Hey, there! Log in / Register
Judge clears West Roxbury pipeline protesters of sit-in charges
By adamg on Thu, 03/29/2018 - 9:18am
The Herald reports a West Roxbury Municipal Court judge has tossed the trespassing charges against 13 protesters who tried to block construction of a natural-gas pipeline in West Roxbury by, in some cases, chaining themselves to the pipe or the entrance to its end point at Grove and Centre streets.
The move came after Suffolk County prosecutors moved to have the charges lowered from criminal complaints to civil offenses, which carried potential fines but no risk of imprisonment or a permanent record.
Judge Mary Ann Driscoll then dismissed even the civil citations, saying she agreed they were right to invoke the "necessity" defense in their actions over the environmental impacts of fossil-fuel use, the Herald reports.
Scores of people were arrested in protests in 2015 and 2016 against the high-pressure pipeline, which runs under Washington and Grove streets and pumps gas into National Grid's system at Centre and Grove.
What began as a protest by residents along the route worried what would happen if the pipeline exploded morphed into a protest against fossil fuels and climate change, attracting protesters from across the country willing to chain themselves to the pipeline or fences - including Al Gore's daughter, Karenna.
Firefighters with cutting tools had to carefully extract the protesters from the metal collars and enclosures with which they attached themselves to things. Most of the people transported to the E-5 police station and then to West Roxbury court agreed to pay fines to dismiss the criminal complaints the same day they were arrested, but 13 insisted on a trial.
The protests ultimately failed - the pipeline and the station to transfer gas into National Grid's system went online in late 2016.
Neighborhoods:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
"Necessity Defense"?
While the protesters are noble in their efforts, isn't the judge going a wee bit to the extreme with them claiming their actions were necessary to save the environment so therefore their actions were necessary and therefore legal? .
Couldn't this same defense be used by the holy rollers in front of Planned Parenthood over on Comm. Ave, because they are claiming the necessity of saving a fetus? "Sorry I chained myself to the door, Officer, but it was necessary to keep that person from possibly getting an abortion".
I'm not a lawyer, but getting off on one thing because you think it is the right thing to do, should apply to another, no?
No
They're not at all the same. I don't think the judge is creating any precedent to say that "good intentions" are a viable legal defense in all scenarios where the law may have been broken, either.
It still seems like quite a stretch
The necessity defense typically covers things like speeding on the way to the hospital because your pregnant wife is about to give birth. The unlawful activity also must prevent the greater harm which would have occurred absent that activity. Given that this trespass was unlikely to prevent the perceived harm, and was primarily a protest action, the necessity defense doesn't seem applicable. Seems like the judge might need to ask for a refund of her law school tuition or perhaps be required to take the bar exam again.
I mean...
If the prosecution disagrees, are they not able to file for appeal? Everything else about your post was pretty reasonable aside from basically trashing this judge.
the Prosecution was not going
the Prosecution was not going to go forward with charges in any event. They did not disagree of agree with the Judge's decision...
How aren’t they the same?
Aren’t you basically valuing opinion over the law?
I have nothing against prosecutors making the charges civil, but they broke the law.
Fetus versus the environment/climate change?
Certainly you don't want me to entertain that idea.
So, personal opinion is greater than the law?
Strip down the junk surrounding everything, Costello is asking if the judge has now declared that one can chain oneself to another person's property, preventing them from conducting business, just because one finds the actions of the business to be wrong. I was going to end that last sentence with "actions of the business to be deadly," but again, that is the junk part of this.
No
"They're not at all the same. I don't think the judge is creating any precedent to say that "good intentions" are a viable legal defense in all scenarios where the law may have been broken, either."
This is also a straw man argument.
Why are you quoting yourself?
But sure, explain the relativity of civil disobedience.
I mean, even people who engage in civil disobedience realize that what they are doing is against the law. The argument is that one engages in such behavior either to change the law or to highlight an injustice by being willing to break a law. This judge is basically saying that in this case the law should not apply because, well, environmental justice. Costello is positing what would happen if there was a judge in Brighton District court who felt that the killing of the unborn was an evil and decided that charges against members of Operation Rescue doing the same thing should be dismissed summarily because, well, choose life.
Only a strawman if you are attacking your statement.
this project was contentious.....
Eversource used FERC to get this project pushed through immediately. The City, State and residents of Boston were/are against it. Infact, it is still in some type of litigation - even though the pipeline was finished and is already actively pushing gas through the line.
"Defendants argued they were left with no choice because the pipeline was going forward despite near universal opposition from politicians from the City Council all the way up to Congress."
Short of having neighbors standing on Washington Street with guns, there was no way to stop the installation of the Pipeline. Every other legal avenue had been exhausted.
I don't necessarily agree with the steps that were taken by the Protesters in that demonstration; but I certainly understand it as someone who lives in the area...
Can't wait to see what the
Can't wait to see what the judge says when protesters are arrested blocking an abortion clinic.
Hope you're not holding your breath, too
Because you'll be long dead before the issue comes up, given that there are no abortion clinics in the district covered by the court.
But whatever, women (still) have a constitutional right to an abortion, so you block a woman from a clinic, you're depriving her of her rights. There's no such explicit constitutional right to contribute to climate change.
I think a better example might be...
Driving a box truck through the fence at Logan and disabling it in the middle of a runway in the purported dual interest of preventing global climate change (aircraft produce plenty of carbon dioxide emissions) as well as noise pollution for surrounding neighborhoods. The necessity defense seems just as applicable here. But I strongly doubt the Federal Court judge would buy it.
Recall judge
She is a recall judge so you won't be seeing too many future rulings by her.
Given her status, and that the freedom of Gore's kid was at stake, you know the real call came from high up, not necessarily from the judge. The judge was just a tool.
Russian dressing
Can someone spare some Russian Dressing for this word salad?
Massachusetts judge recall
Chapter 211B Section 14 says a retired judge can be recalled by the chief justice for special assignment.
Only if the protesters are pregnant
And a private company is attempting to force them to have an abortion.
Correction
It is National Grid, not Eversource, that asked Spectra Energy into the neighborhood to build an extremely high pressure pipeline next to the actively blasting quarry.
Sadly, while construction of the West Roxbury Lateral pipeline was going on, one of Spectra's other pipelines in Penn. blew up and it took over an hour to turn off the burning gas. it was a rural area, but one man who lived nearby was badly burned. Houses had their siding melted off. Picture that on Washington St. or Grove St.
Also, National Grid's distribution pipelines that were already in the street outside the quarry were leaking in many spots. The result of being disturbed by blasting?
Spectra Energy (since merged with Enbridge of Canada) and National Grid have made that part of West Roxbury (and part of Dedham too) a sacrifice zone so they can make a profit.
There were almost 200 arrests. Most people stepped into the work area to stop construction. Others climbed into the trench. Some chained or locked themselves to fences or vehicles to block access to the work area and some found their way into the metering/regulating station area. All delayed the work. Peacefully saying "No."
Fixed
Thanks. I should know better, but I am always getting them mixed up.