Disgraceful jurors want to let pipeline saboteurs off the hook

[Derec]

Because you are blinding yourself on what the point is. Rodney King is not the point,

Then why did you bring him up?

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

Me neither. You have not shown that lack of jury nullification leads to one. Hell, as with the Walter Scott hung jury I mentioned, sometimes it helps cops who commit crimes.

 

[funinspace]

woooooosh

Then why did you bring him up?

 

[Derec]

He did not damage or destroy, or attempt to damage or destroy the pipeline.

Do you have trouble with or clauses? Because it continues as follows: "..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."
He unlawfully took control of a mechanism. Thus, he committed criminal sabotage.

He used a shutoff valve to do what the shutoff valve is meant to do, stop the flow of oil.

In other words, he unlawfully took control of a mechanism.

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.

Tampering with industrial equipment is part of the definition of sabotage. Thus, he was not overcharged.

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.

Ok, you may (or may not) be right there. However, he is still guilty of sabotage, which is a felony.

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.

There are cheap, non-hybrid cars that get much better gas mileage than a Wrangler.
To be so against oil as to go and shut off pipelines but drive a gas guzzler is pretty hypocritical, don't you think?

 

[laughing dog]

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.

The only way for you to know why the jury failed to convict is because you were on the jury. Obviously, either you or the prosecution's case was not sufficient convincing.

 

[KeepTalking]

Do you have trouble with or clauses? Because it continues as follows: "..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."
He unlawfully took control of a mechanism. Thus, he committed criminal sabotage.

Yes, I do have a bit of trouble with legal clauses, that's probably why I am not a lawyer. I will note that your admission about burglary later in this post indicates that you suffer from the same. When I originally read it, I apparently glossed over the "take control" part of the clause, and only read it as "take possession". Even now that it you pointed it out, I am not sure if the legal definition of "take control" is covered by merely turning a shutoff valve. I can certainly see a juror running into the same issue, and deciding that regardless of the legalese used in the clause, that the defendant did not meet the jurors definition of sabotage. It certainly does not meet mine.

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.

Tampering with industrial equipment is part of the definition of sabotage. Thus, he was not overcharged.

I don't see the word 'tamper' in the legalese, so I have to disagree with you on that one.

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.

Ok, you may (or may not) be right there. However, he is still guilty of sabotage, which is a felony.

As noted above, we both apparently have trouble with legal clauses. That's probably why neither one of us are lawyers.

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.

There are cheap, non-hybrid cars that get much better gas mileage than a Wrangler.

Certainly. There are also a large number of vehicles that get worse mileage than a Wrangler.

To be so against oil as to go and shut off pipelines but drive a gas guzzler is pretty hypocritical, don't you think?

Not necessarily. He may not have had many options. You do not know how, or why, he obtained that vehicle.

 

[dismal]

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.

The statute doesn't clearly say anything as it's a 8th grader's sentence diagramming nightmare. You need to pay attention to the subjects, or's and commas. This is the first parse and should help:

(1) Whoever,

a) 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,
b) shall willfully damage or destroy, or attempt or threaten to damage or destroy, any property whatsoever, or
c) shall unlawfully take or retain, or attempt or threaten unlawfully to 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.

 

[funinspace]

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.

The statute doesn't clearly say anything as it's a 8th grader's sentence diagramming nightmare. You need to pay attention to the subjects, or's and commas. This is the first parse and should help:

(1) Whoever,

a) 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,
b) shall willfully damage or destroy, or attempt or threaten to damage or destroy, any property whatsoever, or
c) shall unlawfully take or retain, or attempt or threaten unlawfully to 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.

Well my English problem is more about the portion I have now underlined, as I don’t get what object the ‘wherein’ is pointing towards. It reads almost as if what follows is applying to said ‘employed for wage’ only. But if so, then WTF is the part (a) for… Also, if the (b) or (c), as you separated, have to be met, then I don’t really see this as fitting as the guy wasn’t trying to keep or take control of the valve, only to turn it off and leave. So I don’t see this as ‘retaining’ or taking ‘possession’ of the valve. Yeah, he cut a lock, which would be some sort of misdemeanor vandalism or such in legalese. But thanks for trying to help me with my deficiencies...

Can we move onto something simpler like a Fourier transform?

 

[dismal]

The statute doesn't clearly say anything as it's a 8th grader's sentence diagramming nightmare. You need to pay attention to the subjects, or's and commas. This is the first parse and should help:

(1) Whoever,

a) 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,
b) shall willfully damage or destroy, or attempt or threaten to damage or destroy, any property whatsoever, or
c) shall unlawfully take or retain, or attempt or threaten unlawfully to 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.

Well my English problem is more about the portion I have now underlined, as I don’t get what object the ‘wherein’ is pointing towards. It reads almost as if what follows is applying to said ‘employed for wage’ only. But if so, then WTF is the part (a) for… Also, if the (b) or (c), as you separated, have to be met, then I don’t really see this as fitting as the guy wasn’t trying to keep or take control of the valve, only to turn it off and leave. So I don’t see this as ‘retaining’ or taking ‘possession’ of the valve. Yeah, he cut a lock, which would be some sort of misdemeanor vandalism or such in legalese. But thanks for trying to help me with my deficiencies...

Can we move onto something simpler like a Fourier transform?

I think the "wherein any person..." clause you underlined has the the subject "public or private business or commercial enterprise". It's a catchall at the end of the list of all those other businesses in case they missed something. Though I think in this case "Transportation" would cover it.

The a) was clearly met. He interfered with/interrupted/impaired the owner/operator's management/operation/control of a transportation enterprise.

There is an "or" between the a), b) and c) not an "and" so breaching the a) is enough.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Washington state pipeline disruption jury fails to reach verdict



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.

Burglary, no, he didn't take anything.

Sabotage, yes--closing a valve is sabotage.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Messing with valves on pipelines can be a very bad thing. You can rupture the pipeline with the improper use of valves. In fact, we did so deliberately long ago--we knew the Russians were after pipeline control equipment. The spooks let them get their hands on some. Oops, it had a very subtle "flaw", it would play with the oil flow--and occasionally rupture the pipeline in the process.

Not only did it render the illicitly obtained equipment useless but it cast doubt on all equipment their spies had managed to acquire.

 

[untermensche]

...radical leftist, anti-pipeline, anti-energy politics...

In other words sanity.

Who are the greatest traitors to humanity in all of history? The oil industry.

 

[dismal]

...radical leftist, anti-pipeline, anti-energy politics...

In other words sanity.

Who are the greatest traitors to humanity in all of history? The oil industry.

What? Who do you think saved the whales?

 

[untermensche]

In other words sanity.

Who are the greatest traitors to humanity in all of history? The oil industry.

What? Who do you think saved the whales?

Laugh all you want. That is easy.

But the misery in front of us, that we are speeding up to meet, will not be funny for millions.

 

[Derec]

Who are the greatest traitors to humanity in all of history? The oil industry.

LMAO!

 

[dismal]

But, but, but without the oil industry I don't see how our climate saving heroes would take helicopters to their billionaire friend's private jets.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4185654/The-Obamas-Branson-s-jet-Tortola.html

 

[LordKiran]

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.

Messing with valves on pipelines can be a very bad thing. You can rupture the pipeline with the improper use of valves. In fact, we did so deliberately long ago--we knew the Russians were after pipeline control equipment. The spooks let them get their hands on some. Oops, it had a very subtle "flaw", it would play with the oil flow--and occasionally rupture the pipeline in the process.

Not only did it render the illicitly obtained equipment useless but it cast doubt on all equipment their spies had managed to acquire.

Generally speaking, people are charged for what they did and not potential consequences for their actions that never manifested, no?

 

[LordKiran]

Who are the greatest traitors to humanity in all of history? The oil industry.

LMAO!

As if to suggest that there aren't oil-less equivalents for half that stuff people can fall back on. What a joke.

 

[untermensche]

Who are the greatest traitors to humanity in all of history? The oil industry.

LMAO!

Yes, yes, yes.

We all must drive off the cliff.

So a few can become incredibly wealthy.

And we are mindless robots and have no choice.

The problem is using oil for energy. Burning it.

Not turning it into plastic.

Get an education.

 

[Angry Floof]

LMAO!

Yes, yes, yes.

We all must drive off the cliff.

So a few can become incredibly wealthy.

And we are mindless robots and have no choice.

The problem is using oil for energy. Burning it.

Not turning it into plastic.

Get an education.

I second this. Also, I'd like to note the claim that hemp can replace any plastic. I know it can replace a lot of stuff. All plastics, I don't know. Either way, it leaves the "you hypocrites love plastic" argument on the pigeon chessboard as it's typically lefty hippies who are cognitively and ideologically permitted to examine other ideas and try new things. They're also generally unencumbered by oil greed or ignorant beliefs about cannabis and hemp.

I haven't seen any innovative, cutting edge solutions coming from the right in response to actual problems Americans face now and in the future. In response to economic issues, the right wing still believes in the trickle down fairy tale. In response to education issues, the right wants to dismantle the whole public school system and replace it with various programs that support religious indoctrination. In response to their pet outrage, abortion rights, you'd think the right would go with what is proven to work at prevention: education and access to birth control, but no, no such groups. Among adoption services and groups that support women and babies in need, the 83% of US citizens who call themselves Christians are badly underrepresented. (They are well represented in the 70% of women who get abortions, though.)

You get the idea.

Thanks to Derec for posting that idiot cartoon as a way of starting the conversation about ideological hypocrisy. Everyone does it, but not everyone chooses to adopt an ideology that so effectively fosters it.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Also, I'd like to note the claim that hemp can replace any plastic.

But... but... but help is related to the most evil plant on the planet. And even though they look very different, our valiant and fearless DEA agents are unable to tell them apart. That means if someone is growing a useful plant, they might secretly also be growing the most evil plant evar!

Far better to destroy the planet than to destroy people with that horrible evil nasty terrible plant.