Disgraceful jurors want to let pipeline saboteurs off the hook

[Loren Pechtel]

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?

In general the rule is that you're charged based on the actual possible effects of what you tried to do, not what you thought you were trying to do. You think you're burning a vacant building, it's occupied--you get charged with arson of an occupied structure even if the molotov you threw hit a sprinkler and put itself out immediately.

So long as the worse outcome was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of your criminal actions it doesn't matter that that's not what you intended. Pipeline ruptures are a reasonably foreseeable consequence (it doesn't matter if the guy didn't know that), sentencing based on an act which could have caused a pipeline rupture is reasonable. (And note that reasonably foreseeable includes low probability events. For example, you rob a bank, the cop rolls in hot--any accidents are your fault. Debatable is the case where two news choppers had a midair covering the incident. I don't recall the outcome of that case.)

However, in this case I do think it caused the jury nullification. Someone didn't like the sort of penalty that could result.

 

[LordKiran]

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

In general the rule is that you're charged based on the actual possible effects of what you tried to do, not what you thought you were trying to do. You think you're burning a vacant building, it's occupied--you get charged with arson of an occupied structure even if the molotov you threw hit a sprinkler and put itself out immediately.

So long as the worse outcome was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of your criminal actions it doesn't matter that that's not what you intended. Pipeline ruptures are a reasonably foreseeable consequence (it doesn't matter if the guy didn't know that), sentencing based on an act which could have caused a pipeline rupture is reasonable. (And note that reasonably foreseeable includes low probability events. For example, you rob a bank, the cop rolls in hot--any accidents are your fault. Debatable is the case where two news choppers had a midair covering the incident. I don't recall the outcome of that case.)

However, in this case I do think it caused the jury nullification. Someone didn't like the sort of penalty that could result.

Could the closing of that valve have caused an industrial accident though? There seems to be no indication that it could have, making such claims unreasonable.

I recall the case of the news choppers. It's unreasonable to charge someone for something so unrelated. It isn't comparable at all to police officers getting into an accident mid pursuit, because the newsies arent a part of the state apparatus and are not (strictly speaking) required to be there.

 

[funinspace]

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.

Thanks! You are most probably correct, and he certainly met the technical definition (a) portion.

Again, I'll say the prosecutor put the jury in a ridiculous position of either sending this guy to prison for over a decade, or letting him off scot-free. Scot-free would easily be my vote based upon what I know...

 

[dismal]

In general the rule is that you're charged based on the actual possible effects of what you tried to do, not what you thought you were trying to do. You think you're burning a vacant building, it's occupied--you get charged with arson of an occupied structure even if the molotov you threw hit a sprinkler and put itself out immediately.

So long as the worse outcome was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of your criminal actions it doesn't matter that that's not what you intended. Pipeline ruptures are a reasonably foreseeable consequence (it doesn't matter if the guy didn't know that), sentencing based on an act which could have caused a pipeline rupture is reasonable. (And note that reasonably foreseeable includes low probability events. For example, you rob a bank, the cop rolls in hot--any accidents are your fault. Debatable is the case where two news choppers had a midair covering the incident. I don't recall the outcome of that case.)

However, in this case I do think it caused the jury nullification. Someone didn't like the sort of penalty that could result.

Could the closing of that valve have caused an industrial accident though? There seems to be no indication that it could have, making such claims unreasonable.

I recall the case of the news choppers. It's unreasonable to charge someone for something so unrelated. It isn't comparable at all to police officers getting into an accident mid pursuit, because the newsies arent a part of the state apparatus and are not (strictly speaking) required to be there.

I have spent a fair amount of time around this sort of industrial site. And, yes, if you go in there and start turning valves you don't understand you can cause a serious problem. You would need to be a near-complete idiot it to do something like that.

It's possible he found something that was clearly labeled "emergency shutdown" or somesuch, but there are procedures to be followed in an emergency shutdown when you are dealing with explosive materials under high pressures. You don't just yank the switch and walk away.

 

[KeepTalking]

He clearly and admittedly intentionally interfered with and interrupted the owner's operation and control of the pipeline.

The statute literally says exactly this.

The statute doesn't clearly say anything

Arguing with yourself again?

 

[Derec]

Again, I'll say the prosecutor put the jury in a ridiculous position of either sending this guy to prison for over a decade, or letting him off scot-free. Scot-free would easily be my vote based upon what I know...

Why? He deserves some prison time for sure.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Again, I'll say the prosecutor put the jury in a ridiculous position of either sending this guy to prison for over a decade, or letting him off scot-free. Scot-free would easily be my vote based upon what I know...

Why? He deserves some prison time for sure.

If he deserves, say, one year, and the prosecutor put the jury in the position of choosing between twenty years or letting him go, then letting him go is a lot closer to one year than twenty years is.

 

[Derec]

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

There may be, but do anti-oil people use them? Ken Ward, the pipeline saboteur hates using oil so much he drives a Jeep Wrangler, which gets mere 20mpg, which frankly sucks for a car of that size. He should put his money where his mouth is!
At the #nodapl protests I have also seen no Leafs or Teslas or even Prii, but I have seen a lot of gas-guzzling large pickup trucks and SUVs. And most of these people have driven long distances, many over 1000 miles, to get there. Then there are cords and cords of firewood they used these pickup trucks to deliver from as far away as Washington State. Gotta keep everybody warm in their plastic tents I guess.
This photo captures the hypocrisy perfectly.

By the way, I wonder how many oil-based products untermensche uses. Does he drive, and if so what? Does he shop at grocery stores or does he grow his own food Amish-style? He regards the oil industry as the "greatest traitors to humanity in all history" so if he is a collaborator to the oil industry by using their products then he is really a major kind of hypocrite.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

By the way, I wonder how many oil-based products untermensche uses. Does he drive, and if so what? Does he shop at grocery stores or does he grow his own food Amish-style? He regards the oil industry as the "greatest traitors to humanity in all history" so if he is a collaborator to the oil industry by using their products then he is really a major kind of hypocrite.

What is the source of energy for the power plant that supplies the electricity for his computer?

 

[Derec]

If he deserves, say, one year, and the prosecutor put the jury in the position of choosing between twenty years or letting him go, then letting him go is a lot closer to one year than twenty years is.

Not logarithmically it isn't. I.e. the ratio 20/1 is a lot smaller than the ratio 1/0.

 

[Derec]

Yes, yes, yes.
We all must drive off the cliff.

Just curious, what do you drive?

So a few can become incredibly wealthy.

Actually the standard of living of all people increased tremendously since we started using oil. That the oil industry only helped a few get incredibly wealthy is a lie.

And we are mindless robots and have no choice.

Speak for yourself!

The problem is using oil for energy. Burning it.

While burning oil has some problems associated with it, i.e. pollution, it is not used for energy because of mustache-twirling villainous oil execs doing it for the evulz.
Oil has tremendous energy density and is easily made into liquid fuels that can run Otto and Diesel cycle engines which became the predominant engines for ground transportation.

Not turning it into plastic.

Most plastic is made from natural gas actually, although oil can be used also.

Get an education.

I probably have more education than you. LMAO!

 

[funinspace]

Again, I'll say the prosecutor put the jury in a ridiculous position of either sending this guy to prison for over a decade, or letting him off scot-free. Scot-free would easily be my vote based upon what I know...

Why? He deserves some prison time for sure.

Again, as it seems that the prosecution took the trespassing charge off the table, then the jury only had 2 choices: a serious felony; or scot-free. I would pick scot-free within that dilemma. Sure 30 days in the county lock up would be fine, but it sounds like that was off the table. Juries don't get to make up their own charges, but they do have the right to decide if the government is being out of line.

FWIW, we own a Prius, which is driven about 10,000 miles a year; and an SUV that is driven about 2,000 miles a year. According to our power company our house ranks in the best category for energy usage.

 

[Derec]

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.

If you listen to potheads, hemp is this miracle material that violates all known laws of thermodynamics. While a useful plant, the reality is not quite that exciting.
Why Legalized Hemp Will Not Be a Miracle Crop

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.

You can make bioplastics from a variety of plants. They tend to be more expensive than the real deal though, which is why they have not caught on.
And plastics are not the only way we are linked to oil and gas industry "lefty hippies" like untermensche love to hate.
Take food. You may think yourself oil free by biking to your grocery store, but what about how the food got there? By truck, possibly plane as well. And it was grown using oil-burning machinery such as combine harvesters on fields plowed by tractors. The store itself has many oil-based products, down to the electronics used to run the cash registers. And where does all the energy used to light and climate control store come from? Not from hemp, that's for sure.

They're also generally unencumbered by oil greed or ignorant beliefs about cannabis and hemp.

Or rather they are encumbered by ignorant beliefs about hemp being a miracle plant.

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.

I haven't seen any from the left either, to be honest.
But there are many technologies coming up that are highly promising. They will take decades to implement though. Take electric cars. Great potential, but obviously you can't replace >200M cars on the roads in the US alone overnight. You can't replace US energy generation overnight either. Both will take decades. Both require that we use oil and gas in the interim. Actually, instead of fighting against oil and gas, coal should be the priority. It is very polluting (highest CO₂ per unit energy and also contains nasty things like mercury and even radioactive uranium) and not nearly as versatile and oil and gas.

Note that the ecomentalists and Indians will not like an EV future much either. Sure, there won't be oil pipelines but there will be mines. EVs use three times as much copper as an conventional car.

And electrified public transit does use a lot of copper too.

Unfortunately, ecomentalists and Indians are opposed to copper mining already.
San Carlos Apache Tribe, environmentalists battle Oak Flat copper mine bid
Then there are rare earth metals like Neodynium. They are used for very strong permanent magnets in high efficiency electric motors. Right now, most of these metals are mined in China, but as more electric cars as made and sold, more diverse sources of these metals will be needed, including domestic mining.
And finally there is lithium for the batteries of course.

You get the idea.

A bunch of stuff, most of which I agree with you with, but all of which is widely off topic here?

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.

The cartoon was in response to unter's assertion that the oil industry was the most evilist thing ever, or something to that effect. That would make unter a collaborator with an entity more evil than the Nazis or Ghengis Khan.

 

[Angry Floof]

Not everyone falls for the miracle claims, and cannabis really is a useful and beneficial plant. Miracle claims are much closer to truth than the ridiculously vicious and stupid fantasies believed about it without a thought by the less aware among us.

The cartoon was about hypocrisy, and so was my response. I don't care that you meant something else by posting it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

In general the rule is that you're charged based on the actual possible effects of what you tried to do, not what you thought you were trying to do. You think you're burning a vacant building, it's occupied--you get charged with arson of an occupied structure even if the molotov you threw hit a sprinkler and put itself out immediately.

So long as the worse outcome was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of your criminal actions it doesn't matter that that's not what you intended. Pipeline ruptures are a reasonably foreseeable consequence (it doesn't matter if the guy didn't know that), sentencing based on an act which could have caused a pipeline rupture is reasonable. (And note that reasonably foreseeable includes low probability events. For example, you rob a bank, the cop rolls in hot--any accidents are your fault. Debatable is the case where two news choppers had a midair covering the incident. I don't recall the outcome of that case.)

However, in this case I do think it caused the jury nullification. Someone didn't like the sort of penalty that could result.

Could the closing of that valve have caused an industrial accident though? There seems to be no indication that it could have, making such claims unreasonable.

I recall the case of the news choppers. It's unreasonable to charge someone for something so unrelated. It isn't comparable at all to police officers getting into an accident mid pursuit, because the newsies arent a part of the state apparatus and are not (strictly speaking) required to be there.

Closing pipeline valves can cause industrial accidents. Whether this particular one could have or not is a question for the experts.

As for whether they are required to be there--you can get nailed for felony murder because a passerby witnessing your robbery drops of a heart attack.

 

[LordKiran]

Could the closing of that valve have caused an industrial accident though? There seems to be no indication that it could have, making such claims unreasonable.

I recall the case of the news choppers. It's unreasonable to charge someone for something so unrelated. It isn't comparable at all to police officers getting into an accident mid pursuit, because the newsies arent a part of the state apparatus and are not (strictly speaking) required to be there.

Closing pipeline valves can cause industrial accidents. Whether this particular one could have or not is a question for the experts.

The bolded is what I asked. The sentence leading to it doesn't actually answer my question.

As for whether they are required to be there--you can get nailed for felony murder because a passerby witnessing your robbery drops of a heart attack.

That's a fair bit different than a pedestrian getting hit by a car following you, because the driver wanted to watch the chase.

 

[dismal]

Closing pipeline valves can cause industrial accidents. Whether this particular one could have or not is a question for the experts.

The bolded is what I asked. The sentence leading to it doesn't actually answer my question.

You asked the wrong question. The appropriate question would be whether this unauthorized trespasser had been properly trained by the pipeline's owner in safe shut down procedures.

If not, he was rolling the dice on a disaster.

 

[LordKiran]

The bolded is what I asked. The sentence leading to it doesn't actually answer my question.

You asked the wrong question. The appropriate question would be whether this unauthorized trespasser had been properly trained by the pipeline's owner in safe shut down procedures.

If not, he was rolling the dice on a disaster.

Actually, the appropriate question would be if the defendant knew what the valve would do when he turned it. From there, it becomes a question of what potential outcomes turning the valve could have lead to. If an industrial accident isn't one of them, then the claim of sabotage seems unsubstantiated to me. Keep in mind we are discussing this valve in particular. So assuming it and everything related is up-to-code and well maintained, there shouldn't be any reason to think it would.

 

[dismal]

You asked the wrong question. The appropriate question would be whether this unauthorized trespasser had been properly trained by the pipeline's owner in safe shut down procedures.

If not, he was rolling the dice on a disaster.

Actually, the appropriate question would be if the defendant knew what the valve would do when he turned it. From there, it becomes a question of what potential outcomes turning the valve could have lead to. If an industrial accident isn't one of them, then the claim of sabotage seems unsubstantiated to me. Keep in mind we are discussing this valve in particular. So assuming it and everything related is up-to-code and well maintained, there shouldn't be any reason to think it would.

So you don't think regulations requiring pipeline operators to undergo safety training are necessary? Who are you Trumpy McTrumperson?

 

[LordKiran]

Actually, the appropriate question would be if the defendant knew what the valve would do when he turned it. From there, it becomes a question of what potential outcomes turning the valve could have lead to. If an industrial accident isn't one of them, then the claim of sabotage seems unsubstantiated to me. Keep in mind we are discussing this valve in particular. So assuming it and everything related is up-to-code and well maintained, there shouldn't be any reason to think it would.

So you don't think regulations requiring pipeline operators to undergo safety training are necessary? Who are you Trumpy McTrumperson?

Are you saying that people who are authorized (But not qualified) to operate machinery by the company who owns said machinery are guilty of sabotage?

See? I can ask BS questions in response to a question too.