4 ms·

Amon Bundy was tried on many charges and his case was closed with prejudice. The media and government tried and tried to paint him as a criminal but ultimately

by ty6853 1y ago

Amon Bundy was tried on many charges and his case was closed with prejudice. The media and government tried and tried to paint him as a criminal but ultimately all the kings horses, men, and prosecutors weren't able to persuade a jury.

mulmen 1y ago
> The media and government tried and tried to paint him as a criminal but ultimately all the kings horses, men, and prosecutors weren't able to persuade a jury. This is technically correct but is a misleading characterization of the events according to Wikipedia [1]. > The first criminal case resulting from the standoff, against six Bundy supporters, was declared a mistrial by U.S. District Judge Gloria Navarro on April 24, 2017. > The mistrial was declared hours after the jury convicted two men of some of the 10 counts in the indictment. The case was declared a mistrial with prejudice due to prosecutorial "misjudgement" that prevented a fair trial of the Bundys. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff#Prosecutions_of_some_standoff_participants https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff#Prosecutions_of...
- ty6853 1y ago
  The Bunkerville trial of Ammon was declared a mistrial with prejudice. For Malheur he was found 'not guilty' on all charges 'according to wikipedia', >On October 27, 2016, Ammon Bundy was found not guilty on all counts.[87][88] Unless you are thinking of another trial of Amon, I think you are mixing up someone else (6 others?) or another event. I admit it is easy to mix it up with Ammon, because the government tried to pin felony charges on him so many time and always hopelessly failed just in multiple ways. Of course sometimes a criminal just gets away with it, but when the government tries so many felony charges and fails each time, that is when I decided to investigate 'the other side of the coin' and quickly found the portrait portrayed by the media of Ammon is in my estimation highly distorted. While it will do nothing to convince one way or another of his guilt, I highly recommend listening to some of his interviews and videos and actually trying to understand him, and I think you will be surprised. His ideas and speech were not at all what I expected based on the media portrayal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammon_Bundy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammon_Bundy
  - zzrrt 1y ago
    Are we reading the same Wikipedia page? Maybe I’ll save a full perusal of his statements for another day, but based on Wikipedia… yes, he has said some surprisingly liberal things about Trump, immigration policy, the Republican party, and Black Lives Matter. On the other hand, he put some hospitals through lockdown, threats of violence, accusations of pedophilia conspiracy, and protesting outside of hospital workers’ homes, all because the hospital put his buddy’s infant grandson into protective care because it was about to die of malnourishment. That’s about what I expect based on his portrayal. I don’t know exactly how he’s escaped consequences, but I don’t think it’s because he’s actually reasonable and correct.
    - ty6853 1y ago
      Take a look at the bodycam regarding the baby taken away: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Du-jbE022I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Du-jbE022I "Not medically necessary." The baby was not about to die, in fact the doctor admits in the bodycam to manufacturing a story to take Cyrus away via a transfer for cover for removal to foster care. The baby was stable. The hospital then defamed Mr Bundy by lying about the circumstances. >about to die of malnourishment Why would a child be discharged straight to CPS foster care with a transfer only to obfuscate that, if the child were about to die? The child is stable, ready for foster care but simultaneously about to die? These are not simultaneously compatible in this context, someone is lying. And I think the end result thankfully bears this out, as the CPS case was ultimately cleared and charges dropped against the mother.
      - zzrrt 1y ago
        Bundy misleadingly edited that video to support his claims. "Thomas’ conversations with police and the emergency medical service (EMS) report [Bundy] references both centered on whether the child was healthy enough to be transported, not whether the 10-month-old was healthy overall." https://www.idahostatesman.com/news/local/community/boise/article279120394.html https://www.idahostatesman.com/news/local/community/boise/ar... The doctor was saying the baby was stable enough to transport to another hospital, which doesn't contradict the assessment that the baby needed prompt medical care that his caretakers were unjustifiably fighting against. (The baby may have received some immediate treatment that made him safe enough to transport, but not ready to leave hospital care.) I believe the references to CPS foster parents by the doctor were about the transportation and stay in the hospital, not to immediately discharging from the hospital into a foster home. So the child was stable enough for transportation, under the watch of CPS and also medical professionals, and there was reasonable concern that the child would not get the treatment it needed if discharged to the parents right away. I don't believe there's any contradiction here, in the actual statements, rather than the distorted versions from Bundy. The baby was returned to its family after approximately a week. That doesn't prove it was totally healthy all along and the parents did nothing wrong. It suggests CPS didn't have a strong case the parents would endanger the baby in the future. Maybe the employees didn't want Bundy followers stalking them at their house, like they did to hospital workers.

by ty6853 1y ago

mulmen 1y ago

> The media and government tried and tried to paint him as a criminal but ultimately all the kings horses, men, and prosecutors weren't able to persuade a jury. This is technically correct but is a misleading characterization of the events according to Wikipedia [1]. > The first criminal case resulting from the standoff, against six Bundy supporters, was declared a mistrial by U.S. District Judge Gloria Navarro on April 24, 2017. > The mistrial was declared hours after the jury convicted two men of some of the 10 counts in the indictment. The case was declared a mistrial with prejudice due to prosecutorial "misjudgement" that prevented a fair trial of the Bundys. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff#Prosecutions_of_some_standoff_participants https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff#Prosecutions_of...

ty6853 1y ago
The Bunkerville trial of Ammon was declared a mistrial with prejudice. For Malheur he was found 'not guilty' on all charges 'according to wikipedia', >On October 27, 2016, Ammon Bundy was found not guilty on all counts.[87][88] Unless you are thinking of another trial of Amon, I think you are mixing up someone else (6 others?) or another event. I admit it is easy to mix it up with Ammon, because the government tried to pin felony charges on him so many time and always hopelessly failed just in multiple ways. Of course sometimes a criminal just gets away with it, but when the government tries so many felony charges and fails each time, that is when I decided to investigate 'the other side of the coin' and quickly found the portrait portrayed by the media of Ammon is in my estimation highly distorted. While it will do nothing to convince one way or another of his guilt, I highly recommend listening to some of his interviews and videos and actually trying to understand him, and I think you will be surprised. His ideas and speech were not at all what I expected based on the media portrayal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammon_Bundy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammon_Bundy
- zzrrt 1y ago
  Are we reading the same Wikipedia page? Maybe I’ll save a full perusal of his statements for another day, but based on Wikipedia… yes, he has said some surprisingly liberal things about Trump, immigration policy, the Republican party, and Black Lives Matter. On the other hand, he put some hospitals through lockdown, threats of violence, accusations of pedophilia conspiracy, and protesting outside of hospital workers’ homes, all because the hospital put his buddy’s infant grandson into protective care because it was about to die of malnourishment. That’s about what I expect based on his portrayal. I don’t know exactly how he’s escaped consequences, but I don’t think it’s because he’s actually reasonable and correct.
  - ty6853 1y ago
    Take a look at the bodycam regarding the baby taken away: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Du-jbE022I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Du-jbE022I "Not medically necessary." The baby was not about to die, in fact the doctor admits in the bodycam to manufacturing a story to take Cyrus away via a transfer for cover for removal to foster care. The baby was stable. The hospital then defamed Mr Bundy by lying about the circumstances. >about to die of malnourishment Why would a child be discharged straight to CPS foster care with a transfer only to obfuscate that, if the child were about to die? The child is stable, ready for foster care but simultaneously about to die? These are not simultaneously compatible in this context, someone is lying. And I think the end result thankfully bears this out, as the CPS case was ultimately cleared and charges dropped against the mother.
    - zzrrt 1y ago
      Bundy misleadingly edited that video to support his claims. "Thomas’ conversations with police and the emergency medical service (EMS) report [Bundy] references both centered on whether the child was healthy enough to be transported, not whether the 10-month-old was healthy overall." https://www.idahostatesman.com/news/local/community/boise/article279120394.html https://www.idahostatesman.com/news/local/community/boise/ar... The doctor was saying the baby was stable enough to transport to another hospital, which doesn't contradict the assessment that the baby needed prompt medical care that his caretakers were unjustifiably fighting against. (The baby may have received some immediate treatment that made him safe enough to transport, but not ready to leave hospital care.) I believe the references to CPS foster parents by the doctor were about the transportation and stay in the hospital, not to immediately discharging from the hospital into a foster home. So the child was stable enough for transportation, under the watch of CPS and also medical professionals, and there was reasonable concern that the child would not get the treatment it needed if discharged to the parents right away. I don't believe there's any contradiction here, in the actual statements, rather than the distorted versions from Bundy. The baby was returned to its family after approximately a week. That doesn't prove it was totally healthy all along and the parents did nothing wrong. It suggests CPS didn't have a strong case the parents would endanger the baby in the future. Maybe the employees didn't want Bundy followers stalking them at their house, like they did to hospital workers.