Jump to content

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


Parsons
 Share

Recommended Posts

48 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

More likely manslaughter and I doubt even that would stick assuming he didn't go down with them. The negligence is what could void out on the contracts. But murder? No, that wouldn't ever hold up.

Not sure if the US has this distinction, and I guess it would really vary from state to state, but in Aus we have negligent and reckless for certain charges (negligent driving vs reckless driving for example) and with all the evidence of ignoring warnings I feel pretty confident chucking him in at the extreme end of reckless and putting him down for the most severe level of manslaughter. Although I'm not sure we actually have that scaling applied to manslaughter itself, so I'm talking conceptually not legally.

Agree that I can't see how he could be tagged with murder though, there's mountains of hubris and delusion but no intent to cause harm behind it. Just a disregard for the possibility that he could.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

More likely manslaughter and I doubt even that would stick assuming he didn't go down with them. The negligence is what could void out on the contracts. But murder? No, that wouldn't ever hold up.

And people get upset that the People loathe the obscenely wealthy, who, at the very first whisper of putting that out there, hear the tumbrils and scream bloody murder, that they commit, one way and another, multiple times, day after day after day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, karaddin said:

Not sure if the US has this distinction, and I guess it would really vary from state to state, but in Aus we have negligent and reckless for certain charges (negligent driving vs reckless driving for example) and with all the evidence of ignoring warnings I feel pretty confident chucking him in at the extreme end of reckless and putting him down for the most severe level of manslaughter. Although I'm not sure we actually have that scaling applied to manslaughter itself, so I'm talking conceptually not legally.

Agree that I can't see how he could be tagged with murder though, there's mountains of hubris and delusion but no intent to cause harm behind it. Just a disregard for the possibility that he could.

Don't think the US is that different. Part of the reason I doubt anyone would try him for murder is prosecutors don't like to lose. They could probably get multiple lesser charges and there wouldn't be much pushback because this seems like a pretty open and shut case.

I'm curious if the governments that helped in the search can and will go after his estate. I'm not a lawyer, but philosophically they should be able to. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, 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.

And people get upset that the People loathe the obscenely wealthy, who, at the very first whisper of putting that out there, hear the tumbrils and scream bloody murder, that they commit, one way and another, multiple times, day after day after day.

That's how the world works. Rob a bank and go to jail for years. Own the bank and rob the customers, maybe you pay a fine. Wealthy and power people will always have an unfair advantage. Justice isn't blind and more and more she's got pockets stuffed with dirty money. The interesting thing is as the illusion collapses the bad actors in the system are getting more brazen.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Don't think the US is that different. Part of the reason I doubt anyone would try him for murder is prosecutors don't like to lose. They could probably get multiple lesser charges and there wouldn't be much pushback because this seems like a pretty open and shut case.

I'm curious if the governments that helped in the search can and will go after his estate. I'm not a lawyer, but philosophically they should be able to. 

Well the main reason they wouldn't try him is cos he dead. 

Whether governments can recover from him/Oceangate is a legally interesting question.  It's not impossible for governments to bring a restitutionary claim to recover funds spent on his rescue.  The problem is rescue is a traditional government service, and I can't think of/find precedent for recovery.  Also it's doubtful that Oceangate at least has any enduring value.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Conflicting Thought said:

i will dance twice, they didnt die the same day. it became a meme that Lucia would never die, she lived a long ass time and when she finally did die allot of people, myself included went out to the streets to celebrate that finally she was dead

Pinochet is famous in England for a number of reasons, but principally his friendship with Maggie and the court case that resulted in...nothing whatsoever happening to him.  Was Lucia complicit in his tortures and crimes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Gaston de Foix said:

Well the main reason they wouldn't try him is cos he dead. 

Well there is that issue.

Quote

Whether governments can recover from him/Oceangate is a legally interesting question.  It's not impossible for governments to bring a restitutionary claim to recover funds spent on his rescue.  The problem is rescue is a traditional government service, and I can't think of/find precedent for recovery.  Also it's doubtful that Oceangate at least has any enduring value.  

Wouldn't the question be if governments he wasn't a citizen of had standing considering massive negligence and/or fraud is in play? The company might not have much money after this, but personally I believe whatever they have should be fair game at the very least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be clear I never attended a party celebrating anyone's death, and that entire post was intended to be what someone actually celebrating the predictable accident might have sounded like, and of the discussions about the incident more generally; because I've seen all sorts of criticism of people allegedly delighting in the Titan sub implosion, but haven't seen anyone actually doing it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Larry of the Lake said:

To be clear I never attended a party celebrating anyone's death, and that entire post was intended to be what someone actually celebrating the predictable accident might have sounded like, and of the discussions about the incident more generally; because I've seen all sorts of criticism of people allegedly delighting in the Titan sub implosion, but haven't seen anyone actually doing it. 

 

I'm bummed I didn't get to see the comments. Chats is mad at you. And like I said before, I lean your way, but perhaps I might have been more gentle. Sounds like you went full eat the rich. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Rush killed others with his hubris and recklessness.  I do not delight in anyone’s death… even Rush.  But… wow was he tempting fate with other people’s lives.

Being late to this thread I thought you were talking about Rush Limbaugh.  Wouldn't say I was sad when he shuffled off this mortal coil.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gaston de Foix said:

Pinochet is famous in England for a number of reasons, but principally his friendship with Maggie and the court case that resulted in...nothing whatsoever happening to him.  Was Lucia complicit in his tortures and crimes?

indeed she was, and kept a lot of power even after the end of the dictatorship, she was president of CEMA (an institution that had allot of property ceded by the state under pinochet) until 2016!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Disagreement over whether it's okay to celebrate the death of a person is a board tradition that goes all the way back to the impromptu block topic party that broke out when Maggie Thatcher died, and probably further. 

 

 

This one's a little different because Rush wasn't directly oppressing most of the people celebrating and there were people on board who didn't do shit to anyone, but I do get why some people have reacted that way, with the current climate in many countries of poorer people being told to tighten their belts for the good of the economy while the wealthy just get wealthier. He and the Titan temporarily became the symbol of the whole broken system for some people being constantly kicked in the teeth by it. I didn't celebrate, but I don't really care if anyone did. Eat the rich and all that innit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Well there is that issue.

Wouldn't the question be if governments he wasn't a citizen of had standing considering massive negligence and/or fraud is in play? The company might not have much money after this, but personally I believe whatever they have should be fair game at the very least.

He didn't commit fraud against the government or negligently impair government personnel though.  The survivors of those who died have a claim against him subject to a heated debate about the validity of the waiver.  That's a fairly straightforward claim.  The government claim would be based on knowingly taking risks necessitating massive governmental expenditure.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, polishgenius said:

Disagreement over whether it's okay to celebrate the death of a person is a board tradition that goes all the way back to the impromptu block topic party that broke out when Maggie Thatcher died, and probably further. 

 

 

This one's a little different because Rush wasn't directly oppressing most of the people celebrating and there were people on board who didn't do shit to anyone, but I do get why some people have reacted that way, with the current climate in many countries of poorer people being told to tighten their belts for the good of the economy while the wealthy just get wealthier. He and the Titan temporarily became the symbol of the whole broken system for some people being constantly kicked in the teeth by it. I didn't celebrate, but I don't really care if anyone did. Eat the rich and all that innit.

I will say what I always say… I believe it is karmicly uncool to… celebrate… anyone’s death.  That said not being particularly mournful over the passing of someone you find unpleasant is understandable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Gaston de Foix said:

He didn't commit fraud against the government or negligently impair government personnel though.  The survivors of those who died have a claim against him subject to a heated debate about the validity of the waiver.  That's a fairly straightforward claim.  The government claim would be based on knowingly taking risks necessitating massive governmental expenditure.  

Which they did, because who else could help them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

That's how the world works

You say potaahto and I say murder.

I rejoiced that Epstein was so scared he killed himself.  If, indeed, he killed himself.  That international trafficking ring he ran for the powerful, wealthy and celebrated meant he had info dirt on every one of them, and the wealthy and powerful when scared are rats in a corner and they will, and they do, do anything to a perceived threat. So if others murdered him, I will rejoice if they are found out and killed too.  None of them deserve a bit of the little oxygen this planet has left.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/4/2023 at 1:25 PM, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I will say what I always say… I believe it is karmicly uncool to… celebrate… anyone’s death.  That said not being particularly mournful over the passing of someone you find unpleasant is understandable.

The Maggie Thatcher case was complicated by a bunch of right wingers trying to use her death to canonise her. I still remember clearly someone on the BBC describe her as being "uniquely revered". Not surprising that people felt the need to push back against that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/4/2023 at 10:13 AM, 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.

And people get upset that the People loathe the obscenely wealthy, who, at the very first whisper of putting that out there, hear the tumbrils and scream bloody murder, that they commit, one way and another, multiple times, day after day after day.

This isn't a case of the rich getting away with anything though. We have charges for manslaughter and gross negligence  for a reason and this case fits those to a T. Plus he didn't get away with it cause he's ya know dead.

As for the waivers, waivers usually hold up less in court then people think and don't absolve people from negligence which this case certainly has.  It's very likely Ocearngate will be found liable, but  I don't think there will be much to take from Oceangate in the end. The company wasn't profitable and was barely scraping by. A big reason for some of the cut corners is they simply didn't have the money to do better. They just didn't have the cashflow for what they were doing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...