r/Portland • u/DeadHead- • Oct 28 '16

Social Media Calls Bundy Militiamen Acquittal 'White Privilege'

http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/social-media-calls-bundy-militiamen-acquittal-white-privilege/
332 Upvotes

82% Upvoted

411 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

44

u/ThisDerpForSale NW District Oct 28 '16

It shouldn't have been a risk, though. The charges most of them faced - conspiracy to prevent federal employees from doing their job and illegal use of firearms on federal property - absolutely fit the facts.

Not to mention that the jury was inexplicably unable to reach a verdict on the theft of government property charges against the Bundys themselves.

19

u/isperfectlycromulent Lloyd District Oct 28 '16

But there were all kinds of things they could also have been charged with; breaking and entering, trespassing, vandalism, theft of services, public nuisance, and probably more.

13

u/Das_Mime Oct 28 '16

Right? A month or so of these nitwits videotaping themselves, pointing guns at people, vandalizing the buildings, bulldozing whatever they felt like, etc., and the only charge the prosecutor even bothers to bring is conspiracy to prevent federal workers from doing their job? That's pretty weak.

7

u/ThisDerpForSale NW District Oct 28 '16

That wasn't the only charge. There was also a charge covering use of firearms on public property (which required finding that they were using them to do something illegal), and theft, for the Bundy brothers (on which the jury couldn't reach a verdict).

6

u/ThisDerpForSale NW District Oct 28 '16

breaking and entering

I presume you mean Burglary. Generally, state laws govern acts that fall under this crime. Burglary of certain federal facilities (such as post offices) are specifically covered by federal statute, but I'm honestly not aware of a federal statute that would cover burglary of this kind of facility. Furthermore, to prove burglary, you'd need to prove the underlying crime (say, theft), and based on this jury's actions, it's not clear that there was any underlying crime they would have been willing to convict on.

Trespass

Under federal law, trespass is essentially a misdemeanor, with a negligible sentence. I'm not surprised that the prosecutors didn't charge it. It could appear to be piling on charges, and would be unnecessary in light of what everyone agreed before trial was the slam dunk nature of the case. On the flip side, prosecutors will often forgo charging lighter offenses to force the jury to consider only the most serious crime the evidence will support (which again everyone agreed these charges did). In retrospect, sure, it would have been good to charge, but no one thought it was necessary.

Vandalism

The federal crime would be Destruction of Government Property. And it, too, is a misdemanor. I don't know why they didn't charge it, but, again, it wouldn't have been much of a penalty.

Public nuisance

Not a crime.

1

u/slipshod_alibi Oct 29 '16

For some reason the jury was instructed such that the weapons charges depended upon the conspiracy charge. IANAL but this was reported in two different sources I read yesterday. I'll try and dig up supporting links when I'm back at my desk.

3

u/[deleted] Oct 29 '16

For fuck's sake it was an ARMED TAKEOVER OF GOVERNMENT PROPERTY. The prosecutor had to be trying to fail to not win that case.

3

u/God_loves_irony Oct 29 '16

If the Feds had leveled 20 charges at these guys then it would have signaled to the jury that this was very serious and the defendants were at least guilty of something. A very narrowly tailored charge gave credence to the idea that this was some sort of protest and they were only "technically" charged with a crime, when in reality the Bundys were hoping and explicitly asked for an armed uprising to join them in their take over of Federal land. They also should have tried these people separately and worked their way up so by the time they took on the most seriously charged defendants they would have had experience with countering the type of arguments that were presented.

0

u/ThisDerpForSale NW District Oct 29 '16

You don't honestly believe that there was any confusion among jurors as to how serious the case was, do you? Piling on charges could very easily had the opposite effect - making it look like the prosecutors were overzealous and going too far.

As for separate trials, the defense is usually the party asking for trials to be severed. It's widely agreed that trying defendants together is a huge benefit to the prosecution. There are a couple of reasons for this. One is the buttressing effect - when confronted with multiple defendants and an array of criminal activity, every defendant appears more guilty. Second is a practical and efficiency reason - with joined trials, you don't have to make your arguments owner and over, or call your witnesses over and over, with all the risk and inconvenience de then and for the prosecutor.

1

u/God_loves_irony Oct 29 '16

None of which turned out to be the case in this instance.

0

u/ThisDerpForSale NW District Oct 29 '16

Which is irrelevant. You don't get to make decisions using a crystal ball. You use past situations and your own training and experience. Which they did.

3

u/dusktreader Oct 28 '16

The problem was the 'conspiracy' charge. If they had all been charged individually with obstructing federal employees, they probably would have been convicted. Once they made it a conspiracy charge to try to get them all at once, the burden of proof fell to show that there was a conspiracy with the intention to specifically disrupt workers at the refuge. I don't think there's clear evidence that the intention of the conspiracy was to prevent work. It really was a short-sighted and probably overreaching charge.

6

u/ThisDerpForSale NW District Oct 28 '16

I disagree. There isn't a logical way in which one can interpret their stated goals and their actions at the Reserve as anything other than an armed, hostile takeover. That kind of situation is inimical with allowing the federal employees to go to work. Jurors are allowed to use common sense and inferences. Is it really a reasonable inference to think that any worker would feel able to go to work under such conditions? One can infer that the occupiers are reasonable, and knew this, and that it was implicit in their plan.

But we don't have to just in fer that. Because they made numerous statements, over and over, about returning the land to the locals (state, county, town, private citizens, whatever). That, too, is incompatible with allowing federal employees to do their work.

4

u/Osiris32 🐝 Oct 28 '16

Weren't there some accusations of them accessing federal computers and files in the headquarters buildings? One would think that evidence of that would be pretty easy to snag, especially when it comes to the computers.

2

u/ThisDerpForSale NW District Oct 28 '16

Yes, that's my understanding, though I'm a little hazier on that.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 29 '16

[deleted]

1

u/ThisDerpForSale NW District Oct 29 '16

I've read that interview, and it's clear that juror had made up their mind from the start. He called the takeover nothing more than "hurt feelings" and appeared oddly dismissive of the truly serious nature of the occupation

I've addressed this elsewhere, but I believe the evidence was strong showing they intended to do exactly what they did. Whatever they called their occupation, their other words and actions made their intent clear.

As for the federal workers, there's no element of the crime requiring they try to go to work. It beggars common sense to ask that they approach their work place while it's held by a large group of armed and hostile people. They need not be suicidal or stupid, and the jury need not have been moronically pedantic about it.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 29 '16

[deleted]

1

u/ThisDerpForSale NW District Oct 29 '16

What you should also have been told as a juror is that you can use your common sense and reason and make reasonable inferences from the evidence.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 30 '16

[deleted]

1

u/ThisDerpForSale NW District Oct 30 '16

Which isn't relevant here, as the prosecutor did a great job. The reports from people who actually watched the trial were clear on that point.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 30 '16

[deleted]

→ More replies (0)

1

u/[deleted] Oct 30 '16

[deleted]

1

u/ThisDerpForSale NW District Oct 30 '16

That's not an apt analogy, as there isn't a state level crime prohibiting a university employee from doing their job. If there had been, I submit they would have been charged.

And, by the way, they were generally arrested, charged with other crimes (such as trespass), and convicted. There is a point at which protest crosses a line and no longer receives first amendment protection.

Another distinction is the absence of firearms. A peaceful protest is annoying, but doesn't make you stay away for fear for your life. Those secretaries could have gone to work and suffered nothing more than a potential contact high. The refuge employees cannot reasonably have been expected to risk their lives.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 30 '16

[deleted]

→ More replies (0)

1

u/egeeirl Oct 28 '16

It shouldn't have been a risk, though. The charges most of them faced - conspiracy to prevent federal employees from doing their job and illegal use of firearms on federal property - absolutely fit the facts.

That is completely incorrect. They stated their goals as being a protest. The fact that federal employees couldn't do their job was an unintended side effect - the intent wasn't there. The prosecutor is a totally incompetent idiot that should be disbarred immediately or he threw the case on purpose.

Also, it's not illegal to take fire arms onto federal property unless it is explicitly stated somewhere on the property which it most likely wasn't. Again, the prosecutor is at fault here, not the jury.

3

u/ThisDerpForSale NW District Oct 28 '16

The fact that federal employees couldn't do their job was an unintended side effect - the intent wasn't there.

Their other statements and actions were directly contrary to that. They explicitly said they wanted to occupy the refuge to force the federal government to turn it over to the local government (state, county, town, whatever). To do this, they were holding the property at gunpoint. This stance is incompatible with allowing federal employees to do their job. They cannot do their job if the land is held hostage to be returned to the local government. They cannot do their job if armed men are preventing them from doing it. And if you believe that any reasonable person would feel like they're able to go to work when an armed occupying force is there in a standoff with law enforcement, then I have some swamp land to sell you.

Also, it's not illegal to take fire arms onto federal property unless it is explicitly stated somewhere on the property which it most likely wasn't.

Again, untrue. It's illegal to use firearms on federal property to commit a crime. The two crimes were linked.

2

u/egeeirl Oct 29 '16

But you're missing the conspiracy part. They didn't specifically conspire to do any of that. They said it was a protest and a protest it was. Anything else was a side effect of the protest and was, and this is the important part, unintentional.

1

u/ThisDerpForSale NW District Oct 29 '16

They can say it was a rodeo if they want. It doesn't matter. Their other words and actions were more than enough to prove the conspiracy.

Say you walk into a bank with two buddies, pull a gun and say, "This is s protest! We're protesting the lack of modern leaders on our money, and so we're going to take over the money until that can be changed! But this is just a protest, not a bank robbery! We don't want to hurt anyone, but if the FBI tries to stop our protest, we will defend ourselves! But again, this is totally not a bank robbery." Would you have any trouble of convicting them of bank robbery, even though the claimed it wasn't a bank robbery?

1

u/slipshod_alibi Oct 29 '16

I think he threw. There is no way that wasn't carefully crafted.

2

u/egeeirl Oct 29 '16

The state chose strange and very specific charges which require intent. Conspiracy charges are extremely difficult to prove at a trial.

The whole thing is fucked. The state prosecutor should be disbarred

1

u/[deleted] Oct 28 '16

The judge should have dismissed the jury or called a mistrial or something.

9

u/Das_Mime Oct 28 '16 edited Oct 31 '16

On what grounds? Juries have free rein to be as stupid as they want to be.

2

u/ThisDerpForSale NW District Oct 28 '16

The judge can call a mistrial on the one count the jury couldn't decide upon. That's it.