A state supreme court is allowing environmental activists to claim their tampering of equipment was made in defense, a move that could potentially open the door to legalized vandalism against pipelines.
A group of environmentalists is claiming “necessity defense” regarding their attempts in 2016 to shut down two pipelines, arguing that the threat of climate change is so imminent that they were justified in their actions.
The Minnesota Court of Appeals in April ruled in their favor. The Minnesota Supreme Court subsequently declined to review this decision, allowing the protesters to fight their criminal charges using the necessity defense strategy.
The four individuals — Emily Johnston, Annette Klapstein, Benjamin Joldersma and Steven Liptay — were arrested in October 2016 for tampering with Enbridge Energy equipment in Clearwater County, Minnesota, a remote area in the northwest part of the state.
Johnston and Klapstein admitted to breaking off chains protecting emergency shut-off valves and turning them. Liptay was there to document their actions and Joldersma ensured safety precautions were met.
Their actions in Clearwater County were part of a much larger effort organized by Climate Direct Action — an environmentalist organization that openly promotes and orchestrates vandalism against crude oil pipelines.
Their website currently showcases photographs of their actions against the Enbridge-owned property. Other Climate Direct Action members have been charged with criminal activity involving anti-pipeline activism.
“For many of us engaging in work to avert civilizational collapse, there comes a point when all else has fallen away, and it becomes clear that the one thing left for us to do is to put our bodies in the way of the machine,” reads a portion of their website.
None of the four activists charged are actually natives of Minnesota, but hail from far away areas, such as Seattle and New York City.
The defendants claim they had no other choice but to damage the pipelines, arguing the dangers of climate change caused an imminent threat.
The “necessity defense” allows individuals to break the law in order to stave off greater harm. However, this is intended more for emergency situations, such as breaking a car window to save a baby from a hot vehicle.
Despite the activists’ success in being allowed to use this defense, it’s still unlikely to prove fruitful against their criminal charges.
Read more at Daily Caller
“None of the four activists charged are actually natives of Minnesota, but hail from far away areas, such as Seattle and New York City.”
I am guessing that none of them walked to the site to commit vandalism. So without the crude oil they would never have gotten there to commit the crime. And by the looks of what they are wearing they needed plastic, made from fossil fuels. If they want to see a catastrophic collapse of our civilization getting the world on “green energy” only is a fast way to do it.
If the court is stupid enough to ecsecpt this idiotic defense of these crinimals and aquits them then this is the Twinkies Defense all over again just how stupid is the jury as well if they beleive this load of bull poo
They’re morally right
Ergo law is immaterial
That’s what these self deified self-evident moral superiors claim.
They need to have the law slammed in their face and do their time.
Ever meet a leftist who didn’t think they were
Better than everyone else ?
Time to stop calling them vandals and use the correct term “saboteurs”.
These folks should be treated the same as any other vandals, that means they should do jail time and have a lifetime criminal record. The far left, including the current Democratic Party are part of a hate movement that ignores truth and reality of a situation and takes action based on bald-faced lies and fantasy. They’ve been totally brainwashed by lying propaganda and take violent action over things that really don’t exist. Note: If, as Steve Bunten says, these vandals come from far away, the question is how did they get to the scene of their crimes? Find out who paid for their travel costs and throw them in jail as accessories.
They all should be treated as the crinimals they are and all get 25 years in prison No Parole,No Plea Bargin’s No visitors and No Movie Deals
One way to test the validity of a concept is to apply it to another area. This is useful here. One of the greatest threats to this nation is immigration and illegal immigration makes it much worse. One way to fight this problem would be for citizens to murder immigrants. As far as the murder charges, if necessary defense is valid for the pipe line vandals, then it would be valid here.
Of course, we can not have a legal system where it is okay to break the law. That is a sure road to anarchy. For a judge to permit this sort of defense to continue shows extreme incompetency. They should be impeached. Impeachment is most often used for commuting crimes, but one of its intents is also to remove those who are clearly incompetent.
As has been stated by judges in the citys’ suits against the energy companies, the place to address climate change is in our legislative bodies. That same concept applies to vandalism.
Should our legal system fail miserable and the vandals get off, the pipe line companies have the option of suing. The settlement would be huge. This approached worked when the legal system fail in the OJ Simpson case.
Lets use industrial strength reciprocating saws and cut down all wind turbines so that we can save bat and Golden Eagle populations, halt the degradation of our pristine landscapes and save us from harmful sound-induced trauma. It’s a necessity and that’s my defense.
Their “cure” is worse than the “disease” . They’re the real problem. Prescribe a placebo and 6 months of detainment for observation.
The court accepting this the defense is beyond stupid. Actually there is no empirical evidence the climate is changing to any significant degree. I doubt anyone on the bench realizes this or believes it. I hope they are rewarded with the jail time they have earned. Same goes for all the criminal pipeline demonstrators.
Most of the public needs and buys fossil fuel based products , without them for example
people would freeze , hospitals close , and food could not be distributed as efficiently
or safely for public health .
I would argue that the necessity defence requires the criminal activists be locked up
for frustrating the sale of legal products and by putting their beliefs ahead of the public interest endanger the life , liberty and freedom of citizens guaranteed under the Constitution . The billionaires and “green ” fronts backstopping these criminals should also be charged for aiding and abetting criminal acts of terrorism .