4 ms·
The (potential) application of statutes may be outrageous for the kind of infraction. However... "In the early morning hours of Saturday, July 28, 2012, long-t
by pyalot2 13y ago
The (potential) application of statutes may be outrageous for the kind of infraction. However...
"In the early morning hours of Saturday, July 28, 2012, long-time peace activists Sr. Megan Rice, 82, Greg Boertje-Obed, 57, and Michael Walli, 63, cut through the chain link fence surrounding the Oak Ridge Y-12 nuclear weapons production facility and trespassed onto the property."
Stop right there. You did what? And you didn't expect what to happen? Really? Geeze people.
You seem to mistake exercising your first ammendment with breaking into the property of a government nuclear weapons facility. Contrary to popular belief, you can exercise your first ammendment without running afoul of the law.
Don't be surprised that they do throw the book at you, if you give them the means to do so.
- scotty79 13y agoYou are saying "government nuclear weapons facility" as if it was some serious thing. If it were actually serious in any way to anybody then three geezers would't enter this facility to spray and pray just by cutting few fences some random morning.
- jeremyjh 13y agoIs this something you believe because it should be true, or because you have some evidence that it is true?
- akiselev 13y agoHe's being facetious. Obviously nuclear weapons facilities are very important. Obviously three hippies aged 57, 63, and 82 shouldn't be able to break in so far as to spray paint a building holding nuclear weapons.
- pyalot2 13y agoPSA: If you go looking for trouble, don't be surprised if you get into trouble.
- codygman 13y agoPSA: Three old geezers shouldn't be able to bypass nuclear weapon facility "security".
- orthecreedence 13y agoPSA: if you think trespassing and singing songs is terrorism, you're a very disturbed individual.
- pyalot2 13y agoPSA: You and I might think that it's unfair to throw the book at somebody for minor infarctions. That doesn't mean the government wont.
- AnthonyMouse 13y ago>The (potential) application of statutes may be outrageous for the kind of infraction. You can stop right there, because that's the whole point. If the government had charged them with trespassing and fined them each $1000 or put them in jail for two weeks (and then taken the opportunity to have a good hard look at the security of their facility), nobody would be complaining about anything. This is about proportionality. > Don't be surprised that they do throw the book at you, if you give them the means to do so. The idea is that they should not have the means to do so. "Making the government look stupid" is not a felony. Trespassing is not a felony. "Here's the defendant, find me the crime" is a miscarriage of justice. A law that allows them to do that to anyone is a broken law that demands to be fixed. And yes, there are a lot of them, and they all need to be fixed.
- pyalot2 13y agoBreaking news, there are a lot of bad laws. Next up at 11, how to ignore idiotic laws and get into trouble. Neighbors say, they where such peaceful and intelligent people.
- gwright 13y agoThe litany of charges seems a bit much, but a light sentence for trespassing is too little. The penalty, must deter future attempts by other people. $1000 and a couple weeks of jail is not going to deter other similar protesters.
- pgeorgi 13y agoFixing on-site security will - with the neat side effect to deter criminals, terrorists and so on as well.
- gwright 13y agoAssume the security was 'fixed'. Doesn't mean that someone couldn't come and chop the fence with full intention of getting arrested as part of a political protest. If the known penalty for doing this (even with fully operational security) is light, then that activity isn't really deterred.
- chc 13y agoThere was a sign right on the fence claiming that the maximum penalty was one year.