Ammon Bundy, other militants found not guilty in Oregon standoff trial

wwwooooooooowwwwwwww

PBS

Ammon and Ryan Bundy have been found not guilty of conspiracy. Their five co-defendants Jeff Banta, Shawna Cox, David Fry, Kenneth Medenbach and Neil Wampler have all been found not guilty as well.

Jurors were unable to reach a verdict on Ryan Bundy’s theft of government property charge.

Jury nullification much?

Are the people waking up and resisting these overlords?

I hope the trend continues. First Brexit. Now Trump, now this.

Let's keep this party rocking.

a reply to: Darkmadness

Good, but are Ammon and Ryan Bundy going to live in the same area? Better grow eyes in the back of their heads. "The Man" hates to be questioned.

a reply to: seasonal

If Hilary is elected, "the women" hates to be questioned.

"Jury of your peers"

On that note, I'm glad these guy's got off.

This is a victory for liberty!!! But the battle is not over, they still have to face the charges in Nevada stemming from 2014. Lets hope reason and logic will prevail there. I am ready for some Bundy brothers serving in office if you ask me.


R.I.P. LaVoy Finicum

Then the next step can proceed. The tribes can start a civil suit for destruction to their artifacts.

a reply to: Darkmadness

Good Job. Thank you! A small bit of faith in the system and the juries and the American people has been restored.

Has Occupy Wall Street or BLM ever been brought up on charges for anything?

a reply to: Darkmadness

I am curious if the accused will accept the jury's verdict being they don't recognize the federal government.

a reply to: Xcathdra
A jury is not the federal government. A jury is made up of citizens. It was their decision. The federal government was the body that accused them of crimes.

Is it true that a standing jury can say they do not approve of a law and decide accordingly? I think that's correct, and am just waiting to use that.....send me in coach.....I'm that kinda juror.....yes

originally posted by: GBP/JPY
Is it true that a standing jury can say they do not approve of a law and decide accordingly? I think that's correct, and am just waiting to use that.....send me in coach.....I'm that kinda juror.....yes

Yes, it is true. It's called jury nullification. I'm not convinced that is what happened here, although it may have.

From Disinfo.com:

Juries are the last line of defense against the power abuses of the authorities. They have the right to judge the law. Even if a defendant committed a crime, a jury can refuse to render a guilty verdict. Among the main reasons why this might happen, according to attorney Clay S. Conrad:

"When the defendant has already suffered enough, when it would be unfair or against the public interest for the defendant to be convicted, when the jury disagrees with the law itself, when the prosecution or the arresting authorities have gone “too far” in the single-minded quest to arrest and convict a particular defendant, when the punishments to be imposed are excessive or when the jury suspects that the charges have been brought for political reasons or to make an unfair example of the hapless defendant …"

When the US Constitution was created, with its Sixth Amendment guarantee of a jury trial, the most popular law dictionary of the time said that juries “may not only find things of their own knowledge, but they go according to their consciences.” The first edition of Noah Webster’s celebrated dictionary (1828) said that juries “decide both the law and the fact in criminal prosecutions.”

The second U.S. President, John Adams, wrote: “It is not only [the juror’s] right, but his duty … to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.” Similarly, Founding Father Alexander Hamilton declared: “It is essential to the security of personal rights and public liberty, that the jury should have and exercise the power to judge both of the law and of the criminal intent.”

Legendary Supreme Court Chief Justice John Jay once instructed a jury:

"It may not be amiss, here, Gentlemen, to remind you of the good old rule, that on questions of fact, it is the providence of the jury, on questions of law, it is the providence of the court to decide. But it must be observed that by the same law, which recognizes this reasonable distribution of jurisdiction, you have nevertheless the right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy."

originally posted by: GBP/JPY
Is it true that a standing jury can say they do not approve of a law and decide accordingly? I think that's correct, and am just waiting to use that.....send me in coach.....I'm that kinda juror.....yes

To add to what Bodicea wrote Jury nullification is not a legally accepted practice in the US (modern law) as it is incompatible with the requirements of what a jury is and does.

It is not the job of a jury to judge the law. That is reserved to the legislative branch who makes the laws and judges who can review constitutionality / application of said laws.

an argument can also be made that it is a due process violation. When you have 2 people charged with the same crime under the same law and one of those are found not guilty via jury nullification and one is convicted because that jury looked at the facts you now have a misapplication of the law.

We can see a similar issue by looking at the Clinton classified email scandal. She walks while others are prosecuted. Invoking a Clinton defense as its being referred to has already caused problems with enforcement and prosecution of the law.

If citizens dont like a law they can push to have the law changed or removed completely. Especially if they are willing to ignore a law during deliberations. If a person who doesnt like a law cant be bothered to do something about it after its passed should not take the even lazier path of jury nullification.

A jury nullification has no impact on the law in question. It remains on the books.

Just my 2 cents..