A Green Tries to Defend Eco-Terrorism

Oil Pipeline Pumping Station in rural Nebraska

Oil Pipeline Pumping Station in rural Nebraska. By shannonpatrick17 from Swanton, Nebraska, U.S.A. (Trans Canada Keystone Oil Pipeline) [CC BY 2.0], via Wikimedia Commons

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Emily Johnston, who admitted shutting down 5 pipelines last year with the help of four friends, has finally found a judge willing to hear her “necessity defence”.

I shut down an oil pipeline – because climate change is a ticking bomb

Emily Johnston

Friday 24 November 2017 20.00 AEDT

Normal methods of political action and protest are simply not working. If we don’t reduce emissions boldly and fast, that’s genocide.

Alittle over a year ago, four friends and I shut down all five pipelines carrying tar sands crude oil into the United States by using emergency shut-off valves. As recent months have made clear, climate change is not only an imminent threat; it is an existing catastrophe. It’s going to get worse, and tar sands oil—the dirtiest oil on Earth—is one of the reasons.

We did this very, very carefully—after talking to pipeline engineers, and doing our own research. Before we touched a thing, we called the pipeline companies twice to warn them, and let them turn off the pipelines themselves if they thought that was better; all of them did so.

We knew we were at risk for years in prison. But the nation needs to wake up nowto what’s coming our way if we don’t reduce emissions boldly and fast; business as usual is now genocidal.

In shutting off the pipelines, we hoped to be part of that wake-up, to put ourselves in legal jeopardy in order to state dramatically and unambiguously that normal methods of political action and protest are simply not working with anywhere near the speed that we need them to.

Three of our trials (which are in four states) had already rejected the use of the necessity defense. In North Dakota, the judge said essentially “I’m not going to let you put US energy policy on trial”. But recently, I and the other Minnesota defendants were finally granted it.

I was struck by the North Dakota judge’s implicit understanding that letting science be spoken in her courtroom would have had the effect of putting energy policy on trial—of reversing, in effect, who was the defendant, and who the prosecutor.

Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/24/oil-pipeline-valve-turner-protest-climate-change

According to a progressive news outlet, the Minnesota judge who allowed the presentation of the “necessity defence” is Judge Robert Tiffany.

The FBI defines eco-terrorism as “…the use or threatened use of violence of a criminal nature against innocent victims or property by an environmentally-oriented, subnational group for environmental-political reasons, or aimed at an audience beyond the target, often of a symbolic nature.”.

Emily claims she and her friends took every step possible to avoid risk to life. But what she did was risky and irresponsible.

Any slip-up by pumping companies scrambling to respond to her abrupt closure of emergency valves, of pipes carrying vast quantities of flammable liquids, could have caused a rupture or worse. A moving column of thousands of tons of flammable liquid can deliver a tremendous hammer blow against vulnerable infrastructure if its transit is not carefully managed.

Crews distracted by her and her friends irresponsible antics might not have noticed another emergency developing elsewhere in the system. Even though on this occasion everything ended without further mishap, Emily and her friends were responsible for a period of significantly heightened risk.

As for Emily’s claimed justification for her actions, what an ego. There was no immediate threat to life. Emily and her eco-terrorist friends don’t get to decide what is legal, the representatives elected by the people have that responsibility. By leading an attack on vital infrastructure, Emily and her friends tried to usurp everyone elses rights.

I have never called for or led direct action against renewable infrastructure, despite my belief that renewable infrastructure causes tremendous long term harm, because unlike Emily I don’t believe I have a general right to deprive others of their rights. In any case, wind turbines in particular have an entertaining habit of destroying themselves.

One thing for sure. If Emily and her friends are not punished for their irresponsibility, others will be inspired to copy her actions. The next group of clowns who decide to attack vital energy infrastructure might be less careful, or less lucky. People will die unless this craziness is stopped.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Sparky

Hmmmmn. There is a number of people I don’t like, but I’m quite sure that arguing that the world can be demonstrated to be a better place without them is not a valid defence in a courtroom

Curious George

Does an accused crime perpetrator have a right to select her judge?

Eamon Butler

Sounds like she getting the best Judge that money can buy.

Sara

Just one question, because it is pertinent to this issue: Can I sue this clown and her friends into the ground?

Natural gas is a byproduct of oil production. It’s collected when oil is pumped out of a well. Forecasts differ from one outlet to another, which makes this winter’s weather and my source of heating and cooking gas more likely to be priced based on future production. Therefore, in the face of an uncertain winter, this ridiculous and ignorant, self-centered little snot is putting at risk me and other people who also depend on natural gas for heating and cooking, when she has no verifiable evidence that crude oil is a real threat to anyone or anything.

I should be allowed to sue her and her silly friends right into living on the street. Obviously, they have far too much time on their hands. If their concern is the environment, they haven’t proven anything. Where were they when Keystone’s pipeline spilled 210,000 gallons of crude last week? Too busy bamboozling a criminal court judge?

She’s entitled t her opinion. She is NOT entitled to endanger other peoplel

mike

Whether they used a club, knife, gun or not, this are violent crimes, at least “taking hostage” and extorting others to do harmful, physical acts.

Depending on many factors, it will be a lethal crime, potentially as bad as some real WMDs (not this 4 oz “legal” redefinition stuff).

At some point, ecoterrorists may be effectively dealt with like other criminals and terrorists, a corrupted judiciary or not.

Eamon Butler

It is without question, a case of Blackmail. I’m sure that’s still illegal in the U.S. It will probably result in extra security measures, and subsequently, extra costs. It also doesn’t look like she took much consideration of how essential this oil is, to the vulnerable who rely on it for their survival.

Eamon.

old white guy

she is a fool. if only she could survive without fossil fuels. the wind turbines and solar panels both require fossil fuels for manufacturing. she, and many billions would starve very quickly without fossil fuels.

D. J. Hawkins

@Sara;
You can sue anyone you like, but the first motion of the defense will be for summary dismissal based on lack of standing. Unless you can show a direct evidentiary link between her actions and palpable harm you suffered you aren’t likely to get past square one.

Dieter

If you have years of selecting left of centre judges , everything is possible.

mike

Real law springs eternal from the temperate populace. Review what really happened during 1770-1774, when the king deposed local judges and imposed his own lackeys. These latter functionaries were repeatly removed by the local militias, armed.

The CAGWrs are a noisy, corrupt minority whose propaganda cover is rapidly dissolving if they can’t pull a coup through the courts or UN.

Is this clown an expert on ‘climate change’ and its consequences?

No, she appears to be a poet and a ‘climate’ activist, whatever that is.

There are a lot of Emily Johnstons in the country but I believe this is the one that the article is about. And, yes, it does appear in her picture that her hair is at least near-blond enough for her to qualify.

Emily Johnston (@enjohnston) | Twitter
https://twitter.com/enjohnston
The latest Tweets from Emily Johnston (@enjohnston). Poet, scribe, climate activist, runner, builder….my book, Her Animals, is out now! https://t.co/vQbJ80XEWN.

Scott

Phil, she “appears to be” an authoritarian loon bent on inflicting her demented ideology on the world without its consent. It seems to me she an egotistical narcissist with a deeply embedded belief in her own righteousness.

Not certain at all there’s any help coming for someone like this. My guess is she’s well and truly lost in her own fantasies.

AndyG55

Poor mother. died of shame of her daughter.

Dodgy Geezer

You don’t need to be. The defense is open to someone who honestly believes that what they are doing is for the greater good. That does NOT have to be an accurate belief – merely honestly held by the perpetrator…

Mark - Helsinki

Sorry but fail, believing something does not give you legal recource for illegal actions.

It would be on her and her friend to show the harm they thought they were preventing by shutting down the pipelines, and that is in all honesty not possible. What danger to the planet would have occurred from the pipelines being on for the short time they were off.

In short, they have no defence, and they used terror to force the companies emplpyees to do the bidding of the eco terrorists otherwise disaster might have been the outcome of not following the demands of the eco terrorists.

In my opinion, the best these cretins can hope for is slight mitigation. They are danderous people, and should be charged to the full extent of the law

Mark - Helsinki

*Dangerous

Self centered ego maniacs willing to cause risk of disaster to action out their beliefs and using fear or terror to force others to act on their illegal demands.

The book should be thrown at them, they are a danger to society.

Climate this time, what’s next? Also, a poet interfering in pilelines?
You legally cannot do anything like that without certified qualifications, and permission, theses people had neither

Dodgy Geezer

…Sorry but fail, believing something does not give you legal recource (sic) for illegal actions….

Sorry but double-fail – in UK law (which is what I was talking about) it DOES.

Sec 5 Criminal Damage Act 1971 states – I quote para 2:

(2)A person charged with an offence to which this section applies, shall, whether or not he would be treated for the purposes of this Act as having a lawful excuse apart from this subsection, be treated for those purposes as having a lawful excuse—
(a)if at the time of the act or acts alleged to constitute the offence he believed that the person or persons whom he believed to be entitled to consent to the destruction of or damage to the property in question had so consented, or would have so consented to it if he or they had known of the destruction or damage and its circumstances; or
(b)if he destroyed or damaged or threatened to destroy or damage the property in question or, in the case of a charge of an offence under section 3 above, intended to use or cause or permit the use of something to destroy or damage it, in order to protect property belonging to himself or another or a right or interest in property which was or which he believed to be vested in himself or another, and at the time of the act or acts alleged to constitute the offence he believed—
(i)that the property, right or interest was in immediate need of protection; and
(ii)that the means of protection adopted or proposed to be adopted were or would be reasonable having regard to all the circumstances.

You can see that 2(b) allows someone to, for instance, destroy or damage a pipeline if they believe that the pipeline endangered the environment, and that the action taken was reasonable. In this case the action taken is the minimum required to stop the pipeline operating, so the ‘reasonableness’ requirement can be held to be satisfied.

I don’t know what US law states, but, given teh similarity between the two jurisdictions, I would be surprised if it did not say something similar.

commieBob

Necessity (criminal law)

The defendant isn’t going to be able to argue that shutting down one pipeline will save the world from catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. The necessity defence requires that the danger be imminent. She would have to be able to say, ‘We’re all going to die unless I shut down this pipeline right now.’

Shutting down the pipeline was a political act and that is explicitly excluded for necessity defence in America.

Having said the above, never bet on the outcome of a court case. Sometimes even the judges get it wrong, which is why we have appeals. 🙂

Dodgy Geezer

… The necessity defence requires that the danger be imminent. She would have to be able to say, ‘We’re all going to die unless I shut down this pipeline right now.’…

Indeed. But the requirement is for her to BELIEVE that, not for it to be unequivocally true.. And she probably does, and would have no difficulty proving such…

Geezer, you need to put trigger warnings on posts like that. I was deeply hurt by your citation of British law, what with all that use of the sexist singular male pronoun. In reading those few passages it was crystal clear that British law is designed to oppress anyone who is not a straight male. Our poor suffering poetess would be left floundering and helpless under the Queen’s rule…unless of course she has a natural preference for the singular male pronoun.

menicholas

In her video, they drive to the pipeline valve station, and her accomplice says ‘This is the only way we can put a stop to this.”
The hubris, thinking, believing that they can “put a stop to this”, meaning the world using oil to run our civilization.
These five nitwits are going to end it, is what they have in mind.
They must truly be not only misguided fools, but insane.
“If we close this valve, people will stop using oil.”
“And the disaster we imagine will be averted, we imagine.”
Just trying to get inside their heads, but it aint easy, because it makes no sense whatsoever.
Everything about them screams oil user…the clothes, the car, the fuel, the phone, the food in their well feed bodies, the glasses she wears, the civilization that makes it possible for such idiots to not be scraping a subsistence from the Earth for every day above ground…all depend in a thousand ways on oil and other fossil fuels.
Blithering hypocritical idjuts.

menicholas

There is no appeal for an acquittal.
That would be double jeopardy.

Ben of Houston

Dodgy, the law has repeatedly thrown out that line of reasoning when they consider that the damage caused was absurd.

For example: Murder charges against exorcism
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/06/18/girls-exorcism-leads-to-moms-arrest-on-attempted-murder-charge.html
The tragic Candace Newmaker Incident
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candace_Newmaker#Convictions

All of these thought they were doing what was right and necessary, but were convicted anyway.

Michael 2

I can see where a necessity defense would play into sentencing but I do not see it creating aquittal. A crime was committed, contemplated and obviously also a conspiracy to do so. At sentencing is where this would come into the picture and five idiots would be handed a relevant sentence.

Sheri

It has to be a REASONABLE belief, the lesser of two evils and the damage caused by the act must be less than what the threat itself would have caused. Also, the person cannot have contributed to the threat. If our terrorist drove a gasoline-powered car, used fossil fuels in any way, that may disqualify her.

Concerning Sec5, CDA 1971…
2A does not apply, as Emily and her ilk are not pretending that the oil corporations might consent to such vandalism.
2B likewise seems not to apply, as they also are not claiming title to the ecosystem, for the protection of which these acts are expressly performed. And 2Bi squashes that idea; greens consider property an invalid construct.

US law is indeed quite a bit clearer on this point, as it has passed out of common law and into jurisprudence.

Mark - Helsinki

This is not the UK (fail)

Lets see how it pans out and see who is full of fail

The greater good arguments have to be tempered with the harm they might be doing to the others. I could shoot you dead and rob you so I can give money to all other citizens. Obviously, in this case the greater good is not a sustainable defence. In the present case the law has to be followed – it is an offence to damage or destroy other people’s goods, no matter what the situation. You cannot take the law (charge, judgement, justice, punishment, and retribution) into your own hands. Science doesn’t come into it.

Scott

menicholas writes: “The hubris, thinking, believing that they can “put a stop to this”, meaning the world using oil to run our civilization.

I think arrogance, rather than hubris, wins the day on this one. Hubris implies an attempt to mimic God, arrogance on the other hand is purely self serving.

Eamon Butler

I don’t think that holds true when it involves the endangerment of others. Terrorists firmly believe they are doing the right thing.

craig

Dodgy,

You still need to show REAL cause for damage or otherwise. Bit like saying, I believe dodgy’s house to be a threat to the environment because you have a gas pipe line running through IT, which is need to run your heater in winter. So, in reality, I’m now allowed vandalize and smash your house because of that gas pipe line in your house which I believe to be clear and present danger to the environment?

I.DON’T.THINK.SO!

Joe Public

Perhaps the eco-terrorists should be ‘locked-on’ to local infrastructure.

And left there.

I’m still looking for this “climate change” those people are on about. All I’ve seen are hot, dry, places having a bit of drought, which is always wiped out by rains a few seasons down the road, and a few low-lying places subject to erosion and subsidence having a bit of land loss.

Where, exactly, is it that “climate change is not only an imminent threat; it is an existing catastrophe”? I just don’t see it.

You didn’t notice her tweet, then. Apparently she is suffering along with a host of other future climate refugees in Montana under the burden of a sweltering 70F. They probably ran out of barbecue sauce.

Stewart Pid

I’m just north of Montana & poor Emily can’t tell the difference between a ridge over the US west leading to chinook weather in the plains east of the Rockies and climate change … obviously her poetry classes were weak in weather science 😉

ClimateOtter

Questions for emily:

Did you walk to the sites in question?

Did you use tools not manufactured through use of mined metals or fossil-fuel-connected in any way?

Did you alert the communities which were threatened by your actions?

Did you alert the hospitals, fire-fighters and other authorities in the areas that were threatened by your actions?

Do your children walk to school?

Do your children have access to plentiful energy to keep warm in the winter, cool in the summer?

There’s lots more, but let’s hear the answers to those questions first.

Mark - Helsinki

All good points, these people are dangerous. This was not a team of pipeline engineers, she is a poet lol

A “poet” that used terror to force other people to carry out her ideologically unscientifically supported demands. Terrorism

Karlos53

add to this “how much of your time was involved in planning this.

ie Was there time enough to alert others to this ‘imminent’ catastrophe? I suspect this defense won’t stand as she expects it will, any loon could decide the world is in imminent threat of being taken over by goldfish, however much of a panic she was in, her fears still need be judged as viable or simply opportune.

Dodgy Geezer

Miss (I presume) Emily Johnston should come over to the UK.

Over here the law on criminal damage also contains the ‘necessity’ get-out clause, intended to allow people, for instance, to break down the door of a burning house in order to rescue someone.

The clause recognises that, in case of an emergency, there may not be time to determine a precise ‘minimum’ damage to someone else’s property which is justified by necessity, and allows the defence that the putative rescuer ‘considered that it was necessary at the time’ as a justification. The only requirement, therefore, is that you felt that it was an emergency situation, and that you felt that there was no other option. Recently several Quaker demonstrators were found not guilty of criminal damage after breaking into a factory to damage fighter aircraft being made for Saudi Arabia

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-41763568

ClimateOtter

In light of what you posted here I would have to ask: can she (emily) prove it was enough of an emergency to risk disrupting a community which might have been in the midst of (or perhaps her actions would have even Caused) a major medical emergency?

ClimateOtter

Isn’t the pipeline for crude tar sands oil, destined for a refinery? Happy to be contradicted.

ClimateOtter

Yes, but that does not preclude the possibility that there is a community ‘downstream’ of the potential disaster she could have caused.

Dodgy Geezer

She does not have to.

I am quoting UK law, but I would be surprised if US law did not have a similar provision. Here is Sec 5 Criminal Damage Act 1971 states – I quote para 2:

(2)A person charged with an offence to which this section applies, shall, whether or not he would be treated for the purposes of this Act as having a lawful excuse apart from this subsection, be treated for those purposes as having a lawful excuse—
(a)if at the time of the act or acts alleged to constitute the offence he believed that the person or persons whom he believed to be entitled to consent to the destruction of or damage to the property in question had so consented, or would have so consented to it if he or they had known of the destruction or damage and its circumstances; or
(b)if he destroyed or damaged or threatened to destroy or damage the property in question or, in the case of a charge of an offence under section 3 above, intended to use or cause or permit the use of something to destroy or damage it, in order to protect property belonging to himself or another or a right or interest in property which was or which he believed to be vested in himself or another, and at the time of the act or acts alleged to constitute the offence he believed—
(i)that the property, right or interest was in immediate need of protection; and
(ii)that the means of protection adopted or proposed to be adopted were or would be reasonable having regard to all the circumstances.

You will see that it is a defence against the charge of criminal damage to show that the accused:

1 – believed that property was in immediate need of protection (in this case the ‘environment’, from a pipeline.
2 – believed that the action taken was reasonable.

You will see that there is NO requirement that the property really WAS in need of protection, or that the action taken WAS reasonable – we are only concerned with the belief in the mind of the accused at the time of the offence.

This clause is intended to be used for circumstances like breaking down a door of a burning house to rescue someone – you may make a mistake and break the wrong door, or not need to break it, but if you are ‘acting in good faith that is a defence. Perhaps opening the door may cause some other worse problem – again not a problem, so long as you were acting in good faith.

Perhaps the law ought to be changed, but that is the way it stands at the moment…

menicholas

Dodgy Geezer,
You dumb ass laws over there are one reason we threw you lot out of hear in ’76.
Hear-tell you have laws that make it a crime to shoot someone who is trying to kill you during a robbery too.
Over here we give such people medals, cept’n in a few bass ackwards places like New Yawk.

Samuel C Cogar

Dodgy Geezer – November 25, 2017 at 5:52 am

You will see that it is a defence against the charge of criminal damage to show that the accused:

1 – believed that property was in immediate need of protection (in this case the ‘environment’, from a pipeline.

Mercy gawds, …… Dodgy Geezer, ….. I would really be surprised if a sitting Judge/Justice agreed that your cited ….. Sec 5 Criminal Damage Act 1971 ….. applies to …… an abstract entity (the environment) that is in dire need of protection from an inanimate object (a pipeline).

What next, ….. eco-terrorists blowing-up a London skyscraper and then claiming as their defense that the atmosphere (an abstract entity) was in dire need of protection from an extremely tall building (an inanimate object)?

Ben of Houston

Dodgy is partially right, but in both America and Britain that only applies to necessary damage to prevent imminent harm. For example, if there was an active spill occurring, breaking into the pumphouse fence to hit the shut off. However, she cannot do so if there is no immediate danger or if there is a reasonable alternative.

To give an example.
-You cannot hire a hitman to kill an abusive husband who you believe is going to murder his wife because there are more reasonable alternatives that can be enacted when there is sufficient time.
-You can, however, shoot him while he’s in the act of attacking his wife, thinking that he’s going to kill her.
-This defense holds even if she was not actually in imminent danger but you had no way of knowing that.
-However, if you are a police officer, you have the ability to stop it with less than deadly force, so you will be held to use those first.

Furthermore, her belief must be reasonable.
The problem here is that this defense, if it holds, means that anyone who is labeled as a “bad person” or “bad company” in the public eyes can be attacked without bounds. It makes a mockery of justice whenever anyone can just be declared a pariah and not worthy of legal protection.

Dodgy Geezer

…Mercy gawds, …… Dodgy Geezer, ….. I would really be surprised if a sitting Judge/Justice agreed that your cited ….. Sec 5 Criminal Damage Act 1971 ….. applies to …… an abstract entity (the environment) that is in dire need of protection from an inanimate object (a pipeline).

What next, ….. eco-terrorists blowing-up a London skyscraper and then claiming as their defense that the atmosphere (an abstract entity) was in dire need of protection from an extremely tall building (an inanimate object)?…

We will have to see. Here is an example of the defence being successfully used by protesters who took a hammer to a fighter aircraft factory to stop arms deliveries to Saudi Arabia, a month ago: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-41763568

tony mcleod

Ben of Houston
“However, she cannot do so if there is no immediate danger or if there is a reasonable alternative.”

What was her reasonable alternative to halt the flow?

AndyG55

No “reasonable” actions at all are available.

The actions of a raving AGW fundeMENTAList

I worry you will follow her lead…

Rancid idea-logs like you are dangerous.

Samuel C Cogar

Now you all remember this, ……. if its a “jury trial” or a Democrat appointed/elected enviro-activist Judge, …….. all bets are off and the Rule of Law matters not one twit.

Ben of Houston

Tony, there is no imminent threat to life, therefore, the strictly necessary defense doesn’t hold.

The reasonable alternative would be a lawsuit or lobbying.

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7

Dodgy Geezer:

1 – believed that property was in immediate need of protection (in this case the ‘environment’, from a pipeline.
2 – believed that the action taken was reasonable.

You will see that there is NO requirement that the property really WAS in need of protection, or that the action taken WAS reasonable – we are only concerned with the belief in the mind of the accused at the time of the offence.

Full disclosure: IANAL (I am not a lawyer)

I don’t know UK law, but I have been extensively exposed to US law regarding use of deadly force by civilians, which is a form of the “necessity” defense. Basically, the defendant’s belief is not sufficient alone: it must also be shared by the reasonable man. The rule is the action must be what the reasonable man would have done given the totality of the circumstances and knowing what the defendant knew at the time.

If I think someone looks dangerous and I shoot him, I cannot justify my action just because it turns out the guy has a criminal record for aggravated assault. But if I have personal knowledge the guy has such a record and he acts in a manner towards me consistent with his previous crimes which are known to me, then I can claim self defense because my belief I was about to be violently assaulted would be reasonable.

The necessity defense requires (a) imminence, and (b) personal knowledge at the time. I think in the case of shutting down pipelines both conditions fail. The other point in US law is if you invoke the necessity defense, the burden of proof shifts to the defendant to show by preponderance of evidence that the otherwise criminal actions are justified.

The “imminence” issue addresses the availability of other remedies. Normally breaking into a store and taking stuff without paying for it is a crime, but if someone is bleeding out on the street and I break into a drugstore to get compresses to save his life, no sane prosecutor would bring charges and any sane judge would instruct the jury accordingly. The “imminence” of climate catastrophe seems to have a very flexible schedule — peaking in the months prior to a COP meeting and then fading afterwards when it is obvious that nothing was accomplished. It’s hard to argue the defendant had no other remedies available; she could have joined a climate march wearing a polar bear costume for example.

Since the defendant in this case is not qualified as an expert on climate, the “personal knowledge” requirement cannot be met directly. With the exception of Jim Hansen, I am not aware of any qualified climate expert who has claimed criminal actions are justified to halt a climate catastrophe, so this is a decision she has made on her own with no basis in training or experience to back it up.

IMHO, even though IANAL, the necessity defense is not applicable here and therefore the judge who allowed it is out of line.

What you are describing is the basis of an insanity defense (genuine but unreasonable or even delusional belief).

Bill Illis

How come they never start by shutting off their own natural gas heating, electricity or going without vehicle transportation. If they want to lead so badly, why not make an example for everyone else.

Are they really saying they want the government to force “you and everyone else” to stop using energy or something of the kind. That is the only end-game where we stop using fossil fuels. After that comes some type of implosion of society and some real stone age stuff.

But they aren’t thinking that far ahead. They just want to “virtue signal” to whomever will listen and later tell them how proud they are of them. Track down Emily and tell her how proud you would be of her if she shut her own electricity off.

She will claim that all her electricity is green in colour. She will have a demon that only allows green electrons to enter her house.

Sandy In Limousin

I’ve often wondered what those Green Demons do when there aren’t enough green electrons to go round.

Gerald Machnee

Did she cyle there or use a vehicle emitting “dangerous” CO2?

Auto

Gerald Machnee

November 25, 2017 at 10:17 am

Even if she had cycled there – she would, herself, have been emitting “dangerous” CO2 – aka Plantfood.

Auto – emitting a little CO2, even as I comment here!

gwan

Bill Ills,
I agree with you 100%
Activists stage demonstrations and sit-ins and criminal activity in the name of their cause .
“Stop using fossil fuels or we will all perish ” is their cry .
But of course that dose not apply to them .
They just don’t get it that with over seven [billion] people on this earth that the majority would starve without the use of artificial nitrogen fertilizer to grow food .
Artificial nitrogen is produced with large amounts of natural gas .
They have been brain washed by the constant propaganda that has spewed from the news media universities and in our schools ,.
They have probably never lived without electricity . What a difference it made when electricity arrived in our rural area in New Zealand in 1948 .My mother could wash the clothes in a washing machine instead of cutting wood and lighting a fire under a copper to heat water and wringing out the moisture with a mangle turned by hand .
A refrigerator was purchased and food could be stored for up to two weeks ,as a meat safe with fine mesh walls on the shady side of the house was useless in hot weather .Electric lights were far better and safer than candles and oil lamps .We had an electric stove but retained a wood stove as it also heated the hot water and a plentiful supply of fire wood was available which was cut with by hand with a crosscut saw and split with an axe .
These people should try living without any electricity and cut there own fire wood by hand to cook heat and produce hot water for washing themselves and their clothes .No vacuum cleaners no coffee makers no electric gadgets .
They have no idea how anything gets onto the shelves in the supermarket and they probably don’t want to know..

Tom Halla

That is truly the vicious element to people like Al Gore’s apocalyptic rhetoric, that yahoos like Emily will take him seriously as to the risk, and take action. Gore was a major party candidate for President, and shows as little regard for the consequences of his preaching as he did for the science.

“We did this very, very carefully—after talking to pipeline engineers”

Who doubtless told you to eff off. If not, they should be jailed as well.

“and doing our own research”

I have done years of ‘research’ into climate change and I still don’t understand an effing thing. But evidently it qualifies me to determine the fate of the planet.

OK then, here goes; forget climate change and lets get on with our lives.

There you are folks, problem solved.

The_Mole

I agree with you hotspot. After studying this field for over 10 years i’ve concluded I’m more confused than ever.

menicholas

I will clear it up for you.
Warmistas are liars and know nothing.
Everything they say is wrong…very nearly 100% the diametric opposite of the actual truth.
Now you know the whole story.

AussieBear

Or “and doing our own research” in the context could be construed at doing research as to how a pipleline could be shut off. That would further imply premeditated malicious intent…

WHAT!!!!!?????

Did I hear someone say “Don’t listen to the sweaty sock, he’s mad, it’s just not that simple”?

Correct.

Quilter

Surely an appropriate punishment would be to require her to give up anything and everything that is made with or from fossil fuels and delivered by fossil fuel using vehicles. She would probably be naked – an awful lot of modern clothing is made from non-natural fabrics. No renewables, after all they cannot produce themselves but require base load power to provide the smelting etc necessary to make solar panels and wind turbines. No food except what she can grow, after all its delivered in nasty trucks using fossil fuels. No phones, guess what, non-renewables in them too and high energy components. Can’t travel anywhere except by walking or perhaps she can persuade someone to give her a horse. A bit of reality for this dimwit would do wonders.

Unfortunately the hypocrisy amongst these idiots is too strong. Look at Gore with his mansion, diCaprio, with his private jet. Do as I say not as i do, is the mantra that these people support, they clearly aren’t the most logical bunch!

Quilter

Forgot to add as well that the true environmentalists also seem to eschew anything made from animal products so that takes out about almost any form of clothing except linen and cotton and cotton certainly needs lots of fertiliser which might also upset our Emily.

ImranCan

If she is going to employ a ‘necessity defense’ isn’t it an opportunity for the prosecution to open up a requirement for evidence of the ‘necessity’. Finally get to challenge some of this nonsense.

Dodgy Geezer

No. Interestingly, the necessity does NOT have to be proven. All that needs to be proven is that she BELIEVED there to be a necessity at the time.,….

menicholas

Bullshit. That may be your half witted interpretation of British law…over here most judges would not even consider it a valid argument.
And even with that wrong view of the law, explain how nothing they do in their own lives backs up their claims of imminent doom?

That is like someone with a fully stocked larder at home claiming they robbed a store because they were about to starve to death.

menicholas

Global warming theory is based on the total concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.
there is no credible argument to be made that what they did could possibly under any circumstance make even a tiny difference in the amount of CO2 in the air.
Sophistic nonsense is not a defense for malicious vandalism in the US.

menicholas

Besides, they are on tape, a video they made themselves, admitting they knew it was just a way to get someone to pay attention to them, not an effort to lower CO2 and save the planet.
Even they are not that dumb.

Clyde Spencer

DG,
If BELIEF is the only requirement, then insane people get a free pass on anything they do if it is shown to be motivated by a belief.

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7

Incorrect, certainly in US law. I strongly suspect this is also false for British law, but given that British law no longer recognizes the right of self defense, it’s just possible that it has gone daft on this point as well.

Sincere belief might make a good basis for an insanity defense (the voices of the celestial aliens told me I had to kill the Queen before they could take us all to their home in the stars …).

You have to look beyond the text of the statutes and consider actual case law. Can you point to someone excused from criminal conduct for mere belief?

The never-lovable Charles Manson died last week in prison. The state of California decided that his belief that he had to help precipitate an apocalyptic race war did not constitute an acceptable justification for killing 9 people.

Mere belief is not sufficient for the necessity defense. If UK law has waffled on that issue, climate catastrophe is the least of your problems.

Paul Penrose

UK law does not matter in this case. The ruling will be made by a US judge using US laws and jurisprudence. Over here, the “reasonable person” standard is almost always used in these cases. So the questions for the judge are: Would a “reasonable person” think that global warming was an imminent threat the the safety and welfare of (specific) people? Would a “reasonable person” think that shutting down this single pipeline prevent the threat? Would a “reasonable person” think that the action (shutting down the pipeline using the emergency shutoffs) represents a lower risk than the putative threat they were claiming to prevent?

I think the answer to all three is NO. And it doesn’t really matter what she believed; being stupid is not a defense. It may be a factor in the punishment phase, but it will not affect the decision about guilt.

hunter

Violent religious fundamentalists always feel justified in their actions.
After all, they are enlightened.

JohnKnight

hunter,

What exactly makes this person a “religious fundamentalist”?

Science (the establishment/community/academia/authority aspect) did this brainwashing, it seems to me . . .

We have all been indoctrinated to see “Science” as a great beneficent savior we ought to have great faith in, and this self-righteous zealotry and violence is what comes of that sort of “worshipful” attitude, it seems very obvious to me . . That a useful method for investigating things is also associated with the term, ought not be used as a diversion from this . . monster-like aspect, I feel.

George Tetley

Echo Terrorist, !!! Same laws apply as the bomb maker.

It is vandalism of someone else’s property, it breaks the laws that ensure we continue to be a civilised society. They should be prosecuted and if the prosecution is successful should be made to pay compensation to repair the damage and loss of income to the owners of the pipeline and the refinery.If they get away with this crime then it will be an open invitation for others to do the same.

Cliff Hilton

Surely, Emily is not wanting to be an example of a law abiding citizen. If a judge lets this sort stand, would they not “un” inhibit those who see her example as a way to “correct” others of their misguided ways? We each could interrupt the flow of progress from any windmill or solar manufacture, safely?

Let Miss Emily be careful of what sort the example she desires to be. Justice should fall on her head.

michel

Yes. Imagine bird lovers sabotaging wind turbines, and claiming their conscience made them do it. Imagine people taking books off the shelves of public libraries on the grounds they offend their religion. Imagine vegans entering supermarkets and making bonfires of meat and sausages. Imagine Muslims entering supermarkets and trashing the pork and bacon. Or Hindus trashing the beef. Or Kosher enthusiasts removing all the shellfish. Or health food nuts removing all the refined sugar and cereal products. White bread is murder, they cry.

Now imagine a world in which J S Mill’s essay, On Liberty, is required study in all secondary schools.

Which do you prefer?

R. Shearer
menicholas

What they did is sort of like if someone blew up a cigarette lighter factory to prevent forest fires.

R. Shearer

Good one.

michel

The very interesting thing here is something common to a lot of these explanations. Emily does not explain what effect her actions would have on global warming.

Imagine, we are in front of some disaster, it could be a fire or a flood. And we do something criminal and irrelevant, like break into a liquor store and knock back a few. When it comes to trial we explain, yes, but we were concerned about the fire, that is why we did it.

The court says, fine, but your actions had no effect on the fire. Tell me again why you did it.

In the same way, we have to ask Emily, if you are concerned about global warming, why did you not do something effective? Turning off the pipes had and could have no effect whatever on global warming.

The interesting thing is the propensity of the climatist fraternity for doing and advocating things which are, in their own terms, totally ineffective. If Emily was really concerned about global emissions, which are what is supposed to be driving global warming, she would have been demonstrating outside the Chinese Embassy. China is the world’s largest polluter, and could really make reductions in the tonnage of global emissions. Or she would have pressed for hard targets in Paris, and would be over there in Bonn, lobbying for hard reduction targets on China, India, Indonesia and so on.

I have reluctantly over years of observing this stuff come to the conclusion that no-one actually believes any of it. They have different agendas which are served by advocating some actions. Sometimes, much of the time, they do not want to see what they advocate implemented, because its advocacy is a pretext for radicalisation. As Alinsky understood, as an activist the last thing you want is for your demands to be met.

The second reason for the demands is that they have a material effect which is desired. We need to examine the possibility that the real motivation for the demands is the effect they would have if granted. So, take Paris, what would be the effects of implementing an agreement which allows the rest of the world, and particularly China, to emit as much as they want, while Europe and the US accept hard targets to reduce?

Then ask who would pay people to advocate that.

menicholas

CO2 is not pollution.
China may be the worst polluter, I do not really know, but CO2 emissions are not pollution.
Their status as #1 emitter of CO2 makes them the ones with the biggest role in increasing our crop productivity.

Dodgy Geezer

….Imagine, we are in front of some disaster, it could be a fire or a flood. And we do something criminal and irrelevant, like break into a liquor store and knock back a few. When it comes to trial we explain, yes, but we were concerned about the fire, that is why we did it.

The court says, fine, but your actions had no effect on the fire. Tell me again why you did it…

Discalimer – I am commenting on English Law. But I assume that US law is similar. There are two tests:

1 – did you truly believe that there was a danger to a property or right?
2 – given that belief, did you believe that your action was reasonable in addressing that issue?

So, in your example, you pass test one – you believed that there was a danger. Do you pass test two – that you believed that your action was a reasonable way to address the danger? I think you would have more problems with that.

Note that there is no requirement that the action DOES address the danger. But you HAVE to believe that it does. For instance, if you believed that a liquor store might explode if the fire got too close, and that drinking the spirits would prevent that, you might have an argument….

R. Shearer

Get off it already, although I admit your posting name fits.

Sheri

These are the conditions I find most often listed:
Normally, to establish a necessity defense—a tall order—a defendant must prove that:
there was a specific threat of significant, imminent danger
there was an immediate necessity to act
there was no practical alternative to the act
the defendant didn’t cause or contribute to the threat
he or she acted out of necessity at all times, and
the harm caused wasn’t greater than the harm prevented.

That’s in the US. It’s an uncommon defense. One example is a person without a driver’s license driving a pregnant woman to the hospital because that was the only choice.

Paul Penrose

Dodgy,
You assume incorrectly.

D. J. Hawkins

Even under British law, her problem would be immediately apparent on the slightest inquiry.

What specific property, right, or interest was in immediate danger? It won’t do to try and generalize here, the court will be looking for something specific and definite. Immediate means just that, right-the-heck NOW! Using the fire analogy, you can’t kick down your neighbor’s door because you think there’s going to be a fire sometime next week.

Clyde Spencer

michel,
You said, “Turning off the pipes had and could have no effect whatever on global warming.” However, their driving around was an unnecessary contribution to CO2 levels, which they believe to be harmful. Thus, they knowingly were being irrational.

michael hart

Every now and again Greenpeace and friends commit similar criminal damage in the UK. If they actually get brought before a judge at all, never mind a dim one, the BBC et al usually treat them like some kind of latter day Robin Hood.

They never seem to ask themselves where such tolerance of political violence can lead to.

michel

But what you have to ask, to get to the deep point at issue here, is what effect they thought their actions would have on the subject that allegedly motivated them.

This is when you find that they are not doing it to tackle global warming. They are doing it to stage an event they can organize around.

The argument, we are doing this stuff because we are worried about global warming, it falls at the first fence. In that case do something effective about global warming. Actually, what you are doing is criminal damage in pursuit of organizing a political party.

Now, there is no way that can be defended. Why not criminal damage to promote anything at all, if that is a valid defence.

Dodgy Geezer

…Now, there is no way that can be defended. Why not criminal damage to promote anything at all, if that is a valid defence….

If you BELIEVE that there is a necessity to do it, and that what you have done is reasonable, then that is a valid defence to the charge of criminal damage in UK law. I expect US law is similar. Here is the relevent section of the UK Act:

…(2)A person charged with an offence to which this section applies, shall, whether or not he would be treated for the purposes of this Act as having a lawful excuse apart from this subsection, be treated for those purposes as having a lawful excuse—
(a)if at the time of the act or acts alleged to constitute the offence he believed that the person or persons whom he believed to be entitled to consent to the destruction of or damage to the property in question had so consented, or would have so consented to it if he or they had known of the destruction or damage and its circumstances; or
(b)if he destroyed or damaged or threatened to destroy or damage the property in question or, in the case of a charge of an offence under section 3 above, intended to use or cause or permit the use of something to destroy or damage it, in order to protect property belonging to himself or another or a right or interest in property which was or which he believed to be vested in himself or another, and at the time of the act or acts alleged to constitute the offence he believed—
(i)that the property, right or interest was in immediate need of protection; and
(ii)that the means of protection adopted or proposed to be adopted were or would be reasonable having regard to all the circumstances….

michael hart

“(i)that the property, right or interest was in immediate need of protection;”

It seems incongruous, to say the least, to argue that climate models with predictions made decades in the future are in any sense requiring the immediate shutting of an oil pipeline. And the fact of actually planning the shutdown including advance ‘consultation’ with the company’s engineers also gives the lie to any claimed sense of immediacy.

menicholas

Dodgy Geezer, your expectations of US law are not based on any knowledge of any actual laws in the US.
Why not do us all a favor and stop repeating the same BS over and over ad nauseum.
We have our own laws over here…ones that make sense.
We do not give terrorists and vandals a pass because they have a good lie to tell.

menicholas

I can tell you that there is not a single statute on the books in the US containing any language such as this:
“having a lawful excuse apart from this subsection, be treated for those purposes as having a lawful excuse”

There is no such thing, no such concept, as a legal excuse in the USD.
you will not find these two words in juxtaposition to each other anywhere in the US code or in any state penal codes.
Period.
Got that?
You are wrong, plain and simple.

menicholas

US laws are not written to protect criminals.
We punish criminals, not people who are victims of crime.

Dodgy Geezer

…Dodgy Geezer, your expectations of US law are not based on any knowledge of any actual laws in the US.
Why not do us all a favor and stop repeating the same BS over and over ad nauseum.
We have our own laws over here…ones that make sense….

Really? I’m surprised!

US and UK laws are very similar. They come from the same base. there would be a requirement in both of these jurisdictions to legalise, for instance, the damage that firefighters may do when entering a building. And the accused in this case under US law is citing an argument I know to exist under English law.

How do you explain that?

waterside4

Michael Hart,
If memory serves me right, did not that arch dildo Hansen not get off Scot free, after trying to sabotage a UK power station some years ago?

Life is a breeze for the dogmatists of the world. They can just be true believers in whatever they wish to believe and have no need to expend the time and energy to learn how anything actually works.

How many of the dogmatists do you reckon understand that without electricity from fossil fuels, nuclear and hydro to power tax-paying productive economic endeavors there would be no money for governments to use to subsidize the so-called “renewables?”

menicholas

They evidently do not have the mental capacity to think that far ahead.
These are people for whom chess is far too complicated, even checkers is for that matter.
I doubt many of them could even muster a decent game of Chinese checkers.
Parcheesi, maybe.
They seem ok at rolling dice.

John W. Garrett

Emily Johnston manifests the fact that many of the climate fruitcakes are anxiety-disordered latent dictators. Given half a chance, they’ll order the rest of us to start goose-stepping.

“The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.”
– H. L. Mencken

Resourceguy

+100

menicholas

Exactly.
On the Twitter feed above is a video.
One of the criminals declares her intent to put an end to fossil fuels, although they also admit what they are doing will not do that, but only possibly get some attention.
These five think they can declare and enforce an end to civilization.

John W. Garrett

Thank you for calling that video to my attention.

It would be fitting if those crackpots succeeded in incinerating themselves.

There is no doubt in my mind that they should be prosecuted for domestic terrorism.

Resourceguy

The pipeline companies need to do a better job of publicizing the terrorist acts to inform the public of what is going on. Then let the Dems come to the defense of the terrorists.

Ethan Brand

“offence he believed”….this language could be used in defense of any destructive act. At any time or place a judge of jury could determine that when I trashed my neighbors lawn mower I was ok, because I convinced them I saved my foot from being torn to shreds…..or that the CO2 emitted by the evil machine was going to kill us all…:)

Dodgy Geezer

Exactly. If you really were convinced, English law provides this as a defence. But you have to be convinced…I think it very likely that the same situation exists under US law, otherwise why would they make the argument?

michael hart

I think that you still have to convince a judge that your actions are those of a reasonable person. Thus the firefighter is acting quite reasonably if he knocks down a locked door to effect a rescue from a burning building.

But the reasonable person/firefighter also tries the door-handle first. And the reasonable person/firefighter does not enter the building with the sole express intent of knocking down a door. They do not wish to knock down the door and will take reasonable precautions to avoid doing so, because they have no desire to commit a potentially unlawful act. Nor will the reasonable person/firefighter return at a later date to knock the door down again after it has been rebuilt…. One can go on and on, but it is patently obvious that the actions of the environmentalist do NOT match the actions and intents of the reasonable person as the law anticipates.

Paul Penrose

Michael Hart is correct; in the US we use the “reasonable person” rule to make these kind of decisions.

Bruce Ploetz

Conveniently there was a pipeline leak right before the PSC hearing to approve the Keystone pipeline through Nebraska. Keystone XL is saying it was “due to a pressure drop in the system”. I wonder if Emily and her eco-terrorist friends had anything to do with it? https://greenjihad.com/2017/11/19/environmentalists-spin-keystone-pipeline-oil-spill/ http://journalstar.com/news/state-and-regional/nebraska/nebraska-ok-s-keystone-xl-pipeline-but-not-its-preferred/article_22dfecd0-1cca-52a1-a076-fd859f875a9b.html Just speculation but the timing seems really suspicious.

The Original Mike M

If there actually was any validity to this “necessity defense” then Ted Kaczynski got a bad rap and should be freed immediately pending his appeal on the same grounds.

Resourceguy

Where do I start a class action lawsuit against Emily for damage to my pipeline investments?

Bruce Cobb

I don’t know what this Minnesota judge thinks he’s doing, allowing the so-called “necessity defence”, but he’s opening a pandora’s box. That way lies tyranny. Once any group can essentially declare itself to be above the law, then law itself is made meaningless.

windmills kill bald eagles and condors. everyone else goes to jail.

I Came I Saw I Left

Terrorism, pure and simple.

ClimateOtter

So we have an argument here from Dodgy Geezer to the effect that there is a British law and possibly a US law, which allows for her to NOT have to prove what she did was due to an emergency.

What I seem to be seeing from that argument is that if emily or ilk cause another Lac-Megantic then all is well, she has a defense.

Am I the only one who believes that UK law is a really bad idea? Or am I missing a particular line in that argument?

JimG1

There is no longer any real law or Hillary would be wearing an orange jump suit. Political opinion has replaced law particularly when leftist judges are involved. This post is more proof of that. Happily the Trumpster is hotly pursuing changing that at the federally appointed judge level.

menicholas

They are charged in multiple states. Only one state has a single judge that will allow them to offered the argument noted.
It is hardly guaranteed that the argument will be successful.
But in the other venues, they cannot even make that ridiculous argument, so they will be convicted…the only question is what the sentences will be.
And Dodgy Geezer has no idea of what he speaks.
US law is so different from British law the similarities are a far shorter list that the differences.
We have no such laws here.
That is why only one place is even allowing the argument to be made.
In Britain, if someone breaks into your house and shoots you, and you shoot them back and they die and you live, you have an excellent chance of going to prison.

Dodgy Geezer

…Am I the only one who believes that UK law is a really bad idea? Or am I missing a particular line in that argument?…

No – you are fairly correct. This is a sensible provision in Common Law on criminal damage, intended, as I said, to render people in emergencies immune from prosecution if they are forced by necessity to do something illegal. And it suffers from this difficulty.

It has been used several times by protesters on both sides of the Atlantic to justify normally illegal activity aimed at preventing (normally government) activity. It was much used during the 1960s by anti-nuclear protesters who damaged nuclear facilities.

I believe the legislators expected that judges and juries would be able to differentiate between someone breaking a car window to release a trapped child and a protester breaking a truck carrying nuclear material. But if you get a judge/jury who are sympathetic to the cause….

perhaps you could suggest some wording which would be better?

Neil MacLeod

I agree with you on this ClimateOtter. Also keeping in mind I believe the U.K. did away with that silly old legal system they had, replacing it with the new modern system of Sharia law.
Therefore I think they should have the offending hands amputated. (sarc)

John Bell

Anyone know how they got to the pipeline? Probably drove an SUV.

I Came I Saw I Left

From her Twitter. I think she’ll find prison life to be simple.

I’ve updated my will & informed friends of what to do with my dog & house & such if I’m suddenly spirited away. I’ve got good friends, is the good news. And family. And I’d like a simple life—but what I’ve got instead is possibly the most purposeful cause in human history.

Paul Penrose

Whenever I see tripe like that, I think of the C.S. Lewis quote on tyranny.

Poor Richard

Perhaps this is an excellent opportunity to put the whole “necessity” business on trial. Wouldn’t a victory for those who support empirical science over computerized wild-*ss guessing be a good thing?

The Original Mike M

ferdberple brought up windmills – If someone sabotaged a windmill at least they would have corpus delicti in the form of eagle carcasses piled up under the thing.

mikewaite

Not just eagles suffering , see reports in :
http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/AccidentStatistics.htm
for example , in recent months :
Maine:
“Dangers of wind towers overlooked”. Article states
that wind turbines represent the greatest potential
danger to Maine’s forest and tourist industry, due to
potential turbine fires. The article claims that each
turbine contains 150-250 gallons (over 1000 litres) of
flammable lubricants, and that the fire risks are not
considered when turbines are approved. It states that
European countries have formed a commission to
develop safety guidelines for wind turbines. The article
states that their 2010 report recommends testing these
lubricants every 2-5 years with a view to their
replacement, and that this recommendation has been
neglected by turbine owners.
Massachusetts
“Massachusetts wind turbines: A Trail of Bloody Tears”.
In Falmouth, up to 200 residents have suffered serious
medical detriments and a huge loss of quality of life
from the noise impacts of the wind turbines. Residents
regularly have to move to their basements to get away
from the noise. Media outlets fail to report suicides,
healtth problems and property devaluations resulting
from nearby wind turbines. One resident committed
suicide in February 2016 after he simply could not take
the noise and impact any more.

Sadly just 2 of many incidents or potential for problems in the site’s accident list .
But just imagine the screams of outrage if anyone lifted a finger against one of these monstrosities.

It’s blatantly obvious that justice in her court case was not a factor, rather that a particular law was interpreted (or perhaps mis-interpreted !!). Therefore the court ruling arrived at should not necessarily be viewed as justice, which in my opinion it certainly was NOT.

Paul Penrose

This case has not be tried yet. The judge merely ruled that she is allowed to present the “necessity defense” for his consideration. If the judge properly uses the “reasonable person” rule, this defense will fail miserably.

marianomarini

… The necessity defence requires that the danger be imminent. She would have to be able to say, ‘We’re all going to die unless I shut down this pipeline right now.’…

Indeed. But the requirement is for her to BELIEVE that, not for it to be unequivocally true.. And she probably does, and would have no difficulty proving such…

No sense! All of us “are going to died”, sooner or later! How long it takes to a pipeline to kill her or one of her friends?

Rascal

Wouldn’t “imminent” imply an outcome that would occur before any quali8fied personnel could respond?

Let’s face it we are ALL going to die sooner or later, regardless of actions! That does not make our deaths “imminent”.

scribblerg

That’s a good thing. The prosecutor needs to attack the basis of her necessity. She invites putting climate change on trial. All the lies and contrary evidence and model failure and data rigging can go on the record. A good courtroom could provide a great platform for the facts to come out. Just like that creationist trial about 8-9 years ago, some school district in PA. Seriously good judge got hold of it and simply held the everyone to rules of arguing a case, from having valid evidence to a theory and back. With everything subject to examination by the other party. The creationists brought all their big guns, and were beat like a drum. The judge wrote a 30 page opinion, summarizing how awful the arguments of the creationists were, and how dishonest they were.

Trials like this could be the same. Sure, allow a necessity defense. Now prove necessity. Good luck.

Dodgy Geezer

….That’s a good thing. The prosecutor needs to attack the basis of her necessity. She invites putting climate change on trial. All the lies and contrary evidence and model failure and data rigging can go on the record…

NO! There is NO REQUIREMENT for the danger to actually exist!

This is a defence based on belief. You have to believe that there is a danger, and believe that this is a reasonable way of addressing it. And it is, I think, likely that she believes that climate change is a danger. That’s all she needs…

In the US, the danger must exist. According to the nolo.com legal encyclopedia, the necessity defense in the US must meet the following criteria:

“Normally, to establish a necessity defense—a tall order—a defendant must prove that:
there was a specific threat of significant, imminent danger
there was an immediate necessity to act
there was no practical alternative to the act
the defendant didn’t cause or contribute to the threat
he or she acted out of necessity at all times, and
the harm caused wasn’t greater than the harm prevented.”

You need to get out of your head the idea that US law is the same as UK law in this case. It isn’t.

Here’s what the prosecution should do: during the initial testimony by the defendant, the DA asks if she was at all influenced by The Hockey Stick. More than likely she says yes, then he brings out a group of scientists from Mark Steyn’s book “A Disgrace to Their Profession” who demonstrate why the hockey stick is wrong, how it was based on one tree’s worth of data, etc. The DA then turns the whole thing into CAGW’s Scopes Money Trial, bringing in experts on the skeptic side and putting the whole climate change catastrophe scam on trial.

A guy can dream, can’t he?

Tom Judd

Honest, your Honour, the reason I was pleasuring myself in front of everybody at the community swimming pool is because I wanted to graphically warn everybody, in the most powerful way imaginable, what they’re going to encounter if they look for a job in Hollywood.

Dodgy Geezer

It’s a defence against the charge of CRIMINAL DAMAGE.

If you had broken a window at the swimming pool then you could try to show that you really believed that Hollywood had dangerous broken windows, and that this was a reasonable way to warn people about it….

Sara

Didn’t Heinlein call these ‘the crazy years’, or something?

They were supposed to be in the 1970s, and by now the US was in the grip of a religious dictatorship. But even RAH couldn’t get as crazy as reality. Here’s his list of “crazy headlines”:

BABY BILL BREAKS BANK
2-year toddler youngest winner $1,000,000 TV jackpot
White House phones congrats

COURT ORDERS STATEHOUSE SOLD
Colorado Supreme Bench Rules State Old Age Pension Has First Lien All State Property

N.Y. YOUTH MEET DEMANDS UPPER LIMIT ON FRANCHISE

“U.S. BIRTH RATE ‘TOP SECRET’”—DEFENSE SEC

CAROLINA CONGRESSMAN COPS BEAUTY CROWN
“Available for draft for President” she announces while starting tour to show her qualifications

IOWA RAISES VOTING AGE TO FORTY-ONE
Rioting on Des Moines Campus

EARTH-EATING FAD MOVES WEST: CHICAGO PARSON EATS CLAY SANDWICH IN PULPIT
“Back to simple things,” he advises flock.

LOS ANGELES HIGH SCHOOL MOB DEFIES SCHOOL BOARD
“Higher Pay, Shorter Hours, No Homework — We Demand Our Right to Elect Teachers, Coaches.”

SUICIDE RATE UP NINTH SUCCESSIVE YEAR
AEC Denies Fall-Out to Blame

Curious George

The religion is called eco-logy, not eco-logic, for an excellent reason. What’s missing is missing.

markl

This isn’t the first go around for the fossil fuel fanatics and it won’t end until/if we run out or the UN gives up their attempts to rule the world. In other words…… not in our or several generations’ lifetime at the earliest.

Steve Oregon

Here’s another one of them using the “Justified defense”.
Leonard Higgins is a retired Oregon state government employee. He was convicted Wednesday, Nov. 22, in a Montana court on felony charges carrying up to ten years in prison for shutting off the emergency valve on the Enbridge (formerly Spectra) tar sands pipeline.

The Oregogian published his excuse.

‘Valve-turners’ putting lives on the line for our climate emergency: Guest opinion

http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2017/11/valve-turners_putting_lives_on.html#incart_2box_opinion

Tom Judd

Honest, Judge, it really wasn’t armed bank robbery that I was engaged in. I was merely evaluating the security systems at the bank to ensure that the depositors funds were properly safeguarded. It was a good deed. And, I felt that for maximum realism I should have life ammunition in my sawed off shotgun. And, after all, if some idiot at the bank, such as a security guard, didn’t realize I was performing a public good, well, I sort of also needed the gun for personal defense, didn’t I? My armed bank robbery was truly a public good.

Dodgy Geezer

How many times do I need to explain that it’s a defence which can be used ONLY with a charge of Criminal Damage?

Rainer Bensch

But she isn’t accused in the UK. So it’s off topic.

Davies

No, that would be “wealth redistribution”, politicians, elected or not, all the way up to the UN do it every day.

Michael Jankowski

I feel sorry for such stupidity.

Curiois to know whose “scary scenario” teachings led her and her friends down this poisonous path.

Bill Powers

How old is Emil?, She seems to be suffering the same disease “knowitallitis” that I suffered from in my early20’s. It is a juvenile illness that grows most acute between the ages of 18 to 28. The lost decade.

Patrick MJD

In males, the reasoning brain is barely mature at 25. Females are supposed to be a little more mature at this sort of age.

Actions usually have consequences. I suspect however that she will be “let off” with a slap over the wrist with a wet bus ticket, if a case ever actually goes to court.

Gunga Din

Didn’t they used to call this “the insanity defense”?

Roger Knights

More like the inanity defense.

G. Karst

Too bad the law doesn’t allow exile to N. Korea for rehabilitation. GK

Gamecock

‘Special pleading is often a result of strong emotional beliefs that interfere with reason.’

For her necessity defense to succeed, she must show that there was immediate risk. Her assertion of ‘climate change is not only an imminent threat; it is an existing catastrophe’ not withstanding.

The prosecution can simply ask her what changed as a result of her action. For it to be justified as a necessity, she must show what positive effect it had in preventing what she claimed was the risk.

Uh, oh. Nothing changed. Prepare her cell.

Mark - Helsinki

She spent a long time planning, and there were 4 other people, that defence just wont fly

tgmccoy

New fed sheriff in town-the next judge may not be so “friendly”..
This is terrorism, Look up “Tre Arrow” and see what i mean..

Billy

If she truly believes in the righteousness of her cause, she should demand the maximum sentence under the law as Gandhi did. If she really believes she is saving the world, the maximum sacrifice on her part would be evidence of her commitment.
She wants to save the world without being personally inconvenienced. A virtue signalling hypocrite.

Tom Anderson

This is how noble-cause corruption, a scofflaw excuse that degrades the rule of law.

Under the Rule of Law everyone is presumed to know the law, all are equal before the law, none are above the law. (Nor even your noblest excuse.)

So far as the Rule is flouted there will be disorder.

Bitter&Twisted

Bang the b1tch up.
She is a terrorist.
End of story.

Resourceguy

Send her on a hiking trip to Afghanistan.

Mark - Helsinki

No, Congo