# Jury finds Bundy group not guilty



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Very surprised at this, but they got to experience the justice system. I'm guessing the system is still rigged against them even though it seems there must have been some charges that should have stuck to them. There's still the Nevada trial.

http://fox13now.com/2016/10/27/all-defendants-found-not-guilty-in-oregon-standoff-trial/


----------



## MuscleWhitefish (Jan 13, 2015)

W.T.S.F.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

They should have had jail time imho

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

TBH I do not understand how there is no guilty verdict on any charge. How you do what they do and get no jail time is beyond me. The situation in Nevada was a little different, hopefully that trial will come with some charges because they without a doubt did things that should be answered for.


----------



## Fowlmouth (Oct 4, 2008)

What affect will this have on the shooting death of Lavoy Finicum? I mean if a jury found all of them not guilty on all charges then why did they shoot Lavoy? I see lawsuits coming......


----------



## Clarq (Jul 21, 2011)

Fowlmouth said:


> What affect will this have on the shooting death of Lavoy Finicum? I mean if a jury found all of them not guilty on all charges then why did they shoot Lavoy? I see lawsuits coming......


If I remember right, they shot him because of his threatening actions toward officers, not because he was guilty of anything else. If that's the case, I doubt anything will change as far as whether the shooting is ruled justified or not.


----------



## Karl (Aug 14, 2016)

Jury selection. And jury nullification.

All politics are local (Tip O'Neill).


----------



## Fowlmouth (Oct 4, 2008)

Clarq said:


> If I remember right, they shot him because of his threatening actions toward officers, not because he was guilty of anything else. If that's the case, I doubt anything will change as far as whether the shooting is ruled justified or not.


True, but why were the feds roadblocking him anyway. If they didn't do anything wrong (according to Jury) in the first place, the group should have been free to travel where they wished.

I'm not defending their actions, I just think a whole new can of worms is open now that they were all acquitted. His death seems even more senseless now.


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

Me thinks there must be some facts that our friends in the media haven't reported to us. Keep in mind that this was a jury picked in Portland Oregon. Not exactly a demographic that is sympathetic to a bunch of Utah, anti-Govt. activists. Something must have been very compelling to bring about this acquittal. Heaven knows they were already convicted, sentenced, and executed in the court of public opinion. Perhaps juries are a good thing. 

Media bamboozled some so bad that they are disappointed that there wasn't a conviction instead of questioning exactly what that jury heard that we don't know and why we have been ill-informed. 

Anyway 1-I, have no fear, I suspect you'll get your pound of flesh in the end. Big bro will get these guys one way or another. Stupid trials are just a formality.-------SS


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

SS, I'm surprised by this ruling, I accept it, that's our judicial system at work. I will also accept whatever the jury decides in Nevada. It is what it is, but if they get away with both of these instances, it sets a bad precedent for or public lands and the law enforcement and employees dutied to manage and protect them. Would you want to be a BLM ranger these days? I know I wouldn't. They were found not guilty, so in this case they are not guilty.


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

I think we have no idea what really happened in Oregon or Nevada.

I'm just saying.....if Malheur really went down as reported, no way there isn't a conviction. No way. Face it boys.....we got lied to somewhere along the line.------SS


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Jury was composed of citizens from.across Oregon, not just Portland.

From court reporting its obvious they failed to provide compelling evidence to support the conspiracy charges. Its likely the FBI's use of confidential informants after the seizure and the witness details they provided convoluted the case. Only two of the fifteen were fully named and much of their testimony was redacted and questioned. Sounds like the defense did a stellar job raising concerns about what influence the CIs had on decision making at the scene, especially since one was a former swedish soldier who specializes in pys ops. 

Sounds like the FBI and prosecutors botched an easy case. A real shame as the precedent of this is horrendous to federal land management. Civil disobedience is a strong tradition in the US but its historically expected to be non-violent and unarmed and even then citizens are often prosecuted (i advocated for DeChristopher's prosecution on these grounds, doesnt seem proportional in this light). To the average citizen its hard to understand why an armed seizure of federal land and buildings did not warrant some successful prosecution when citizens get jail time for much less. We have to accept the jury's legal decision but i don't have to consider this equitable in terms of justice.

Lets just hope this doesn't escalate into a situation were unarmed personnel for federal agencies are hurt.


----------



## Kevin D (Sep 15, 2007)

My biggest concern is the precedence this decision sets for the future. If I was a BLM, Forest Service, or U.S. fish and wildlife employee, I'd be worried. :-o


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Springville Shooter said:


> I think we have no idea what really happened in Oregon or Nevada.
> 
> I'm just saying.....if Malheur really went down as reported, no way there isn't a conviction. No way. Face it boys.....we got lied to somewhere along the line.------SS


I get what you're saying SS, but they had their own live feed to this mess and it was obvious by their own feed some of them were pretty unhinged. Lots of different things could have happened. The issue in Nevada was more of a direct conflict and is also still on film. I'm not saying lock them up for good, but if they they off in Nevada, it sets a bad precedent for copycats and emboldens these same idiots to continue disrespecting BLM and federal authority on federally managed land.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

OJ was guilty but he was set free with a jury that actually think the police planted evidence. My guess is this is the same thing.
I'm affraid thugs like BLM are going to start doing the same thing to push their agenda. 

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## bowgy (Oct 10, 2007)

I didn't really keep up with what was going on but I think the verdict was right from what I read on the acquittal.

*"the government's primary charge: conspiracy to impede federal officers by force, threat or intimidation."*

They never stopped the employees from going to work, they said that they would let them come to work, it was their boss that told them not to go in to work.

Just a little from what I read.


----------



## bowgy (Oct 10, 2007)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> I get what you're saying SS, but they had their own live feed to this mess and it was obvious by their own feed some of them were pretty unhinged. Lots of different things could have happened. The issue in Nevada was more of a direct conflict and is also still on film. I'm not saying lock them up for good, but if they they off in Nevada,* it sets a bad precedent for copycats and emboldens these same idiots to continue disrespecting BLM and federal authority on federally managed land*.


I think you may be right on this except for calling them idiots.

*"Wampler said he and others within the so-called patriot movement plan to "build on this tremendous victory for rural America."

The message of the acquittals opening the door for future protests was something defendant Shawna Cox directly addressed on the steps of the Mark O. Hatfield United States Courthouse in Portland.

"Absolutely," Cox said when asked if she will participate in future protests. "We can do it peacefully."

Cox called Thursday's outcome "just one win" in a larger movement to change how the federal government manages land in the American West."*


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

bowgy said:


> I didn't really keep up with what was going on but I think the verdict was right from what I read on the acquittal.
> 
> *"the government's primary charge: conspiracy to impede federal officers by force, threat or intimidation."*
> 
> ...


Which is why the Nevada case may be different. I can see why it would have been a stretch to get that conviction here, although I don't agree they were completely innocent here. In Nevada they absolutely did impede with force and intimidation federal officers that were court ordered to carry out the orders in Nevada. If they get away with the Nevada incident, I won't see how.


----------



## bowgy (Oct 10, 2007)

*Federal prosecutors took two weeks to present their case, finishing with a display of more than 30 guns seized after the standoff. An FBI agent testified that 16,636 live rounds and nearly 1,700 spent casings were found.*

I wonder if they will get their guns back.


----------



## bowgy (Oct 10, 2007)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Which is why the Nevada case may be different. I can see why it would have been a stretch to get that conviction here, although I don't agree they were completely innocent here. In Nevada they absolutely did impede with force and intimidation federal officers that were court ordered to carry out the orders in Nevada. If they get away with the Nevada incident, I won't see how.


It will be interesting to see what they are charged with, if I remember right the Bundy's didn't carry guns, just the militia people that came to support them.

Cliven did pay his grazing fees, but to Nevada and not the feds, Nevada held them for a while and didn't know what to do with them so they were returned. 
He had said at the first that he would pay them but only to the State of Nevada.

Nevada could have avoided the whole thing if they would have just been a go between and passed the money on to the feds.

Anyway it will be interesting to see what happens.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

bowgy said:


> I didn't really keep up with what was going on but I think the verdict was right from what I read on the acquittal.
> 
> *"the government's primary charge: conspiracy to impede federal officers by force, threat or intimidation."*
> 
> ...


Yesh, it sounds like the prosecution fell down on the primary charge. Common sense and most Americans know that armed militants taking over a federal reserve is both a threat and intimidating. The land managers had no choice but to withdraw workers. But the legal requirement is different than common sense.

I fundamentally disagree with them being acquitted of charges in general but the FBI and prosecution are to blame, not the defense. Proves justice and law are two different entities.


----------



## Karl (Aug 14, 2016)

Nothing in the news surprises me anymore.


----------



## gdog (Sep 13, 2007)

So no charges for conspiracy to impede..yadda yadda....what about damages to the facility and grounds? Bundy and crew have no responsibility to foot that bill?


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

This is the perfect example of how imperfect our justice system really is. If the Bundy's were found guilty, I am sure they would have appealed the decision. Can the Feds appeal the decision?


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

wyoming2utah said:


> This is the perfect example of how imperfect our justice system really is. If the Bundy's were found guilty, I am sure they would have appealed the decision. Can the Feds appeal the decision?


There is a REALLY good reason for the 5th Amendment besides not being forced to testify against yourself in criminal trial.


----------



## HighNDry (Dec 26, 2007)

When his lawyer brought out the gun and showed that Bundy's hand didn't fit the grip--they had to acquit!

"If it isn't your grip--you must acquit!"


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

johnnycake said:


> There is a REALLY good reason for the 5th Amendment besides not being forced to testify against yourself in criminal trial.


Ok...I get the idea of double jeopardy. But, that doesn't mean that justice was served. I was implying that our justice system doesn't always get things right. I believe this is the perfect example of our justice system getting things wrong. And, a completely different jury could have possibly found the opposite verdict. So, why shouldn't the FEDs get a second crack? Help me understand.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

wyoming2utah said:


> johnnycake said:
> 
> 
> > There is a REALLY good reason for the 5th Amendment besides not being forced to testify against yourself in criminal trial.
> ...


I think this was not justice but....

The government should have one and only one chance to try someone for charges. Its fair to say the government has relatively unlimited resources compared to the average citizen. Its already a herculean effort to go against "them". Imagine if you knew they could go at you multiple times for the same offense. At some point fighting for a not guilty verdict is less probable and it becomes smarter to settle. Plenty of innocent people are already forced into that route because of the cost in time, money and relationships it takes to fight charges. It would become so easy to compel citizens into settlement if a single verdict was not in their future.

The cure should not be worse than the disease.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

Some pretty interesting nuances to the law that I don't fully understand here. And I'm sure that about 99% of the people that will read the story won't understand them either. What they will read, is that this group of "patriots" stood up to the big bad gob'mnt and got away with it. That is what the supporters will see, and that is what those not supporting them will see. One side will read it as an empowering victory, feeling vindicated with their actions, and the other side will see it as a call for further strengthening federal power to suppress this kind of deal. There was no way to win in this deal really. Because a reverse decision would only have led to a desire to strengthen the anti-fed sentiment, and also be a call for a more heavy handed approach. 

I'm curious to see how any of the major candidates will react to this thing - from local legislative to US. Senate/Congress, to the Presidentials. It'll be interesting to see.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

I suppose I was surprised, like many of you, in the verdict. Besides the legal angles, media bias, and lack of facts and knowledge at my disposal, I don't feel qualified to break down whether the outcome was fair or not. It is what it is. It is recognized that our system (and others) are not infallible. Heck, if circumstances are right, we've just seen you can get away with poaching a trophy ram in broad daylight.

That said, a few thoughts. 

1. I agree with GaryFish that the outcome will not fundamentally change the Western land use conflict. If they were convicted, they would have become "martyrs" to the cause and those espousing their line of thought would have perhaps resorted to other means for accomplishing their aims. I see no evidence whatsoever that those that disagree with the Bundy crowd are any less conviced about the correctness of their argument. 

2. There will be a lot more battles like this in the courts and legislatures in the coming years and this case represents just one skirmish. The "land grab" proponents aren't going to be backing down, but I've also seen a lot more attention paid to the public lands issue by conservation and environmentalist organizations, moderate and liberal politicians, and citizens in general who want to keep public lands public. While I'm glad about this, as a proponent of public lands, it does also mean that the issue is going to be vigorously fought over the next few years. The likely prospect of HRC winning the White house will probably agitate the "land grab" crowd even more as an example of "Liberrrral gubmint".

3. When I've traveled in the "435" recently, it seems like much of the populace has changed in their view of what is an "outsider". Back when I was a kid, the "Californians" were disliked but everyone else was OK. As I became an adult and even lived in Nevada for a decade, the "d*&n Nevadans" were the despised outsiders and blamed for every problem. Now, it seems that if you aren't from the local community nearest the mountains you are playing in, then you are scum of the earth, even if you have a Utah license plate. I fear the land grab war is going to get unpleasant for all of us, even dangerous, and I find that kind of sad.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

To be fair, for several federal emoloyees, it was already dangerous. There have been multiple threats of armed violence against land personnel in Utah the last few years. But it can definitely get worse (per the sentiment expressed).


Sucks for the average citizen. Most of us want the agencies working at solving issues affecting our land and wildlife. Events like this just push more funds into LE hiring, training and equipment. And so the cycle spirals out of control.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

Nicely put Catherder. Having lived in Idaho, Montana and Nebraska where your county of residence is part of your license plate number, it has always been anyone but local plates was an outsider. I grew up in 7C (Custer County) Idaho, and how we hate hate hated to see those idiots with 8B (Bonneville - Idaho Falls) show up in October to shoot "our" deer off "our" national forest lands. 

I think it will be interesting to see how things shake out though. BLM can either adjust to more LEOs that will also be trained as Range Cons to monitor grazing use, something that is very much done on a gentlemen's relationship now, or they can go the other way, and just reduce approval of permits and LEO presence until any use is unauthorized and unenforced. But this is one battle of a range war that predates statehood, and really any nationalized government. If you really want to get down to it, the natives had on-going turf wars long before the pale faces showed up.  This particular battle happened to be decided by lawyers and a jury instead of with arrows or bullets. But this battle - won or lost - depending on what side you are on - only re-enforces your position, no matter what it is.


----------



## gdog (Sep 13, 2007)

GaryFish said:


> But this is one battle of a range war that predates statehood, and really any nationalized government. If you really want to get down to it, the natives had on-going turf wars long before the pale faces showed up.


From what I've read online...the Bundy's claim to "their" rangeland doesn't reach that far back into history(????)

From KTVLA:

An investigation by KLAS-TV Las Vegas reveals that Bundy's parents moved from Arizona to Nevada and bought the 160-acre ranch in 1948, from its previous owners. The Bundy's wouldn't begin using this land for their cattle to graze until the 1950's.

Clark County Recorder documents show the 160-acre Bunkerville ranch Bundy calls home was purchased by his parents, David and Bodel Bundy, from Raoul and Ruth Leavitt on Jan. 5, 1948. The purchase included the transfer to the Bundys of certain water rights, including water from the nearby Virgin River. Cliven Bundy was born in 1946."


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

My point was that range wars have been going on for centuries, long before this one. Bundy's battle is just one battle over a very long history. Great info though gdog. Thanks for sharing that.


----------



## Karl (Aug 14, 2016)

Catherder said:


> I suppose I was surprised, like many of you, in the verdict. Besides the legal angles, media bias, and lack of facts and knowledge at my disposal, I don't feel qualified to break down whether the outcome was fair or not. It is what it is. It is recognized that our system (and others) are not infallible. Heck, if circumstances are right, we've just seen you can get away with poaching a trophy ram in broad daylight.
> 
> That said, a few thoughts.
> 
> ...


In terms of actually committing homicides, I think the Oregonians are the worst.

Just like the Steely Dan song goes, "I killed my old man back in Oregon, don't take me alive!"

A few ranchers grabbing land from the Fed's -- heck that's child's play.


----------

