|
Spaced God posted:https://twitter.com/Law360/status/829064752827609088 Did the judge say the force was excessive??
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 22:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 10:31 |
|
|
Recoome posted:Did the judge say the force was excessive?? From the article quote:While the court conceded it is “fully aware of the indiscriminate use of water and other forms of non-lethal force that were used that evening in the midst of the darkened chaos,” it added it “is also cognizant that it is sometimes difficult for a law enforcement officer to determine how the doctrine of excessive force will apply to the particular factual situation the officer is confronted with.”
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 22:09
|
|
|
Recoome posted:Did the judge say the force was excessive??
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 22:12
|
|
|
Silento Boborachi posted:In other news, Standing Rock has asked that the camp clear out (http://www.myndnow.com/news/bismarck-news/standing-rock-sioux-tribe-supports-dapl-protesters-leaving/644476138) "The Standing Rock Sioux Tribal Council is supporting the district of Cannon Ball's wish that all Dakota Access pipeline protesters leave the area." From what I heard on the radio the other day, I think it was national native news, they were asking the camps to move because the area the camp is in floods in the spring and some news sources are leaving that part out. But I'm also confused because people clearly aren't leaving. Ruzihm posted:some vaguely good news This vote is happening right now. It was rescheduled. https://www.facebook.com/VantagePointProd/videos/1797055640511878/ Doorknob Slobber fucked around with this message at 23:42 on Feb 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 23:24
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:The court order isn't up anywhere online, but apparently the appellants claimed that the force was excessive, and the judge rejected this assertion, so their motion was dismissed on that basis. Apparently the judgment says that the force was excessive right above you
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 00:57
|
|
|
Doorknob Slobber posted:This vote is happening right now. It was rescheduled. And it passed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 01:12
|
|
|
Recoome posted:Apparently the judgment says that the force was excessive right above you
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 01:21
|
|
|
blowfish posted:you picked the one single treaty between the sioux nation and amerikkka where it was the other way around The Sioux invaded the United States and forced the Army to buy land the Army didn't want? Nah. Just because the Sioux defeated the invading force and got better terms than expected doesn't mean we should assume that means the Sioux wanted to sell the land. For one thing, if the Sioux were just dying (lol) to sell, the invasion wouldn't have been necessary in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 05:05
|
|
|
You are aware that the Sioux nation itself has argued that the 1868 treaty represents the last mutually agreed upon border between the United States and the Sioux, yes?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 10:00
|
|
|
I'm aware that they've used that treaty as a basis for disputing subsequent takings yes, but I'm not convinced that their using it in a legal argument somehow confers some retroactive moral legitimacy to the invasion. That merely demonstrates that they considered it the legal strategy most likely to succeed. Right off the bat: the courts don't have the power to set aside treaties so I don't think we can conclude much from someone declining to make a doomed argument in court. People accept the legality of laws they disagree with all the time when they're arguing cases and this doesn't prevent them from making a moral argument in other venues that the law is wrong and should be changed. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 13:21 on Feb 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 12:28
|
|
|
ughhhhhhh the law is 100% correct and just in every situation
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 02:54
|
|
|
Not at all. For instance, sometimes it prevents the construction of oil infrastructure. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 04:21
|
|
|
Recoome posted:ughhhhhhh the law is 100% correct and just in every situation No one has managed to advance a coherent or internally consistent argument why the law is unjust in this specific case, so baby steps.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 04:59
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:No one has managed to advance a coherent or internally consistent argument why the law is unjust in this specific case, so baby steps. Hahahahaha, no-one's going to convince you that maybe excessive force is actually excessive but oh well
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 05:16
|
|
|
Recoome posted:Hahahahaha, no-one's going to convince you that maybe excessive force is actually excessive but oh well
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 05:38
|
|
|
Recoome posted:Hahahahaha, no-one's going to convince you that maybe excessive force is actually excessive but oh well Oh, I thought we had moved on from that non-event to the general concept of owning land that once belonged to natives. Anyway, the order is up on PACER if anyone has access. Going by snippets from news sources, the judge (Daniel L. Hovlandsaid) ruled that no reasonable juror would find the force excessive, so take it up with him. (Also, it's really funny that they apparently filed a motion for an order enjoining law enforcement from using excessive force. If the force is actually excessive, you don't need a court order for it to be prohibited. It's like asking a judge for a court order saying no one is allowed to rob your house.)
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 07:39
|
|
|
I've ignored DR and so should you. Fellating cop and state authority isn't relevant to this situation, nor will it ever be, especially in the times to come. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 12:24
|
|
|
twodot posted:I'm willing to believe the forums poster Dead Reckoning can't ever be convinced that the police is acting excessively, but that seems like a really boring conversation. If you're claiming the police are using excessive force, shouldn't you present an argument that your claim is true, rather than that individual Internet posters are jerks? Even if you're 100% correct about Dead Reckoning, why omit the actual evidence that you're right about the police using excessive force for everyone else? It's the conversation we're going to keep having, though, because by this point it is clear Dead Reckoning will make the same argument to every post, no matter the evidence supplied. Just put DR on ignore.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 12:30
|
|
|
They've started hauling off the cleanup trash from the camps, and I found this gem from one of the stories: "Each load that's dumped is inspected by the Morton County Sheriff's Department. "We are looking for, as I said, anything illegal, anything that might be used to, I guess, harm our officers during a protest," says Jay Gruebele, Morton County Sheriff's Office Captain. Authorities are also searching through the piles for evidence they hope they don't find. "As bad as it sounds, we're looking for people that may have died and could be wrapped up in a canvas or a tarp or tent," says Gruebele." Mmm, a wet pile of garbage with a chance of corpses. Have fun looking through that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 04:57
|
|
|
So the Oceti Sakowin camp is being cleaned up now, so that leaves sacred stone, and the others on the reservation? http://bismarcktribune.com/news/sta...b517a8a0af.html From the pictures it looks like a lot of stuff was just abandoned at the camp, were the other camps able to salvage whatever they needed from it?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 18:05
|
|
|
https://www.facebook.com/TYTpolitics/videos/1822130451367995/?hc_ref=NEWSFEED
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2017 14:19
|
|
|
watch white farmers lose a loving lawsuit?
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2017 14:57
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
yep! seems to be the only thing that gets traction so here goes
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2017 15:08
|
|
|
blowfish posted:watch white farmers lose a loving lawsuit? "The builders of the Dakota Access pipeline acted lawfully in seizing private land through Iowa's eminent domain laws, a Polk County judge ruled this week." http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/money/business/2017/02/15/dakota-access-pipeline-had-right-take-iowa-land-judge-rules/97966662/
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2017 16:49
|
|
|
This week, Dakota Access reported that oil will probably flow through the pipeline this week. But wait, a new challenger appears! (PDF). The Cheyenne tribe filed for a restraining order because the mere presence of oil in the pipeline near their water will render it impure and unable to be used in their religious rituals, thereby it substantially burdening their free exercise of religion.quote:Long ago, Lakota prophets told of the coming of a Black Snake that would be coiled in the Tribe’s homeland and which would harm the people. In the prophecy, the snake was black, slippery, in motion, and would devour the people. Although there can be no way of knowing when this prophesy emerged into the Lakota worldview, Lakota religious adherents now in their 50s and 60s were warned of the Black Snake by their elders as children. The Black Snake prophecy is a source of terror and existential threat in the Lakota worldview.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 20:55
|
|
|
As funny as it would be for the thing to be shut down in some bizarro Hobby Lobby decision it's not going to happen. Not least of which because "religious freedom" is only for white people.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 21:18
|
|
|
The courts will likely say essentially the same thing that got said over the burial ground appeal back in September, namely "why the gently caress didn't you bring this up when you got asked 2 years ago?"
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 21:31
|
|
|
*casts raise thread* The Standing Rock Sioux Claim ‘Victory and Vindication’ in Court: A federal judge rules that the Dakota Access pipeline did not receive an adequate environmental vetting. quote:A federal judge ruled in favor of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe on Wednesday, handing the tribe its first legal victory in its year-long battle against the Dakota Access pipeline.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2017 08:33
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:*casts raise thread* Prediction: Pipeline to remain operating while "adequate" study prepared. Study will show all reasonable precautions were taken to address the cited areas and/or potential impacts are small enough to be acceptable. Study title's acronym somehow reads FUSR.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2017 12:54
|
|
|
Allright, but *suppose* the new report considers the risk to the territory unacceptable, can the courts do anything then?
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 22:06
|
|
|
probably some slap-on-the-hand fines
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 01:20
|
|
|
So no actual cancellation of the pipeline can be effected? That's kind of weak, if the report says the environmental damage is unsustainable.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 01:55
|
|
|
coyo7e posted:probably some slap-on-the-hand fines
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 06:54
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5eVKX2theo Some interesting stuff in this interview. I want this to end well for the people and not the businesses but....well, no one else seems very optimistic and I don't know much about this kind of thing. I guess I can hope.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 10:23
|
|
|
Tias posted:Allright, but *suppose* the new report considers the risk to the territory unacceptable, can the courts do anything then? Eh probably not. DA will argue that it acted in good faith and followed the requirements of the ACOE, that all the required safety measures and mitigation plans have been put in place, and that even if there were deficiencies in the permitting process there are no unaddressed safety concerns and the thing is in the ground and operating already (this would have been a better argument to make 3 years ago before billions of dollars got spent on construction) so there is no reasonable remedy. But the chance of the study coming back and not saying "yeah it's still fine" is virtually zero for all the same reasons, so meh.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 14:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 10:31 |
|
|
So the Atlantic article says there were two points of contention: 1. "Before approving the pipeline, the Corps did not study whether an oil spill at the pipeline would kill most of the river’s fish. It also did not report on whether the chemicals used to clean up a spill could poison local game, rendering them unfit for human consumption" The review would have to determine that a spill, from a pipeline ~100 ft under the lakebed is likely to impact enough of the water to affect the fish and stay there long enough to kill most of them off. The river's pretty wide at that point, as it starts to transition into Lake Oahe, so you'd need something like multiple breaks in the line, and multiple paths up from underground to cover a majority of the river. You'd also need to take into account that the Missouri moves at a pretty good clip, and so any oil spill in the water is going to get carried downstream, spreading the damage out, but also making it unlikely it would build up enough in one place to really affect the fish. From what I have seen of the oil spills North Dakota has had (and yes they have had many), you get these long strings of oil that may make oil lines on the vegetation and have some impact on the aquatics in areas that the oil pools in (like river eddies, backwater channels) but not enough to markedly affect the aquatic ecology. There would be a much better argument if the spill occurred in one of the small rivers it crosses, like the Heart, Knife, L. Missouri, etc., but I guess they're only looking at the Missouri? The second part would have to determine that whatever chemicals are used in cleaning up a spill (I assume on the water?) could be ingested and harm wildlife. EPA (and if I recall, ND) does not like chemicals to be used on water (unless we're talking big waterways like the ocean) because most of the chemicals used to "cleanup" oil spills are either dispersants that thin the oil out (by just spreading it out, so useless in a river environment) or things like bio remediation accelerants, which basically speed up microbial breakdown of the oil, which sounds all nice and environmentally friendly, until you realize those microbes, in the process of going gangbusters on the oil, also use up a hell of a lot of the oxygen in the water, and oxygen depletion will definitely kill the fish off (every year ND has big fish kills when the ice prevents enough oxygen from getting in). So chemicals are usually frowned upon, instead preferring mechanical removal (i.e. just sucking all the oil up). If they're talking about chemicals on land-based spills, there's always the risk of oil spills entering the foodchain (e.g. awhile back there was an oil spill in the middle of a wheat field and their was a discussion how that wheat had to be destroyed/disposed of instead of harvested for this reason) but the report would presumably have to prove that the area being applied with chemicals could not be controlled well enough to prevent wildlife from getting in (e.g. can't build a fence, can't scare the bird populations away for some reason) and that the chemicals used are harmful enough to animals/humans that the animals won't just metabolize/pass it out their system. Cows will eat oil stained grass from what I've heard, and get bad diarrhea or die if the oil is thick enough, but cows are also dumb as hell and can be stopped by just a barbed wire or electric fence. 2. "Boasberg’s second complaint with the Corps was on similar methodological grounds. According to federal regulation, every major project constructed near a poor community, community of color, or Native American reservation must be studied on environmental-justice grounds. The Corps shrugged off many of these rules, arguing that no affected group lived within a half-mile of the pipeline route." This one I don't know what all factors are used to measure the environmental-justice impact. The three affiliated tribes (north of standing rock) got a bunch of pipelines approved through their land (some under their portion of the Missouri), and got stage one of their oil refinery approved, so in some cases there must not be an environmental justice issue, though it'd be interesting to see what the determination is between a tribe that has oil investments compared to a tribe that doesn't. So I don't see them finding any plausible issue with #1, but possibly an issue with #2, depending on what all it entails.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2017 17:18
|
|