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.
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.
If you think it's OK for random people off the street to show up and start turning valves affecting explosive materials under high pressure, it seems to logically follow you think regulations requiring safety training to operate a pipeline are not necessary.
Or are you suggesting this guy probably had taken all the operator's required safety training before operating the equipment?
It's your hole. Let me know how you're going to try to dig out of it.
If you think it's OK for random people off the street to show up and start turning valves affecting explosive materials under high pressure, it seems to logically follow you think regulations requiring safety training to operate a pipeline are not necessary.
Or are you suggesting this guy probably had taken all the operator's required safety training before operating the equipment?
It's your hole. Let me know how you're going to try to dig out of it.
Dismal if you have to resort to BS arguments like this then why even bother?
At no point did I even suggest that his trespassing and touching other people's stuff was okay, but that wasn't the question. And again with your misleading BS questions...
The questions I posed are important because it establishes that:
-If the defendant knew what the valve would do when he pulled it
-If there is no reason to think that pulling said valve would lead to damage or destruction of property
Then it establishes that the defendant's intent was not to damage or destroy property.
So yeah, stop wasting my time with your misleading and irrelevant questions.
Dismal if you have to resort to BS arguments like this then why even bother?
At no point did I even suggest that his trespassing and touching other people's stuff was okay, but that wasn't the question. And again with your misleading BS questions...
The questions I posed are important because it establishes that:
-If the defendant knew what the valve would do when he pulled it
-If there is no reason to think that pulling said valve would lead to damage or destruction of property
Then it establishes that the defendant's intent was not to damage or destroy property.
So yeah, stop wasting my time with your misleading and irrelevant questions.
It doesn't matter what he knew--in a situation like that you're expected to know. [1]
The fact that messing with such things can cause damage isn't exactly secret. Unless he's trained on the system and knows that turning the valve will merely stop the flow without doing damage he's guilty of sabotage.[2]
It doesn't matter what he knew--in a situation like that you're expected to know. [1]
The fact that messing with such things can cause damage isn't exactly secret. Unless he's trained on the system and knows that turning the valve will merely stop the flow without doing damage he's guilty of sabotage.[2]
1. This statement is contradictory. Consider elaborating or rephrasing.
2. Can turning this valve actually lead to damage though? If not, and if the defendant is aware of that, then you have no intent to cause damages. Someone breaking into your house and pulling the TV set plug out of the wall is not sabotage.
If you think it's OK for random people off the street to show up and start turning valves affecting explosive materials under high pressure, it seems to logically follow you think regulations requiring safety training to operate a pipeline are not necessary.
Or are you suggesting this guy probably had taken all the operator's required safety training before operating the equipment?
It's your hole. Let me know how you're going to try to dig out of it.
Dismal if you have to resort to BS arguments like this then why even bother?
At no point did I even suggest that his trespassing and touching other people's stuff was okay, but that wasn't the question. And again with your misleading BS questions...
The questions I posed are important because it establishes that:
-If the defendant knew what the valve would do when he pulled it
-If there is no reason to think that pulling said valve would lead to damage or destruction of property
Then it establishes that the defendant's intent was not to damage or destroy property.
So yeah, stop wasting my time with your misleading and irrelevant questions.
1. This statement is contradictory. Consider elaborating or rephrasing.
2. Can turning this valve actually lead to damage though? If not, and if the defendant is aware of that, then you have no intent to cause damages. Someone breaking into your house and pulling the TV set plug out of the wall is not sabotage.
What I'm trying to say is ignorance is not an excuse.
Dismal if you have to resort to BS arguments like this then why even bother?
At no point did I even suggest that his trespassing and touching other people's stuff was okay, but that wasn't the question. And again with your misleading BS questions...
The questions I posed are important because it establishes that:
-If the defendant knew what the valve would do when he pulled it
-If there is no reason to think that pulling said valve would lead to damage or destruction of property
Then it establishes that the defendant's intent was not to damage or destroy property.
So yeah, stop wasting my time with your misleading and irrelevant questions.
There is nothing slightly BS about my argument. It's very straightforward and logical.
You keep telling yourself that. The fact is, the defendant isn't being charged for not being qualified to turn the valve. He's being charged with sabotage. 'Authorized' and 'Qualified' are two separate words Dismal. Consider looking them up.
You keep telling yourself that. The fact is, the defendant isn't being charged for not being qualified to turn the valve. He's being charged with sabotage. 'Authorized' and 'Qualified' are two separate words Dismal. Consider looking them up.
So if you pretend hard enough that this guy had all the safety training a professional pipeline operator would have had the problem goes away.
Very convenient.
Also, very unlikely.
What percent of the population do you imagine has been trained to operate this particular facility?
So if you pretend hard enough that this guy had all the safety training a professional pipeline operator would have had the problem goes away.
Very convenient.
Also, very unlikely.
What percent of the population do you imagine has been trained to operate this particular facility?
That is not what I am saying in the slightest. Keep trying though, you'll get there.
That is not what I am saying in the slightest. Keep trying though, you'll get there.
OK, let's break this down:
Do you think we need safety regulations on high pressure natural gas pipelines, including required safety training for operators?
Do you think the guy who came onto the site unauthorized and started turning valves had safety training for operation of this pipeline?
Those are yes/no questions, I think.
OK, let's break this down:
Do you think we need safety regulations on high pressure natural gas pipelines, including required safety training for operators?
Do you think the guy who came onto the site unauthorized and started turning valves had safety training for operation of this pipeline?
Those are yes/no questions, I think.
Neither question is relevant to the case. How do you still not understand that? Not having the training to turn the valve you turn is not what sabotage is.
Neither question is relevant to the case. How do you still not understand that? Not having the training to turn the valve you turn is not what sabotage is.
This is in fact a case about an unauthorized person showing up on a high pressure gas pipeline site and turning valves.
Not sure how you missed that.
Now stop the sad and pathetic dodging and answer the questions or just go away.
This is in fact a case about an unauthorized person showing up on a high pressure gas pipeline site and turning valves.
Not sure how you missed that.
Now stop the sad and pathetic dodging and answer the questions or just go away.
Actually the case is a man being charged with sabotage and theft. Stop trying to reinvent the narrative to suit your stupid and irrelevant position.
Actually the case is a man being charged with sabotage and theft. Stop trying to reinvent the narrative to suit your stupid and irrelevant position.
Your position is that pipeline operator safety training is irrelevant to pipeline operations?
Your position is that pipeline operator safety training is irrelevant to pipeline operations?
It's irrelevant to the case.
It's irrelevant to the case.
It's relevant to whether you are defending a guy who operated a high pressure gas pipeline without the proper government mandated safety training.
Surely you don't support that.
But yet it seems you are defending what this guy did.
It's relevant to whether you are defending a guy who operated a high pressure gas pipeline without the proper government mandated safety training.
Surely you don't support that.
But yet it seems you are defending what this guy did.
No, you only choose to think that because of your stunted "Them versus us" mentality.
No, you only choose to think that because of your stunted "Them versus us" mentality.
Aren't we all part of the "us" the US government is trying to protect by having pipeline safety regulation?
I didn't realize there was a "them" that defends untrained operation of industrial facilities containing explosive materials under high pressure. Until I saw you doing it.
Aren't we all part of the "us" the US government is trying to protect by having pipeline safety regulation?
I didn't realize there was a "them" that defends untrained operation of industrial facilities containing explosive materials under high pressure. Until I saw you doing it.
I didn't make any such defense. You've merely deluded yourself into thinking that in a lame attempt to justify your faulty position.
