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.
There was a literal fucking shootout with the FBI in which people died! I'm pretty sure that should qualify under "force, intimidation, and threats"!
The verdict came after a five-week federal trial the group who took over the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.
Standoff leaders Ammon and Ryan Bundy and five others were charged with conspiring to impede federal workers from their jobs at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. Several also had faced the firearms charge."
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.
There was a literal fucking shootout with the FBI in which people died! I'm pretty sure that should qualify under "force, intimidation, and threats"!
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.
There was a literal fucking shootout with the FBI in which people died! I'm pretty sure that should qualify under "force, intimidation, and threats"!
did that shootout even occur in Oregon?
Yes it did. But the only person who shot was killed.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
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.
There was a literal fucking shootout with the FBI in which people died! I'm pretty sure that should qualify under "force, intimidation, and threats"!
did that shootout even occur in Oregon?
I believe he is referencing the shooting at the end of the standoff where Finicum was shot
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.
There was a literal fucking shootout with the FBI in which people died! I'm pretty sure that should qualify under "force, intimidation, and threats"!
did that shootout even occur in Oregon?
I believe he is referencing the shooting at the end of the standoff where Finicum was shot
I wonder if now his family can sue the FBI and win for wrongful death. I mean clearly he was doing nothing wrong up until his death according to this trial.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Either there is something brought up over trial that I'm COMPLETELY oblivious to, or the prosecution completely fucked themselves in jury selection/voir dire. I'm literally beside myself.
Also - how are they not guilty of the depradation of govt property charges, which lists the excavation and damage they did to the Burns Paiute tribal sites? Like, how is there not enough evidence that they did that?
18 USC 930 (b) is what they were charged with, and that criminalizes the possession of firearms with the intent that said firearm be used in the commission of a crime.
The jury didn't find a conspiracy, or any other crime, and trespass was not a crime they were charged with. Logically, without finding another crime, they couldn't be guilty of violating 18 USC 930 (b).
18 USC 930 (b) is what they were charged with, and that criminalizes the possession of firearms with the intent that said firearm be used in the commission of a crime.
The jury didn't find a conspiracy, or any other crime, and trespass was not a crime they were charged with. Logically, without finding another crime, they couldn't be guilty of violating 18 USC 930 (b).
How was there not a conspiracy? They didn't all just show up spontaneously on their own. (I assume this is due to some technical definition of conspiracy.)
GnomeTankWhat the what?Portland, OregonRegistered Userregular
edited October 2016
Again, I just have a really hard time believing all 12 jurors were this bias. It's a near statistical impossibility that you would find 12 jurors who are all sovereign citizen believers, especially when the prosecution and defense get a hand in picking them. Either something happened in the trial we aren't privy to yet, or the article is misleading and it is still on a partial verdict...or something. I have enough political anger coursing through my veins over the presidency right now, I'm going to try and hold the nuclear anger button on this one until all the facts are out.
18 USC 930 (b) is what they were charged with, and that criminalizes the possession of firearms with the intent that said firearm be used in the commission of a crime.
The jury didn't find a conspiracy, or any other crime, and trespass was not a crime they were charged with. Logically, without finding another crime, they couldn't be guilty of violating 18 USC 930 (b).
Okay so it makes sense even though they were fairly obviously, I thought, guilty of the conspiracy charges. The not guilty on the theft and depradation charges appears to be straight up nullification, then.
Also DoctorArch, just a quibble - these idiots weren't even an "Oregon" militia. They came from out of state.
Oh I know , but it's an easy shorthand.
Suggestion "Occupiers"
+1
Options
Metzger MeisterIt Gets Worsebefore it gets any better.Registered Userregular
Why weren't there more charges? Trespassing seems like a slam dunk, breaking and entering, destruction of government property, burglary, these are all absolutely charges that could have been tacked on.
Wow, how good is it to be white in America? Can you imagine if this was anybody else? They'd have been dead before they had a chance to even get to court.
18 USC 930 (b) is what they were charged with, and that criminalizes the possession of firearms with the intent that said firearm be used in the commission of a crime.
The jury didn't find a conspiracy, or any other crime, and trespass was not a crime they were charged with. Logically, without finding another crime, they couldn't be guilty of violating 18 USC 930 (b).
this is what i was trying to get at.
so those other charges could still be pending for a federal court? or something.
Why weren't there more charges? Trespassing seems like a slam dunk, breaking and entering, destruction of government property, burglary, these are all absolutely charges that could have been tacked on.
A good question I doubt Billy Williams will answer any time soon unfortunately.
They also DID charge them with stealing and destroying govt property. The jury acquitted.
0
Options
Dr. ChaosPost nuclear nuisanceRegistered Userregular
What exactly would a jury be moved by here?
The plight of armed lunatics destroying land, screaming into cameras about wanting to start a civil war and urging people to kill police officers?
Well they've just assured that this will absolutely happen again. If they hadn't also been charged for past crimes in Nevada they would be getting off completely free for an armed takeover of a federal facility. Like, what the fuck.
18 USC 930 (b) is what they were charged with, and that criminalizes the possession of firearms with the intent that said firearm be used in the commission of a crime.
The jury didn't find a conspiracy, or any other crime, and trespass was not a crime they were charged with. Logically, without finding another crime, they couldn't be guilty of violating 18 USC 930 (b).
I bet you that loophole gets closed real quick, if that's the case.
There's no plan, there's no race to be run
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
18 USC 930 (b) is what they were charged with, and that criminalizes the possession of firearms with the intent that said firearm be used in the commission of a crime.
The jury didn't find a conspiracy, or any other crime, and trespass was not a crime they were charged with. Logically, without finding another crime, they couldn't be guilty of violating 18 USC 930 (b).
this is what i was trying to get at.
so those other charges could still be pending for a federal court? or something.
What other charges? On this indictment, they have all been acquitted, except for one where the jury was hung.
A federal jury on Thursday found Ammon Bundy, his brother Ryan Bundy and five co-defendants not guilty of conspiring to prevent federal employees from doing their jobs through intimidation, threat or force during the 41-day occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.
The Bundy brothers and occupiers Jeff Banta and David Fry also were found not guilty of having guns in a federal facility. Kenneth Medenbach was found not guilty of stealing government property, and a hung jury was declared on Ryan Bundy's charge of theft of FBI surveillance cameras.
It's actually incredibly depressing that 12 days away from an election that may result in armed conflict in the US, an armed militia is validated in the courts and there's no repercussions for their actions.
Supporters of the defendants gathered in a joyous hug. One of them, Brand Thornton of Las Vegas, said he had been one of the original occupiers and that he has been at the trial since Oct. 2.
The verdict "means everything," Thornton said. It's huge for ranchers and land rights within Harney County and across the West, he said.
"We did something peaceful and wanted to stay peaceful," said Thornton, who described himself as a close friend of the defendants and stressed that peaceful protest at the occupation was hammered into everyone's from Day 1.
"This is for the people of Oregon," Thornton said. "This was never for us."
FUCK YOU. WE DIDN'T WANT YOUR BULLSHIT SEDITIOUS ACTIONS. LEAVE.
CrayonSleeps in the wrong bed.TejasRegistered Userregular
Guys...guys...this is bullshit, but they still haven't faced federal charges. It's almost guaranteed where this is where they'll get kicked in the teeth and sent to jail for 20+ years.
+1
Options
GnomeTankWhat the what?Portland, OregonRegistered Userregular
edited October 2016
I love it when people come to another state they aren't residents of, do something ridiculously illegal, destroy sacred grounds to natives from this area and then have the gal to claim "It was all for you Oregonians, we just want you to be free man!". What in the actual fuck.
Guys...guys...this is bullshit, but they still haven't faced federal charges. It's almost guaranteed where this is where they'll get kicked in the teeth and sent to jail for 20+ years.
Why weren't there more charges? Trespassing seems like a slam dunk, breaking and entering, destruction of government property, burglary, these are all absolutely charges that could have been tacked on.
i am guessing because on Friday their federal case starts, and the Federal and States attorneys worked out a plan to end up with the greatest impact(chance of winning x punishment). Given they can only be charged for each offence in one or the other jurisdiction.
seems like this state stuff was kinda hard to prove bullshit that the Federal prosecutor didn't want.
or i watch too much tv
edit: apparently not. prosecuting attorney seems to have made some damn questionable choices.
Posts
That's old and yesterday's news.
They are charged with a shitload more crimes, but this one was literally self evident. They had guns with them on camera.
would you mind linking something that says this was one of the things they were charged with in this case?
There was a literal fucking shootout with the FBI in which people died! I'm pretty sure that should qualify under "force, intimidation, and threats"!
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/crime/verdict-near-in-malheur-wildlife-refuge-standoff-trial/
"PORTLAND — Jurors on Thursday acquitted the leaders of a standoff at a national wildlife refuge in Oregon of conspiracy and possession of firearms at a federal facility
The verdict came after a five-week federal trial the group who took over the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.
Standoff leaders Ammon and Ryan Bundy and five others were charged with conspiring to impede federal workers from their jobs at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. Several also had faced the firearms charge."
DoctorArch also linked a statute last page
did that shootout even occur in Oregon?
Yes it did. But the only person who shot was killed.
pleasepaypreacher.net
I believe he is referencing the shooting at the end of the standoff where Finicum was shot
I wonder if now his family can sue the FBI and win for wrongful death. I mean clearly he was doing nothing wrong up until his death according to this trial.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Here's the indictment: Link.
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
BLM lives matter. As do mineral rights.
Either there is something brought up over trial that I'm COMPLETELY oblivious to, or the prosecution completely fucked themselves in jury selection/voir dire. I'm literally beside myself.
18 USC 930 (b) is what they were charged with, and that criminalizes the possession of firearms with the intent that said firearm be used in the commission of a crime.
The jury didn't find a conspiracy, or any other crime, and trespass was not a crime they were charged with. Logically, without finding another crime, they couldn't be guilty of violating 18 USC 930 (b).
Oh I know
How was there not a conspiracy? They didn't all just show up spontaneously on their own. (I assume this is due to some technical definition of conspiracy.)
@redx
Okay so it makes sense even though they were fairly obviously, I thought, guilty of the conspiracy charges. The not guilty on the theft and depradation charges appears to be straight up nullification, then.
Suggestion "Occupiers"
this is what i was trying to get at.
so those other charges could still be pending for a federal court? or something.
A good question I doubt Billy Williams will answer any time soon unfortunately.
They also DID charge them with stealing and destroying govt property. The jury acquitted.
The plight of armed lunatics destroying land, screaming into cameras about wanting to start a civil war and urging people to kill police officers?
I bet you that loophole gets closed real quick, if that's the case.
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
What other charges? On this indictment, they have all been acquitted, except for one where the jury was hung.
http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/10/oregon_standoff_verdicts_annou.html#incart_big-photo
A federal jury on Thursday found Ammon Bundy, his brother Ryan Bundy and five co-defendants not guilty of conspiring to prevent federal employees from doing their jobs through intimidation, threat or force during the 41-day occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.
The Bundy brothers and occupiers Jeff Banta and David Fry also were found not guilty of having guns in a federal facility. Kenneth Medenbach was found not guilty of stealing government property, and a hung jury was declared on Ryan Bundy's charge of theft of FBI surveillance cameras.
FUCK YOU. WE DIDN'T WANT YOUR BULLSHIT SEDITIOUS ACTIONS. LEAVE.
White people having sad times. Oregon's history as a white supremacist enclave is relevant here, I'm guessing.
In Nevada, against the Bundys, yes.
Crayon, this was a federal case. Federal jury.
i am guessing because on Friday their federal case starts, and the Federal and States attorneys worked out a plan to end up with the greatest impact(chance of winning x punishment). Given they can only be charged for each offence in one or the other jurisdiction.
seems like this state stuff was kinda hard to prove bullshit that the Federal prosecutor didn't want.
or i watch too much tv
edit: apparently not. prosecuting attorney seems to have made some damn questionable choices.