The leader of the armed Oregon standoff sat on the stand for more than three days, laying out his views on the Constitution, the federal government and the duty of man in his plain-spoken way .
It was Ammon Bundy’s 10 hours of testimony that likely won over jurors in a trial that concluded with seven people being acquitted Thursday of federal conspiracy and weapons charges, one legal expert said.
“It gave Ammon a chance to explain his side,” Lewis & Clark Law Professor Tung Yin told the Daily News. “And apparently the jury seemed to agree. I think it’s really hard to see this as anything other than jury nullification.” “This is much bigger than the Hammonds,” Ammon Bundy told the court about his quest in Oregon to bring awareness to what he called injustices carried out by the federal government. “It’s for my children, grandchildren.
“Everything comes from the Earth and if [the government] can get control of the resources, they can get control of the people.” Bundy, a father of six, described federal government officials as modern day Roman emperors trying to rule over their subjects by restricting access to resource-rich territories. “We need to wake up,” he told the jurors and the courtroom.
Ammon Bundy’s lengthy testimony was possibly a turning point in the trial, Yin said.
“The fact that they acquitted on everything must be representative of some kind of mistrust of the government or a symbolic protest, or anger at the government,” he said of the jurors. Yin, who followed the case closely, said he was stunned that jury found the occupiers not guilty of conspiracy and possession of firearms at a federal facility. “I erroneously thought this would be a slam dunk for the government,” he said. “And I’m sure the government, to a degree, the government prosecutors are surprised.”
He pointed to the mountains of evidence, photos and even Bundy’s own testimony, that proved the group carried guns while in the bird sanctuary.
Bundy told the court that the occupiers toted weapons because they would have been arrested otherwise. And they had to protect themselves against possible government attack, he said. “Of course you have to wonder if this this will embolden future Bundys,” Yin said. “But they’ve lost nine months of their lives. I don’t know if I were an anti-government type, I dont think if I would look at this as a true victory.”...
more
2 comments:
How can a person who espouses the US Constitution be anti-government? One would think the opposite would be self evident.
He is right that if government agencies control the land, have a say even on private land, then that is the end of your property rights and the Bill of Rights. As seen in the matter of the EPA and ACE using the Clean Water Act being extended from "navigable waters of the U.S." to "all the waters of the U.S". thus expanding their authority to your private property. What you can do on it, roads, ponds, rain collection, farming, discing, plowing, bank protection, erosion protection, and more, all ends with them.
So you would have no objections if a company upstream from your property dumped chemicals/fertilizers/toxins in the water you rely on for your crops or livestock? Or your well water? We are all in this together and need to take care of the land, water, and air we breathe or there will be nothing left for future generations. I don't mind some well-reasoned restrictions if it means a better life for my neighbors and my grandchildren.
Post a Comment