5 ms·

What was the crime? Negligent manufacturing?

by 1-6 2y ago

alistairSH 2y ago
Fraud. Lying to federal regulators during 737Max approval. See link for a better description… https://apnews.com/article/boeing-justice-department-737-max-82145b25ed988cd8cae0bce3de79ce9d https://apnews.com/article/boeing-justice-department-737-max...
- mlindner 2y ago
  That sounds a lot harder to prove than if they were going for negligence.
  - dragonwriter 2y ago
    > That sounds a lot harder to prove than if they were going for negligence. Well, it was solid enough that Boeing was willing to pay $2.5 billion plus accept a bunch of behavioral controls not to settle the charges, but simply to get a deferred prosecution agreement in which, if they were really good, they wouldn’t have to face charges for it.
  - hgyjdetjj 2y ago
    Lying is quite easy to prove with a few incriminating emails.
    - wsc981 2y ago
      One reason why the Dutch PM uses an old Nokia phone with very limited capacity, so he needs to delete SMS messages often: https://archive.ph/q6a3l https://archive.ph/q6a3l And I don't think he emails much :)
      - ThunderSizzle 2y ago
        Deleting official communications can be a violation of law in the US. Hilary should've gone to jail for it, but she didn't because she's a Clinton.
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
        barkbyte 2y ago
        [flagged]
        ThunderSizzle 2y ago
        [flagged]
        barkbyte 2y ago
        [flagged]
        ThunderSizzle 2y ago
        Well, it's a WP hit piece, so it serves as well TP as far as I'm concerned - whixh I guess we need a lot of with how much crap we have to put up with today. Regardless, I don't I want my news fed to me by Bezos's empire. Regardless, Clinton was never president, but she's afforded significantly more grace by the MSM than Trump ever has been. If this was about Clinton, WP's article would just say something to the tune of: yeah, she did it, but it's alright because she's a Clinton.
        barkbyte 2y ago
        [flagged]
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
    - P_I_Staker 2y ago
      Which have already been made public
  - fargle 2y ago
    well for one thing, simple negligence is not criminal negligence. Fraud is criminal, so it is intentionally harder to prove. and i think don't criminal negligence really applies here, but if so would have an equally high bar. what happened also seems to fall much more squarely under fraud (e.g. lying to the FAA) than simple negligence. failing to notice that they missed steps or didn't complete paperwork would be negligent (which they probably have done), but existing criminal case is about intentionally lying about a design change and it's ramifications to game the certification process. that's really bad. way worse.
dragonwriter 2y ago
> What was the crime? Negligent manufacturing? Fraud related relating to the 737 Max, plus subsequent violations of a 2021 deferred prosecution agreement (that agreement was why they hadn’t yet been prosecuted for the fraud), and the violations of the non-prosecution agreement also may have included subsequent fraud about matters which contributed to the recent door incidents.
mustache_kimono 2y ago
Negligent homicide is a criminal charge brought against a person who, through criminal negligence, allows another person to die. Some jurisdictions require "gross negligence" or enhance the degree of the crime where there is "recklessness".
sofixa 2y ago
> Negligent manufacturing Among other things. There are very strict rules in aircraft manufacturing on procedures to follow, documentation to have, etc. And Boeing have been found lacking to say the least in a number of those. That plus all the coverups and lying around MCAS are probably enough to put a few people in jail if one had faith in the Justice department.

What was the crime? Negligent manufacturing?

by 1-6 2y ago

What was the crime? Negligent manufacturing?

Fraud. Lying to federal regulators during 737Max approval. See link for a better description… https://apnews.com/article/boeing-justice-department-737-max-82145b25ed988cd8cae0bce3de79ce9d https://apnews.com/article/boeing-justice-department-737-max...

mlindner 2y ago
That sounds a lot harder to prove than if they were going for negligence.
- dragonwriter 2y ago
  > That sounds a lot harder to prove than if they were going for negligence. Well, it was solid enough that Boeing was willing to pay $2.5 billion plus accept a bunch of behavioral controls not to settle the charges, but simply to get a deferred prosecution agreement in which, if they were really good, they wouldn’t have to face charges for it.
- hgyjdetjj 2y ago
  Lying is quite easy to prove with a few incriminating emails.
  - wsc981 2y ago
    One reason why the Dutch PM uses an old Nokia phone with very limited capacity, so he needs to delete SMS messages often: https://archive.ph/q6a3l https://archive.ph/q6a3l And I don't think he emails much :)
    - ThunderSizzle 2y ago
      Deleting official communications can be a violation of law in the US. Hilary should've gone to jail for it, but she didn't because she's a Clinton.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - barkbyte 2y ago
        [flagged]
        ThunderSizzle 2y ago
        [flagged]
        barkbyte 2y ago
        [flagged]
        ThunderSizzle 2y ago
        Well, it's a WP hit piece, so it serves as well TP as far as I'm concerned - whixh I guess we need a lot of with how much crap we have to put up with today. Regardless, I don't I want my news fed to me by Bezos's empire. Regardless, Clinton was never president, but she's afforded significantly more grace by the MSM than Trump ever has been. If this was about Clinton, WP's article would just say something to the tune of: yeah, she did it, but it's alright because she's a Clinton.
        barkbyte 2y ago
        [flagged]
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
  - P_I_Staker 2y ago
    Which have already been made public
- fargle 2y ago
  well for one thing, simple negligence is not criminal negligence. Fraud is criminal, so it is intentionally harder to prove. and i think don't criminal negligence really applies here, but if so would have an equally high bar. what happened also seems to fall much more squarely under fraud (e.g. lying to the FAA) than simple negligence. failing to notice that they missed steps or didn't complete paperwork would be negligent (which they probably have done), but existing criminal case is about intentionally lying about a design change and it's ramifications to game the certification process. that's really bad. way worse.

dragonwriter 2y ago

> What was the crime? Negligent manufacturing? Fraud related relating to the 737 Max, plus subsequent violations of a 2021 deferred prosecution agreement (that agreement was why they hadn’t yet been prosecuted for the fraud), and the violations of the non-prosecution agreement also may have included subsequent fraud about matters which contributed to the recent door incidents.

mustache_kimono 2y ago

Negligent homicide is a criminal charge brought against a person who, through criminal negligence, allows another person to die. Some jurisdictions require "gross negligence" or enhance the degree of the crime where there is "recklessness".

sofixa 2y ago

> Negligent manufacturing Among other things. There are very strict rules in aircraft manufacturing on procedures to follow, documentation to have, etc. And Boeing have been found lacking to say the least in a number of those. That plus all the coverups and lying around MCAS are probably enough to put a few people in jail if one had faith in the Justice department.