The acquittal by federal jurors of seven leaders of the 41-day armed takeover of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon is hailed, alternately, as a verdict for liberty or an invitation to anarchy. “Most onlookers blamed prosecutorial over-reach — that the government stretched its case too far to fit the events at the refuge — or to stumbles in the presentation of evidence,” said the New York Times.
“This absolutely shocking verdict is sure to embolden armed paramilitary groups in the white-hot political environment in this country,” said Tarso Luis Ramos, of Political Research Associates, in a Washington Post story. “This sends a signal that it is not only appropriate to challenge the rule of law through armed militancy, but that it is effective to do so.” The American Federation of Government Employees said the acquittal was a signal that there are no consequences for armed occupation of federal facilities.
The verdict is unlikely to spur other clashes or takeovers of federal property, said political science professor R. McGreggor Cawley of the University of Wyoming, considering how few people responded to calls by the occupiers for support. The takeover was a protest of federal ownership of large portions of land in the West and a support of local ranching family.
One juror wrote the Portland Oregonian newspaper to say “all 12 jurors felt that this verdict was a statement regarding the various failures of the prosecution to prove ‘conspiracy’ in the count itself — and not any form of affirmation of the defense’s various beliefs, actions or aspirations.”
Some militant groups want federal land to be ceded to state or local control; in some cases, they say ownership should be transferred to local or state government.
“People are starting to pay attention to the narrative that the government is trying to push upon the people, and they’re not buying it,” said Oregon activist B.J. Soper, who was present during the occupation.