Korean Job Discussion Forums

[rapier]

The SUV's were insured.

Our environment, air, rivers, and ecosystems aren't. They are public property, belonging to all of us, yet nobody goes to Jail for 20 years for wrecking them. And they can't be easily replaced, if at all.

[wannago]

[igotthisguitar]

>. Does eco-"terror"-ISM exist ??? Sure, i suppose we could see it that way. Senselessly raping & pillaging the earth likely equals the best the definition. Clearly, as a civilization we could be doing a whole lot more with cutting edge, less polluting, eco-friendly, or otherwise suppressed technologies.

While we possess the vision & the means, political will unfortunately tends to be the greatest hurdle in need of overcoming.

[Nowhere Man]

[TheUrbanMyth]

Ok Miss red dog and Mr Rapier. Let's pretend for the sake of argument that you were the judge. Tell me what sentence(s) you would have handed out and why. Would you require any restitution for the destroyed SUV's and other property? If no, why? If yes, what?

[The Bobster]

I'm not sure I really understand the controversy. Accepting the pain of incarceration is inherent in the mode of civil disobedience. The guy accepts the penalty, and he even seems to relish it. His goal is that people talk about this, and the large jail time ensures that some people will. Even here, we would not likely be talking about it if he had gotten the minimum sentence.

The legal system sends the message that violence is not identical to free speech. Mr Lauer has the joy that comes from the fact that people are talking about him. Seems like win-win for everyone.

The miscalculation he has made is that people are far more likely to talk about HIM than about global warming. That's why this kind fo political action is not smart.

Having said that, the issues themselves are truly ones that all thinking people need to be thinking and talking about.

[Nowhere Man]

Bobster,

A correction. He doesn't "accept" the penalty. He's fought it from the get-go and describes it as outside of the norm.

The controversy is the term. He was booked on one count of criminal mischief, which mushroomed into 13 counts. He's not serving a single sentence for one act of arson, but 13 mini-sentences consecutively for every conceivable felony he could be charged with.

TUM,

Those are fair questions. As above, details of the case are important. I'd note that 2 of the "executed" SUVs were refurbished and sold. I'll let red dog and rapier answer, but I wanted to clarify that in terms of restitution.

A google of Jeffrey Luers provides a lot of information on this situation.

[TheUrbanMyth]

[rapier]

5 years. And restitution, compensation paid.

Not 20 years! insane.

The judge who handed out that really helped his cause along..now everyone knows that environmentalists are on a parr with serial-killing axe murderers in the eyes of the present administration- and are aware that SUV's are much more damaging than ordinary vehicles.

The publicity is a victory in itself.

Oh and quit with the "Terrorist executioner" diatribe. The guy harmed no living thing...just making a statement the only way possible to get attention. Do you think we'd be discussing this if he'd been a good law-abiding guy and written a note to the president about it?

Dear Mr Bush,
I want you to know that I don't like SUV's because they burn 4X the amount of fossil fuels that an ordinary car does. Please ban them."


Now that really would've made a big diff.

[Kalhoun]

It seems to me that the judge was making an example of him so people would think twice before trying the same a similar stunt. The fact that he wasn't very remorsefull may have also had something to do with it. Yet, in the end, I think Karla Holmoka should have gotten a much stiffer sentence than this guy did. She and Paul Bernardo murdered a couple of women. I do think our society is a bit warped for seeing more importance in three sacred SUV cows than people, but that's the world that we live in.

The point here is that if a person does not show remorse for the "crime" that they committed, it may hapen again. 20 years~ yes it's stiff, but eco-terrorists might think twice before trying a similar stunt anytime in the future.

[red dog]

Sorry, I think in an earlier post I may have mistakenly stated that Luers was convicted under new "anti-terrorism" legislation ... after reading Nowhere Man's post and rereading the article, I see that he appears to have received this harsh sentence even before the new laws were passed. The above-mentioned laws will make it a lot easier for authorities to harass and suppress other activists, though.

Anyway, to answer TUM's question, judges have to follow the law and if this guy was proven guilty he has to be punished. Activists know they're taking a big risk when they engage in economic sabotage, of course. If I were the judge, I'd consider his character and motives when deciding what sentence to impose, and would probably give him the minimum.

But that's just me. The judge who handed down the sentence evidently considered the same factors and decided that a far worse sentence was in order for Luers than for an "ordinary" arsonist -- e.g., a kid torching SUVs for kicks, or the SUVs' owner torching them to collect the insurance, or the owner's estranged spouse doing it because of a personal vendetta.

Also, I don't think anyone here ever said arson was covered under "freedom of speech." The fact is that prisoners are not normally prevented from communicating with the outside world, but Luers has been. And that most certainly is a violation of his right to freedom of speech.

Finally, there is no such thing as an "ecoterrorist." Calling this guy and other nonviolent activists terrorists renders the word completely, utterly and absolutely meaningless.

[rapier]

The future protection of our environment is more important than human property laws.

Would you send to jail a guy who smashed a private car window, in order to defuse a car bomb?

Defendant: But I saved many people by disconnecting the car bomb!

Judge: you intentionally broke the window of a car, someone's private property, in the process. To jail with you! 20 years.

[wannago]

[red dog]

I personally agree with that statement, but I don't think judges are really allowed to.

[TheUrbanMyth]