Defendants' intent central question in standoff trial - #BundyTeaParty
By Maxine Bernstein | The Oregonian/OregonLive
on September 11, 2016 at 9:00 AM
updated September 11, 2016 at 9:23 AM
Ammon Bundy, his brother and co-defendants transformed the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge into a ramshackle camp this winter, manned the perimeter with military-style armed patrols and warned of violence against anyone who attempted to remove them while declaring the refuge a "base place for patriots from all over the country,'' prosecutors will argue this week.
What a jury must decide is whether their actions and intent amounted to a crime.
The trial pits the federal government against a group of self-described patriots who fervently believe public lands are in the wrong hands. The case will help to further establish when political protest protected by the First Amendment crosses the line into words and deeds that will send you to prison, and what the legal limitations are to constitutional guarantees of free speech, assembly and the right to bear arms ...
Margaret .. Paris, a law professor and former University of Oregon School of Law dean, said ... "The prosecutors must put to bed the crazy constitutional notions that the defendants have .. They have to be able to get a conviction here and meaningful sentences because there are people waiting to repeat this activity. It'll be an important deterrent'' ...
http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/09/defendants_intent_the_central.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
