Jury says Greenpeace owes hundreds of millions of dollars for Dakota pipeline protest

Trump was found liable for sexual abuse in addition to defamation. That is explicitly violence. So there is a comparison.

 

It was a North Dakota jury. Should anyone be surprised?

 

LAWFARE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Can someone give me a quick update please; at this point, does MAGA approve or disapprove of violent rioting?

 

I can compare it to a Trump verdict in one significant way; nobody voted Greenpeace to be President of the United States after seeing them found guilty of 34 felonies.

 

Use this on him, OG.

 

So who pays for the J6 violence? Can we hold the organizer liable?

 

That’s funny right there!!!

 

So long as you goose-step, extend your right arm and yell "Heil the Emperor" you are allowed to do whatever you want, including attempting to overthrow the government. Say mean things about and oil company, that is punnishable by death it North Dakota.

 

Someone seriously needs to sue the organizers of the J6 rally using the same basis. Why wouldn't they be liable if Greenpeace is? Sue his pacs and anyone else associated that has anything to lose.

 

Now that you’ve opened the door to casually dismiss verdicts based on geography, I guess we don’t need to see any more references in this thread to New York verdicts on Trump.

 

Your point is valid, but there may also be a chicken/egg aspect to this line of thought.

Yet another slippery slope MAGA led us down in their degradation of ...... well, almost everything American.

 

Perhaps. But in the mean time, this thread is about the line between lawful, peaceable protesting and unlawful interference with lawful enterprise.

 

One could also argue that who knows Trump better than residents of New York. In addition to tangible facts a jury also evaluates the credibility of the parties or specifically in the case of Trump the defendant.

 

And one could further argue that no one understands the implications of this pipeline than the good people of North Dakota, and no one could better evaluate the credibility and motivations of outside agitators. So may I assume this line of argument, dismissing a North Dakota jury’s verdict, is done?

 

Your basic point is correct that we shouldnt dismiss a jury based on geography (more people voted for Trump in NYC than in North Dakota as a whole). But I also highly doubt the jury consisted of people from the Standing Rock reservation or people directly impacted by its construction. The company diverted the pipeline away from Bismark because it was deemed risky for their water supply, so there is definitely a NIMBY element to it. I believe North Dakota doesnt have any kind of anti-SLAPP law either, so its also unlikely this suit could have proceeded in other jurisdictions in the first place.

 

My problem wasn't with the finding that Greenpeace may have been culpable it was the size of the verdict. Although the organization played a relatively minor role in the demonstrations against the pipeline it was the only potential defendant with deep pockets as well as being the most high profile defendant. A verdict against a Native American organization or a group of local environmentalists wouldn't have gotten anywhere close to the publicity as the verdict against Greenpeace.

 

You make good points, and I basically agree with them entirely; in short summary, our country can't function without a certain amount of respect for legal institutions, which includes juries of various locations.

The problem, of course, is that half the country expects this standard but has literally for years not reciprocated. Whether that be from their voters, criminal leader, or political organization. Dishonesty, criminality, bad faith and lying are tolerated. These people are parasites; they suck the life from their host while offering nothing in return.

Am I off-topic? Understandable if this post is considered such. But my point is valid too; where's the way forward when the half of our country that "leads" it doesn't even feel bound by the slightest bit of integrity or honesty?