|
They got off? Seriously? What the hell? I guess at least I can at least find solace in a ten-months-old "I told you so" to the people who thought the feds should have just charged in on day one because the charges would be a slam dunk, but drat, they were there for over a month and the jury still wouldn't let them stick? I hate juries
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2016 16:02
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 01:39 |
|
|
CrazyLittle posted:Maybe next time the US Attorneys might not try for a conspiracy charge "to impede federal employees" where the employees themselves testified that their bosses just told them to telecommute instead. Do conspiracy charges require the conspiracy to be successful? I thought conspiracy charges are about the plan and its intentions, rather than its result.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2016 16:20
|
|
|
Feminasty Slut posted:Seconds after this photo was taken that poor bicyclist's mind broke and he drove straight into an oncoming box truck. Just the opposite - jury selection typically tries to weed out anyone with any expert knowledge or anyone with an opinion on any of the matters on trial Karl Barks posted:are there no charges stemming from the poo poo that went down in oklahoma or texas or wherever that was? That's a separate trial, apparently
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2016 17:06
|
|
|
Kazak_Hstan posted:I said I have no sympathy for him IF he did what the report said. Even fuckin nm would probably not make excuses for him actually squaring off to fight the marshals. But feel free to continue willfully misreading things as it suits you. When a cop starts talking about how their honed combat instincts respond to slight movements of the perp's body, it usually means they didn't bother to make up an excuse for beating up or shooting the person until after they did it lol if you think a loving defense lawyer was gonna punch a us marshal in the face in front of a judge and several other us marshals
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2016 22:28
|
|
|
Kazak_Hstan posted:I'm really not seeing the honed instincts and subtle twitches. That is all pretty reasonable, if it actually happened that way, which is the part nobody here actually knows. We have fragmentary accounts mostly second-hand. Some say he didn't get in the marshals' way, some say he did. Some say he didn't do anything physical, some say he raised his arms as they approached. Some say he was talking to the judge, Mumford himself said he was addressing the marshals directly as they approached him. if alarms don't start going off in your head when you see phrases like "pre-assault indicators" and "boxer's stance" then you're not nearly familiar enough with police brutality it's like how, according to police shooting reports, black males with guns and gun-like objects have an apparently irresistible compulsion to raise them at any cop they see even if the cop is just passing by
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2016 23:02
|
|
|
BlackIronHeart posted:I really wonder what these militia chickenfuckers think about the governments ability to send a Hellfire missile through the roof of whatever shithole they're inhabiting in the same amount of time it would take for a pizza to be delivered. Like, yeah, you've got a bunch of rifles and pistols and shotguns and maybe some improvised pipebombs or whatever but they'll blow up the building before you even know death is coming. How do they keep up any sense of bravado in the face of that? I guess that's why they keep kids around. They think that if the government did something like that to white self-proclaimed patriots, gun owners all over the nation would rise up in revolt against the government, the military and National Guard and local sheriffs would all stand aside and refuse to put down the rebellion, the government would be forced to step down and be replaced by libertarians somehow, and in the end they would all be revered as heroic martyrs who died Making America Great Again.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 16:01
|
|
|
Baloogan posted:^^ there are still standing monuments to the White League members who overthrew black-elected governments by force at the end of Reconstruction
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 18:29
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:Can't we agree that the Bundy people are morons while also not disparaging the people's right to be armed and to revolt against an unjust government? Ah yes, the Constitutional right to armed revolt
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 21:14
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:I realize the Declaration of Independence isn't like a legal government document as such but uh funnily enough the US federal government has never, ever recognized a case of armed rebellion being valid, and the very same people who wrote the Declaration of Independence were involved in putting down no less than three major rebellions, all of which believed they were fighting for constitutional principles against an unjust federal government
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 21:30
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:Surely that extends to state militias as well. Militias weren't standing military forces. That's why they were called militias rather than militaries - they were temporary military forces assembled to meet a potential threat, not professional standing armies. Under the Militia Act of 1792, for example, every military-age white male citizen was legally required to possess a gun and a certain quantity of ammo...and they were also legally required to join the state militia, which could call them up as soldiers whenever the situation demanded. In other words, it was basically a draft.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 22:09
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:I may have misunderstood their feelings on militias (in that I didn't realize they made a distinction between a standing army and a state militia) Are you really blaming the founders for your own inability to understand the meaning "militia" has consistently held for over three hundred years?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 23:21
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:hm no that's not really what happened. I took a quote specifically about how standing armies are a threat to liberty and assumed they also applied it to militias which have many of the same characteristics as a 'standing army' (esp since at the time there was no standing federal army really and it was up to states) but apparently not "militia" does not mean "standing army" now, and it didn't mean "standing army" 300 years ago
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 23:28
|
|
|
this discussion makes me think of the Bonus Army, where not only did the military happily deploy against civilian protesters, but they kept going even after the president ordered them to stop because the general commanding the effort thought they were all dirty commies plotting to overthrow the country
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2017 20:59
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:nah I get this and I'm against it normally like I said but I do think there's a very small segment of cases where the perpetrator doesn't deserve the resources this line of thinking is exactly why the death penalty is bad. "I oppose X, except in particular cases that trigger an emotional reaction in me" is basically exactly how bad justice happens
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2017 20:38
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:it's not an emotional thing for me though, I think prison would be better suited for rehabilitation rather than punishment but some people are beyond rehabilitation imo no one is really beyond rehabilitation, and it's fundamentally wrong to say we can rule it out in advance like that that's just something we tell ourselves because it's easier to say that some people are just inherently and irreparably bad than to admit that a sane and lucid person can do these sorts of things
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2017 21:27
|
|
|
ate poo poo on live tv posted:Perhaps after 10* years of involuntary confinement the sweet release of death is better then the alternative. Especially given the US justice system. Maybe we could make prisons not awful Anders Breivik didn't get put in an awful hellhole
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2017 05:04
|
|
|
ate poo poo on live tv posted:Was he imprisoned for life? Norway doesn't have life sentences. He got the maximum sentence of 21 years under preventive detention, and will become eligible for parole after serving 10 of those years preventive detention means that he's evaluated at the end of the sentence and it can be extended for another five years if he is still deemed to be a danger to society. at the end of the sentence he is evaluated again and it can be extended again if necessary. this continues until he is either released or dead
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2017 17:20
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Uh oh: The article has been updated; apparently the judge agrees that Hunt is not covered under the court's protective order - which only blocked the defense from sharing the report, not random third parties who mysteriously got the report somehow. Also, since Hunt doesn't live in Oregon, the court doesn't have jurisdiction over him anyway: quote:Mon., Jan. 9: The judge has asked federal prosecutors to explain to her in writing by noon on Tues., Jan. 10, how the court has authority over the actions of a third party, in this case Hunt, under the terms of the court's protective order, without advance notice to the third party and without an opportunity for that person to be heard.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2017 17:28
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Also: Sounds like bullshit to me. "The investigator was really surprised to hear that I didn't hesitate even a little to testify against someone I've publicly hated and demonized for seven straight years" is a pretty common theme in "shit_that_didn't_happen.txt.doc.exe".
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2017 18:28
|
|
|
Krinkle posted:Remember when he got busted trying to wiretap a sitting congresswoman? How the gently caress did a federal felony turn into boys will be boys? plea bargain he pleaded guilty in exchange for the charges being knocked down to a misdemeanor
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2017 00:10
|
|
|
andrew smash posted:It just seems odd for a prosecutor to pass up the opportunity to skullfuck that little poo poo, but hey look what thread i'm posting in - maybe they had the right idea i don't think prosecutors are all that gung-ho to go after a guy that a bunch of congressmen and wealthy donors really like just because he spied on a democrat plea deal is way easier
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2017 06:06
|
|
|
Someone in the North Dakota state House introduced a law that would make it legal for drivers to run over protesters obstructing traffic
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2017 01:11
|
|
|
Trump is a habitual liar who enjoys making people wonder what he's thinking, loves to pit his underlings against each other, and has absolutely no problem with saying one thing and doing another the only certain thing about the next four years is that they're going to be awful. anyone who thinks they can make specific predictions based on things he said or people he associates with are dumb
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2017 01:40
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:FBI agent testifies about arrest of Oregon standoff defendant Darryl Thorn at Redmond Super 8 Motel quote:Thorn was placed against a wall and claimed his arrest was illegal and that the FBI "only had jurisdiction within ten square miles of Washington, D.C,'' according to FBI agent Daniel Baringer's report. this is just precious
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2017 22:39
|
|
|
lol it's a good thing juries aren't easily swayed or anything http://reviewjournal.com/news/bundy-blm/letter-names-blm-agent-charge-bundy-case-target-federal-ethics-probe quote:Bureau of Land Management agent Dan Love, a central figure in the government’s case against rancher Cliven Bundy, has been identified as the target of a federal ethics probe in a letter two congressional lawmakers sent to the Office of the Inspector General.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2017 17:39
|
|
|
hangedman1984 posted:Why I was wondering how legit this it. I mean Chaffers is known for partison witch hunts. the question isn't whether it's true, it's whether the judge will let the defense mention the allegations during the trial
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2017 02:33
|
|
|
H.P. Hovercraft posted:next time they try this poo poo trump is gonna ruby ridge the poo poo outta them isn't he yeah, I'm sure the guy who appoints people who want to dissolve agencies to head those agencies and renamed the violent extremism division to the Islamic extremism division would be real concerned about white, Christian protesters shutting down a government office
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2017 07:40
|
|
|
H.P. Hovercraft posted:you're right our new strong daddy would never be mean to his children acting out not if they're white, no instead, he'd probably insist on negotiating with them personally to show off how much of a dealmaker he is via twitter
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2017 14:27
|
|
|
"Father Denies His Son's Accusations of Child Abuse" isn't exactly the amusing story I expected based in that headline
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2017 19:51
|
|
|
WrenP-Complete posted:I'm going to be hopeful. Can you describe this for me I've forgotten what "hope" feels like
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2017 17:23
|
|
|
ansel autisms posted:https://twitter.com/jennydwilson/status/856566022907641856 i feared this might happen but all I can do is laugh
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2017 20:09
|
|
|
i hope these idiots talk to the press juror #4 needs a friend
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2017 00:07
|
|
|
It's mostly just "we're the real cops and the real courts, so your fake cops and courts were obstructing a police officer by arresting our sovereign marshals" stuff, plus a side order of suing the nearby TV station for saying that they were pretending to be US marshals ...at least until page 19, when it suddenly goes full sovcit and unleashes a big pile of conspiracy theories all at once. For example, it alleges that the bar is a) a British conspiracy to undermine the real US by preventing real Americans from using the real laws against the fake US corporation, and b) a closed union shop that is illegal under right-to-work laws. Then it lists out the customary sovcit giant list of absurd damages that they expect everyone they're suing to pay, of which the most noticeable is a demand that the fake US pay $700 billion dollars to the real US.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2017 02:11
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:Is there a "legal" way to black bag them and hurl them in Guantanamo for terrorism charges? they're white, so no
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2017 04:45
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:It's not so much that they were peaceful, as that they're mostly all cowards waiting for someone else to make the first move. also law enforcement went really far out of their way to make sure these idiots couldn't endanger anyone besides themselves and the poor officers they were pointing guns at syscall girl posted:It's dirty dastardly stuff but it has been covered already. on the other hand, it's not like they impersonated journalists to get access to plant bugs or something like that. I feel like if you're talking directly to a camera with the full expectation that the footage will be used in a publicly released documentary, you can't really complain when that footage ends up in a courtroom
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2017 17:50
|
|
|
One of the men involved in the standoff at the Bundy Ranch, Gerald DeLemus, has been sentenced to seven years in prison. He was widely expected to get six years after pleading guilty last year, but the judge imposed a longer sentence because she felt he hadn't expressed any remorse for his actions, terming him a "bully vigilante".
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2017 01:22
|
|
|
^^^ holy poo poo, that whole twitter thread hobbesmaster posted:you can eventually figure out what happened there - they were going off on irrelevant stuff that the judge prohibited yeah, the full article goes into more detail - the judge banned them from discussing a bunch of topics that don't have any legal relevance to the case but could potentially drive a jury nullification attempt the guy went off and discussed those things anyway, the judge stopped the testimony and told defense lawyers to cut it out, then they continued and he kept doing it Main Paineframe has issued a correction as of 00:05 on Aug 12, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2017 00:03
|
|
|
I would blow Dane Cook posted:http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona-investigations/2017/08/15/jurors-bundy-ranch-standoff-trial-begin-deliberations/570943001/ I don't blame the judge for going this far given how awful the jury pool was, but they're totally gonna get off anyway
|
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2017 14:43
|
|
|
sounds like a hung jury to me.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2017 06:36
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 01:39 |
|
|
Elephant Ambush posted:Is there any way at all to keep juries from being constantly inundated with jury nullification poo poo? apparently not, because the judge tried pretty hard DQed a bunch of pro-Bundy jurors, didn't let the defendants tell their stories about how they were just peacefully protecting themselves from the evil government, etc this loving sucks what in the hell is a "partial not guilty" anyway e: oh, it means only some of them were found not guilty Main Paineframe has issued a correction as of 01:33 on Aug 23, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2017 01:30
|
|