[llama66]

Then post the full definition

$1:

ac·ci·dent
/ˈaksədənt/Submit
noun
noun: accident; plural noun: accidents
1.
an unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally, typically resulting in damage or injury.
"he had an accident at the factory"
synonyms: mishap, misfortune, misadventure, mischance, unfortunate incident, injury, disaster, tragedy, catastrophe, contretemps, calamity, blow, trouble, problem, difficulty; technicalcasualty
"he was involved in an accident at work"
a crash involving road or other vehicles, typically one that causes serious damage or injury.
"four people were killed in a car accident"
synonyms: crash, collision, smash, bump, car crash, car accident, road accident, traffic accident, road traffic accident, RTA, multiple crash, multiple collision; More
EUPHEMISTIC
used euphemistically to refer to an incidence of incontinence, typically by a child or an animal.
2.
an event that happens by chance or that is without apparent or deliberate cause.
"the pregnancy was an accident"
synonyms: chance, mere chance, coincidence, twist of fate, freak, hazard; More
the working of fortune; chance.
"my faith is an accident of birth, not a matter of principled commitment"
synonyms: fortuitously, accidentally, coincidentally, by chance, by coincidence, by a fluke, unintentionally, inadvertently; More
antonyms: intentionally
3.
PHILOSOPHY
(in Aristotelian thought) a property of a thing which is not essential to its nature.

This goes against the 2nd point, no?
He deliberately did not pull over, and he deliberately did not properly secure his load.

[llama66]

Prof_Chomsky Prof_Chomsky:

llama66 llama66:

So then, he's not responsible for what he did. Guys! let him out of jail! It was an accident!

I never said that. I specifically said 8 years was "about as fair as you're gonna get".

Let's do a logic thought puzzle here.

Imagine you decide to put your garbage outside during a storm and it isn't secured properly. That garbage can blows into the street, causing a fatal accident. The cops see the garbage can and it has your name and address on it and you admit you put it outside during a windy day. You feel horrible you didn't secure it better and guilty as hell.

Are you:
A) guilty of stupidly putting your garbage outside without securing it properly
B) guilty of causing death

What should your punishment be?

I guess I face manslaughter charges for my negligent actions.

[DrCaleb]

Prof_Chomsky Prof_Chomsky:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Prof_Chomsky Prof_Chomsky:

All 7 of those things are momentary lapses in judgement or concentration. And any of them could result in an accident causing death. Choosing to be distracted is something like texting. Being distracted by a tarp that just started flapping, or a kid on the side of the road is life.

ac·ci·dent
/ˈaksədənt/Submit
Learn to pronounce
noun
1.
an unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally, typically resulting in damage or injury.

An 'accident' by definition is not preventable. Rolling down the road and getting buried by an avalanche is an 'accident'. Texting, a flapping tarp, are all intentional. The driver could have chosen to pull over and secure his load and then kept his focus on the road, rather than run a stop sign and kill a bus load of kids.

It's a choice.

You're redefining "accident" again. You can't fight a dictionary.

Accidents are almost always preventable.

Not according to the definition you quoted. Accidents are unexpectedly and unintentionally, not a choice. If they are preventable, then they aren't an accident.

Look at the second definition you quoted:

$1:

2.
an event that happens by chance or that is without apparent or deliberate cause.

Distracted driving is a deliberate choice, not a chance event.

Prof_Chomsky Prof_Chomsky:

That avalanche zone should have been marked or closed off, or cleared - that's why after every single accident they investigate and try to rethink how they got there and if they can prevent future accidents. "Momentary distraction" is called being human. Having that cause death is the shittiest of luck.

And most known avalanche zones have concrete roofs put in place to prevent accidents. You don't choose to have rocks or snow slide on to the road, it is unexpectedly and unintentionally.

[Prof_Chomsky]

llama66 llama66:

I like the apologizing and minimizing. The guy plead guilty, before trial- because he knew going to trial would still result in his being found guilty, which mean they (the crown) would be able to prove both actus reas and mens rea. Which negates your entire argument. And just because it's unexpected doesn't make it an accident. Was the Titanic an accident? Was the Challenger an accident? Was World War 2 an accident? No, despite being unexpected, none of these were Accidents, all stemmed from some form of human stupidity; Be it going 26 knots through an icefield, not properly inspecting the shuttle or appeasing Hitler to the point where he just took. Not Accidents. Neither was this.

Now you're just misusing fancy words to try and distract from the actual point.

actus reus:
action or conduct which is a constituent element of a crime, as opposed to the mental state of the accused.

Mens rea:
the intention or knowledge of wrongdoing that constitutes part of a crime, as opposed to the action or conduct of the accused.

This guy's actus reus was momentary distraction. And his mens rea was nothing. He had no intent.

And all the examples you gave are accidents by definition. The titanic captain was assured by ship builders it was iceberg proof. And they believed that was true. No one realized the steel had too much sulfur. That was hindsight after the accident.

The Challenger was a million part machine with 1 broken part that was missed by someone who wasn't perfect, without Mal intent. Accident.

Hitler was a mistake in judgement that accidentally caused a protracted war.

Dude, just google "accident definition". This isn't an argument. You're fighting the dictionary. You sound like Bill Clinton "that depends on what your definitional IS is"

[DrCaleb]

Prof_Chomsky Prof_Chomsky:

The Challenger was a million part machine with 1 broken part that was missed by someone who wasn't perfect, without Mal intent. Accident.

No, it definitely was not! They had the specifications, they had warnings, they had engineers begging them not to launch - and they did it anyway.

Choice.

[Prof_Chomsky]

"
Not according to the definition you quoted. Accidents are unexpectedly and unintentionally, not a choice. If they are preventable, then they aren't an accident.

Look at the second definition you quoted:

Quote:
2.
an event that happens by chance or that is without apparent or deliberate cause.


Distracted driving is a deliberate choice, not a chance event."






Dude, read. "apparent OR deliberate" choice. Not AND. It's either, not both.

[Prof_Chomsky]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Prof_Chomsky Prof_Chomsky:

The Challenger was a million part machine with 1 broken part that was missed by someone who wasn't perfect, without Mal intent. Accident.

No, it definitely was not! They had the specifications, they had warnings, they had engineers begging them not to launch - and they did it anyway.

Choice.

They had that on nearly every single NASA launch EVER. Literally. It was never fully safe.

If it wasn't an accident, why wasn't anyone charged with murder?

[llama66]

$1:

And all the examples you gave are accidents by definition. The titanic captain was assured by ship builders it was iceberg proof. And they believed that was true. No one realized the steel had too much sulfur. That was hindsight after the accident.

Common misconception: The Titanic was not called unsinkable until after she sunk. EJ Smith was an idiot.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legends_a ... MS_Titanic
Like driving a car, you go the max speeds for the conditions. 26 kts is not ideal.

$1:

The Challenger was a million part machine with 1 broken part that was missed by someone who wasn't perfect, without Mal intent. Accident.

From Wikipedia

$1:

The Thiokol engineers had also argued that the low overnight temperatures of 18 °F (−8 °C) the evening prior to launch would almost certainly result in SRB temperatures below their redline of 39 °F (4 °C). Ice had accumulated all over the launch pad, raising concerns that ice could damage the shuttle upon lift-off. The Kennedy Ice Team inadvertently pointed an infrared camera at the aft field joint of the right SRB and found the temperature to be only 9 °F (−13 °C). This was believed to be the result of supercooled air blowing on the joint from the liquid oxygen (LOX) tank vent. It was much lower than the air temperature and far below the design specifications for the O-rings. The low reading was later determined to be erroneous, the error caused by not following the temperature probe manufacturer's instructions. Tests and adjusted calculations later confirmed that the temperature of the joint was not substantially different from the ambient temperature.

The temperature on the day of the launch was far lower than had been the case with previous launches: below freezing at 28.0 to 28.9 °F (−2.2 to −1.7 °C); previously, the coldest launch had been at 54 °F (12 °C). Although the Ice Team had worked through the night removing ice, engineers at Rockwell still expressed concern. Rockwell engineers watching the pad from their headquarters in Downey, California, were horrified when they saw the amount of ice. They feared that during launch, ice might be shaken loose and strike the shuttle's thermal protection tiles, possibly due to the aspiration induced by the jet of exhaust gas from the SRBs. Rocco Petrone, the head of Rockwell's space transportation division, and his colleagues viewed this situation as a launch constraint, and told Rockwell's managers at the Cape that Rockwell could not support a launch. Rockwell's managers at the Cape voiced their concerns in a manner that led Houston-based mission manager Arnold Aldrich to go ahead with the launch. Aldrich decided to postpone the shuttle launch by an hour to give the Ice Team time to perform another inspection. After that last inspection, during which the ice appeared to be melting, Challenger was cleared to launch at 11:38 am EST.[19]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shu ... r_disaster

[Prof_Chomsky]

llama66 llama66:

I guess I face manslaughter charges for my negligent actions.

And justice in that case would be sending you to jail for a decade for a trash can accidentally blowing around in a storm?

And what if it caused a 20 death accident? Life in prison?

My point is you're guilty for your actions, not the random series of events that may or may not occur due to good or bad luck as a result.

[llama66]

Prof_Chomsky Prof_Chomsky:

llama66 llama66:

I guess I face manslaughter charges for my negligent actions.

And justice in that case would be sending you to jail for a decade for a trash can accidentally blowing around in a storm?

And what if it caused a 20 death accident? Life in prison?

My point is you're guilty for your actions, not the random series of events that may or may not occur due to good or bad luck as a result.

I get my day in court. He had his, he plead guilty. I may choose to defend myself.

[BartSimpson]

Prof_Chomsky Prof_Chomsky:

If it wasn't an accident, why wasn't anyone charged with murder?

Politics.

[DrCaleb]

Prof_Chomsky Prof_Chomsky:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Prof_Chomsky Prof_Chomsky:

The Challenger was a million part machine with 1 broken part that was missed by someone who wasn't perfect, without Mal intent. Accident.

No, it definitely was not! They had the specifications, they had warnings, they had engineers begging them not to launch - and they did it anyway.

Choice.

They had that on nearly every single NASA launch EVER. Literally. It was never fully safe.

If it wasn't an accident, why wasn't anyone charged with murder?

$1:

NASA's contract with Morton Thiokol, the contractor responsible for the solid rocket boosters, included a clause stating that in the event of a failure leading to "loss of life or mission," Thiokol would forfeit $10 million of its incentive fee and formally accept legal liability for the failure. After the Challenger accident, Thiokol agreed to "voluntarily accept" the monetary penalty in exchange for not being forced to accept liability

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_Commission_Report

[Prof_Chomsky]

llama66 llama66:

Common misconception: The Titanic was not called unsinkable until after she sunk. EJ Smith was an idiot.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legends_a ... MS_Titanic
Like driving a car, you go the max speeds for the conditions. 26 kts is not ideal.

The Challenger was a million part machine with 1 broken part that was missed by someone who wasn't perfect, without Mal intent. Accident.

If you want to split hairs, the Titanic only sank because they engineered the waterproof doors without a top seal. Then closing those doors caused the ship to up-end and sink as water poured over each progressive "waterproof" section.

But yeah, those engineers are murderers for not being infinitely smart and foreseeing that with certainty.

Humans make mistakes and have accidents. It's happened since the dawn of time and always will. But unless you intend malicious ends, it's not criminal negligence - like say, knowing your brakes aren't working and driving a truck down a mountain.

[Prof_Chomsky]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

NASA's contract with Morton Thiokol, the contractor responsible for the solid rocket boosters, included a clause stating that in the event of a failure leading to "loss of life or mission," Thiokol would forfeit $10 million of its incentive fee and formally accept legal liability for the failure. After the Challenger accident, Thiokol agreed to "voluntarily accept" the monetary penalty in exchange for not being forced to accept liability

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_Commission_Report[/quote]


You just proved my point. It wasn't criminal. It was an accident. The article itself calls it an accident. They forced that company to face monetary liability, not criminal action.

You're basically advocating that the truck driver be fined.

[Prof_Chomsky]

llama66 llama66:

Prof_Chomsky Prof_Chomsky:

llama66 llama66:

I guess I face manslaughter charges for my negligent actions.

And justice in that case would be sending you to jail for a decade for a trash can accidentally blowing around in a storm?

And what if it caused a 20 death accident? Life in prison?

My point is you're guilty for your actions, not the random series of events that may or may not occur due to good or bad luck as a result.

I get my day in court. He had his, he plead guilty. I may choose to defend myself.

He was guilty. No one is saying otherwise. He plead guilty to running a stop sign because he did. Accidentally. The question here is what is a suitable punishment for human error.