4 ms·
Criminal negligence seems to me to be more appropriate than manslaughter. They disabled safety features and replaced them with their own which failed to functio
by xvf22 8y ago
Criminal negligence seems to me to be more appropriate than manslaughter. They disabled safety features and replaced them with their own which failed to function correctly. They whole testing program seems to have been rushed and corners were cut.
- wavefunction 8y agoManslaughter is what you charge someone with when their willful negligence leads to a death.
- yock 8y agoThe devil is in the details, so they say, but what you describe is not negligence. They didn't disable a safety feature and do nothing, they replaced a safety feature with something else. You'd need to make the case that this something else was somehow deficient in some material way and management shipped this feature knowing it was materially deficient for this to be negligence. Why don't we instead start with the individual who was supposed to be monitoring the road and the vehicle's systems? It's well known at this point that they in fact were negligent in their duty.
- woodrowbarlow 8y agothey disabled both the built-in emergency braking system and their replacement emergency braking system. they absolutely did disable a safety feature and did not have anything in its place.
- djsumdog 8y agoI think we'll see subpoenas for e-mails/slack messages and people digging through documents trying to figure out which manager/dev made this decision. One small mistake, on something so critical, can ruin many peoples' lives.
- DanBC 8y agoNegligence that results in death is manslaughter by gross negligence. The Texas version requires recklessness, and I think that's met here.