Slashdot Mirror


Authorities Arrest Activists Instead of Those Responsible For CA Gas Leak (inhabitat.com)

MikeChino writes: The California State Patrol has arrested two people in connection with the massive methane leak in Southern California's Aliso Canyon. Instead of busting company executives and engineers that caused the leak, the CSP arrested protesters who had draped banners on the headquarters of the California Public Utilities Commission. The banners highlighted the lax regulatory environment that enabled the spill.

128 comments

  1. There is no "California State Patrol" by chispito · · Score: 5, Informative

    I think you mean the California Highway Patrol

    This suggests something about the quality of the source's and the submitter's fact checking ability.

    --
    The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
    1. Re:There is no "California State Patrol" by OverlordQ · · Score: 5, Informative

      > This suggests something about the quality of the source's and the submitter's fact checking ability.

      Check all of his submissions, they're all trying to astroturf his shitty 'news' site

      --
      Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
    2. Re:There is no "California State Patrol" by roc97007 · · Score: 2

      Yes. So why are they being posted? Aren't there, like, editors or something?

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    3. Re:There is no "California State Patrol" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the state police, the CA Highway Patrol. It's basically interchangeable and the article is about the lax regulatory environment... nice red herring though. Exxon employee?

    4. Re:There is no "California State Patrol" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must bew ne... you know what, forget it.

    5. Re:There is no "California State Patrol" by Sax+Russell+5449D29A · · Score: 2

      Check all of his submissions, they're all trying to astroturf his shitty 'news' site

      While a good observation, I don't think anybody's really astroturfing. The submitter's user name is MikeChino, who seems to be the 'Managing Editor' at that particular blog. If anything, they're doing SEO.

      Nonetheless, I'd never trust a site where the editors have selfies as profile pictures. If they can't be bothered to go to a professional photographer to take a decent picture for their bio, what does that tell about the quality of their stories?

      --
      -SR
    6. Re:There is no "California State Patrol" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably because the summary and headline ware written to attract attention, and they did.

    7. Re:There is no "California State Patrol" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just look at their mugshots... They're all vegans.

    8. Re:There is no "California State Patrol" by faedle · · Score: 1

      Actually, no, they aren't. There is the California Highway Patrol and the California State Police. There actually is a difference, although slight between the two. It might be interesting to know which one of the two it was. The CHP often is the defacto police agency for many remote parts of California (and Aliso Viejo certainly ISN'T, but it wouldn't be unheard of for the Orange County Sheriff to either give zero fucks or have zero people to handle it). The CSP largely protects the State Capitol complex and related state installations such as the State Office Building in San Francisco (not the Capital City of California, BTW). It would be very unusual if the CSP did it, but again given the angle of "people hanging banners on the PUC building" also not unheard of.

      So yes, it matters. Was the arrest because of tangible threats (either by trespass or other activities) related to the PUC offices (which are in said State Office building in San Francisco), or was it just relating to the protest in Aliso Viejo (which is 400+ miles from either Sacramento or San Francisco) ?

      Yes, it matters. It matters a lot.

    9. Re:There is no "California State Patrol" by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 4, Funny

      From the article: Headline (emphasis mine):

      Shockingly, authorities arrest activists instead of people responsible for the Aliso Canyon methane gas leak

      No, it's not "shocking" that authorities would arrest someone who knowingly committed a minor crime rather than investigate one who caused a large-scale industrial accident, even if negligence was involved. Because, you know, that would require some bureaucrat to get off their ass and do some work rather than rubber-stamping forms and collecting fees. And it might just inadvertently highlight some systemic corruption or incompetence within the department, and that could just get plain messy. No one wants that. The protesters are low-hanging fruit. I sometimes wonder why it is some people put so much faith in their government when they're every bit has corrupt and/or incompetent as these corporations that are vilified so much?

      But unbelievably, the activists are now the ones going to jail.

      This writer is quite easily flabbergasted, isn't he? Or he loves faux-outrage. Either way, it makes him sound ridiculous and juvenile. Don't misunderstand... I'm sympathetic to what happened to these poor people who had to move out of their homes because of this gas leak, but the "article" is laughably bad. Yellow journalism is apparently back with a vengeance.

      the CSP arrested two protesters who draped banners on the headquarters of the California Public Utilities Commission

      Oho... I think I spotted the problem here. They went and pissed off government officials. That's why the hammer came down on them. And when you piss off the government, they can send police after you to arrest you and cart you off to jail.

      P.S. If I get modded down as flamebait, I'm going to blame government officials with mod points for trying to silence me.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    10. Re:There is no "California State Patrol" by Obfuscant · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, it's not "shocking" that authorities would arrest someone who knowingly committed a minor crime rather than investigate

      And it is even less shocking that the police would arrest someone who is currently committing a crime in public while still investigating a potential crime committed by the officials of a company. As in, they can see the protesters committing the crime, but it may take a while to examine documents to determine liability in a corporate environment.

      Where did we get the idea that arresting protesters in the act meant that they were arrested INSTEAD of someone else who allegedly committed some other, corporate crime?

    11. Re:There is no "California State Patrol" by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      Probably because the summary and headline ware written to attract attention, and they did.

      True I guess. But it's like so much of "news" these days. A headline that's begging to be clicked on, but then there's nothing there. What you'd expect for those websites with tens of advertisements, click-overs and click-unders, ("Fourteen minor league third basemen with insanely hot wives! Number six will give you a hernia!) but not what you'd expect in what was ostensibly a geek news site.

      Again, this is what editors are supposedly for. But.... I guess not. I'd go somewhere else for news, but where else is there?

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    12. Re:There is no "California State Patrol" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      A quality story now requires a professional photographer? I didn't know that was a requirement, I will definitely make sure anything I read online is backed up by a man in a suit to ensure only the truest information passes by me.

      Tl;dr? GP tried to link two unrelated events acting as if one requries the other to be true. Site/Blog could be shit still, just raising the poor argument.

    13. Re:There is no "California State Patrol" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " and the California State Police." Nope.

    14. Re:There is no "California State Patrol" by darthsilun · · Score: 1

      Your information is a bit out of date. California State Police were disbanded in 1995. That's presuming you can trust the Wikipedia article.[1]

      [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    15. Re:There is no "California State Patrol" by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 1

      Honestly, I'm not all that sympathetic with the people who did this. But lets get real... hanging banners in a place you aren't supposed to is about as minor a crime as you can perform and still call it a "crime", possibly just shy of jaywalking. Unless, of course, you're Greenpeace and you stomp all over an incredibly fragile natural treasure, scarring it permanently. But this was a banner hung on an office building.

      We'll see if anything comes of this investigation other than a slap on the wrist - my bet is there will be a whole lot of nothing... just a large fine that someone has to pay, which will probably go right back into the coffers of the regulatory agency that didn't properly monitor things in the first place. In the meantime, people have been forced to evacuate their homes. We'll see if anything manages to trickle back down to those folks who have been inconvenienced.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    16. Re:There is no "California State Patrol" by RenderSeven · · Score: 1

      http://www.dailynews.com/gener... It was CHP. Protestors scaled the outside of the building, demanded all gas storage facilities in the state be shut down, and said they would occupy the PUC until their demands were met.

    17. Re:There is no "California State Patrol" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It reads like some stupid asshat anti- fossil fuel environmentalists made it up. hmmm...MDSolar? Is that you?

    18. Re:There is no "California State Patrol" by Calydor · · Score: 1

      While a good article does not require a professional photographer, presenting yourself with a selfie displays a tendency to laisez faire solutions - a tendency that may very well be displayed in your journalistic integrity as well.

      As always, the two may have nothing to do with each other, professional journalists certainly write their share of BS, but there is nothing inherently wrong in considering it the first warning that something is amiss.

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    19. Re:There is no "California State Patrol" by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      There is the California Highway Patrol and the California State Police.

      Not since 1995: The California State Police merged with the California Highway Patrol in 1995.[1] [Wikipedia citation not found, so YMMV]

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    20. Re:There is no "California State Patrol" by flopsquad · · Score: 0
      --
      Nothing posted to /. has ever been legal advice, including this.
    21. Re:There is no "California State Patrol" by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      But lets get real... hanging banners in a place you aren't supposed to is about as minor a crime as you can perform and still call it a "crime",

      It is trespassing and potential destruction of government property. It's a crime. It may be a minor crime in your opinion, but still a crime.

      And you ignored the point that they can be arresting these folks for that crime while still investigating whatever other crime it is that you are more concerned about, so the statement that these folks were arrested INSTEAD of the others is ridiculous. A more complicated, white-collar crime requires more investigation than a trespass, and you'd expect trespassers to be arrested sooner than an engineer that is eventually determined to be responsible for some gas leak. It's not shocking IN THE LEAST.

    22. Re:There is no "California State Patrol" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WRONG BITCH.

    23. Re:There is no "California State Patrol" by nytes · · Score: 1

      This was at the California Public Utilities Commission, a regulatory agency.

      The company responsible for the leak is the Southern California Gas Co., and they've been arraigned on criminal charges already. (Admittedly, the charges they've brought so far don't carry much of a penalty, but at least they're being charged.)

      --
      -- I have monkeys in my pants.
    24. Re: There is no "California State Patrol" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. Always judge a book by its cover. If the illustrator is an idiot, chances are the author is an idiot too

    25. Re:There is no "California State Patrol" by Harlequin80 · · Score: 1

      Uh huh. Close all gas storage facilities. Right... Do these people not even consider what the outcome of that would be? Next it will be get rid of all dams and water storage facilities, it's just as logical.

    26. Re:There is no "California State Patrol" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Your attitude is why the country is in the shitter.

      You give people credibility based on their ability to polish a turd, no matter how useless their are otherwise.

      You put down people who don't polish the turd, and instead put effort into the matters at hand.

      Completely FUCKING BACKWARDS.

    27. Re:There is no "California State Patrol" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The government makes ANY form of effective protest illegal. Haven't you noticed that yet? Then they let Big Money criminals walk free while stepping on the face of anyone who dares to stand up and say that it's wrong. The government has no ethical leg to stand on until they change this behaviour. It is hypocritical of them to charge any of these protester with any crime.

      Anyone who defends that kind of garbage is a traitor and an enemy of freedom and justice.

    28. Re:There is no "California State Patrol" by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      A more important question is ...

      WHY THE FUCK IS THIS POSTED ON SLASHDOT?

      It has nothing to do with any technology that isn't 150 years old other than the website of the jackass slashvertisement.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    29. Re:There is no "California State Patrol" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I don't remember seeing mass arrests during the Occupy craze. In fact, during the BLM riots in Baltimore, the mayor explicitly told her police to stand down and let them burn shit.

      Of course, when some right-wingers occupy an empty building in the middle of nowhere, everyone loses their freaking minds.

    30. Re:There is no "California State Patrol" by Sax+Russell+5449D29A · · Score: 0

      Let's assume you're a turd. Would you go to a job interview unpolished?

      I dare say that profile picture quality at any given "news" site correlates strongly with the quality of the articles. This was my hypothesis before I even saw the content of the articles at the site in question. And you know what? I was right. If you don't believe me look at them yourself. There should be a huge "BIASED" stamp across the front page. The whole mentality they have going on there is so out of touch with reality it's not even funny.

      Trust is a complicated topic. If the editors of a blog think selfies send out a message of trust, then fine. That's their interpretation of the best means to do it. If I, the reader, however think that selfies send out a message of unprofessionality and lack of judgement, that's equally correct.

      --
      -SR
    31. Re:There is no "California State Patrol" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The government makes ANY form of effective protest illegal.

      Really? Climbing buildings is illegal - but aren't Americans allowed to protest on the road? As in walking around carrying signs & banners & shouting their message?

      Sure, not as impressive as climbing buildings - but boringly legal in most of the western world.

    32. Re:There is no "California State Patrol" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If turds couldn't be polished, would Trump be as popular?

    33. Re:There is no "California State Patrol" by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      > Vegans

      Heyyyy...waitaminnit!

      > California State Patrol

      CSP

      Crush Some Puss!

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    34. Re: There is no "California State Patrol" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can hear the Jack Boots marching in the background.

      The US really is a shit hole now..

    35. Re:There is no "California State Patrol" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stupid Slashdot! It deleted your citation.

    36. Re:There is no "California State Patrol" by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      presenting yourself with a selfie displays a tendency to laisez faire solutions

      I'm pretty sure that doesn't mean what you think it means.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  2. What do you expect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Authorities aren't going to arrest themselves.

  3. Yes by OverlordQ · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Instead of busting company executives and engineers that caused the leak, the CSP arrested protesters who had draped banners on the headquarters of the California Public Utilities Commission.

    Because the corporation has already been charged. What's your point here? You're saying if somebody does something illegal, everybody else gets a free pass to do illegal things to them? That's stupid.

    --
    Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
    1. Re:Yes by gurps_npc · · Score: 4, Insightful
      The corporation has been charged but none of the people at the corporation have been charged.

      Corporations can't go to jail. All they can do is pay fines or be dis-incorporated. Historically the fines charged tend to be minute - small fractions of the cost to make whole - and they are almost never dis-incorporated.

      Charging a corporation is like giving a warning to a person - it does nothing.

      If you want to truly punish wrong doing by corporations, you HAVE to press criminal charges and not at low level either. If the head of the corporation does not personally know the guy going to jail (or go to jail himself), he's just going to do the same old crap all over again.

      --
      excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    2. Re:Yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      None of that changes the fact that the headline is wrong by making it seem like activists were arrested for causing the gas leak instead of execs. The activists were arrested for trespassing and vandalism.

    3. Re:Yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      not at low level either

      Bullshit.

      "I was just doing my job!" shouldn't be an excuse if we want to go down this level of legal retardation.

    4. Re:Yes by taustin · · Score: 1

      Because the corporation has already been charged. What's your point here? You're saying if somebody does something illegal, everybody else gets a free pass to do illegal things to them? That's stupid.

      No, that's socialism. Or what passes for it these days.

    5. Re:Yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Odd, it worked in Nuremburg, and we've used that as a precedent for letting people go when they're state officials ever since.

      Why shouldn't it work now?

    6. Re:Yes by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      you HAVE to press criminal charges and not at low level either.

      The problem is proving them is next to impossible. Just look at the BP case, the criminal trials ended up falling to the point that one person is now facing a misdemeanor despite 7 high level criminal charges brought against him including manslaughter. The only personal punishment so far was by someone who pleaded guilty as they didn't want to go through years of legal battle and the $50000 fine would have been less than the legal fees anyway.

    7. Re:Yes by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Because the corporation has already been charged.

      And I bet they're SO scared. Look, they're like totally shaking. They're willing to pay a fine paid for by price hikes on the consumer.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    8. Re:Yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol let me guess, American? Watch out for that big bad word you've been indoctrinated against, social... ooo scary almost said it.

    9. Re:Yes by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It's time to introduce jail for corporations. In Japan corporations can be forced to shut down for a number of days. Staff sometimes get paid if they were not to blame, but otherwise the company can't do any business at all during that period.

      The longest shut down so far was over 100 days.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    10. Re:Yes by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 1

      Has there ever been a large corporation in the US actually dis-incorporated for criminal wrongdoing?

    11. Re:Yes by HiThere · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Sounds good. I do think that during that period corporations should be allowed to dissolve (but not go bankrupt). But how can you apply that to an international corporation? Especially not one incorporated within your legal bounds? Forbidding them to do business locally isn't quite the same thing. And what about rents due during that period on premises they occupy?

      I think that this would require an entirely new set of laws to be written. Does making a river poisonous count as 1 week, 1 year, or one decade "in prison"? Does it depend on who uses the river for what? Whoo! The idea has merit, but implementation would be horrendous, with many questions that have no obvious answer, and you know who would be pushing for minimal punishment.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    12. Re:Yes by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      Historically the fines charged tend to be minute - small fractions of the cost to make whole

      Remind me again how much BP has paid out? Or does the "B" in BP mean that the normal rules don't apply, despite the fact that it is more of a US company now than the name would imply?

      Incidentally, where are all those people on /. who want less regulation? Why are they not posting in this story?

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    13. Re:Yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The whole point of incorporation is to avoid personal responsibility.

      If you don't like it you should partition the government not to give incorporation.

    14. Re:Yes by asylumx · · Score: 1

      No, that's socialism. Or what passes for it these days.

      I don't see how economic policy plays in to this.

    15. Re:Yes by nytes · · Score: 1

      So Cal Gas is a public utility. Shutting them down would mean that the gas gets shut off for everyone's heating and cooking.

      --
      -- I have monkeys in my pants.
    16. Re:Yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nobody said that though, stupid.

    17. Re: Yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did Enron do that?

    18. Re:Yes by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      Charging a corporation is like giving a warning to a person - it does nothing.

      No, its worse than that.

      Giving a warning to a person goes on record and will almost certainly result in harsher punishment the next time around.

      When a corporation does it, they get fined and thats it. Next time they just get fined again, not anything larger or anything, just again. No real reason not to continue.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    19. Re:Yes by tlambert · · Score: 1

      The corporation has been charged but none of the people at the corporation have been charged.

      Corporations can't go to jail. All they can do is pay fines or be dis-incorporated. Historically the fines charged tend to be minute - small fractions of the cost to make whole - and they are almost never dis-incorporated.

      Actually, disincorporation is not an option, given that it's a California Company, and that's not a legal remedy (i.e. it would take a majority of shareholders voting to voluntarily dissolve). Delaware and Pennsylvania have similar restrictions (Pennsylvania requires both a majority and illegal activity by the directors, among other causes).

      Not that the whole "make whole" argument is pretty bastardized for this case, since the amount of methane being leaked, if it goes on for a full year, is about the same amount of methane you'd get from 30,000 farting cows during that same year. You also get more methane out of a couple large landfills. So in the larger scheme of things, while the false color plume photo was kind of neat, it's really not that much in the way of an actual problem.

    20. Re:Yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And electricity generation, since 51% of the power generated in California comes from natural gas.

    21. Re:Yes by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      Sounds good. I do think that during that period corporations should be allowed to dissolve (but not go bankrupt). But how can you apply that to an international corporation? Especially not one incorporated within your legal bounds? Forbidding them to do business locally isn't quite the same thing. And what about rents due during that period on premises they occupy?

      I think that this would require an entirely new set of laws to be written. Does making a river poisonous count as 1 week, 1 year, or one decade "in prison"? Does it depend on who uses the river for what? Whoo! The idea has merit, but implementation would be horrendous, with many questions that have no obvious answer, and you know who would be pushing for minimal punishment.

      The problem isn't in being able to apply punishment to either companies or those behind the companies because the legal framework already exists for this.

      The problem is that governments prefer to be bought off with large bribes (or penalties / fees if you prefer) and to get those bribes they have to agree not to penalize the company and those behind the company in any real way.

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    22. Re:Yes by khallow · · Score: 1

      The thing is we don't actually have criminal activity by anyone. There's no point to demanding people get charged in the absence of criminal activity with which to charge people.

    23. Re:Yes by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      You are right, it does require new laws. There are allowances for things like paying rent and suppliers, the rule is basically that the company can't do anything that generates profit like selling goods, manufacturing, getting new business, attending conferences etc.

      It's a great idea because it scales nicely with the business. For example, Apple make so much money that any fine is likely to be insignificant and written off as the cost of doing business, far smaller than the resulting profit. However, force all Apple stores and online sales to shut down for a week... Even the web site would be offline, no updates, no forums, no engineers working, no technicians fixing stuff. Massive loss of profit, massive reputation damage and likely to drive many customers elsewhere.

      It also strongly encourages shareholders to avoid demanding unethical behaviour. Even share trading is suspended for that period.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    24. Re:Yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So up the fines then. You can discorporate/bankrupt them with a fine bigger than the worth of the company.

    25. Re:Yes by HiThere · · Score: 1

      There's a lot of evidence that your reply is the most correct.

      FWIW, Louisiana used to have (perhaps it still does have) a "corporate death penalty" on the books. It was so rarely enforced that it might as well not have been there.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    26. Re:Yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Somehow, you got that completely backwards. No, I do not know how you managed that.

    27. Re:Yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is probably not a good idea to emulate the only group of people so inhuman that they deserved to be nuked /twice/.

    28. Re:Yes by KGIII · · Score: 1

      That's right! We should disband the EFF, FSF, Linux Foundation, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, and more!

      Wait...

      What?

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    29. Re:Yes by gurps_npc · · Score: 1
      Thats because the government agencies don't care about charges. They press for fines, as the criminal charges come from prosecutor who rarely investigate till after the agencies do/.

      Basically, the agencies should have a new rule - penalties must exceed cost to fix unless someone goes to jail. You want the minute fines, that's fine - as long as the corporation provides evidence against their employees. If not, the fines must cover total fix.

      --
      excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
  4. time for revolution. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    dig up the guillotine !

  5. Vandalism is still a crime by Crashmarik · · Score: 2

    Also taking out your frustrations on random people, isn't a valid legal defense.

    1. Re:Vandalism is still a crime by dywolf · · Score: 0

      he only exists to troll.
      best to ignore him.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    2. Re:Vandalism is still a crime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Pretty difficulty to trespass on public ground. Even if they climbed the building, climbing is not illegal.

      The Capitol building and White House are public ground. I guarantee that if I were to step on the White House lawn much less climb either building, at best there would be some "nice men who would like to have a chat with me". Most likely there would be a Secret Service sniper eager to take the shot.

      Just because it is a public building doesn't mean that everyone can do anything they want.

  6. News for Nerds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The poster (MikeChino) is a spambot for Inhabitat.com. This article is not news for nerds, let the Reddit pitchforkers have this one.

  7. Is this Slashdot? by ichthus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What the fuck is this story doing on Slashdot? How is this, in any way, tech related?

    --
    sig: sauer
    1. Re:Is this Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This could conceivably fall under "Stuff that matters". Except that this time it doesn't. It also may not even be true, the article itself says the sources for images are a stock photo site and Wikipedia, and appears to cite no sources for the actual story.

    2. Re:Is this Slashdot? by MrLogic17 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Can we just get a story category of "SJW"? That way it's easier to filter out these misleading flame baits.

    3. Re:Is this Slashdot? by Princeofcups · · Score: 2

      What the fuck is this story doing on Slashdot? How is this, in any way, tech related?

      Who ever said that Slashdot was a tech site?

      --
      The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
    4. Re:Is this Slashdot? by asylumx · · Score: 1

      Agreed, there is lots to be outraged about in the world, we really don't need to make stuff up.

  8. headline fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Authorities did not arrest activists and hold them responsible for the gas leak. They were arrested for trespassing.

  9. Re: What's this have to do with technology? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    To be fair, the leak was the subject of an article.

    But investigations will continue until the public forgets.

  10. Protect the corporations by justcauseisjustthat · · Score: 0

    We must protect the corporations at all cost, if the people get sick and die that's OK.

  11. Re: What's this have to do with technology? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How, why or what caused the leak is NOT in the article at all!

    tl;dr - "leaks BAD!, GAS harmful to puny humans!"

    I get it - a bad leak occurred and it should be investigated - But a hack article from a propaganda website whining that protesters vandalizing property were unfairly arrested is...

    stupid.

    And if this is what we're gonna see on the new and improved slashdot - Ima outta here.

  12. Re:What's this have to do with technology? by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

    Yeah, I'm sure multimillionaires that make big donations to leading politicians are going to be totally prosecuted.

    We all know what will happen. Some pathetic middle manager will be set up as the bad guy, while the board and senior executives get off, likely without a warning, and after executives have been rewarded vast bonuses because, you know, no matter how incompetent or evil an MBA is, they attract money like a black hole attracts matter.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  13. In other words, exactly the right people? by choprboy · · Score: 3, Informative

    The California State Patrol has arrested two people... instead of busting company executives and engineers that caused the leak, the CSP arrested protesters who had draped banners on the headquarters of the California Public Utilities Commission.

    In other words, exactly the right people? On the one hand you have "company executives and engineers" that are responsible for the loss of control over an industrial process; which has been clearly documented, who are currently the subject of state and federal investigation, and which is sure to lead to fines and punishment to cost hundreds of millions of dollars. On the other hand you have a bunch of self-righteous protesters, with no understanding of the real facts of what it takes to provide for millions of lives, who trespassed and possibly defaced/damaged private property. The local authorities have dealt with the local violations. The state/federal authorities are dealing with the state/federal violations. In other words, exactly what is suppose to be happening.

    1. Re:In other words, exactly the right people? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sure live up to your name, don't you?

    2. Re:In other words, exactly the right people? by blue9steel · · Score: 1

      The state/federal authorities are dealing with the state/federal violations. In other words, exactly what is suppose to be happening.

      If by dealing with you mean ignoring or giving them a fine equivalent to a jaywalking ticket after a settlement where they admit no wrongdoing, then yes it's proceeding as planned.

    3. Re:In other words, exactly the right people? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What does your comment have to do with the illegal activity of the protesters? Whether or not anyone at the company responsible for the leak gets charged or the company gets fined this doesn't lead to allowing illegal activity by anyone else...'2 wrongs don't make a right' (but 3 lefts do)...the protesters are acting like children...'but MOOOM he hit me first!'...yeah, doesn't work when your a child & it certainly doesn't work for adults & the law. They need to grow up.

  14. Police should enforce the law by joe_frisch · · Score: 2

    I expect (hope) the police will enforce the laws, and arrest people who have violated the laws, and not those who have not done so. The laws may be bad or biased in various ways, but it is not the job of the police to change laws - that is the function of the legislature.

    1. Re:Police should enforce the law by HiThere · · Score: 1

      That's fair. And I'm pretty sure it's illegal to poison people, so they are going to arrest those guys who poisoned people for profit, right?

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    2. Re:Police should enforce the law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Changes are they will not vote in the midterms...

    3. Re:Police should enforce the law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I expect (hope) the police will enforce the laws, and arrest people who have violated the laws, and not those who have not done so. The laws may be bad or biased in various ways, but it is not the job of the police to change laws - that is the function of the legislature.

      A half truth. Remember the lessons of Nuremberg!

      In the USA, a badly unethical legal profession has made a complete mess out of large portions of the legal system, because that creates long term business for their profession. Campaign contributions from the Bar Associations and other groups of lawyers influence both legislation and the selection of judges.

      As a result, there are lots of illegal laws, precedents, court orders, and so forth, in violation of fundamental rights and hence in violation of the US Bill of Rights, the highest law in the land.

      The willingness of the police force to enforce these illegal actions is one reason they keep happening.

      History shows us that lawyers will get out of hand until external force is applied to correct things. This is why the USA had slavery, it's why the USA had laws that discriminated against African-Americans, it's why we today have tort abuse, patent trolls, abuse of copyright, and so forth.

      The ethics problems in law are like a cancer that has metastasized and is destroying the system it lives in. It's a really ugly situation, and everybody that is paying attention understands that fixing things is going to be painful.

      The last thing we need is the police making things worse by being brain-dead and lazy, and hence accomplices to wrong-doing (however unwitting). It's not the job of the police to change the laws, but it is the job of the police (including federal agents) to refuse to enforce illegal laws, and that isn't happening often enough.

  15. Re:What's this have to do with technology? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Something like this?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yogAp9PTWLM

  16. Are the editors retarded? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How is this a story? They can't just randomly go pick up random people without any indication of who's at fault.

  17. arrests by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well... this seems to be a political-social story.
    not technical, not really even news this millenium.
    Speaking of bicycles: editors/managers of this site should be inspected for polyps....

  18. Elect more Democrats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's sure to fix it.

  19. complex = slower by supernova87a · · Score: 2

    Well, for fuck's sake, what do you expect?

    Complex violations of the law require more proof and investigation than simple everyday offenses.

    The case against any executives from the responsible company would involve proving that they were negligent, violated some codes, transmitted false information, etc. etc. etc. Duh. Do you even know what specific offenses they would be charged under? I'm guessing not.

    The protesters climbed on a building that wasn't theirs. Even I can figure out what laws that violates.

    The execs probably will eventually be charged. It just takes more time, but the wheels of justice do turn.

  20. there were Cal state police...1990's by Archfeld · · Score: 4, Informative

    There were in fact California State Police, but they were rarely seen outside Sacramento, the state capitol, as their duty was to protect the state buildings, and our elected officials. The California Highway patrol are tasked with patrolling the freeways and highways that cross county jurisdictions, with the stated purpose of traffic enforcement and assisting with incidents that cross county lines. There are also California State park police, aka Rangers, who are full on police but generally limited to, guess what, state parks and some county park/open space areas that contract to the state for such services.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    --
    errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
    1. Re:there were Cal state police...1990's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, they were the California Highway Patrol. If you read even the Wikipedia article you link, it says the California State Police was merged with the CHP in 1995.

    2. Re:there were Cal state police...1990's by Archfeld · · Score: 1

      Speaking of if you READ, the subject above does in fact read 1990's, but I have very low expectations of postings from AC's. Thank-you for confirming that opinion.

      --
      errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
  21. Headlines Without the Activism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can appreciate how news about an enormous methane leak is news for nerds, as all the various real experts and arm chair experts on physics, chemistry, climatology and so forth can debate about the ramifications of such an occurrence.

    But this is not about that. This is about a typical reaction to such an oversight. It always happens, and maybe it's newsworthy, for you know, the 6pm local news. And it is presented immediately to fit a narrative, starting with the headline. This is not slashdot-worthy.

    Fuck off already...

  22. Did I wake up in China? by tsotha · · Score: 2

    In the US we don't normally arrest people for honest mistakes, assuming they actually made mistakes, even if it's a result of incompetence. Unless someone has evidence to the contrary, it's perfectly reasonable to arrest the protesters without arresting anyone at the company.

    I really, really don't like this idea that someone has to go to jail every time something goes wrong. It's corrosive, and it will end up shielding people who really do belong in jail.

    1. Re:Did I wake up in China? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Corporate shill. You want us all to die.

    2. Re:Did I wake up in China? by captaindomon · · Score: 1

      I agree. And this, incidentally, is why we don't allow legal proceedings to pierce the corporate veil very often. We want engineers and technical people in general to feel safe to do their jobs and innovate for the betterment of society. It's extremely rare to actually press criminal charges against them, unless there are obvious, egregious, purposeful ethics violations. This isn't a third world country, where you design a plant with a flaw you didn't anticipate, and they drag you out of your home in the middle of the night.

      --
      Just because I can hook a shark from a boat, I do no offer to wrestle it in the water.
    3. Re:Did I wake up in China? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      I really, really don't like this idea that someone has to go to jail every time something goes wrong

      I thought that was the American dream? Something about smoking a joint and sitting behind a fence.

    4. Re:Did I wake up in China? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes we do arrest people for honest mistakes. Maybe you have heard of the phrase "ignorance of the law is not a defense". Maybe if you are white enough police will let you off with a warning, but that is up to their discretion. These yahoos deserved what they got.

    5. Re:Did I wake up in China? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      In the US we don't normally arrest people for honest mistakes,

      Mistakes? They intentionally put the gas there, someplace it should have never been stored in case there was a problem. This is an incredibly seismically active area we're talking about, that is to say, the whole goddamned state. This was a horrible, terrible, ridiculous idea from the beginning, and anyone willing to take money for it should be fired out of a cannon without a safety net.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    6. Re:Did I wake up in China? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's sometimes better to wake up in China. If a company there knowingly puts the life of many people at risk, people running it may face death penalty. I think that's reasonable. Getting a fine of a handful of change per person at risk is the unreasonable thing.

  23. THIS 'STORY' IS SHIT, TAKE IT DOWN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Incoherent babbling, inaccurate, virtually unintelligible. TAKE IT DOWN. What the actual FUCK, Slashdot? Do you check ANYTHING before you post it? Or did they pay you?

  24. Land of the free? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Any US citizen think they are not subjects to corporate interests?

  25. You think arresting activist is bad ; by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

    They actually executed a man in Georgia instead of arresting those responsible for the CA gas leak.

    1. Re:You think arresting activist is bad ; by Dantoo · · Score: 1

      It's far far worse than that. They bombed a hospital in Syria instead of arresting random employees of a CA gas company.

  26. And pray to some squirrel-god by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

    And now, time for another episode of...Unfrozen Caveman Websurfer!

    Unfroze Caveman Websurfer: Your world frightens and confuses me. These "computer" boxes seem like bad juju magic to me. A post like this makes me want...to go onto tumblr and rage around.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  27. socialism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    socialism is public libraries, public healthcare, public roads, public schools, public parks

    if you are really a pure libertarian, all that should be private.

    or perhaps you are a little libertarian, and a little socialist, and you like some public services, but not all.

    There is no pure capitalist, libertarian or socialist government. Governments built on fixed ideology fail quickly.

    1. Re:socialism by KGIII · · Score: 1

      How the hell is that insightful? You know, the Libertarian ideology is older than Rand, right? If you don't understand the ideology, ask.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  28. Here's a better article on this by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 4, Informative

    Pasadena Star News has a far better write-up on this. One, is was the California Highway Patrol. Two, the building they trespassed on is owned by the California Public Utilities Commission, which is a .gov so it's probably property belonging to the State of California ("after scaling state building" in the headline). Three, the protesters are quoted "we are occupying the PUC".

    1. Re:Here's a better article on this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The building is actually the state office building in California. It has more than the PUC.

  29. Why was this posted by m0s3m8n · · Score: 0

    Nice "Agenda" laden post. Good job /. editors.

    --
    Conservative, mod down for violating /. political norms.
  30. Excellent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is great news.

  31. Bad Law by JimSadler · · Score: 1

    It has come to the point that many people now believe that only "certain people" are arrestable in the US. For example, find just one federal conviction last year for a man sleeping with an under- age prostitute. Yet twelve- year- olds do get arrested for prostitution but not the Johns.

  32. Which is it? by kenh · · Score: 1

    Instead of busting company executives and engineers that caused the leak, the CSP arrested protesters who had draped banners on the headquarters of the California Public Utilities Commission. The banners highlighted the lax regulatory environment that enabled the spill.

    Which caused the accident, the executives and engineers or the lax regulatory environment?

    --
    Ken
  33. (Sarcasm) by Not-a-Neg · · Score: 1

    Nice to see an unbiased summary on Slashdot for a change. (/sarcasm)

    --
    -==- Buy a Mac and leave me alone!
    1. Re:(Sarcasm) by cwsumner · · Score: 1

      Nice to see an unbiased summary on Slashdot for a change. (/sarcasm)

      Thanks for marking the sarcasm! 8-)

  34. Posters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe they were arrested for hanging posters on the building? It is like saying there was an arrest in a black lives matter protest, and writing an article saying protesters were arrested for killing a black kid instead of the person responsible. This is the kind of crap democrat reporters write.

  35. Re: What's this have to do with technology? by KGIII · · Score: 1

    Ima outta here.

    Excellent. You were actually managing, somehow, to contribute less than the submitter of this article. Be gone with you.

    --
    "So long and thanks for all the fish."