Oregon Occupiers - Not Guilty of Firearms on Federal Property Despite Video Evidence

DoctorArch

So the Oregon Militia story has come to a close, with a not guilty verdict.

Reactions are happening pretty quickly right now, but good sources for the story at hand are the Oregonian and Oregon Public Broadcasting.

Brief OP, but I'll try to get back to it later.

hippofant

I have been hitting refresh repeatedly because I wanted to lay out my thoughts here as soon as possible:

WTF?!?!?!?!?!

Ludious

As a federal employee it's good to know that my workplace can be taken over by hostile forces and there are no repercussions

So It Goes

Seattle Times article

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/crime/verdict-near-in-malheur-wildlife-refuge-standoff-trial/

How are these folks not guilty of POSSESSING FIREARMS ON FEDERAL LAND dear god

I really can't handle this. Not a good precedent for, like, anything. Looking forward to emboldened idiots once again occupying federal land, desecrating Native sites, etc etc

GnomeTank

I can't wait for the juror interviews on that one. I'm not sure how anyone can think they didn't commit the crime as stated beyond a reasonable doubt. They took federal land while armed, and by force, and it's on video. Where in the hell did they find reasonable doubt?

So It Goes

Conspiracy involves proving an agreement between two or more people. Sometimes it can be harder to prove. I don't think that was the case here, but I also didn't attend the trial.

But not guilty of possessing firearms just is blowing my mind.

MuddBudd

Quoting my post from the other thread since things are moved here.

MuddBudd wrote: »

Houn wrote: »

As a side note to the election, the jury in Oregon just acquitted the Malheur standoff participants of all charges.
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/crime/verdict-near-in-malheur-wildlife-refuge-standoff-trial/

So, expect similar incidents in the future. Like when Trump loses.

(Outside, Turn, Spit)

Please note, from the article:

The second — and far higher-stakes federal prosecution — is scheduled to get under way in February in Nevada, when Ammon Bundy, Ryan Bundy, their father Cliven Bundy and 15 defendants face conspiracy, assault, weapons and other charges that could result in decades of prison time.

It's not over.

Dr. Chaos

I want to punch the nearest wall so fucking hard right now.

Preacher

Ludious wrote: »

As a federal employee it's good to know that my workplace can be taken over by hostile forces and there are no repercussions

Well if the people taking it over are white. If they are literally any other race well they wouldn't live to face a trial.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

hippofant

GnomeTank wrote: »

I can't wait for the juror interviews on that one. I'm not sure how anyone can think they didn't commit the crime as stated beyond a reasonable doubt. They took federal land while armed, and by force, and it's on video. Where in the hell did they find reasonable doubt?

There are hints that - and it's the only conclusion that I can draw such that the universe continues to cohere within my mind - some people on the jury were the sort who can find reasonable doubt in reality. I don't ... unless there's some supremely technical caveat about the charge or the law I'm unaware of, this was pretty much the definition of a case with overwhelming physical evidence.

Please, someone tell me that there's some weird technical caveat that I don't know about.

GnomeTank

The good news is that the whole group is set for much stiffer federal charges in Nevada, but still. This is a total miscarriage of justice. I have a very hard time believing that jury wasn't bias as fuck.

ArcTangent

Wow. I am tremendously disappointed in my state.

What the fuck, Oregon?

So It Goes

mcdermott wrote: »

So It Goes wrote: »

Seattle Times article

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/crime/verdict-near-in-malheur-wildlife-refuge-standoff-trial/

How are these folks not guilty of POSSESSING FIREARMS ON FEDERAL LAND dear god

I really can't handle this. Not a good precedent for, like, anything. Looking forward to emboldened idiots once again occupying federal land, desecrating Native sites, etc etc

So are we looking at any conceivable explanation that the prosecutors failed to prove their case or that the acts somehow didn't meet the elements of the crime at hand? Or is this just straight-up jury nullification?

Little of column A, little of column B, is my guess.

Don't rule out abject stupidity.

moniker

So...jury nullification?

Dr. Chaos

What kind of court looks at the actions of these people and says "they're alright, let em go"?

On what planet?

moniker

Dr. Chaos wrote: »

What kind of court looks at the actions of these people and says "they're alright, let em go"?

On what planet?

It wasn't a bench trial.

redx

So It Goes wrote: »

Conspiracy involves proving an agreement between two or more people. Sometimes it can be harder to prove. I don't think that was the case here, but I also didn't attend the trial.

But not guilty of possessing firearms just is blowing my mind.

not guilty of possessing weapons during a crime, i think.

Primary charge faced by all seven: Conspiracy to prevent by “force, intimidation, and threats” employees of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and BLM from carrying out their duties.

Other charges faced by some defendants: Theft of government property, use and carry of a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence.

so, the gun change seems to depend on providing the other bit? not just providing they had guns on federal land, which they will be tried for later.

King Riptor

This is absurd. What's the recourse here ? There was obviously jury tampering or something going on here

VishNub

Does Oregon require a unanimous jury? Is a hung jury possible?

I can see one or two members being true believers, but all 12?

DoctorArch

Dr. Chaos wrote: »

What kind of court looks at the actions of these people and says "they're alright, let em go"?

On what planet?

It wasn't a court, it was a jury. A jury that concluded that the defendants did not possess firearms on federal property despite video evidence.

DoctorArch

God damn this is going to embolden people to do it again.

Dr. Chaos

moniker wrote: »

Dr. Chaos wrote: »

What kind of court looks at the actions of these people and says "they're alright, let em go"?

On what planet?

It wasn't a bench trial.

No matter who the call came down to, you'd think some measure of sanity would prevail.

You would think.

So It Goes

VishNub wrote: »

Does Oregon require a unanimous jury? Is a hung jury possible?

I can see one or two members being true believers, but all 12?

Fed requires unanimous as far as I know.

Oregon state level crimes require 10 out of 12 but this wasn't a state level crime.

So It Goes

King Riptor wrote: »

This is absurd. What's the recourse here ? There was obviously jury tampering or something going on here

The State cannot appeal a jury verdict in America.

Shimshai

Primary charge faced by all seven: Conspiracy to prevent by “force, intimidation, and threats” employees of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and BLM from carrying out their duties.

Other charges faced by some defendants: Theft of government property, use and carry of a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence.

What is the BLM mentioned in this?

VishNub

So It Goes wrote: »

VishNub wrote: »

Does Oregon require a unanimous jury? Is a hung jury possible?

I can see one or two members being true believers, but all 12?

Fed requires unanimous as far as I know.

Oregon state level crimes require 10 out of 12 but this wasn't a state level crime.

If one juror was a holdout, would there be a retrial? Or this outcome.

Are there appeals of not guilty?

Preacher

It's just crazy a juror was thrown out of the jury for being biased and then this verdict is returned.

GnomeTank

I do find it hard to believe all 12 jurors were dyed in the wool true believers in this kind of alt-right bullshit. So something had to have happened in this trial we just aren't seeing. It's the only conclusion I can come up with.

So It Goes

Shimshai wrote: »

Primary charge faced by all seven: Conspiracy to prevent by “force, intimidation, and threats” employees of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and BLM from carrying out their duties.

Other charges faced by some defendants: Theft of government property, use and carry of a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence.

What is the BLM mentioned in this?

Bureau of Land Management

Phoenix-D

Shimshai wrote: »

Primary charge faced by all seven: Conspiracy to prevent by “force, intimidation, and threats” employees of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and BLM from carrying out their duties.

Other charges faced by some defendants: Theft of government property, use and carry of a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence.

What is the BLM mentioned in this?

Bureau of Land Management

moniker

Shimshai wrote: »

Primary charge faced by all seven: Conspiracy to prevent by “force, intimidation, and threats” employees of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and BLM from carrying out their duties.

Other charges faced by some defendants: Theft of government property, use and carry of a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence.

What is the BLM mentioned in this?

Bureau of Land Management.

VishNub

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/26/us/partial-verdict-reached-in-bundy-trial.html?_r=0


This makes it seem much less settled.

DoctorArch

redx wrote: »

So It Goes wrote: »

Conspiracy involves proving an agreement between two or more people. Sometimes it can be harder to prove. I don't think that was the case here, but I also didn't attend the trial.

But not guilty of possessing firearms just is blowing my mind.

not guilty of possessing weapons during a crime, i think.

Primary charge faced by all seven: Conspiracy to prevent by “force, intimidation, and threats” employees of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and BLM from carrying out their duties.

Other charges faced by some defendants: Theft of government property, use and carry of a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence.

so, the gun change seems to depend on providing the other bit? not just providing they had guns on federal land, which they will be tried for later.

I don't think so, if 18 USC 930 is the relevant code they were charged on.

18 U.S. Code § 930 - Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities

(a) Except as provided in subsection (d), whoever knowingly possesses or causes to be present a firearm or other dangerous weapon in a Federal facility (other than a Federal court facility), or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.

(b) Whoever, with intent that a firearm or other dangerous weapon be used in the commission of a crime, knowingly possesses or causes to be present such firearm or dangerous weapon in a Federal facility, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

(c) A person who kills any person in the course of a violation of subsection (a) or (b), or in the course of an attack on a Federal facility involving the use of a firearm or other dangerous weapon, or attempts or conspires to do such an act, shall be punished as provided in sections 1111, 1112, 1113, and 1117.

(d) Subsection (a) shall not apply to—
(1) the lawful performance of official duties by an officer, agent, or employee of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision thereof, who is authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of any violation of law;
(2) the possession of a firearm or other dangerous weapon by a Federal official or a member of the Armed Forces if such possession is authorized by law; or
(3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes.

My guess is the bolded above is the legal fig leaf they hid behind.

So It Goes

VishNub wrote: »

So It Goes wrote: »

VishNub wrote: »

Does Oregon require a unanimous jury? Is a hung jury possible?

I can see one or two members being true believers, but all 12?

Fed requires unanimous as far as I know.

Oregon state level crimes require 10 out of 12 but this wasn't a state level crime.

If one juror was a holdout, would there be a retrial? Or this outcome.

Are there appeals of not guilty?

Yes, if one juror held out it would be a hung jury.

I think there may have been one of the counts where they were hung, but it's unclear from the news stories.

After a hung jury the State can choose to try the case again to a new jury or dismiss.

The State can't appeal a not guilty verdict.

Shimshai

Thanks guys, it would have been a tricky acronym to google

Preacher

So I wonder what happens when they kill someone next time? Or kill a lot of people? If we can't get them with obvious video evidence of the crime, what's the next step from here? How bad does it get?

So It Goes

VishNub wrote: »

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/26/us/partial-verdict-reached-in-bundy-trial.html?_r=0


This makes it seem much less settled.

Old story, that's from Tuesday.

King Riptor

DoctorArch wrote: »

God damn this is going to embolden people to do it again.

Well on the locals can just go shoot them as long as they record it since apparently damning evidence no longer applies in Oregon

Crayon

Shimshai wrote: »

Primary charge faced by all seven: Conspiracy to prevent by “force, intimidation, and threats” employees of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and BLM from carrying out their duties.

Other charges faced by some defendants: Theft of government property, use and carry of a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence.

What is the BLM mentioned in this?

I imagine Bureau of Land Management.

Edit: Beaten like 10 times over.

Edit edit: This is bullshit. Hopefully the federal charges hit hard, then.

Mr Khan

moniker wrote: »

So...jury nullification?

Seems like it.