Disgraceful jurors want to let pipeline saboteurs off the hook

[LordKiran]

I didn't make any such defense. You've merely deluded yourself into thinking that in a lame attempt to justify your faulty position.

My position that unauthorized personnel who have not had the appropriate safety training required by regulation to deal with high pressure explosive materials should not be on industrial sites turning valves is "faulty"?

What part of it exactly do you disagree with?

What difference does the person's qualifications make if they're unauthorized to be there or touch someone else's stuff? Was the defendant charged with being unqualified to touch the machinery, or for being there and doing so without proper authorization? Is there even a point in trying to explain this to you at this point since you still have yet to grasp why his qualifications do not matter insofar as this one particular case is concerned?

 

[bilby]

I didn't make any such defense. You've merely deluded yourself into thinking that in a lame attempt to justify your faulty position.

My position that unauthorized personnel who have not had the appropriate safety training required by regulation to deal with high pressure explosive materials should not be on industrial sites turning valves is "faulty"?

What part of it exactly do you disagree with?

They disagree with the bit where you conflate any such act with criminal sabotage.

It could be. But it's possible for it not to be. Which was the verdict of the court in the case in question.

Doing something stupid and dangerous without authority or training isn't clever. But not is it sufficient to constitute sabotage - if it were, most of the population would be serving time for sabotage.

 

[dismal]

My position that unauthorized personnel who have not had the appropriate safety training required by regulation to deal with high pressure explosive materials should not be on industrial sites turning valves is "faulty"?

What part of it exactly do you disagree with?

What difference does the person's qualifications make if they're unauthorized to be there or touch someone else's stuff? Was the defendant charged with being unqualified to touch the machinery, or for being there and doing so without proper authorization? Is there even a point in trying to explain this to you at this point since you still have yet to grasp why his qualifications do not matter insofar as this one particular case is concerned?

The court in question was not responsible for enforcing federal pipeline operator regulations.

Perhaps Federal charges will come soon.

But regardless of that, on what basis are you defending a guy who operated a high pressure natural gas pipeline without the federally-mandated safety training to do so?

It seems pretty damn indefensible.

 

[dismal]

My position that unauthorized personnel who have not had the appropriate safety training required by regulation to deal with high pressure explosive materials should not be on industrial sites turning valves is "faulty"?

What part of it exactly do you disagree with?

They disagree with the bit where you conflate any such act with criminal sabotage.

It could be. But it's possible for it not to be. Which was the verdict of the court in the case in question.

Doing something stupid and dangerous without authority or training isn't clever. But not is it sufficient to constitute sabotage - if it were, most of the population would be serving time for sabotage.

I did not conflate him operating a federally regulated pipeline without the federally mandated safety training with "sabotage".

That is a product entirely of your imagination.

However, it also seems apparent that he did violate the state statute on sabotage as was demonstrated early on in the thread, before federal regulation and safety training even came up.

 

[LordKiran]

What difference does the person's qualifications make if they're unauthorized to be there or touch someone else's stuff? Was the defendant charged with being unqualified to touch the machinery, or for being there and doing so without proper authorization? Is there even a point in trying to explain this to you at this point since you still have yet to grasp why his qualifications do not matter insofar as this one particular case is concerned?

The court in question was not responsible for enforcing federal pipeline operator regulations.

Perhaps Federal charges will come soon.

But regardless of that, on what basis are you defending a guy who operated a high pressure natural gas pipeline without the federally-mandated safety training to do so?

It seems pretty damn indefensible.

On the merit that he isn't technically guilty of the crimes he was charged with for reasons already given in this thread. Pretty straightforward actually.

 

[dismal]

The court in question was not responsible for enforcing federal pipeline operator regulations.

Perhaps Federal charges will come soon.

But regardless of that, on what basis are you defending a guy who operated a high pressure natural gas pipeline without the federally-mandated safety training to do so?

It seems pretty damn indefensible.

On the merit that he isn't technically guilty of the crimes he was charged with for reasons already given in this thread. Pretty straightforward actually.

You really struggle with reading comprehension. Or you're flat out intellectually dishonest.

It's weird how you can go off on how dangerous pipelines are in one thread and then go through incredible gymnastics to defend a guy who operates a pipeline without any safety training in the next.

 

[LordKiran]

On the merit that he isn't technically guilty of the crimes he was charged with for reasons already given in this thread. Pretty straightforward actually.

You really struggle with reading comprehension. Or you're flat out intellectually dishonest.

It's weird how you can go off on how dangerous pipelines are in one thread and then go through incredible gymnastics to defend a guy who operates a pipeline without any safety training in the next.

And yet you STILL can't tell me how lacking certification for turning a valve is in any way relevant to charges of sabotage and theft. Go figure.

 

[dismal]

You really struggle with reading comprehension. Or you're flat out intellectually dishonest.

It's weird how you can go off on how dangerous pipelines are in one thread and then go through incredible gymnastics to defend a guy who operates a pipeline without any safety training in the next.

And yet you STILL can't tell me how lacking certification for turning a valve is in any way relevant to charges of sabotage and theft. Go figure.

Ok, so it's a reading comprehension issue.

 

[laughing dog]

And yet you STILL can't tell me how lacking certification for turning a valve is in any way relevant to charges of sabotage and theft. Go figure.

Ok, so it's a reading comprehension issue.

You set a new record for ironic obtuse with every response.