Northampton, Massachusetts District Court Judge Mary Beth Ogulewicz put her neck bravely within the noose of potential political and corporate retribution when she rendered the verdict on December, 23: “After consideration of the testimony, exhibits, applicable law, and arguments of counsel, I find the defendants Not Responsible on all counts.”

This is an astonishing verdict in favor of four elderly people who confronted authorities inside the facilities of one of the most powerful outposts of the US military-industrial complex on March, 19, 2025. They armed themselves with only conscience, play money, red paint, and a whimsical sense of in vivo political theater. They entered the lobby of munitions profiteer L3Harris and tossed the paint-soaked play money on the floor, refused to leave, and tried to serve L3Harris CEO Chris Kubasik (who is headquartered in Florida) with an arrest warrant for war crimes. They fully anticipated that Northampton Police would arrest them, and they were predictably charged with trespassing and disturbing the peace.

From this point on, the narrative takes a turn toward the surreal. The defendants’ post verdict press release explains:

The seldom used “necessity defense” appears to be a euphoric fantasy created as a gift for those committed to civil disobedience. The necessity defense gives legal flexibility to support those who violate legal norms in order to mitigate a more nefarious harm. A good Samaritan who breaks your house window to enter and put out a stove fire might use the necessity defense to avoid breaking and entering charges. Likewise, a well-intentioned bystander who prevents a rageful person from beating their own child might use the necessity defense if charged for assault.

Writ small, the necessity defense has a clear, logical function to assure that legal contradictions do not stymy justice. But writ large, what is the leeway given to a good Samaritan when confronted by the massive criminal intentions of their own government? Do we, as US citizens, hold the right to intervene in state-sponsored criminal violence? If I can legally prevent my neighbor from beating his child, why can’t I also attempt to stop my government from murdering countless children in... let us say, Gaza?

And even more subtly nuanced—can I attempt to confront my criminally violent government and its corporate proxies regardless of the likelihood that the confrontation will have the desired result? Is civil disobedience a subset of the necessity defense?

Judge Mary Beth Ogulewicz ruled that, indeed,........

© Common Dreams