Domestic Terrorism

This is How the Bundy Militiamen Got Away With It

oregon_mugshots
JM Ashby
Written by JM Ashby

With little to go on, I speculated this morning that the Bundy militiamen who carried out an armed occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge were cleared of charges because their jury of peers was populated by nincompoops.

That's not necessarily the impression I have at this point after reading one juror's account as reported by The Oregonian.

I don't believe this person is stupid as much as they are an arrogant bro who seemingly believes he's a lawyer because he stayed in a Holiday Inn Express last night.

A juror only identified as Juror 4 emailed The Oregonian to explain why they cleared the Bundy militiamen of all charges, and this particular juror, who is a local business student, took the opportunity to lecture federal prosecutors.

Juror 4 noted the panel couldn't simply rely on the defendants' "defining actions'' to convict.

"All 12 agreed that impeding existed, even if as an effect of the occupation,'' he wrote.

"But we were not asked to judge on bullets and hurt feelings, rather to decide if any agreement was made with an illegal object in mind,'' the Marylhurst student wrote. "It seemed this basic, high standard of proof was lost upon the prosecution throughout.'

"Inference, while possibly compelling, proved to be insulting or inadequate to 12 diversely situated people as a means to convict,'' the juror wrote. "The air of triumphalism that the prosecution brought was not lost on any of us, nor was it warranted given their burden of proof.''

There's more. In addition to lecturing federal prosecutors, Juror 4 also explained to The Oregonian that he had another juror, Juror 11, thrown out because of bias.

In summary, the Bundy militiamen walked because an arrogant Reddit Bro monopolized and intimidated the rest of the jury and explicitly rejected the prosecution's case because he felt insulted by their supposed confidence.

Only an arrogant man would say they were not asked to judge the case based on "hurt feelings," and then explain that his feelings were hurt by the prosecution.

The militiamen were charged with conspiracy to impede federal employees and officers from doing their job. Juror 4 and (according to him) the rest of the jury seemingly agreed that they did impede federal employees and officers, but for reasons poorly detailed by Juror 4 they decided that wasn't enough.

Conspiracy aside, the idea that there wasn't enough evidence to at least convict them on federal weapons charges is absurd. Unless The Oregonian left that part out, Juror 4 did not address their decision to clear the men on weapons charges. Addressing that would admittedly be difficult because the evidence is overwhelming.

Reading the full report from The Oregonian will probably leave you even more pissed off than what you read here. I was so infuriated by the arrogance of this young man, Juror 4, that even writing this post was a challenge.

  • Draxiar

    Maybe there was confidence in the prosecution because they didn’t think anyone would be so dimwitted as to let these shitkickers go for obvious guilt. Then again, how could they not? Juries let off guilty cops all the time.

  • muselet

    I’ve served on a number of juries, though never a federal one. In my experience, jurors try to leave their prejudices at the courtroom door and be diligent, thoughtful and fair.

    Based on The Oregonian‘s article, Juror 4 set out to do none of those things, thereby violating the oath s/he took at the start of the trial. And because of this arrogant qing wa cao de liu mang, dangerous, heavily-armed dimwits feel even more free to rampage through the country.

    Words cannot convey the contempt I feel for Juror 4.

    –alopecia

  • Badgerite

    Just looking at the pictures……what a fine civilization they would build. Or is that too….”triumphalist”.
    Just an observation.

  • Badgerite

    Gibberish. Utter gibberish.

    • Christopher Foxx

      This juror and this jury would have more credibility if they just said, we did this because we sympathized with them and we just wanted to let them go.

      But folks like the Bundy’s and this jury would never actually admit that. Oh, they know it’s true. But they also sense that having to declare their true intentions would not go over well. So they hide them under more acceptable sounding bullshit.

      You hear from the we-want-to-control-your-life activists when they say they want vaginal ultrasounds “for the safety of the mother”. From the we-want-to-stop-black-people-from-voting facists when they say they want Voter ID laws to “protect Democracy”. And so on.

      • Badgerite

        True. This stuff with Comey and the emails has me totally riled up as well.
        He claims he considered the “risk” that his letter would be used for partisan purposes. Risk? Seriously, risk? How about the absolute certainty. This is a party whose mantra at their Fear and Loathing Convention was “lock her up”. Where one of the candidates threatened to ‘jail’ the other one.
        Risk?

        • Christopher Foxx

          I get the the Justice Dept would be non-partisan in how they conduct themselves, but they should recognize the facts of reality. With about 10 days to the election things ARE going to have a political effect.

          And election near or not, making a point of sending a letter saying “We found something but don’t know what it is or whether it will have any bearing on anything” is just plain incompetent. The “I” stands for Investigation. He should have done some first.

          • Badgerite

            Loretta Lynch did “strongly advise” Comey against sending the letter but she was not going to order him not to and be accused of covering something up. Look what happened when she and Bill Clinton met at an airport for God’s sake. So it was Comey going against long established department policy and the strongly worded advise of his boss not to do this. And given what they withheld about the Trump Monster, that is ridiculous. And indefensible.
            The stories out about trump now involve information that on a trip to Moscow about 5 years ago he may have been compromised by Putin (Putin has something very, very bad on him and given the Trump Monster’s proclivities which are already a part of the public record that could be pretty venal and disgusting ) And if you look at the time line of when trump started weighing in on the ‘birther’ crap and veering hard right that would be in 2011. Five years ago. Hmmmm.

          • Christopher Foxx

            If Comey still has a job on November 9 I’ll be extremely disappointed.

  • Ceoltoir

    The crap this shit heel has written in the last 24 hours has been noticed to be of a totally different syntax from the note he supposedly wrote to the judge. Evidence of jury tampering? It would be nice if this was investigated.

  • Aynwrong

    “Authentic frontier gibberish” perfectly mixed with pseudo intellectual nonsense.