Armed Protesters take over Fed owned Building

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/03/us/oregon-wildlife-refuge-protest/index.html

Yep. Another chapter in the Cliven Bundy saga. Protesters have taken over a Federal building in Oregon, claiming the government is using unfair tactics to try and get them to sell them their farmland. Shit hit the fan when ranchers where arrested for arson. The ranchers claim they where doing it to kill off invasive crops and to prevent wildfires. The protesters think the arrest was the government trying to punish ranchers.

Shit gonna go down folks
 
  • Informative
Reactions: DirkBloodStormKing and Morbid Boredom
Click to expand...
Tranhuviya said:
Western farmers are getting a bad deal, but this was no way to go about changing it.
Click to expand...

You don't think arming themselves and invading a singular federal building was a good idea?

Skeealator said:
This shit is off the hook, even by America standards. It's a real-life armed insurrection against the gov't. The Koresh standoff and the prior Bundy standoff are the only other comparable things in recent history I can think of.

Unfortunately, the gov't will probably talk them down instead of going Rainbow Six on their asses.
Click to expand...

It is very similar but the Branch Davidians and the Ruby Ridge people shot first iirc.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Shokew
TowinKarz said:
If there's a guy who moved into my house while I was at work and refuses to get off my couch, it doesn't matter if he threatens me or not, his presence is trespassing, their presence at the refuge was obstructive, end of story, but it's cute to see him try.
Click to expand...

It's somewhat less of a crime if someone is just being really annoying while breaking the law, as compared to when they're violent armed criminals.

So the annoying guy on your couch is definitely a criminal and deserves some punishment, but if he also pointed a gun at you when you said "get off my couch," that's a much worse crime.

This kind of goofy defense is the best the defense lawyers can present, because there is no legal justification whatsoever for what these brain-dead morons did.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: Trombonista, Marvin, Shokew and 2 others
And here comes the crazy... Ryan Bundy files motion for acquittal because he didn't actually keep anyone from going to work while he was occupying the place. Furthermore, he argues that because the employees of the refuge were told to stay away until the matter was resolved by their superiors, they can't claim they were prevented from going to work in the first place..... cute.

The prosecutors entered into evidence the deed for the land held by the Federal Government in response to Bundy et al claims that the land doesn't belong to the feds, but the people. Defendant Shawna Cox filed a useless sovcit motion to have said deed struck from evidence as fraud which includes the usual magic words, bullshit latin phrases and freaking out that certain words on the deed are capitalized.

Amon Bundy's lawyer keeps trying to bring up LaVoy Finnicum getting shot, in direct violation of The Judge's order not to. She's told him next time it happens, he'll owe the court $1,000.

Lisa Bundy, Amon's wife, is apparently butthurt that Sheriff David Ward, during his testimony, did not assert he has more power than the Federal Government and did everything but call the lawyer trying to prod him in that direction an idiot.
 
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: Rou, Marvin, Scribbler and 1 other person
Ammon Bundy took the stand and, from a purely legal standpoint, ensured his conviction.

He testified that he knew there were Federal Employees at the refuge, and that he brought (or at least knew others were bringing) guns, saying it was necessary to "prevent us (sic) from being detained"

He pretty much admitted that they were armed because they were expecting an attempt to remove them...

The other 10 hours of his testimony was the usual blubbering about how unfair it all was and how the government is a bunch of mean poopy-pants and they had "guys in the trees and everywhere" ready to shoot him.

He also testified with a copy of the prerequisite sovcit pocket Constitution and tried to read the 10th Amendment to the prosecutor, arguing it proves the Feds can't own any land, or would've been the argument had said prosecutor not cut him off.

Absolutely none of which is a defense to the charges.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Marvin, Shokew and Scribbler
TowinKarz said:
He also testified with a copy of the prerequisite sovcit pocket Constitution and tried to read the 10th Amendment to the prosecutor, arguing it proves the Feds can't own any land, or would've been the argument had said prosecutor not cut him off.
Click to expand...

So totally wrong.

This issue was resolved in 1819. Amazingly, the Supreme Court decided the federal government can actually own things! Why the fuck would we have even established a federal government that couldn't even fucking own anything?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCulloch_v._Maryland
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Trombonista, *Asterisk*, Scribbler and 1 other person
I'd say it's Jeffersonian-era Strict Constructionism making a comeback, if I thought these people read enough actual Constitutional history to even know what constructuralism was.... they cling to the words of the Constitution while denying the two centuries of established caselaw that interpret what it means.... either because they're too stupid to get it, too prideful to confront their ignorance, or too petulant to stop backing what their hearts are telling them in light of the facts.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Gym Leader Elesa
TowinKarz said:
I'd say it's Jeffersonian-era Strict Constructionism making a comeback, if I thought these people read enough actual Constitutional history to even know what constructuralism was.... they cling to the words of the Constitution while denying the two centuries of established caselaw that interpret what it means.... either because they're too stupid to get it, too prideful to confront their ignorance, or too petulant to stop backing what their hearts are telling them in light of the facts.
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as a strict constructionist who has any form of legal education whatsoever. It is just a form of stupidity.

Here's what Antonin Scalia, often falsely claimed to be a strict constructionist, has said about this stupid philosophy:

"I am not a strict constructionist, and no one ought to be . . . . A text should not be construed strictly, and it should not be construed leniently; it should be construed reasonably, to contain all that it fairly means."

What Scalia considered himself to be is an originalist.

I don't actually agree with Scalia's opinions on many things, but at least give the man the respect to understand what he actually said.
 
  • Informative
  • Agree
Reactions: Gym Leader Elesa, Randall Fragg, Trombonista and 4 others
That is surprising.
Either the prosecution really bungled their case or they let the dumbest jurors possible get through.
Which seems possible since they removed one for bias.
Either way they fucked up a slam dunk case.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: GabeRegan
Chan the Wizard said:
That is surprising.
Either the prosecution really bungled their case or they let the dumbest jurors possible get through.
Which seems possible since they removed one for bias.
Either way they fucked up a slam dunk case.
Click to expand...

Wait til the SJWS get a hold of this.
 
AnOminous said:
Stupid as fuck to charge them only with that apparently difficult to prove charge when there were tons of normal crimes to charge them with. No trespassing charge? Fucking idiots.
Click to expand...

Reminds me of the stupid cunt of a DA in Baltimore who let every single one of those cops walk because she refused to go for anything but a first degree murder charge when intent was virtually impossible to prove.
 
  • Agree
  • Feels
Reactions: Gym Leader Elesa, Randall Fragg, Marvin and 2 others
Ruin said:
Reminds me of the stupid cunt of a DA in Baltimore who let every single one of those cops walk because she refused to go for anything but a first degree murder charge when intent was virtually impossible to prove.
Click to expand...

It's usually a "strategic" choice whether to offer a jury lesser charges to convict someone on, because the prosecutor is ballsy (or stupid) enough to insist on giving them only one choice.

In this case, the strategic choice was clearly a blunder. This is a case where the prosecutors should have gone overboard and charged the defendants with every conceivable violation of the law, and let the fact that it would take a whole day just to read the jury instructions be damned.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Marvin and GabeRegan
AnOminous said:
It's usually a "strategic" choice whether to offer a jury lesser charges to convict someone on, because the prosecutor is ballsy (or stupid) enough to insist on giving them only one choice.

In this case, the strategic choice was clearly a blunder. This is a case where the prosecutors should have gone overboard and charged the defendants with every conceivable violation of the law, and let the fact that it would take a whole day just to read the jury instructions be damned.
Click to expand...

Granted my legal experience isn't as extensive as yours being just a student and all but wouldn't trespassing and destruction of property charges be virtually a slam dunk?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back