being discriminated against in our criminal justice system, particularly in terms of sentencing, it is not off base to consider race being in play in this outcome. The choice of charges is puzzling.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you mean?m I looked up Standing Rock and I saw a report from the AP that protesters at Standing Rock have burned three vehicles, and one woman shot a pistol three times, narrowly missing a deputy. The officers did not shoot back, and it sounds like the police are trying to handle it with the least force necessary.

 

 

That is not correct, there has been excessive force.

 

 

 

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/09/dakota-access-pipeline-protest-timeline-sioux-standing-rock-jill-stein

https://www.thenation.com/article/amy-goodman-is-facing-prison-for-reporting-on-the-dakota-access-pipeline-that-should-scare-us-all/

Edited by Slartibartfast
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Bundy acquittal is a case of the Federal Prosecutor failing to do his job. It's outrageous, but there it is.

 

I followed the trial closely via some observers in the courtroom, and during the actual trial he seemed to be doing a pretty solid job.  The trial itself was a **** show due to a couple of the defense attorneys and a couple of the defendants representing themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But, who is this going to embolden? It makes me nervous to think about people who like guns, who dislike the government, seeing this and wanting to stake their own claims.

 

It will embolden the wack-jobs. But it may also cause a re-think on the part of Federal agents who wanted to avoid another Waco or Ruby Ridge.

 

Bad deal all around. Justice was not served.

 

Bill

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm thinking the Bundy acquittal highlights the hazards of trial by jury.

 

I'm not sure what a better trial system would be though--professional juries or multi-judge panels held to high ethical standards?

 

The Standing Rock matter makes me very, very sad.

Edited by maize
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I followed the trial closely via some observers in the courtroom, and during the actual trial he seemed to be doing a pretty solid job.  The trial itself was a **** show due to a couple of the defense attorneys and a couple of the defendants representing themselves.

 

Yes, well, part of the prosecutor's job is to be ready for that. The defense attorneys were just doing their jobs and they and the self-representing individuals clearly tapped a vibe that worked with the jury.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, well, part of the prosecutor's job is to be ready for that. The defense attorneys were just doing their jobs and they and the self-representing individuals clearly tapped a vibe that worked with the jury.

This went beyond anything for which a prosecutor can prepare. The judge lost control of that courtroom from the start.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not like the government has never done anything aggressive to a group of white people.

 

https://www.texasobserver.org/the-standoff-in-waco/

 

If they are trying to be less aggressive now, hopefully it's because they have received better training to avoid needless deaths.  That said, they did kill one of the Oregon protestors.  I personally wouldn't call that "kid gloves."

Edited by SKL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm thinking the Bundy acquittal highlights the hazards of trial by jury.

 

I'm not sure what a better trial system would be though--professional juries or multi-judge panels held to high ethical standards?

 

The Standing Rock matter makes me very, very sad.

 

I agree.

 

I'd certainly feel less safe, if I was an employee at a government facility now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not like the government has never done anything aggressive to a group of white people.

 

https://www.texasobserver.org/the-standoff-in-waco/

 

If they are trying to be less aggressive now, hopefully it's because they have received better training to avoid needless deaths.  That said, they did kill one of the Oregon protestors.  I personally wouldn't call that "kid gloves."

 

Give me a break. Watch the video of that shooting. Finicum had a loaded semi-automatic in his pocket and reached for that pocket. That is when he was shot. If he had been black the only focus would have been on the fact that he was armed with a semi-automatic gun and how justified police were in protecting themselves from an armed black man reaching for his gun in his pocket. Instead Finicum is some sort of martyr. 

 

And the "kid gloves" refers to how the protestors were treated while holding public lands at gunpoint. It was a frickin' wildlife refuge frequented by bird watchers.  And those armed protestors stayed there - coddled and untouched - for over a month, destroying artifacts and leaving filth in their wake. 

 

Edited to add: I'm assuming you are aware that Finicum was not shot while holed up in the refuge. He was fleeing police, having evaded several blockades and refusing to stop.

Edited by Happy2BaMom
  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just saw a political cartoon:
Black man holding a "Black Lives Matter" sign = Thug
White man holding a semiautomatic rifle = Protestor

 

And I think it's true.  People are more angry about Colin Kaepernick silently kneeling during the National Anthem than they are about an armed takeover of land (because they didn't want to pay RENT on land they were leasing..... I mean really).

 

I personally don't think either protest is terrible, though the OR folks definitely should have left their firearms at home. 

 

Bearing arms against law officers is the thing that is unacceptable to me here.

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...