Free “Free” Luers
Thanks to the ubiquitous Bret for this one.
Usually I just read the Pulse section for the highly entertaining ramblings of Aaron-Im-not-a-journalist-Shakra, a genius in his own right, so forgive me for missing this doozy of an article.
It describes the Day of Solidarity for Eugene Political Prisoner Jeff Free Luers, which will take place at the Wow Hall on June 12th (Ticketmaster doesnt book this one, so youre on your own). Free, as you may remember, was the individual behind the fire-bombings of three SUVs at a Chevrolet dealership in Eugene.
The activists involved in the solidarity movement are quite upset over Frees imprisonment, going so far as to call it politically motivated. This seems to be a bit of a stretch to me; I mean, the guy did blow the shit out of several SUVs. Im no lawyer, but I do believe that demolishing somebody elses private property is a punishable offense, no matter how symbolic the action may seem to you personally.
Free received a 22-year sentence for his political statement. Im sensitive to non-violent offenders being punished excessively for their actions, which is why I usually disagree with mandatory sentencing as a rule. Thus, I understand the argument here. However, I feel little pity for Free, as he has aligned himself with the increasingly violent eco-defense movement. And unlike drug offenders, whose actions rarely disrupt the lives of everyday citizens (well, maybe the late-night pizza delivery guy), Free actually went out of his way to commit an implicitly violent act. I dont care how many precautions Free took to ensure that nobody was hurt, it was still a stupid act intended to strike fear in the hearts of the owners of the dealership, and it could have easily caused a person to get killed or injured.
Here is my favorite quote, attributed to Jesus Sepulveda, a Spanish GTF: It was a political statement and he didn’t intend to hurt anyone … It was a political statement against violence — violence is anything that harms living creatures. The only real terrorism here is state and corporate terrorism, which goes against people and the planet.
Indeed. Its not even worth it…
blueprint beachhead worriers boulders McAdam abstractionist?Yukon.secretive?heaven
I doubt anyone is still reading this but, according to the Mercury article:
“Under Oregon’s Measure 11, he is ineligible for parole or reduced sentencing.”
The Mercury today did a feature on Free
p.s. if this doesn’t work, make it pretty Olly…
Hell yes, ride a bike! We’ll get to burning those later on in the Revolution.
For my part, “sued” should read “used” in the comment above. And there ain’t nothing wrong with the riding of bikes.
Luers will probably get his sentence reduced on appeal, which I don’t think is unreasonable. Ten years would be plenty, imho. The real question is, whatever happened to his confrere “Critter”?
The whole thing is quoted from the law school guy. I’m bad at HTML. I do agree with him that you should ride a bike!
So “Free” burns SUV’s to protest the air pollution they cause? How much crap was put in the air by all the burning rubber and plastic and fabric and god knows what else they build those things with. Hey, let’s protest river pollution by dumping chemicals in the river! Give me a break. Let this ecoterrorist rot in prison. I hope he makes lots of “friends” in there.
I’m confused. Is that whole quote from the law school guy, or are the last half-dozen paragraphs courtesy of Educated Foot? Thanks for it, anyway.
Luers is a victim of minimum-sentencing laws: a certain number of years per count of arson. Tough break. On the other hand, it’s hard to feel any sympathy for the guy.
The thing is, necessity defenses based on non-imminent threats can be sued to justify literally anything, as our friend ably demonstrates above.
An international note on SUVs…
Paris+SUVs=Banned?
mother earth was a tease. she had it coming
In the real world, we call this sort of thing arson, vandalism, and on the outside terrorism. As for the rest, it’s pointless to engage this, as you’ll eventually call me a fascist and spew some drivel about historical inevitability and the rape of Mother Earth.
In the spirit of airing the publicly stated opinions of not-quite-there law students initiated recently by your magazine, I’d like to offer this for your edification, posted on a class discussion board a while back by somebody or other:Jeffrey Luers’ case hits close to home for me, and the new “eco-terrorist” crackdown brings up the very issues that propelled me into law school. Like Luers, I am an anarchist and have been involved in environmental activism for several years. I have also been arrested and on trial for lesser but similar reasons. But for fortune, I, unlike Luers, was not made an example of by means of an outrageous sentence. I would like to offer my humble but radical opinion on Luers’ case and how it relates to our last class discussion.
Frequently, laws and regulations protect the interests of industry rather than the interests of the environment. Additionally, many legislatures and government officials are either financially supported by or directly involved with environmentally destructive companies and are unwilling to change their environmental policies. Often, the only way to take active measures to effectively protect the environment is by doing so illegally.
I believe that illegal acts against property or economic interests that are done for the purpose of protecting human life and environmental sustainability are justified. Above all rights of property, people have a right to live, and life depends on a healthy and sustainable environment. Additionally, I feel that the environment has, in itself, a right to exist; more so than people have a right to destroy what they please, be it for profit or convenience. I would be foolish to assert that people could do nothing that has any affect on the natural world. Obviously, people depend on certain resources to live. However, when the threshold of sustainability is crossed, when the actions of industry or people have such an affect as to prevent life from continuing indefinitely, something must be done. It is necessary.
The law’s exclusion of these crimes from the “necessity defense” illustrates to me a lack of foresight on the part of legislatures and the courts towards the severity of environmental destruction. I do not suggest that the necessity defense should be the best way or only reason to acquit environmentalists. However, I use the example of environmental necessity to point out, what I feel, is a fault in the system. The necessity defense’s requirement that a danger must be imminent (see Commonwealth v. Leno) seems nearsighted, particularly in cases that deal with larger issues such as environmental protection. Is protecting the environment only justified when conditions have gotten so bad that danger to human life is imminent? Must people wait until carbon emissions have almost completely destroyed the air we breathe before they can assert that people have a right to exist more than cars and SUVs do?
To explain the necessity defense, the Model Penal Code Commentary to section 3.02 offers the example of property destruction to prevent a fire. The MPC justifies property destruction in this example because there is a larger interest in preventing injury, death, or destruction of a greater amount of property. Can this not be applied to environmental cases? Are the consequences of environmental destruction not greater than the value of property? What devastation could be caused by a fire that wouldn’t be caused by a toxic atmosphere or any other unlivable environmental condition? Though the destruction of the environment, unlike a fire, is a gradual process rather than an imminent threat, it is no less devastating to human life.
I think there is nothing more necessary than protecting what our lives depend on. I agree with what Jeff Luers did. I believe that anyone who cherishes the air they breathe and appreciates the life they derive from it has a right to do the same.
Ride a bike!
You know Dude, I myself dabbled in anarchism at one point.
But I’m not about to riot in the streets or say Leurs doesn’t deserve it. Fact is, though, convicted murderers often get as little as eight or ten years, so something stinks here. Whether this means Free should have gotten less, or murderers should get more, I can’t say . . . but it’s probably the latter.
Heh. I concur.
Tyler wins because he successfully worked in a Lebowski reference. When will the rest of society learn that’s all you need to do to win a rational argument? Good work, Tyler.
Nobody fucks with the Jesus, man!
Also, I think now we know the answer to the question, “what would Jesus do?” Smash the state and end corporate hegemony!
Tyler, I agree, although I can see the argument about costs to the general welfare from people being hepped up on goofballs all the time, so I stand by my assertion that we need to look on a case-by-case basis regarding drug policy. I also stand by my assertion that you are drunk and flailing about.
Tim, I understand that we’re under the same roof right now, so we could discuss this rationally in person, but I’m going to say that you’re wrong in print anyway.
Drug offenders (and by that I mean those who partake in recreational drugs) are often sent to prison for little more than lighting up a few doobies. Mandatory sentencing for drug offenses are wrong-headed. Punish the person for what they do on the drug, no for taking the drug.
And unlike drug offenders, whose actions rarely disrupt the lives of everyday citizens
I’m not usually one to go all draconian about drug enforcement, but I think this statement is rather false. Theft, robbery, assault, muggings, all of these things happen everyday and many are drug-related. The thing is that drugs need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, not in the way things are currently done, especially not with pot being a Schedule I drug.
On the “Free” issue, I say let him rot. He’s a vandal, and a terrorist. And a political prisoner like Mumia Abu-Jamal is a political prisoner.