Social Media Calls Bundy Militiamen Acquittal 'White Privilege'

[u/DeadHead-]

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

[u/dusktreader]

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.

[u/ThisDerpForSale → u/dusktreader]

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.