4

I'm reading about how the people involved in the "Oregon Standoff" in early 2016 were all fully acquitted

One Reddit comment thread discusses the allegation that the reason for the acquittal was that such a large portion of those involved were actually government informants:

[–]welfarecuban 601 points: I don't think this was really about "nullification." From my observing of this case over the past few weeks, it started to take a turn once all the information about government informers started coming out. They ended up looking like agents-provacateur, and that more than anything else probably caused the jury to doubt the whole of the government's "narrative" in this case. Since many of the crimes in the indictment rely upon "intent," these informants had a distorting effect upon establishing the real intent of the individuals on trial. And in a system that asks jurors to look for evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt," it was just too much.

[–]jeffhsu3 381 points: Exactly, there were 15 federal informants (only 9 were with the group on federal property in January). One of the informants ran the gun range and provided combat training. When the number of informants doubles the number of defendants, it's hard to distinguish intent from entrapment.

[–]rkoloeg 63 points: Germany recently had a problem with this in their attempts to prosecute right-wing extremists. It turned out that right-wing groups were so thoroughly infiltrated by the security services, that it was nearly impossible to distinguish whether any criminal activities were carried out by actual right-wingers without being influenced by their supposed leaders.

A comment later goes on to claim 3/5 of those involved were informants. Is this accurate? What fraction of the people involved in this were government informants?

closed as unclear what you're asking by Oddthinking Oct 28 '16 at 13:24

Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 2
    Is a commenter in this thread notable? Can we find a better claimant? – Oddthinking Oct 28 '16 at 8:18
  • 1
    Where's the 3/5th comment? I can't see it in the link I added, but that doesn't seem to be the original. – Oddthinking Oct 28 '16 at 8:19
  • 5
    Note that the middle comment in the quote asserts that there 15 informants, 9 of whom were involved in the occupation. That's 3/5 -- so the exact wording of the claim is important. This may just be a matter of someone misreading or misrepresenting the original claim. Not 3/5 of those involved were informants; 3/5 of the informants were involved. And the Wikipedia link says that there were over two dozen people charged. 3/5 of 25 (the smallest integer larger than 24) would be 15. So just doing the math from the cited sources puts the claim at untrue. 9 of 25 is less than 3/5, as is 15 of 31. – Brythan Oct 28 '16 at 12:21
  • 1
    Closed while we sort out if @Brythan's speculation is correct: that the title is simple misreading of the claim. – Oddthinking Oct 28 '16 at 13:25
  • @Brythan how many were actually at the refugee? It was only 4 at the end, but how many originally? This article says "the number of militia members in the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge headquarters is likely between six and 12 people" wweek.com/2016/01/02/… – DavePhD Oct 28 '16 at 13:41

Browse other questions tagged .