|
|
|
|
gretriever
Hipster Doofus
|
|
|
Joined: 16 Jul 2003
Posts: 19385
Location: A moving target in a firing range.
|
| Back to top
|
|
 Posted: 05/10/05 - 08:05 Post subject: Will they respect and abide by the sentence?
|
|
|
|
|
copteacher
Adjunct
|
|
|
Joined: 08 Jun 2002
Posts: 20588
Location: Teaching in the Halls of Justice
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 05/10/05 - 08:39 Post subject:
they better watch what they wish for with environmental laws.
Very interested to see how it plays out.
|
|
|
|
|
Sahara
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 17 May 2002
Posts: 3345
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 05/10/05 - 21:52 Post subject:
I tend to appreciate the position of Greenpeace being an environmental advocate despite not caring for all their tactics. But back On Topic... these guys and Greenpeace should have done better and followed the existing rules/law. Ironic, yes. If they expect diligence, they should perform it.
rtpd... It already played out in the courts according to the article. | the article wrote: | The six-person state District Court jury convicted Greenpeace on two counts of failing to have the oil spill prevention plan and acquitted the group on the two counts of failing to obtain a certificate of financial responsibility.
Sorensen [ship's captain] was convicted on three counts, and Beekman [ship's agent] was acquitted on all charges. |
|
|
|
|
|
airehead
Oompa Loofah
|
|
|
Joined: 12 Nov 2002
Posts: 18788
Location: Between here and eternity...
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 05/10/05 - 22:26 Post subject:
I, too, am amazed at their shoddiness. Taking that much (or any amount of petroleum products) into open water is a potential hazard--and no back up plan could have been horrible for that pristine environment.
I wonder what their thought processes were? It makes no sense.
|
|
|
|
|
copteacher
Adjunct
|
|
|
Joined: 08 Jun 2002
Posts: 20588
Location: Teaching in the Halls of Justice
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 05/11/05 - 05:57 Post subject:
| Sahara wrote: | I tend to appreciate the position of Greenpeace being an environmental advocate despite not caring for all their tactics. But back On Topic... these guys and Greenpeace should have done better and followed the existing rules/law. Ironic, yes. If they expect diligence, they should perform it.
rtpd... It already played out in the courts according to the article. |
I meant where fines will go, appeals, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
TOsteve
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 08 Dec 2004
Posts: 1468
Location: Out for a run
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 05/11/05 - 08:02 Post subject:
| airehead wrote: | I, too, am amazed at their shoddiness. Taking that much (or any amount of petroleum products) into open water is a potential hazard--and no back up plan could have been horrible for that pristine environment.
I wonder what their thought processes were? It makes no sense. |
The story is a little sketchy on details but it sounds like they had the contingency plans in place and just hadn't submitted the correct paperwork. This isn't much of a story but it was probably deemed newsworthy based on (as gretriever put it) the "irony" factor.
|
|
|
|
|
airehead
Oompa Loofah
|
|
|
Joined: 12 Nov 2002
Posts: 18788
Location: Between here and eternity...
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 05/11/05 - 10:01 Post subject:
| TOsteve wrote: |
The story is a little sketchy on details but it sounds like they had the contingency plans in place and just hadn't submitted the correct paperwork. This isn't much of a story but it was probably deemed newsworthy based on (as gretriever put it) the "irony" factor. |
Yeah. Great irony. For a group that is so dangerously vocal about everyone else following the letter of the law, I would think that would be their first priority--to set the example for others.
|
|
|
|
|
Wicked Flea
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 27 Mar 2003
Posts: 365
Location: Hair of the Dog
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 05/11/05 - 11:43 Post subject:
| airehead wrote: |
Yeah. Great irony. For a group that is so dangerously vocal about everyone else following the letter of the law, I would think that would be their first priority--to set the example for others. |
Yes but..(to stay in the "irony" portion of the topic)
One would think that a lot of groups (for example - religious groups) would be the ones that would walk the walk they talk but the irony is those that should be setting the example sometimes are the ones who aren't.
Now as far as breaking the law in not filing proper paperwork, of course they should be held accountable.
But if it was merely an oversight on their part surely they should not be held more accountable then let's say someone who actually caused a spill..
An award of $287 million for actual damage and $5 billion for punitive damages was awarded by an Anchorage jury in 1994. Exxon appealed against the ruling and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the original judge Russel Holland to reduce the amount. On December 6, 2002 the judge announced that he had reduced the damages to $4 billion, which he concluded was justified by the facts of the case and not grossly excessive. Exxon's company position is that no punitive damages are justified because the spill was an accident. However in court it was argued that allowing a "known drunk" to captain the ship was reprehensible. Exxon sent it back to court, to be considered in regards to a recent supreme court ruling in a similar case, resulting in Judge Holland actually upping the punitive damages to $4.5 billion, plus interest. Exxon is again appealing, some fifteen years after the incident. The case currently sits in the 9th Circuit appelate court.
|
|
|
|
