19 January 2019, 10:28 AM
wtgI don't know what to say
quote:
The first of several trials of humanitarian-aid volunteers ended with a guilty verdict Friday, as a federal judge in Tucson said four volunteers broke the law when they left food and water in a desolate border area.
The volunteers with Tucson-based No More Deaths left water jugs and cans of beans in an area west of Tucson where dozens of sets of human remains were recovered in recent years. The August 2017 trip to the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge broke the law when the volunteers failed to obtain a permit, drove on prohibited roads and left food and water on the refuge, according to a verdict filed Friday in U.S. District Court.
After a trial this week, U.S. Magistrate Judge Bernardo P. Velasco found the volunteers guilty of all charges. They face up to six months in federal prison. A sentencing date has not been set.
Natalie Hoffman was convicted of operating a motor vehicle in a wilderness area. Hoffman and Oona Holcomb, Madeline Huse and Zaachila Orozco McCormick were convicted of entering a national wildlife refuge without a permit and abandoning property there. All of the charges are misdemeanors.
“This verdict challenges not only No More Deaths volunteers, but people of conscience throughout the country,” Catherine Gaffney, a long-time volunteer with the group, said in a statement issued after the verdict. “If giving water to someone dying of thirst is illegal, what humanity is left in the law of this country?”
The Cabeza Prieta refuge is a desolate area of 860,000 acres that stretches north from the U.S.-Mexico border. Records from the Pima County Office of the Medical Examiner show 43 sets of human remains were recovered on the refuge since the start of 2017.
https://tucson.com/news/local/...3c-ab5ab1b4e19a.html19 January 2019, 10:44 AM
Piano*DadThis is a bit of hype, I think. They won't get six months in jail for "committing" a misdemeanor of this sort. Yes, it's a downer, but shouldn't "people of conscience" be willing to accept the consequences of breaking the law in this fashion?
Devil putting on his advocate hat ...
I'm not convinced that individuals should be allowed to set aside the laws against damaging pristine wildlife areas just because they decide that it's "right" in this case. That seems like a pretty slippery slope into individual interpretation of which laws to accept, or judicial micromanagement of situations case by case. Maybe we can carefully craft general exceptions and write those exceptions into federal law (I'm dubious), and maybe this case will spur a useful public discussion. But these folks broke pretty clear laws designed to preserve wild areas.
19 January 2019, 11:23 AM
wtgI agree with everything you say, P*D. But you gotta wonder why a prosecutor chose to pursue this particular case.
19 January 2019, 12:31 PM
MikhailohBecause a federal offense was brought to his attention? Isn't that his job?
I see your point, but it is at core sentimentality. As PD said though none of these folks will do any time.
19 January 2019, 12:39 PM
Piano*Dadquote:
Because a federal offense was brought to his attention? Isn't that his job?
That's a reasonable presumption, and it goes for the judge as well.
On the other hand, the prosecutor does have some latitude, so it's not completely unreasonable to probe for prosecutorial motives beyond "I have to." I don't know the facts, so my first presumption isn't to think that the prosecutor is the second coming of Sheriff Arpaio. Perhaps the prosecutor's office will explain at some point.
19 January 2019, 12:57 PM
MikhailohI think they are walking a wire between good intentions and upholding an important law. No very good outcome is possible.
19 January 2019, 01:40 PM
QuirtEvansquote:
Originally posted by Mikhailoh:
Because a federal offense was brought to his attention? Isn't that his job?
I see your point, but it is at core sentimentality. As PD said though none of these folks will do any time.
There is another phrase to describe a stupid law ... the law. Those who engage in civil disobedience because they don’t like the law need to be prepared for the consequences.
19 January 2019, 01:51 PM
NinaThis has been going on in Arizona for a long time and, until recently, everyone turned a blind eye to it. While we were still in Arizona, a group was arrested and convicted of littering for leaving water in the desert in the very same place. That conviction was appealed and overturned, but the decision was written very narrowly, which sent a red flag up. So I think the ground was set, where the fact that it was overturned told people it was OK to continue, and the fact that the decision was made on very narrow grounds meant that there would be further arrests and litigation.
Littering is far different than driving on prohibited roads without a permit. Would they have received a permit? It's hard to say, but I doubt it. Whatever Judge Velasco's personal opinions on the matter were, I don't believe he had much choice in the matter.
But here's what I would do, if I were In Charge of Everything. I would allow for regular drop-offs of food and water to the area, on humanitarian grounds. If a permit is required, so be it--but the permit would be easy to obtain. Perhaps I'd even contract with No More Deaths to go out every 2 weeks and restock and clean up. Because these are people, who are desperate and dying. We are going to look the other way because they didn't get a permit? It's obscene.
As an aside, most of the people who end up dying in the desert have already been fleeced by coyotes who will take their money (at exorbitant prices) and frequently take them to the border, possibly point them to a tunnel, give them (maybe) a map, and shove them across with virtually nothing. This despite promises to deliver them safely to a habitable area. Terrorists don't die in the desert. Desperate people with no options are who die in the desert.