Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Judge Mary Ann Driscoll has dismissed criminal charges against protestors including Al Gore’s daughter on the grounds that their actions were necessary to prevent climate change.
Judge sets aside charges in pipeline protest
Jordan Graham Thursday, March 29, 2018
…
The protesters, including Karenna Gore, the daughter of former Vice President Al Gore, were facing charges of trespassing and disturbing the peace after climbing into a construction trench. On Tuesday, prosecutors asked a judge to convert the criminal charges into civil infractions, saying in the event of a conviction they were unlikely to ask for any further punishment. After allowing the motion, Judge Mary Ann Driscoll found the defendants not responsible, saying she agreed with their argument that their actions were necessary to combat climate change.
“Based on the very heartfelt expressions of the defendants who believe, and I don’t question their beliefs in any respect, who believe in their cause because they believe they were entitled to invoke the necessity defense, I’ll accept what they said,” Driscoll said.
…
This finding echoes a similar judgement in England in 2008, in which protestors were cleared of causing £30,000 of criminal damage because necessity defence.
Not guilty: the Greenpeace activists who used climate change as a legal defence
Six Greenpeace climate change activists have been cleared of causing £30,000 of criminal damage at a coal-fired power station in a verdict that is expected to embarrass the government and lead to more direct action protests against energy companies.
The jury of nine men and three women at Maidstone crown court cleared the six by a majority verdict. Five of the protesters had scaled a 200-metre chimney at Kingsnorth power station, Hoo, Kent, in October last year.
The activists admitted trying to shut down the station by occupying the smokestack and painting the word “Gordon” down the chimney, but argued that they were legally justified because they were trying to prevent climate change causing greater damage to property around the world. It was the first case in which preventing property damage caused by climate change had been used as part of a “lawful excuse” defence in court. It is now expected to be used more widely by environment groups.
…
Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2008/sep/11/activists.kingsnorthclimatecamp
If activists take this in my opinion ridiculous court process as a green light to interfere with fossil fuel installations, fossil fuel companies could suffer economic losses.
It might even lead to loss of life – sneaking onto active worksites, jumping into construction trenches, closing valves without warning on high pressure pipelines and scaling smokestacks is dangerous, both for the activists themselves and for any workers caught up with trying to save activists from their own stupidity.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Worth mentioning is that Obama left something like 140 federal judgeships vacant after he left Office. No doubt, Obama was not in a hurry to appoint these judges because he thought Hillary would follow him and complete the job of appointing a bunch of leftists to the Court.
But No! Trump won the election and now Trump gets to appoint all those judges to the federal bench. Trump thanked Obama for this gift in his last speech the other day.
Trump has already appointed many federal judges with many more to come.
So they can stop climate change?
Funny I thought there was only One God.
Guess I didn’t get the memo.
That ordinary people can be gods too.
And all it takes is a Judge to Ordain it.
Can I be a God too?
Probably not. They already said they want to send me to climate denier he–.
And, Google Maps still can’t find a place called climate denier he–.
LOL< I remember the PBS series, "I, Claudius" in which all Roman Emperors of the time were considered Gods. IN the end of the series, when Claudius died, he was visited by Caligula, who had embraced the 'divinity'. His comment, "I'm not a God, could have knocked me over with a feather when they told me."
A very interesting blog post, but, from my position of sloppiness, as I have to admit, as I am going purely in and by the means of memory, and all in this point depends on how good the memory serves me when so many years gone by…..
Eric please do understand that I am relying only in my memory without double checking.
Eric you have drawn a parallel line between a time in the past UK court decision and a fresh USA court decision, or a verdict , in a similar matter of green activists actions.
As far as I can tell, that is a very striking valid similarity….if my memory serves me right, where actually the UK case was very much weighted in the given position of the Prosecution, where a clear and unacceptable action in the part of prosecution became also a public scandal, where the prosecution was found to have illegally withholding crucial evidence from the defense and the court.
So as according to my memory, if this happens to be the case, I think you got to clarify this, as this happens to be your blog post and your responsibility.
But then again if it happens not to be as I think it is, according to the above you have no much substance in trying to draw parallels in between these two cases, because that possibly only contemplated in the position of the prosecution, when in the UK case the prosecution gravely mishandled the case, and in the USA case the prosecution maybe overreacted, similar, even when not same.
I hope that you Eric take the time and pain to clarify this, as per my position I think that if a clarification needed, than you really have to take it seriously, as otherwise it could be very misleading.
Still, I must say, that all this from my prospect is based only in the clause of “how good my memory serves me”, as I at this point am not relying in my own search and double checks…..
Thanks
cheers
because they believe they were entitled to invoke the necessity defense, I’ll accept what they said,” Driscoll said.
I hope that works with the IRS.
MarkW @ur momisugly March 31, 2018 at 7:02 am:
“Leftists have always considered themselves to be above the law.
No it’s official.”
There appears to be a type of mindset in the U.S. among self-righteous elitists which has emerged recently. The election of Donald Trump as U.S. president has perhaps triggered it. These elitists have apparently awarded themselves licenses to selectively cherry-pick when laws are to be enforced and when they aren’t in different issues, cases or situations. We are seeing it not just with this case in Massachusetts, but in the sanctuary cities issue for undocumented aliens as well.
The judges, state and local politicians and activists who are riding on this high horse of self-righteousness, virtuosity and morality with their display of arrogance and elitism does indeed lead them to place themselves above the law. The belief system or ideology they embrace which they use to decide when laws apply and when they don’t only serves to undermine the very purpose of our legal system and its effectiveness. The potential danger involved from seeing this come about would of course depend on how far they intend to go with it and how successful they might be.
The application of selective cherry-picking to the enforcement of the law by these individuals is no doubt triggered to some degree or other by their dislike (hated?) of Donald Trump. The problem here is that when emotional devotion to belief systems kick in and are used this way, we humans have history of going down a road that has a bad outcome. Some might argue that we are already on our way to seeing it in California.
Sooo, the next logical conclusion is it’s ok to sacrifice(kill) someone for the good of the planet in eye of the law? Or maybe just imprison them evil souls before proper disposal?
Only problem is the “unsustainability” of virgins to through into the volcano. Maybe a virgin tax will help? 🙂
Lance of BC
March 31, 2018 at 11:52 am
Lance, witch hunting still is witch hunting, regardless the color of the witch….and hunting is the main clause when civility and civilization considered!
The civility cares and address the “hunt” much more seriously than with a case of a “witch” or whatever else associated with it,,,, the “hunt”.
“It’s not a crime if you believe it, Jerry.”
It is ironic that this happened in Boston. Under this Judge’s analysis, I suppose the Boston Marathon Bombers were also innocent.
Note to the fossil fuel industry: follow all laws exactly and jump through all regulatory hurdles precisely, regardless how mendacious and time consuming, or be subject to debilitating legal and social retribution. And by the way, at the end of the day we can, of course, choose to shut you down anyway because feelings & justice & stuff.
Note to eco-terrorists: don’t worry, we got your back.
It’s past the point of absurdity now. I am becoming genuinely afraid. What recourse will a private consultant – like me – or a business with multiple employees have when an activist destroys the equipment necessary to operate? The courts, both criminal and civil, appear to be heading to the position wherein the destruction of my livelihood will be allowed simply because an eco-terrorist “believes” that what they are doing is necessary to prevent some undefined potential future problem.
As far as can be told at this time, the judges decision has not actually been issued, made public, or published.
Advocates for the protesters have claimed a certain result — which according to The Independent (UK) is NOT TRUE.
The criminal charges were dropped and they were in the end charged with to “civil infractions” (like a jaywalking ticket).
The judge then [maybe] found them ‘not responsible’ — why we don’t know yet — the ruling will be published and filed as a official act. Until then, we just don’t know.
This similar to the cheering from skeptics in the ExxonKnew San Francisco trial, where claims were made the the judge had issued a partial ruling the dismissed part of the case. That too is apparently Not True.
Kip
I Wouldn’t belive anything published in the Independent. Nor any other newspaper in the UK. They are all infused with the same left wing, chicken licken bias.
Hot ==> The purpose of the quote is that some reporter actually tried to get an official confirmation of the “verdict”…. and got someone in the court to talk and wrote “However, one member of the court’s staff who asked not to be named, confirmed to The Independent the judge had found them not responsible. The person denied, however, that the judge had made the ruling on the grounds of legal necessity.”
So, yeah, as I said — we will have to wait for some official statement or document to be released…otherwise we are dealing with RUMORS.
So…the judge found them innocent by reason of insanity because she is also insane? 😎
(SOMEBODY had to say it!)
On the basis of this judgement, anti-abortion activists should be able to shut down abortion providers without legal penalties.
Ahaaa… a false story about false acquittal Kip? Maybe Russian agiprop? Hehe!
Anywho, by the group photo it makes you wonder how these people meet and plan their trench raid? Do they need a handicab to get there or walker assessable ramps to get into said trench?
We will fight them in the trenches in the level lands and the mole hillz! Oh the horrors of the trench, hilly and maybe muddy and no wifi, fighting for that 1 or 2 degrees in a hundred years or so!!! Which everyway we’ll all be dead!!!! Victory!! 🙂
Honestly how can these judges expect compliance with their orders when they obviously excuse law breaking? Are we all now to choose which laws we disagree with and break them?
Honestly how can these judges expect compliance with their orders when they obviously excuse law breaking? Are we all now to choose which laws we disagree with and break them?
on high sea and before court, you are in God’s hands, is an old German saying.
And sometimes he delays action…
Climate change made me do it.
I am sure that ISIS supporters believe in what they do as well.
In fact, ISIS terrorists show more commitment.
The only way we can stop judicial lunacy is to break into this woman’s home and trash it. I sincerely believe this — it’s a necessity, gnome sayin’?
This opens up some ugly possibilities, and it should be shut down before it comes to it’s (il)logical conclusion…
* “climate change activist” comes yelling+screaming at you
* you pull out a gun and fill them with lead
* at your murder trial your defense is that “you feared for your life”
* when judge asks why you didn’t flee and call police, point to this incident as cause for reasonable belief that if “climate change activist” killed you, they wouldn’t be convicted of murder, and therefore they had nothing to fear if they killed you
This decision is the first step to anarchy.
I used to believe you were innocent until proven guilty. Why does the judge accept climate change as a defence if the crime of climate vandalism has not been proven in court beyond all reasonable doubt?
This biassed and ignorant judge has accepted climate change as proven when it has never even been tested in court and the nearest thing to it has been thrown out.
Aside from all the fair criticism generated at this decision, there’s one particularly head scratching element not yet mentioned — Gore et al were disrupting the construction of a *natural gas* pipeline. The increased use of natural gas from fracking has displaced other fossil fuels and caused CO2 emissions to be *lower* — I don’t think that’s necessarily desirable in itself, but since Gore et al certainly do, the necessity defense seems particularly poor. Further, in the absence of a pipeline the demand for gas won’t go away, it will instead be transported by rail and truck — consuming more fossil fuels in the process.
If you were single-mindedly and religiously devoted to reducing the horrifying impact of the world getting slightly warmer very gradually, logically you should support both fracking and pipelines.
Where are the checks and balance on the judicial branch? Industry needs to fight back and give these morons what they want, no fossil fuels.
Weak moraled judge
A good judge… 🙂
From:
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/what-the-necessity-defense.html
Normally, to establish a necessity defense—a tall order—a defendant must prove that:
there was a specific threat of significant, imminent danger’
She wasn’t stopping the threat. She was trespassing and disturbing the peace. Her actions CANNOT be construed as having had any capability of stopping “climate change.”
‘there was an immediate necessity to act’
Not really.
‘there was no practical alternative to the act’
The ballot box. Oh . . . you lost, Honey.
‘the defendant didn’t cause or contribute to the threat’
M’Kay.
‘he or she acted out of necessity at all times, and
the harm caused wasn’t greater than the harm prevented.’
She didn’t prevent anything. She was showing her heiny to the world.
From justia.com:
‘The defendant must reasonably have believed that there was an actual and specific threat that required immediate action’
What threat was jumping a fence supposed to stop?
‘The defendant must have had no realistic alternative to completing the criminal act’
Going home was a realistic alternative.
‘The harm caused by the criminal act must not be greater than the harm avoided’
No harm was avoided, nor could it be.
‘The defendant did not himself contribute to or cause the threat’
K.
Finding – quickly – two legal definitions of the necessity defense, it appears our judge is out in Left field, applying her policy preferences, and not a legal determination. To wit, as commentators above have said, the court is now free to do whatever it wants.
The US is literally descending into anarchy, chaos and lawlessness. It appears that each member of the judiciary now operates as some sort of independent Robber Baron. If you guys don’t start taking these lunatics down there are going to be dire consequences indeed.
The real problem of course is the stupidocraty. The schools have utterly failed to form citizens with the ability to use reason. Of course many Americans have reason but it’s probably a nice accident that school has not undermined it (it’s probably much worse in Europe).
There is one good reason for rejecting 911 trutherism: it’s BS. Not that bad acts by US agencies are fundamentally implausible. The rate of rejecting of 911 trutherism does not represent the rate of rejection of the ridiculous claims (of “free fall” or “easiest path”); they represent the conjonction of the rejection of the absurd physical claims and rejection of the idea of US agencies conspiring to hide the truth (that I consider more plausible). Same for any ridiculous “Apollo is fake” claim (ignorance and lack of logic). But my musing in the stupidic(*) land of Apollo rejection showed that many people who defended the fact “Moon landings are real” lacked the ability to use logic correctly (some going as far as implying that if you reject the Moon landings, you cannot use any NASA measurement of any probe, ever – and that passed for sound defense of the Apollo missions, among “rationalists”!).
(*) stupidic doesn’t spell check (I just made it up), but neither does “ideation”
But there is no short path to reject trutherism: you need to evaluate the technical claims. Or at least a sampling of it (you don’t have to eat an egg completely to determine it’s rotten).
Why would all claims of NASA re: Apollo be true? They don’t have to be if only because among the piles of documents some minor errors can be made (and I believe one was found as a few Apollo photos had incorrect meta data).
It’s never “ideation” to claim that some claim from an official, well respected (**) body must be false.
(**) The respect for NASA went down, but I believe NASA was quite respected at the time.
But any person with a modicum of common sense and basic physics knowledge should be able to see that some claims by each of these truther groups are preposterous. And conclude that these people are full of it.
The same goes for some ridiculous claims of CDC about the usefulness of some vaccines (sometime against infections that occur at a rate on the order of one per 100,000 children in the US, an implicit claim that serious side effect rate is largely below that level, a ridiculous claim for any drug).
And some SkS claims so preposterous I don’t know how they get away with it (readers of SkS should be some vague understanding of high school physics). I like the SkS claim that while electronic thermometers emit heat, that’s fine because there is thermal isolation around the electronic device: according to that naive description, there would be not way for the heat to escape from the electronic device, ever. The temp should rise to infinity. Literally.
CDC, SkS, truthers, they belong in the same bag. Of course the skepticism of some “skeptic” or “rationalist” groups is more targeted to truthers or the craziest critics of vaccines (“mind control” BS) than to equally dishonest and inept SkS, CDC and other promoters of many drugs with marginal benefits (which is pretty much all drugs used for prevention).
The most abject lack of logic I have witness were among defenders of vaccines, defenders of Apollo, opponents of Apollo, truthers and proponents of “gun control”.
So, what about if the protestors destroy the judge’s car or house or whatever, because of climate change. That’s OK, right? Just saying what a slippery slope……..