|
Baronjutter posted:If people responsible for setting policies that result in deaths were held responsible for their actions this would be an attack on are economy. Yeah, think of all the jobs they won't be creating at that point!
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 22:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 09:11 |
|
|
Collateral Damage posted:I feel that intentionally blocking fire exits should be treated as first degree murder. After the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire, there were a lot of legal reforms; but the factory owners were actually charged with manslaughter for that incident (although they were acquitted). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_Shirtwaist_Factory_fire Basically though, yeah under the right circumstances, in the US under both federal and most (all?) state laws, you could be charged with some degree of manslaughter for locking fire escape doors. But... not First Degree Murder, because that requires an intent to murder, which would be impossible to prove without some kind of motive. Specifically a motive to murder, not to save money or whatever. You'd have to prove at trial that the defendants intended to kill the victims. More broadly, "if you do X you should be charged with Y" is not how laws work. Prosecutors have broad discretion to decide what to charge someone with. You'd have to actually redefine what Murder 1 is, and doing so in a single specific very narrow way (adding locking fire doors, but not any of the many other ways in which a person can create unsafe conditions through negligence or disregard for safety) would be really stupid and easily challenged in court. Why should someone who locked doors be guilty of Murder 1, but not someone who (say) disabled fire alarms, or ignored building codes and created a building that might collapse with everyone inside it, or poured toxic waste into a drinking water system? "People whose negligence created a situation likely to kill people in an emergency" are already vulnerable to criminal charges, and rightly so, but they shouldn't be treated the same under the law as people who intentionally try to kill someone, and legislating so might well be "cruel or unusual punishment," e.g., unconstitutional. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 23:10 on Mar 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 23:04
|
|
|
Manslaughter prosecution is not unusual in those circumstances. "On September 15, 1992, owner Emmett Roe pleaded guilty to 25 counts of involuntary manslaughter. No one else was found guilty. Emmett Roe had personally ordered the doors to be locked from the outside."
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 23:23
|
|
|
I'd just be happy if safety laws were aggressively applied and lovely building/business owners actually destroyed over it. Not a slap on the wrist fine, severe financial penalties that ruin them and significant prison time. So many just don't give a poo poo because the prosecution rates are so low and they generally get off scot free or paying some tiny set fine anount that hasn't been updated since the 1970s. Or the people at the top just throw someone under them under the bus.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 23:25
|
|
|
I question how many property owners are even motivated by potential penalties. Like, sure, if there's a big notice in the news saying "STORE OWNER GETS 70 TO LIFE IN ACID VAT SNAFU" then probably a small handful of people will notice and change their ways, but I'd wager most people aren't thinking about what could go wrong when they order doors to be locked or obstructed or whatever, they're just thinking about preventing thefts or fitting more poo poo into their warehouses or otherwise just solving some immediate problem. It's the same kind of thinking that leads people to e.g. snip off the ground plug on their appliances, or disable smoke detectors that keep going off, or etc. etc. etc. They're not thinking about how unsafe that is, they just want to get on with their lives.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 23:31
|
|
|
Great, and those people can be in prison for a while reflecting on that and hopefully the next person that takes their job does better and doesn't kill anyone through negligence. \/ That would be an excellent way of nationalizing sectors of the economy. Seize property/companies with large enough or consistent enough health, safety, and workers rights issues. They either start running a tight ship or we do it for them, it's win win. If the cops can take and sell your car after X speeding tickets they should be able to take your chemical plant after X serious violations. Baronjutter fucked around with this message at 23:40 on Mar 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 23:36
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:I'd just be happy if safety laws were aggressively applied and lovely building/business owners actually destroyed over it. Not a slap on the wrist fine, severe financial penalties that ruin them and significant prison time. So many just don't give a poo poo because the prosecution rates are so low and they generally get off scot free or paying some tiny set fine anount that hasn't been updated since the 1970s. Or the people at the top just throw someone under them under the bus.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 23:37
|
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:I question how many property owners are even motivated by potential penalties. Like, sure, if there's a big notice in the news saying "STORE OWNER GETS 70 TO LIFE IN ACID VAT SNAFU" then probably a small handful of people will notice and change their ways, but I'd wager most people aren't thinking about what could go wrong when they order doors to be locked or obstructed or whatever, they're just thinking about preventing thefts or fitting more poo poo into their warehouses or otherwise just solving some immediate problem. It's the same kind of thinking that leads people to e.g. snip off the ground plug on their appliances, or disable smoke detectors that keep going off, or etc. etc. etc. They're not thinking about how unsafe that is, they just want to get on with their lives. People are almost always better motivated by the threat of being caught than the penalty involved. Meaning that making super-harsh penalties is not very effective if people still believe they won't be caught - if you increase the chances of catching people (and the perception that people are caught) then you can significantly boost compliance even if the penalties aren't as harsh. Unfortunately this means regularly and repeatedly inspecting places, which is something that is difficult and expensive to do.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 23:43
|
|
|
Ashcans posted:People are almost always better motivated by the threat of being caught than the penalty involved. Meaning that making super-harsh penalties is not very effective if people still believe they won't be caught - if you increase the chances of catching people (and the perception that people are caught) then you can significantly boost compliance even if the penalties aren't as harsh. Unfortunately this means regularly and repeatedly inspecting places, which is something that is difficult and expensive to do. The fines are set to what is needed to cover the inspections, one hand washes the other!
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 23:45
|
|
|
glynnenstein posted:Manslaughter prosecution is not unusual in those circumstances. "On September 15, 1992, owner Emmett Roe pleaded guilty to 25 counts of involuntary manslaughter. No one else was found guilty. Emmett Roe had personally ordered the doors to be locked from the outside." " Owner Emmett Roe received a 20-year prison sentence, of which he served only four years. The company received the highest fine in the history of North Carolina,[3] which was less than the federal minimum." Eat The Rich.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 00:00
|
|
|
Huh, I used to go past that all the time, I always wondered what it was. quote:No specific individuals or groups were blamed and the deaths were attributed to misadventure, although the delay in evacuation and the flammable building materials were condemned.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 00:54
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:The fines are set to what is needed to cover the inspections, one hand washes the other! Then you get the same situation that results in speed trap towns. Anyways to a lot of larger businesses those would be pretty low fines. I like the model that I believe is most common in northern Europe where fines are based on income, so it's intended to hurt as much no matter what your income is.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 01:12
|
|
|
Ashcans posted:People are almost always better motivated by the threat of being caught than the penalty involved. Meaning that making super-harsh penalties is not very effective if people still believe they won't be caught - if you increase the chances of catching people (and the perception that people are caught) then you can significantly boost compliance even if the penalties aren't as harsh. Unfortunately this means regularly and repeatedly inspecting places, which is something that is difficult and expensive to do. This exactly. Anecdote time. I live in the SF Bay Area and my wife runs a non-profit art center in San Francisco. After the Ghost Ship burned, there's suddenly a lot more attention and focus on safety in the art community. The vast majority of people are motivated not by the potential for legal penalties, but a genuine desire to not see their friends burn alive in a loving building fire. In the cases where safety is inadequate, it almost always boils down to: 1) People are pig gently caress ignorant about safety standards and have no goddamn idea what they're doing when it comes to running a safe operation. (This thread is a testament to that principle, applied to construction standards.) 2) The only time any building gets inspected is when the owners or business operators file for some kind of renovation or expansion. There are no routine inspections in most cases (elevators get an exception for some reason.) 3) Arts communities are invariably poor as hell, so they actively seek out the cheapest rents possible irrespective of all other concerns, because that is literally their only option. Obviously this is not the same as factory owners locking their workers in. But even those factory owners' callous disregard for worker safety (it's never just the fire doors, there's always tons of other safety violations) is mostly down to combined factors of cost, ignorance, and non-enforcement via inspection. The shame of it is that all three are addressable problems. There's no real reason why we can't afford to routinely inspect workplaces, places where the public can gather (including art spaces), anywhere that people rent from someone (e.g. all rental property), etc. Enforcement of safety standards costs money but saves lives; the money probably has to come from taxpayers, and when there's a disconnect between the money spent and its benefits, it's too easy for politicians to label it unnecessary regulation and cut spending. There's no real reason why people have to be ignorant about safety, we're just lovely at educating property owners, business owners, and everyone else involved. Give people a reason to stop being ignorant and they'll learn themselves up drat quick. If 90% of safety violations were caught by inspection within a year, that would be a huge improvement regardless of whether fines remained a slap on the wrist or not. Obviously repeat offenders need to just be straight-up shut down. You don't even have to take possession of a factory, just literally close the loving doors until the required safety measures are put in place. And for the third factor I mentioned which is specific to arts communities... well, poo poo people, spend more money on supporting the arts, will you?
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 01:15
|
|
|
mllaneza posted:" Owner Emmett Roe received a 20-year prison sentence, of which he served only four years. The company received the highest fine in the history of North Carolina,[3] which was less than the federal minimum." This part's even better! quote:Within two years of the accident insurance companies and the North Carolina business lobby together introduced legislation limiting the compensation available to injured workers and relatives of killed workers. Stay the gently caress out of North Carolina. Holy poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 04:34
|
|
|
DrBouvenstein posted:As promised, here is the absolute dog-poo poo remodel job the previous owner did in my bathroom. I'm slightly more relieved when I consider the work that the previous owner did to the downstairs half-bath and seemingly spackled on a tube of silicone all over the drain piping.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 15:20
|
|
|
 From my facebook
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 23:00
|
|
|
That's just a really clever photoshop right?
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 23:03
|
|
|
One of many things that would actually be cool as gently caress with some polyurethane or something.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 00:24
|
|
|
Tunicate posted:
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 00:31
|
|
|
nmfree posted:I'm trying to decide if this is awesome or awful, and I keep coming up "yes". Imagine trying to shave in that sink and then clean it up.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 01:17
|
|
|
If you use soap, brush your teeth or have hard water that thing is going to look like garbage within a week.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 01:54
|
|
|
I think I would keep scraping my knuckles every time I washed my hands.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 02:19
|
|
|
You'd have to clean it with a scrub brush. That would be the only way to keep it looking shiny and cool. Even then it would be way too much work.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 02:32
|
|
|
That is a crime against geology.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 03:42
|
|
|
Amethyst is ugly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 03:47
|
|
|
Finally a sink low enough to pee in without straining. Why did that take so long?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 03:52
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Amethyst is ugly. what an arty urinal
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 03:53
|
|
|
nm posted:Thankfully, the thing to do here is buy all the old victorians, craftsman, spanish, and mid-century modern houses here, often in kind of disrepair and restore them to their former glory. My last house was a remodeled 1910 Craftsman, and I would have killed for drywall, because tearing down the lathe and plaster would have let us insulate the walls properly. There was a huge temperature gradient in the house in summer and winter, and patching plaster is a pain in the rear end. Not to mention all the wiring and plumbing bodges in the walls. It had an old iron claw-foot tub that had been built into a tub surround, and was up against the northeast wall on the second floor. One day in January, it started raining in the kitchen below, and I kicked in the side of the tub surround to discover that the lousy gently caress that built it left the decorative chrome piping from the floor up to the faucets before sealing it up in an effectively uninsulated crawlspace. So of course they froze. I replaced 'em with hot water heater flex hoses and insulated against the outer wall of the house, and we ran a space heater in that room in the winters. Baronjutter posted:If people responsible for setting policies that result in deaths were held responsible for their actions this would be an attack on are economy. I'd prefer it to involve an attack on their genitals. With a ball-peen hammer. If only to ensure that someone that stupid can't breed. Liquid Communism fucked around with this message at 08:16 on Mar 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 06:20
|
|
|
I installed the new projector, boss!
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 17:07
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Amethyst is ugly. Seems like an unnecessary step on the 'piss on the floor' SOP.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 18:31
|
|
|
kid sinister posted:I installed the new projector, boss! I completely lost my poo poo at this. Holy crap, lmao
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 20:53
|
|
|
Sormus posted:Seems like an unnecessary step on the 'piss on the floor' SOP. You just know someone's going to come along and either pee straight into the floor drain or on the tile like a urinal, letting it trickle down the wall.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 21:41
|
|
|
xergm posted:You just know someone's going to come along and either pee straight into the floor drain or on the tile like a urinal, letting it trickle down the wall. Those people have no fun. Piss in the trough, uphill!
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2017 01:14
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNCoevpt5TE
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2017 01:15
|
|
|
More like somebody sits on it to poo poo and breaks it off the wall, then shits on the broken pieces just to make repairs a little more fun.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2017 01:57
|
|
|
Who's this idiot?
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2017 02:46
|
|
|
I think I've found the ugliest bathroom
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2017 03:19
|
|
|
Youth Decay posted:I think I've found the ugliest bathroom Cons: Mashed knees. Pros: Warm feet.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2017 04:04
|
|
|
Pros: fresh mushrooms
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2017 04:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 09:11 |
|
|
Wasabi the J posted:Cons: Mashed knees. Warm feet, just until the piss soaks in
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2017 08:13
|
|
