>We've chosen to accept that risk, and have control over it though government. People could choose to make it illegal. I'll expect to see you down at the legis

>We've chosen to accept that risk, and have control over it though government. People could choose to make it illegal. I'll expect to see you down at the legislature lobbying for reform and threatening jail for the opposition. >Also note that when the police do it they take precautions such as having bright multi-colored lights on the car to draw attention. It's hard not to notice something so distracting! That's another argument against the practice, isn't it? >We can't put a company in jail and we don't usually do it with the CEO for much bigger crimes. I doubt the CEO had any idea this could happen. It's a funny thing. We can never seem to find anyone in a company who knows anything or has any responsibility. We just have to satisfy ourselves that if popular opinion moves against a company strongly enough, or the gov't gets shamed into prosecuting them, that maybe then they might address some problem, usually after it actually kills people, so long as nobody has to admit fault. It's almost like a huge stunt is needed to get peoples' attention sometimes! >I imagine this is one of those things where dozens of people in different departments... Yeah, we all know about how corporate structures insulate decision-makers from the consequences of their decisions. >cut and try "Cut and dry" So, because it's easy to prosecute these two, and hard to prosecute the others, justice should take the easy route, even though one may have endangered tens of people on one occasion, and the other endangers tens of thousands of people for months? I see a different value proposition here than you. >Frankly the number of people in these threads defending the overly dangerous demo scares me I guess it would surprise you to learn that I feel the same way about you after this conversation?