2 ms·

I simply do not believe anyone will end up facing criminal charges over this, which “criminal negligence” very strongly implies. And even if someone somehow end

I simply do not believe anyone will end up facing criminal charges over this, which “criminal negligence” very strongly implies. And even if someone somehow ended up facing criminal charges I seriously doubt it'd be over killing people as suggested by yummypaint. Careers have ended over lesser personal attacks, I’d watch out if I were you.

salawat 7y ago
>Careers have ended over lesser personal attacks, I’d watch out if I were you. Heard that one before. That company also got investigated by DoJ coincidentally. Pro tip: Threats get you nowhere. Especially on the Internet. The fact of the matter is, you asking for "proof" now is an empty, vacuous gesture, as the only people's judgement that matters is the belief of the eventual Grand Jury, and Trial Jury if the DoJ decides to move. You will be challenged to find any executive signing or sending an order that directly screams out "I'm telling you to do an evil thing." Corporate communication revolves around getting people to do what you want without outright saying "I want X" in any format which could hit the media or legal system and blow back on anyone but the company. If it were easy, or direct, it would have happened or been caught long before now. Each and every judicial action is a balancing act where the interests of the public are set against the liberties of an individual. The CEO and executive suite have left sufficient paper trail in regards to organizational changes to clearly communicate intent. The prosecution will likely focus on proving the company itself knowingly skimped on commitments to do as they were required by law. Every questionable decision will be weighed upon by a jury as to whether or mot that decision was ultimately reasonable or criminal. I'm waiting to see some of the details hidden in the paperwork, but I'm fairly certain the case for going after specific high level executives may end up being successful; if only because I believe in this case a large portion of the public from which the potential jury pool can be selected have very marked interests in not having the confluence of responsibility abrogations that led to these disasters ever repeating again. It's only after the jury has come back that the evidence can be said to have ascended to "proof beyond a reasonable doubt".

salawat 7y ago

>Careers have ended over lesser personal attacks, I’d watch out if I were you. Heard that one before. That company also got investigated by DoJ coincidentally. Pro tip: Threats get you nowhere. Especially on the Internet. The fact of the matter is, you asking for "proof" now is an empty, vacuous gesture, as the only people's judgement that matters is the belief of the eventual Grand Jury, and Trial Jury if the DoJ decides to move. You will be challenged to find any executive signing or sending an order that directly screams out "I'm telling you to do an evil thing." Corporate communication revolves around getting people to do what you want without outright saying "I want X" in any format which could hit the media or legal system and blow back on anyone but the company. If it were easy, or direct, it would have happened or been caught long before now. Each and every judicial action is a balancing act where the interests of the public are set against the liberties of an individual. The CEO and executive suite have left sufficient paper trail in regards to organizational changes to clearly communicate intent. The prosecution will likely focus on proving the company itself knowingly skimped on commitments to do as they were required by law. Every questionable decision will be weighed upon by a jury as to whether or mot that decision was ultimately reasonable or criminal. I'm waiting to see some of the details hidden in the paperwork, but I'm fairly certain the case for going after specific high level executives may end up being successful; if only because I believe in this case a large portion of the public from which the potential jury pool can be selected have very marked interests in not having the confluence of responsibility abrogations that led to these disasters ever repeating again. It's only after the jury has come back that the evidence can be said to have ascended to "proof beyond a reasonable doubt".