LAX Gunman's Wife Is Fucking Retard

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by dhamsaic
I think she meant "baldly".

Indeed I did. Now that' it's generated two posts, I'll fix it.

[Tobiasly]

Originally posted by dhamsaic
I think she meant "baldly".

I knew that.. my sarcasm is never as obvious in my posts as it seems to me as I'm typing it.

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by Tobiasly
I knew that.. my sarcasm is never as obvious in my posts as it seems to me as I'm typing it.

For what it's worth, <b>I</b> knew you were goofing. That's why I didn''t bother to fix it right away.

It's interesting to compare the two accident investigations; Egypt Air and STS-51L. Very different accidents, very different political situations, very different outcomes. But the core procedures were pretty much the same.

[Nic Name]

Whatever your intention, Maggie, I think it's obvious that it was badly stated.

[tw]

Originally posted by perth
yeah, me too. i watched a documentary a while back about it and dont remember anything implying that.

Point a gun at someone, plug the trigger, it fires and kills. But the safety was on. Therefore it was only an accident?

Fly a plane into rising cumulus clouds. The plane gets ripped apart. Was that too an accident?

When every engineer says don't launch. When they cannot find a single engineer to say launch, but launch anyway, then is that also an accident? And then when top management executes a serious coverup of that decision process, do we still call it an accident - or murder?

Christie McAullife told her mother not to worry because Challenger was launching that next morning no matter what. Her mother wishes she had asked what Christie meant by that statement. There is a long list of questions, including numerous calls from the White House that no one admits to making, that to this day remains part of the question - why was Challenger launched when disaster was immenent? Did that documentary discuss any of this?

Challenger was lauched by management desicions that qualify as murder in the third degree - a total disregard for human life. But making the case for murder and prosecuting those involved in the coverup was not politically acceptable. Still launching Challenger is equivalent to pointing a gun with safety on, and pulling the trigger. So do we call it an accident - be politically correct - or call it what it really was - negligent homicide - murder?

[Tobiasly]

Originally posted by tw
And then when top management executes a serious coverup of that decision process, do we still call it an accident - or murder?

<B>mur · der</B> <I>n.</I>
1. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

From dictionary.com, as provided by <I>The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition</I>

So, while "murder" doesn't <I>have</I> to mean with premeditated malice, the term usually implies it. When you say "murder", most people think of an act planned out beforehand and performed with malice.

So you see, "murder" isn't a good choice of words here. Perhaps "manslaughter":

<B>man · slaugh · ter</B> <I>n.</I>
The unlawful killing of one human by another without express or implied intent to do injury.

Hey, that sounds a lot more like what you're describing! So, to answer your question, "do we call it murder?", the answer is, no, most people would not call it murder. Yes, I realize there are different degrees of murder, but those aren't the connotations that come to mind when one uses the word "murder".

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by tw

Christie McAullife told her mother not to worry because Challenger was launching that next morning no matter what. Her mother wishes she had asked what Christie meant by that statement.

I would think she meant that her mother shouldn't worry because they were going to launch whether she worried or not.

There is a long list of questions...

Yes, every conspiracy theorist comes equipped with a long list of questions, it's <i>de riegur</i>.

...to this day remains part of the question - why was Challenger launched when disaster was immenent?

Yes, that's pretty amazing. Everybody knew that disaster was imminent.

Actually, there's very little question as to why the launch was approved, and if you'd read the source documents, (instead of Popular Mechanics or Tin-Foil Hat Quarterly or whatever you're using) you'd be much less mystified. The management bullied their technical people into silence because they were tunnel-vision focused on their goal: a successful launch.

This is a very common phenomenon and should not be a big-ass mystery to anyone. Pilots die every day because of it; we call it "get-homeitis"....discounting evidence of danger under condition of uncetainty in service of achieving a goal. Your example of an airplane flying into "rising cumulus clouds" (did you mean a thunderstorm?) is exactly that. Since the decision maker is onboard, why not call that suicide?

That's at least as sensational.

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by tw
That is the first step to racism. Because she cannot think logically means that all Arabs are illogical? There is a big difference between SHE and THEY. Once you merge the two together, you are ready to incite riots in the street.

tw, as much as you've been throwing out conspiracies recently, this was a nice point you made.

Discovery Channel has a great documentary on the Challenger, which references the information Maggie posted (about the decision-making). Even if it was negligence, I certainly don't see it as murder.

[tw]

Originally posted by Tobiasly
So you see, "murder" isn't a good choice of words here. Perhaps "manslaughter":

When we talk about man, we are talking about man and woman. Some words take on such dual meanings. Murder comes in three degrees. Manslaughter is murder in the third degree. Murder in the 1st degree is murder. Forgot what murder in the second degree is.

However Tobias' point is accurate and (hopefully) does clarify any confusion.

I don't remember if it was Feynman's book that notes a Challenger type accident almost happened exactly one year earlier. Engineers cited this previous near miss and an exact same launch condition during Challenger. But top management was so negligent as to not let any engineers even participate in a vote to launch. Management that ignores a 100% recommendation - by everyone who knows technology - not to launch should be held accountable to manslaughter charges. Management than then participates in a coverup should have been charged additionally. We didn't do that either.

We did learn of thousands of other potential failures of which, if I remember, 200 required repair before the shuttle flew again. On that list were most every problem cited to me by fellow engineers about 1 years before Challenger exploded. The problems were so well known that even engineers not working on the Shuttle program knew of them. And yet we kept launching without any effort even to get those problems solved. Management failure which is why management should have been held accountable for those completely unnecessary deaths. It was not an accident. It was blatant negligence that resulted in seven deaths. Was that in the documentary?

Returning to the original point, one should not condem a whole people only because some or even many are in error or have a different interpretation of same facts. Just because some Americans intentionally sent seven astronauts to what became their death does not make all Aemricans murders (manslaughters). Just because one Arab wife, in grief, blames government for murdering her husband does not make all Arabs evil or anti-American.

However, those who would routinely merge 'She' with 'They' can easily meet the definition of racist. Such has been reason to inspire street riots. Just because Atta's father is in denial, or Egypitians mistrust the government's translation on Egypt Air 990, or the man's wife is distraught does not make all Arabs murders or evil. It is dangerous to blame all for the opinions or actions of just a few.

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by tw

It was not an accident. It was blatant negligence that resulted in seven deaths...

<blockquote>
Accident Ac"ci*dent, n. F. accident, fr. L. accidens,
-dentis, p. pr. of accidere to happen; ad + cadere to fall.
See Cadence, Case.
1. Literally, a befalling; an event that takes place without
one's foresight or expectation; an undesigned, sudden, and
unexpected event; chance; contingency; often, an
undesigned and unforeseen occurrence of an afflictive or
unfortunate character; a casualty; a mishap; as, to die by
an accident.
</blockquote>

The Thiokol and NASA managers diid not *intend* to blow up STS 51-L, but by pressuring their employees to concur on a launch recommendation when there arguably should not have been one, they were indeed guilty of negligence. However, that does not disqualify the event as an accident.

(One interesting sidelight here is that the "field joint" that failed on the SRB was required so that the SRBs could be shipped from Morton Thiokol in Utah to the KSC on railroad cars. Another bidder on the SRB's proposed making them as a single unit, and would have delivered the SRB's on barges. But Morton Thiokkol is in Utah, and Orrin Hatch chaired the Senate comittee on Space and NASA at the time....)

Now then...the law in Pennsylvania is:

<blockquote><i>...from the Pennsylvania Code:</i>

§ 2501. Criminal homicide.

(a) Offense defined.-A person is guilty of criminal homicide if he intentionally, knowlingly, recklessly or negligently causes the death of another human being.

(b) Classification.-Criminal homicide shall be classified as murder, voluntary manslaughter, or involuntary manslaughter.
§ 2502. Murder.

(a) Murder of the first degree.-A criminal homicide constitutes murder of the first degree when it is committed by an intentional killing.

(b) Murder of the second degree.-A criminal homicide constitutes murder of the second degree when it is committed while defendant was engaged as a principal or an accomplice int he perpetration of a felony.

(c) Murder of the third degree.-All other kinds of murder shall be murder of the third degree. Murder of the third degree is a felony of the first degree.

§ 2503. Voluntary manslaughter.

(a) General rule.-A person who kills an individual without lawful justification commits voluntary manslaughter if at the time of the killing he is acting under a sudden and intense passion resulting from serious provocation by:

1. the individual killed; or
2. another whom the actor endeavors to kill, but to negligently or accidently causes the death of the individual killed.

(b) Unreasonable belief killing justifiable.-A person who intentionally or knowingly kills an individual commits voluntary manslaughter if at the time of the killing he believes the circumstances to be such that, if they existed, would justify the killing under Chapter 5 of this title (relating to general principles of justification), but his belief is unreasonable.

(c) Grading.-Voluntary manslaughter is a felony of the first degree.
§ 2504. Involuntary manslaughter.

(a) General rule.-A person is guilty of involuntary manslaughter when as a direct result of the doing of an unlawful act in a reckless or grossly negligent manner, or the doing of a lawful act in a reckless or grossly negligent manner, he causes the death of another person. Involuntary manslaughter is a misdemeanor of the first degree.
</blockquote>

Some other states have a "reckless indifference" or "depraved heart" murder provision, usually in connection with comission of an illegal act. Negligence when *not* breaking the law does not rise to this standard.

So...I can't see "murder" here, no matter how incenced we may be..

[tw]

(a) General rule.-A person is guilty of involuntary manslaughter when as a direct result of the doing of an unlawful act in a reckless or grossly negligent manner, or the doing of a lawful act in a reckless or grossly negligent manner, he causes the death of another person. Involuntary manslaughter is a misdemeanor of the first degree.

Only a misdemeanor? No wonder running from the police in a high speed car chase has so little consequences.