5 ms·

Murder charges. Jail time. This must happen.

by busterarm 7y ago

coralreef 7y ago
It would be manslaughter via negligence, or something similar to it
- busterarm 7y ago
  Interfering with regulators when you know the plane isn't safe to fly sounds pretty much like "premeditated" to me.
  - sebastien_b 7y ago
    Indeed, nothing "involuntary" in any of this.
    - coralreef 7y ago
      Intent matters; you're going to have a hard time proving they wanted people to die.
      - sebastien_b 7y ago
        Intent goes both ways - while perhaps there was no intent to have people die, there was deliberate intent to not do something about safety being compromised that they knew they should've done something about (or that they should have known about, being in their position to affect it or bring it to attention, instead of hiding or skirting around it). It's not unreasonable to think that compromising safety (which they knew they were doing) could bring harm to people (including death).
        coralreef 7y ago
        Typically to prove murder, one must prove purposeful intent to harm. In this case, that would be proving that the engineers/managers wanted people to die. Obviously jurisdiction matters. This is a matter of legal doctrine, not linguistics or ethics.
        sebastien_b 7y ago
        I agree murder wouldn’t fit here (unfortunately), and I was speaking more in the context of negligence - there were definitively intentional things done that affected safety, with intent to either violate it or withhold information about it to third parties. Manslaughter definitively, but 'involuntary' I feel doesn't apply (nor does "voluntary manslaughter" because there wasn't that specific intent), which is why I'm going with "criminal negligence". Specifically what I’m getting at is that they’d have a hard time claiming that they reasonably didn’t think any harm could happen given the context of what was said and done/not done.
privateSFacct 7y ago
Absolutely not - do you realize how safe flying in the US is? And you want to charge the people (flawed - yes) as murders? Absolutely revolting!
GuB-42 7y ago
No one wanted people to die, it is not murder, at worst it is involuntary manslaughter. And maybe justice will come down to that conclusion and some people will end up in jail. But is it the solution? Is it what should be done? Because if people are going to jail, then who? There are probably hundreds of people who have some responsibility. There are the higher ups who encourage such behavior, those who are a bit too liberal with the rubber stamp, the liars, the ones who trust the liars even if it is their job not to, the ones who failed to report, the one who didn't listen for the reports, the engineers who designed the solution, and of course, the pilots, the flight instructors,... There are enough people for an entire prison city here. This is not a case we can solve by pointing fingers. There is a systemic problem that needs to be solved. And just throwing a few people in prison will just result in Boeing hiring new scapegoats.
- sebastien_b 7y ago
  > No one wanted people to die, it is not murder, at worst it is involuntary manslaughter > Try again - more like criminal negligence at a minimum. > But is it the solution? Is it what should be done? Yes - there needs to be some serious consequences, not the usual typical 'Company shuts down, execs get huge severance while whistleblowers and investors get shafted' type thing. Also, some heads at the FAA need to roll. Utter failure of an agency that's supposed to protect the public. And I also hope the victims' families also sue for pain and suffering, because they're victims of this too.
  - GuB-42 7y ago
    Involuntary manslaughter implies criminal negligence or some other crime being committed. Otherwise it is just an accident. And I am not against the idea of serious consequences, the problem is about whose heads are going to roll? It is easy to blame the executives, they are high profile, they are rich, they are the kind of people we like to hate. But are they really at fault, execs are just employees serving the shareholders, and if you have Boeing stocks in your portfolio, then you are a shareholder, so maybe you should go to jail. And what will happen if the CEO goes to jail? The board of directors will name a new scapegoat CEO, there are many people who are ready to risk jail time in exchange for being the CEO at Boeing... Same thing about the FAA, except that's more about the politicians you elected than about the shares you bought... Putting a few high profile people in prison will certainly appease some vindictive minds, but I don't want vengeance, I just want safer airplanes. And as someone mentioned, they are already impressively safe despite all these shenanigans. As for the victims' families, of course they should be compensated. But I don't think putting random people in jail is the best way to do it. I am not saying that no one should go to jail. Some people most likely committed real jailable offenses, like corruption, and they should get punished. But making some heads roll for the sake of it isn't a good solution in my book.
sebastien_b 7y ago
Unfortunately, this wouldn't stick, only because they didn't know who would end up getting killed, or when, beforehand.

Murder charges. Jail time. This must happen.

coralreef 7y ago

It would be manslaughter via negligence, or something similar to it

busterarm 7y ago
Interfering with regulators when you know the plane isn't safe to fly sounds pretty much like "premeditated" to me.
- sebastien_b 7y ago
  Indeed, nothing "involuntary" in any of this.
  - coralreef 7y ago
    Intent matters; you're going to have a hard time proving they wanted people to die.
    - sebastien_b 7y ago
      Intent goes both ways - while perhaps there was no intent to have people die, there was deliberate intent to not do something about safety being compromised that they knew they should've done something about (or that they should have known about, being in their position to affect it or bring it to attention, instead of hiding or skirting around it). It's not unreasonable to think that compromising safety (which they knew they were doing) could bring harm to people (including death).
      - coralreef 7y ago
        Typically to prove murder, one must prove purposeful intent to harm. In this case, that would be proving that the engineers/managers wanted people to die. Obviously jurisdiction matters. This is a matter of legal doctrine, not linguistics or ethics.
        sebastien_b 7y ago
        I agree murder wouldn’t fit here (unfortunately), and I was speaking more in the context of negligence - there were definitively intentional things done that affected safety, with intent to either violate it or withhold information about it to third parties. Manslaughter definitively, but 'involuntary' I feel doesn't apply (nor does "voluntary manslaughter" because there wasn't that specific intent), which is why I'm going with "criminal negligence". Specifically what I’m getting at is that they’d have a hard time claiming that they reasonably didn’t think any harm could happen given the context of what was said and done/not done.

privateSFacct 7y ago

Absolutely not - do you realize how safe flying in the US is? And you want to charge the people (flawed - yes) as murders? Absolutely revolting!

GuB-42 7y ago

No one wanted people to die, it is not murder, at worst it is involuntary manslaughter. And maybe justice will come down to that conclusion and some people will end up in jail. But is it the solution? Is it what should be done? Because if people are going to jail, then who? There are probably hundreds of people who have some responsibility. There are the higher ups who encourage such behavior, those who are a bit too liberal with the rubber stamp, the liars, the ones who trust the liars even if it is their job not to, the ones who failed to report, the one who didn't listen for the reports, the engineers who designed the solution, and of course, the pilots, the flight instructors,... There are enough people for an entire prison city here. This is not a case we can solve by pointing fingers. There is a systemic problem that needs to be solved. And just throwing a few people in prison will just result in Boeing hiring new scapegoats.

sebastien_b 7y ago
> No one wanted people to die, it is not murder, at worst it is involuntary manslaughter > Try again - more like criminal negligence at a minimum. > But is it the solution? Is it what should be done? Yes - there needs to be some serious consequences, not the usual typical 'Company shuts down, execs get huge severance while whistleblowers and investors get shafted' type thing. Also, some heads at the FAA need to roll. Utter failure of an agency that's supposed to protect the public. And I also hope the victims' families also sue for pain and suffering, because they're victims of this too.
- GuB-42 7y ago
  Involuntary manslaughter implies criminal negligence or some other crime being committed. Otherwise it is just an accident. And I am not against the idea of serious consequences, the problem is about whose heads are going to roll? It is easy to blame the executives, they are high profile, they are rich, they are the kind of people we like to hate. But are they really at fault, execs are just employees serving the shareholders, and if you have Boeing stocks in your portfolio, then you are a shareholder, so maybe you should go to jail. And what will happen if the CEO goes to jail? The board of directors will name a new scapegoat CEO, there are many people who are ready to risk jail time in exchange for being the CEO at Boeing... Same thing about the FAA, except that's more about the politicians you elected than about the shares you bought... Putting a few high profile people in prison will certainly appease some vindictive minds, but I don't want vengeance, I just want safer airplanes. And as someone mentioned, they are already impressively safe despite all these shenanigans. As for the victims' families, of course they should be compensated. But I don't think putting random people in jail is the best way to do it. I am not saying that no one should go to jail. Some people most likely committed real jailable offenses, like corruption, and they should get punished. But making some heads roll for the sake of it isn't a good solution in my book.

sebastien_b 7y ago

Unfortunately, this wouldn't stick, only because they didn't know who would end up getting killed, or when, beforehand.