4 ms·

If I'm reading this correctly, they're investigating something like criminal negligence not suspecting this is an intentional criminal act. Maybe obvious to an

If I'm reading this correctly, they're investigating something like criminal negligence not suspecting this is an intentional criminal act. Maybe obvious to anyone keeping up with the story, but I haven't read anything about it since the day it happened.

lupusreal 3y ago
It may be they lost power because they were (illegally) switching over to their regular dirty fuel early and something went wrong in that process.
- FrustratedMonky 3y ago
  Isn't that still 'negligence'. Versus 'I'm trying to hit this bridge' criminal. Which is how the title kind of sounds, that might be 'click-baity' a bit. EDIT: Thought, guess switching fuel is more of a direct act, versus just poor maintenance.
  - throwup238 3y ago
    People died. Depending on how negligent the crew were, it could rise to the level of manslaughter, even without the act of fuel switching.
    - eastbound 3y ago
      But then, insurances are often non-responsible if the root cause is manslaughter, aren’t they?
      - throwup238 3y ago
        Not at this level. The insurance company is essentially the guarantor in cases like this via Protection and Indemnity insurance. It’s a prerequisite to entering most ports so that someone with big pockets is on the hook when something like this happens, instead of some tiny management or holding company that can be declared bankrupt and quickly closed. Maersk and its insurers are going to fight over how they split ultimate responsibility, maybe even go to court over it, but the insurance company is the first big payee in line, even if they’re not responsible for the full (multi-billion dollar) amount.
  - tengbretson 3y ago
    If the root cause of the actual collision with the bridge was itself an illegal act, then then perhaps the operator could be facing felony murder charges for the deaths of those involved. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_murder_rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_murder_rule
    - NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
      But felony murder is still usually reserved for circumstances where the original crime is violent itself. You may be guilty of felony murder if the bank guard shoots one of your fellow robbers... you were committing violence after all. But when criminal negligence is the extent of your original crime, homicide should be limited to, at most I should think, some manslaughter charge.
      - 91bananas 3y ago
        neglegent homicide and involuntary manslaughter seem to be used interchangeably in the US.
        dmoy 3y ago
        Manslaughter is in fact a subset of homicide Homicide is literally just person kills person. That includes murder, manslaughter, self defense, etc.
      - Retric 3y ago
        Many states charge people for murder with sufficiently reckless behavior endangering public safety even without violent criminal intent. Such as wildly excessive spending and drunk driving etc. The underlying logic is risking someone’s life is violent.
        NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
        I've never once in my 35 years of reading newspapers seen a charge of murder for drunk driving. Are you quite certain of this? I suppose there might be one of those out there, but this can't be a common thing. In most states, there's a specific sort of manslaughter charge just for this sort of crime. "Felony murder" is a specific crime, and not some generic term. It's when someone is killed during your crime but that you didn't cause the death directly. In those cases, you can be charged with murder (and it's very much a murder charge, not a manslaughter charge) anyway, simply because you set into motion the circumstances that would lead to that criminal killing. Often, when that charge is leveled, you have all sorts of silly liberals defending them "well, he didn't fire the shot himself, blame the other guy" and crap like that. I keep forgetting that most people don't seem to have much interest in this, nor do they understand any of these crimes. Murder's just an interchangeable word for "someone was killed" for most of you. It's sort of embarrassing. Don't you feel bad that your vote counts as much as mine?
  - wlesieutre 3y ago
    "Criminal" and "negligence" aren't mutually exclusive
    - FrustratedMonky 3y ago
      Sure but there are gradations. The law has different categories for these. 1. I'm just bad at maintenance. 2. I was performing an illegal act, like the fuel switch. 3. I'm really intentionally trying to hit this bridge and have done some sabotage to make it happen.
      - Retric 3y ago
        In many jurisdictions 2 and 3 are only treated differently if #2 isn’t a felony or recklessly dangerous. Example of someone convicted him of Murder for a fatal car accident while driving dunk at 80+MPH. https://www.countyofmonterey.gov/Home/Components/News/News/10634/ https://www.countyofmonterey.gov/Home/Components/News/News/1...
        FrustratedMonky 3y ago
        Interesting Anybody know if 'fuel switch' is a felony?
        Retric 3y ago
        I don’t know but doing so while approaching a bridge could also qualify as recklessly dangerous.
        tialaramex 3y ago
        Huh. That's surprising to me, in England Murder requires that you intended to cause at least grievous harm. So e.g. you intended to "hospitalize" Jim - but he died, those facts are murder. But if prosecutors don't believe they can show at least intent of grievous harm they aren't to charge murder. Without intent the most could be (Gross Negligence) Manslaughter, which has a significant sentence considering it doesn't require intent, but is very specifically not Murder.
  - DiggyJohnson 3y ago
    Intentionally ignoring regulations for convenience, then knocking down the longest bridge in Baltimore is the sort of negligence worth pursuing criminally. There’s nothing clickbaity about the headline. It’s completely accurate without embellishment. It just didn’t precisely match your expectations.
- HumblyTossed 3y ago
  Weren't the pilot(s) on board still?
dr-detroit 3y ago
[dead]
MattGaiser 3y ago
This action also seems quite routine. The FBI has regularly opened investigations into plane crashes for example, alongside the NTSB.
- philwelch 3y ago
  After the TWA Flight 800 investigation, they had to change the rules for how that worked because the FBI really badly interfered with the NTSB in that case.
philwelch 3y ago
People died in this disaster. If it was in any way the result of negligence, there’s a case for involuntary manslaughter.

lupusreal 3y ago

It may be they lost power because they were (illegally) switching over to their regular dirty fuel early and something went wrong in that process.

FrustratedMonky 3y ago
Isn't that still 'negligence'. Versus 'I'm trying to hit this bridge' criminal. Which is how the title kind of sounds, that might be 'click-baity' a bit. EDIT: Thought, guess switching fuel is more of a direct act, versus just poor maintenance.
- throwup238 3y ago
  People died. Depending on how negligent the crew were, it could rise to the level of manslaughter, even without the act of fuel switching.
  - eastbound 3y ago
    But then, insurances are often non-responsible if the root cause is manslaughter, aren’t they?
    - throwup238 3y ago
      Not at this level. The insurance company is essentially the guarantor in cases like this via Protection and Indemnity insurance. It’s a prerequisite to entering most ports so that someone with big pockets is on the hook when something like this happens, instead of some tiny management or holding company that can be declared bankrupt and quickly closed. Maersk and its insurers are going to fight over how they split ultimate responsibility, maybe even go to court over it, but the insurance company is the first big payee in line, even if they’re not responsible for the full (multi-billion dollar) amount.
- tengbretson 3y ago
  If the root cause of the actual collision with the bridge was itself an illegal act, then then perhaps the operator could be facing felony murder charges for the deaths of those involved. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_murder_rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_murder_rule
  - NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
    But felony murder is still usually reserved for circumstances where the original crime is violent itself. You may be guilty of felony murder if the bank guard shoots one of your fellow robbers... you were committing violence after all. But when criminal negligence is the extent of your original crime, homicide should be limited to, at most I should think, some manslaughter charge.
    - 91bananas 3y ago
      neglegent homicide and involuntary manslaughter seem to be used interchangeably in the US.
      - dmoy 3y ago
        Manslaughter is in fact a subset of homicide Homicide is literally just person kills person. That includes murder, manslaughter, self defense, etc.
    - Retric 3y ago
      Many states charge people for murder with sufficiently reckless behavior endangering public safety even without violent criminal intent. Such as wildly excessive spending and drunk driving etc. The underlying logic is risking someone’s life is violent.
      - NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
        I've never once in my 35 years of reading newspapers seen a charge of murder for drunk driving. Are you quite certain of this? I suppose there might be one of those out there, but this can't be a common thing. In most states, there's a specific sort of manslaughter charge just for this sort of crime. "Felony murder" is a specific crime, and not some generic term. It's when someone is killed during your crime but that you didn't cause the death directly. In those cases, you can be charged with murder (and it's very much a murder charge, not a manslaughter charge) anyway, simply because you set into motion the circumstances that would lead to that criminal killing. Often, when that charge is leveled, you have all sorts of silly liberals defending them "well, he didn't fire the shot himself, blame the other guy" and crap like that. I keep forgetting that most people don't seem to have much interest in this, nor do they understand any of these crimes. Murder's just an interchangeable word for "someone was killed" for most of you. It's sort of embarrassing. Don't you feel bad that your vote counts as much as mine?
- wlesieutre 3y ago
  "Criminal" and "negligence" aren't mutually exclusive
  - FrustratedMonky 3y ago
    Sure but there are gradations. The law has different categories for these. 1. I'm just bad at maintenance. 2. I was performing an illegal act, like the fuel switch. 3. I'm really intentionally trying to hit this bridge and have done some sabotage to make it happen.
    - Retric 3y ago
      In many jurisdictions 2 and 3 are only treated differently if #2 isn’t a felony or recklessly dangerous. Example of someone convicted him of Murder for a fatal car accident while driving dunk at 80+MPH. https://www.countyofmonterey.gov/Home/Components/News/News/10634/ https://www.countyofmonterey.gov/Home/Components/News/News/1...
      - FrustratedMonky 3y ago
        Interesting Anybody know if 'fuel switch' is a felony?
        Retric 3y ago
        I don’t know but doing so while approaching a bridge could also qualify as recklessly dangerous.
      - tialaramex 3y ago
        Huh. That's surprising to me, in England Murder requires that you intended to cause at least grievous harm. So e.g. you intended to "hospitalize" Jim - but he died, those facts are murder. But if prosecutors don't believe they can show at least intent of grievous harm they aren't to charge murder. Without intent the most could be (Gross Negligence) Manslaughter, which has a significant sentence considering it doesn't require intent, but is very specifically not Murder.
- DiggyJohnson 3y ago
  Intentionally ignoring regulations for convenience, then knocking down the longest bridge in Baltimore is the sort of negligence worth pursuing criminally. There’s nothing clickbaity about the headline. It’s completely accurate without embellishment. It just didn’t precisely match your expectations.
HumblyTossed 3y ago
Weren't the pilot(s) on board still?

dr-detroit 3y ago

[dead]

MattGaiser 3y ago

This action also seems quite routine. The FBI has regularly opened investigations into plane crashes for example, alongside the NTSB.

philwelch 3y ago
After the TWA Flight 800 investigation, they had to change the rules for how that worked because the FBI really badly interfered with the NTSB in that case.

philwelch 3y ago

People died in this disaster. If it was in any way the result of negligence, there’s a case for involuntary manslaughter.