Author Topic: Militia Seizes Federal Building in Oregon  (Read 6298 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Glock32

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 8658
  • Get some!
Re: Militia Seizes Federal Building in Oregon
« Reply #100 on: October 28, 2016, 03:18:19 PM »
From what I read, there were more government informers in that siege than there were defendants.
"The Fourth Estate is less honorable than the First Profession."

- Yours Truly

Offline Libertas

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 40824
  • Alea iacta est! Libertatem aut mori!
Re: Militia Seizes Federal Building in Oregon
« Reply #101 on: April 26, 2017, 07:56:46 AM »
LaVoy's murderers still walking free...government still imprisoning those awaiting kangaroo court justice...jury trying to play ball with the police state but finsing it difficult...

http://libertynation.com/bundy-verdict-two-points-view/

...what a fricken joke...

 ::upsidedownflag::

Irrumabo!  GOP? - Nope. No more. They made their bed, now let them die in it.*
* © Libertas (H/T Glock32)

Online richb

  • Established Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1467
Re: Militia Seizes Federal Building in Oregon
« Reply #102 on: April 26, 2017, 03:43:34 PM »
LaVoy's murderers still walking free...government still imprisoning those awaiting kangaroo court justice...jury trying to play ball with the police state but finsing it difficult...

http://libertynation.com/bundy-verdict-two-points-view/

...what a fricken joke...

 ::upsidedownflag::

It shows that throwing on charge after charge after charge shouldn't be and is likely very unconstitutional (not like that matters anymore either).    The government knows if it only goes after the one big charge,  they could lose.   So that's how we have ended up with these trials where all these many charges are brought.   So the government wins even if only one or two charges result in conviction.     You could be found innocent on 8 other things,  but since they got you on one,  you still lose even if you win most of it.

I think its the thumb on the scale of justice.  It's not just this case in particular,  but the whole system that has developed in the last half century or so.

I think the only way that ends (since a change in law is unlikely) if large amounts of juries start finding people innocent of all charges,  when they have these cases where there is a dozen charges.   Your either did something or not.    Picking from the "menu" only helps the government,  which juries shouldn't be doing.   The jury should always give the benefit of the doubt to the defendant,  never the government.   
« Last Edit: April 26, 2017, 03:47:32 PM by richb »

Offline Libertas

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 40824
  • Alea iacta est! Libertatem aut mori!
Re: Militia Seizes Federal Building in Oregon
« Reply #103 on: April 27, 2017, 06:59:57 AM »
LaVoy's murderers still walking free...government still imprisoning those awaiting kangaroo court justice...jury trying to play ball with the police state but finsing it difficult...

http://libertynation.com/bundy-verdict-two-points-view/

...what a fricken joke...

 ::upsidedownflag::

It shows that throwing on charge after charge after charge shouldn't be and is likely very unconstitutional (not like that matters anymore either).    The government knows if it only goes after the one big charge,  they could lose.   So that's how we have ended up with these trials where all these many charges are brought.   So the government wins even if only one or two charges result in conviction.     You could be found innocent on 8 other things,  but since they got you on one,  you still lose even if you win most of it.

I think its the thumb on the scale of justice.  It's not just this case in particular,  but the whole system that has developed in the last half century or so.

I think the only way that ends (since a change in law is unlikely) if large amounts of juries start finding people innocent of all charges,  when they have these cases where there is a dozen charges.   Your either did something or not.    Picking from the "menu" only helps the government,  which juries shouldn't be doing.   The jury should always give the benefit of the doubt to the defendant,  never the government.   

Yes, this is what happens when lawyers run amok...their "pleading in the alternative" (ie-throw as much shyt at the wall and see what sticks) method should not have been institutionalized as if it were Constitutional, nor should juries have ever accepted the practice of picking and choosing which laws may or may not have been broken so the prosecution can get some sort of conviction or not...HTF can a lessor charge be acceptable if in most all cases the more serious charge it is linked to be found to be without merit?  Did the defendant consciously choose to commit the less egregious crime at the time because the more serious offense was just too much to risk?  And if these judicial statists want to give juries choices then clearly the juries need to start taking this more seriously and think about if they were in this same circumstance and start finding people not guilty on ALL charges!  But that will be hard, the statists have a domesticated herd on their side in most cases...and even if just one juror holds out for acquittal on all charges...it is a hung jury and they get a Mulligan to try again with a new crop of idiots.  IMO a hung jury in non-capital/rape cases should be treated like an acquittal.
Irrumabo!  GOP? - Nope. No more. They made their bed, now let them die in it.*
* © Libertas (H/T Glock32)