The Nehor Posted October 28, 2016 Author Posted October 28, 2016 On the bright side there could be more charges and some have not even gone to trial yet. Come on Oregon! You can do it right next time!
provoman Posted October 28, 2016 Posted October 28, 2016 (edited) 15 hours ago, The Nehor said: Well, an idiotic jury just found seven of the leaders of the occupying 'force' not guilty on every charge. Good to know twelve American people hopefully selected at random now believe that marching onto federal land with guns, impeding federal operations, and doing hundreds of thousands of dollars in damage to federal facilities is now okay. Should we all start calling dibs on pieces of federal land now or fight it out wild-west style to decide who gets to squat on what land? Oregon, you make me sad. Good to know that one individual, who does not know the law, does not know the facts, does not know the standard of evidence....is willing to convict and at the same time condemn those WHO DO know the facts, the standard of evidence, AND those things were explained to them by a minimum of 3 experts in the law - Prosecutor, Defense Attorney, Judge via jury instructions. Edited October 28, 2016 by provoman 2
Marmonboy Posted October 28, 2016 Posted October 28, 2016 Were these seditionists (what they did used to be called sedition) not filmed making threats against governmental types and waving firearms on Federal property? Sure sounds like guilt to me. 1
provoman Posted October 28, 2016 Posted October 28, 2016 3 minutes ago, Marmonboy said: Were these seditionists (what they did used to be called sedition) not filmed making threats against governmental types and waving firearms on Federal property? Sure sounds like guilt to me. Tell you what, make your case by CITING THE LAW, then establish the standard of proof, then discuss - without emotional manipulation - the cold hard facts of the case. Or you could FOIA the court record - opening arguments to closing arguement and jury instructions - and show us how they are guilty.
thesometimesaint Posted October 28, 2016 Posted October 28, 2016 Outliers don't make a convincing argument. OJ didn't murder anyone, but is responsible for their deaths. BTW Here's what George Washington did to a bunch of yahoos with guns who tried the same stunts. SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion SEE http://www.history.com/topics/shays-rebellion
provoman Posted October 28, 2016 Posted October 28, 2016 Matthew 7:2 is very applicable to this thread. If we are willing to condemn absent consideration of evidence and standards of proof, then we are obliged to accept condemnation absent consideration of evidence and standards proof.
Danzo Posted October 28, 2016 Posted October 28, 2016 (edited) 23 minutes ago, Marmonboy said: Were these seditionists (what they did used to be called sedition) not filmed making threats against governmental types and waving firearms on Federal property? Sure sounds like guilt to me. Except they weren't charged with sedition. They weren't charged with terrorism. They weren't even charged with criminal trespass. I don't seem why people here are arguing crimes that the government itself didn't allege. If you want some actual insight on why the jury acquitted http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/10/juror_4_prosecutors_in_oregon.html#incart_maj-story-1 according to the article " "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.'' The jury, he said, met with Judge Brown after the verdicts were announced and after the U.S. Marshals' physical confrontation and arrest of Bundy lawyer Marcus Mumford. 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. The charge of conspiring to impede federal employees from carrying out their official work through intimidation, threat or force brings a maximum sentence of six years in prison. "We all queried about alternative charges that could stick and were amazed that this 'conspiracy' charge seemed the best possible option,'' Juror 4 said." It would appear that the federal prosecutors were asleep on the job Edited October 28, 2016 by Danzo 4
Danzo Posted October 28, 2016 Posted October 28, 2016 2 hours ago, The Nehor said: So it is okay to illegally occupy land as long as no one is there. The problem is that they were not charged with trespass 2 hours ago, The Nehor said: You also tidily ignored the vandalism I pointed out that you were ignorant of before and argue the government hurt their stuff first. They were not charged with vandalism. 2 hours ago, The Nehor said: Why are you hellbent on defending terrorism? They were not charged with terrorism. 3
Danzo Posted October 28, 2016 Posted October 28, 2016 1 hour ago, stemelbow said: My guess is the prosecutors didn't do their job, though. I don't know how else they'd get away with this. That is precisely correct. After the trial was over the jurors asked the judge why they weren't being charged with the crimes that were actually committed. The answer seems to be that they wanted more time in prison than those crimes provided. " "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#incart_maj-story-1 1
Darren10 Posted October 28, 2016 Posted October 28, 2016 3 hours ago, Duncan said: which as far as I know was only applied in that one case. I got Alma 60:35 showing that if Pahoran didn't give Moroni and his men food he'd come and take it by the sword, what is your verse Pahoran was threatened? I find it odd too in North Dakota the Natives are attacked and all kinds of stuff against them but a bunch of nutter white guys in Oregon , nothing, all acquitted. Find your moral standard there. Usually when a captain of an armed force says they'll take food by the sword they mean they'll kill people to get the food. So I got Alma 60:35. I said," He was about to usecthem against the highest ruler in the land as well." andthat's precisely what Alma 60:35 says Moroni would do. So, if you find that morally good when do we in our modern times take up arms against our rulers? At one point. I agree the Bundy group had no reason to protest the way they did but when should they? Their plight is real. Their lands are being destroyed by government overreach. Even environmental policies are laying waste to developed land in the US. Quote I find it odd too in North Dakota the Natives are attacked and all kinds of stuff against them but a bunch of nutter white guys in Oregon , nothing, all acquitted. Find your moral standard there. So , again, it's because they are white that you disdain them and consider them crimials deserving excommunication and prosecution? What natives are "attacked" in North Dakota. The only protest I know of are those against the pipeline. It was when they entered onto private land, not public or federal land, that they were kicked out. Was that when they were attacked? 1
thesometimesaint Posted October 28, 2016 Posted October 28, 2016 The Treaty of 1851 gives the land to the Dakota Indians SEE http://treatiesmatter.org/treaties/land/1851-Dakota
rongo Posted October 28, 2016 Posted October 28, 2016 2 hours ago, stemelbow said: Well at least the defense attorney is in trouble for arguing after the decision was read. My guess is the prosecutors didn't do their job, though. I don't know how else they'd get away with this. Why did Marcus Mumford get tazed and piled on by six marshals? From the press reports, all he did was ask if they had a detaining order. http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/10/oregon_standoff_verdicts_annou.html By the way, I'm assuming that Marcus Mumford was a boy I bowled over at home plate in Clifton, Idaho, Pete Rose style, when I was a boy. It's kind of a unique name. I really am kind of upset, based on my limited knowledge of what happened after the verdict, that excessive force was used on the attorney. From what I've read, he might have been arguing, but tazing and dogpiling by marshals? 4
Darren10 Posted October 28, 2016 Posted October 28, 2016 (edited) 5 hours ago, The Nehor said: So it is okay to illegally occupy land as long as no one is there. Can you send me your address and dates for your vacation plans. If I point a gun at you to keep you out but not to force you to leave it is okay. Moroni is not a fit comparison. He was a general taking up arms against armed insurgents conspiring against the government. If anyone fits for a Moroni comparison in this scenario it is the FBI. In both cases dissidents seized the government's property and drove out government officers and were breathing out threats against the government. You also tidily ignored the vandalism I pointed out that you were ignorant of before and argue the government hurt their stuff first. What? And went off on a bunch of irrelevant tangents. Why? Why are you hellbent on defending terrorism? Quote So it is okay to illegally occupy land as long as no one is there. Once again, I have NEVER justified their occupation. It was wrong and Robert Finicum getting shot by a police office was 100% justifiable. There's no disagreement here between you and I. The disagreement is the nature of the occupation. You label a group "domestic terrorists" and crazy "idiots" who take up arms and ready to kill people. Yet the only person that was ever shot was in the Bundy group. The only person who ever had a firearm pointed at them was the Bundy group. The LDS Church expressed grave concern over this protest and that people may die. Well, people are dying, uniformed police officers are being targeted and killed over a lie. A huge luie. You, like the LDS Church, express little to no concern over this yet grave concern over the Bundy group. Nobody is "dangerous" or a "terrorist" just because they carry guns. That includes to a protest. You arms, feet, rocks, sticks and other objects can also be deadly. it's not a matter of what you have on your possession but what your intent on using them for which makes you "dangerous" and a "terrorist". Quote If I point a gun at you to keep you out but not to force you to leave it is okay. You're getting very close to openly threatening me, sir. If you point a gun at me my reaction will be one of a variety of choices including shooting you dead. Chill out with the hyperbole. I have no desire to "go there" with you or anyone else. This is a discussion on philosophical matters, not personal. If I make plans for a private paid vacation, no you may not prevent me from passing through. No, you may not point a gun at me. Nobody in the Bundy group pointed a gun at anyone at any point so far as I know. The only one who had guns pointed at them were those in the Bundy group. Again, it was 100% justified for law enforcement to point their guns at them and to shoot Finicum. Why do you keep returning to contend on a point we agree on? focus on whether or not the Bundy group "pointed their guns" at anyone then we can go from there. Here is a different case but directly connected to not allowing others to pass through a rout the are perfectly in the right to do so and should be completely welcome to do so. Is this domestic terrorism? Did Berkley students make life dangerous? Or since it was against white people, it's not to worry? On the latter, Duncan may think so. You may think so and I think it was BlueBell or BlueDream I called out on this in my original thread, she may think so, but I think police should have broken this protest line and could have done so very easily instead of assisting white students to safely go around. http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=8301 Quote Moroni is not a fit comparison. He was a general taking up arms against armed insurgents conspiring against the government. Yet before that he was going to take up arms against his government for the suffering he (Moroni) supposed they inflicted upon his men. Quote If anyone fits for a Moroni comparison in this scenario it is the FBI. In both cases dissidents seized the government's property and drove out government officers and were breathing out threats against the government. That does fit Moroni, but so does my statement directly above. Now, for the umpteenth time, the FBI acted justifiably, even "righteously" you can say, against the Bundy group. There is no disagreement between you and I on this. But, Moroni was going to use "the sword" to protect the well-being of his men from government neglect. That seems to describe a person willing to openly fight his government when they do wrong. Said fighting includes violence and death inflicted upon government parties. Quote You also tidily ignored the vandalism I pointed out that you were ignorant of before and argue the government hurt their stuff first. What? No, I did not ignore it. I assume charges may be filed against the culprits. There's even video of them committing the vandalism. Quote Why? Why are you hellbent on defending terrorism? For the love of all that is running full circle. No one is defending terrorism here. Need I repeat yet again that the Bundy group acted in the wrong and that killing one of their own was 100% justified? Obviously it's probably my fault I have not been clear enough on the matter so here: the Bundy group acted in the wrong and killing of one their own was 100% justified. Edited October 28, 2016 by Darren10
Danzo Posted October 28, 2016 Posted October 28, 2016 (edited) 38 minutes ago, rongo said: Why did Marcus Mumford get tazed and piled on by six marshals? From the press reports, all he did was ask if they had a detaining order. http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/10/oregon_standoff_verdicts_annou.html By the way, I'm assuming that Marcus Mumford was a boy I bowled over at home plate in Clifton, Idaho, Pete Rose style, when I was a boy. It's kind of a unique name. I really am kind of upset, based on my limited knowledge of what happened after the verdict, that excessive force was used on the attorney. From what I've read, he might have been arguing, but tazing and dogpiling by marshals? From the various reports during the trial, it was apparent that Mr Mumford made himself very annoying during the trial. It's probably not a justification for getting tazed, but it may have contributed. Edited October 28, 2016 by Danzo 3
Darren10 Posted October 28, 2016 Posted October 28, 2016 1 hour ago, provoman said: Tell you what, make your case by CITING THE LAW, then establish the standard of proof, then discuss - without emotional manipulation - the cold hard facts of the case. Or you could FOIA the court record - opening arguments to closing arguement and jury instructions - and show us how they are guilty. My understanding is that records of court cases are made public within a couple of weeks if not sooner.
Darren10 Posted October 28, 2016 Posted October 28, 2016 1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said: Outliers don't make a convincing argument. OJ didn't murder anyone, but is responsible for their deaths. BTW Here's what George Washington did to a bunch of yahoos with guns who tried the same stunts. SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion SEE http://www.history.com/topics/shays-rebellion The Bundy group are protesting the government breaking the law not for not wanting to keep the law. And from your Wiki link, "Throughout counties in Western Pennsylvania, protesters used violence and intimidation to prevent federal officials from collecting the tax," what violence was the Bundy group using? Threatening, yes, but were they violent against government officials?
Danzo Posted October 28, 2016 Posted October 28, 2016 (edited) 17 minutes ago, Darren10 said: The Bundy group are protesting the government breaking the law not for not wanting to keep the law. And from your Wiki link, "Throughout counties in Western Pennsylvania, protesters used violence and intimidation to prevent federal officials from collecting the tax," what violence was the Bundy group using? Threatening, yes, but were they violent against government officials? its interesting that they were never accused of being violent against government officials. The government should have tried them for criminal trespass, that would have been easy to convict them on. Instead they thought they could make a bigger statement by using conspiracy instead. Edited October 28, 2016 by Danzo 2
stemelbow Posted October 28, 2016 Posted October 28, 2016 5 minutes ago, Danzo said: its interesting that they were never accused of being violent against government officials. The government should have tried them for criminal trespass, that would have been easy to convict them on. Instead they thought they could make a biggest statement by using conspiracy instead. Seems like an extremely ill-thought out move.
thesometimesaint Posted October 28, 2016 Posted October 28, 2016 14 minutes ago, Darren10 said: The Bundy group are protesting the government breaking the law not for not wanting to keep the law. And from your Wiki link, "Throughout counties in Western Pennsylvania, protesters used violence and intimidation to prevent federal officials from collecting the tax," what violence was the Bundy group using? Threatening, yes, but were they violent against government officials? Yes.
rongo Posted October 28, 2016 Posted October 28, 2016 It's definitely the Marcus Mumford I grew up with. When interviewed, he has a very bad stutter, and he did growing up. He also mentions growing up on a dairy farm. He looks much older than I am, even though we're both in our 40s. I think using excessive and unnecessary force on an attorney asking to see documents shows the frustration of the feds at blowing this round. 1
snowflake Posted October 28, 2016 Posted October 28, 2016 Quote 2 hours ago, Danzo said: Were these seditionists (what they did used to be called sedition) not filmed making threats against governmental types and waving firearms on Federal property? Sure sounds like guilt to me. Oregon is an "open carry" state. Most people who live out in Burns Oregon are of a gun-toting 2nd amendment loving crowd. BTW. So driving around in pickups and "packing heat", people there don't even bat an eye. 1
Darren10 Posted October 28, 2016 Posted October 28, 2016 1 hour ago, Danzo said: its interesting that they were never accused of being violent against government officials. The government should have tried them for criminal trespass, that would have been easy to convict them on. Instead they thought they could make a bigger statement by using conspiracy instead. I agree. Trespassing is a clear cut case against the Bundy group. Not charging them with violence or terrorism I think says a lot about their character. Again for all those who have not realized to this point, I DO NOT CONDONE THEIR CHOICES but I do not find them as being "domestic terrorists". Just because people have guns and protest does not make them terrorists.
Darren10 Posted October 28, 2016 Posted October 28, 2016 1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said: Yes. Here's what you are answering, "...but were they violent against government officials?" Against whom?
Darren10 Posted October 28, 2016 Posted October 28, 2016 12 minutes ago, snowflake said: Oregon is an "open carry" state. Most people who live out in Burns Oregon are of a gun-toting 2nd amendment loving crowd. BTW. So driving around in pickups and "packing heat", people there don't even bat an eye. It used to be, especially in rural communities, high school kids would go to school in their trucks with their gun racks filled. I guess if they decided to protest in their vehicles, they'd be "domestic terrorists".
snowflake Posted October 28, 2016 Posted October 28, 2016 3 minutes ago, Darren10 said: It used to be, especially in rural communities, high school kids would go to school in their trucks with their gun racks filled. I guess if they decided to protest in their vehicles, they'd be "domestic terrorists". My high school was exactly how you described above, during hunting season half the parking lot was full of trucks with guns in the racks. I remember the shop teacher Mr.Clark (a faithful LDS man) inspecting my friends new 30-06 during lunch in the parking lot.....normal behavior there. 2
Recommended Posts