Warren Dew wrote:It's a real stretch to say they used "intimidation, threat or force" when the building they took over was abandoned and no federal employees even showed up there while they were there.

So if a bunch of gun-toting people moved in to your property while you weren't there, and broadcast videos about how well-armed they were and how they were prepared to die, and you stayed away because you thought at least some of them were crazy enough to shoot you if you tried, (and, indeed, one of them was moronic or deluded enough to get himself most deservedly shot after a car chase), you wouldn't feel they were intimidating you?

Still, it's good to know you think that their apparent intimidation was all a pretence and they had no intention of hurting anyone who went near them.

Next time something similar happens, it'll obviously be totally OK for law enforcement to rapidly move in (suitably protected, just in case) to persuade the protesters to leave, as the merry pranksters would clearly be so peace-loving that nothing regrettable is likely to happen.

Weaver wrote:Sounds like a very basic failure on the prosecution's part to demonstrate the essential elements of the crime. They may have gotten cocky ...

Yup, prosecutors had to prove a specific kinda intent to make out conspiracy, and looks like they failed.

Warren Dew wrote:Also, the U.S. marshals attacking a lawyer in the courtroom just for asking for the paperwork on keeping one of the Bundys in custody - ignoring the judge's orders to the marshals to move back - just illustrates how far the government is going these days in overreaching their authority. The marshals should be prosecuted for assault.

And ignoring the directions of the trial judge in the process! Takes a lot to shock me, but Marshals tasing a lawyer in open court for arguing with the judge sure qualifies.

Even more disturbing is seeing the acquittal greeted by violent fantasies from SJWs about g-persons moving in to torture, fry, and murder similar groups of "traitorous white men." Natch, they spend a lota their time railing against police brutality and the death penalty ... except (to use one of their favorite phrases) when they don't.

laklak wrote:Jury of their peers?

Ah, our old friend nullification. Even if true, given the attitude of the courts to self-confessed nullifiers (punish them in any way possible, usually for lying in voir dire), if they've any sense, jurors will say the prosecution failed to meet their burden.

tolman wrote:

Warren Dew wrote:It's a real stretch to say they used "intimidation, threat or force" when the building they took over was abandoned and no federal employees even showed up there while they were there.

So if a bunch of gun-toting people moved in to your property while you weren't there, and broadcast videos about how well-armed they were and how they were prepared to die, and you stayed away because you thought at least some of them were crazy enough to shoot you if you tried, (and, indeed, one of them was moronic or deluded enough to get himself most deservedly shot after a car chase), you wouldn't feel they were intimidating you?

With this particular bunch, I'd have felt quite safe walking in and saying, "I'm back, you can all go home now." They were happy drunks, not angry drunks.

Next time something similar happens, it'll obviously be totally OK for law enforcement to rapidly move in (suitably protected, just in case) to persuade the protesters to leave, as the merry pranksters would clearly be so peace-loving that nothing regrettable is likely to happen.

It will be okay if they avoid shooting someone for no reason next time.

They shot someone for no reason? When did that happen?

WTF!? These arseholes simply just walked!?

monkeyboy wrote:They shot someone for no reason? When did that happen?

It didn't. In case you missed it in the first half of Warren's reply, he's speaking form Lala Land. As usual.

Hey Warren, what's the official position in Lala Land when you tell them multiple times to "go home" as you said, and they don't do it? Because that's what actually happened.

Animavore wrote:WTF!? These arseholes simply just walked!?

Apparently not, as other charges are pending. Not even their attorney got to walk, being tased and hauled off by Marshals for asking to see the papers.

If they'd been charged with being gun-totin' assholes, doubt any jury on earth would acquit; unfortunately, they got hit with a specific kinda intent, which wasn't so easy to make out.

monkeyboy wrote:They shot someone for no reason? When did that happen?

Look up Roy Finicum. If he'd been black, it would have been all over the headlines.

Warren Dew wrote:

monkeyboy wrote:They shot someone for no reason? When did that happen?

Look up Roy Finicum. If he'd been black, it would have been all over the headlines.

We've dealt with this upthread. He was in a car full of people on record as saying that they were prepared to use lethal force against police. They failed to stop for police. They attempted to run a police roadblock. He then attempted to flee on foot and when confronted by police officers, he did not follow their instructions or clearly signal an intent to surrender. He moved his hands towards his waistband and got shot. He then probably bled out as his friends were safely removed from their vehicle carefully due to their previously stated intent to use lethal force.

He was not shot for no reason. He was shot because his stated intentions were of violence towards LEOs. He was attempting to flee from a car which had just nearly wiped out a police officer at a road block and then because his behaviour suggested further lack of compliance and given armed people often carry weapons at their waist, moving hand there suggested risk. I've rarely seen one of these cases where the force was more appropriate.

The cops could have shot shit out the car trying to ram them. They didn't. They could have gunned him down soon as he fled the car, they didn't. They shot him when his behaviour suggested increased threat.

Had he been black it would have made not one jot of difference to my ability to see what happened there. Not sure what that has to do with this case at all.

Warren Dew wrote:Look up Roy Finicum. If he'd been black, it would have been all over the headlines.

You want some hard cheese to go with that white whine?

Robert 'LaVoy' Finicum was all over the news, for at least as long as he deserved to be.

As someone who was known to carry a gun (and who was carrying one), to have a beef with the government, to have said he'd rather be dead than arrested, who drove off after being stopped, and who made 'reaching for a gun' movements while police were pointing guns at him, while encouraging them to shoot, it seems either a fairly clear suicide-by-cop, or a case of a mentally unstable armed person being shot by people more than credibly in fear for their safety.

Certainly less obviously concerning than many other shootings by police, many of which get far less media coverage.

If you want to blame anyone, blame the people who think it's a good idea for people like him to be armed.
It is fortunate that only he was killed, when he'd meaningfully put the lives of his passengers in danger by his retarded actions.

monkeyboy wrote:The cops could have shot shit out the car trying to ram them. They didn't. They could have gunned him down soon as he fled the car, they didn't.

To be fair, it seems two shots were fired when he got out of the vehicle, but since neither hit him (and one missed the vehicle entirely), it's not clear if that was just a poor shot, or someone firing accidentally.

However, that didn't seem to have caused an immediate reaction from Finucum or any obvious escalation, given how he wandered around for some time afterwards, and one might have thought that in a sane person, if they noticed shots being fired, it would tend to make them more aware of the danger of the situation.

tolman wrote:

monkeyboy wrote:The cops could have shot shit out the car trying to ram them. They didn't. They could have gunned him down soon as he fled the car, they didn't.

To be fair, it seems two shots were fired when he got out of the vehicle, but since neither hit him (and one missed the vehicle entirely), it's not clear if that was just a poor shot, or someone firing accidentally.

However, that didn't seem to have caused an immediate reaction from Finucum or any obvious escalation, given how he wandered around for some time afterwards, and one might have thought that in a sane person, if they noticed shots being fired, it would tend to make them more aware of the danger of the situation.

Fair enough, I missed that having happened. Probably because I didn't study it in too much detail given how obviously justified the use of lethal force by the police was in this situation. Quite unlike the controversy many of the other police shootings we've all discussed have, regardless of the colour of the person shot.

Well, that did come out later, as a result of the state (in the broader sense) systems doing their jobs, and was covered in later press coverage in US national news, and even covered in the (UK) Guardian.

Though one might wonder, whether the shots were accidental, odd warning shots, or just badly aimed by someone who (for some reason) didn't just take better shots (when it comes to government-trained assassins , you simply can't get the staff these days), maybe if they'd been more on target and just winged him, he'd still be alive.

Though, no doubt, with all manner of right-wing nutjobs claiming with self-generated authority that he'd definitely been just about to calmly surrender, and had been cruelly injured for no reason.