Terrorists take over federal Building, threaten violence

[Derec]

I'm pretty certain there was someone on the jury who was out to nullify on every charge.

I thought lefties loved the idea of jury nullification. At least when it goes their way.

 

[Derec]

This keeps getting more ridiculous. Oregon standoff: All defendants found not guilty | OregonLive.com

As the left wing posters never tire to tell me when a woman^* gets acquitted or given a slap on the wrist for murder of husband or boyfriend, or when a left wing radical^** gets acquitted or given a slap on the wrist, we are never to question the wisdom of juries. Supposedly they know much more about the case than us mere mortals . At least that's what they claim when the jury agrees with left-wing ideological presuppositions. So I don't know if they will be consistent and claim the same thing now.

^* like Mary Winkler or Nikki Redmond
^** like Angela Davis who organized murderous Marin County courthouse hostage taking or the murderers of Alex Rackley

 

[blastula]

 

[Derec]

Either juries are infallible or they are not. Either we can question the Mary Winker jury or we can't question the Bundy Bunch jury. But you should at least be consistent.

 

[laughing dog]

This keeps getting more ridiculous. Oregon standoff: All defendants found not guilty | OregonLive.com

As the left wing posters never tire to tell me when a woman^* gets acquitted or given a slap on the wrist for murder of husband or boyfriend, or when a left wing radical^** gets acquitted or given a slap on the wrist, we are never to question the wisdom of juries. Supposedly they know much more about the case than us mere mortals . At least that's what they claim when the jury agrees with left-wing ideological presuppositions. So I don't know if they will be consistent and claim the same thing now.

I believe posters tell you in those cases that
1) juries are likely to be significantly less biased than you,
2) the juries heard all of the testimony (unlike you), and
3) because the juries witnessed the testimony they are in a better position to judge the real veracity of the witnesses than you,
not that they are infallible or cannot be questioned.

Clearly in this situation, the prosecution failed to make a sufficiently convincing case.

The difference between that judgment and your typical misogynistic reaction to a jury verdict you dislike is that the former takes no stand on the "correctness" of the verdict.

BTW, juries make decisions on guilt or innocence - they do not impose sentences. In the Mary Winkler case, the jury found her guilty. Your problem was with the sentence which is judge's responsibility, not the jury.

 

[blastula]

Either juries are infallible or they are not. Either we can question the Mary Winker jury or we can't question the Bundy Bunch jury. But you should at least be consistent.

I know juries aren't infallible, and I'm sure "left wing posters" would agree some verdicts were wrong (e.g. Rodney King LAPD acquittals) Juries get it wrong plenty. In this case, I don't know if it was the jury or the prosecution who failed, but somebody did.

 

[barbos]

Elsewhere I ran into a little problem here: It looks like the prosecutor mischarged them--they weren't guilty of what they were charged with even though they're obviously guilty in general. I wonder if the prosecutor is a secret sympathizer.

Four of the seven defendants are charged with possessing guns in a federal facility

So what would be the appropriate charge for these four, possession of a dildo in a federal facility? I'm pretty certain there was someone on the jury who was out to nullify on every charge.

I think charge should be "Embarrassing yourself in public"

 

[zorq]

I'm pretty certain there was someone on the jury who was out to nullify on every charge.

I thought lefties loved the idea of jury nullification. At least when it goes their way.

Just curious, but how do you feel about jury nullification, Derec? Does it ever have a place in an imperfect justice system like ours?

 

[Derec]

I know juries aren't infallible, and I'm sure "left wing posters" would agree some verdicts were wrong (e.g. Rodney King LAPD acquittals) Juries get it wrong plenty.

I disagree with you on Rodney King, but I agree with general sentiment.

In this case, I don't know if it was the jury or the prosecution who failed, but somebody did.

I agree. Taking over federal land should lead to guilty verdicts.

 

[Derec]

Just curious, but how do you feel about jury nullification, Derec? Does it ever have a place in an imperfect justice system like ours?

It's like an AK-47 with an extended magazine. A very dangerous instrument, and much depends on who is wielding it. So the risks definitely outweigh potential benefits.

I would much rather have stupid laws be repealed or reformed and be made sane than risk jurors taking it upon themselves to nullify even when necessary laws are in question.
And jury nullification is not always about laws themselves, but also about who the accused or the victim are.
For example, a black juror might refuse to convict a black defendant just because of the color of their skin. Like the juror who refused to convict black crack dealers even though there was overwhelming evidence.
In times past, juries often nullified in cases where white people murdered blacks.
And a feminist juror might refuse to convict a woman for the murder of her husband or boyfriend thinking that a man had to have done something to the woman that made it justified.

Obviously, laws against murder are a good thing. But prejudice for the defendant or against the victim should not allow a juror to nullify.

All that said, I think the jury system as we have it is hopelessly anachronistic anyway, and most countries have done away with it a long time ago.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Jury nullification. That'd be if they occupied the place and weren't armed and threatening violence.

 

[Axulus]

The jurors claim it wasn't nullification but rather failure of government to meet their burden of proof on the conspiracy charge.

"It should be known that all 12 jurors felt that this verdict was a statement regarding the various failures of the prosecution to prove 'conspiracy' in the count itself – and not any form of affirmation of the defense's various beliefs, actions or aspirations,'' Juror 4 wrote Friday in a lengthy email to The Oregonian/OregonLive...

...Juror 4 noted the panel couldn't simply rely on the defendants' "defining actions'' to convict.

"All 12 agreed that impeding existed, even if as an effect of the occupation,'' he wrote.

"But we were not asked to judge on bullets and hurt feelings, rather to decide if any agreement was made with an illegal object in mind,'' the Marylhurst student wrote. "It seemed this basic, high standard of proof was lost upon the prosecution throughout.''..

...The Marylhurst business student said he is "baffled'' by what he described as observers' "flippant sentiments'' in the wake of the jury's acquittals.

"Don't they know that 'not guilty' does not mean innocent?'' he wrote. "It was not lost on us that our verdict(s) might inspire future actions that are regrettable, but that sort of thinking was not permitted when considering the charges before us.''...

He said many of the jurors questioned the judge about why the federal government chose the "conspiracy charge.'' He said he learned that a potential alternate charge, such as criminal trespass, wouldn't have brought as significant a penalty...

..."We all queried about alternative charges that could stick and were amazed that this 'conspiracy' charge seemed the best possible option,'' Juror 4 said.

http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/10/juror_4_prosecutors_in_oregon.html

 

[zorq]

So to these jurors, there is no evidence beyond reasonable doubt that 12+ men would act simultaneously to criminally trespass on government property and block federal employees from doing their jobs and livestream themselves doing it without at any point discussing it among themselves. ... Sure... There is SO much reasonable doubt in there.

And Ammon Bundy calling for MORE people to come and join him in live interviews means nothing either.

This is either a failure of CSI TV culture or a success of a brilliant Defense attorney.

 

[Elixir]

So to these jurors, there is no evidence beyond reasonable doubt that 12+ men would act simultaneously to criminally trespass on government property and block federal employees from doing their jobs and livestream themselves doing it without at any point discussing it among themselves. ... Sure... There is SO much reasonable doubt in there.

And Ammon Bundy calling for MORE people to come and join him in live interviews means nothing either.

This is either a failure of CSI TV culture or a success of a brilliant Defense attorney.

More likely a rumpsucking juror, to whom every act of defiance against USGOV is a saintly act.

 

[Axulus]

So to these jurors, there is no evidence beyond reasonable doubt that 12+ men would act simultaneously to criminally trespass on government property and block federal employees from doing their jobs and livestream themselves doing it without at any point discussing it among themselves. ... Sure... There is SO much reasonable doubt in there.

And Ammon Bundy calling for MORE people to come and join him in live interviews means nothing either.

This is either a failure of CSI TV culture or a success of a brilliant Defense attorney.

More likely a rumpsucking juror, to whom every act of defiance against USGOV is a saintly act.

All 12 of the jurors agreed with the verdict. If they didn't, it would've been a hung jury and the prosecution would've han option to retry them.

 

[Axulus]

So to these jurors, there is no evidence beyond reasonable doubt that 12+ men would act simultaneously to criminally trespass on government property and block federal employees from doing their jobs and livestream themselves doing it without at any point discussing it among themselves. ... Sure... There is SO much reasonable doubt in there.

And Ammon Bundy calling for MORE people to come and join him in live interviews means nothing either.

This is either a failure of CSI TV culture or a success of a brilliant Defense attorney.

The jurors are saying it wasn't proven beyond reasonable doubt that they had intent to block the federal employees (i.e., there is a small possibility that the inability of federal employees to do their job was an unintended byproduct of the protest, not the the intent of the protest or actions undertaken during the protest). They are saying the prosecution didn't do much to address that point.

 

[laughing dog]

Sounds like the federal prosecutors went for harder to prove crimes instead of easier ones like trespassing and failed to convince a jury.

 

[Axulus]

Sounds like the federal prosecutors went for harder to prove crimes instead of easier ones like trespassing and failed to convince a jury.

Why couldn't they include the easier charges along with the harder ones? Why omit them all together?

 

[laughing dog]

Sounds like the federal prosecutors went for harder to prove crimes instead of easier ones like trespassing and failed to convince a jury.

Why couldn't they include the easier charges along with the harder ones? Why omit them all together?

You'd have to ask them those questions.

 

[zorq]

So to these jurors, there is no evidence beyond reasonable doubt that 12+ men would act simultaneously to criminally trespass on government property and block federal employees from doing their jobs and livestream themselves doing it without at any point discussing it among themselves. ... Sure... There is SO much reasonable doubt in there.

And Ammon Bundy calling for MORE people to come and join him in live interviews means nothing either.

This is either a failure of CSI TV culture or a success of a brilliant Defense attorney.

The jurors are saying it wasn't proven beyond reasonable doubt that they had intent to block the federal employees (i.e., there is a small possibility that the inability of federal employees to do their job was an unintended byproduct of the protest, not the the intent of the protest or actions undertaken during the protest). They are saying the prosecution didn't do much to address that point.

Maybe sitting around with a gun in your bathroom shouting about how I want you to go away wouldn't disuade these jurors from using the toilet, but I think I would have to conclude that the guy with a gun doesn't want me to use that toilet.