Jury finds all members of Wildlife Refugee Standoff, NOT GUILTY - Polidicks

[QUOTE=CroGamer002;51272871]Shooting at cops is now a peaceful protest in Oregorn, according to this trial. Just think about it. Just fucking think about this shit! This is fucking terrible precedent![/QUOTE] It's been a while since I read about this case, but when did they shoot at cops? To my knowledge only LaVoy Finicum shot at FBI officers, and was killed during an arrest attempt. The rest were loudmouthed armed jackasses who basically just squatted on federal land. Correct me if I missed anything. In addition, someone said in the other thread about this that the jury found them not guilty on the grounds that there were [I]fifteen[/I] undercover cops and federal agents in the Bundy group. With that many people undercover, it's [I]very[/I] hard to prove malicious intent and that there was no element of coercion or entrapment. So the precedent here, if any, is this: If the federal government fills a private organization with undercover agents, they shouldn't be surprised if a jury refuses to hold that organization accountable for their subsequent actions. To be honest, I'm surprised that they're not going to jail- but the jury's argument is reasonable.

[QUOTE=Propane Addict;51271465]How how how how how????? A couple of them were charged with possesing a firearm in a federal facility, that's not a matter of opinion, they literally had firearms in a federal facility. What the fuck is wrong with the jury?[/QUOTE] Because 18 USC § 930 is possession while committing a crime (which didn't happen, since the jury acquitted them of the other charges) or possession without a lawful purpose, which is difficult to prove, rarely used, and only lightly punished. Can't have one without the other, but nobody knows why they acquitted on the other. My guess is it's because the government refused to identify its informants and refused to identify who brought the guns, and the defense found one informant to get up on the stand and they argued that he likely brought the guns and encouraged them to occupy. The prosecution wouldn't say anything about any of this, the jury felt like they were being sneaky bullshitters, and nullified to spite them. But it's just a guess.

I'm very curious what the federal government is doing with 145,604 acres of land. Technically it shouldn't have it under the US Constitution unless there is a very specific purpose. There is an Enclave Clause that specifically lists what reasons the federal government may own land that is apart of a state. This was to prevent the federal government from usurping a State government by basically declaring all of that State to be Federal land. I don't agree with what Bundy and co did, but that is one hell of a fuck up situation there. The federal government basically owns all the land around him. And specifically forces him to pay a fee for the cattle to graze on it. And that seems to be the only reason (collecting grazing fees) that the federal government owns all that land.

[QUOTE=Kigen;51273311]I'm very curious what the federal government is doing with 145,604 acres of land. Technically it shouldn't have it under the US Constitution unless there is a very specific purpose. There is an Enclave Clause that specifically lists what reasons the federal government may own land that is apart of a state. This was to prevent the federal government from usurping a State government by basically declaring all of that State to be Federal land. I don't agree with what Bundy and co did, but that is one hell of a fuck up situation there. The federal government basically owns all the land around him. And specifically forces him to pay a fee for the cattle to graze on it. And that seems to be the only reason (collecting grazing fees) that the federal government owns all that land.[/QUOTE] the US federal government has owned that land for longer than the bundies have been in America when the Mexican war of 1848 ended, they ceded a large area of land to the federal government who then redistributed the lands and reorganized it into new provinces such as California or Nevada. some of this land was retained throughout this, with the BLM being made responsible for the management of the land at a later date. it charged fees for use of that land for a long time. in 1954 "ted" bundy acquired a permit for this land and grazed his cattle legally upon it without any issue until 1993, when for some reason he stopped paying it and turned into a giant bitch the reason these grazing permits and the like are managed is so as to prevent overgrazing and to ensure that the land is not exhausted from overuse, with some of the fees going towards the common upkeep so that all of the ranchers can utilise the land in a sustainable manner. bundy is a selfish cunt who wants to leach off other peoples hard work - he is extremely unfair to other ranchers by his actions

[QUOTE=Kigen;51273311]I'm very curious what the federal government is doing with 145,604 acres of land. Technically it shouldn't have it under the US Constitution unless there is a very specific purpose. There is an Enclave Clause that specifically lists what reasons the federal government may own land that is apart of a state. This was to prevent the federal government from usurping a State government by basically declaring all of that State to be Federal land. I don't agree with what Bundy and co did, but that is one hell of a fuck up situation there. The federal government basically owns all the land around him. And specifically forces him to pay a fee for the cattle to graze on it. And that seems to be the only reason (collecting grazing fees) that the federal government owns all that land.[/QUOTE] IIRC the specific area that they occupied was a sanctuary for a bird that was going extinct around ~1910. That species if bird has now recovered, so the original cause for the federal government to own the land is now nil.

I dunno, i never like people getting shot and i always feel there is a non-lethal way out but im not a police officer and willing to say this was probably one of the best ways resolved. The legal case seems to have run its course because of technicalities, i read about an informant not coming forward and therefore not testifying etc... so theres that.

[QUOTE=DuCT;51273396]IIRC the specific area that they occupied was a sanctuary for a bird that was going extinct around ~1910. That species if bird has now recovered, so the original cause for the federal government to own the land is now nil.[/QUOTE] the central government owned the land long before that though

[QUOTE=TheBloodyNine;51271829]it would have been considered a terrorist attack.[/QUOTE] They were fuckin' squatting in a park. Jesus you people are overreacting.

[QUOTE=Funktastic Dog;51272816]For anyone that doesn't want to watch a 12 minute video: A shot is fired but doesn't connect, while LaVoy yells "Go ahead and shoot me." repeatedly, a few seconds pass as the police attempt to close in on him. LaVoy then reaches for a gun before he gets lit up. JoeSkylynx: "LaVoy was shot a few times before flying off into the ditch, and still attempted to surrender and was then gunned down, hence why he attempted to react with his own firearm." How are you so wrong when you just posted it?[/QUOTE] Maybe because the situation is rather cleancut? Guy is shot at already, exits vehicle attempting to surrender with hands up, is shot again and reaches for the wounded area, still attempts to raise his hands up, and is shot from behind before looking behind him and grabbing the same wounded area again before being shot up. Seriously, watch the video.

[QUOTE=DuCT;51273396]IIRC the specific area that they occupied was a sanctuary for a bird that was going extinct around ~1910. That species if bird has now recovered, so the original cause for the federal government to own the land is now nil.[/QUOTE] You do know that wildlife sanctuaries just don't disappear, right. If they're owned the government, then they're owned by the government until the government sells it.

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;51275759]Maybe because the situation is rather cleancut? Guy is shot at already, exits vehicle attempting to surrender with hands up, is shot again and reaches for the wounded area, still attempts to raise his hands up, and is shot from behind before looking behind him and grabbing the same wounded area again before being shot up. Seriously, watch the video.[/QUOTE] Maybe you should watch the video, because he is not shot outside the vehicle before he reaches for something at waist-level, then he's gunned down like the moron he is. And yeah, he is a fucking moron, bringing two or three other people with him on his dumb fucking suicide-by-cop adventure, risking their lives despite the conversation in the video quite clearly showing they're not ready to die for their dumb fucking cause. [editline]29th October 2016[/editline] Shooting only happens when 1: He speeds towards a roadblock and runs down a police officer, 2: He leaves a vehicle that is not secured by the police, posing a clear threat since he could come out with weapon in his hand, and 3: When he puts his raised hands up and reaches for his gun. During all the time he has his hands up, and the few seconds where the vehicle is stopped before he opens the door and gets out, the police are not shooting.

[QUOTE=CroGamer002;51272871]Shooting at cops is now a peaceful protest in Oregorn, according to this trial. Just think about it. Just fucking think about this shit! This is fucking terrible precedent![/QUOTE] Who shot at cops?

LA Times has an article about how this happened, including comments from one of the jurors [url]http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-oregon-malheur-legal-defense-20161028-story.html[/url] Best line from it [quote]“My client was arrested in a government truck, and he was acquitted of taking that truck,” said defense attorney Matthew Schindler, who still sounded in disbelief Friday morning.[/quote]

[QUOTE=Code3Response;51275849]You do know that wildlife sanctuaries just don't disappear, right. If they're owned the government, then they're owned by the government until the government sells it.[/QUOTE] Yes, I know that. But the crux of the occupation was that they felt that the land was no longer needed as a wildlife sanctuary, and could be used better by people. So they performed a sit-in. With guns. Going to DC wouldn't have done much.

[QUOTE=DuCT;51276390]Yes, I know that. But the crux of the occupation was that they felt that the land was no longer needed as a wildlife sanctuary, and could be used better by people. So they performed a sit-in. With guns. Going to DC wouldn't have done much.[/QUOTE] usually this takes the form of individuals exploiting the land for their own benefit while refusing to contribute anything back much like with how bundy was grazing his livestock without contributing a penny to the upkeep of the land, it's likely that in wildlife reserves these people would do the same sort of thing (i.e they want more shit for themselves and none of the responsibility)

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;51275759]Maybe because the situation is rather cleancut? Guy is shot at already, exits vehicle attempting to surrender with hands up, is shot again and reaches for the wounded area, still attempts to raise his hands up, and is shot from behind before looking behind him and grabbing the same wounded area again before being shot up. Seriously, watch the video.[/QUOTE] You're correct, it's absolutely cleancut. LaVoy is yelling "Go ahead and shoot me" as he reaches for his fucking pistol. That's why he gets shot up. Funny thing is, same people who say that police shooting down a man reaching for his gun is unjust will say nothing about police killing unarmed black men.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51278188]usually this takes the form of individuals exploiting the land for their own benefit while refusing to contribute anything back much like with how bundy was grazing his livestock without contributing a penny to the upkeep of the land, it's likely that in wildlife reserves these people would do the same sort of thing (i.e they want more shit for themselves and none of the responsibility)[/QUOTE] He DID pay for it, though. The land changed ownership from state to federal, but he continued to send checks to the state.

[QUOTE=Ridge;51280959]He DID pay for it, though. The land changed ownership from state to federal, but he continued to send checks to the state.[/QUOTE] the central government has owned the land since 1848. As far as I am aware he was not alive in 1848, nor did his ancestors own the land nor live in the United States in 1848. the land itself was directly administered by the BLM or its predecessors since 1934, twenty years before he applied for a permit to graze his cattle there. in 1954 he applied for a permit in which he paid fees directly to the BLM for the right to graze cattle on land that had been owned by the federal government for 106 years at that point he stopped paying the fees in 1994 when he had already been paying the central government for 40 years for use of the land. he literally does not have a case and he has been freeloading off of other peoples hard work like a socialist leech

[QUOTE=Ridge;51280959]He DID pay for it, though. The land changed ownership from state to federal, but he continued to send checks to the state.[/QUOTE] So if I break into a person's house and throw checks at the previous owner when the new one tells me to leave, it's all fine?

[QUOTE=Kigen;51273311]I'm very curious what the federal government is doing with 145,604 acres of land. Technically it shouldn't have it under the US Constitution unless there is a very specific purpose. There is an Enclave Clause that specifically lists what reasons the federal government may own land that is apart of a state. This was to prevent the federal government from usurping a State government by basically declaring all of that State to be Federal land. I don't agree with what Bundy and co did, but that is one hell of a fuck up situation there. The federal government basically owns all the land around him. And specifically forces him to pay a fee for the cattle to graze on it. And that seems to be the only reason (collecting grazing fees) that the federal government owns all that land.[/QUOTE] i'm sorry what? the federal government can own land. the enclave clause just gave them the right to setup a capital outside of the laws of a state. the land the federal government owns isn't outside the laws of the state

[QUOTE=Sableye;51281167]i'm sorry what? the federal government can own land. the enclave clause just gave them the right to setup a capital outside of the laws of a state. the land the federal government owns isn't outside the laws of the state[/QUOTE] Federal land, such as a post office for instance, can be outside the jurisdiction of a state. All Congress would have to do is pass a law saying State laws do not apply in a post office for instance. And due to the Supremacy Clause it would indeed be law that State laws do not apply. They do not do this currently because they need the help of local law enforcement. There isn't enough federal law enforcement to go around. Military bases are a good example of this. NSA/CIA facilities are also examples of this.

[QUOTE=Kigen;51281199]Federal land, such as a post office for instance, can be outside the jurisdiction of a state. All Congress would have to do is pass a law saying State laws do not apply in a post office for instance. And due to the Supremacy Clause it would indeed be law that State laws do not apply. They do not do this currently because they need the help of local law enforcement. There isn't enough federal law enforcement to go around. Military bases are a good example of this. NSA/CIA facilities are also examples of this.[/QUOTE] in this instance though, the central government does own the land that bundy has been illegally grazing his cattle on, and has owned it since long before he lived there

[QUOTE=DuCT;51276390]Yes, I know that. But the crux of the occupation was that they felt that the land was no longer needed as a wildlife sanctuary, and could be used better by people. So they performed a sit-in. With guns. Going to DC wouldn't have done much.[/QUOTE] The land was public property being maintained to avoid the problem of the commons issue. Bundy can go fuck himself. [editline]29th October 2016[/editline] Also question: Since when has land needed to be specifically given a reason to be owned by the US Government? The Enclave Clause isn't about government land given to the US government by another government body. Its about private citizens retaining the right to their land but allowing the Federal government to use it.

[QUOTE=Swilly;51281229] Also question: Since when has land needed to be specifically given a reason to be owned by the US Government? The Enclave Clause isn't about government land given to the US government by another government body. Its about private citizens retaining the right to their land but allowing the Federal government to use it.[/QUOTE] Its about sovereignty. Our system is split, so that states are sovereign in most domestic issues. Its why there isn't some federal law against murder than can apply to any murder case. Of course the federal government abuses the shit out of the commerce clause. That's why there is "weapons of mass destruction" federal laws (basically some component has to have been involved in commerce). [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-Free_School_Zones_Act_of_1990[/url] <- Illegal law that got ruled unconstitutional. Was pushed by Biden (as in the current VP) btw. Was altered to add "commerce" to it. [quote]18 U.S.C. § 922(q)(2)(A) states: It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a [b]firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce[/b] at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone. 18 U.S.C. § 922(q)(3)(A) states: Except as provided in subparagraph (B), it shall be unlawful for any person, knowingly or with reckless disregard for the safety of another, to discharge or attempt to discharge a [b]firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce[/b] at a place that the person knows is a school zone.[/quote] Before it was just "firearm," they added the "commerce" language to make it "constitutional." This is a clear example of abuse of Article I, Section 8, Commerce Clause. Why is the federal government making laws on domestic issues that is clearly not in their purview according to the Constitution? The Enclave Clause is about taking land from a sovereign state, because states are sovereign on domestic issues, and making it under federal law. Because under the Enclave Clause the Congress can make domestic laws about land they have direct control over. Commit murder in a post office and you can be charged federally. Commit that same murder just outside the post office's property line and the crime cannot be charged under federal law. I mean, seriously, our entire system of government is designed around limiting the power of government. And so many people ignore this because it seems like a good idea. There is a saying, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." And I can promise you, expanding federal power outside its scope will definitely lead us into a pit we will almost never be able to get out of. [url]http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/01/commerce-commerce-everywhere-the-uses-and-abuses-of-the-commerce-clause[/url] [url]http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/articles/03/abuse.html[/url] [url]http://bradyreports.com/post-constitutional-america-federal-governments-abuse-commerce-clause/[/url] [quote]“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.” -James Madison, Father of the U.S. Constitution 1788 “There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the federal government has anything to do with most of the stuff we do.” –Rep. James Clyburn(D-SC) 2009 Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3, of the Constitution empowers Congress “to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among several States, and with the Indian Tribes.”[/quote] More on the property issues with the federal government. [url]https://www.i2i.org/ownership-of-federal-land-answers-suggested-by-the-bundy-standoff/[/url] <- Doesn't really talk about Bundy but around the issues brought by the group. [quote] (6) In fact, for the federal government to own a large share of American real estate (currently about 28 percent) is directly contrary to certain values the Constitution was designed to further. (9) The Enclave Clause was sold to the ratifying public on the basis that enclaves would be relatively small. Holding massive tracts of undeveloped land (such as in Yosemite National Park, nearly 750,000 acres) as enclaves is not what the Founders had in mind. (11) But not every parcel of federal land need be an enclave: In fact, most are not and should not be. Non-enclave land owned by the federal government is held under the Property Clause (Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2), and should be held only for enumerated purposes. Grazing, for example, is not an enumerated purpose. (12) Non-enclave federal property within states is subject to state law. Contrary to current Supreme Court doctrine, when the federal government owns non-enclave land, the federal government usually should be treated like any other landowner, so long as the state respects the discharge of legitimate federal functions.[/quote] Edit: Really meant Property Clause, not Enclave Clause. As the Enclave really means Washington, D.C. Here is a great comment about this case on Reddit. Its non-partisan and isn't looking into Constitutional arguments about the land. Its more of speculation as to why the jury found them not guilty. [url]https://www.reddit.com/r/law/comments/59raa7/oregon_malheur_refuge_occupiers_acquitted_on_all/d9arogo/[/url] As it appears that a government informant provided the weapons that were used during the stand off and informant(s) provided combat training. And the prosecutors absolutely refused to identify any of the informants. Which will tank any case because cross examination and defense access to material witnesses is a very important to any criminal trial. So basically, this case may have been sunk because the prosecutors hiding things from the court.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;51275736]They were fuckin' squatting in a park. Jesus you people are overreacting.[/QUOTE] *squatted in a park while threatening violence against law-enforcement if they tried to force them out You don't take over any building with fire-arms present, threaten violence against law enforcement, and claim peaceful occupation. Shit doesn't work that way. Which seeing how things have gone in the Dakota Pipeline protests one can sort of see why guns in a peaceful protest *might* be viable, but at the same time it sets a dangerous precedent. [editline]30th October 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;51272674][media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWLHiU8gYWY[/media] Edit: Just found a video of them synced up. You can tell they lit him up as soon as he left the car, and were shooting at him before hand.[/QUOTE] Weren't you one of the same people who argued that if you don't want to get shot by the cops, then just follow their orders? I could be wrong as I've slept since then. Because I'm going to have to concur with the others here who have watched this clip, and say that: 1) He drove off after being ordered to stay put. 2) He drove towards a blockade at-speed. 3) Nearly hit a cop with his vehicle as he attempted to bypass said blockade. 4) Exited the vehicle without being asked to (that will always get the wrong sort of attention from a cop. My dad made the mistake of stepping out of his vehicle when he was stopped by state police, and they immediately drew their weapon on him. There were reports of a stolen red work truck, which he happened to be driving a red work truck (he wasn't the guy they were looking for)) 5) He very clearly reached for a weapon. He wasn't reaching for a wound, unless adrenaline had him so jacked-up he could mostly ignore a bullet wound. Unless the cops just happened to hit him where people tend to holster a pistol, what're the odds eh?

[QUOTE=Zero-Point;51282850]5) He very clearly reached for a weapon. He wasn't reaching for a wound, unless adrenaline had him so jacked-up he could mostly ignore a bullet wound. Unless the cops just happened to hit him where people tend to holster a pistol, what're the odds eh?[/QUOTE] It's also just [I]total coincidence[/I] that he had a pistol in the pocket he was reaching for when he was shot, too.

[QUOTE=Zero-Point;51282850]*squatted in a park while threatening violence against law-enforcement if they tried to force them out[/QUOTE] I don't understand why anyone gave a damn. The park was closed, nobody was going there for a few months. Should have let those dumbasses sit there and freeze their asses off until they got bored and went home. [editline]30th October 2016[/editline] They did essentially the same thing as Occupy, only in the middle of nowhere.

Your logic implies it's ok to trespass on property because no one is there.

[QUOTE=Ridge;51283021]I don't understand why anyone gave a damn. The park was closed, nobody was going there for a few months. Should have let those dumbasses sit there and freeze their asses off until they got bored and went home. [editline]30th October 2016[/editline] They did essentially the same thing as Occupy, only in the middle of nowhere.[/QUOTE] The Malheur Wildlife Refuge buildings are sited over a (formerly) undisturbed burial ground. They dug that shit up with a backhoe to make a hole to shit in. They trashed the building and allegedly stole computers and cash and other valuables. They took down security cameras, damaged native artifacts that were located on-site [I]with the friendly cooperation and permission of local native bands[/I], and [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_the_Malheur_National_Wildlife_Refuge#FBI_investigation_of_scene_and_damage_to_refuge"]generally fucked up the place like total slobs[/URL]. [URL="http://www.opb.org/news/series/burns-oregon-standoff-bundy-militia-news-updates/refuge-employees-break-their-silence-on-armed-occupation/"]Their occupation blocked essential work on maintaining the refuge and could have caused real setbacks and damage to the park and surrounding area.[/URL] [QUOTE]Foerster and the current refuge employee expressed concern about the damage that could happen to the refuge and the relationship with surrounding ranchers if the occupation continues. The refuge relies on some cattle grazing to help maintain a healthy habitat for birds and other wildlife. In turn, the ranchers rely on the forage the refuge provides. But the problems aren’t limited to personal relationships. Workers manage water levels at the refuge using a series of dams. One of the reasons is to manage a carp population in Malheur Lake that swells each spring. Carp are an aggressive species that eat almost anything, and can hurt the ecosystem migratory birds depend on. “If we’re not able to keep up with our water delivery system then all the progress that we’ve made in removing carp from the wetlands in the Blitzen Valley will be compromised and we could lose five years of work in just a matter of a month with our absence,” the refuge employee said. If that absence continues into warmer months when the snowpack melts, it could even lead to flooding and major road damage in the county.[/QUOTE] Wikipedia's article states "Efforts to reduce the population of invasive carp in Malheur Lake are thought to have been set back by three years." They acted like deranged apes on federal land and you wonder why people give a damn? It's not an appropriate comparison to Occupy unless Occupy cut down trees, broke water mains, spraypainted buildings, and looted nearby stores, and threatened to shoot any cop who came within 2 blocks.

They used a backhoe to make a latrine (common military practice, not some crazy ass nutjob thing) because the gov't turned off the water and power to the building. Again, had nobody paid attention to them, damage would have been minimal.