Judge Deals Blow To Warmists On Trial For Blocking Oil Train
Thursday I mentioned a bunch of fools who are on trial for blocking an oil train in Washington, charged with multiple felonies and misdemeanors, who planned on using ‘climate change’ as a defense. Later in the day, the judge in the case dealt that idiocy a serious blow
(Quartz) A jury in Washington state is hearing the final arguments today (Jan. 14) in a huge case for the environmental movement. Five activists have been charged with criminal trespassing for blocking a train full of crude oil.
The judge initially allowed the so-called “Delta Five” to use a so-called “necessity defense,” which argued that their criminal actions were justified by the threat of climate change. It is the first such case in the United States, and environmentalists were hoping for a precedent-setting breakthrough.
However, in a last-minute decision, the judge instructed the jury not to take the “necessity defense” argument into consideration, seriously undermining their prospects.
Too bad, so sad. It would have been interesting to see which way the jury jumped during deliberation.
In his earlier jury instructions ruling, judge said defendants acted in best interest of society, but legal techs are against them. #Delta5
— Tim DeChristopher (@dechristopher) January 14, 2016
Who are these people?
The “Delta Five” group includes a middle school teacher, a coffee shop owner, and a professional activist. They constructed a massive, 18-foot tripod in front of a parked oil train in Everrett, Washington in September 2014 to block oil trains passing through the state. They were arrested and charged with criminal trespassing and obstructing a train.
What the heck is a “professional activist”? First World Problem.
The train was carrying Bakken shale oil from Montana and North Dakota—a highly explosive substance, which killed 47 people in an explosion after a train derailed in Quebec in 2013. Washington state officials are considering six new oil transport facilities to make the region a bigger player in fossil fuel transport.
Instead of claiming “climate change’, they should have done it for the danger these trains pose to explode. They might have found some sympathy from non-climate change believing people, and the judge may have allowed it at the end. The law is the law, though, and if one is going to break it to “protest”, one must be ready for the consequences, which could include a few years in jail.
The protest was specifically designed to set a precedent for civil disobedience cases related to the environmental movement, according to activist Tim DeChristopher. In an interview with the Guardian, he compared the legal tactic to the similar efforts by the civil rights and women’s suffrage movements.