|
Tacier posted:Failure to prevent a spark during activities that don't traditionally cause sparks isn't carelessness. Now if you're in the middle of your tinderbox backyard going to town on a chunk of metal with an angle grinder, that might be a different story. I'd feel differently if he had been doing something that wasn't likely to cause sparks or heat. E: or if, living on property that was clearly ready to burn at the slightest spark, he had some sort of mitigation or fire suppression plan beyond "Yee haw, four wheelin!" Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 14:51 on Jun 8, 2019 |
# ? Jun 8, 2019 14:44 |
|
|
# ? May 26, 2024 00:42 |
|
I just feel that the missing part in that story is him pouring a few gallons of fuel onto the nest. Rebar doesn't scare off hornets, it just makes them angrier.
|
# ? Jun 8, 2019 15:43 |
Dead Reckoning posted:E: or if, living on property that was clearly ready to burn at the slightest spark, he had some sort of mitigation or fire suppression plan beyond "Yee haw, four wheelin!" He did, it just wasn't bolded in The Glumslinger's post (presumably because it wasn't as funny): quote:He then tried to use water from the water tank to douse the fire, but the polyurethane tubing became “kinked from the heat of the fire and restricted the water flow,” the report said.
|
|
# ? Jun 8, 2019 17:33 |
|
VikingofRock posted:He did, it just wasn't bolded in The Glumslinger's post (presumably because it wasn't as funny): Dead Reckoning posted:Also this dude almost certainly lost everything he owned in that fire too. It's not like he carelessly tossed a cigarette butt and left. He's as much a victim of his innocent mistake as everyone else.
|
# ? Jun 8, 2019 18:13 |
|
Morbus posted:someone should arrest whoever made that hammer asap thats dumb, just ritually destroy it on tv and pronounce the curse lifted
|
# ? Jun 8, 2019 18:54 |
|
VikingofRock posted:He did, it just wasn't bolded in The Glumslinger's post (presumably because it wasn't as funny): Keyser_Soze posted:I just feel that the missing part in that story is him pouring a few gallons of fuel onto the nest. Rebar doesn't scare off hornets, it just makes them angrier.
|
# ? Jun 8, 2019 19:00 |
|
Keyser_Soze posted:I just feel that the missing part in that story is him pouring a few gallons of fuel onto the nest. Rebar doesn't scare off hornets, it just makes them angrier. I was thinking idling the ATV with the hot exhaust on the grass. Not to get all internet detective- this is all pointless speculation, but the hammer and rebar doesn’t seem too plausible.
|
# ? Jun 8, 2019 19:11 |
|
When me and my guys are in the field, we have ways of mitigating the heat from our trucks when we park on the grass. That's because we know that's a way of starting a fire. The hammer thing actually sounds plausible to me because it seems so farfetched that a normal person would not be prepared for it to happen. Also, having lived in the rural south, attacking a yellowjacket nest with a stake is absolutely something I've seen people do way too often.
|
# ? Jun 8, 2019 19:26 |
|
Leperflesh posted:We have a concept in criminal law called mens rea, meaning, state of mind. It fundamentally underlines the concept of culpability. It says that what actually happened, while important, is mitigated or exacerbated by what the person intended or was thinking. This is the only difference between different degrees of murder, for example; premeditation makes the killing worse than if it was an impulse, spur of the moment thing; and that in turn is still worse than if it was unintended but caused by recklessness, and still less if it was merely negligence. Negligence is the lowest form of culpability; beyond that, a person may have done an act, but they're not guilty of a crime, because they acted in a reasonable manner that any normal person might have acted. Leperflesh, this idea is increasingly becoming not a very commonly accepted ethical principle.
|
# ? Jun 8, 2019 19:50 |
|
If only we had a plan for dealing with the bad post fires that start whenever Dead Reckoning sharts his way into the thread.
|
# ? Jun 8, 2019 20:35 |
|
The mods just probate anyone who tells him to go gently caress himself so he gets the thread to himself. Problem solved.
|
# ? Jun 9, 2019 05:04 |
|
There's another fire in Fairfield, and evacuations are under way.
|
# ? Jun 9, 2019 07:00 |
|
we could probably save time and money if we just executed the people in the area instead of evacuating them, odds are good one of them caused the fire
|
# ? Jun 9, 2019 07:10 |
|
Let's be honest here, they all caused the fire by perpetuating human habitation in a fire-prone area. Every single one of them is at fault for not setting an example whereby there would be no one around to be blamed for a fire starting in that area. Let me guess, none of them did anything to mitigate it either? Did they even have a plan for doing so? Gross negligence.
|
# ? Jun 9, 2019 07:22 |
|
we need to dig up james fremont and do a cadaver synod
|
# ? Jun 9, 2019 07:24 |
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:we need to dig up james fremont and do a cadaver synod Down with this, except it should be William Jaird Levitt on trial.
|
# ? Jun 9, 2019 07:42 |
|
Freak accidents don't exist and if something bad happens you need to pin it on somebody no matter how tenuous and then cut their loving heads off in full view of the public. Only then will the Ancient Gods be appeased.
|
# ? Jun 11, 2019 18:41 |
|
silence_kit posted:Leperflesh, this idea is increasingly becoming not a very commonly accepted ethical principle. I'm not sure if there's been a survey or something, but if that's true, it's unfortunate.
|
# ? Jun 11, 2019 19:57 |
|
VikingofRock posted:He did, it just wasn't bolded in The Glumslinger's post (presumably because it wasn't as funny): That's not a fire suppression system, and sounds a lot more like a private well system that he tried to run a hose from.
|
# ? Jun 11, 2019 20:05 |
|
Turtlicious posted:I've been kicked out of that starbucks before because my smell offended customers, and when I said I just wanted to use the restroom I was told no because a different homeless person did drugs in there once. This was in 2010, 2009? At Hollywood and Venice? I haven't seen it. Hmm....
|
# ? Jun 11, 2019 21:53 |
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:Freak accidents don't exist and if something bad happens you need to pin it on somebody no matter how tenuous and then cut their loving heads off in full view of the public.
|
# ? Jun 11, 2019 21:58 |
|
Cup Runneth Over posted:I think that this take of "there should be consequences for events you had absolutely no control over" perfectly exemplifies the mindset of people like you who are more concerned with punishment and retribution than justice. Though again, I'm being generous in assuming that this is truly what you believe and not a deliberately rear end-backwards opinion you've whipped out to ensure that every post you make in this thread is offensive to the senses. I truly wish that the mods would finally step up and ban you from this thread like they banned you from the Current Events thread. Also, Woa woa, wait a sec. here. PG&E? The Pacific Gas and Electric Corporation (NYSE:PCG) is facing upwards of $30 billion in liabilities for its alleged fault in dozens of wildfires between 2017 and 2018, including November’s ‘Camp Fire’ – now the single most destructive wildfire in California’s history. This is a big problem for a utility that has a net present value of roughly $12 billion and only $2 billion worth of insurance coverage. It is also a blow for California’s proclaimed transition to renewable energy by 2045. ... Long before the failure suspected in the Paradise fire, a company email had noted that some of PG&E’s structures in the area, known for fierce winds, were at risk of collapse. It reported corrosion of one tower so severe that it endangered crews trying to repair the tower. The company’s own guidelines put Tower 27/222 a quarter-century beyond its useful life — but the tower remained. ------- Yeah, there should be criminal consequences for this.
|
# ? Jun 11, 2019 21:59 |
|
It's super cool that CPUC caved and let PG&E go forward with the solution of "we'll just shut power off for millions upon millions of paying customers when it gets hot and windy while continuing to neglect our aging infrastructure" instead of putting the execs in jail and nationalizing all of their California assets.
|
# ? Jun 11, 2019 22:07 |
|
Sydin posted:It's super cool that CPUC caved and let PG&E go forward with the solution of "we'll just shut power off for millions upon millions of paying customers when it gets hot and windy while continuing to neglect our aging infrastructure" instead of putting the execs in jail and nationalizing all of their California assets. They should absolutely 100% be doing both, not either/or. Even best case scenario, PG&E is decades behind on maintenance of thousands and thousands of miles of lines, and regardless of who belongs in jail, being fully willing to shut down lines when they overheat instead of worrying about paying customers is a critical requirement to avoid or minimize future fires like the Camp fire. Like they've had multiple fires now that could have been avoided if they'd been quicker to shut down lines instead of worrying about the negative press and angry customers involved with shutting power off.
|
# ? Jun 11, 2019 22:26 |
|
VideoGameVet posted:Woa woa, wait a sec. here. PG&E? Lol, no, some random farmer. PG&E is absolutely culpable.
|
# ? Jun 11, 2019 22:33 |
|
Leperflesh posted:They should absolutely 100% be doing both, not either/or. Even best case scenario, PG&E is decades behind on maintenance of thousands and thousands of miles of lines, and regardless of who belongs in jail, being fully willing to shut down lines when they overheat instead of worrying about paying customers is a critical requirement to avoid or minimize future fires like the Camp fire. I was lead to believe the issue was more their unwillingness to replace ancient and way past rated-service time infrastructure and lines, and being lazy about trimming and brush removal near high voltage. I admit though that I've only read second hand news reports about the investigations, not the actual investigations themselves. Was it proven some of these fires would have happened even with proper maintenance and infrastructure, just because temperatures got to a point where it was unsafe for any line to run at all? That doesn't sound like something out of the realm of possibility I guess, I just hadn't heard it to this point.
|
# ? Jun 11, 2019 22:44 |
|
Leperflesh posted:They should absolutely 100% be doing both, not either/or. Even best case scenario, PG&E is decades behind on maintenance of thousands and thousands of miles of lines, and regardless of who belongs in jail, being fully willing to shut down lines when they overheat instead of worrying about paying customers is a critical requirement to avoid or minimize future fires like the Camp fire. It is either/or though, and I'm sure you'll be shocked which one is the either and which one is the or!
|
# ? Jun 11, 2019 23:45 |
|
https://twitter.com/eedugdale/status/1138508611674447872 Just take the homes folks. Just move in.
|
# ? Jun 11, 2019 23:52 |
|
I'm honestly considering running for city council solely on instituting a tax on unoccupied property, just to see what happens.
|
# ? Jun 12, 2019 00:06 |
|
In LA? Actually, I don't care, you should do it.
|
# ? Jun 12, 2019 00:24 |
|
Sydin posted:I was lead to believe the issue was more their unwillingness to replace ancient and way past rated-service time infrastructure and lines, and being lazy about trimming and brush removal near high voltage. I admit though that I've only read second hand news reports about the investigations, not the actual investigations themselves. Was it proven some of these fires would have happened even with proper maintenance and infrastructure, just because temperatures got to a point where it was unsafe for any line to run at all? That doesn't sound like something out of the realm of possibility I guess, I just hadn't heard it to this point. PG&E officialls wilfully and repeatedly refused for decades to do enough maintenance. After the san mateo gas explosion, PG&E established a maintenance budget, but then failed to even spend the money they had budgeted, preferring to return profits to the shareholders. The executives involved in those decisions in my opinion committed crimes, and should be prosecuted: their decisions killed people. Irrespective of those failures, however, right now today we live in a situation where there are thousands of miles of lines that become dangerous when they get too hot, which is a function of both the weather and demand on those lines. PG&E should shut down lines when they get too hot, and in the past, we've seen cases where they were warned by monitoring equipment or by phone calls from witnesses that there was a problem, and they did not act quickly enough to shut lines down. The correct and safe approach is a proactive one, where lines at risk are shut down before they start sagging into trees, showering sparks on the ground, etc. Preventative blackouts suck rear end for customers and are a consequence of blatant malfeasance by PG&E executives and, by extension, the fallout of the original decisions surrounding making PG&E a for-profit, publicly traded company. But it's stupid to demand that they stop doing it now, or even to sarcastically criticize them now for doing it. They need to do it, people die when they don't. We deserve properly maintained infrastructure, and we don't have it today, and even in the absolute best case scenario (the state takes over the company, zeroes out the stock, and pours billions into deferred maintenance) it'd still be decades before we get it. In the meantime, yes, they should shut down lines when they get too hot, to prevent fires. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 00:33 on Jun 12, 2019 |
# ? Jun 12, 2019 00:31 |
|
Leperflesh posted:PG&E officialls wilfully and repeatedly refused for decades to do enough maintenance. After the san mateo gas explosion, PG&E established a maintenance budget, but then failed to even spend the money they had budgeted, preferring to return profits to the shareholders. The executives involved in those decisions in my opinion committed crimes, and should be prosecuted: their decisions killed people. bUt pRiVaTiZiNg rEsUlTs iN A BeTtEr pRoDuCt aNd lOwEr cOsTs
|
# ? Jun 12, 2019 01:01 |
|
Leperflesh posted:I'm not sure if there's been a survey or something, but if that's true, it's unfortunate. I was under the impression it was becoming less popular as a legal principle, because for white-collar crimes it's a pain in the rear end to prove. For ethical concerns it doesn't matter how hard it is to establish, so it's not as big a deal there. And if you don't like it, I think you wind up having to bite some really wacky bullets, right? Like "Intelligent people are capable of being more ethical than the average person".
|
# ? Jun 12, 2019 01:23 |
|
nrook posted:I was under the impression it was becoming less popular as a legal principle, because for white-collar crimes it's a pain in the rear end to prove. "Strict liability" crimes, such as many statutory crimes, often ignore or exclude mens rea, that's true. The one everyone is familiar with, statutory rape, is an example: it doesn't matter, and the court isn't allowed to consider, any factors having to do with intent; for example, if the underage person had a fake ID showing they were of age, so the older person thought they were in the clear; the consent involved; etc. The only thing the court can do with statutory rape is determine the facts - if the facts meet the criteria, guilty, that's it, intent can't be considered. There are a bunch of strict liability crimes, however, and many of them were written not by legislators, but by regulators creating statutory laws. One example I read about, that stuck with me as emblematic of short-sighted strict-liability resulting in injustice: regulators might create a fine for trafficking in the parts of endangered animals, without providing for a mens rea defense; then some random person visiting a park picks up a feather off the ground, it's from a spotted owl, a zealous cop and prosecutor press charges, and bam that person is fined $10,000 or something, nevermind they made a totally innocent decision that the bureaucrats writing the law never contemplated. There's no jury either, in many of these statutory crimes, so jury nullification often isn't even an option, not that that really happens much anyway even when it is. I think it's good to go beyond Wikipedia to understand this stuff - I've done a fair bit of reading, although I'm not a lawyer - but this strikes me as a good summary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea#United_States So "less popular" is kind of true, in the sense that the modern penal code takes a more refined and carefully parsed interpretation of mens rea. But, I wasn't sure if you were saying that even this approach to the concept of culpability was going out of style or becoming unpopular among legislators or law professors or something? That may well be true: I'm just an amateur with some casual interest in the law, I'm not like, tuned in to the current state of legal theory. But I'd find that pretty disappointing. I think that when you penalize people for doing "bad things" when they had no intention or even negligence, you're just exercising power for the sake of power, appeasing the demands of the mob for results, and grinding innocent people up under the wheels of expediency and political campaign "tough on crime" points. That's gross and IMO actively harmful to society, because when people figure out that they're living under a capricious and arbitrary oppression, they either give up on obeying the rules and you get deeply ingrained corruption and paranoia, or they bust out the pitchforks and guillotines. Or sometimes both at once. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 02:03 on Jun 12, 2019 |
# ? Jun 12, 2019 01:54 |
|
VideoGameVet posted:At Hollywood and Venice? I haven't seen it. Hmm.... uh yeah, you wouldn't because there is no Hollywood and Venice in LA???? They literally run parallel to each other. Do you not even fuckin live here?
|
# ? Jun 12, 2019 08:01 |
|
Turtlicious posted:uh yeah, you wouldn't because there is no Hollywood and Venice in LA???? They literally run parallel to each other. Do you not even fuckin live here? Brain fart. I meant Hollywood and Vine. Sorry. I work at Vine and Yucca. Live in Carlsbad and come up to LA to work during the week (Amtrak+Subway+Folding Bike). So I know that station (Hollywood and Vine) and use it at least 2x a week.
|
# ? Jun 12, 2019 17:10 |
|
Just go to the pie shop on hollywood theyre liberal and will let you use the bathroom regardless of incomism
|
# ? Jun 12, 2019 17:53 |
|
Leperflesh posted:"Strict liability" crimes, such as many statutory crimes, often ignore or exclude mens rea, that's true. The one everyone is familiar with, statutory rape, is an example: it doesn't matter, and the court isn't allowed to consider, any factors having to do with intent; for example, if the underage person had a fake ID showing they were of age, so the older person thought they were in the clear; the consent involved; etc. The only thing the court can do with statutory rape is determine the facts - if the facts meet the criteria, guilty, that's it, intent can't be considered. There are a bunch of strict liability crimes, however, and many of them were written not by legislators, but by regulators creating statutory laws. One example I read about, that stuck with me as emblematic of short-sighted strict-liability resulting in injustice: regulators might create a fine for trafficking in the parts of endangered animals, without providing for a mens rea defense; then some random person visiting a park picks up a feather off the ground, it's from a spotted owl, a zealous cop and prosecutor press charges, and bam that person is fined $10,000 or something, nevermind they made a totally innocent decision that the bureaucrats writing the law never contemplated. There's no jury either, in many of these statutory crimes, so jury nullification often isn't even an option, not that that really happens much anyway even when it is. It depends on the level of social responsibility you hold people to. For a corporate entity such as PG&E and its officers we should penalize them for failing in their social duty of not burning us in our homes or choking our air while they deliver our power. Should we hold the random farmer to the same level of social responsibility? That's a harder question. I agree with Dead Reckoning that you accept the risk of sparks whenever you hammer a nail or a stake. Most of the time it doesn't matter. This time it did. We all hold the smoker that throws their lit cigarette butt out of the car window responsible for the fires they cause despite the fact that most of the time it doesn't matter that they do it. The salience of mens rea is more difficult. For some cases it's clear that it matters because it's not just the crime but the potential for further crime that we fear. It's not the single action, it's the pattern. A murder borne of malignant hate is more heinous to society than one borne of heated passion and is punished accordingly. A single case of negligence doesn't necessarily constitute cause to punish, merely correct. Multiple cases of negligence following correction ceases to be negligence in the eyes of others. The consequence changes social reaction as well. Does mens rea matter when fires burn?
|
# ? Jun 13, 2019 18:06 |
|
Admiral Ray posted:We all hold the smoker that throws their lit cigarette butt out of the car window responsible for the fires they cause despite the fact that most of the time it doesn't matter that they do it. Part of that is because they're disgusting, awful litterers and gently caress them.
|
# ? Jun 13, 2019 18:17 |
|
|
# ? May 26, 2024 00:42 |
|
Also it is at least on paper illegal to throw a cigarette butt out the window of your car, even it is pretty much never enforced unless you're a minority doing it right in view of a very bored cop. It's not illegal to drive a stake into the ground on your own property.
|
# ? Jun 13, 2019 18:36 |