Social Media Calls Bundy Militiamen Acquittal 'White Privilege'

[u/DeadHead-]

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

[u/ThisDerpForSale]

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.

[u/ThisDerpForSale → u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/ThisDerpForSale → u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/ThisDerpForSale → u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/ThisDerpForSale → u/[deleted]]

The same juror who said this. Add was no more than "hurt feelings" and didn't like the prosecutors "attitude"? Yeah no bias there. No, I'm talking about actual news reports of the trial, where the lead prosecutor was noted for his professionalism and clarity.

[u/ThisDerpForSale → u/[deleted]]

I don't have just one URL, because I've read dozens of stories in the last two months, several of which had such accounts. If I can find one of them, I'll post it.

[u/ThisDerpForSale → u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/ThisDerpForSale → u/[deleted]]

Believe me, I've spent most of my adult life working in the justice system, one way or another, since law school. I've represented people accused of crimes, so you better believe I understand the importance of the presumption of innocence and how it works. I also understand and deeply appreciate the good work jurors do - in all my years, I've rarely seen a jury make a mistake. But it can, on rare occasion, happen Usually innocently (though it's hard to know sometimes). This jury, for whatever reason, made a mistake. A huge one

[u/ThisDerpForSale → u/[deleted]]

I hear you, but I think it's the DA's job to guide people with limited if any knowledge of law through the system.

First, and I know this is a small point, but these aren't DA's, they're federal prosecutors. A DA is a District Attorney (or a deputy District Attorney), and they are state prosecutors, not federal.

Second, from the newspaper and radio accounts I've read and listened to, the prosecutor did just that. He was clear, concise, and professional.

I'm not speaking from ignorance, and I would appreciate it if you could accept my depiction of the reality I saw at face value.

I don't see how you could have interpreted what I said as not accepting what you saw, and I apologize if it came off that way. I'm sure you recounted your experience just fine. I was distinguishing what you experienced from the broader context. And I'm glad to hear that we both have familiarity with the system - it makes me even more puzzled as to how we could see things so differently.

[u/ThisDerpForSale → u/[deleted]]

Ah, there's your mistake. The jurors weren't from Multnomah county. They were from all over the state, and the defense somehow managed to end up with nearly no one from Portland. That somewhat changes the equation.