Jury finds Oregon standoff folks NOT GUILTY on ALL CHARGES

[USN_Hokie]

Wow, I'm surprised. Jury nullification, it appears. We're living in interesting times.

http://www.oregonlive.com/#/0

[Major Kong]

Shenanigans by the Federal Marshals just before the jury verdict was read.

[Uprising]

This is what a rigged system looks like!

[ElbertoHokie]

I mean, they were trespassing on federal land. If that's a crime, which I'm pretty sure it is, I think they did that.

Kind of blown away that a federal prosecutor could bungle this one that badly. Which they must have in order to get a not guilty verdict.

[Major Kong]

Just another chapter in the ongoing battle out west of folks vs the FED...or the FED vs folks.

[BigDave]

I mean, they were trespassing on federal land. If that's a crime, which I'm pretty sure it is, I think they did that.

Kind of blown away that a federal prosecutor could bungle this one that badly. Which they must have in order to get a not guilty verdict.

Is it possible that they overcharged? They were charged with "conspiracy to impede federal officers". That sounds like over-charging since you have to prove that they did actually intend to impede federal officers.

[BigDave]

Shenanigans by the Federal Marshals just before the jury verdict was read.

What is this in reference to?

[Major Kong]

Shenanigans by the Federal Marshals just before the jury verdict was read.

What is this in reference to?

Federal Marshals tazed Ammon Bundy's lawyer, Marcus Mumford.

[ElbertoHokie]

I mean, they were trespassing on federal land. If that's a crime, which I'm pretty sure it is, I think they did that.

Kind of blown away that a federal prosecutor could bungle this one that badly. Which they must have in order to get a not guilty verdict.

Is it possible that they overcharged? They were charged with "conspiracy to impede federal officers". That sounds like over-charging since you have to prove that they did actually intend to impede federal officers.

The Fed Gov't is usually exceedingly efficient at gaining convictions. I think it'd due mostly to the fact that most of those attorney's have political aspirations to rise up the chain and any defeat for a prosecutor is a black mark, sooooo, they only charge people in stuff they know they can win.

This seems to be the exception.

[absolutvt03]

I'm curious as to how you can find them not guilty on this charge:

possessing a firearm in a federal facility

Was the place they took over not considered a federal facility or something?

[BigDave]

Was the place they took over not considered a federal facility or something?

I thought the place they took over was a hunting lodge? Wouldn't charging them with possessing a firearm there be like charging someone with nudity while he was taking a dump on the toilet?

[awesome guy]

Was the place they took over not considered a federal facility or something?

I thought the place they took over was a hunting lodge? Wouldn't charging them with possessing a firearm there be like charging someone with nudity while he was taking a dump on the toilet?

Bird sanctuary or something like that. But the 2nd amendment still covers them there too.

[BigDave]

Was the place they took over not considered a federal facility or something?

I thought the place they took over was a hunting lodge? Wouldn't charging them with possessing a firearm there be like charging someone with nudity while he was taking a dump on the toilet?

Bird sanctuary or something like that. But the 2nd amendment still covers them there too.

Well, regardless of anything else, the clear intent of the law was to keep you from bringing firearms into a federal office building. The intent of the law was not to keep hunters from bringing their firearms into a shelter in the middle of the woods. I can't imagine a jury convicting someone of a charge so ridiculous.

Whether the second amendment should or should not render the law unconstitutional is a separate question ... but the law as written (which the jury has to presume is constitutional when rendering their verdict) doesn't seem likely to have been intended to prevent this conduct.

[awesome guy]

Was the place they took over not considered a federal facility or something?

I thought the place they took over was a hunting lodge? Wouldn't charging them with possessing a firearm there be like charging someone with nudity while he was taking a dump on the toilet?

Bird sanctuary or something like that. But the 2nd amendment still covers them there too.

Well, regardless of anything else, the clear intent of the law was to keep you from bringing firearms into a federal office building. The intent of the law was not to keep hunters from bringing their firearms into a shelter in the middle of the woods. I can't imagine a jury convicting someone of a charge so ridiculous.

Whether the second amendment should or should not render the law unconstitutional is a separate question ... but the law as written (which the jury has to presume is constitutional when rendering their verdict) doesn't seem likely to have been intended to prevent this conduct.

I disagree. I'm all for jury nullification in these cases. Better we the people tell the Feds to suck it than rely on politically appointed judges.

[absolutvt03]

I thought the place they took over was a hunting lodge? Wouldn't charging them with possessing a firearm there be like charging someone with nudity while he was taking a dump on the toilet?

Definitely wasn't a hunting lodge. It was Malheur National Wildlife Refuge headquarters.

[BigDave]

I thought the place they took over was a hunting lodge? Wouldn't charging them with possessing a firearm there be like charging someone with nudity while he was taking a dump on the toilet?

Definitely wasn't a hunting lodge. It was Malheur National Wildlife Refuge headquarters.

Whatever it is, is the intent of the law to prohibit guns in this building?

[absolutvt03]

I thought the place they took over was a hunting lodge? Wouldn't charging them with possessing a firearm there be like charging someone with nudity while he was taking a dump on the toilet?

Definitely wasn't a hunting lodge. It was Malheur National Wildlife Refuge headquarters.

Whatever it is, is the intent of the law to prohibit guns in this building?

Is it a federal facility? If it is then it's hard to argue against the charge. I realize it's in a remote area and all that which is precisely the reason the authorities let it play out and didn't force the issue much but the code I read made no sort of distinction as to what the facility had to be. Now there is a part about it being a building "where Federal employees are regularly present for the purpose of performing their duties". I don't know how often someone was actually there.

Except as provided in subsection (d), whoever knowingly possesses or causes to be present a firearm or other dangerous weapon in a Federal facility (other than a Federal court facility), or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.

(d) Subsection (a) shall not apply to—
(1) the lawful performance of official duties by an officer, agent, or employee of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision thereof, who is authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of any violation of law;
(2) the possession of a firearm or other dangerous weapon by a Federal official or a member of the Armed Forces if such possession is authorized by law; or
(3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes.

(1) The term “Federal facility” means a building or part thereof owned or leased by the Federal Government, where Federal employees are regularly present for the purpose of performing their official duties.

There's also this section:

(h) Notice of the provisions of subsections (a) and (b) shall be posted conspicuously at each public entrance to each Federal facility, and notice of subsection (e) shall be posted conspicuously at each public entrance to each Federal court facility, and no person shall be convicted of an offense under subsection (a) or (e) with respect to a Federal facility if such notice is not so posted at such facility, unless such person had actual notice of subsection (a) or (e), as the case may be.

So maybe it wasn't posted there?

[BigDave]

Well, there's also "(3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes."

And I'd say you're right - there's probably a really good chance that it's not posted there.

But again, there is also the intent of the law, not just the letter of it. Are you honestly telling me that if you're on a jury and someone is charged with bringing a gun into this building that you would convict them? I would be ticked at the prosecutor for wasting my time. And I passionately detest guns.

[absolutvt03]

Well, there's also "(3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes."

And I'd say you're right - there's probably a really good chance that it's not posted there.

But again, there is also the intent of the law, not just the letter of it. Are you honestly telling me that if you're on a jury and someone is charged with bringing a gun into this building that you would convict them? I would be ticked at the prosecutor for wasting my time. And I passionately detest guns.

I'm not sure you can argue they were there to "hunt or other lawful purposes". Just because it's a remote building doesn't mean it's a hunting lodge.

Personally, I think that people commit an armed takeover of a building should face some sort of legal consequences just like I think protesters who become violent or loot should. I'll be interested to see how things play out legally for the protesters arrested in North Dakota recently.

[BigDave]

From reading the Wikipedia article - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupatio ... ife_Refuge - it doesn't look they overcharged - it looks like they charged them with a crime that they flatly did not commit.

They were charged with conspiring to impede government officials from doing their jobs. But on December 30 - prior to the start of the occupation - the government told their workers to go home and not come back until told to do so (presumably because they knew that the excrement was about to hit the fan and they didn't want the workers to be in harm's way). As a result, there were no government workers there and there were no government workers trying to get in who were unable to do so.

So it's a fine distinction, but still an important one - the government workers were not, in fact, actually trying to do their jobs and so there was nobody impeding them from doing it. If a government worker had shown up and been denied access, then you're impeding him from doing his job, but that didn't happen.

And I guess you could argue - for the same reason - that there were no federal workers regularly there because the government had decided to send the workers home (and that's assuming that federal workers regularly worked out of this building anyway).

From the pictures on Wikipedia, it looks like they trashed the place ... but they weren't charged with trashing the place. Prosecutors a lot of times if you commit five crimes are only going to charge you with the felonies because they don't want a "compromise verdict" where the jury acquits you of the felonies and convicts you of the misdemeanors. So I'm assuming that's why there were no charges of vandalism, etc.

So they were charged with two crimes and were found not guilty of both because, well, neither crime actually occurred.

[absolutvt03]

From reading the Wikipedia article - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupatio ... ife_Refuge - it doesn't look they overcharged - it looks like they charged them with a crime that they flatly did not commit.

They were charged with conspiring to impede government officials from doing their jobs. But on December 30 - prior to the start of the occupation - the government told their workers to go home and not come back until told to do so (presumably because they knew that the excrement was about to hit the fan and they didn't want the workers to be in harm's way). As a result, there were no government workers there and there were no government workers trying to get in who were unable to do so.

So it's a fine distinction, but still an important one - the government workers were not, in fact, actually trying to do their jobs and so there was nobody impeding them from doing it. If a government worker had shown up and been denied access, then you're impeding him from doing his job, but that didn't happen.

And I guess you could argue - for the same reason - that there were no federal workers regularly there because the government had decided to send the workers home (and that's assuming that federal workers regularly worked out of this building anyway).

From the pictures on Wikipedia, it looks like they trashed the place ... but they weren't charged with trashing the place. Prosecutors a lot of times if you commit five crimes are only going to charge you with the felonies because they don't want a "compromise verdict" where the jury acquits you of the felonies and convicts you of the misdemeanors. So I'm assuming that's why there were no charges of vandalism, etc.

So they were charged with two crimes and were found not guilty of both because, well, neither crime actually occurred.

So basically in order for them to "impede" a government worker, the authorities would have needed to send an employee into a building that had been taken over by armed men protesting against the government? I'm sure that would have ended well. You want to argue intent on the firearm charge and then go strictly by the law on the other charge.

And I still disagree about the firearm possession. And the cynical part of me can't help but wonder how things would have played out both with the authorities and in the courtroom had these protesters been some sort of minority group. Can you imagine if a armed BLM or Muslim group took over a remote government building?

[133743Hokie]

From reading the Wikipedia article - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupatio ... ife_Refuge - it doesn't look they overcharged - it looks like they charged them with a crime that they flatly did not commit.

They were charged with conspiring to impede government officials from doing their jobs. But on December 30 - prior to the start of the occupation - the government told their workers to go home and not come back until told to do so (presumably because they knew that the excrement was about to hit the fan and they didn't want the workers to be in harm's way). As a result, there were no government workers there and there were no government workers trying to get in who were unable to do so.

So it's a fine distinction, but still an important one - the government workers were not, in fact, actually trying to do their jobs and so there was nobody impeding them from doing it. If a government worker had shown up and been denied access, then you're impeding him from doing his job, but that didn't happen.

And I guess you could argue - for the same reason - that there were no federal workers regularly there because the government had decided to send the workers home (and that's assuming that federal workers regularly worked out of this building anyway).

From the pictures on Wikipedia, it looks like they trashed the place ... but they weren't charged with trashing the place. Prosecutors a lot of times if you commit five crimes are only going to charge you with the felonies because they don't want a "compromise verdict" where the jury acquits you of the felonies and convicts you of the misdemeanors. So I'm assuming that's why there were no charges of vandalism, etc.

So they were charged with two crimes and were found not guilty of both because, well, neither crime actually occurred.

So basically in order for them to "impede" a government worker, the authorities would have needed to send an employee into a building that had been taken over by armed men protesting against the government? I'm sure that would have ended well. You want to argue intent on the firearm charge and then go strictly by the law on the other charge.

And I still disagree about the firearm possession. And the cynical part of me can't help but wonder how things would have played out both with the authorities and in the courtroom had these protesters been some sort of minority group. Can you imagine if a armed BLM or Muslim group took over a remote government building?

We already know what happens when BLM protests violently -- nothing.

[USN_Hokie]

Well, regardless of anything else, the clear intent of the law was to keep you from bringing firearms into a federal office building. The intent of the law was not to keep hunters from bringing their firearms into a shelter in the middle of the woods. I can't imagine a jury convicting someone of a charge so ridiculous.

Whether the second amendment should or should not render the law unconstitutional is a separate question ... but the law as written (which the jury has to presume is constitutional when rendering their verdict) doesn't seem likely to have been intended to prevent this conduct.

I agree with you, but as with all things government...it's not that simple. Federal Parks are now required to follow state laws with regards to carrying of firearms. But federal law still prohibits carrying firearms inside federal buildings. If you go to Shenandoah National Park, the little toll booth the ranger sits in to collect your entrance fee has a little "no firearms" sticker on it...that is only for (and this confuses a lot of people) the booth...nothing else. The bathrooms don't have a sticker, but this is sort of a grey area. Overall, great example of how we have too many ridiculous laws.

[absolutvt03]

From reading the Wikipedia article - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupatio ... ife_Refuge - it doesn't look they overcharged - it looks like they charged them with a crime that they flatly did not commit.

They were charged with conspiring to impede government officials from doing their jobs. But on December 30 - prior to the start of the occupation - the government told their workers to go home and not come back until told to do so (presumably because they knew that the excrement was about to hit the fan and they didn't want the workers to be in harm's way). As a result, there were no government workers there and there were no government workers trying to get in who were unable to do so.

So it's a fine distinction, but still an important one - the government workers were not, in fact, actually trying to do their jobs and so there was nobody impeding them from doing it. If a government worker had shown up and been denied access, then you're impeding him from doing his job, but that didn't happen.

And I guess you could argue - for the same reason - that there were no federal workers regularly there because the government had decided to send the workers home (and that's assuming that federal workers regularly worked out of this building anyway).

From the pictures on Wikipedia, it looks like they trashed the place ... but they weren't charged with trashing the place. Prosecutors a lot of times if you commit five crimes are only going to charge you with the felonies because they don't want a "compromise verdict" where the jury acquits you of the felonies and convicts you of the misdemeanors. So I'm assuming that's why there were no charges of vandalism, etc.

So they were charged with two crimes and were found not guilty of both because, well, neither crime actually occurred.

So basically in order for them to "impede" a government worker, the authorities would have needed to send an employee into a building that had been taken over by armed men protesting against the government? I'm sure that would have ended well. You want to argue intent on the firearm charge and then go strictly by the law on the other charge.

And I still disagree about the firearm possession. And the cynical part of me can't help but wonder how things would have played out both with the authorities and in the courtroom had these protesters been some sort of minority group. Can you imagine if a armed BLM or Muslim group took over a remote government building?

We already know what happens when BLM protests violently -- nothing.

Really? No one's been arrested at a BLM protest? And we don't know what happens when they take over a building with weapons... but I think we have a pretty good idea.