# Bundys Found Not Guilty In Refuge Occupation Trial



## Maine-Marine (Mar 7, 2014)

Bundys Found Not Guilty In Refuge Occupation Trial . News | OPB

So they murdered an INNOCENT man on the highway


----------



## A Watchman (Sep 14, 2015)

The next steps here could be very interesting ...... but likely to get buried in time with red tape.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Maine-Marine said:


> Bundys Found Not Guilty In Refuge Occupation Trial . News | OPB
> 
> So they murdered an INNOCENT man on the highway


It didn't take this trial to prove an innocent man was murdered.


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

I fully support the return of ALL Federal land to state control.


----------



## New guy 101 (Dec 17, 2014)

This whole thing to me just sparks up our differing opinions on Federally Owned Land. Many of you like it because your State mismanages it....But to me that is no different than saying the Federal Government should have a Department of Education because states screw it up, or THe Government should do something else because your State doesn;t do it well or right....

Each excuse for transferring power from State to Federal, which is extra constitutional, you justify because it's in your interest.... Well. Stop bitching when the other folks do it then.

Either be for what the Constitution says...or your no better than the liberal scum who want weapons bans...or SIngle Payer health Care..

Just saying...
m2c.


----------



## Camel923 (Aug 13, 2014)

Government, Federal and State have over stepped thier constitutional limits on power long ago. Usually they shoot a woman holding an infant or just burn an entire church congregation. Murder of one man on the highway could be viewed as an improvement of sorts.


----------



## rstanek (Nov 9, 2012)

Just to add, read on Oathkeepers this morning that when the aquitted were leaving the court room after the verdict, one of the Feds tasered there lawyer in the back.


----------



## sideKahr (Oct 15, 2014)

The injustices perpetrated by our government on the people of the US has equalled or exceeded any crime King George committed against the colonists.


----------



## RubberDuck (May 27, 2016)

rstanek said:


> Just to add, read on Oathkeepers this morning that when the aquitted were leaving the court room after the verdict, one of the Feds tasered there lawyer in the back.


There is a little more to that story they didn't just do it for shits an giggles lets post up the whole story not just bits 
The media does enough of that
https://www.google.com/amp/www.kgw....s-during-heated-argument-with-judge/343359074


----------



## A Watchman (Sep 14, 2015)

RubberDuck said:


> There is a little more to that story they didn't just do it for shits an giggles lets post up the whole story not just bits
> The media does enough of that
> https://www.google.com/amp/www.kgw....s-during-heated-argument-with-judge/343359074


Seems the Bundy's are still in jail for the pending Nevada cattle fiasco charges.


----------



## rstanek (Nov 9, 2012)

RubberDuck said:


> There is a little more to that story they didn't just do it for shits an giggles lets post up the whole story not just bits
> The media does enough of that
> https://www.google.com/amp/www.kgw....s-during-heated-argument-with-judge/343359074


It wasn't my intention to mislead anyone,only making aware of a situation, I'm not to computer savvy when it come to posting links. I apologize for not being more detailed.


----------



## 7052 (Jul 1, 2014)

I have a feeling I'll get plastered for this, but what the hell.....

Let me first say that I supported the protesters at the Refuge. I believe that the protest was needed to bring public attention to the unconstitutional overeach of the Feds on "land management" and ownership. I wasn't a fan of them making it an armed occupation, since I was pretty sure some of them were going to wind up dead, and that did happen to one guy. Hell, the vids and timelines make it look like that poor dude was plain murdered IMO.

Having said that, I must also say that this verdict makes me uneasy. They went basically the "jury nullification" route on this. Basically saying "Yea, We did it. We broke the law, we admit that. But tell them we're "not guilty" just as a way to stick it to the man!".

While I completely support the ends that the Bundy's and other protesters there wanted, and agree with people here on PF about the utter disgrace that is the Federal ownership/forced management of huge chunks of property in the US, I just can't get behind this verdict.

They did indeed break the law. They made the choice to break the law as a protest. They made the choice to carry-through with the protest. They made the choice to engage in armed occupation of Federal land. Like thousands of protesters before them, they chose to knowingly break the law to bring publicity to an issue, and they chose to risk the punishment.

When you can commit multiple felonies, and get away with it, just by convincing the jury to say "Ahhh, to hell with it.", it makes the legal system have even less integrity than it already does.

Remember, jury nullification cuts both ways. Would this same crew here on PF be as forgiving if the case had gone the other way? Let's say the prosecution totally failed to do their job, or worse admitted that the protesters didn't actually break any laws but said to the jury "Let's send 'em to jail anyway just to show these gun-nuts that they can't mess with us!" If the jury came back w/ a guilty verdict, we we all be celebrating that example of nullification?

Regardless of the reason, the motive, or the goal, they DID break multiple laws. There is no getting around that.

_(Puts the anti-flame suit on and prepares for the scorching of ire-fueled hell-fire.)_


----------



## 7052 (Jul 1, 2014)

Maine-Marine said:


> So they murdered an INNOCENT man on the highway


I believe they did.


----------



## A Watchman (Sep 14, 2015)

Egyas said:


> I have a feeling I'll get plastered for this, but what the hell.....
> 
> Let me first say that I supported the protesters at the Refuge. I believe that the protest was needed to bring public attention to the unconstitutional overeach of the Feds on "land management" and ownership. I wasn't a fan of them making it an armed occupation, since I was pretty sure some of them were going to wind up dead, and that did happen to one guy. Hell, the vids and timelines make it look like that poor dude was plain murdered IMO.
> 
> ...


No Egyas I am not going to plaster you for your stance on the Bundy's trial verdict. However, you get no mercy for your continued stand and occupancy in the Democratik People's Republik of Hellinois.


----------



## Illini Warrior (Jan 24, 2015)

RubberDuck said:


> There is a little more to that story they didn't just do it for shits an giggles lets post up the whole story not just bits
> The media does enough of that
> https://www.google.com/amp/www.kgw....s-during-heated-argument-with-judge/343359074


hard to tell from this biased article - but a defense attorney having any kind of discussion with the bench - yelling if necessary - isn't that all uncommon in a case like this ....

WHO gave the signal to tackle an attorney in a court room?


----------



## 7052 (Jul 1, 2014)

A Watchman said:


> No Egyas I am not going to plaster you for your stance on the Bundy's trial verdict. However, you get no mercy for your continued stand and occupancy in the Democratik People's Republik of Hellinois.


ROFL! We are working VERY hard to get land, and build a house in a Friendlier state and flee the tyranny of Hellinois! lol


----------



## sideKahr (Oct 15, 2014)

Egyas, you make a valid point, and a thought provoking one turning the tables like that. 

Yes, they did break the REGULATION. Did they break the law, if it was unconstitutional? I don't know. That should be the real question of a new trial, with the Federal Government as the defendant.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

Outdoor Life magazine did an article several months ago on federal land ownership, how it benefits hunters and outdoorsmen, and what is really behind the movement to make the government divest itself of the land.
It is all about money (gee, imagine that!).
If the land speculators are successful, several decades from now the best hunting, fishing, and camping lands will be off limits to the average outdoorsman.


----------



## rstanek (Nov 9, 2012)

We hear so much these days on how divided we are as a nation, but the laws of the land are the one thing that unifies us, rich or poor,no matter what race, or ethic group or religion, we are all supposed to be equal under the law. Sometimes laws can be made that may be overreaching and have to be revised as not to be considered an abuse of authority , if that applies in this case, I don't know, I'm not an attorney, sometimes people trying to take a stand on an issue they see as unfair,may cross the line of the law to get the attention needed to bring to light an injustice. Just my opinion....


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

rice paddy daddy said:


> Outdoor Life magazine did an article several months ago on federal land ownership, how it benefits hunters and outdoorsmen, and what is really behind the movement to make the government divest itself of the land.
> It is all about money (gee, imagine that!).
> If the land speculators are successful, several decades from now the best hunting, fishing, and camping lands will be off limits to the average outdoorsman.


Nobody is more in favor of Land Conservation than old Slip.

Which makes this a tricky problem to solve. We all understand why Ted Roosevelt did what he did regarding federal land and National Parks, that is understandable. But it doesn't make it Constitutional other than the fact that Congress voted on it and made it Constitutional...which is the beauty of our Constitution.

But Slippy, you are talking out of both sides of your mouth!!! Yeah, I guess I am.

RPD brings up a valid point that if the land is returned to the states that the highest bidder will buy the land and may put up condos for illegal immigrants and a water park. YUCK!

Possible, but not likely. However "possibile" and not "likely" are not words used in the Constitution.

One citizen may like to hunt while another citizen may want the land to be used to produce oil and gas. Another citizen may want to paint paintings showing the sunset over BLM land and another may want to buy that land and use it to ranch cattle and sell meat to those who like to eat meat. etc etc etc...The uses for the land are endless and each citizen may have a different view of what the land should be used for.

I guess my point is, I trust the American Entrepenuer more than I trust the Federal Government. I trust American Exceptionalism more than DC Bureaucratism. I trust individuals more than collectivism of government.


----------



## bigwheel (Sep 22, 2014)

Maine-Marine said:


> Bundys Found Not Guilty In Refuge Occupation Trial . News | OPB
> 
> So they murdered an INNOCENT man on the highway


Great news on that. Praise the Lord!


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

Slippy said:


> I fully support the return of ALL Federal land to state control.


 Why should The FED's control any land other than US military bases. And even then it should be limited.


----------



## 7052 (Jul 1, 2014)

Smitty901 said:


> Why should The FED's control any land other than US military bases. And even then it should be limited.


I can see some limited reasons, especially for reasons of legitimate national interest. Example, a place w/ Uranium deposits. I see nothing wrong with the Feds owning that to control who mines it given the sensitivity of Uranium.

However, those legitimate reasons are extremely limited IMO.


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

Egyas said:


> I can see some limited reasons, especially for reasons of legitimate national interest. Example, a place w/ Uranium deposits. I see nothing wrong with the Feds owning that to control who mines it given the sensitivity of Uranium.
> 
> However, those legitimate reasons are extremely limited IMO.


 But that is how it starts, " we can all agree it is a good idea right...." Then where does it always end up. Just like weapons bans


----------



## Camel923 (Aug 13, 2014)

When laws are not moral, is it's enforcement constitutional or not? I say no. Just because some yahoos in the state or federal capitol decide what is legal does not make it moral. However you do take your chances with state persecution, and this is where juries have real power to say the legislature, executive and judiciary have it wrong. Judges always direct juries to do as the law commands but jurists should use intellect before applying a remedy directed by government that is for government at the expense of private citizens. JMHO.


----------



## MaterielGeneral (Jan 27, 2015)

Smitty901 said:


> Why should The FED's control any land other than US military bases. And even then it should be limited.


This is what I was going to comment on. The Federal Government should only own military reservations and land that pertains to national security. I think that the federal public land should be transferred to state/public ownership with a contingent agreement that it will not be sold or given away for any reason. The land is to remain open and free for public interest and use.


----------



## MaterielGeneral (Jan 27, 2015)

Egyas said:


> I just can't get behind this verdict.
> 
> They did indeed break the law. They made the choice to break the law as a protest. They made the choice to carry-through with the protest. They made the choice to engage in armed occupation of Federal land. Like thousands of protesters before them, they chose to knowingly break the law to bring publicity to an issue, and they chose to risk the punishment.
> 
> When you can commit multiple felonies, and get away with it, just by convincing the jury to say "Ahhh, to hell with it.", it makes the legal system have even less integrity than it already does.[/i]


The key thing here is they were judged by a jury of their peers. Do you realize how many laws are on the books? How many of those laws are outright B.S.? What about gun control laws? Especially if Clinton becomes elected and appoints more socialist supreme court judges. Trying to fight a law that is alleged unconstitutional just became impossible. Its a law, are you going to break the law and protest, carry thru with the protest, will you choose the risk of punishment and with so many thousands of others (hopefully) and follow thru with an occupation and/or revolution? Will you risk punishment?

The federal government is to big and it is a bully. The federal government needs someone to plain and simple punch it in the nose and put it in its place. With man making so many laws it is hard to not violate them. That is why you are allowed a jury of your peers.


----------

