View Full Version : Colorado Paper Refuses To Retract Letter Calling For Violence Against Frackers
“If the oil and gas industry puts fracking wells in our neighborhoods, threatening our lives and our children’s lives, then don’t we have a moral responsibility to blow up wells and eliminate fracking and workers?” Andrew O’Connor wrote (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:96gWNG5LRmAJ:www.dailycamera.com/letters/ci_30930903/andrew-j-oconnor-moral-responsibility-fight-fracking+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us) in a letter to the paper’s editors.
http://dailycaller.com/2017/04/22/colorado-paper-refuses-to-retract-letter-calling-for-violence-against-frackers/
The actual letter.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:96gWNG5LRmAJ:www.dailycamera.com/letters/ci_30930903/andrew-j-oconnor-moral-responsibility-fight-fracking+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
I don't interpret this as a call to murder oil field workers but I can see where some people would. How long before there are calls for violence against gas stations or people using vehicles deemed "a pollution hazard" or "gas guzzler"? I realize he is talking directly about the extraction method known as fracking.
I wonder if Andrew knows what the word "hypocrite" means? He is obviously using electricity which is mainly generated by burning coal or natural gas (he might have solar panels on his roof though), both of which are EVIL fossil fuels, I'll bet he drives a car and his house is heated with natural gas.
While the author of the letter is certainly a dummy, why should the newspaper retract the letter? It's a free speech issue and drama brings readers. Andrew is a big boy and can assume the risk of the consequences of his actions.
I don't agree that this letter should be retracted, the Camera did the public a service by not retracting it. Now the people whom the author has it out for are aware of possilbe foul play coming their way.
That's a great point as well.
I would love for people taking this stance to be deprived of everything made by/from/with the assistance of "fossil fuels". It would be a cold and harsh existence.
JohnTRourke
04-23-2017, 13:50
People still read the newspaper? really?
I think the author is free to say what ever they want to. I'm trying to imagine the backlash that'd happen if someone said the same about all the grow operations for weed around town. The grows suck up huge amounts of electricity, like mentioned in the OP that uses up plenty of resources.
I would love for people taking this stance to be deprived of everything made by/from/with the assistance of "fossil fuels". It would be a cold and harsh existence.
There would be much crying and gnashing of teeth. I would watch with great pleasure as they starved to death in the fields.
KevDen2005
04-23-2017, 15:19
People still read the newspaper? really?
I'll sign you up for the Rocky Mountain News
Grant H.
04-23-2017, 15:47
The guy is an idiot.
I'd like to know what a "fracking well" is...
Does he not get that blowing up a well would be far more detrimental than the actual drilling/frac process. Oh well, stupid liberal BS as usual.
Bailey Guns
04-23-2017, 16:06
Common sense apparently isn't something this guy is familiar with.
He probably went to CU or Berkley where they teach that the best way to get your way in a country of laws, is break the law and use strong arm tactics. Perfectly normal reaction to something being done that’s legal and you don’t like it.
By the way, I think read the Rocky Mountain News every day, I can’t remember.
It is boulder so you can expect it to be just as liberal as Denver or any other big college town these days.
Sent from my 2PQ93 using Tapatalk
This is the same guy that wants to send people with guns to take your guns?
JohnnyDrama
04-23-2017, 20:51
I say good on'im. As I am a fan on Edward Abbey and liked the "Monkey Wrench Gang" book, I think if more green enviroweenies put a little skin in the game (so to speak) we, as a society, would be a lot more cognizant of how we conducted out day-to-day lives. To start with, I reckon we'd be much less inclined to send such letters to a newspaper or be as flippant about violence. I also believe we'd be much more energy efficient. I'm not saying this lightly, much of my work over the last 15 years has been in spent energy extraction/development and I spent close to a year in the Williston Basin. I don't believe the enviros are correct, but I'm pretty sure things could be run a whole lot cleaner.
Flame on.
Bailey Guns
04-24-2017, 06:42
I say good on'im. As I am a fan on Edward Abbey and liked the "Monkey Wrench Gang" book, I think if more green enviroweenies put a little skin in the game (so to speak) we, as a society, would be a lot more cognizant of how we conducted out day-to-day lives. To start with, I reckon we'd be much less inclined to send such letters to a newspaper or be as flippant about violence. I also believe we'd be much more energy efficient. I'm not saying this lightly, much of my work over the last 15 years has been in spent energy extraction/development and I spent close to a year in the Williston Basin. I don't believe the enviros are correct, but I'm pretty sure things could be run a whole lot cleaner.
Flame on.
Not gonna flame you, but...
OK...so things "could be run a whole lot cleaner". I don't know enough about the process to really agree or disagree so I don't have a problem with that. I do have a problem with, "I say good on 'im". Because it could be done cleaner that justifies this?
If the oil and gas industry puts fracking wells in our neighborhoods, threatening our lives and our children's lives, then don't we have a moral responsibility to blow up wells and eliminate fracking and workers?
If that's the case, don't we have a moral responsibility to blow up the car that's driven by the chronic speeder thru the neighborhood that threatens our kids? Or the drug dealers...shouldn't we blow up the known drug houses? Or the guy who beats his wife and kids? Shouldn't they all be fair game to be "eliminated" and have their property destroyed?
The problem is, those are all bad analogies because the things those hypothetical people are doing are illegal. Fracking is legal, like it or not. It's not like an oil company sneaks into a "neighborhood" and does this on the sly.
My question is, when can I start to eliminate those that promote taking away our guns or otherwise restricting our Constitutional protections or just generally pissing me off with their progressive, bullshit policies? Cause I'd like to get started on that project right away.
The author of the letter is obviously an enviro-nutjob.
Publishing the letter as written is free speech, however editing the letter (and publishing it for that matter) adds an implied endorsement by the news organization.
"News" organizations are increasingly flirting with 18 U.S. Code § 373 - Solicitation to commit a crime of violence
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/373
(a) Whoever, with intent that another person engage in conduct constituting a felony that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against property or against the person of another in violation of the laws of the United States, and under circumstances strongly corroborative of that intent, solicits, commands, induces, or otherwise endeavors to persuade such other person to engage in such conduct, shall be imprisoned not more than one-half the maximum term of imprisonment or (notwithstanding section 3571) fined not more than one-half of the maximum fine prescribed for the punishment of the crime solicited, or both; or if the crime solicited is punishable by life imprisonment or death, shall be imprisoned for not more than twenty years.
(b) It is an affirmative defense to a prosecution under this section that, under circumstances manifesting a voluntary and complete renunciation of his criminal intent, the defendant prevented the commission of the crime solicited. A renunciation is not “voluntary and complete” if it is motivated in whole or in part by a decision to postpone the commission of the crime until another time or to substitute another victim or another but similar objective. If the defendant raises the affirmative defense at trial, the defendant has the burden of proving the defense by a preponderance of the evidence.
(c) It is not a defense to a prosecution under this section that the person solicited could not be convicted of the crime because he lacked the state of mind required for its commission, because he was incompetent or irresponsible, or because he is immune from prosecution or is not subject to prosecution.
"News" organizations are increasingly flirting with 18 U.S. Code § 373 - Solicitation to commit a crime of violence
I was hoping that one of the results of a Trump victory would be to curtail the leftist cultural war by enforcing existing laws of which they already run afoul. But I guess the bureaucracy which actually runs this country is heavily staffed by leftists and Trump being president makes no difference.
I was hoping that one of the results of a Trump victory would be to curtail the leftist cultural war by enforcing existing laws of which they already run afoul. But I guess the bureaucracy which actually runs this country is heavily staffed by leftists and Trump being president makes no difference.
I know what you mean, I guess we're going to have to be patient. Phooey!!
ACE2GOOD
04-24-2017, 15:32
Does he not get that blowing up a well would be far more detrimental than the actual drilling/frac process. Oh well, stupid liberal BS as usual.
first thing I thought as well. He is worried about keeping neighborhoods safe and says "blow up wells" ...cause that's better....
Grant H.
04-24-2017, 17:36
first thing I thought as well. He is worried about keeping neighborhoods safe and says "blow up wells" ...cause that's better....
I wonder if the twit that wrote the letter remembers, or is even old enough to, the fires in Kuwait... Bad freaking day.
Before someone comes in on the "it's not the same" horse, I know. The wells here are very different than the wells there, and the severity of the fires would be less. The difference is, we aren't in a desert. We are in farm lands, can be near to neighborhoods and schools, etc.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGLGzRXY5Bw
JohnnyDrama
04-26-2017, 10:10
Thank you for the thoughtful and non-incendiary reply. It gave me some food for thought.
Not gonna flame you, but...
OK...so things "could be run a whole lot cleaner". I don't know enough about the process to really agree or disagree so I don't have a problem with that. I do have a problem with, "I say good on 'im". Because it could be done cleaner that justifies this?
If that's the case, don't we have a moral responsibility to blow up the car that's driven by the chronic speeder thru the neighborhood that threatens our kids? Or the drug dealers...shouldn't we blow up the known drug houses? Or the guy who beats his wife and kids? Shouldn't they all be fair game to be "eliminated" and have their property destroyed?
The problem is, those are all bad analogies because the things those hypothetical people are doing are illegal. Fracking is legal, like it or not. It's not like an oil company sneaks into a "neighborhood" and does this on the sly.
My question is, when can I start to eliminate those that promote taking away our guns or otherwise restricting our Constitutional protections or just generally pissing me off with their progressive, bullshit policies? Cause I'd like to get started on that project right away.
My post was the product of some frustration over several things. Firstly, the do-gooders out there who want to be nannies to the whole world and think they can legislate us into their idea of a better life. These people blindly follow the myopic political dogma of the parties until certain topics become mutually exclusive and nonsensical policies result. Secondly, some wonderment at why the gas and oil industry insists on putting wells and facilities in such plain sight. Some oil fields give me visions of Mordor. They are their own worst enemy. Lastly, people like Mr. O'Conner, who likely hasn't been on an oil field and spends his time clicking through social media, looking at other people's reposts, getting his panties in an ever increasingly large wad until he has to spout off to a newspaper. Like most people he probably doesn't care where the energy that lights his house comes from as long as when he flicks the switch, the lights come on.
You're correct. Fracking is legal and many other things are not. Many violent acts are not. Used to be that the difference between legal/illegal or right/wrong were pretty evident and one could trust their moral compass to tell the two apart. I'm not advocating violence but I think if more SJWs were help accountable either by the legal system or the public at large, they'd be more careful about what they say/do.
Bailey Guns
04-26-2017, 11:07
I'm not advocating violence but I think if more SJWs were help accountable either by the legal system or the public at large, they'd be more careful about what they say/do.
I absolutely agree with that. When you have mayors like the asshat in Berkeley who is likely affiliated with the anarchist group BAMN and police who either don't enforce the law or are ordered to NOT enforce the law, it's maddening. Frankly, I think the police should load up shotguns and/or rifles with less than lethal ammo and start firing on rioters as soon as it starts. If what happened in Berkeley, stayed in Berkeley, and was paid for by only those in Berkeley, I wouldn't give a rat's ass about what went on there. But you and I are the ones who pay for the damage and destruction caused by the communist-sympathizing lowlifes in the form of higher insurance and other ways regardless of where we live. Trust me...few people hate the leftist SJW types more than I do.
The guy who wrote the letter is now asking for protection.
http://www.9news.com/news/local/next/man-who-wrote-about-eliminating-fracking-employees-now-wants-his-own-protection/434459588
O'Connor told 9NEWS reporter Brandon Rittiman that he was not advocating for violence, just for blowing up wells.
ETA:
Yet, Andrew O'Connor ratcheted up the rhetoric again on Wednesday, telling the website ColoradoPolitics.com (http://coloradopolitics.com/letter-endorsing-anti-fracking-violence-penned-by-author-of-ballot-issue-to-hike-oil-and-gas-tax/) that he wouldn't have a problem with snipers shooting workers at a fracking site.
-zulu01's link
http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/173/576/Wat8.jpg?1315930535
I'm not commenting on the letter, because I haven't read it; nor even about the oil industry or how they operate.
However, just because something is legal, doesn't mean that it's ethical or should just be accepted as "it's okay because it's legal." It seems important to make this general observation because I so often see people trying to shut down arguments with either "It's not against the law," or "That's not a right." Those kinds of statements are cop-outs.
I'm not commenting on the letter, because I haven't read it; nor even about the oil industry or how they operate.
However, just because something is legal, doesn't mean that it's ethical or should just be accepted as "it's okay because it's legal." It seems important to make this general observation because I so often see people trying to shut down arguments with either "It's not against the law," or "That's not a right." Those kinds of statements are cop-outs.
Said every pro-life person ever.
Not commenting on my personal beliefs, because frankly, I consider my views complex when it comes to the topic, just pointing out the obvious.
Great-Kazoo
04-28-2017, 14:13
However, just because something is legal, doesn't mean that it's ethical or should just be accepted as "it's okay because it's legal."
I've heard that from people defending more restrictive gun laws
It's certainly a double edged sword that plays apart in many, many different situations. Another example is civil forfeiture. It's legal so we should all roll over and accept it right?
I'm not trying to rile up and scream "We've got to DO something!" I'm just making the point that saying, "Well, it's legal," to try and end a discussion is kind of like shutting down a conversation because someone wasn't PC enough.
I'm not picking on Bailey here either just because he happened to point out the legality of fracking in this thread (he's obviously correct on that point). Just something I've observed over the years in watching discussions on sensitive issues on here, other boards, real life, etc. I guess in short I'm saying that legality aside, most topics are far more nuanced than the black and white issue of the law.
I heard something on the news recently about an oil well exploding and killing some people. I've been away from the news for a few weeks so I don't have a good lock on when/where exactly this happened, but I thought it was here. This thread immediately jumped to mind.
I heard something on the news recently about an oil well exploding and killing some people. I've been away from the news for a few weeks so I don't have a good lock on when/where exactly this happened, but I thought it was here. This thread immediately jumped to mind.
Firestone house built in 2015 about 150 yards from a well drilled in 1993. Anadarko owns that well and about 3000 others in the area and they agreed to shut down all of the wells temporarily to conduct safety inspections while the investigation into the house explosion continues. At this point there is no evidence that links the wells with the explosion and it sounds like Anadarko is being proactive in their response. It doesn't stop the green/anti-fossil fuel crowd from marching forth with pitch forks and torches calling for the heads of all oil company executives.
http://www.denverpost.com/2017/04/26/anadarko-petroleum-shut-down-3000-wells-after-house-explosion/
Yeah that's the one, thanks.
Firestone house built in 2015 about 150 yards from a well drilled in 1993. Anadarko owns that well and about 3000 others in the area and they agreed to shut down all of the wells temporarily to conduct safety inspections while the investigation into the house explosion continues. At this point there is no evidence that links the wells with the explosion and it sounds like Anadarko is being proactive in their response. It doesn't stop the green/anti-fossil fuel crowd from marching forth with pitch forks and torches calling for the heads of all oil company executives.
http://www.denverpost.com/2017/04/26/anadarko-petroleum-shut-down-3000-wells-after-house-explosion/
One might possibly think the builder had some culpability?
One might possibly think the builder had some culpability?
The builder?? How? They have no insight into where gasses might escape from a nearby well. If the land was platted and the build permitted properly, there's no way you could go after the builder.
It's difficult enough to go after a builder for things that they have screwed up, let alone for things that may not be related at all.
If someone were to attempt to hold the builder responsible, they may as well add the county/city for issuing the building permits. But this all would presuppose that the gas wells were at least partially responsible for the explosion. That cause has not been established and since the men who were killed were near the source of the explosion and they were working on a hot water heater, the first suspect cause would be something done by the deceased while working on the gas supply line in the home.
The woman who survived is a science teacher at Mountain Range High School (128th and Huron) in Westminster.
BushMasterBoy
05-02-2017, 23:20
Cut gas line from a well.
http://kdvr.com/2017/05/02/investigators-deadly-firestone-home-explosion-caused-by-gas-from-cut-abandoned-flow-line-to-oil-and-gas-well/
Grant H.
05-02-2017, 23:30
Cut gas line from a well.
http://kdvr.com/2017/05/02/investigators-deadly-firestone-home-explosion-caused-by-gas-from-cut-abandoned-flow-line-to-oil-and-gas-well/
I knew this was coming, being in the field I get to hear a fair amount. The COGCC preliminary findings showed no link, but then they find this "cut gas line" that was cut near the foundation (builder likely cut it), and it's on like donkey kong. No matter that for 2015 there were no issues even with production, and the well was shut in for most of 2016.
I still call BS. That well has been operating since late January this year, and they want to tell me that the gas leaked into the basement, where there are 2 open flames at all times (water heater and furnace pilot), and only on the day that the home owner and brother are replacing the water heater it builds up enough to ignite?
BS.
People are seeing a pay day from the "evil oil companies", and the liberal media can't help but report it as "evil oil corporation kills innocents"...
BS.
People are seeing a pay day from the "evil oil companies", and the liberal media can't help but report it as "evil oil corporation kills innocents"...
Yup, a payday for the "victims" of fracking. I'd wager the line was cut during the investigation into the explosion.
Great-Kazoo
05-03-2017, 09:53
I knew this was coming, being in the field I get to hear a fair amount. The COGCC preliminary findings showed no link, but then they find this "cut gas line" that was cut near the foundation (builder likely cut it), and it's on like donkey kong. No matter that for 2015 there were no issues even with production, and the well was shut in for most of 2016.
I still call BS. That well has been operating since late January this year, and they want to tell me that the gas leaked into the basement, where there are 2 open flames at all times (water heater and furnace pilot), and only on the day that the home owner and brother are replacing the water heater it builds up enough to ignite?
BS.
People are seeing a pay day from the "evil oil companies", and the liberal media can't help but report it as "evil oil corporation kills innocents"...
This falls on the inspectors who should have signed off the removed tank, cty insp who followed up etc. Unfortunately the lawyers always go after the deepest pockets.
News stories are suggesting that line was cut during the building of the house. I fail to see how that is the oil companies fault. Certainly makes it difficult to argue that the well was put too close to a residence when the well was there first.
HBAR - stop being so logical. [Beer]
This a payday for some lawyer and we'll probably see another editorial advocating the killing of frackers.
If oil weren't so abundant, useful, efficient, and inexpensive none of this would have ever happened. OTOH the industrial revolution wouldn't have happened without oil so.....
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.