An Italian court has convicter six scientists of manslaughter for failing to predict an earthquake that devestate L'Aquila, Italy.

May I suggest that the court preemptively convict themselves of manslaughter for causing scientists for be afraid to say anything about potential disasters and therefore causing people to die due to their supreme negligence in this case?

http://www.foxnews.com/...ng-to-predict-earthquake/

yep, this one is going to be a classic - I hate to say typical euro knee jerk reactionism, but somebody has to be at fault right?

It's definitely stupid, but what makes it "typical" archaic? Have there been a number of other similar cases recently?

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

Just things that a redditor posted

'The scientists were not charged with failing to predict the earthquake but with pocketing the money they were paid without actually carrying out the work needed for a proper assesment thus leading to the death of 19 residents due to their negligence.'

also,

'From what I understand of the indictment (italian colleague is reading over it as I type), most of what he said is correct. There was poor quality and contradictory information given to the public. Some civil servant at a subsequent press conference said that the series of smaller tremors made the likelihood of a big quake decreased, which is untrue and contradicts other information. It may also have led to people going back into their buildings, when before many people had been sleeping in tents/cars as was a longstanding local precaution when there were a lot of quakes.

They allege that the committee didn't perform tasks which they were legally bound to undertake when they met. They didn't release information pertaining to buildings which would have been at risk from a quake.'


But hey, when you get your news from foxnews, you can't expect the truth..

http://www.cbsnews.com/...uit-upset-by-quake-trial/ - CBS

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/...-predict-italy-quake?lite - NBC News

But hey, when someone says Fox, it must be false!

Oh wait, I just cited two stories which told the tale basically the same way from the left side of the news spectrum. Just for fun, here's what the BBC says...and it's not much different:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20025626

The verdict and the charges remain incredulous even with your explanation of the charges. Fundamentally, these scientists were convicted of failing to predict a natural disaster.

At some jobs failure shouldn't be an option. So, good for Italy.

I suppose police should be charged with manslaughter if they don't catch a serial killer quickly enough because failling to catch the killer just wasn't an option. I suppose Coast Gaurd rescuers should be sent to jail for failing to rescue fishermen caught in storms because failure just isn't an option.

Please, let's get some common sens into this. Scientists discover what they can, not necessarily what would be beneficial in six months.

They worked for the National Commission for the Forecast and Prevention of Major Risks, I'm pretty sure that those commissions have strict procedure in case of risk of any danger, such as organize evacuations in case of the possibility of earthquake of great magnitude. So, yes, they ignored the existent risks and as a result, 309 people died. That's negligence in my book.

And yes, I'm pretty sure that in many countries if someone dies because of the negligence of the police/medics, those policemen or doctors will end up in jail, charged with manslaughter by negligence.

Loki: however, it has been universally acknowledged that you CANNOT predict an earthquake successfully. There's limits as to how much you can do to be perfectly honest. Should scientists have been charged after the tidal wave in indonesia that killed massive numbers of people?

Well, if someone always has to be blamed, then I suggest that Italy charge god with first degree murder. I tried to avoid this bit of hyperbole, but it's clear that somehow the absurdity of a manslaughter conviction for an act of nature (god, chance, etc.) needs to be conveyed.

If this is allowed to stand, more Italians will die of natural disasters because scientists won't take up the responsibility of attempting to thresh out natural risks. When a disaster happens that could have been mitigated if a scientist had been willing to take up the post of responsibility for attempting to identify the risk, Italians will die. I hope that at this time, the Italians go back to this case and convict the judge and prosecutor of manslaughter.

Well you'll be glad to know that with how the Italian legal system is setup, that this will not create precedence to go ahead and hold police officers/god/zebras accountable for an act of god or whatever you're proposing.

Nobody was expecting them to forecast an earthquake. They had duties they were required to carry out in terms of doing research and warning citizens. They didn't do these duties. They weren't charged for not predicting an earthquake, but charged for not doing their required duties of researching/reporting to the public.

Just like if FEMA screwed up evacuation orders or something, they wouldn't be under fire for not predicting whatever natural disaster, but rather not sticking to their plan for advanced warning/evacuation/recovery/rebuilding.

Again, they weren't charged for 'not predicting an earthquake'. They were charged for '...that the scientists failed to accurately communicate the risk of the 2009 quake, which killed more than 300 people.'

But yeah, sensationalist headlines sell papers so people have been seeing 'scientist jailed for not predicting earthquake' and just been running with that.

Come on, meow...

+ 1

Trife, '...that the scientists failed to accurately communicate the risk of the 2009 quake, which killed more than 300 people.' is a conviction for failing to predict the 2009 earthquake.

Call a spade a spade.

I can't, because that's actually a club.

Italy's justice system isn't exactly a model that should be replicated or anything but I'm with Trife here, the media reports seem a bit off.

I'm a tow truck driver.

Scene.preservation-the area must be put back to pre accident

Vehicle preservation- vehicle must not recieve any secondary damage
Primary damage- damage done during the initial or a secondary collision.
Secondary damage- damage done to vehicle during.the recovery process.

A car can be totaled, if it receives secondary damage, i have to pay.

As a sub contractor for major new Jersey state highways, i am a first responder. I am first on scene often. Because of the bs negligent lawsuits, dead, dying, severely injured, lacerations, i can not touch people. I feel terrible refusing assistance, but i refuse to lose my.livelihood over that 1 asshole.

99% of negligence cases are a compete crock of fluff, i feel for the 1%, but the woman who sued mcdonalds over hot coffee. Negligence for failing to warn her the coffee was hot.... I'd like to stab her in the face then sue her for not wearing a death or serious injury may occur if stabbed sign.

+1

The case as explained by trife makes sense.

I'm not going to tell them how to run their legal system in expectation that they don't do the same. One of the leading causes of some drug shortages is that European manufacturers had refused to sell to the U.S. because of the potential of said drugs being used in lethal executions. Finally a semi-compromise was created by shipping to a middle man company that refuses to sell to government entities. Either way, I tend to think they ought to leave our judicial system to us and vice versa.

Leaving the Italian justice system to the Italians is all well and good, but I'm perfectly fine pointing out absurd cases and having others do the same of the American justice system. Many Europeans point to the death penalty as being wrong and some attempt to eliminate it in the US through protests and other peaceful means, I think they have a right to do this. I grant you, calling it the Italian injustice system might be a little harsh, but charging murder in this case is equally harsh. Sometimes nations depend upon each other to hold a mirror up and ask each other if the image Italy (in this case) now sees is really what they want. If the scientists weren't doing their jobs properly, most they should be charged with is aggravated fraud.

We sometimes need that mirror to really see ourselves and assess ourselves verses our ideals. Scientists are holding up a mirror and describing the likely consequences (as they see them) of this case. I am holding up a mirror to show this case in a light they might not be considering. If even just one Italian is even asked questions about this case as a result of this post, then they will be called upon to answer those questions. Ask the question and you force people to think. That's what this is really about, making people think about this case.

you sound as if you don't know anything about the lawsuit. read into it a little bit, you'll learn quite a bit.

she had offered to settle with mcdonalds for 18,000 at first. then 90k. then 300k, and then lastly 225k. she was never asking for millions.

the coffee was served at a temperature a lot higher than what coffee is normally served at. also, it's not just like she had a small burn. she was 79 years old, and as a result of the spill.. 'Liebeck was taken to the hospital, where it was determined that she had suffered third-degree burns on six percent of her skin and lesser burns over sixteen percent.[13] She remained in the hospital for eight days while she underwent skin grafting. During this period, Liebeck lost 20 pounds (9 kg, nearly 20% of her body weight), reducing her down to 83 pounds (38 kg).[14] Two years of medical treatment followed.'

while punitive damages were set at 2.7 mil, the 'The judge reduced punitive damages to $480,000, three times the compensatory amount, for a total of $640,000. The decision was appealed by both McDonald's and Liebeck in December 1994, but the parties settled out of court for an undisclosed amount less than $600,000.[20]'

if you think that's outrageous, then you're just a horrible judge of 99% of negligence cases.

yes, its a sad culture where blamestorming for a culprit is the priority.

it happens a lot in the UK.

eg. imposing punitive damages on government agencies that only ask for more cash off the taxpayer, or just not do what they're meant to

and thats why its called Faux News, angel1

Punitive damages were also high because McDonald's had a history of serving coffee at dangerously hot temperatures and had not adjusted corporate policy after several other incidents.

There is nothing absurd about the case, the issue is with poor reporting on the details of the case by the media outlet(s) you are using.

Thus the case isn't' absurd, the media coverage of it is.

[quote poster=Trife; 20945; 386862]

you sound as if you don't know anything about the lawsuit. read into it a little bit, you'll learn quite a bit.

she had offered to settle with mcdonalds for 18,000 at first. then 90k. then 300k, and then lastly 225k. she was never asking for millions.

the coffee was served at a temperature a lot higher than what coffee is normally served at. also, it's not just like she had a small burn. she was 79 years old, and as a result of the spill.. 'Liebeck was taken to the hospital, where it was determined that she had suffered third-degree burns on six percent of her skin and lesser burns over sixteen percent.[13] She remained in the hospital for eight days while she underwent skin grafting. During this period, Liebeck lost 20 pounds (9 kg, nearly 20% of her body weight), reducing her down to 83 pounds (38 kg).[14] Two years of medical treatment followed.'

while punitive damages were set at 2.7 mil, the 'The judge reduced punitive damages to $480,000, three times the compensatory amount, for a total of $640,000. The decision was appealed by both McDonald's and Liebeck in December 1994, but the parties settled out of court for an undisclosed amount less than $600,000.[20]'

if you think that's outrageous, then you're just a horrible judge of 99% of negligence cases. [/quote]

Wait, she was 79, only weighed 103lbs, and was going to McDonalds? Interesting, to say the least.

I guess you don't support the economic sanctions on Syria and Iran then?

The Syrians shelled a NATO ally on several occassions and fired across a border. An ally, I might add, that had been very close to them before. So quite frankly if we lent military assistance I wouldn't object. In EE-speak, that's an FDP arrangement.

As for Iran, trickier given we're talking about agreements they made internationally and then renegged on. We've certainly done covert operations against them, but they also planned an assassination against foreign officials here in DC. So yah, no sympathy for them.

Of course I also tend to think eocnomic sanctions aren't that effective unless they're nearly unilateral in scope. So I'm not entirely supportive of them anyway.

If you're referring to the shelling of Turkish villages by Syria, that came AFTER sanctions.

The point was that for some reason you accept that it's ok to enforce agreements against countries that have crossed some arbitrary line but it's not ok for the EU to have set that line at "we will not help carry out the death penalty."

I'm sorry, I missed it, did the US sign and agreement with the EU to stop the death penalty? If they want to try to insert that into an agreement, by all means do it. Otherwise, I think the US should pursue a WTO action against it. Of course we won't because it's a politically sensitive issue in the US, hence the EU members prodding on it. The unfortunate consequence is that they exacerbated and already problematic drug shortage problem, particularly the shortage effecting the perioperative setting. The idiotic position of some EU countries has been to forbid the sale of various narcotics used in this setting because they could be used in the death penalty. Guess, what, basically of them used in this setting can. So each time they try to ban the sale of one (thiopental) then of course they realize this reality leading to them to try banning another (propofol) and it goes on.

Anyway, back to your core point, I apologize if I missed the agreement the US held with the EU not to pursue the death penalty. Maybe it was neatly tucked away in some WTO or bilateral/multilateral or FTA?

As for your Turkish point, are you trying to say that the Syrians are shooting across the border into Turkish refugee camps because of economic sanctions? By the way, those shootings occurred before the sanctions. It was the repeated mortar shellings (ie escalation) that occurred after the sanctions. And, if you recall, Erdogan was actually friendly toward Assad creating a very close alliance. So really this is the Syrians crapping on the Turks, our NATO ally. I wouldn't be surprised if the rumors are true and the Turks are preparing some more offensive actions to blunt Syrian meddling near the border (and I don't mean the 1:1 shelling response).

a 79 year old who doesn't know that coffee is served hot and care should be exercised with it? think the 8 million dollar lawsuit was Donimo's paying because one of their driver's ran a stop sign. never did see if there was a lawsuit about the Pizza Hut driver who got a dead toddler stuck in his wheel well. must've been the kid's fault.

It's a bit disingenuous to try to claim that the sanctions on Syria are because of the Turkish shootings, even if they did happen before the sanctions took place. The sanctions are there because the international community isn't happy with how Syria suppressing internal dissent.

I'm not taking a view on the specifics regarding the EU banning the sale of certain drugs because I don't know enough about it. I'm arguing your point that the EU doesn't have a right to "comment" on the US justice system economically. People have every right to tell the US that the death penalty is wrong, just as they have every right to restrict arms sales to countries where the weapons are likely to be used against civilians. In fact, countries should be more proactive with this, but I guess those petrodollars from Saudi Arabia and co. are too alluring for most...

your post is dumb and you should feel bad

So, tell me, because I really want to know - how do you "accurately communicate the risk of the ... quake", because I'd like to see how that works. Based on what they knew about the extremely complex geology of northern Italy, they determined that the foreshocks were not a reliable indicator of a big quake and said as much. Geophysicist around the world are unanimous that the Italians did their jobs.

By the way, even though Trife is 100% wrong about the Italian quake (which he will obligingly confirm shortly), he IS spot on about the McD coffee, they had actually been cited by the health dept. for serving coffee dangerously hot.

you can feel bad for me. go all emo on me.

no, i'm busy winning. you're going to have to feel bad for your dumb post all on your own.

WINNING

what are you winning? are you out with your Ma playing Bingo?