4 ms·
I was using the term to imply someone (or some thing in the case of a company) being labelled as the villain without the evidence conclusively proving they are
by JauntyHatAngle 8y ago
I was using the term to imply someone (or some thing in the case of a company) being labelled as the villain without the evidence conclusively proving they are guilty of the crimes they are accused of.
- jessaustin 8y agoDo you doubt that the bridge collapsed? Or do you expect that someone besides the engineer or builder will be blamed for the collapse?
- JauntyHatAngle 8y agoYou've already named two potential companies that could be attributed unfair amounts of blame. Beyond them, there are a large number of potential officials that could have leaned on / been leaned on or through nepotism or laziness been a part (or not part) of the planning, design, implementation etc of the bridge that are partly or largely responsible for design/funding choices to this bridge. There are countless examples of people receiving undue flak before being conclusively proven as guilt free, it is often prudent to wait before leveling accusations - that is what the NTSB does in it's processes - often to a fault. I think it is unnecessary snark to ask me if the bridge collapsed, please don't be crude.