For the "Climate Change" crowd.

[Gruesome]

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/cleared-jury-decides-that-threat-of-global-warming-justifies-breaking-the-law-925561.html


Thoughts...?

It makes me question the definition of "normal people".

[Swift]

From the linked article
The threat of global warming is so great that campaigners were justified in causing more than £35,000 worth of damage to a coal-fired power station, a jury decided yesterday. In a verdict that will have shocked ministers and energy companies the jury at Maidstone Crown Court cleared six Greenpeace activists of criminal damage.

Jurors accepted defence arguments that the six had a "lawful excuse" to damage property at Kingsnorth power station in Kent to prevent even greater damage caused by climate change. The defence of "lawful excuse" under the Criminal Damage Act 1971 allows damage to be caused to property to prevent even greater damage – such as breaking down the door of a burning house to tackle a fire.

I'm not familiar with UK law and the "lawful excuse" defense. To me, two wrongs (GW and destroying property) don't make a right. But it has nothing to do with GW and doesn't lessen the evidence of that. It just proves Greenpeace is a bunch of idiots.

[jj_0001]

Perhaps the "damage", i.e. painting the stack, was regarded as much less than L35000 damage?

[nauthiz]

Perhaps the "damage", i.e. painting the stack, was regarded as much less than L35000 damage?

Yeah, I imagine the court ruled that the power company's decision to use Donald Trump brand 14k paint to cover the graffiti was their own problem.

[geonuc]

US criminal law has the common law doctrine of 'necessity' as a defense against otherwise unlawful acts. Its intent very closely matches that of the statutory UK 'lawful excuse' clause: protection of persons or property from greater harm justifies intentional damage to property. The US law applies to situations where the impending harm is natural, such as throwing cargo overboard to lighten a ship that is foundering in a storm.

At first blush, I think in this case the UK jury's decision extended the scope of the statute to acts beyond what the parliament intended.

[Paracelsus]

From the linked article

I'm not familiar with UK law and the "lawful excuse" defense. To me, two wrongs (GW and destroying property) don't make a right. But it has nothing to do with GW and doesn't lessen the evidence of that. It just proves Greenpeace is a bunch of idiots.

Agreed. Environmentalists like this give the rest of us a bad name. They are no different than the PETA crowd who go around throwing paint on people's mink coats. Picketing a coal plant is perfectly acceptable; razing it to the ground is not.

[JustAFriend]

Unfortunately, this gives the ELF crowd that was burning SUV car lots and housing subdivisions a legal precedent that they can use in future trials.

Very, very, very stupid and dangerous. Hopefully the ruling will be overturned.

[Disinfo Agent]

For the "Climate Change" crowd.What does this news have to do with "the climate change crowd"? Who is the climate change crowd, anywho?

Thoughts...?Point...?

[Neverfly]

What does this news have to do with "the climate change crowd"? Who is the climate change crowd, anywho?
It's the title to the thread.

Point...?

To find out what other people think.

[Disinfo Agent]

It's the title to the thread.I am inquiring why that title was chosen.

To find out what other people think.About what? A court ruling? What could a ruling in a court possibly prove about climate change, or about "the climate change crowd"?

[BigDon]

Unfortunately, this gives the ELF crowd that was burning SUV car lots and housing subdivisions a legal precedent that they can use in future trials.

Very, very, very stupid and dangerous. Hopefully the ruling will be overturned.

Two different countries hommes. I'm a good citizen where I live yet would have to do decades in jail in Britain just from my shooting and survival equipment.

It isn't the "United States of Earth" just yet.

[geonuc]

Unfortunately, this gives the ELF crowd that was burning SUV car lots and housing subdivisions a legal precedent that they can use in future trials.

Very, very, very stupid and dangerous. Hopefully the ruling will be overturned.
Probably not. Precedents come from appellate decisions, not trial court decisions. At least that's the way it is in the US and I suspect the UK is similar.

Wait for the appeal.

[Larry Jacks]

<I>Two different countries hommes. I'm a good citizen where I live yet would have to do decades in jail in Britain just from my shooting and survival equipment.

It isn't the "United States of Earth" just yet.</i>

Not yet, Don. However, there are some Supreme Court justices who think they should be able to cherry-pick foreign precedence in making their rulings. Of course, they'll only cite the foreign rulings that agree with their opinions and ignore those that don't.

[alexvorn2]

Some one just want to make money on this.

[chrissy]

Here is something to make you think about "graffiti" the laws here for it :D Graffiti laws (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4878686.stm) I don't think that would pay the bill to remove what they are wanting, unless it is blackmail money for "GORDON" to go? ;)

[mugaliens]

Remind me never to drive my car in the UK for fear that it'll be "justifiably disabled."

[Neverfly]

Remind me never to drive my car in the UK for fear that it'll be "justifiably disabled."

never ever ever ever take your hands off the wheel ever.
It's the LAW!

[pzkpfw]

Similar issues in the local news (with an international flavour).

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4692556a11.html

Synopsis: court action for attackers of "spy base"; possible defence.

[Gruesome]

US criminal law has the common law doctrine of 'necessity' as a defense against otherwise unlawful acts. Its intent very closely matches that of the statutory UK 'lawful excuse' clause: protection of persons or property from greater harm justifies intentional damage to property. The US law applies to situations where the impending harm is natural, such as throwing cargo overboard to lighten a ship that is foundering in a storm.

At first blush, I think in this case the UK jury's decision extended the scope of the statute to acts beyond what the parliament intended.


I find this respose, under all scopes, brilliant.

I'm not sure that global warming, or climate chage, could possibly construed, in any legal sense, as "impending harm". Global warming, however important it may be, is neither a house-fire nor the wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald.

These folks were not Bruce Willis and Ben Affleck. No lives were saved by the actions of the defendants. I'm just not convinced that the promotion of a particular scientific theory, regardless of what Michael Bay would have us otherwise believe, deserves a legal exemption for the 'destruction' of property.

[Careless]

Ok, a bunch of things people don't understand here:Unfortunately, this gives the ELF crowd that was burning SUV car lots and housing subdivisions a legal precedent that they can use in future trials.

Very, very, very stupid and dangerous. Hopefully the ruling will be overturned.

This is no precedent for anything legally. It was a jury decision, not a judicial decision.

As for this being a justification for destroying cars, yes: the jury voted that their own cars could be legally destroyed. They're morons (sadly, usually redundant when discussing seated jury members).

As for the justification, it makes good sense. The problem is that global warming is divorced from that sort of analysis to a ridiculous degree. The jurors couldn't even have a reasonable expectation that global warming would be harmful.

Anyway, Parliament could reverse it (supremacy of Parliament=Congress+SCOTUS), but they won't even think about it. They could make a law trying to prevent it, but they probably won't.

[geonuc]

Ok, a bunch of things people don't understand here:

This is no precedent for anything legally. It was a jury decision, not a judicial decision.
I do - and I already mentioned this aspect of the case.

[Kebsis]

Probably not. Precedents come from appellate decisions, not trial court decisions. At least that's the way it is in the US and I suspect the UK is similar.

Wait for the appeal.


Can there be an appeal, in this case? The defendants were already found innocent.

[geonuc]

Can there be an appeal, in this case? The defendants were already found innocent.
I'm not an expert with UK law, but I'm reminded that this was a criminal case, so I think not. In the US, the state has no right to appeal a jury verdict (runs afouls of the double jeopardy clause).

The OP's article mentions that this was the second time Greenpeace activists has been found not guilty in similar legal circumstances.

[EricM407]

Not yet, Don. However, there are some Supreme Court justices who think they should be able to cherry-pick foreign precedence in making their rulings.

Actually, all of them do that, and always have since day one in this country. Look at how often English common law is cited. I think some people have a problem when some justices do this because of their own political views, and not much else.

[geonuc]

Actually, all of them do that, and always have since day one in this country. Look at how often English common law is cited. I think some people have a problem when some justices do this because of their own political views, and not much else.
English common law was adopted as the common law of the US after the Revolution and has formed the basis for precedent in this country ever since (except in Louisiana). It is not 'foreign precedent'.

The controversy that exists today is the concept of using foreign statutes and decisions as a basis to resolve a legal dispute not adequately covered by US law.

[EricM407]

English common law was adopted as the common law of the US after the Revolution and has formed the basis for precedent in this country ever since (except in Louisiana). It is not 'foreign precedent'.

Neither was the issue to which he referred, regardless of how it's framed by some people.

[geonuc]

Neither was the issue to which he referred, regardless of how it's framed by some people.
Not sure who you mean by 'he'.

[mugaliens]

What's next? My activist neighbors justifiably dumping cement down my chimney the next time I'm enjoying a toasty fire?

[Drunk Vegan]

One thing I'll note is that the tendedency to enter as "climate change" (air quotes) is somewhat incredible.

That anyone can still believe it's possible that global warming is not happening is akin to someone believing that it is possible that Santa Claus really is flying presents to all the good little girls and boys, we're just not able to catch him in the act.

[closetgeek]

One thing I'll note is that the tendedency to enter as "climate change" (air quotes) is somewhat incredible.

That anyone can still believe it's possible that global warming is not happening is akin to someone believing that it is possible that Santa Claus really is flying presents to all the good little girls and boys, we're just not able to catch him in the act.


Note that I am trying to keep this a broad view of the topic and keep personal opinions out. I was under the impression that the question was not whether or not we are going through a warming period but more, what is causing it?
What was brilliant about the defense's case is that chances are, no one in the selected jury has a degree in climatology. It's a hot button issue and the prevailing view seems to be that warming is being brought on by human activity. Simply bombard them with lots of science stuff that they don't particularly understand to obscure the original question; did the power station put everyone in the direct path of danger?

[HenrikOlsen]

If by brilliant you mean "it won the case" then I agree.
As for Gruesome's attempt in the OP at painting anyone who think the current warming trend may be even partially induced by human activities with the same broad brush of criminal activities, I call hokum1.

1) for formalists, that another way of saying strawman fallacy.

[Gruesome]

As for Gruesome's attempt in the OP at painting anyone who think the current warming trend may be even partially induced by human activities with the same broad brush of criminal activities, I call hokum1.

That was not my intent. The brush I was attempting to use was that people who destroy the property of others (ie. criminals) deserve to be treated as such and using global warming or climate change or whatever they are calling it this week as an excuse, is incredibly dangerous...possibly stupid.

I would liken it to letting Bart Sibrel go free if he punched out Buzz Aldrin.

My reference to normal people in the OP was in response to a quote in the article:

Speaking outside court after being cleared yesterday, Mr Stewart said...."This verdict marks a tipping point for the climate change movement. When a jury of normal people say it is legitimate for a direct action group to shut down a coal-fired power station because of the harm it does to our planet, then where does that leave Government energy policy?"

I ask where does it leave law & order? On TV, I guess.

[HenrikOlsen]

Ok, that brush I totally agree with, just like I consider it criminal negligence if PETA inspired morons go to a mink farm and release all the mink in the name of animal rights[sup}1[/sup].

I still think using quotes for "Climate Change" in the subject indicate a rather biased position.

1) in Denmark we recently had idiots donig that, it's not really nice to know that you have a situation where every bird and most small mammals has to compete against a well-fed, very agile, intelligent, voracious omnivore.

[Drunk Vegan]

I think we can all agree that destroying property is criminal.

But you won't find too many people who agree that:

"climate change" or global warming or whatever they're calling it this week

Is some sort of boogeyman that doesn't exist.

The science shows that it does. We can argue til doomsday as to whether/how much humans have and are contributing to it.

But as for whether it is happening, the debate is over. The globe is warming.

Also not debatable is the horrific effects it will have if we don't try to do something to reverse the trend. I think we should get started on that instead of playing air quotes politics with it.

[Gruesome]

I think we should get started on that instead of playing air quotes politics with it.

Okay.

But for the record...the "air quotes" in the portion of my post that you quoted must have been added by you, as I did not use them there.

If you're going to "quote", then "quote"....don't edit. ;)

[Drunk Vegan]

I'd tend to think that if you consider climate change to be deserving of air quotes in the thread title, it's deserving of it in "climate change or whatever the hell they're calling it now."

But you're right, in that instance it had no air quotes :)

[mugaliens]

I think we can all agree that destroying property is criminal.

But you won't find too many people who agree that:



Is some sort of boogeyman that doesn't exist.

The science shows that it does. We can argue til doomsday as to whether/how much humans have and are contributing to it.

But as for whether it is happening, the debate is over. The globe is warming.

Also not debatable is the horrific effects it will have if we don't try to do something to reverse the trend...

I was with you right up to this point... Since our current contribution is about 1/2 of 1% (0.005), and the rest is due to natural causes, just exactly what sort of effect do you think we could possibly have to curb the current warming trend?

Also, given that we've had much warmer trends in human history than the current one, what "horrific effects" are they predicting which, apparently by magic, didn't happen before?

I think we should get started on that instead of playing air quotes politics with it.

I'd rather pass the popcorn and wait for these "horrific effects" to manifest themselves.

[Drunk Vegan]

Drought, famine, and disease are not horrific in your mind?

Areas that are barely able to sustain crops will be subject to all of the above if the trend continues.

That they "by magic" didn't happen before is a product of the fact that there weren't 6.6 billion people spread to every corner of the globe before.

I was with you right up to this point... Since our current contribution is about 1/2 of 1% (0.005), and the rest is due to natural causes, just exactly what sort of effect do you think we could possibly have to curb the current warming trend?

One plankton says to another plankton: You know, our oxygen release is causing a dangerous buildup in the atmosphere. Pretty soon there won't be a breathable carbon atmosphere any more!

Second plankton: That's ridiculous. There's no way we could affect the atmosphere of the entire planet.

There certainly * are * things we can do to mitigate global warming. Ironically, pollution is part of the solution. Without the smog cover global dimming would not be a reality and global warming would already be a crisis of massive proportions.

Personally I say the only easy, short-term solution is to pollute more but use pollutants that are not greenhouse gases.

There are certainly other, better solutions that many have proposed, however.

[Ronald Brak]

I was with you right up to this point... Since our current contribution is about 1/2 of 1% (0.005), and the rest is due to natural causes, just exactly what sort of effect do you think we could possibly have to curb the current warming trend?

I wonder what you are talking about here, Mugaliens? I guess you could be referring to the amount human activity increases CO2 concentration each year. It is very roughly half a percent. It doesn't sound like much, however, it does add up, and human activity has increased CO2 concentrations by about a third so far, which is sufficient to account for all the 0.74 +/- 0.18 degrees of warming the earth experienced in the 20th century.