OT - Strange juxtaposition

[UcMiami]

Yeah but Tsarnaev was sorta' caught with his hand in the cookie jar. All I'm saying is that the facts are not all in when it comes to West Fertilizer. I certainly wouldn't have a problem if a court finds that the corporation was negligent. Until that happens I'm just not going to point a finger.

In any case my dispute with the comparison has absolutely nothing to do with guilt and everything to do with the difference between accident due to negligence (if that is what happened) and intentional murder. IMO not even in the same universe.

I guess I would disagree - to take a simpler and maybe less emotional comparison:
Person A: gets in their car and deliberately drives it at speed onto a crowded sidewalk killing 2 people and wounding 10.
Person B: gets in their car having been drinking all night and drives their car by accident onto the sidewalk killing 6 people and wounding 10
Person C: gets in their car knowing that the brakes are bad and the tires are bald and that it could not pass inspection and loses control of his car at speed crashing into a van killing 6 people and injuring 10 others who ended up in the ensuing pile-up.

Person A intended to kill and maim, persons B and C had no intention except to get home, but by there negligence and breaking of the laws and regulations ended up causing much more damage than person A.
So is person A more culpable than B or C, yes. And person A will probably be punished more severely than person B or C, but B & C will be punished quite severely.

The bigger problem is - change the cause of Person C's accident from bald tires and bad brakes to faulty parts and bad vehicle design that was know by the corporation that built and maintained the vehicle and the result is that maybe the corporation will be fined or the victims/families may get a cash settlement. But that will not happen before years of legal obfuscation and delay. And the people who knew that the car they built and maintained was unsafe and could malfunction in critical situations will not be punished at all.
On Edit -
Do not dismiss this example as 'hypothetical' as A, B, C (corporate) have occurred at various times and in various guises in the US in the not so distant past.

 

[wire chief]

Hey - sorry if this has become overly contentious. I appreciate the responses and I tried to be civil in mine. If I failed I apologize.

Violent death is never expected and I do not suppose I would greatly care what motive or cause was behind being hit by a car, blown up in an explosion, or shot dead.
I do think we over emphasize terrorism when it represents a statistically small number of deaths in this country compared to mother nature, and other forms of violent death. I don't understand the psychological reasons for that and so posed the original question. I hate terrorism. But I also hate other preventable forms of violent death.
Thanks everyone.

I have an understanding of the psychological, at least to my satisfaction.
The cultural anthropologist Jules Henry wrote in CULTURE VS MAN that the underlying fabric of any society is fear. For instance the visiting historian de Tocqueville in the 19th Cen remarked how anxious we were as a people not to express an individualized opinion, which he posited was useful to keep peace among so many strangers.

In elementary school, I was taught to fear Russians and the atomic bomb. Some decades later
Russians have sort of abated, but we hear no end of what N. Korea and Iran may do. And I don't have to tell you what the search for bin Laden has done to our view of Muslims.

America needs an enemy to keep us in line. Nowadays it's Muslims, with media fanning the flames Our view of business/government, and its malfeasance, gets tempered by the terror of the terrorist. Both gov't control and business profits surge. And we feel tremulous relief that these institutions are keeping us safe. Excusing this malfeasance is the "false
consciousness" of the day.

 

[DaddyChoc]

when is the Super Show?

 

[UcMiami]

Wirechief - interesting post.

 

[Fishy]

One of my friends posted something similar on Facebook - she was somewhat outraged that there was such concern and outrage over the Boston bombing and less so for the Texas explosion. I think there is a very easy and very human answer.

We all understand the nature of an accident. An industrial accident is something we can easily get our minds around be it the Texas fertilizer plant exploding or the oil rig in the Gulf catching fire or mine collapsing or whatever. They're tragic, but can be explained and understood...there's fertilizer, it's flammable, something went wrong, explosion.

A terroristic act or a mass murder in a school is much harder. I don't live near a fertilizer plant, I don't work on an oil rig and I'm not a miner...but I can see myself at a finish line of a marathon or some sporting event and I put a very cute third-grader on a bus every morning. I suspect the strong emotional reaction to an act of random violence comes not only from our anger that someone would intentionally set out to do harm, but that we can all picture ourselves and our families in that harm's way.

 

[UcMiami]

Fishy - nice post. And I guess I agree with you at a basic level. I do not get enraged when a natural disaster strikes, though I do think we as a society have promoted things that increase the toll and frequency of them by ignoring the obvious - if you build a community on a river's flood plain, why are you surprised when once a decade you get flooded out? Or if you depend on levees that were built 50 years ago and never spend the money to maintain them ... And we create laws and institutions to promote this 'ignorance' often to the benefit of private sector profits. The value of land in those flood plans would be greatly reduced if not for national flood insurance for example and those communities would never have been built or expanded without it.
Many accidents are unpredictable and they do not bother me beyond the obvious sorrow they cause.
But there are other 'accidents' that are predictable and preventable - mining (my grandfathers business) has become much safer over the last century due to laws and regulations and improved conditions in the mines. But there are also mining companies that have a terrible safety record, and are known for skirting regulations and cutting corners in pursuit of profits. And those companies and the people who run them should cause some outrage. It certainly appears that the West Fertilizer Co was run in a similar manor.

An interesting note - my grandmother survived the Johnstown Flood on May 31 (my birthday), 1889. 2209 people died from that manmade natural disaster and the outrage it caused and the inability to recover damages from the private owners of the known to be defective dam caused a change to the US laws in regard to liability. That was certainly an accident but it was one caused by gross negligence and it cost 2209 lives.

I think I come down more on your blogger friends side.

 

[Icebear]

My friend you are way older than I thought if you were born on May 31st, 1889. BTW, Guinness is looking for you. That is in contrast to you looking for a Guinness.

 

[Husky68]

So how do you rate 9/11 vs the fertilizer plant explosion? How about Ft Hood vs the fertilizer plant explosion? Is it how many are killed? The amount of planning? How about Pearl Harbor vs the fertilizer plant explosion? Is it sneakiness, government involvment?

Not all taking of another life are 1st degree murder. Why do you think intent of the perp. is considered in the classification?

So, your friend has his throat slit by one of the 2 Boston Marathon guys vs. getting killed in a bus accident 'caused by a defective tire; same/same to you?

 

[UcMiami]

My friend you are way older than I thought if you were born on May 31st, 1889. BTW, Guinness is looking for you. That is in contrast to you looking for a Guinness.

You will note the (my birthday) followed the May 31 but came before the 1889 suggesting maybe that the 1889 was not my birth year - fortunately Guinness is not looking for me yet.
But I often succeed in finding Guinness!

 

[herbiep]

I think that you have made too many assumptions about what happened and what will happen in Texas.

In any case there is no comparison between being negligent and being deliberate.

Negligent is deliberate....

 

[UcMiami]

So how do you rate 9/11 vs the fertilizer plant explosion? How about Ft Hood vs the fertilizer plant explosion? Is it how many are killed? The amount of planning? How about Pearl Harbor vs the fertilizer plant explosion? Is it sneakiness, government involvment?

Not all taking of another life are 1st degree murder. Why do you think intent of the perp. is considered in the classification?

So, your friend has his throat slit by one of the 2 Boston Marathon guys vs. getting killed in a bus accident 'caused by a defective tire; same/same to you?

All very good points, and really the core of the issue I am raising:
Military criminals hide behind their command structure
Jihadis and abortion bombers hide behind their religions
OK City, the Sikh, and the Gabby Giffords killers hid behind deranged conspiracy theories
Newtown and Aurora are the results of mental instability
Workplace killings are the result of twisted ideas of revenge
Other mass killings arise from domestic disturbances
Still others from criminal endeavors
Nazis hid behind their government
Japanese behind their emperor/religion
and I would add
Corporations and executives hide behind their anonymity

And everyone hides behind their lawyers.

And yes the dead probably do not care who their killer or what the cause or the motivation behind their death. But their relatives and their community/society do. And those injured but not killed do, too.

And yes motivation and magnitude matters in how we classify and how we punish and the outrage we feel.

And while it is totally irrational, I would rather be killed for someones big idea or twisted brain, than because some pencil pusher wanted to make a few more dollars of profit or because some text message was more important than being a good driver. I have been in business meetings where cost benefits were calculated, luckily where the issue was quality/quantity and never safety. (I was fortunate to help run a business where employ safety measures were never decided based on costs but effectiveness.)

That is not true of many business, and the cynical calculation of cost/benefit has led to many more deaths in this country than mass killings. And we as a society in most cases give these companies a pass by terming the deaths accidental and not negligent homicide or outright murder. And we do not penalize the corporations and the people running them harshly enough to change their cost/benefit equations.

 

[herbiep]

I am not trying to start a 'political thread' or a discussion that descends into religious or right/left ideology. But I actually find the folks on this board to be an interesting cross section, and I am really curious about opinions on this subject.
Mods please delete if this is inappropriate, and apologies in advance if I offend anyone.

Last week we had two terrible incidents in the US - a bombing in Boston that left four dead, 200+ injured, and a city shut down. And an explosion in West, TX killed 14, injured about 200, and destroyed half the town.
The bombing in Boston was 'intentional' is classified as terrorism and one of the Boston bombers is dead and the other will likely face the death penalty or life in prison.
The explosion in TX was 'accidental' and is classified as an industrial accident, but is probably the result of criminal negligence or reckless endangerment on the part of the company, its officers and executives. (And could probably also be deemed as a not unlikely result of this negligence/endangerment.) The company, its officers, and executives will probably face fines and reprimands, but I think are unlikely to spend a day in jail.

I find the juxtaposition of these two events within hours of each other to be strange, and to cause me to wonder about our own reactions to two equally devastating occurrences.
The root cause of both events might be classified as 'religious fanaticism' one related to Islam, the other related to Mammon (greed and money.)
In one case we have national debate and expressions of grief. In the other it seems localized and almost 'private'. And yet both events 'terrorized' a community and rained down death and destruction. The obvious difference is 'intent', but don't we often say actions speak louder than words?

I think I would prefer a society that was more outraged about West, TX and those responsible and maybe a little less prepared to sacrifice the rule of law and civil liberties in response to Boston.

I would like to hear others' thoughts. And I do again apologize if this offends or oversteps limits for this board. I have tried to not make this 'political' but may not have done so.

This is too political for this site. Only because, it depends on whose ox is being gored. Corporations and big business are in the pockets of politicians in this country, and if you dare to speak of it, you will draw the wrath of a certain group.......Your post is very well put and very true. Anyone who has been in business knows that decisions are almost always made with the bottom line being the important factor. Employees and safety are second. Yes, I was in management, speaking from first hand knowledge....