Disgraceful jurors want to let pipeline saboteurs off the hook

[Derec]

Washington state pipeline disruption jury fails to reach verdict

A jury weighing charges against an activist behind a coordinated protest that disrupted the flow of millions of barrels of crude oil into the United States failed to reach a verdict in a case in Washington state, prosecutors said on Wednesday.
Ken Ward did not dispute that he shut down a valve on Kinder Morgan Inc's Trans Mountain Pipeline near Burlington, Washington, but a jury could not agree on a verdict for his charges of trespassing, burglary and sabotage.
[...]
Ward was arrested in October when he and other activists in four states cut padlocks and chains and entered remote flow stations to turn off valves to try to stop crude from moving through lines that carry as much as 15 percent of daily U.S. oil consumption. Officials, pipeline companies and experts said the protesters could have caused environmental damage themselves by shutting down the lines.

The criminal admits he committed the crime, yet the jury refuses to convict because of radical leftist, anti-pipeline, anti-energy politics.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Sorry, but I'm not seeing a problem here.

Jury nullification means sometimes it is used wrongly, but I'd rather let 10 guilty go than sentence 1 innocent. The jurors have a right to nullify based on their own conscience, even if I disagree with them doing so in this instance.

 

[dismal]

Well, at least they can go after him for $millions in civil court now that he's on record admitting it.

 

[Derec]

Sorry, but I'm not seeing a problem here.

Other than that a criminal trial has been hijacked by politics?

Jury nullification means sometimes it is used wrongly, but I'd rather let 10 guilty go than sentence 1 innocent.

The 10 guilty/1 innocent thing is about giving the benefit of the doubt to the accused. But there is no doubt here, as Ward admits what he did.
Criminal trials should be about law and evidence, not politics. It should not be that people can get off simply because jurors share their political convictions.

The jurors have a right to nullify based on their own conscience, even if I disagree with them doing so in this instance.

I think that is a very dangerous "right" and one big problem with the jury system as it currently exists.

Of course, professionals can wrongfully use politics too. Bristol County DA dropped charges against Ward and a fellow ecomentalist even though there was no doubt they illegally blocked shipping.

But the problem is most pronounced with renegade jurors like in this case. Even one idiot can derail a conviction.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Jury nullification can be used even when the accused freely admits to the illegal act. Such was the case during prohibition, and such was the case that made enforcement of the fugitive slave laws so difficult.

He got his day in court, it didn't go the way the state had hoped. That means he got his day in court.

I'd rather jury nullification be used in ways I disagree with occasionally than never be used at all. It is a check on the government, and the government needs to be checked as much as possible in as many ways as possible.

 

[funinspace]

The jurors have a right to nullify based on their own conscience, even if I disagree with them doing so in this instance.

I think that is a very dangerous "right" and one big problem with the jury system as it currently exists.

Yeah, it is such a dangerous "right" that it has existed as a source in US common law since its very founding, and sourced out of British law dating back only 800 or so years. It is a decent check on an abusive government, and worth having.

 

[dismal]

Jury nullification can be used even when the accused freely admits to the illegal act. Such was the case during prohibition, and such was the case that made enforcement of the fugitive slave laws so difficult.

He got his day in court, it didn't go the way the state had hoped. That means he got his day in court.

I'd rather jury nullification be used in ways I disagree with occasionally than never be used at all. It is a check on the government, and the government needs to be checked as much as possible in as many ways as possible.

But, on the other hand, libertarians believe the protection of property rights is among the most important government functions.

This is on its face a failure of government to do its job.

 

[Derec]

Yeah, it is such a dangerous "right" that it has existed as a source in US common law since its very founding, and sourced out of British law dating back only 800 or so years. It is a decent check on an abusive government, and worth having.

What's abusive about putting an admitted saboteur on trial?
Jury nullification means criminal trials degenerate into popularity contests. And just because that has been going on for a while, does not mean it's a good thing.

There was a case in Texas where a man was acquitted for executing a drunk driver. Murder should not be legal just because the murderer is a sympathetic figure (to some).
And the men who murdered Emmit Till were also let go because of jury nullification. You know, abusive government was putting them on trial and all that.

 

[funinspace]

Yeah, it is such a dangerous "right" that it has existed as a source in US common law since its very founding, and sourced out of British law dating back only 800 or so years. It is a decent check on an abusive government, and worth having.

What's abusive about putting an admitted saboteur on trial?
Jury nullification means criminal trials degenerate into popularity contests. And just because that has been going on for a while, does not mean it's a good thing.

Ah, backtracking from 'dangerous'....

There was a case in Texas where a man was acquitted for executing a drunk driver. Murder should not be legal just because the murderer is a sympathetic figure (to some).
And the men who murdered Emmit Till were also let go because of jury nullification. You know, abusive government was putting them on trial and all that.

Funny how you always tilt a certain way (aka towards a police state mentality). And the police men who nearly beat Rodney King to death on tape got off as well... I'm sure as hell glad you are not Dictator in Chief.

 

[Derec]

Ah, backtracking from 'dangerous'....

Nope. It's still dangerous.

Funny how you always tilt a certain way (aka towards a police state mentality). And the police men who nearly beat Rodney King to death on tape got off as well...

They were railroaded by the feds, and so did not really get off. And King was so high on a variety of narcotics that he was impervious to anything else they tried such as tasing.
Btw, he later died when he drowned while under the influence of a variety of drugs. Why he is any sort of poster boy is beyond me.

I'm sure as hell glad you are not Dictator in Chief.

Why? Are you a fellow pipeline saboteur?

 

[KeepTalking]

Washington state pipeline disruption jury fails to reach verdict

A jury weighing charges against an activist behind a coordinated protest that disrupted the flow of millions of barrels of crude oil into the United States failed to reach a verdict in a case in Washington state, prosecutors said on Wednesday.
Ken Ward did not dispute that he shut down a valve on Kinder Morgan Inc's Trans Mountain Pipeline near Burlington, Washington, but a jury could not agree on a verdict for his charges of trespassing, burglary and sabotage.
[...]
Ward was arrested in October when he and other activists in four states cut padlocks and chains and entered remote flow stations to turn off valves to try to stop crude from moving through lines that carry as much as 15 percent of daily U.S. oil consumption. Officials, pipeline companies and experts said the protesters could have caused environmental damage themselves by shutting down the lines.

The criminal admits he committed the crime, yet the jury refuses to convict because of radical leftist, anti-pipeline, anti-energy politics.

Seems like a case of overcharging to me. Trespassing seems like the only crime he was charged with that he actually committed, the burglary and sabotage charges are bullshit. But I guess charging him with what he actually did, and only what he actually did just didn't carry enough punishment, so they had to trump up some additional charges against him to try to make sure he would do hard time. Their gambit did not work, and they only have themselves to blame.

 

[Derec]

Seems like a case of overcharging to me. Trespassing seems like the only crime he was charged with that he actually committed, the burglary and sabotage charges are bullshit. But I guess charging him with what he actually did, and only what he actually did just didn't carry enough punishment, so they had to trump up some additional charges against him to try to make sure he would do hard time. Their gambit did not work, and they only have themselves to blame.

How is it not sabotage?

CW 9.05.060
Criminal sabotage defined—Penalty.
(1) Whoever, with intent that his or her act shall, or with reason to believe that it may, injure, interfere with, interrupt, supplant, nullify, impair, or obstruct the owner's or operator's management, operation, or control of any agricultural, stockraising, lumbering, mining, quarrying, fishing, manufacturing, transportation, mercantile, or building enterprise, or any other public or private business or commercial enterprise, wherein any person is employed for wage, shall willfully damage or destroy, or attempt or threaten to damage or destroy, any property whatsoever, or shall unlawfully take or retain, or attempt or threaten unlawfully to take or retain, possession or control of any property, instrumentality, machine, mechanism, or appliance used in such business or enterprise, shall be guilty of criminal sabotage.
(2) Criminal sabotage is a class B felony punishable according to chapter 9A.20 RCW.

And how is it not burglary either?

Burglary in the second degree.
(1) A person is guilty of burglary in the second degree if, with intent to commit a crime against a person or property therein, he or she enters or remains unlawfully in a building other than a vehicle or a dwelling.
(2) Burglary in the second degree is a class B felony.

"Bruglary", as a legal term, does not just mean breaking into a house to steal valuables.


Here is a more detailed article about what he actually did.

Ken Ward committed his crimes at dawn.

The 60-year-old activist from Corbett, Ore., steered his Jeep Wrangler down a curved road at the outskirts of Burlington, Wash., a town of shopping malls and youth soccer fields about 50 miles south of the Canadian border.
He parked where the road dead-ends, and grabbed a pair of red-handled bolt cutters from the passenger seat.
Ward leaned his elbows on the hood of his Wrangler and bowed his head, silently saying the Serenity Prayer—the one that asks for "the courage to change the things I can."
In the next 11 minutes, Ward would rack up three felony charges and a misdemeanor: burglary, sabotage, assemblage of saboteurs and trespassing.
He freely admits to what he did that morning of Oct. 11, 2016. He shut off the emergency valve of the Trans Mountain pipeline, which delivers crude oil from Canada's Alberta tar sands to Washington state for refining.

His actions fulfill both the definition of sabotage and burglary under Washington State law.

Btw: he fancies himself a climate activist, and yet he drives a Jeep Wrangler, which gets 20mpg, instead of a Prius or a Leaf or something. What a fucking hypocrite! My car gets almost twice the gas mileage of his gas guzzler!

 

[dismal]

Seems like a case of overcharging to me. Trespassing seems like the only crime he was charged with that he actually committed, the burglary and sabotage charges are bullshit. But I guess charging him with what he actually did, and only what he actually did just didn't carry enough punishment, so they had to trump up some additional charges against him to try to make sure he would do hard time. Their gambit did not work, and they only have themselves to blame.

You break into an industrial site and start fiddling with valves on a system involving explosive liquids under high pressures and you are playing with fire. Flirting with disaster.

 

[funinspace]

Funny how you always tilt a certain way (aka towards a police state mentality). And the police men who nearly beat Rodney King to death on tape got off as well...

They were railroaded by the feds, and so did not really get off. And King was so high on a variety of narcotics that he was impervious to anything else they tried such as tasing.
Btw, he later died when he drowned while under the influence of a variety of drugs. Why he is any sort of poster boy is beyond me.

Because you are blinding yourself on what the point is. Rodney King is not the point, the actions of those officers was the point. And a follow on federal prosecution was not the point. Drugs were not the point. Yeah, keep spinning the 'bad guy' angle...

I'm sure as hell glad you are not Dictator in Chief.

Why? Are you a fellow pipeline saboteur?

No. But I do prefer to not live in a police state.

 

[KeepTalking]

How is it not sabotage?

CW 9.05.060
Criminal sabotage defined—Penalty.
(1) Whoever, with intent that his or her act shall, or with reason to believe that it may, injure, interfere with, interrupt, supplant, nullify, impair, or obstruct the owner's or operator's management, operation, or control of any agricultural, stockraising, lumbering, mining, quarrying, fishing, manufacturing, transportation, mercantile, or building enterprise, or any other public or private business or commercial enterprise, wherein any person is employed for wage, shall willfully damage or destroy, or attempt or threaten to damage or destroy, any property whatsoever, or shall unlawfully take or retain, or attempt or threaten unlawfully to take or retain, possession or control of any property, instrumentality, machine, mechanism, or appliance used in such business or enterprise, shall be guilty of criminal sabotage.
(2) Criminal sabotage is a class B felony punishable according to chapter 9A.20 RCW.

He did not damage or destroy, or attempt to damage or destroy the pipeline. He used a shutoff valve to do what the shutoff valve is meant to do, stop the flow of oil. As there was no attempt to damage or destroy the pipeline, but rather he used a part of the pipeline to do what it is intended to do, it was not sabotage. If tampering with industrial equipment is a crime in WA, he should have been charged with that, but he was not, he was charged with sabotage. Thus he was overcharged.

And how is it not burglary either?

Burglary in the second degree.
(1) A person is guilty of burglary in the second degree if, with intent to commit a crime against a person or property therein, he or she enters or remains unlawfully in a building other than a vehicle or a dwelling.
(2) Burglary in the second degree is a class B felony.

"Bruglary", as a legal term, does not just mean breaking into a house to steal valuables.

A fenced in area is not a building. Entering a fenced in area without permission is trespassing, but it is not burglary. Thus he was overcharged.

Here is a more detailed article about what he actually did.

Ken Ward committed his crimes at dawn.

The 60-year-old activist from Corbett, Ore., steered his Jeep Wrangler down a curved road at the outskirts of Burlington, Wash., a town of shopping malls and youth soccer fields about 50 miles south of the Canadian border.
He parked where the road dead-ends, and grabbed a pair of red-handled bolt cutters from the passenger seat.
Ward leaned his elbows on the hood of his Wrangler and bowed his head, silently saying the Serenity Prayer—the one that asks for "the courage to change the things I can."
In the next 11 minutes, Ward would rack up three felony charges and a misdemeanor: burglary, sabotage, assemblage of saboteurs and trespassing.
He freely admits to what he did that morning of Oct. 11, 2016. He shut off the emergency valve of the Trans Mountain pipeline, which delivers crude oil from Canada's Alberta tar sands to Washington state for refining.

His actions fulfill both the definition of sabotage and burglary under Washington State law.

Not according to the legal definitions you provided.

Btw: he fancies himself a climate activist, and yet he drives a Jeep Wrangler, which gets 20mpg, instead of a Prius or a Leaf or something. What a fucking hypocrite! My car gets almost twice the gas mileage of his gas guzzler!

So fucking what? Until December I drove a Jeep. It was about $15,000 less expensive than the Hybrid vehicle I replaced it with. Perhaps this individual could not afford to drive a more expensive, less polluting vehicle, and that is hardly his fault. The variety and selection of Hybrid and EV conveyances is nowhere near the point where anyone who wants one can afford to own one.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Jury nullification can be used even when the accused freely admits to the illegal act. Such was the case during prohibition, and such was the case that made enforcement of the fugitive slave laws so difficult.

He got his day in court, it didn't go the way the state had hoped. That means he got his day in court.

I'd rather jury nullification be used in ways I disagree with occasionally than never be used at all. It is a check on the government, and the government needs to be checked as much as possible in as many ways as possible.

But, on the other hand, libertarians believe the protection of property rights is among the most important government functions.

This is on its face a failure of government to do its job.

Yes, we do believe in property rights. Which is why I feel this was a time when jury nullification allowed the release of a guilty person. But I still feel jury nullification is an inherent good to the point where occasional cases of its abuse are not outweighed.

 

[dismal]

How is it not sabotage?

He did not damage or destroy, or attempt to damage or destroy the pipeline. He used a shutoff valve to do what the shutoff valve is meant to do, stop the flow of oil. As there was no attempt to damage or destroy the pipeline, but rather he used a part of the pipeline to do what it is intended to do, it was not sabotage. If tampering with industrial equipment is a crime in WA, he should have been charged with that, but he was not, he was charged with sabotage. Thus he was overcharged.

Holy shit, you were totally owned. Just admit you were wrong. He clearly and admittedly intentionally interfered with and interrupted the owner's operation and control of the pipeline.

The statute literally says exactly this.

 

[KeepTalking]

He did not damage or destroy, or attempt to damage or destroy the pipeline. He used a shutoff valve to do what the shutoff valve is meant to do, stop the flow of oil. As there was no attempt to damage or destroy the pipeline, but rather he used a part of the pipeline to do what it is intended to do, it was not sabotage. If tampering with industrial equipment is a crime in WA, he should have been charged with that, but he was not, he was charged with sabotage. Thus he was overcharged.

Holy shit, you were totally owned. Just admit you were wrong. He clearly and admittedly intentionally interfered with and interrupted the owner's operation and control of the pipeline.

The statute literally says exactly this.

You are incorrect. The statute clearly states that the pipeline would have to be damaged or destroyed with the intent to interrupt the owner's operation. I even highlighted the relevant portion of the statute to show that. Both things need to be in evidence to prove sabotage: intent, and damage or destruction.

 

[funinspace]

He did not damage or destroy, or attempt to damage or destroy the pipeline. He used a shutoff valve to do what the shutoff valve is meant to do, stop the flow of oil. As there was no attempt to damage or destroy the pipeline, but rather he used a part of the pipeline to do what it is intended to do, it was not sabotage. If tampering with industrial equipment is a crime in WA, he should have been charged with that, but he was not, he was charged with sabotage. Thus he was overcharged.

Holy shit, you were totally owned. Just admit you were wrong. He clearly and admittedly intentionally interfered with and interrupted the owner's operation and control of the pipeline.

The statute literally says exactly this.

Well, it seems that most of the media is useless and detail free as usual... A few articles mention that the guy faced up to 30 years in prison if convicted. Assuming this report is true, as I can't find an article with the detailed charges. And evidently the more minor charge of trespassing was dropped by the prosecution earlier, so the jury seemed to be walled into making this guy either innocent or a really BAD GUY. So I am going to assume they were charging him with a at least a "Class B" felony, which is quite a reach for cutting a lock and turning off a valve that wouldn't break anything, beyond interrupting the flow of stuff. I could see why a jury would hesitate to convict. The prosecution shouldn't have dropped the trespassing charge and the sabotage charge should have been no harsher than a "class C" felony (or whatever lesser charge available, if this one doesn't allow below a "class B"). I would guess the prosecutor was probably trying to show off, or is just an asshat.

http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.20.021

Maximum sentences for crimes committed July 1, 1984, and after.
(1) Felony. Unless a different maximum sentence for a classified felony is specifically established by a statute of this state, no person convicted of a classified felony shall be punished by confinement or fine exceeding the following:
(a) For a class A felony, by confinement in a state correctional institution for a term of life imprisonment, or by a fine in an amount fixed by the court of fifty thousand dollars, or by both such confinement and fine;
(b) For a class B felony, by confinement in a state correctional institution for a term of ten years, or by a fine in an amount fixed by the court of twenty thousand dollars, or by both such confinement and fine;
(c) For a class C felony, by confinement in a state correctional institution for five years, or by a fine in an amount fixed by the court of ten thousand dollars, or by both such confinement and fine.
(2) Gross misdemeanor. Every person convicted of a gross misdemeanor defined in Title 9A RCW shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for a maximum term fixed by the court of up to three hundred sixty-four days, or by a fine in an amount fixed by the court of not more than five thousand dollars, or by both such imprisonment and fine.
(3) Misdemeanor. Every person convicted of a misdemeanor defined in Title 9A RCW shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for a maximum term fixed by the court of not more than ninety days, or by a fine in an amount fixed by the court of not more than one thousand dollars, or by both such imprisonment and fine.

 

[funinspace]

Holy shit, you were totally owned. Just admit you were wrong. He clearly and admittedly intentionally interfered with and interrupted the owner's operation and control of the pipeline.

The statute literally says exactly this.

You are incorrect. The statute clearly states that the pipeline would have to be damaged or destroyed with the intent to interrupt the owner's operation. I even highlighted the relevant portion of the statute to show that. Both things need to be in evidence to prove sabotage: intent, and damage or destruction.

Well...FWIW I can't really be sure of what the gobbledygook is actually trying to convey on your point, as I don't read legalese very well.