Assorted Militia/SovCit news,(formerly Bundy thread)

[No Excuses]

3 minutes ago, Destino said:

That's the kind of problem solving I'd expect from Donald Trump.

There's an impulsive baby Trump that lives in all of us. 

[twa]

1 minute ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

Ask the Republicans who refused to fund extra security at the embassies. 

Nice trollish response though, I'm behinning to think you really have suffered a personality shifting phenomenon. I miss the old thoughtful twa, instead we're stuck with Hannity-lite.

 

You are wrong about funding being the reason, but keep trying....ya might get one right

[Destino]

3 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

Ask the Republicans who refused to fund extra security at the embassies. 

Nice trollish response though, I'm behinning to think you really have suffered a personality shifting phenomenon. I miss the old thoughtful twa, instead we're stuck with Hannity-lite.

Please refrain from personal attacks. 

[AsburySkinsFan]

Just now, twa said:

 

You are wrong about funding being the reason, but keep trying....ya might get one right

You know this thread is about Oregon right?

And here I thought you were the "law and order" guy...turns out you're just for law and order when you're attacking Dems, when your Rightwingnut compatriots are breaking the law you shift to apologetics and appeasement. 

That is the definition of being a partisan hack.

Feel free to respond with some highly predictable quip. 

[Mr. Sinister]

21 minutes ago, tshile said:

I agree, though I can't help but wonder if the first black president having an issue with predominately white domestic terrorists masquerading as protectors of the nation and constitution presented an obvious situation they were trying to avoid...

These people are a dangerous combination of armed, paranoid, and stupid.

That, and he'd have surely been grilled on all fronts, because the only terrorism we seem to acknowledge these days is "Islamic terrorism." Everyone else just gets an aww shucks

[DogofWar1]

I don't think I'd go the missile up their bums route yet.

Rather, give them a reasonable amount of time to disperse, then move in.  In the case of Malheur, 24 hours was plenty.  Get it out of your system in 24 hours and go, or the police/FBI move in and arrest them.

Get solid defensive equipment and don't escalate any further than they make you, but firmly arrest them.

[twa]

27 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

You know this thread is about Oregon right?

And here I thought you were the "law and order" guy...turns out you're just for law and order when you're attacking Dems, when your Rightwingnut compatriots are breaking the law you shift to apologetics and appeasement. 

That is the definition of being a partisan hack.

Feel free to respond with some highly predictable quip. 

 

I'm very much law and order, for everyone but me. (I think me and Hillary are related)

Isn't law and order a trial?....ya know the thing ya'll are complaining about not working the way ya want.

[tshile]

1 minute ago, twa said:

 

I'm very much law and order, for everyone but me. (I think me and Hillary are related)

Isn't law and order a trial?....ya know the thing ya'll are complaining about not working the way ya want.

It works exactly the way we want.

People are supposed to be presumed innocent and it's the State's burden to prove the guilt. If the issue here was intimidation (i'm not saying it was, other people are) then that's the State's problem. The system should always be skewed more towards guilty people getting off than innocent people being found guilty.

Which is why it's not the appropriate system for terrorists. Killing terrorists in the midst of them committing terrorist acts is the better solution because we don't have to worry about them getting away with it. We shouldn't alter the legal system across the board to 'fix' this issue, we should understand the flaw of the system and try to avoid it.

(I realize many people have a HUGE issue with what I just said, that's fine, it's my opinion and I'm aware of the moral implications)

[thebluefood]

15 hours ago, BornaSkinsFan83 said:

**** it. Let's just get the civil war started and get it over with.

That's pretty much where I am this morning. As far as I'm concerned, this gave the right-wing the green light for insurrection, if not full on-treason.

I'm still holding out hope that the overtures we've been hearing and seeing from the right (including calls for violent demonstrations should Sec. Clinton be elected president) is their usual sabre rattling. But you know what? Let's presume they mean it. Let's presume this is the beginning of a fascist uprising in America and it forces the nation's hand. If this is what we're in for then that's just how it's going to be.

Which, you know what? That's fine. My life is worth less than a set of tires so let's just do this **** and roll the dice.

[Bozo the kKklown]

4 hours ago, No Excuses said:

I hope a Clinton administration is much tougher on these "patriot" militias than Obama, who seems to pretend that this isn't even happening under his watch. Has he even spoken to this issue? 

It's time to take the gloves off. **** the Bundy's and this entire movement.

Remember when these groups got mad at the administration for going at them for their refusal to pay taxes? They started saying "reverse racism." I feel that has some to do with it.

[zoony]

you can't call Obama soft on anything.  Everyone will say you are ignorant of what he is doing behind the scenes and that his logical, rational, measured approach to every situation ever is just what we need.  And by calling him soft you're really just ignorant and biased.

This entire situation is just disgusting.  Damn Bundy white trash assholes get a free pass.  Good times.  Should be great for our country.

[PCS]

http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/10/juror_4_prosecutors_in_oregon.html?utm_content=buffer5648e&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

 

Quote

Juror 4: Oregon standoff prosecutors failed to prove 'intent' to impede federal workers

Juror 4 vigorously defends the across-the-board acquittals of Ammon Bundy and his six co-defendants, calling the rulings a "statement'' about the prosecution's failure to prove the fundamental elements of a conspiracy charge.

The full-time Marylhurst University business administration student was the juror who had sent a note to the judge on the fourth day of the initial jury's deliberations in the case, questioning the impartiality of a fellow juror, No. 11, who the judge bounced from the jury a day later.

"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.

*Click Link For More* 

 

 

[Renegade7]

6 minutes ago, PCS said:

http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/10/juror_4_prosecutors_in_oregon.html?utm_content=buffer5648e&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

 

*Click Link For More* 

 

 

That's what I figured this was.  A poorly prosecuted case, likely wrong charges brought forth in terms of trying to make something stick.  Was that Oregon state or federal prosecutors?

[PCS]

http://www.myeasternoregon.com/2016/10/28/baker-city-exclusive-conversation-with-juror-dismissed-from-trial/

 

Quote

BAKER CITY: Exclusive conversation with dismissed Bundy juror

Posted on October 28, 2016

It has been a whirlwind week for the trial of Ammon Bundy and six other co-defendants for their involvement in the take-over of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge near Burns earlier this year.  Just days ago Juror #11 was dismissed after a fellow juror, Juror #4, made claims that he was biased and not deliberating objectively.

Curt Nickens, who has not spoken publicly until now about his time as a juror, sat down with Shannon McKone, News Director for Elkhorn Media Group to explain the recent events of the trial and how they unfolded from his perspective.

Nickens says that it was last Thursday morning, October 20, when the jurors were sitting in deliberation and looking at all the evidence that had been presented when he made the conscious decision to find out what the other jurors were thinking in the way of a verdict.  “I wanted to see what everybody else had to say; maybe they could tell me something I missed.  Something said, something shown to us on a video.”

It was during that discussion that Nickens says it became clear that each of the jurors had made their decision on how they were voting based on how they perceived the evidence that had been presented. And it was then that it became clear that swaying his decision or any of the other juror’s decisions to the other side was not going to happen.

*Click Link For More* 

[twa]

25 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

That's what I figured this was.  A poorly prosecuted case, likely wrong charges brought forth in terms of trying to make something stick.  Was that Oregon state or federal prosecutors?

 

Federal judge so I'd assume the prosecutors were as well

 

add

We need to enjoy the lighter moments in life

Ammon Bundy’s Attorney Won the Biggest Case of His Life. Then He Was Tased in the Courtroom.

http://www.wweek.com/news/2016/10/27/ammon-bundys-attorney-won-the-biggest-case-of-his-life-then-he-was-tased-in-the-courtroom/

that musta been a sight to see.

Edited October 28, 2016 by twa

[Renegade7]

1 hour ago, zoony said:

you can't call Obama soft on anything.  Everyone will say you are ignorant of what he is doing behind the scenes and that his logical, rational, measured approach to every situation ever is just what we need.  And by calling him soft you're really just ignorant and biased.

This entire situation is just disgusting.  Damn Bundy white trash assholes get a free pass.  Good times.  Should be great for our country.

That's my boy, but he's too nice.  It's true.

[Larry]

2 hours ago, PCS said:

http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/10/juror_4_prosecutors_in_oregon.html?utm_content=buffer5648e&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

 

*Click Link For More* 

 

 

 

Really?  "The prosecution failed to prove that, when the defendants planned the dispatch of armed troops to occupy someone's office, they intended to impede the office holder's ability to show up for work"?

[PCS]

As the dust settles,(just a tad),with this decision,things are being pointed out.  This part of that quoted article: 

Quote

Defense lawyers urged jurors in closing arguments not to mix-up the "effect'' of the occupation – which undoubtedly kept federal employees from doing their jobs - from the "intent'' of the occupiers.

Five of the seven defendants, including Ammon Bundy, testified. Many said that they were there to protest in support of the Hammonds and federal government overreach because they received absolutely no response from state or local government officials to their previous efforts to spur change.

The defense lawyers' arguments, coupled with the jury instructions on how to apply the law to the evidence, resonated with jurors, Juror 4 noted.

"Inference, while possibly compelling, proved to be insulting or inadequate to 12 diversely situated people as a means to convict,'' the juror wrote. "The air of triumphalism that the prosecution brought was not lost on any of us, nor was it warranted given their burden of proof.''

Coupled with comments from the dismissed juror: 

Quote

It was during that discussion that Nickens says it became clear that each of the jurors had made their decision on how they were voting based on how they perceived the evidence that had been presented. And it was then that it became clear that swaying his decision or any of the other juror’s decisions to the other side was not going to happen.

Lead some to believe that there wasn't really a lot of deliberation on the case and that minds were made up for some reason before the trial was even over.  I myself don't want to read in to anything there,but there seems to be a bit 'tude towards the Feds with that last quoted comment from juror 4.

 

Speaking of Juror 4. 

 

[Corcaigh]

3 hours ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

Remember when these groups got mad at the administration for going at them for their refusal to pay taxes? They started saying "reverse racism." 

 

For the next administration it will be "penis envy".

[PCS]

Of course,Feds drawing a lot of heat as well.  Twitter "lawyers"  blaming negligence and such.  

 

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-bundy-oregon-malheur-20161028-story.html

 

 

Quote

Opinion 

Was the Malheur occupation legal, or did the feds botch the Bundy case?

The acquittal Thursday of seven anti-government activists who occupied the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon for six weeks last winter was stunning. Armed and angry, the activists seized the property to protest imprisonment of two ranchers convicted of setting fires that spread to federal land. The protest quickly blossomed into a challenge of the federal government’s right to federal land, during which the occupiers blatantly violated laws against possessing firearms in such a facility.

That’s not a theory cooked up by a prosecutor. The seven defendants acknowledged in court that that was exactly what they had done. During the occupation, they appeared in news photos with firearms plainly visible, shot off rounds at the compound, and some vowed to fight if federal agents sought to regain control of the federal facility.  Eleven others involved in the takeover have already pleaded guilty.

*Click Link for More* 

 

Something mentioned in the above opinion peace and as state earlier,getting a lot of comments comparing the two incidents.  

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/27/us/dakota-access-pipeline-protests/index.html

 

Quote

Dakota Access Pipeline: Police remove protesters; scores arrested

At least 117 protesters were arrested after law enforcement Humvees and helicopters began to flood the area to break up a protester encampment near the pipeline's path.

Calling themselves "water protectors," supporters of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe set up tents and teepees on the land, about an hour south of Bismarck, which they said belongs to the tribe under a 19-century treaty.

But authorities said they are trespassing on pipeline property. Officials brought in reinforcements from seven states to remove protesters and dismantle roadblocks made of hay bales and wood.

As the standoff continued, police deployed bean bag rounds and pepper spray gas and unleashed a high-pitched siren to disperse the crowd.

*Click Link For More*

[twa]

So I take it the jurors were not intimidated after all by either side?

 

[The 12th Commandment]

This scares the hell out of me.  We have some of these tools in New Mexico. 

Isn't there a charge, more serious than impeding a federal officer, for taking over a federal facility while armed?

[Renegade7]

6 hours ago, Mr. Sinister said:

That, and he'd have surely been grilled on all fronts, because the only terrorism we seem to acknowledge these days is "Islamic terrorism." Everyone else just gets an aww shucks

I wonder what this country would look like if we treated all terrorism like we do Radical Islamic Terrorism.  Necessary, but vibe of borderline police state looms hard.

[Mr. Sinister]

22 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

I wonder what this country would look like if we treated all terrorism like we do Radical Islamic Terrorism.  Necessary, but vibe of borderline police state looms hard.

I think so. While you and zoony may have a good point, imo this was a lose lose. 

Black man elected president, decides to crack down on domestic right wing, terror groups,. That, in the middle of a war in Iraq, simply would do nothing but throw gas on the fire, and probably swell their ranks. even more.

You already see what has come of an attempt to push through common sense gun laws, despite crazed lunatics mowing down innocent people time after time.

I think his only real option was to play the long game. I mean if govt entities dont even want to get involved in monitoring and going after them , and the damn courts can't even punish them accordingly, what can he do?

[PCS]

Found an piece online via the oregonstandoff hashtag a few weeks ago on the difficulty in charging Sov/Cits and others with certain things including terrorism. Of course,can't find it now. Did find this in dealing with "domestic terrorism" after the San Bernardino shootings last year,(obviously different situations). 

https://www.lawfareblog.com/good-reasons-not-charge-all-terrorists-terrorism

 

Quote

But the legal treatment of homegrown violent extremists and domestic terrorists depends substantially on the particulars of the case. And while the ideological motivation of the perpetrator is relevant, the most important element is whether the crime involves a bomb or a gun.

Domestic terrorism does not exist as a substantive offense under federal law. Whatever the government had decided to label the shooters in Colorado and California, they could not have been charged with “domestic terrorism.” There is no such crime.

The US Code does contemplate domestic terrorism as elements of other crimes and for the purpose of investigations. Domestic terrorism is defined for purposes of 18 U.S.C. ch. 133B at § 2331(5):

the term "domestic terrorism" means activities that—

(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;

(B) appear to be intended—

(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;

(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or

(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and

(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.