7 ms·

Still doesn’t negate the fact the technician should’ve still checked. Again, not saying the technician is at fault at all, but they aren’t free of being involve

Still doesn’t negate the fact the technician should’ve still checked. Again, not saying the technician is at fault at all, but they aren’t free of being involved in the death either. I’ll use a terrible analogy to make the point, if someone tells you “that’s bad” if you pull the trigger on a revolver playing Russian roulette and you pull the trigger five times without any apparent consequence despite being informed “don’t do that” each time, are you completely not responsible if you pull the trigger the sixth time and die?

perl4ever 8y ago
"if someone tells you “that’s bad” if you pull the trigger on a revolver playing Russian roulette and you pull the trigger five times without any apparent consequence despite being informed “don’t do that” each time" I'm not sure that's a valid analogy. Isn't it the case rather that the revolver said "that's bad" but a person said "it's fine, ignore that, it always does that"? Which, in my experience, happens all the time in the workplace. If you didn't trust other people you work with, it would defeat the purpose of being in an organization at all. Not to mention, if pulling the trigger repeatedly was required for normal operations, you really can't blame the operator at all.
- jsjohnst 8y ago
  > Which, in my experience, happens all the time in the workplace. If you are doing work that could immediately cause someone’s death, I feel you have a duty to double check and not just go with the flow. Ymmv and I’m not claiming my POV is more right, just that it’s my POV.