PDA

View Full Version : A fair decision?



Yurt
05-23-2007, 08:26 PM
We talk about rapes/murders/other horrible crimes on this board, what say you to this legally "fair" judicial sentence:



Earth Liberation Front arsonist sentenced to 13 years


EUGENE, Ore. — Declaring fires set at a police station, an SUV dealer and a tree farm acts of terrorism, a federal judge Wednesday sentenced the first of 10 members of a radical environmental group to 13 years in prison.

U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken commended Stanislas Meyerhoff for having the courage to "do the right thing" by informing on his fellow arsonists after his arrest, but declared that his efforts to save the earth by setting fires were misguided and cowardly, and contributed to an unfair characterization of others working legally to protect the environment as radicals.

"It was your intent to scare and frighten other people through a very dangerous and psychological act — arson," Aiken told Meyerhoff. "Your actions included elements of terrorism to achieve your goal.

"The fact that your actions were completely irrational doesn't mitigate this. Nor does the fact that no one was hurt.

Meyerhoff, 29, has admitted to being a member of a Eugene cell of the Earth Liberation Front known as The Family, which was responsible for more than 20 arson fires from 1996 through 2001 in five Western states that did $40 million in damage.

Meyerhoff was involved in fires at a Eugene police substation, a Eugene SUV dealer, an Oregon tree farm, federal wild horse corrals in Wyoming and California, and a Vail, Colo., ski resort. He also helped topple a high-voltage transmission line tower in Oregon.

After a member of the cell, Jacob Ferguson, agreed to turn informant and wear a hidden recording device, Meyerhoff and five others were arrested, starting in December 2005. Soon after his arrest, Meyerhoff turned informant as well, which Aiken said resulted in more arrests.

Defense attorney Terri Wood said Ferguson has a deal with the prosecution that involves one count of arson and no prison time.

In a statement before being sentenced, Meyerhoff denounced the ELF, saying its goals of promoting a public discussion about stopping practices that harm the earth actually cut off debate and harmed people.

"I was ignorant of history and economy and acted from a faulty and narrow vision as an ordinary bigot," Meyerhoff read from his four-page handwritten statement, his voice breaking at times. "A million times over I apologize ... to all of you hardworking business owners, employees, researchers, firemen, investigators, attorneys and all citizens whose property was destroyed, whose holidays were ruined, whose welfare was thwarted, and whose sleep was troubled."

Under federal sentencing guidelines, Aiken said, Meyerhoff was eligible for 30 years to life in prison. However, prosecutors recommended reducing that to 15 years, eight months, based on his cooperation with investigators. Aiken further reduced that to 13 years, noting that Meyerhoff showed courage by naming names and opening himself to retribution.

Defense and prosecution lawyers declined comment after the sentencing.

Prior to sentencing, Wood asked for leniency, arguing that most of the fires were not acts of terrorism because they were set at businesses, not government facilities.

The prosecution countered that based on communiqués issued after the fires, the blazes were meant to retaliate against the U.S. Forest Service for allowing a Vail ski resort to expand into a national forest, the University of Washington for genetic engineering research and the government for prosecuting radicals who set earlier fires at the SUV dealer.

"The communiqués are powerful, powerful evidence that the defendants and Mr. Meyerhoff intended to influence the conduct of government," said Assistant U.S. Attorney Kirk Engdall. "It is our position that the terrorism enhancement clearly applies to Mr. Meyerhoff."

Aiken rejected the argument the ski resort arson was terrorism, noting the communique made no direct reference to the Forest Service.

But she declared that a fire set at a Eugene police substation was terrorism because it was a direct attack on government. The Romania Chevrolet SUV dealership arson was terrorism because the communique said it was revenge for sending arsonist Jeff Luers to prison for 22 years. And the Jefferson Poplar Farm arson was terrorism because the communique spoke of affecting pending legislation.

report (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003719247_webecoterror23.html)


What is interesting to me, is that his crimes (and he was narc) were against solely property. In other words, only $$$$$ were harmed.

5stringJeff
05-23-2007, 09:37 PM
Awesome. It's a shame they couldn't lock him up any longer.

LOki
05-24-2007, 04:56 AM
LOLsome is this notion presented that the acts committed were not terrorism because they did not target the government.

WTF? Targeting widespread violence at the government is not terrorism, it's sedition, rebellion, war perhaps; widespread violence upon civilians and civilian targets is terrorism.

Joe Steel
05-24-2007, 05:42 AM
Terrorism is an extreme choice for defense of the environment. Unfortunately, like war for regime change, sometimes it's the only option available.

Gaffer
05-24-2007, 10:26 AM
Well now he can go to prison and become some big bozo's bitch. That's a good thing. Hope the ones he ratted out get even more time.

He did millions of dollars in property damage. Insurance paid for it and your and my rates went up to help offset the cost. Not to mention the tax money that went into it.

terrorism is NEVER an option mr steal. It's just a cowards way of trying to get what they want through fear and intimidtion.

Joe Steel
05-24-2007, 11:27 AM
terrorism is NEVER an option mr steal.

Tell it to Bush.

Hobbit
05-24-2007, 11:34 AM
Few people know this statistics, but eco-terrorists cause more monetary damage in the United States in the average year than all other terror groups combined. Foreign terror groups in Iraq have bumped their total damage up above eco-terrorism, but before 9/11, eco-terrorists did more damage to U.S. interests at home and abroad that all other terror groups combined.

These nuts are dangerous and need to be locked up (also, read Rainbow Six, by Tom Clancy).

loosecannon
05-24-2007, 11:43 AM
LOLsome is this notion presented that the acts committed were not terrorism because they did not target the government.

WTF? Targeting widespread violence at the government is not terrorism, it's sedition, rebellion, war perhaps; widespread violence upon civilians and civilian targets is terrorism.

LOki, I think you may have made a very valid point. As did Steel.

This interp of terrorism would likely include acts like the Rodney King riots as terrorism. Crimes against property. Not people.

I mean would bombing an empty embassy be terrorism? Driving a suicide bomb into a empty market?

I don't think so.

But the ruling does support a claim that I have made that revolution will be treated as terrorism in the aftermath of 9/11.

The irony here is that the US gummit has an industry committed to influencing the actions of other governments.

As does the lobby industry in the US.

As do corporations worldwide.

Hell we think nothing of demanding regime change in distant democracies. We invade to effect our will.

But THAT isn't terrorism, no sir.

5stringJeff
05-24-2007, 11:55 AM
Terrorism is an extreme choice for defense of the environment. Unfortunately, like war for regime change, sometimes it's the only option available.

You call arson defense of the environment?!? Ludicrous.

Hobbit
05-24-2007, 12:00 PM
You call arson defense of the environment?!? Ludicrous.

Think of all of greenhouse gases an arson fire gives off!

Joe Steel
05-25-2007, 05:13 AM
You call arson defense of the environment?!? Ludicrous.

Arson is a crime. Fire is a tool. You've got to separate the two.

musicman
05-25-2007, 05:20 AM
Arson is a crime. Fire is a tool. You've got to separate the two.

I think I'll just let that statement stand on its own. It convicts you of drooling insanity more than any words I could add.

Joe Steel
05-25-2007, 05:27 AM
I think I'll just let that statement stand on its own. It convicts you of drooling insanity more than any words I could add.

In what way?

musicman
05-25-2007, 05:28 AM
In what way?

OK - I'll play. What would you call a man who shoots an abortionist?

stephanie
05-25-2007, 05:41 AM
Arson is a crime. Fire is a tool. You've got to separate the two.

But..........aren't you destroying THE VERY Environment......their suppose to be protecting??????????

Oh........I guess...this is
AOK.............:cuckoo: :lmao:

Joe Steel
05-25-2007, 06:09 AM
OK - I'll play. What would you call a man who shoots an abortionist?

Depends on the circumstances.

Is the shooting lawful or unlawful?

Shooting an abortionist who is not a threat to the shooter at the time of the shooting probably is murder.

Joe Steel
05-25-2007, 06:14 AM
But..........aren't you destroying THE VERY Environment......their suppose to be protecting??????????



The convicted person burned-down a few buildings. That doesn't necessarily harm the environment.

stephanie
05-25-2007, 06:15 AM
Depends on the circumstances.

Is the shooting lawful or unlawful?

Shooting an abortionist who is not a threat to the shooter at the time of the shooting probably is murder.

The environmentalist that is doing this shit...

Is just as stupid as someone shooting a person who does abortions...
Jezz....that was tough....

LOki
05-25-2007, 08:00 AM
The convicted person burned-down a few buildings. That doesn't necessarily harm the environment.You're right--in so far as nothing actually ever harms the environment. But as it turns out, when you set a building on fire, that smoke always produces substances harmful to people in the environment. Necessarily so. When you deliberately set a building on fire, you are deliberately harming people--certainly crime enough.

Joe Steel
05-25-2007, 09:45 AM
You're right--in so far as nothing actually ever harms the environment. But as it turns out, when you set a building on fire, that smoke always produces substances harmful to people in the environment. Necessarily so. When you deliberately set a building on fire, you are deliberately harming people--certainly crime enough.

I didn't say it wasn't a crime or that it wasn't immoral. Fires just aren't necessarily harmful to the environment. It all depends on the building materials and the contents. The fires at the police station and the auto dealer almost certainly created very harmful gases. But other burned buildings might have been made of naturally occurring materials which burned without a great deal of harm to the environment.

LOki
05-25-2007, 10:28 AM
I didn't say it wasn't a crime or that it wasn't immoral. Fires just aren't necessarily harmful to the environment. It all depends on the building materials and the contents. The fires at the police station and the auto dealer almost certainly created very harmful gases. But other burned buildings might have been made of naturally occurring materials which burned without a great deal of harm to the environment.Ok. have it your way. There's nothing harmful in smoke so long as that which is burning is "natural." :420:

5stringJeff
05-25-2007, 11:22 AM
Arson is a crime. Fire is a tool. You've got to separate the two.

And committing arson to influence political decisions - as was the case here - is terrorism.

Hobbit
05-25-2007, 12:33 PM
Ok. have it your way. There's nothing harmful in smoke so long as that which is burning is "natural." :420:

What he doesn't realize is that volcanic eruptions and forest fires cause more of what's classified as pollution than most American coal power plants. I still remember that huge forest fire in southern Mexico. There was so much smoke that visibility was limited to about 40 feet all the way up where I lived in NW Arkansas.

musicman
05-26-2007, 02:12 AM
Depends on the circumstances.

Is the shooting lawful or unlawful?

I'm so glad you sought clarification on this, since the content and context of my question left open the clear possibility that our abortionist supplements his income with violent liquor store robberies and home invasions...

You're stalling, Joe. What you have intimated in this thread is that the end justifies the means. I want to know if you think that always holds true, or only in defense of causes YOU believe in?