Quote :

"Feds Consider Charges in San Francisco Spill All Things Considered, November 12, 2007 by Nancy Mullane Over the weekend, cleanup crews intensified their efforts to mitigate the impact of last week's oil spill in San Francisco Bay. Much of the area's iconic shoreline — and the wildlife that normally thrives there — is covered with a layer of crude. The oil spilled from a freighter that hit the Bay Bridge in thick fog, and federal investigators are considering whether to file criminal charges against the freighter's crew."

oh.

they're considering it, huh?

how nice

they're consiiiiiiidering whether to file criminal charges






wtf!!!!!?@$#%*#!!1?

what's to consider?

what could there possibly be to consider?

throw these fucks in jail for the rest of their worthless lives with absolutely no chance of parole.* period.

it's fucking peak migrating season for birds! this shit is fucked.

both the prosecution and the punishment of environment crimes against nature should be greatly increased.

discuss.



*(after proving in court that it was their fault, of course)

11/16/2007 5:25:56 PM

Quote :

"what's to consider? what could there possibly be to consider?"

maybe it was just an unfortunate accident?

11/16/2007 5:48:00 PM

That does not absolve them from responsibility.

11/16/2007 6:07:32 PM

Quote :

"it's fucking peak migrating season for birds! this shit is fucked."

unfortunate, yes, but does this fact have anything to do with them being held criminally responsible?

11/16/2007 6:07:42 PM

Quote :

"That does not absolve them from responsibility."

yes technically they're responsible no matter what the story is, but whether they were unlucky or negligent still matters.

11/16/2007 6:13:33 PM

[/marko]

11/16/2007 6:19:04 PM

It's a matter of whether or not you lock the captain and some of the crew in prison before fining the company or simply suing the company in Court. Perhaps its a jurisdiction argument, whether it will be the Feds or the state or even local government who throws the hatchet. So even if the Feds decide not to take action, the state of California and the City of San Fransisco probably still have plenty of room to do their own thing.

11/17/2007 2:51:00 AM

[Edited on November 17, 2007 at 8:19 AM. Reason : ]

11/17/2007 8:17:37 AM

militant environmentalism ftw

11/17/2007 8:44:06 AM

What the hell. There is a big difference between being liable for an accident and criminal negligence. As I understand it, they can only be thrown in jail if they knowingly violated minimum safety guidelines. You cannot just throw people in jail for showing up to work on a bad day. If they did their best to avoid accidents and an accident occured then they are not criminally liable (at least not according to common law, the legislature can make anything criminal it wants, but then we need to side specific laws in order to lock them up).

Now, what they are liable for is the cleanup and compensating everyone that was damaged, whether they did something wrong or not. Now, whether they are 100% liable or a fraction liable depends on other actors. For example, if the city failed to maintain channel markers which the crew of the ship relied upon to navigate the fog then it can be held 50% liable, even if the ship's captain is ultimately held criminally liable.

I just love liability law, don't you?

11/17/2007 11:48:42 AM

Quote :

"Now, what they are liable for is the cleanup and compensating everyone that was damaged, whether they did something wrong or not."

this is the part with which I take issue:

measuring the harm caused when human actions result in damage to ecosystems (pollution)



arguably every living thing on Earth, present and future, is "damaged" by pollution

for instance, many living things (that are small in size but not in importance)

are rendered extinct by human-caused environmental damage

if you calculate even a very conservative amount of financial harm (let's say a millionth of a penny)

for every person that will be harmed by this, you would still have trillions of dollars of damage

because future generations will also be denied the world that contained said extinct species



that's right

I think that the (often permanent, or so long-lasting as to be considered permanent,) harms from pollution

are so immeasurable

as to warrant the worst possible punishment and the largest fines of ANY CRIMES ON THE BOOKS

and still fall under the libertarian principle of justice, liberty and responsibility (no socialism here, folks)

Quote :

"You cannot just throw people in jail for showing up to work on a bad day. If they did their best to avoid accidents and an accident occured then they are not criminally liable (at least not according to common law, the legislature can make anything criminal it wants, but then we need to side specific laws in order to lock them up)."

well, for damage to entire ecosystems, we need these laws yesterday

if the possible damage from "a bad day" is sooooooo great, then the bar needs to be raised

we need a 99.999999% guarantee of non-failure for these actions that can result in permanent harm to millions

like NASA calling off a launch due to what MIGHT BE dangerous conditions, even if it costs them $TEXASALASKA

IOW, I don't care if it shuts down entire industries

if some industry is operating with even a 0.0000001% chance of failure, and the stakes are this high

then no. they should be responsible and not operate

every single person that contributed to this and other "accidents" that caused widespread pollution

should NEVER BE LET OUT OF JAIL, EVER!

ALL OF THEIR MONEY SHOULD BE TAKEN

AND EVEN THEN THEY SHOULD OWE EVERY PENNY THEY EARN FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIVES





jesus himself does not forgive these fucks

11/28/2007 8:34:04 AM

I wonder how you'd react if a tanker full of ethanol or biodiesel spilled

11/28/2007 9:05:00 AM

From what he wrote above it seems like the answer is pretty obvious. Anything that is responsible for such accidents should have to pay for them.

11/28/2007 9:08:45 AM

What the hell are you? It was an oil spill, you pay to clean it up. Yes, a few animals died and a lot of fishermen lost work. But no species are going to go extinct because of this. Just five years afther the Exxon Valdeez disaster animal populations were right back to their pre-accident levels.

And a millionth of a penny works out to $60 for every man women and child on the planet, not trillions of dollars. And even if you did collect trillions of dollars in the name of future generations, what would you do with it? Give it to them when they are born? Most of the people alive today would have never heard of this tiny accident, much less future generations.

What you need to take into consideration is not that an accident happened, or that if they were more careful it may have been avoided, but that such an accident is going to happen again. If you over-react this time by throwing people in jail and bankrupting companies beyond insurability then people will refuse to work such jobs. Respectable and licensed oil transport companies with insurance ready to clean up their own accidents will be replaced by illegal smugglers whose only care is to not get caught (they cannot sue you if they do not know who you are). And smugglers never clean up their own accidents, they just run away, leaving the damage to spread until the Government steps in and cleans it up.

[Edited on November 28, 2007 at 9:22 AM. Reason : ,.]

11/28/2007 9:15:20 AM

Quote :

"I wonder how you'd react if a tanker full of ethanol or biodiesel spilled"

yeah, I don't get your point

are you implying that I would somehow tolerate a huge polluting spill if the industry was "greener" than most?

what?

Quote :

"Yes, a few animals died"

a few, huh?

a few?

wow, you suck.

Quote :

"But no species are going to go extinct because of this."

you actually think that?

are you really that uneducated as to the biological consequences of such widespread pollution?

you do realize that there are thousands of undiscovered species

(some of which may have been killed off by pollution before we knew they existed)

and that living things don't have to be of remarkable size to have an important role in the balance of nature

don't you?

Quote :

"And even if you did collect trillions of dollars in the name of future generations, what would you do with it?"

gee, I don't know

maybe start to reverse the trillions of dollars of debt future generations are already burdened with

by no fault of their own

just a thought

Quote :

"What you need to take into consideration is.....that such an accident is going to happen again."

says you and your crystal ball

[Edited on November 28, 2007 at 12:50 PM. Reason : your only valid point: "bankrupting companies beyond insurability"]

11/28/2007 12:47:34 PM

Has Exxon finished paying their fine for Valdeez? Yeah, go ahead and fine them all you want. Say... $64 trillion. It's not like they'll be held to it anyway.

11/28/2007 12:54:17 PM

Quote :

"are you implying that I would somehow tolerate a huge polluting spill if the industry was "greener" than most?"

kind of...because your initial posts suggested more than just anger at the spill...seemed to be a deeper rooted hatred from oil that came through in those posts as well so I figured I'd ask

also FUCK locking those guys up for the oil spill...put them in the electric chair

11/28/2007 12:56:27 PM

LoneSnark sure knows his shit.

Quote :

""This is exactly the kind of event that can push a species into extinction," said Swanson, of the Bay Institute."

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/11/071109-AP-bay-spill_2.html

11/28/2007 1:07:37 PM

Quote :

"Has Exxon finished paying their fine for Valdeez? Yeah, go ahead and fine them all you want. Say... $64 trillion. It's not like they'll be held to it anyway."

Quote :

"also FUCK locking those guys up for the oil spill...put them in the electric chair"

I'm still mostly on the "death penalty" fence, but I feel ya

I wouldn't miss 'em one bit

(oh and, I don't support ethanol from GMOs; I care about the organic sanctity of earth)

11/28/2007 1:10:01 PM

Quote :

"militant environmentalism ftw ftl"

Birds? Who gives a fuck about birds?

If I can't eat em, fuck em. All they do is poop everywhere and make stupid noises anyway.

11/28/2007 1:14:22 PM

^
If you're serious,

please die

no, really

11/28/2007 1:18:10 PM

And what about the longfin smelt, dude?



Could you say no to that face?

11/28/2007 1:21:19 PM

**waits for some dumbass to post the "no" photo**

11/28/2007 1:25:31 PM

Quote :

"a few, huh?"

Ok, a lot of animals were killed. I don't know, I wasn't there. Whether it was a few or a few million animals does not matter. We eat them, what do they care whether they die choking on oil or bleeding to death on a slaughterhouse floor? In the grand scheme of things, all that matters is that the eco-system in question can recover, which it undeniably can.

Quote :

"you do realize that there are thousands of undiscovered species (some of which may have been killed off by pollution before we knew they existed) and that living things don't have to be of remarkable size to have an important role in the balance of nature"

Look, all the species that live in the damaged area have substitutes living in other areas, either the same species or one similar, which can move in and take over whatever role belonged to the dead animals. As humans, we can help them make the move to speed up the recovery. All it takes is money.

Everyone failed to address my key argument:
"What you need to take into consideration is not that an accident happened, or that if they were more careful it may have been avoided, but that such an accident is going to happen again. If you over-react this time by throwing people in jail and bankrupting companies beyond insurability then people will refuse to work such jobs. Respectable and licensed oil transport companies with insurance ready to clean up their own accidents will be replaced by illegal smugglers whose only care is to not get caught (they cannot sue you if they do not know who you are). And smugglers never clean up their own accidents, they just run away, leaving the damage to spread until the Government cleans it up," putting even more debt on future generations.

Quote :

"Has Exxon finished paying their fine for Valdeez?"

Yes. They have compensated everyone that should be under common law. They compensated fishermen for damaged equipment and lost business, land owners for damaged property, the EPA for fines, the state for assistance with the cleanup and fines, and paid for the entire cleanup besides. What they have not paid is an outrageous punitive damages claim by environmental groups and fishermen in direct conflict with both statute and legal doctrine.

11/28/2007 2:06:41 PM

Quote :

"For example, if the city failed to maintain channel markers which the crew of the ship relied upon to navigate the fog then it can be held 50% liable, even if the ship's captain is ultimately held criminally liable."

*bay area resident raises his hand*

OK -- if you knew how fucking stupid you sound right now ...

The Bay Bridge is huge, it is one of the major passing points for ships in a major city that takes in lots. A _foggy_ major city. And you're saying the city isn't maintaining proper channel markers!? PLEASE!

These assholes hit a fucking bridge! One of the biggest in the state! And then they lied about the amount of oil spilled.

And this isn't just about the environment. There are businesses that rely on the Bay, local businesses that farm (for example) oysters for local consumption. Nothing I want more in my oysters than oil!

Sue them and throw them in jail. It seems to me that it's Ship Captaining 101 that you don't hit major fucking bridges.

11/28/2007 11:58:35 PM

I was merely explaining the co-liability statutes, calm down. But if it was not their fault, such as the city failing to maintain channel markers as required by maritime law, would you still lock them up?

I just have to ask, because you seem pretty upset about such a minor incident. It's not like anyone got hurt.

That said, if in fact they lied about the incident to authorities then you should be able to lock them up for a few months, if for nothing else but to make people like you happy.

11/29/2007 12:45:41 AM

^

People like me who live 45 minutes away and hate it when dumb assholes dump 58,000 gallons of oil into the local water?

Seriously -- I know you're smarter than to defend some idiots who actually piloted a barge into the side of a major bridge. This is the Bay Bridge we're talking about -- they very well could've taken out a few hundred commuters.

And then they somehow didn't realize, whoops, that it was 58,000 gallons of oil and not 1,900? Like you couldn't look at the friggin water and figure that out?

Assholes. Fuck em. There was probably alcohol involved. But I guess "people like me" shouldn't care ...

11/29/2007 2:18:35 AM

Come on, dude. You're making a silly emotional response just like the original poster--but you oughta know better.

I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying that your (and the original poster's) reasons behind your position are, frankly, what I would expect from a 15 year old girl.

Quote :

"What the hell. There is a big difference between being liable for an accident and criminal negligence."

Exactly. There's being a victim of circumstance...there there's simply making a mistake, as we all do from time to time...then there's varying degrees of incompetance...THEN there's criminal negligence.

We can't go throwing people in the slammer simply because they fucked something up and were in a position to do it on a catastrophic scale. Yes, I'm as aware as anyone that you're rightfully held to a higher standard when you're in such a position--but that doesn't mean we should treat their behavior as criminal unless it turns out to really be, well, criminal.

I will concede that these dudes might very well belong in jail. I'm just saying that you shouldn't go to jail for simply having a bad day or for sucking at your job--no matter what your job is.

[Edited on November 29, 2007 at 2:38 AM. Reason : asdf]

[Edited on November 29, 2007 at 2:39 AM. Reason : asdf]

11/29/2007 2:35:29 AM

Quote :

"I'm saying that your (and the original poster's) reasons behind your position are, frankly, what I would expect from a 15 year old girl."

Sexism FTWFTL.

11/29/2007 9:49:02 AM

LOL...accidents are now punishable offenses? If there was negligence involved on behalf of the crew then MAYBE charge them and fine them. Other than that, it was an accident and shit happens.

Quote :

"Assholes. Fuck em. There was probably alcohol involved. But I guess "people like me" shouldn't care ... "

Alchohol was probably involved in your childish post, but people like us don't care anyway.

Throw everyone in jail that hurts the enviorment, especially the people behind junk mail! think of all the animal enhabitants that are destroyed because of cutting down trees to make MORE paper to send me MORE junk in the mail that i throw away.

[Edited on November 29, 2007 at 10:10 AM. Reason : .]

11/29/2007 10:06:34 AM

Well, the company should pay to clean up the spill in any case.

11/29/2007 10:07:49 AM

Quote :

"*bay area resident raises his hand* OK -- if you knew how fucking stupid you sound right now ... The Bay Bridge is huge, it is one of the major passing points for ships in a major city that takes in lots. A _foggy_ major city. And you're saying the city isn't maintaining proper channel markers!? PLEASE! These assholes hit a fucking bridge! One of the biggest in the state! And then they lied about the amount of oil spilled. And this isn't just about the environment. There are businesses that rely on the Bay, local businesses that farm (for example) oysters for local consumption. Nothing I want more in my oysters than oil! Sue them and throw them in jail. It seems to me that it's Ship Captaining 101 that you don't hit major fucking bridges."

how old are you? seriously? you sound like a fucking idiot. "OMG the city is perfect! OMG the city makes everything perfect! OMG the city the city the city!"

11/29/2007 10:12:44 AM

To be fair, San Francisco is an awesome city.

11/29/2007 10:19:11 AM

the city might be awesome doesn't mean the people running it are any more competant than other government officials that fuck up ALL the time. After all, they are just as human as the people who crashed into the bay bridge.

(Which by the way is impossible to see in a heavy fog no matter how big you think it is)

11/29/2007 10:21:24 AM

This is why computers, not humans, should be piloting vehicles.

11/29/2007 10:25:15 AM

computers aren't any better. They don't have the ability to make a judgment. they do what the HUMAN tells them to do. (This being the developer/operator). You are starting to sound like a cashier who can't count out simple change if the 'computer' is down.

I would rather take a human behind the wheel than a machine.

11/29/2007 10:33:47 AM

Currently, you're quite correct. However, AI pilots are advancing extremely rapidly. Computers already do much of the flying. Hell, the military wants completely automated supply vehicles within a few years.

11/29/2007 10:36:19 AM

fly by wire still involves a human being to make decisions if needed.

11/29/2007 1:57:10 PM

So they would fine San Francisco and take that money to put in the US Tresury's coffers to help fund Iraq

11/29/2007 2:38:50 PM

Quote :

"Well, the company should pay to clean up the spill in any case."

Agreed. That's a very different deal than tossing someone in the butt hut.

Quote :

"fly by wire still involves a human being to make decisions if needed."

they have the tech to land an aircraft on a carrier without human input. i don't know if it's perfected yet, but regardless, the reason for having a man in the loop isn't really for vehicle control purposes--it's for making judgement calls.

11/30/2007 1:54:10 AM

Military commanders seriously want a robot army they can oversee remotely while drinking their choice of chilled beverage. The fewer humans involved, the better.

11/30/2007 10:09:45 AM