The Bundys' are acquitted (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


Greta75 -> The Bundys' are acquitted (10/28/2016 1:40:46 AM)

That is very interesting!

Really? Over taking public property. Not even a short jail term or something or a fine?

What do Americans think about this? Fair verdict?




mnottertail -> RE: The Bundys' are acquitted (10/28/2016 1:50:29 AM)

I will wait to see how the trial in Nevada they face for an armed stand-off goes before I comment.




epiphiny43 -> RE: The Bundys' are acquitted (10/28/2016 2:00:37 AM)

Nobody but the jury and courtroom saw the evidence presented. "Innocent" in the US often means prosecutorial incompetence or 'jury nullification' when the law doesn't meet local prejudices. Like all the lynchings in the South that never got past a Grand Jury. Or the few that did but dismissed by local judges for 'lack of evidence' or failure to identify the masked mob principals.
Unarmed, political demonstrators are frequently arrested but not charged, such as all the Occupy ____ , and like the 150 something and counting arrests on the reservation land fighting the oil pipeline today.
Armed, it should be jail time whenever Federal, State or local law enforcement officers are directly threatened and guns leveled from behind barricades, with clear threats to fire if approached. Eisenhower would have given them 'fair trials' after some tanks or armored cars simplified the problem of armed men behind barricades with irresistible show of force. The Black Panthers sure didn't walk. Many were shot or burned to death in basically a siege/ambush. Same as in the Waco community burn down. It counts how many local supporters you have that complicate the political situation, particularly that get on the jury. In Waco, they were outsiders that nobody liked. The Bundys are emblems for a host of local grievances in states where the BLM has control of much of the land.




Termyn8or -> RE: The Bundys' are acquitted (10/28/2016 3:04:45 AM)

"Armed, it should be jail time whenever Federal, State or local law enforcement officers are directly threatened and guns leveled from behind barricades, with clear threats to fire if approached."

Says who ?

"Same as in the Waco community burn down."

And those people never hurt anyone. In fact, not knowing at first that it was the feds, they called the sheriff. They knew the sheriff and went into town every few days anyway, the feds could have just given an arrest warrant to the sheriff and he would have been there. Note that this is what brought on alot of shit, like McVeigh, especially with Ruby Ridge. And Waco ? They wanted to bust a meth lab ? Then how come they burned all the evidence ? Janet Reno was a Soviet style motherfucker and was head of both these incidents and she brought on the wrath of the US People in the form of McVeigh. What he did was revenge. They say he was crazy or some shit but that is not true, he was just committed to the cause of fighting a government that he saw as being corrupt and unjust, and oppressive. He did not do it right, he did not advance our cause. Maybe he wasn't really smart but he was not crazy.

"The Bundys are emblems for a host of local grievances in states where the BLM has control of much of the land. "

Control of the land was what was in question when the Cliven Bundy situation happened. The feds are wrong. That is why he is not in jail.

Now the son in what, Oregon ? Well he kinda went too far and I expected him to get some time, in fact he did, right ? You don't take over government buildings and expect to get off scot free.

But that thing about the grazing fees, the feds were wrong and the courts apparently ruled it, or else Cliven would be in jail.

Contrary to popular belief, the government is not always right.

T^T




Curmudgeonly1 -> RE: The Bundys' are acquitted (10/28/2016 4:51:33 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: epiphiny43

Nobody but the jury and courtroom saw the evidence presented. "Innocent" in the US often means prosecutorial incompetence or 'jury nullification' when the law doesn't meet local prejudices.


Really?

Apart from the occasional 'hung jury' and the very rare 'nullification' I've always been under the impression that USia only had the utterly bog standard 'guilty' or 'not guilty' verdicts. I've never before heard of the 'innocent' verdict. Not even the Scottish 'not proven'.

[sm=alarm.gif]




Awareness -> RE: The Bundys' are acquitted (10/29/2016 10:24:53 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75

That is very interesting!

Really? Over taking public property. Not even a short jail term or something or a fine?

What do Americans think about this? Fair verdict?
Unbelievable. Juries like this make me despair if I'm ever brought to trial. "You shall be judged by a jury of your peers". To which my response is: "Oh yeah? Let me ask them some questions. I'm pretty damn sure I can prove they're not."






dcnovice -> RE: The Bundys' are acquitted (10/29/2016 10:30:32 AM)

FR

http://www.newyorker.com/cartoons/daily-cartoon/morning-friday-october-28th-bundy-family?intcid=mod-latest




dcnovice -> RE: The Bundys' are acquitted (10/29/2016 10:33:23 AM)

[image]http://slugnuts.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/bundy_v_blm.jpg[/image]




WickedsDesire -> RE: The Bundys' are acquitted (10/29/2016 11:18:28 AM)

I thought the American death squads took care of the darky problem?




BamaD -> RE: The Bundys' are acquitted (10/29/2016 2:05:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75

That is very interesting!

Really? Over taking public property. Not even a short jail term or something or a fine?

What do Americans think about this? Fair verdict?

Jury nullification generally means, as in this case, that the jury believes that the law is unjust.




BamaD -> RE: The Bundys' are acquitted (10/29/2016 2:06:55 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

[image]http://slugnuts.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/bundy_v_blm.jpg[/image]

You do know that one of the protesters was killed during the arrest don't you?




thompsonx -> RE: The Bundys' are acquitted (10/29/2016 2:37:28 PM)


ORIGINAL: Curmudgeonly1



Really?

Apart from the occasional 'hung jury' and the very rare 'nullification' I've always been under the impression that USia only had the utterly bog standard 'guilty' or 'not guilty' verdicts. I've never before heard of the 'innocent' verdict. Not even the Scottish 'not proven'.


I am pretty sure you are familiar with the term "innocent till proved guilty". If one is found to be not guilty How are they not innocent.
How exactly does innocent differ from not guilty?




thompsonx -> RE: The Bundys' are acquitted (10/29/2016 2:42:26 PM)

You do know that one of the protesters was killed during the arrest don't you?

Was that what you call "suicide by cop"?
Did he point a gun at a cop?
Did the cop shoot for com?
Was the cop charged?
What is your point?




thompsonx -> RE: The Bundys' are acquitted (10/29/2016 2:44:31 PM)

]ORIGINAL: BamaD

Jury nullification generally means, as in this case, that the jury believes that the law is unjust.


Where did the jury say it was "nulification" I thought they said "not guilty"




Wayward5oul -> RE: The Bundys' are acquitted (10/29/2016 3:58:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75

That is very interesting!

Really? Over taking public property. Not even a short jail term or something or a fine?

What do Americans think about this? Fair verdict?

Jury nullification generally means, as in this case, that the jury believes that the law is unjust.

This was not jury nullification. Juror states the prosecution didn't prove the case well. Nothing about the law being unjust.
http://koin.com/2016/10/28/bundy-juror-not-guilty-does-not-mean-innocent/




Awareness -> RE: The Bundys' are acquitted (10/29/2016 4:00:39 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

FR

http://www.newyorker.com/cartoons/daily-cartoon/morning-friday-october-28th-bundy-family?intcid=mod-latest
Exactly. I tend to find armed insurrection somewhat disturbing.




Awareness -> RE: The Bundys' are acquitted (10/29/2016 4:04:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
You do know that one of the protesters was killed during the arrest don't you?
LaVoy Finicum was shot while armed with a weapon and failing to respond to the directions of law enforcement.

So let me get this straight. When an armed insurrectionist who has publicly stated that he'd rather die than go to jail, reaches for his Colt .45 and gets shot by police, that's bad.... but a black guy sitting alone in a car getting shot by police is perfectly reasonable?

What's wrong with this picture?




Awareness -> RE: The Bundys' are acquitted (10/29/2016 4:07:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
I am pretty sure you are familiar with the term "innocent till proved guilty". If one is found to be not guilty How are they not innocent.
How exactly does innocent differ from not guilty?

"Innocent until proven guilty" is an underlying principle. In legal terms "not guilty" means that reasonable doubt exists. It is not a declaration of innocence, it is simply an assertion that the prosecution has not proven guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt".





BamaD -> RE: The Bundys' are acquitted (10/29/2016 4:39:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75

That is very interesting!

Really? Over taking public property. Not even a short jail term or something or a fine?

What do Americans think about this? Fair verdict?

Jury nullification generally means, as in this case, that the jury believes that the law is unjust.

This was not jury nullification. Juror states the prosecution didn't prove the case well. Nothing about the law being unjust.
http://koin.com/2016/10/28/bundy-juror-not-guilty-does-not-mean-innocent/


OK




BamaD -> RE: The Bundys' are acquitted (10/29/2016 4:44:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Awareness


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
You do know that one of the protesters was killed during the arrest don't you?
LaVoy Finicum was shot while armed with a weapon and failing to respond to the directions of law enforcement.

So let me get this straight. When an armed insurrectionist who has publicly stated that he'd rather die than go to jail, reaches for his Colt .45 and gets shot by police, that's bad.... but a black guy sitting alone in a car getting shot by police is perfectly reasonable?

What's wrong with this picture?


I never said it was wrong, I just said it happened in response to a implication that they would shoot a black person for this but not a white person.
On the other hand if you remember the thread were we talked about the Charlotte shooting that the fact that the black man refused to drop his gun was no reason to shoot him, so apparently that is reason to shoot a white man but not a black man.




Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875