Militants who seized Federal Wildlife Refuge Acquited on all charges

[Ralin]

I think you and Thanas are both missing the point that the FBI wasn't particularly concerned about the militia itself on the grounds that they were cowardly and incompetent and could pretty much be rolled up whenever the cops decided to no matter how much chance they had to dig in. They wanted to do it bloodlessly because they remembered that Waco and Ruby Ridge inspired Timothy McVeigh and Oklahoma City. And you only need one McVeigh to be worse than a dozen militia takeovers.

[Flagg]

Ahh, America. Where a bunch of armed traitors can seize protected land with little action, but peaceful protestors can't stand on their own land without jackbooted thugs attacking them.

[The Romulan Republic]

I think you and Thanas are both missing the point that the FBI wasn't particularly concerned about the militia itself on the grounds that they were cowardly and incompetent and could pretty much be rolled up whenever the cops decided to no matter how much chance they had to dig in. They wanted to do it bloodlessly because they remembered that Waco and Ruby Ridge inspired Timothy McVeigh and Oklahoma City. And you only need one McVeigh to be worse than a dozen militia takeovers.

I did mention that it was a good idea to avoid making martyrs of these people. Because yes, that can inspire further bloodshed, just as much as an appearance of weakness or tolerance for such behaviour can.

[maraxus2]

I disagree, sitting back only allowed them to grow bolder, reinforce their defenses. FFS they still had mail delivered to them. They weren't even starved out.

If this had been the black panthers SWAT would have been on them in minutes.

It also made them look extremely silly. Seizing the nature reserve did little real good for the group, plus it got one of them killed.

I agree re: the leniency shown these dinguses, especially these are folks who have nothing to cry about. Especially because of how much they deserved to be persecuted to the level they think they were. But what real good did this to to bring federal attention to public land use? These people, especially Cliven Bundy, were supposed to be the spearhead for a strong effort to sell off public land, and they fucked it all up.

Undoubtedly they drew similar doofuses to the cause, but are they much more of a threat to public safety than, say, organized crime?

[Zaune]

I can't say I'm all that upset, honestly. I mean, when you get right down to it they were basically staging a sit-in protest; that's constitutionally protected free speech, even if they are full of shit.

[The Romulan Republic]

Most sit-in protests aren't heavily armed, are they?

[Ralin]

Most sit-in protests aren't heavily armed, are they?

The guns were just there for emphasis.

[Thanas]

Maybe, maybe not, but either way, they'd have been wrong to do that, and I don't think one poor decision can be balanced by another.

The correct response to the problem of law enforcement using excessive force is to stop using excessive force, not make sure they use excessive force every time, just to be fair.

It is not excessive force. If you are armed and threaten to shoot the rightful owners of the place you are not able to cry excessive force if SWAT rolls your ass.

We have a state precisely so that not every asshole can go back to the medieval times and just occupy land by force. The state has a monopoly on the use of force until it misuses that force to abuse those it is supposed to protect.

You can stage a sit-in. You can stage a political protest. Heck, you may even do it while armed. The moment that descends into vandalism on an extreme scale fueled by racism you lose all rights to it.

I can't say I'm all that upset, honestly. I mean, when you get right down to it they were basically staging a sit-in protest; that's constitutionally protected free speech, even if they are full of shit.

If a sit-in in washington would degenerate into looting a museum and smashing artifacts as well as destroying historical landmarks it would not be a sit-in either.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I can't say I'm all that upset, honestly. I mean, when you get right down to it they were basically staging a sit-in protest; that's constitutionally protected free speech, even if they are full of shit.

In a sit in, you are not heavily armed. You also do not typically claim ownership of the property and rename it to suit your purpose, demanding that it be legally ceded to you. Nor do you go into court later and argue the doctrine of Adverse Possession, which is basically Right of Conquest.

[Honorius]

Clearly the whackjobs hired Romo Lampkin to get them off.

Seriously, this case was more air tight than an airlock and the prosecution lost?

Well I guess the IRS can nab them on tax evasion if nothing else. Its how they got Al Capone off the streets after all.

[Ralin]

Well I guess the IRS can nab them on tax evasion if nothing else. Its how they got Al Capone off the streets after all.

Remember what happened the last time the government went after Bundy because he owed them money?

[Honorius]

Well I guess the IRS can nab them on tax evasion if nothing else. Its how they got Al Capone off the streets after all.

Remember what happened the last time the government went after Bundy because he owed them money?

Yes, they sent the BLM to collect and they botched it. The IRS would have gone at night before Bundy could call his fellow nuts and collected everything before he knew what hit him.

[PainRack]

Gods.....

It seems that because Bundy didnt incite violence, he was able to get away with this via jury nullification.

This despite the intimidation of workers by alt right movements in the town and what had to be laughable defence such as i a legal idiot.....

On one hand, i can see their perspective of no harm no foul but the law n order side of me is horrified.

[Patroklos]

I can't say I'm all that upset, honestly. I mean, when you get right down to it they were basically staging a sit-in protest; that's constitutionally protected free speech, even if they are full of shit.

The equivalency is correct. I am not sure why you think sit in protests enjoy a blanket immunity from following other laws through the first amendment.

[Zeropoint]

Ahh, America. Where a bunch of armed traitors can seize protected land with little action, but peaceful protestors can't stand on their own land without jackbooted thugs attacking them.

I know, right? I bet that when the cops finally get around to murdering some of the Dakota Access Pipeline protestors, the surviving victims will get convicted of something. (This isn't sarcasm, by the way)

[Flagg]

Ahh, America. Where a bunch of armed traitors can seize protected land with little action, but peaceful protestors can't stand on their own land without jackbooted thugs attacking them.

I know, right? I bet that when the cops finally get around to murdering some of the Dakota Access Pipeline protestors, the surviving victims will get convicted of something. (This isn't sarcasm, by the way)

Assault on a law enforcement officer for hitting the cops fist with their face, most likely.

[Edi]

What this will do is embolden all other similar nutcases to pull off similar bullshit and now that the Bundys got off without punishment, it makes another Waco or Ruby Ridge more likely, not less.

Whenever an unarmed black man is shot to death by police, there is no shortage of right wing trolls like Patroklos to make every excuse to get them off the cops off even when there is direct video evidence of murder, but racist redneck hicks like Bundy engaging in armed insurrection and pointing guns at government officials and police is a-okay.

I predict that we will see more of the same, until the feds take a hard line and start applying a policy of "pointing guns at federal law enforcement results in being instantly shot without warning" and make a few high profile examples.

[Rogue 9]

I'm told, though haven't confirmed, that the Oregonian got its headline wrong; this trial was for the federal conspiracy and gun charges, and the trespassing and destruction of property charges have yet to be tried. I'll try to find confirmation, but I greatly trust the source I heard it from.

[Simon_Jester]

I can't say I'm all that upset, honestly. I mean, when you get right down to it they were basically staging a sit-in protest; that's constitutionally protected free speech, even if they are full of shit.

The equivalency is correct. I am not sure why you think sit in protests enjoy a blanket immunity from following other laws through the first amendment.

The original intent of a sit-in protest involved accepting that you'd get thrown in jail. The whole point is to say "we have a right to be here, and if you want to take us out of here, you're going to have to do it in chains." The act of you being arrested is supposed to draw attention to the injustice of the situation- that yes, there are places you CAN get arrested for going.*

Personally, I believe that mercy should be shown in sentencing protestors, so long as the protestors are not dangerous in a direct, concrete sense.

However, this intent (and the idea of showing mercy) is subverted when the protestors are armed and commit deliberate property destruction. Because now it is not a question of the protestors being arrested or harassed purely because they are in "the wrong place" or saying "the wrong thing" or saying it too loudly or being there too long. Now they are actively threatening others, and abusing the property of others.

This is the line between protest and rebellion.

Protest is a legitimate part of our social system even if it is sometimes punished, because it accepts the legitimacy of the system even as it seeks to change it. Armed rebellion is NOT a legitimate part of our social system, it is an attempt to destroy that system and replace it, or at least to replace it with a new set of rules for the rebels themselves.

To make a long story short, if you are a legitimate sit-in protestor, you don't make Youtube videos where you say "hur hur sure hope them FEDS don't come up here for a whuppin' " while lovingly caressing the action of your shotgun.
________________________________

*This is rather more respectable when you're an African-American claiming the right to sit at the same lunch counter as whites, than when you are a guy claiming the right to occupy random pieces of property that don't belong to you because, um, reasons...

[Simon_Jester]

I think the government made the right call, in hindsight, not to storm them. Not only because of the immediate damage and casualties it could have caused, but because it would have allowed the far Right to make these nuts into martyrs, victims of a government crackdown and potentially victims of a massacre (and remember that for a time, their were children on the site). That could have been far worse.

The problem is, this is now going to happen anyway, because there will predictably be another such incident, and another, and another, until another Waco convinces the far right that the government is capable of playing for keeps, while another Oklahoma City bombing destroys the general public's sympathy for them. Again, because apparently the current generation of idiots did is incapable of processing the lessons of the previous generation.

Did you pay no attention to the trial? The judge constantly shut down the defendants' sovereign citizen arguments and sustained some ridiculously high number which I can't remember off the top of my head of objections by the prosecution. Exactly what else do you think she should have done short of shoving the courtroom flag pole up their butts while telling them to shut up about the fringe on it?

There comes a point where persistently disruptive behavior by the defense leads to contempt of court. Judges DO have that 'final argument' to shut down grossly unworthy behavior.

Maybe, maybe not, but either way, they'd have been wrong to do that, and I don't think one poor decision can be balanced by another.

The correct response to the problem of law enforcement using excessive force is to stop using excessive force, not make sure they use excessive force every time, just to be fair.

Again, their were children on the site. Tell me why they deserved to potentially end up in bodybags for their parents' craven stupidity.

What happens when- not if, but when- the next bunch of rebellious bozos who want to have a go at the feds decide to use their own children as human shields? And the next, and the next? Because it's going to happen again, seeing as how it's already happened at least twice.

During the American Civil War, in the opening battle, there were sightseers who came to watch the first Battle of Bull Run in carriages. They rather quickly learned that it is neither safe nor wise to bring noncombatants toward a war zone. But if that lesson is not taught, it is never learned. And I predict that you will keep seeing crazed pistol-waving 'parents' who think it proper to bring their own children along to watch them tell the federal government "you're not the boss of me!"

If they want to come ready for a war, they shouldn't bring children. If they don't want a war, they shouldn't bring weapons. You can't have it both ways.

[Mr Bean]

So did anyone, and I mean ANYONE bother to look into the case at all? Like Federal Marshals tasing the defense lawyer against the judges orders? or the fact that the prosecution had 15 confidential sources in the occupation To put that for the non Americans in the crowd, "confidential sources" in this context does not mean one of the militia who turned his coat but a police informant or out and out federal or state agent who infiltrated the militia in order to feed information to officials and take actions.

Or in other words the Prosecution told the jury that of the militia there were fifteen separate people working for the cops and per the defense (Which it seems the jury believed) they were the ones who were undertaking violent actions and ferrying guns into the occupation.

Or to put it another way, the defensive probably successfully convinced the jury that the entire thing from start to finish was a government operation to oppress the poor old militiamen. However said militia still have another possible two trials to face for other incidents so this is simply a temporary setback for the state. We still have the crimes caught on video to be prosecuted for.

*Edit
Frankly the shear number of people the government admitted were not real militiamen but plants is worrying for the future trials.

[Ralin]

There comes a point where persistently disruptive behavior by the defense leads to contempt of court. Judges DO have that 'final argument' to shut down grossly unworthy behavior.

It's not a final argument when it leads to a defense attorney arguing down the line that their client has grounds for appeal because the judge shut down their defense. Or even if it convinces enough fence sitters that's what happened. Or gee, it convinces one or more jurors that the court is totally bullying the defendants. The judge had every reason to err on the side of caution in insuring there was absolutely nothing that could fuck things up. As demonstrated by, you know. What happened.

I'm told, though haven't confirmed, that the Oregonian got its headline wrong; this trial was for the federal conspiracy and gun charges, and the trespassing and destruction of property charges have yet to be tried. I'll try to find confirmation, but I greatly trust the source I heard it from.

I've heard much the same thing. Can't remember the specific charges other than trespassing, but there are still several that fall under the state of Oregon's jurisdiction and which they could still press charges for.

Whether or not the state of Oregon wants to do this after seeing what most would probably agree is a much stronger federal case shot down when whichever prosecutor who makes this decision likely has to answer to a constituency that resembles the jury that just acquitted these same defendants is another question.

[Simon_Jester]

I'm going to take a step back because I agree with Bean. I can understand why the federal government maintains extensive networks of infiltrators in a group like Bundy's renegades... But it does leave the federal government open to charges that their infiltrator(s) acted in the role of agent provocateur, in which case the renegades get to plead entrapment if they can present even a little evidence to support the claim.

[Joun_Lord]

I think that gets in the the territory of like when the FBI needles some extremist into a plot, gives them the materials (hopefully always inert) to build a bomb, and then arrests the fuckers, something like the 2009 Bronx terrorism plot. The argument has been put forward that its an FBI plot, that the extremists morons would have just remained extremist morons but non-violent ones without the FBI pushing them into it.

Of course the persons still attempted to commit a crime, wannabe Jihadists or right wing rednecks still tried to blow up whatever even if the bomb was a dud, they did that of their own free will. But after plenty of pushing and incentivizing by the big bad gubmint to do so.

This also falls under the debate of just how proactive law enforcement should be. Of course coppers should try to stop crimes but what about creating crime to stop? Finding criminal prone people and pushing them to do stupid shit? Some might argue its entrapment and coercing what were innocent people into committing crimes. Others argue its getting people who would have committed a crime anyway to commit their crime in a safe manner. And of course the fact the police can show how they stopped a plot doesn't hurt either.

My personal opinion is if the government agents at Malheur tried pushing the fucktarded dicksuckers into doing shit we might be getting into a grey area. They cowfucking morons still did the crime but by government direction. If the agents were doing the crimes too, smashing pottery or whatever, then they should probably be charged too even though they were working on government orders.

And the fact that irreplaceable artifacts were being destroyed, public land was being wrecked, government property was being accessed and stolen is why I don't see this as just a protest.

Even armed if they goddamn mouthbreathers had just sat around singing America the Great sooooo terribly they should be a National Anthem singer at a fucking NFL game that would have been fine by me. Well not fine but it would or should have been legal. Protesting even disruptively is part of free speech. Letting morons who nobody with even half a brain should agree with (which shows you exactly why so many fucking Republicans agree with them) do their protests is part of free speech too. Being armed guarantees their right to free speech though if only used in a defensive manner.

But free speech and the right to protest does not cover theft and destruction of property. The right to bear arms does not cover threatening government employees who are not threatening you or are trying to uphold the law. This is why the occupation of Malheur wasn't the same as some greasy college kids sitting on Wall St or some fatass rednecks sitting around whining about Obama......I mean taxes, yeah taxes.

[Mr Bean]

Again Joun_Lord those parts of the incident are still yet to be argued in court. This case was specifically about other issues related to the occupation not the occupation itself and the actions occurring during said occupation.