In the United States, and all its constituent jurisdictions, there is a justice system that follows certain specific precepts: right to a trial by peers, right to counsel, proof behind a reasonable doubt, and a presumption of innocence. There are, of course, flaws and errors, and abuses within that system, and I have spent a good deal of my career addressing them on behalf of clients. But, in the main, the system works.

In the Hammond cases, those mechanisms were in play and apparently worked well. The prosecution was not unreasonable, offered plea deals, dismissed charges, and argued for the minimum sentence. At the end, the jury determined that the alleged crimes occurred, and did not believe the Hammonds' claims. That is how the process is supposed to work.

The Bundys and their co-conspirators decided that their view of how things should be prevailed over the existing system and the rights of anyone who disagrees. It really boils down to an "entitlement" worldview. They believe they are entitled to deference for their views, even if they are not held by a majority, their neighbors, or are consistent with the law, and even if they are actively in conflict with the interests of those neighbors.

A well reasoned argument is like a diamond: impervious to corruption and crystal clear - and infinitely rarer.

Here, as elsewhere, people are outraged at what feels like a rigged game -- an economy that won't respond, a democracy that won't listen, and a financial sector that holds all the cards. - Robert Reich