Titanic Horror! Tourist Submersible Goes Missing While Attempting to View Wreckage of Titanic.

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

On 7/3/2023 at 6:57 PM, Conflicting Thought said:

i will celebrate when kissinger dies to

With fireworks.

On 7/3/2023 at 8:13 PM, Zorral said:

Which means, at best, obscenely wealthy people get off with a relatively tiny fine that for others would put them in prison at the least.

@Tywin et al. take note.

[polishgenius]

5 hours ago, Darzin said:

 A big reason for some of the cut corners is they simply didn't have the money to do better. 

I mean this isn't true is it. That there might not be much to sue for, sure, that seems likely. But this isn't a sports club, there aren't financial doping rules preventing the billionaire owner dumping his own money in. The corners were cut because he wanted to run a profit-making ocean exploration company, not because he had no other option.

[Darzin]

13 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

I mean this isn't true is it. That there might not be much to sue for, sure, that seems likely. But this isn't a sports club, there aren't financial doping rules preventing the billionaire owner dumping his own money in. The corners were cut because he wanted to run a profit-making ocean exploration company, not because he had no other option.

It very much is true. Stockton Rush wasn't a billionaire, he was wealthy and had a few million to his name but the venture capital  invested in Oceangate was several times that of his small fortune and still wasn't enough to do things properly. He could have never floated this venture on his own and even with all the investment and high ticket prices Oceangate was losing money each trip. It was all around unsustainable with too high overhead (even with every corner cut) and not enough paying customers. 

[Larry of the Lawn]

10 hours ago, Darzin said:

. He could have never floated this venture . 

Qft

[Zorral]

10 hours ago, Darzin said:

It very much is true. Stockton Rush wasn't a billionaire, he was wealthy and had a few million to his name but the venture capital  invested in Oceangate was several times that of his small fortune and still wasn't enough to do things properly. He could have never floated this venture on his own and even with all the investment and high ticket prices Oceangate was losing money each trip. It was all around unsustainable with too high overhead (even with every corner cut) and not enough paying customers. 

Are you are saying he was a mere millionaire, thus couldn't do it right, couldn't do it safely, couldn't do it all, and knew it, but he went did it anyway, so hey, poor him, who himself died, no problem that he murdered all those other people too?

[Darzin]

On 7/10/2023 at 1:55 AM, Zorral said:

Are you are saying he was a mere millionaire, thus couldn't do it right, couldn't do it safely, couldn't do it all, and knew it, but he went did it anyway, so hey, poor him, who himself died, no problem that he murdered all those other people too?

I was saying the first part but not the bold. I mentioned he was a millionaire because there is a common belief going around that he was a billionaire when he wasn't. Stockton's pockets weren't that deep and Oceangate wasn't profitable. 

[Lord of Oop North]

On 7/9/2023 at 1:55 PM, Zorral said:

Are you are saying he was a mere millionaire, thus couldn't do it right, couldn't do it safely, couldn't do it all, and knew it, but he went did it anyway, so hey, poor him, who himself died, no problem that he murdered all those other people too?

No matter how many times you say it, he didn't murder anyone. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

27 minutes ago, Lord of Oop North said:

No matter how many times you say it, he didn't murder anyone. 

But he certainly did cause people to die and in retrospect he was flagrantly reckless, hence why the contracts signed should be voided. Just for example, if you signed something similar to go deep sea fishing and an unexpected storm capsized the boat, well that's shitty luck. If you went on the same fishing trip and the boat was not up to standard, that's on the company that offered the service. It's pretty clear buddy was being reckless and the families of the dead should be able to get every dollar they can from his estate.  

[Derfel Cadarn]

6 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

But he certainly did cause people to die and in retrospect he was flagrantly reckless, hence why the contracts signed should be voided. Just for example, if you signed something similar to go deep sea fishing and an unexpected storm capsized the boat, well that's shitty luck. If you went on the same fishing trip and the boat was not up to standard, that's on the company that offered the service. It's pretty clear buddy was being reckless and the families of the dead should be able to get every dollar they can from his estate.  

Yes but that’s not murder, which requires intent.

[Zorral]

How many times do courts hear, "I didn't mean to kill him/her/anyone."  Yet somehow, w/o intent, the person did murder someone.

Edited July 22, 2023 by Zorral

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

9 minutes ago, Derfel Cadarn said:

Yes but that’s not murder, which requires intent.

Well in the US intent isn't always mandated for a lesser murder charger, but I agree that's not the case here. It's probably manslaughter and some reckless behavior charge, which again likely would void the contracts the passengers signed. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

17 minutes ago, Zorral said:

How many times do courts hear, "I didn't mean to kill him/her/anyone."  Yet somehow, w/o intent, the person did murder someone.

This is why we have manslaughter charges. There was zero intent to kill anyone and it wasn't some crime of passion. It was an accident, but one that should have been easily prevented and/or avoided. That's why manslaughter charges exist. 

[Lord of Oop North]

35 minutes ago, Zorral said:

How many times do courts hear, "I didn't mean to kill him/her/anyone."  Yet somehow, w/o intent, the person did murder someone.

Yes and that's not murder.

What you are saying is that his plan was to design and manufacture a submarine, find people to pay a couple hundred grand for a trip, organize a marine expedition, then take his guests down to the bottom of the ocean until his submarine imploded and they all died. You are saying that was his intent. 

Or that in some fit of passion, he did something to make the submarine implode. 

I think it is pretty clear he was just an arrogant man, who got a bunch of people killed because of that.

 

 

Edited July 22, 2023 by Lord of Oop North

[Derfel Cadarn]

35 minutes ago, Zorral said:

How many times do courts hear, "I didn't mean to kill him/her/anyone."  Yet somehow, w/o intent, the person did murder someone.

The courts don’t necessarily believe them? In this case, unless there’s reason to believe the owner was wanting to kill people and himself, there’s nothing tonsuggest intent to kill, and so manslaughter would be a more realistic charge. Depending on the jurisdiction 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

32 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

This is why we have manslaughter charges. There was zero intent to kill anyone and it wasn't some crime of passion. It was an accident, but one that should have been easily prevented and/or avoided. That's why manslaughter charges exist. 

Manslaughter requires an element of passion.  I could see “negligent homicide”… but… manslaughter isn’t the correct charge.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

15 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Manslaughter requires an element of passion.  I could see “negligent homicide”… but… manslaughter isn’t the correct charge.

Interesting. Good to know. I thought negligence could lead to manslaughter charges even if there was zero intent or passion. 

Do you think it could still make the contracts they signed null given most experts in the field seem to believe they never should have tried the dive they were doing? 

[James Arryn]

2 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Interesting. Good to know. I thought negligence could lead to manslaughter charges even if there was zero intent or passion. 

Do you think it could still make the contracts they signed null given most experts in the field seem to believe they never should have tried the dive they were doing? 

There are usually more than one kind of manslaughter, this might qualify as involuntary.
 

Depends a fair bit on the country/system, etc. but if I remember correctly to qualify for the voluntary kind the req’s are 1) unlawful killing 2) some kind of callous indifference or gross negligence or similar, something that moves it beyond happenstance but not so far as deliberation, malice, etc. Where is gets really vague is when there is anger involved; often the lines blur and a killing + anger will sometimes meet the standard for murder, sometimes not and I doubt anyone can categorically determine the difference without getting into case law specifics.
 

Some people think an enraged act without intent to kill but also without demonstrating an intent not to harm is the definition of manslaughter but those exact circs also describe a lot of murder charges, historically.
 

Sadly, in the justice game from my pov most prosecutors are aiming for the highest charge they feel they can safely see through, and that calculation often involves aspects it shouldn’t, like how much of a legal fight they think the defendant can and/or will put up. I’m sure there are very conscientious prosecutors out there, but, you know, people and their careers…

[A Horse Named Stranger]

5 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Manslaughter requires an element of passion.  I could see “negligent homicide”… but… manslaughter isn’t the correct charge.

Doesn't them knowingly deploy an unsafe construction (I mean why have the passengers sign a waiver if you believe in your vehicle) qualify as depraved indifference?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

4 hours ago, James Arryn said:

Sadly, in the justice game from my pov most prosecutors are aiming for the highest charge they feel they can safely see through, and that calculation often involves aspects it shouldn’t, like how much of a legal fight they think the defendant can and/or will put up. I’m sure there are very conscientious prosecutors out there, but, you know, people and their careers…

100% agree, prosecutors and DAs care more about their winning percentage than the 72 Dolphins. Unfortunately this leads to a lot of potential serious crimes not even being tried, especially if the suspect can afford a good attorney. I really wish that culture would change. Beyond a reasonable doubt is a high standard, but it can't scare you.

Edited July 23, 2023 by Tywin et al.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

53 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Doesn't them knowingly deploy an unsafe construction (I mean why have the passengers sign a waiver if you believe in your vehicle) qualify as depraved indifference?

Well that's the question at hand. You have to sign waivers for a lot of things. I'm trying to build up the courage to go sky diving. I wouldn't be shocked if I had to sign something. Sometimes you do everything right and still shit goes wrong. However, if my family found out after I crashed to my death that the team running the jump was a complete fuck up and all the parachutes didn't open, that waiver in my book is worthless and they should have every right to sue. As for the criminal complaint, it's ultimately moot unless other people in the company approved the dive while believing it was a flawed craft and/or a bad idea and it can be proved. It wouldn't surprise me if others get charged criminally and/or civilly if there are texts/emails.