What are your thoughts on the aquittal of the Oregon terrorists?

Bad decision in court. They were guilty. I think the judge was not following the law; he was following his emotions.

The signal is that if you are white you cannot be a terrorist.

Try peacefully protesting the possible destruction/pollution of your land if you are a native American and they will send in tanks

I’m fucking pissed.

I think @rojo ‘s got it right.

Very disappointing.

It’s a bit ironic that armed militias opposing their governments are routinely taken out by American drones in a wide swathe of territory across the Middle East but when they crop up in the USA itself they are taken to court and acquitted.

I think they will make the perfect patsy for some future government set up. 7 patsies up for grabs.
If they are ever accused of doing something violent against someone and they are innocent, they will be easily seen as guilty, no matter how small the evidence is. If I was them, I would worry more. In this life. You don’t get something for nothing.
But if I’m wrong. It is despicable. The judge should lose his job.

This verdict, along with the Trump campaign, will encourage more terrorism from conservatives. The Kansas trio who thankfully were stopped, but there are more out there.

Let’s hope the Nevada trial goes better. That family needs to be introduced to some more reality.

Furious

Before I express an opinion, I’m curious how much those who have already responded even know about the case, starting with @elbanditoroso‘s opinion of the judge that “he was following his emotions”. US District Court Judge Anna Brown is not a man. (Aside from that, I don’t see anything in the limited story that I’m reading to show a pro-defense bias from the bench. If anything, she seemed antagonistic to Ammon Bundy’s lawyer, Mr. Mumford, when she had him tasered for his shouting at her that his client should be released, after she ruled that he should still be held in custody to face charges in Nevada. That hardly seems sympathetic to the defendants.)

There was never a charge – to my knowledge – of “terrorism” or anything like it. The not guilty verdict was, specifically, “not guilty of conspiring to impede federal workers from doing their jobs” (according to the Seattle Times newspaper account that I’m reading). There had not been – again, as far as I know – threats or criminal violence during the standoff.

The jury was not all local. Again, according to the Seattle Times report, “many” of the jurors were not from the Portland, Oregon area. (One juror was replaced during deliberations because of an accusation of bias, which I believe is unusual.)

And the decision was a jury decision.

Personally, I’m thrilled. The message, if there is one, is that the federal government has overreached in its attempt to (unconstitutionally) determine the ownership of public lands (there is no constitutional provision for the US federal government to own land), and to prosecute American citizens who want to occupy “federal” land.

Federal overreach in land acquisition and control and federal prosecution of bogus charges both brought low. How can a freedom lover not rejoice? Again, I realize that puts me at a distinct minority in this forum, but I’m used to it.

And thanks for the biased question, as well.

I find myself in agreement with @CWOTUS‘s assessment of the trial. While we disagree on the question of Federal overreach and Federal control of public lands, this was a jury decision, not the decision of the judge.

Indeed, one of the defendants characterized the judge as controlling the narrative to favor the prosecution.

Poorly prosecuted, weak charges, and questionable response to the occupation to begin with.

Will wonders ever cease??

I’m guessing it’s either prosecutorial ineptitude or the defense attorney has an amazing gift for knowing which jurors to reject.

No constitutional provisions for yadda yadda yadda… So the federal gov’t should return the Louisiana Purchase to France and Alaska to Russia and get its money back? And we should auction off the Grand Canyon and Yosemite to private developers?

Kid gloves for white protestors. Nothing new to see there.

I compare the delicate response to the Bundys with what’s happening in North Dakota this very minute and wonder that anyone can honestly deny the favourable treatment of whites in the US.

Had armed black men taken over federal land and prevented government offiaicals from going about their work would they have been acquitted? Assuming of course the police bothered to arrest them as opposed to just gunning them down

When a jury verdict comes around that I don’t agree with, I try to think that the jury had much more information than I did, but I am having a lot of trouble here.
It just seems so blatantly wrong.

It’s nice to be white.

It is sickening. I hope they will pursue them other ways.

LIVID LIVID LIVID LIVID LIVID

As a resident and tax payer in Oregon I am not thrilled.

And CWOTUS.. I followed this really closely.

LIVID

At least one of the white men (Robert “LaVoy” Finicum) was was shot and killed by the police. That should give most of you at least some satisfaction.

Lavoy committed suicide by cop. He said, literally, “shoot me!” and reached for his gun. That’s the story from his friends in the truck.

He was a typical conservative welfare queen, whining about the government while leeching off the taxpayers. He was getting $90K per year for the care of foster kids, but complained when they stopped sending kids because that was “my income”.

@BellaB there is an incredible number of white people who sincerely believe that there is no such thing as white privilege because Affirmative Action exists. Also, there are poor white people, which disproves white privilege (somehow).

@Lightlyseared they would not have even made it to court. The police would have dropped a bomb on them and burned the place to the ground

@rojo and here was me wanting to suggest they’d nuke them from orbit. Just to be sure. And thinking it would have been a joke.

The verdict is disappointing, but I am not convinced that this is about race. As rojo’s linked article points out,

Eight years later, [after the MOVE bombing] the standoff between federal agents and the Branch Davidians near Waco, Texas, echoed the MOVE scenario. Since then, says Henry Ruth, who served on commissions investigating MOVE and Waco, police have changed their tactics. In 1996, the Montana Freemen standoff ended peacefully when federal agents simply waited out the Freemen. “They learned a lot from Waco, and I think they learned from MOVE about the inevitability of tragedy when you start raiding a cult where you have no contingency plan,” Ruth says. “Law enforcement has seen the need to wait and wait and wait. I think we’ve learned a lot of lessons. But it took MOVE and it took Ruby Ridge and it took Waco to learn that, and that was over 100 lives.”

If you don’t know what Waco and Ruby Ridge are referring to, then you should refrain from making uninformed judgments about law enforcement tactics in the Bundy case. Many of those 100 lives lost were white.

What I don’t know is how the larger land-use issue might be affecting jurors and law enforcement. I don’t understand this issue adequately.

@Zissou From your post I take that Federal law enforcement has learned to wait people out, and the Feds were in charge at Malheur.

Local law enforcement however, is being trained to make war on the public.

’...instructors urged the law enforcement officers in the hotel conference room to make the decision to shoot if they ever feel their lives are threatened.’