RE: Boston: Enough is Enough!

RE: Boston: Enough is Enough! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

DesideriScuri -> RE: Boston: Enough is Enough! (4/23/2013 6:01:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri But, even taking that into account (which I'm not saying the firm shouldn't have consequences), it was still not the intention to cause death and destruction. No, the intention was to make money by doing something that necessarily, inevitably leads to death and destruction (it's just a matter of time, when you do it that way, and they knew that). Which is pretty much akin to taking out a contract on your neighbours (indeed, your whole neighbourhood) for profit, except with a clause that it shouldn't be tomorrow, but rather at some unspecified time in the future. I disagree that an explosion was inevitable or that they knew it was inevitable. I'm sure they knew it wasn't as safe as could be, but I doubt they believed it would inevitably lead to an incident. quote: So, yeah, in terms of outcomes and motives, I'm inclined to say they're in trouble. Legally, though, they'll probably walk. IWYW, — Aswad. "Inclined to say they're in trouble" really is understating the truth, imo. lol I certainly hope they don't walk and have to face the consequences of their flouting the laws. In the end, though, engaging in activity that could result in an explosion causing a lot of damage and death is much different from engaging in activity where the purpose of the activity itself is to cause an explosion that causes damage and death. And, my belief is the same as it was regarding the banking crisis: if you take the risk and lose, you should face the consequences.

DomKen -> RE: Boston: Enough is Enough! (4/23/2013 6:23:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri But, even taking that into account (which I'm not saying the firm shouldn't have consequences), it was still not the intention to cause death and destruction. No, the intention was to make money by doing something that necessarily, inevitably leads to death and destruction (it's just a matter of time, when you do it that way, and they knew that). Which is pretty much akin to taking out a contract on your neighbours (indeed, your whole neighbourhood) for profit, except with a clause that it shouldn't be tomorrow, but rather at some unspecified time in the future. I disagree that an explosion was inevitable or that they knew it was inevitable. I'm sure they knew it wasn't as safe as could be, but I doubt they believed it would inevitably lead to an incident. In any indsutrial operation accidents will happen. When working with extremely volatile materials those accidents can be catstrophic unless safety systems are in place. The fertilizer plant in question had, it is reported, no safety systems in place for dealing with a fire in the ammonium nitrate which happened to be stored near a pressure vessel containing anhydrous ammonia. That something bad was going to happen does appear inevitable.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Boston: Enough is Enough! (4/23/2013 6:28:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri But, even taking that into account (which I'm not saying the firm shouldn't have consequences), it was still not the intention to cause death and destruction. No, the intention was to make money by doing something that necessarily, inevitably leads to death and destruction (it's just a matter of time, when you do it that way, and they knew that). Which is pretty much akin to taking out a contract on your neighbours (indeed, your whole neighbourhood) for profit, except with a clause that it shouldn't be tomorrow, but rather at some unspecified time in the future. I disagree that an explosion was inevitable or that they knew it was inevitable. I'm sure they knew it wasn't as safe as could be, but I doubt they believed it would inevitably lead to an incident. In any indsutrial operation accidents will happen. When working with extremely volatile materials those accidents can be catstrophic unless safety systems are in place. The fertilizer plant in question had, it is reported, no safety systems in place for dealing with a fire in the ammonium nitrate which happened to be stored near a pressure vessel containing anhydrous ammonia. That something bad was going to happen does appear inevitable. So, the intention of the industrial plant was to explode causing death and damages?

DomKen -> RE: Boston: Enough is Enough! (4/23/2013 6:32:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri But, even taking that into account (which I'm not saying the firm shouldn't have consequences), it was still not the intention to cause death and destruction. No, the intention was to make money by doing something that necessarily, inevitably leads to death and destruction (it's just a matter of time, when you do it that way, and they knew that). Which is pretty much akin to taking out a contract on your neighbours (indeed, your whole neighbourhood) for profit, except with a clause that it shouldn't be tomorrow, but rather at some unspecified time in the future. I disagree that an explosion was inevitable or that they knew it was inevitable. I'm sure they knew it wasn't as safe as could be, but I doubt they believed it would inevitably lead to an incident. In any indsutrial operation accidents will happen. When working with extremely volatile materials those accidents can be catstrophic unless safety systems are in place. The fertilizer plant in question had, it is reported, no safety systems in place for dealing with a fire in the ammonium nitrate which happened to be stored near a pressure vessel containing anhydrous ammonia. That something bad was going to happen does appear inevitable. So, the intention of the industrial plant was to explode causing death and damages? Inevitable does not equal intent.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Boston: Enough is Enough! (4/23/2013 6:43:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Inevitable does not equal intent. Which is why what happened in West TX a different sort of crime. And, this is what I've been claiming in this thread from the get-go.

mnottertail -> RE: Boston: Enough is Enough! (4/23/2013 6:47:24 AM)
Not totally sure of that, each one considered an acceptable risk.

Yachtie -> RE: Boston: Enough is Enough! (4/23/2013 6:51:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Not totally sure of that, each one considered an acceptable risk. Acceptable to whom? On what basis is X risk acceptable?

Lucylastic -> RE: Boston: Enough is Enough! (4/23/2013 6:57:26 AM)
apparently rick perry does... [image]https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/163553_545662375486295_403624812_n.jpg[/image]

tj444 -> RE: Boston: Enough is Enough! (4/23/2013 7:46:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic apparently rick perry does... each level of govt has its own regulations.. the town/city of West, the state, and the Feds (regs under various depts including Homeland Security!!!).. they all failed..

mnottertail -> RE: Boston: Enough is Enough! (4/23/2013 8:17:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Not totally sure of that, each one considered an acceptable risk. Acceptable to whom? On what basis is X risk acceptable? Acceptable to the boys in Boston for not getting caught and killed, and acceptable to the Plant Ownership in Texas that more safety measures and equipment was not in place, the basis (reasoning) they chose for acceptable risk (your X quantity) would have to be taken up with them. Neither of these 'groups' consulted me when they calculated.

DomKen -> RE: Boston: Enough is Enough! (4/23/2013 8:40:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic apparently rick perry does... each level of govt has its own regulations.. the town/city of West, the state, and the Feds (regs under various depts including Homeland Security!!!).. they all failed.. The law required the plant to notify DHS that it existed and had all that volatile material. Reports are they didn't. Pretty hard for the feds to regulate a plant they didn't know about.

Moonhead -> RE: Boston: Enough is Enough! (4/23/2013 9:22:59 AM)
That's the libertarian ideal in a nutshell, innit?

Hillwilliam -> RE: Boston: Enough is Enough! (4/23/2013 9:31:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic apparently rick perry does... each level of govt has its own regulations.. the town/city of West, the state, and the Feds (regs under various depts including Homeland Security!!!).. they all failed.. The law required the plant to notify DHS that it existed and had all that volatile material. Reports are they didn't. Pretty hard for the feds to regulate a plant they didn't know about. How many million pounds of Ammonium Nitrate was stored there and Homeland Security didn't know it existed? Makes me feel REALLY fucking secure.[8\|]

tj444 -> RE: Boston: Enough is Enough! (4/23/2013 9:53:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen The law required the plant to notify DHS that it existed and had all that volatile material. Reports are they didn't. Pretty hard for the feds to regulate a plant they didn't know about. ummm.. yeah,.. so DHS expects everyone & every business to follow the exact letter of the law???.. hmmm.. then exactly why do we need the DHS??? come on.. I cant believe they dont have some way of finding the existance of this plant (especially since they were cited with previous safety lapses by another agency) and been around for about 3 decades!.. we are talking about materials used to make bombs.. "The whole point of the DHS is to catch things before they blow up." http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/04/exploding-fertilizer-plant-texas-hadnt-had-full-inspection-nearly-three-decades/64469/

DomKen -> RE: Boston: Enough is Enough! (4/23/2013 10:00:11 AM)
How would you go about finding every facility in the country that might be handling enough volatile material to require over sight by the DHS? Self reporting certainly seems like the best first step.

Lucylastic -> RE: Boston: Enough is Enough! (4/23/2013 10:00:38 AM)
when you are holding explosive materials, bloody right youshould be following letter of the law....... deregulation in large part, (on who and what files what and where) is how it seems they flew under the radar.

tj444 -> RE: Boston: Enough is Enough! (4/23/2013 10:05:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen How would you go about finding every facility in the country that might be handling enough volatile material to require over sight by the DHS? Self reporting certainly seems like the best first step. except that self-reporting doesnt always happen... now, is anyone asking themselves how many other rogue fertilizer plants are out there that DHS doesnt know about?? hmmmm I would expect some fail-safes in place to find the non-self-reporters.. like how did other agencies know this plant existed and had partial safety inspections? why dont these agencies talk to each other.. imo that would be a good second step when the first step fails..

tj444 -> RE: Boston: Enough is Enough! (4/23/2013 10:08:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic when you are holding explosive materials, bloody right youshould be following letter of the law....... deregulation in large part, (on who and what files what and where) is how it seems they flew under the radar. well,.. imo the agencies are also partially at fault.. this plant had only partial safety inspections (& fined for violations) and had not had a complete inspection for 3 decades!.. seems to me like there should have been a lot more done to check on them.. jmo..

Lucylastic -> RE: Boston: Enough is Enough! (4/23/2013 10:13:33 AM)
ohhhhh..nonono, im not disagreeing with you... they were fined in 2001 and 2006, how didnt that get passed down the line I dont know, never will:). I cannot lay this at the feet of any one personor department:) sorry if I gave you the wrong idea

DomKen -> RE: Boston: Enough is Enough! (4/23/2013 10:42:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen How would you go about finding every facility in the country that might be handling enough volatile material to require over sight by the DHS? Self reporting certainly seems like the best first step. except that self-reporting doesnt always happen... now, is anyone asking themselves how many other rogue fertilizer plants are out there that DHS doesnt know about?? hmmmm I would expect some fail-safes in place to find the non-self-reporters.. like how did other agencies know this plant existed and had partial safety inspections? why dont these agencies talk to each other.. imo that would be a good second step when the first step fails.. Hindsight is 20/20. I'm pretty sure how DHS finds the facilities it monitors wil change after this.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125