CNN: "The country is in danger."
Not.
McConnell: "The President is uncomfortable as Commander and Chief."
Interpretation: "Since President Obama is not killing at least 500 people a day he is a weak leader."
Did everyone hear about this incredible story about the First Amendment Right in Massachusetts? I betcha no one paid attention.
...Sutter dropped all charges and required only that the defendants pay $4,000 in restitution. The Globe piece is accompanied by a photo of Sutter waving around a McKibben article, apparently from the antediluvian magazine Rolling...
This is what happened.
Global-warmist fanatics Ken Ward and Jay O'Hara "faced up to two years in jail for attaching a 200-pound anchor to their keel to block the path of [a] coal ship in May 2013," the Boston Globe reports. The ship was to deliver fuel to the Brayton Point power plant in Somerset, Mass. Their small craft, the Henry David T., carries a banner with the hashtag #coalisstupid....
This was their defense.
...At their trial, scheduled to begin yesterday, they had planned to invoke a "necessity defense." That is, they sought to avoid culpability by blaming global warming. They "would have called a number of high-profile witnesses, including NASA climate scientist Jim Hansen and environmental activist and author Bill McKibben."...
In other words, there is overwhelming evidence to indicate the climate crisis is real and dangerous to human life. There is also overwhelming evidence it is being caused by the burning of fossil fuels. So, what is a person, one lowly human being going to do to end this danger to his life?
Not every aspect of life in anyone's days of living it legislated. It is assumed people think and they act upon what they know. It is also assumed by USA law, including self-defense when confronting danger, people are able to act rationally to end danger to their lives.
To put this in a POPULOUS understanding, the coal ship was danger, the opposition to the burning of the coal on the coal ship was self-defense. By entering a plea of "necessity defense" the prosecution was forced to disprove the dangers of the climate crisis in order to successfully prosecute the defendants.
Since it is not possible to defeat the proof of the climate crisis and it's reliance on fossil fuel to cause the danger to human life, the prosecutor simply invoked a financial penalty. The state ran up costs to only have the defendants carry out a successful defense so the costs the state incurred had to be repaid. The act of obstruction and the defense were not usual incursions with the law so the state acted correctly and then realized this was an act of survival. That is no different than when people use their guns in self defense and are charged with a crime only to have the prosecution drop the charges when realizing a citizen is acting in self-defense.
This is the Rolling Stone article (click here).
Why not go through with the prosecution anyway?
Because it would then be 'malicious' prosecution and there can be prison penalties for that.
Not.
McConnell: "The President is uncomfortable as Commander and Chief."
Interpretation: "Since President Obama is not killing at least 500 people a day he is a weak leader."
Did everyone hear about this incredible story about the First Amendment Right in Massachusetts? I betcha no one paid attention.
...Sutter dropped all charges and required only that the defendants pay $4,000 in restitution. The Globe piece is accompanied by a photo of Sutter waving around a McKibben article, apparently from the antediluvian magazine Rolling...
This is what happened.
Global-warmist fanatics Ken Ward and Jay O'Hara "faced up to two years in jail for attaching a 200-pound anchor to their keel to block the path of [a] coal ship in May 2013," the Boston Globe reports. The ship was to deliver fuel to the Brayton Point power plant in Somerset, Mass. Their small craft, the Henry David T., carries a banner with the hashtag #coalisstupid....
This was their defense.
...At their trial, scheduled to begin yesterday, they had planned to invoke a "necessity defense." That is, they sought to avoid culpability by blaming global warming. They "would have called a number of high-profile witnesses, including NASA climate scientist Jim Hansen and environmental activist and author Bill McKibben."...
In other words, there is overwhelming evidence to indicate the climate crisis is real and dangerous to human life. There is also overwhelming evidence it is being caused by the burning of fossil fuels. So, what is a person, one lowly human being going to do to end this danger to his life?
Not every aspect of life in anyone's days of living it legislated. It is assumed people think and they act upon what they know. It is also assumed by USA law, including self-defense when confronting danger, people are able to act rationally to end danger to their lives.
To put this in a POPULOUS understanding, the coal ship was danger, the opposition to the burning of the coal on the coal ship was self-defense. By entering a plea of "necessity defense" the prosecution was forced to disprove the dangers of the climate crisis in order to successfully prosecute the defendants.
Since it is not possible to defeat the proof of the climate crisis and it's reliance on fossil fuel to cause the danger to human life, the prosecutor simply invoked a financial penalty. The state ran up costs to only have the defendants carry out a successful defense so the costs the state incurred had to be repaid. The act of obstruction and the defense were not usual incursions with the law so the state acted correctly and then realized this was an act of survival. That is no different than when people use their guns in self defense and are charged with a crime only to have the prosecution drop the charges when realizing a citizen is acting in self-defense.
This is the Rolling Stone article (click here).
Why not go through with the prosecution anyway?
Because it would then be 'malicious' prosecution and there can be prison penalties for that.
