Some more thought on the recent court ruling regarding the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.
I see it was a jury's decision, not a judge's. I wonder on that. I see one juror was let go just before the decision was rendered after his impartiality was questioned. If we had one juror whose was not impartial, were their others, but they were not as blatant in their impartiality? Which side was he partial to, and how did it affect the jury's deliberations?
I thought to read whether the judge offered any comments as why she acquitted the defendants. I had supposed it was because she found the defendants did not in any way prevent the workers from doing their job. And, I supposed she found no evidence the refuge could not be up and running, operating as normal, even though the Ammon Bundy and others were there. But, no judge? Then, there would have been no comments. Perhaps, now, we would have to go back to the court record to determine whether their was good evidence the protesters did, in fact, intimidate the workers from showing up for work, or did encourage the refuge to be closed.
If there is such evidence -- good evidence -- then I question the court's decision. You do not march into a government facility, and take it over, and close it down. Yes, that is wrong.
A final thought? Bundy and his co-defendants got much of what they wanted out of their protest. They wanted to make a statement against government overreach. They wanted to do something about it. Via the jury's decision, they got what they came for. "This message of government overreach has got to stop," attorney Marcus Mumford said. "We are very pleased with the decision we had here."