.jpg){kind=link}
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.
…
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.
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.
Terrorism, pure and simple.
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?
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.
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.
…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?
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)
Anyone know how they got to the pipeline? Probably drove an SUV.
From her Twitter. I think she’ll find prison life to be simple.
Whenever I see tripe like that, I think of the C.S. Lewis quote on tyranny.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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”.
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.
….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?
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.
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….
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
The religion is called eco-logy, not eco-logic, for an excellent reason. What’s missing is missing.
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.
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
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.
How many times do I need to explain that it’s a defence which can be used ONLY with a charge of Criminal Damage?
But she isn’t accused in the UK. So it’s off topic.
No, that would be “wealth redistribution”, politicians, elected or not, all the way up to the UN do it every day.
I feel sorry for such stupidity.
Curiois to know whose “scary scenario” teachings led her and her friends down this poisonous path.
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.
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.
Didn’t they used to call this “the insanity defense”?
More like the inanity defense.
Too bad the law doesn’t allow exile to N. Korea for rehabilitation. GK
‘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.
She spent a long time planning, and there were 4 other people, that defence just wont fly
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..
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.
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.
Bang the b1tch up.
She is a terrorist.
End of story.
Send her on a hiking trip to Afghanistan.
No, Congo