a victory for liberty over tyranny

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > C-SPAM > a victory for liberty over tyranny

Mr. Nice!: Oct 13, 2005; c-spam cannot afford

Parallel Paraplegic posted:

That one guy that hid the fact that he had shot at the car might be enough to gently caress this up in her favor

That's justification for administrative action against the officers involved, but the actual kill shots are what matter and those were 100% justified.

# ? Aug 29, 2016 03:12

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 12, 2024 21:39

Goatse James Bond: Mar 28, 2010; If you see me posting please remind me that I have Charlie Work in the reports forum to do instead

Epic High Five posted:

It'll be funny asking her or anybody sympathetic to this suit how they feel about the families of slain black youths suing their local PD

I'm fine with her suing, I'd be very surprised if she won but if she did, police malfeasance is bad even when it's against LaVoy Finnicum.

# ? Aug 29, 2016 05:45

Mr. World: May 6, 2007; Working undercover for the man . . .

iospace posted:

https://twitter.com/AP/status/770031344554483712
This is going to be good. Though if she succeeds gently caress everything forever.

"Rancher" lives matter :qq:

# ? Aug 29, 2016 15:27

Mirthless: Mar 27, 2011; by the sex ghost

Given the behavior of the malheur occupiers the FBI would have been justified to riddle that entire vehicle with bullets until it stopped moving and the family wouldn't have been able to do poo poo about it.

The fleeing felon rule is a thing and while it's been restructured over the years to make it harder to justify lethal force, there was absolutely the expectation that the fleeing suspects were a serious risk of bodily harm to the officers and others. You know, based on the terroristic threats they made direct to camera about not letting themselves be taken alive and considering themselves at war with the government and what have you.

# ? Aug 29, 2016 15:55

Mr. Nice!: Oct 13, 2005; c-spam cannot afford

Mirthless posted:

Given the behavior of the malheur occupiers the FBI would have been justified to riddle that entire vehicle with bullets until it stopped moving and the family wouldn't have been able to do poo poo about it.

The fleeing felon rule is a thing and while it's been restructured over the years to make it harder to justify lethal force, there was absolutely the expectation that the fleeing suspects were a serious risk of bodily harm to the officers and others. You know, based on the terroristic threats they made direct to camera about not letting themselves be taken alive and considering themselves at war with the government and what have you.

Not to mention LaVoy was yelling at the cops at the traffic stop and barricade "you're gonna have to shoot me"

# ? Aug 29, 2016 16:23

hobbesmaster: Jan 28, 2008

Mr. Nice! posted:

Not to mention LaVoy was yelling at the cops at the traffic stop and barricade "you're gonna have to shoot me"

The FBI agent fired when the vehicle was approaching. I guess even if they were justified legally maybe the FBI had orders not to fire or something and thats why the FBI guys panicked? I kinda want the case to go into discovery just to find out.

# ? Aug 29, 2016 16:26

Mr. Nice!: Oct 13, 2005; c-spam cannot afford

hobbesmaster posted:

The FBI agent fired when the vehicle was approaching. I guess even if they were justified legally maybe the FBI had orders not to fire or something and thats why the FBI guys panicked? I kinda want the case to go into discovery just to find out.

I'm certain they had communication with the officers at the traffic stop. I'm also curious about why they may have tried to cover up anything, but even still 100% of the shots were justified.

# ? Aug 29, 2016 16:30

Mirthless: Mar 27, 2011; by the sex ghost

Mr. Nice! posted:

I'm certain they had communication with the officers at the traffic stop. I'm also curious about why they may have tried to cover up anything, but even still 100% of the shots were justified.

Probably because they were told to not fire until it was absolutely certain they had no other choice and after they jumped the gun they lied to prevent themselves from getting internally reprimanded

There were probably a lot of agents involved in those stops who were expecting the occupation to be what moved their careers forward in the FBI. My understanding about these things (admittedly, limited) is that an official reprimand is a good way to deadend your career, at least for a while. Self interest was the only reason, if I had to guess.

# ? Aug 29, 2016 17:20

Azathoth: Apr 3, 2001

hobbesmaster posted:

The FBI agent fired when the vehicle was approaching. I guess even if they were justified legally maybe the FBI had orders not to fire or something and thats why the FBI guys panicked? I kinda want the case to go into discovery just to find out.

Just like Ruby Ridge and Waco, the FBI was facing a group who expected the government to storm in and try to kill them, and even if they'd be 100% legally justified in doing so, the smart play is to not give the crazy people the excuse to act out their messianic fantasies.

Finicum was determined to be a martyr, and I don't think there's any doubt that from the moment he exited the vehicle after it got stuck, that he was gonna go down in a hail of bullets. The only question was whether he was gonna take other people with him.

The question would be whether the shots fired as the vehicle approached triggered this martyrdom, and whether the agents who fired were operating under orders when they did so. I would lean towards it being an agent either panicking or thinking they saw someone in the Jeep preparing to fire on them, and that Finicum was looking for an excuse to be a martyr, and when he saw the opportunity, he took it.

From the moment he was pulled over, he continually tried to commit suicide by cop, and when they wouldn't oblige him, he forced their hand by trying to draw his gun. He always had that option, and I'm convinced that there was no way that he was going to be taken in alive. I also have no doubt that, up until he tried to draw, that he was convinced that his "noble sacrifice" would be an inspiration that would propel their movement forward.

It's tragic, and I don't think that the FBI could have done much to change the essential outcome.

# ? Aug 29, 2016 17:31

Alan Smithee: Jan 4, 2005; A man becomes preeminent, he's expected to have enthusiasms.

Enthusiasms, enthusiasms...

whatever happened to that kylo ren dude who got taken alive at the end?

# ? Aug 29, 2016 17:35

OAquinas: Jan 27, 2008; Biden has sat immobile on the Iron Throne of America. He is the Master of Malarkey by the will of the gods, and master of a million votes by the might of his inexhaustible calamari.

Alan Smithee posted:

whatever happened to that kylo ren dude who got taken alive at the end?

Still in custody, still batshit crazy.

# ? Aug 29, 2016 17:44

SocketWrench: Jul 8, 2012; by Fritz the Horse

iospace posted:

https://twitter.com/AP/status/770031344554483712
This is going to be good. Though if she succeeds gently caress everything forever.

I'm sorry, your husband was a loon and did stupid poo poo. You're just gonna have to live with that

:10bux:

she's a sovcit too and is going to file all kinds of weird mumbo jumbo

Mirthless posted:

Given the behavior of the malheur occupiers the FBI would have been justified to riddle that entire vehicle with bullets until it stopped moving and the family wouldn't have been able to do poo poo about it.

The fleeing felon rule is a thing and while it's been restructured over the years to make it harder to justify lethal force, there was absolutely the expectation that the fleeing suspects were a serious risk of bodily harm to the officers and others. You know, based on the terroristic threats they made direct to camera about not letting themselves be taken alive and considering themselves at war with the government and what have you.

And the whole not even tapping the brake while driving into a roadblock thing

SocketWrench has issued a correction as of 17:52 on Aug 29, 2016

# ? Aug 29, 2016 17:49

Mr. Nice!: Oct 13, 2005; c-spam cannot afford

Azathoth posted:

Just like Ruby Ridge and Waco, the FBI was facing a group who expected the government to storm in and try to kill them, and even if they'd be 100% legally justified in doing so, the smart play is to not give the crazy people the excuse to act out their messianic fantasies.

Finicum was determined to be a martyr, and I don't think there's any doubt that from the moment he exited the vehicle after it got stuck, that he was gonna go down in a hail of bullets. The only question was whether he was gonna take other people with him.

The question would be whether the shots fired as the vehicle approached triggered this martyrdom, and whether the agents who fired were operating under orders when they did so. I would lean towards it being an agent either panicking or thinking they saw someone in the Jeep preparing to fire on them, and that Finicum was looking for an excuse to be a martyr, and when he saw the opportunity, he took it.

From the moment he was pulled over, he continually tried to commit suicide by cop, and when they wouldn't oblige him, he forced their hand by trying to draw his gun. He always had that option, and I'm convinced that there was no way that he was going to be taken in alive. I also have no doubt that, up until he tried to draw, that he was convinced that his "noble sacrifice" would be an inspiration that would propel their movement forward.

It's tragic, and I don't think that the FBI could have done much to change the essential outcome.

I bolded one portion and just wanted to remind everyone that he got stopped with Ammon and crew, but did not get arrested with them because he sat in his truck obstinately yelling at officers dealing with the other vehicle that they'd just better shoot him right away. After 7 minutes of watching the other vehicle's crew get dealt with peacefully, he charged away and nearly crashed into a police barricade and almost hit an officer in the process.

# ? Aug 29, 2016 18:21

Mirthless: Mar 27, 2011; by the sex ghost

Really, the absolutely incredible patience and soft hand that the Malheur occupiers were treated with is a great argument in favor of violent protest

# ? Aug 29, 2016 18:24

Geoj: May 28, 2008; BITTER POOR PERSON

Mirthless posted:

Really, the absolutely incredible patience and soft hand that the Malheur occupiers were treated with is a great argument in favor of violent protest

Yeah, but I'd be shocked if anyone besides fringe-right militia movement members were shown similar restraint. I can't help but feel if this had been anyone else they would have been cleared out within a week of occupying federal property - either voluntarily or through a hail or sniper fire and/or a tactical breach & clear.

# ? Aug 29, 2016 18:37

iospace: Jan 19, 2038

Mirthless posted:

Really, the absolutely incredible patience and soft hand that the Malheur occupiers were treated with is a great argument in favor of violent protest

They wanted to go down in flames a la Waco. Become an example.

Only one of them got killed, and even then he got killed being overly aggressive and running a police roadblock.

# ? Aug 29, 2016 18:51

Azathoth: Apr 3, 2001

Mr. Nice! posted:

I bolded one portion and just wanted to remind everyone that he got stopped with Ammon and crew, but did not get arrested with them because he sat in his truck obstinately yelling at officers dealing with the other vehicle that they'd just better shoot him right away. After 7 minutes of watching the other vehicle's crew get dealt with peacefully, he charged away and nearly crashed into a police barricade and almost hit an officer in the process.

Yeah, that's what I was trying to get at. Finicum knew how it was going to end the moment they were stopped, and the gun he carried ensured that he always had the means to make it happen.

Mirthless posted:

Really, the absolutely incredible patience and soft hand that the Malheur occupiers were treated with is a great argument in favor of violent protest

The thing of it is, it wasn't violent in the sense of what most people would call violent. If anything, the closest parallel would be to a hostage situation, though the occupiers were simultaneously the hostages and the hostage takers.

There was always the potential for it to turn violent, and to do so quite quickly, but the FBI did exactly what they should do in that circumstance, which is to show that they're not going to leave and that they're not going to storm the place, thereby denying them the showdown the occupiers wanted.

From there, it turned into a classic siege, with the FBI being patient and wearing down the occupiers, arresting them when the chance presented itself, which applied a constant pressure to the occupiers, and now that it's over, they're into the second phase of the FBI's plan, which is to make sure that anyone who would repeat the occupier's actions is as dissuaded as possible.

By the time this is over, the sheer volume of prison sentences, combined with the fact that only one of them got their desired showdown with the gubmint, should help to discourage this kind of thing.

If the FBI had gone Waco on the place, that would, disconcertingly, have served as encouragement to do this kind of thing.

# ? Aug 29, 2016 18:54

iospace: Jan 19, 2038

Azathoth posted:

Yeah, that's what I was trying to get at. Finicum knew how it was going to end the moment they were stopped, and the gun he carried ensured that he always had the means to make it happen.

The thing of it is, it wasn't violent in the sense of what most people would call violent. If anything, the closest parallel would be to a hostage situation, though the occupiers were simultaneously the hostages and the hostage takers.

There was always the potential for it to turn violent, and to do so quite quickly, but the FBI did exactly what they should do in that circumstance, which is to show that they're not going to leave and that they're not going to storm the place, thereby denying them the showdown the occupiers wanted.

From there, it turned into a classic siege, with the FBI being patient and wearing down the occupiers, arresting them when the chance presented itself, which applied a constant pressure to the occupiers, and now that it's over, they're into the second phase of the FBI's plan, which is to make sure that anyone who would repeat the occupier's actions is as dissuaded as possible.

By the time this is over, the sheer volume of prison sentences, combined with the fact that only one of them got their desired showdown with the gubmint, should help to discourage this kind of thing.

If the FBI had gone Waco on the place, that would, disconcertingly, have served as encouragement to do this kind of thing.

It also doesn't help their cause that... -checks- 12 of the 27 people charged because of their involvement in the takeover have plead guilty, including Ritzheimer.

# ? Aug 29, 2016 18:58

Azathoth: Apr 3, 2001

Geoj posted:

Yeah, but I'd be shocked if anyone besides fringe-right militia movement members were shown similar restraint. I can't help but feel if this had been anyone else they would have been cleared out within a week of occupying federal property - either voluntarily or through a hail or sniper fire and/or a tactical breach & clear.

I disagree, at least partially. The whole point of allowing it to drag out was to systematically deny the legitimacy of their arguments, and to discourage this kind of thing from happening in the future.

If it was radical environmentalists or something similar (to go to the other end of the political spectrum), they would have gotten cleared out quick, just as you describe, but only because doing so wouldn't serve as further encouragement to other groups to do the same thing.

Taking these idiots down in a breach and clear would undoubtedly have had a much higher body count, and would have turned the dead into martyrs. However, by waiting them out, then grinding them through the gears of the justice system, it shows any would-be copycats that an armed occupation ends with them in a cage for decades, not a glorious martyrdom in defense of liberty.

# ? Aug 29, 2016 19:04

SocketWrench: Jul 8, 2012; by Fritz the Horse

Azathoth posted:

I disagree, at least partially. The whole point of allowing it to drag out was to systematically deny the legitimacy of their arguments, and to discourage this kind of thing from happening in the future.

If it was radical environmentalists or something similar (to go to the other end of the political spectrum), they would have gotten cleared out quick, just as you describe, but only because doing so wouldn't serve as further encouragement to other groups to do the same thing.

Taking these idiots down in a breach and clear would undoubtedly have had a much higher body count, and would have turned the dead into martyrs. However, by waiting them out, then grinding them through the gears of the justice system, it shows any would-be copycats that an armed occupation ends with them in a cage for decades, not a glorious martyrdom in defense of liberty.

This. It's not many a BLM, 99%, environmental, or other protests that welcome a violent attack and will martyr them and legitamize their issues. It's almost as if protests differs and different approaches are required. Giving these fuckers another Ruby Ridge/Waco would pretty much ensure we'd be seeing this again and again

# ? Aug 29, 2016 19:34

Mr. Nice!: Oct 13, 2005; c-spam cannot afford

iospace posted:

It also doesn't help their cause that... -checks- 12 of the 27 people charged because of their involvement in the takeover have plead guilty, including Ritzheimer.

Which just goes to show how hosed the remaining ones are. Anyone who wasn't a true believer rolled over and took a plea deal before the government had a chance to go over half the case against them. Every one of the ones at trial is completely and utterly boned.

# ? Aug 29, 2016 19:47

iospace: Jan 19, 2038

Mr. Nice! posted:

Which just goes to show how hosed the remaining ones are. Anyone who wasn't a true believer rolled over and took a plea deal before the government had a chance to go over half the case against them. Every one of the ones at trial is completely and utterly boned.

Pretty much. Seven of the 27 arrested for Oregon bullshit are facing charges for idiocy in Nevada, and of those seven, four plead guilty to at least the Oregon charges (though unknown on the status of the Nevada charges). The holdouts? Ammon and Ryan Bundy and Peter Santilli.

# ? Aug 29, 2016 19:58

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Courtesy of trumpthread: https://freedominionpoliticalparty.wordpress.com/

# ? Aug 29, 2016 20:28

Mors Rattus: Oct 25, 2007; FATAL & Friends
Walls of Text
#1 Builder
2014-2018

I'm sure that trying to do this as a political party will work just as well as it has when it's been tried as a religious statement.

# ? Aug 29, 2016 22:18

Evil Fluffy: Jul 13, 2009; Scholars are some of the most pompous and pedantic people I've ever had the joy of meeting.

iospace posted:

https://twitter.com/AP/status/770031344554483712
This is going to be good. Though if she succeeds gently caress everything forever.

There is zero chance of her winning. Even if she manages to get some crazy rear end in a top hat right winger judge to rule in her favor (or even hear her case) it'll be struck down immediately on appeal. A leader of an armed occupation got out of a vehicle after trying to run a roadblock and kept going for a gun in his pocket while being told to put his hands in the air. There's no way the courts aren't going to side with law enforcement on this.

# ? Aug 29, 2016 22:29

Mors Rattus: Oct 25, 2007; FATAL & Friends
Walls of Text
#1 Builder
2014-2018

On the other hand, consider the cosmic irony if a bunch of federal agents firing on a white ~~terrorist~~ rancher doing everything he can to piss off the cops is ruled a bad shoot in the America of today, the year of our Lord, 2016.

# ? Aug 29, 2016 22:42

Alkydere: Jun 7, 2010; Capitol: A building or complex of buildings in which any legislature meets.
Capital: A city designated as a legislative seat by the government or some other authority, often the city in which the government is located; otherwise the most important city within a country or a subdivision of it.

Evil Fluffy posted:

There is zero chance of her winning. Even if she manages to get some crazy rear end in a top hat right winger judge to rule in her favor (or even hear her case) it'll be struck down immediately on appeal. A leader of an armed occupation got out of a vehicle after trying to run a roadblock and kept going for a gun in his pocket while being told to put his hands in the air. There's no way the courts aren't going to side with law enforcement on this.

That's also assuming that she can keep the Sov-Cit-ness in check well enough to keep from torpedoing her own case. I'd honestly be surprised if Mrs. Finicum wasn't just as much as Sovcit as her husband. So you know she's likely to inflict all sorts of self-inflicted wounds on the case.

# ? Aug 29, 2016 22:54

Chef Boyardeez Nuts: Sep 9, 2011; The more you kick against the pricks, the more you suffer.

Nope certainly no intervening cause in fact here.

# ? Aug 29, 2016 23:00

SocketWrench: Jul 8, 2012; by Fritz the Horse

Alkydere posted:

That's also assuming that she can keep the Sov-Cit-ness in check well enough to keep from torpedoing her own case. I'd honestly be surprised if Mrs. Finicum wasn't just as much as Sovcit as her husband. So you know she's likely to inflict all sorts of self-inflicted wounds on the case.

You'd figure she'd have to be, there's no way she got along with him without being involved it the same bullshit. It's just like an atheist marrying an evangical, all they're gonna do is argue

# ? Aug 29, 2016 23:14

Azathoth: Apr 3, 2001

I wish that news agencies wouldn't report on crazy and/or grieving people who say they're going to file a lawsuit. It isn't possible to say anything meaningful about their claims, or even that the lawsuit isn't just crazyass sovcit ramblings.

The announcement of the intent to file a lawsuit is about as newsworthy as me announcing that I'm going to be giving a press conference in front of the courthouse tomorrow where I will detail shocking new facts concerning the allegations that Donald Trump wanders the streets of New York each night molesting squirrels.

If I show up and rant at the top of my lungs until I'm escorted away, it isn't news beyond speculation concerning my mental health, but if I show up with hidden camera footage showing a limo with TRUMP on the side parked in a dark alley while the unmistakable and disturbing sounds of squirrel molestation emanate from the back seat, and after which a disheveled but satisfied Trump emerges as several panicked squirrels leap from the limo, and couple that with a signed affidavit from a former Trump employee who claims to have been his personal squirrel catcher from 2004 to 2009, then it's a whole different kind of news.

# ? Aug 29, 2016 23:25

Starshark: Dec 22, 2005; Doctor Rope

Azathoth posted:

I wish that news agencies wouldn't report on crazy and/or grieving people who say they're going to file a lawsuit. It isn't possible to say anything meaningful about their claims, or even that the lawsuit isn't just crazyass sovcit ramblings.

The announcement of the intent to file a lawsuit is about as newsworthy as me announcing that I'm going to be giving a press conference in front of the courthouse tomorrow where I will detail shocking new facts concerning the allegations that Donald Trump wanders the streets of New York each night molesting squirrels.

If I show up and rant at the top of my lungs until I'm escorted away, it isn't news beyond speculation concerning my mental health, but if I show up with hidden camera footage showing a limo with TRUMP on the side parked in a dark alley while the unmistakable and disturbing sounds of squirrel molestation emanate from the back seat, and after which a disheveled but satisfied Trump emerges as several panicked squirrels leap from the limo, and couple that with a signed affidavit from a former Trump employee who claims to have been his personal squirrel catcher from 2004 to 2009, then it's a whole different kind of news.

Journalists and news editors are lazy, unimaginative dumb fucks who'll run anything that's sold ~~reasonably well~~ at all in the past. Grieving family members is just good television, let's show this woman saying that forty years hard labour for the murder of her husband 'isn't enough - it won't bring him back - my sentence is for life'.

# ? Aug 30, 2016 10:15

ToxicSlurpee: Nov 5, 2003; -=SEND HELP=-; Pillbug

The main thing the feds accomplished by waiting, sieging, and only killing one person was showing that they weren't inspiring the glorious revolution they so wanted. Their great conservative uprising wasn't even stillborn; it was never conceived in the first place.

The message to other similar crazies is a mix of "this will not work so never try again" and "America does not want this." The absolute lack of support must have been stifling. They completely, absolutely, and totally failed.

# ? Aug 30, 2016 19:17

XMNN: Apr 26, 2008; I am incredibly stupid

im p sure if they were capable of rational thought or foresight they wouldn't be sovereign citizens

# ? Aug 30, 2016 20:44

Mad Doctor Cthulhu: Mar 3, 2008

ToxicSlurpee posted:

The main thing the feds accomplished by waiting, sieging, and only killing one person was showing that they weren't inspiring the glorious revolution they so wanted. Their great conservative uprising wasn't even stillborn; it was never conceived in the first place.

The message to other similar crazies is a mix of "this will not work so never try again" and "America does not want this." The absolute lack of support must have been stifling. They completely, absolutely, and totally failed.

It also shows that the big conservative cult movement has no balls. These fuckers will piss themselves and run when pressed. For the last twenty or so years they've had the '90s trifecta of Waco, Rudy Ridge, and Oklahoma City to give them some sort of fearful respect. But after this? All of those were outliers. The reality is that this sort of thing is masturbatory and full of losers. Losers who had little respect to begin with, now having their fantasies torn down right before they're tossed into prison for a few years, forgotten, before they're released again and mocked. Nobody fears these idiots, their attempt at some sort of esteem has turned them into laughingstocks even bigger than before.

Dignity, always dignity. It's amazing to behold.

# ? Aug 30, 2016 20:49

Evil Fluffy: Jul 13, 2009; Scholars are some of the most pompous and pedantic people I've ever had the joy of meeting.

OkC was largely in response to Waco and Ruby Ridge. It's literally the #1 reason the government wants to avoid another Waco or Ruby Ridge style incident so that one of the few truly insane assholes don't actually go over the edge and blow up a few hundred people again.

# ? Aug 30, 2016 22:39

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Santilli's pretrial filing is out and, well, who likes latin? (IANAL, but I'm pretty sure Strictissimi Juris isn't really a meaningful legal concept, so much as a rhetorical flourish lawyers occasionally use).

edit: It is in fact a concept, inasmuchas there are three law journal articles arguing that it ought to be. Still not really a good tack to take here.

It's not as nuts as you might hope, but still a barrel of fun.

Maxine Bernstein, of the unfortunate twitter tag @maxoregonian, is now that paper's main correspondent for the trial.

Les Zaitz is still in the process of gradually nailing the Grant County Sherriff, occupier sympathizer/helper Glenn Palmer, to the wall. A complicating factor is that Palmer deputized a ton of cronies in his county who are going to bat for him in a variety of settings. The comments on that last link are especially fun.

Discendo Vox has issued a correction as of 23:32 on Aug 30, 2016

# ? Aug 30, 2016 23:10

CaptainSarcastic: Jul 6, 2013

Discendo Vox posted:

Santilli's pretrial filing is out and, well, who likes latin? (IANAL, but I'm pretty sure Strictissimi Juris isn't really a meaningful legal concept, so much as a rhetorical flourish lawyers occasionally use).

It's not as nuts as you might hope, but still a barrel of fun.

Maxine Bernstein, of the unfortunate twitter tag @maxoregonian, is now that paper's main correspondent for the trial.

Les Zaitz is still in the process of gradually nailing the Grant County Sherriff, occupier sympathizer/helper Glenn Palmer, to the wall. A complicating factor is that Palmer deputized a ton of cronies in his county who are going to bat for him in a variety of settings. The comments on that last link are especially fun.

Cool that Maxine Bernstein is going to take lead - she does a great job. I emailed her about a typo in one of her stories and was pleasantly surprised to get a reply within literally two minutes, and the typo corrected within five minutes.

# ? Aug 30, 2016 23:19

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

edit: oh man, this filing is nuts. There's a narrow interpretation of caselaw for the doctrine that might be plausible at a stretch as a typical defense filing. The attorney then proceeds to argue that it basically rewrites all the procedural rules of the case in a way that favors Santilli. I'm going to see what lawgoons think of this.

# ? Aug 30, 2016 23:33

Mr. Nice!: Oct 13, 2005; c-spam cannot afford

I couldn't make it through all of that, but the doctrine he's trying to claim shields him was one used to protect people from being persecuted for joining a disliked political party, not for an armed insurrection against the government.

# ? Aug 30, 2016 23:43

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 12, 2024 21:39

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Mr. Nice! posted:

I couldn't make it through all of that, but the doctrine he's trying to claim shields him was one used to protect people from being persecuted for joining a disliked political party, not for an armed insurrection against the government.

The fun part is past the halfway point, where he starts exclusively using a law journal article to discuss how the doctrine ought to be applied to evidence and procedure rules. For example:

quote:

In addition to the standards set out in Federal Rules of Evidence 401 and 402, the court should evaluate the relevance of offered evidence with a mind toward the doctrine. This entails being skeptical of how relevant evidence is to any defendant not directly linked to it and giving an appropriate limiting instruction. It further entails protecting the First Amendment rights of defendants by excluding or limiting the evidence even if it may carry some relevance. When making a Rule 403 evaluation of whether relevant evidence is unduly prejudicial, confusing, or misleading, strictissimi juris works hand-in-hand with Rule 403 because both protect the right to not be guilty by association. To protect the right to be judged only on one�s own actions and intent, the doctrine �was meant to address the unreliability of circumstantial evidence, the misuse of attenuated inference . . . [and] impose a preference for direct evidence, circumstantial evidence supported by direct evidence, and ambiguous First Amendment-protected evidence supported by direct or circumstantial evidence . . . .� Morrison, Strictissimi Juris at 252.

Co-conspirator hearsay.

The court should consider and rule on the admissibility of co-conspirator hearsay under Rule 801(d)(2)(E) as soon as possible, since the government is likely to try and show the speech of one defendant is probative as to the intent of others. If jurors hear co-conspirator evidence improperly, they are likely to impute that speaker�s beliefs onto other defendants. This is exactly the guilt-by-association concern that strictissimi jurisis designed to prevent. In United States v. Spock, 416 F.2d 165, 173 Cir. 1969), the court criticized the use of statements by third parties alleged to be co-conspirators, noting that the trial court had �fail[ed] to recognize� that �[t]he metastatic rules of ordinary conspiracy are at direct variance with the principle of strictissimi juris.� Id. (footnote omitted).

Basically they're trying to get all testimony by folks who flipped thrown out. Also all the other evidence.

(I should note here that the law journal article and its author are legit afaict, but that law journal articles aren't a thing you ever want to cite in a case if you have absolutely anything else available.)

edit: Whoop, another hearing just ended. Bundy and Medenbach going to still be allowed to represent themselves, but on thin ice.

edit 2: ahahaha "R.Bundy told court:'I will abide by court rulings so far as they are in accordance with the law.'"

Discendo Vox has issued a correction as of 23:56 on Aug 30, 2016

# ? Aug 30, 2016 23:51

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > C-SPAM > a victory for liberty over tyranny

«‹›448 »