Bundys acquitted, lawyer jailed

[Ironhold]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/oregon-case-jury-delivers-blow-to-government-in-lands-fight/ar-AAjuxZf?li=BBnbfcL&ocid

The jury in the Bundy case from Oregon acquitted them, but their lawyer was assaulted and arrested when he demanded their immediate freedom. 

So yet another bloody shirt to wave around...

[Jojo Bags]

5 hours ago, Ironhold said:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/oregon-case-jury-delivers-blow-to-government-in-lands-fight/ar-AAjuxZf?li=BBnbfcL&ocid

The jury in the Bundy case from Oregon acquitted them, but their lawyer was assaulted and arrested when he demanded their immediate freedom. 

So yet another bloody shirt to wave around...

The lawyer was released two hours later.  This was a classic case of jury nullification by a group of people who knew the real story behind the stand off and why the Bundy's became involved.  The jury gave the government the finger in acquitting the Bundy's.

[Guest MormonGator]

29 minutes ago, Jojo Bags said:

This was a classic case of jury nullification 

That's exactly what I thought about it as well. I think the prosecutors were viewed as overly arrogant and entitled and the people-in liberal Oregon (!) just said "enough" 

[Traveler]

 

This is just a tip of an iceberg.  We are not far from a civil war in the west over land and resources – including various minerals, natural gas, oil shell and especially water.  Environmentalists living in crowded cities of the eastern part of the country think they know better how to manage land they do not inhabit and seldom even see.  The LDS church is playing a most interesting role centered around a large open range ranch the Church owns near Evanston Wy.  The Church has demonstrated that by proper management – land use can be maximized.  That thousands can use the land for recreational purposes, the number of cattle and other domestic livestock grazing on the land significantly increased all while the wild native fontal and flora will do better than on preserved land managed by the government and environmentalists that want to keep land “pristine”.

In Utah most of the land mass belongs to and is maintained by the BLM (not Black Lives Matter but Burial of Land Management) – and it has been demonstrated that the land is declining (meaning less supportive of natural wild life) than when ranchers managed the land without government (and environmentalists) intervention.   

BTW – the owners of Snowbird ski resort want to greatly expand their resort for skiing into land they already own.  With years of data demonstrating how such use does not harm the environment – there are still government bureaucrats trying to prevent such use claiming it damages the environment.

Another BTW - Brigham Young Univesity was recently granted ownership of the "Y" mountain where a large symbol of the University has been in existance for about 100 years.  Critics (certain environmentalists) have tried to take down the symbol "Y" on the mountain - Where do these people come from -- not anywhere in the West. 

 

The Traveler

Edited October 28, 2016 by Traveler

[Guest]

This citizen believes the jury returned a flawed verdict. 

Edited October 28, 2016 by UT.starscoper

[Just_A_Guy]

Yeah, not a big fan of jury nullification.  But when you have insane decades-long mandatory sentences for idiotic stunts, and what looks to me to be federal plots to provoke a gun battle with a ringleader who could have been taken peacefully --

Meh.  A plague o'er both their houses, I say.

[Vort]

1 hour ago, UT.starscoper said:

This citizen believes the jury returned a flawed verdict. 

Not sure I understand this. If the evidence to convict was not there, they had to return a verdict of "not guilty". I would point out that "not guilty" does not mean "innocent".

[Guest]

 

20 minutes ago, Vort said:

Not sure I understand this. If the evidence to convict was not there, they had to return a verdict of "not guilty". I would point out that "not guilty" does not mean "innocent".

You are often incisive, and you have an admirable knack for applying clear-headed thinking on the issues, Vort.  Perhaps if I had been there I would say the U.S. Attorneys did a poor job of arguing their case leaving any jury with little choice but to acquit. Instead of saying I believe the jury returned a flawed verdict, I should probably say I'm disappointed with the results because I disagree with the defendants actions insofar as they've been reported, and I disagree with their positions and motives. But I thank the jurors for their (I hope) diligence and (I hope) fair examination of the evidence. 

[estradling75]

2 hours ago, UT.starscoper said:

 

You are often incisive, and you have an admirable knack for applying clear-headed thinking on the issues, Vort.  Perhaps if I had been there I would say the U.S. Attorneys did a poor job of arguing their case leaving any jury with little choice but to acquit. Instead of saying I believe the jury returned a flawed verdict, I should probably say I'm disappointed with the results because I disagree with the defendants actions insofar as they've been reported, and I disagree with their positions and motives. But I thank the jurors for their (I hope) diligence and (I hope) fair examination of the evidence. 

You just nailed what I think is a pretty chronic problem...  Individuals thinking that the mass media is somehow going to give them enough objective evidence to make them in a better position to "know the truth" then those who sit through hours of detailed arguments, and presentations of evidence and facts, and rebuttals, and then render a verdict.

 

Can things go wrong with our current justice system???  Of course and absolutely it can...  But we need a whole lot more then media sound-bites... and our own manipulated and ill formed opinion... before we think we are anywhere in the ballpark of those that went through the whole legal process to become intimately informed on the event and legal requirements surrounding it (aka the jurors).

 

   

[Guest]

24 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

You just nailed what I think is a pretty chronic problem...  Individuals thinking that the mass media is somehow going to give them enough objective evidence to make them in a better position to "know the truth" then those who sit through hours of detailed arguments, and presentations of evidence and facts, and rebuttals, and then render a verdict. ...  

Right. I've been through it myself having participated in several juries over the years. All were intensely interesting. I have also experienced the questioning from people who didn't have first-hand access to the presentations of both sides with multiple-attorney teams. I've also felt the frustration when the attorneys didn't seem to do the job they might have done, and being instructed by the judge to disregard certain testimony, certain remarks, and certain evidence, etc. And so when @Vort motivated me to reconsider my own remark, I saw that I'd made it a little bit tongue-in-cheek. 

Edited October 28, 2016 by UT.starscoper

[Guest]

33 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

...  we need a whole lot more then media sound-bites... and our own manipulated and ill formed opinion... before we think we are anywhere in the ballpark of those that went through the whole legal process to become intimately informed on the event and legal requirements surrounding it (aka the jurors).

Without regard to the constant harping about liberal vs. conservative media I've found that almost on a daily basis and for many years I've felt intense frustration every time I open a newspaper (or read an internet piece). At times it's as if I'm reading a piece by someone who fancies himself a novelist rather than a journalist. Other times I almost have to take a highlighter to sort through the tangential, the overly-long prepositional phrases, and other cumbersome parts of speech in order to identify the pertinent information. And the fare is always meager. After disregarding what amounts to multiple repetition of the mere headline I'm left with something that could have been reported in half a dozen complete sentences. (Sorry--way off topic).

Edited October 28, 2016 by UT.starscoper

[Vort]

In areas where I have some expertise, or at least real education, I have been dismayed and often shocked and disgusted by the ignorance of the reporters who cover a story. It becomes clear that, in many cases, they do not have even the basic level of understanding necessary to grasp the issue at hand. -- yet these are the people telling us what to think! If they are so abysmally ignorant in areas I know about, I can only assume they are equally ignorant in areas I'm not as familiar with. Thus I end up with a noxiously cynical attitude toward news sources -- they are all ignorant, and are either liars or might as well be. This goes double for any news source that leans politically left (i.e. almost all of them).

This leads to hopelessness and then despair, until I realize that, in Nibley's words, it's a shabby show down here. Reality is not what we see around us; this is a crude simulacrum of reality, fashioned by the ignorant and encouraged and detailed by Satan. You want actual reality? Go to Church. Learn the gospel. That will get you closer to real, honest, deep truth than anything else you'll experience in this vale of tears.

[Guest MormonGator]

52 minutes ago, Vort said:

In areas where I have some expertise, or at least real education,

Education? Expertise? Dude, all you got for expertise is watching thousands of hours of Saved by the Bell!!! 

[Larry Cotrell]

19 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Education? Expertise? Dude, all you got for expertise is watching thousands of hours of Saved by the Bell!!! 

That counts as education. Screech teaches valuable life lessons.

[Guest MormonGator]

17 minutes ago, Larry Cotrell said:

That counts as education. Screech teaches valuable life lessons.

Dude you are way too old to have ever watched that show. 

(for that matter, so are @Vort, @mirkwood,etc, but I digress) 

[Vort]

16 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Dude you are way too old to have ever watched that show. 

(for that matter, so are @Vort, @mirkwood,etc, but I digress) 

I am a little older than that demographic, but not so much so that it would have been improbable for me to have watched it. The fact of the matter is, despite my horrendous taste in TV programs growing up (pretty much an omnivore), I couldn't get into shows such as Saved by the Bell, Full House, and so on. The Brady Bunch was the only such show I ever really watched. Well, occasionally Happy Days, but even I could tell when that show had jumped the shark -- well before I learned that Fonzie's shark-jumping had become the standard term for a TV show that had outlived its promise.

Edited October 29, 2016 by Vort

[Guest MormonGator]

34 minutes ago, Vort said:

despite my horrendous taste in TV programs growing up 

Be honest Vort. When you were growing up it was more like listening to the Lone Ranger on the radio. That's what families did in the 40's. 

And don't feel bad. When @mirkwood was a young man the radio was cutting edge, new technology! 

Edited October 29, 2016 by MormonGator

[mirkwood]

1 hour ago, MormonGator said:

Be honest Vort. When you were growing up it was more like listening to the Lone Ranger on the radio. That's what families did in the 40's. 

And don't feel bad. When @mirkwood was a young man the radio was cutting edge, new technology! 

[Guest]

18 hours ago, Vort said:

 ... in Nibley's words, it's a shabby show down here. Reality is not what we see around us; this is a crude simulacrum of reality, fashioned by the ignorant and encouraged and detailed by Satan. You want actual reality? Go to Church. Learn the gospel. That will get you closer to real, honest, deep truth than anything else you'll experience in this vale of tears.

What is the context of this quote?

[Larry Cotrell]

17 hours ago, MormonGator said:

Dude you are way too old to have ever watched that show. 

(for that matter, so are @Vort, @mirkwood

Yeah, we all have things in our past that were not proud of. Watching Saved by the Bell definitely falls under that category for me.

[Guest MormonGator]

3 hours ago, Larry Cotrell said:

Yeah, we all have things in our past that were not proud of. Watching Saved by the Bell definitely falls under that category for me.

I never watched the show. Nope, not one episode. Never. Nope. Nada. 

(our little secret-my first crush was Lisa Turtle, but that's between us)

[Guest]

On 10/28/2016 at 2:05 PM, UT.starscoper said:

On 10/28/2016 at 11:38 AM, UT.starscoper said:

This citizen believes the jury returned a flawed verdict. 

 

On 10/28/2016 at 1:30 PM, Vort said:

Not sure I understand this. If the evidence to convict was not there, they had to return a verdict of "not guilty". I would point out that "not guilty" does not mean "innocent".

You are often incisive, and you have an admirable knack for applying clear-headed thinking on the issues, Vort.  Perhaps if I had been there I would say the U.S. Attorneys did a poor job of arguing their case leaving any jury with little choice but to acquit. Instead of saying I believe the jury returned a flawed verdict, I should probably say I'm disappointed with the results because I disagree with the defendants actions insofar as they've been reported, and I disagree with their positions and motives. But I thank the jurors for their (I hope) diligence and (I hope) fair examination of the evidence. 

I continue pondering this. I am left, as it were, holding two 3x5 cards whereon one is written I suspect the jury made a flawed decision, and on the other is written the jury may have had insufficient evidence. I think I’m not disposed to discard the first.

I recall mention of a joke among lawyers about the difference between jury trials in England and the United States: in England the trial starts once the jury selection ends; in America the trial is already over. I’m aware of my own particular biases and human cognitive weaknesses, and I know that juries are subject to the same. I think the possibility that the evidence was sufficient to return a guilty verdict but the jury was swayed by forces which although we try to compensate for nonetheless plague the system is every bit as plausible as the possibility that insufficient evidence was made available to the jury.

[estradling75]

46 minutes ago, UT.starscoper said:

I continue pondering this. I am left, as it were, holding two 3x5 cards whereon one is written I suspect the jury made a flawed decision, and on the other is written the jury may have had insufficient evidence. I think I’m not disposed to discard the first.

I recall mention of a joke among lawyers about the difference between jury trials in England and the United States: in England the trial starts once the jury selection ends; in America the trial is already over. I’m aware of my own particular biases and human cognitive weaknesses, and I know that juries are subject to the same. I think the possibility that the evidence was sufficient to return a guilty verdict but the jury was swayed by forces which although we try to compensate for nonetheless plague the system is every bit as plausible as the possibility that insufficient evidence was made available to the jury.

You are still making the same mistake...  you are operating under the assumption that the Jury got it wrong.  This requires you to be operating under the assumption that you know more then they did... They had the prosecution and the defense lay out things before them and had things challenged by the other.  You did not... you got yours from media sound bites.

While you are entitled to your opinion of what happened the idea that your opinion is more fact based, more solidly founded, is an irrational and impossible fallacy, and you need to get over it. 

If you really want to speak on equal terms... go read the court transcripts... learn everything the jury learned...  Not only will this bring your knowledge unto speed, it will also let you see what kind of mistakes (if any) where made so you can call for the correct level of redress

[Guest]

 

6 hours ago, estradling75 said:

You are still making the same mistake...  you are operating under the assumption that the Jury got it wrong.  This requires you to be operating under the assumption that you know more then they did... They had the prosecution and the defense lay out things before them and had things challenged by the other.  You did not... you got yours from media sound bites.

While you are entitled to your opinion of what happened the idea that your opinion is more fact based, more solidly founded, is an irrational and impossible fallacy, and you need to get over it. 

If you really want to speak on equal terms... go read the court transcripts... learn everything the jury learned...  Not only will this bring your knowledge unto speed, it will also let you see what kind of mistakes (if any) where made so you can call for the correct level of redress

I think you have a penchant for jumping to unwarranted conclusions about those you choose to oppose. I'm not operating under the assumption that the jury got it wrong.  I'm saying I am capable of looking at it both ways---you give me the impression that you aren't. I am in total agreement with your point that a reading of the trial transcript can help me to decide which 3x5 card to toss. Am I to understand you have done so, or should I jump to the same type of conclusion you've jumped to based upon the bias you have demonstrated over the time I've been a member of this forum? My ability to see it both ways has developed in part from my own experiences observing juries, and listening as well to both sides' attorneys and the judges' post trial remarks. 

[estradling75]

1 hour ago, UT.starscoper said:

 

I think you have a penchant for jumping to unwarranted conclusions about those you choose to oppose. I'm not operating under the assumption that the jury got it wrong.  I'm saying I am capable of looking at it both ways---you give me the impression that you aren't. I am in total agreement with your point that a reading of the trial transcript can help me to decide which 3x5 card to toss. Am I to understand you have done so, or should I jump to the same type of conclusion you've jumped to based upon the bias you have demonstrated over the time I've been a member of this forum? My ability to see it both ways has developed in part from my own experiences observing juries, and listening as well to both sides' attorneys and the judges' post trial remarks. 

You said both ways...  Way one the prosecution messed up... Way two the jury messed up... but nowhere in your analysis is even mentioned the idea that all parties performed with competence...  Or an other words you are presuming Guilt some where rather then Innocence as a default...

Bundy had the legal right to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty in a court of law...  When the court of law found him not guilty instead of accepting that you are saying based on your own limited wisdom, knowledge, and total lack of expertise in the matter that you know better, therefore something went wrong. Rather then simply acknowledge that you don't know and either accept what jury found or working to gain the knowledge that the jury had so you can speak at the same level.  Instead you are being the backseat driver of the judicial process and that is just all kinds of wrong.