Home | About | Donate

Judge Drops Charges Against 13 Who Argued Pipeline Civil Disobedience Action Was "Necessary" to Save Planet


#1

Judge Drops Charges Against 13 Who Argued Pipeline Civil Disobedience Action Was "Necessary" to Save Planet

Andrea Germanos, staff writer

Climate activists are cheering after a district judge in Boston on Tuesday ruled that 13 fossil fuel pipeline protesters were not responsible for any infraction because of the necessity of their actions.

Bill McKibben, who was slated to be an expert witness in their case, tweeted a celebratory "Good golly!' in response to the ruling, adding, "This may be a first in America. "


#2

NOTE TO ALL: LOOK AT THE MEDIAN AGES OF THOSE COURAGEOUS FOLKS IN THIS PIX. [YOU FIND THE MEDIAN AGE BY DIVIDING GREY HAIRS BY PIXELS]

But wait…these people are stealing the future of millennials because they commit the crimes of receiving Social Security and Medicare (two socialist programs that they have been paying into for tmost of heir lives).

SOLIDARIY!!!


#3

This article made me think of a great quote I read the other day. It went like this:

“Hope has two beautiful daughters; their names are Anger and Courage. Anger at the way things are, and Courage to see that they do not remain as they are.”

― Augustine of Hippo

These people showed both their anger and their courage and by doing so give hope to the world. I salute them.


#4

Awesome, awesome! Congrats to all of them! Thank you Judge Driscoll!


#5

Now, we need to start to have similar rulings by judges in the Rocky Mountain states, the Great Plains, etc. The West is where much of the action is, and some of the judges are total asshole reactionaries on these type of cases. People are getting felonies for stuff like this, and it messes up their lives. Thankfully these folks walked. Most don’t. The Unites States is INSANE over these types of crimes, it is one of the things, other than say, Trump, we can show to the world to display our collective mental illness that’s been a part of the “American property fetish” since the first theft and rape of the natives.


#6

The principled protesters against the “AIM” high-pressure gas pipeline running thru the Indian Point nuclear facility in NY should also have their charges dropped - be exonerated! At the very least this is a legal precedent the Cortlandt, NY judge must/should consider, and protesters still facing trial should use in their legal defense!

"Defying the law to halt the Algonquin pipeline expansion was necessary for public safety, according to nine people who face criminal charges for their efforts to stop the project.

“The group, calling itself “the Montrose Nine” have pleaded not guilty to disorderly conduct charges for allegedly disrupting traffic”. ENOUGH! FREE THEM ALL NOW!


#7

Indeed. Note that the necessity defense was rejected in the case of Michael Foster, who cut through a fence and closed a shut-off valve on the Keystone Pipeline in North Dakota back in 2016.


#8

It’s really disturbing. There was a guy who was an Oregon State Worker (can’t remember his name) who was recently appealing a ten years sentence for a similar act.
I don’t think in this day and age your “average American” fat blob consumer in SUV" can even comprehend any of this. Because of the consumerist culture backed up by cops, etc. most of the people in the country are dead to all of this.
It’s a lot worse than anything I could have thought of back when I was 14 in 72 and the environmental movement was taking off. A huge portion of the nation has just gotten exponentially worse in their gluttony, beyond what I grew up with in the 60’s. The contrast is so striking, and quite angering to me. What a wretched path the country has taken…


#9

#NoMore.


#10

Judge Driscoll has ruled in favor of the people and the environment, expect her to be removed from the bench in the future.


#11

Reason for Necessity? You want to talk about necessity? How about tomorrow the USA no longer uses any oil and gas products for the whole day. Lets see what happens. I’m all for transitioning, but these actions taken were extremely reckless and they were made with ZERO alternatives to oil and gas. You cannot stop production without substituting the product. If you do, tomorrow you may notice the inability to literally do anything with any product you own. That’s what real necessity looks like…

Instead of disrupting pressure changes in pipelines, how about instead you actually look towards developing biomass technology to replace petrochemicals. THATS WHAT REAL CHANGE IS.


#12

You know why youre getting felonies? Because you are altering a device that has the potential to cause massive harm. There is actually quite a bit of engineering that goes into pipeline construction, which is why you have particular employees that are trained to know how to make alterations.

Liquids are generally incompressible by nature, which means when you just turn off a valve on a very long pipeline the momentum of the liquid will cause it to smash into itself will unbelievable force and cause a shockwave throughout the pipe. Depending on the severity of the pressure change you rupture pipe at your location or another location 5 miles down the pipe. Additionally you can also cause pressure loss in which you induce a vaccum and pull dissolved gases out of solution. Considering the fact the material is already a volatile liquid this a problem that can result in an exothermic reaction or explosion.

Last time I checked, none of these individuals were pipeline engineers. None of these individuals had the specs of the pipe or knew the pressure rating of the pipe. That is already extreme negliance, except that they preformed their act with preconceived malice- hence the reason for a felony charge.


#13

Well said! Me too!


#14

Yeah a pipeline engineer, unlike you, would have known all systems are protected against water (oil) hammer.


#15

Utter nonsense.

The US economy and society use far, Far, FAR MORE ENERGY than is necessary for the health and welfare of all. MASSIVE waste and “junk production” throughout the economy. Plain fact is, we can indeed immediately “stop production” on vast quantities of useless junk without “substituting the product,” and suffer not at all. Only benefit.

And the ecological crisis these heroes are responding to goes WAY BEYOND any risk from disrupting the industrial economy. Watch the ecology collapse – which, in case you are so blind or blinkered that you do not know, is ALREADY UNDERWAY. As one example, animal wildlife today is literally LESS THAN HALF, WORLDWIDE, compared to what it was when i was born. THAT is true necessity.


#16

Ignorance is bliss, right up to the end. We are the same age, as I turned 15 in '72. I was already active in anti-war marches and attended the first Earth Day. By the time we finished high school, Nixon was disgraced, the war was “over,” and the EPA was established. Enforcement of civil rights seemed to be waxing. It felt like the kind of progress that justified progressivism (and locked mine in). By 1980, the neoliberal tide had turned, and by '84 it was ascendant and inevitable. My career in environmental science made little real difference, although we did clean up some stuff and I felt it was “good work.” Fast-forward 30-plus years of drug wars, foreign wars, globalized capital trumping the regulation of its excesses and answerable to no one, and I just feel disappointed and pissed off most of the time. I take some encouragement from the decision that is the subject of this thread, and from the March for Our Lives, but I’m far from optimistic, not given what I feel is yet to come.

Alas, forgive the rant.


#17

This aptly named “American property fetish” needs serious inspection, I’ve always thought. It links together ecologicalviolence, xenophobia, class stratification, alienation and the pandemic of psychological isolation.


#18

yes, but should we need to thank a judge for doing her/his job fairly and with honesty? of course, when so many fail the people, those who act as they should are the exception to the rule.

sad that


#19

YEOWEEEE!! Morality wins! Banksters slither.


#20

Oh yes, we’ve seen this many times, the logical fallacy of reductio ad absurdum. Your argument is fallacious.

There’s plenty of already available carbon resources to carry us through any transition to a carbon-free economy. At this point, all fossil fuels not already tapped need to be left in the ground.