Federal judge reverses convictions of border humanitarian aid volunteers

[kag]

Source: Daily Kos

snip...

The Tucson Sentinel reports that Natalie Hoffman, Oona Holcomb, Madeline Huse, and Zaachila Orozco-McCormick had been found guilty of federal misdemeanors early last year for their work leaving water and other lifesaving supplies in the searing desert, Hoffman “for operating a motor vehicle in a wilderness area and entering a national refuge without a permit while Holcomb, Huse, and Orozco-McCormick were found guilty of entering without a permit and abandonment of property.”

But in her ruling this week, U.S. District Judge Rosemary Márquez wrote, “Defendants argue that those actions, taken with the avowed goal of mitigating death and suffering, were sincere exercises of religion and that their prosecution is barred by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.” According to the court document, all four are affiliated with the Unitarian Universalist Church. Márquez’s ruling, noting the thousands of sets of human remains that have been found in Arizona during the past two decades, further castigated the government for “gruesome logic.”

snip...

Read more: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2020/2/4/1916528/-Federal-judge-reverses-convictions-of-border-humanitarian-aid-volunteers?detail=emaildkre

---

I love this judge. "Gruesome logic" indeed.

I also love that they're using the "Religious Freedom Restoration Act" to defend themselves. Makes sense.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. It's about time that our judicial system sees the justice in leaving water & food at the border.

And I'm glad that there's an appropriate law on the books to give cover to their actions.

[angrychair]

12. Its creepy to me

This ruling appears to excuse crimes, even ones for the right reasons, on religious grounds.

What other crimes can I get away with if i did it with "closely held religious beliefs"?

It's a legitimate slippery slope.

This is a terrible rationale. I would have much preferred they use any other reasoning.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

13. I hear you, but I don't see it that way.

And I think it's unfortunate that there needs to be a law that says it's OK to leave water and food for the folks at the border.

It should be our right to do that.

[angrychair]

14. I completely agree

That in no way should what they did be against the law.

The charges were misdemeanors and a bit of a reach.

Regardless, I see a lot more opportunities for this to be used in a way to avoid criminal charges for harming others than it being used to help people doing good.

[efhmc]

2. So good in the true meaning of the word.

[LonePirate]

3. The fundamentalist and pro-life crowds are surely pleased with this decision, aren't they?

People using a Religious Freedom law to protect lives is something they agree with, don’t they?

[kag]

4. But of course! That's why they wrote the law in the first place.

[iluvtennis]

5. Excellent news. nt

[bitterross]

6. I love it when the cudgel gets used on its bearer

So nice to see the RFRA used on them in a way they won't like at all. Even though it is absolutely the Pro-Life position.

[backtoblue]

7. K&R

[Mendocino]

8. You can bust somebodies

car window open for a dog that is overheating, but not for leaving some water for a person...

Good for the Judge for seeing common sense and decency.

[LTG]

15. Not in most states

at least not without a number of hoops to jump. Only around 15 states have laws permitting people other than first responders to break into cars to save an animal. Most of those require 911 calls first, and then some require the person to remain until the police arrive and/or other steps.

Other states subject the individual to possible charges such as destruction of private property, as well as any expenses for damages. Wouldn’t stop me from doing it anyway. First responders only are shield from legal liability.

I looked into it a couple years ago after being at the point of getting a heavy object to break a window, when I saw an officer to flag down. He used his night stick on the window furthest from the dog while I kept it’s attention. He told me afterwords that I would have been at some potential legal jeopardy if I had done it. He agreed with me that he would have also done it if the positions had been reversed. Even if convicted a fine and deferred sentencing would have been a more than acceptable price to pay.

So, we don’t treat our animals any better than we treat desperate poor people trying to find a better life. Both deserve our respect and kindness.

Sorry if I dragged this too far off topic.

(More State specific info: https://www.animallaw.info/topic/table-state-laws-protect-animals-left-parked-vehicles )

[scarletwoman]

9. "...using the "Religious Freedom Restoration Act" to defend themselves." LOVE it!

Way to use the fascists' weapons against them!

[Pacifist Patriot]

10. Unitarian Universalists, I love it!

[Marthe48]

11. bless these righteous people

bless the humane judge