's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions

Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )

Are these people taking advantage of 9/11?(57 posts)

Are these people taking advantage of 9/11?ClydeTri
Sep 9, 2003 9:20 AM
Not saying they dont have a legal right to sue, but, are the people sueing Boeing, the Port Authority, etc, on the right moral ground? I personally find it shamefully greedy and in poor taste to sue over this. Did families who had civilians killed at Pearl Harbor sue? This was an act of war, not an accident.
Sep 9, 2003 9:49 AM
Airlines choose to ignore foreseeable hazards and neglect measures to avoid them. Because of this flawed, bottom-line oriented judgement, many people are dead. Yet, you call the victim's greedy? I think that is in poor taste.
Sep 9, 2003 9:55 AM
The true victims are dead. These are families sueing. Yes, they have suffered loses. Czardonic, I am assuming you have flown. Did you write or call the airlines or boeing to tell them they needed to reinforce the cockpit doors, arm the pilots, and have marshalls on board? I doubt it. Were you negligent? There had been no history to speak of of suicide hijackers, thus, were the airlines/boeing exhibiting gross negilegence? I would vote no if I was on that jury
Sorry, but that is nonsense.czardonic
Sep 9, 2003 10:07 AM
Wrongful death suits have long been filed and decided on behalf of the survivors of the "true victims". Many of these people are dependents of the "true victims" who have had the economic rug yanked from under them, arguably due to airline corner cutting.

There have been hijackings before. Planes have been intentionally crashed into buildings before (the Whitehouse, as a matter of fact). As far as I am concerned, either one of these facts by themselves are reason enough to beef up security. I believe that El Al has had reinforced cockpit doors for years, so you can't argue that it never occured to anyone in the industry.

El Al also screens all luggage for explosives, something that US airlines continue to refuse to do because they claim it is too expensive. Not too expensive for EL Al though. . . .
admit it...DougSloan
Sep 9, 2003 10:16 AM
Admit it, you are in favor of ANYTHING that shifts money from those who have it to those who have less of it. This is another form of wealth redistribution, which is your guiding principle.

Nah. For instance, the Airlines have no money. . .czardonic
Sep 9, 2003 10:27 AM
. . .and I am against the billions that were shifted to them to save them from their own negligence.
As if that's an unmitigated evil.OldEdScott
Sep 9, 2003 10:27 AM
Wealth reditribution happens all the time, in every society everywhere. It HAS to. The tendency of capital and wealth is to concentrate. It cannot concentrate indefinitely. The unwashed masses, ultimately, will not allow it. Their numbers reach critical mass. Nature of the beast.

The question is, do you control wealth redistribution as fairly and legally as possible (through taxes, 'social engineering,' keeping the u.m. pacified and stupefied with goodies, what used to be called 'enlightened self-interest' by the rich; or does it happened uncontrolled and violently (revolution.)

It's gonna happen one way or another.
"to victor goes spoils" trumps enlightened self-interest. (nm)czardonic
Sep 9, 2003 10:39 AM
Doug, your capacity for generalization never ceases to amazecory
Sep 9, 2003 11:01 AM
No effing message, though.
You don't have a clue pal.Zman
Sep 9, 2003 5:38 PM
Wake up!
Not advantage...just looking for some coin.MR_GRUMPY
Sep 9, 2003 10:03 AM
It's the American way.......look for deep pockets.
Now if people start to sue the EPA over what they did in the aftermath of 9/11. That sounds like a pretty good case.
intervening criminal actDougSloan
Sep 9, 2003 10:13 AM
I generally disapprove of lawsuits where there is a claim that someone should have protected a victim from what the law calls an "intervening criminal act." Apartment owners are typically who is found liable for this, where someone is assaulted, and the claim is that the owner should have had better lighting, security, etc.

I don't think this event was foreseeable by anyone, airlines, building owners, etc. Everyone was totally caught off guard. Should the airlines have had stronger cabin doors? Should the towers have been "jet airplane resistant"? No one thought so before this. I think the lawsuits are groundless. We all learned from this.

In this country, anything that results in a injuries will result on lawsuits. Just no getting around that.

Who they should be suing is the people who did this (their estates?) or conspired with them. Service of process and collection could be problems, though.

well since our government is doing their bestrufus
Sep 9, 2003 10:50 AM
to bury the saudi connection, that might prove a bit difficult. let's have them release all their info, so the families can sue the saudi royal family(deep pockets there) and then maybe you're on to something. but i don't see that happening anytime soon. too many connections to those in power currently.
Totally unforseen???!!!Tri_Rich
Sep 9, 2003 11:15 AM
Tom Clancy wrote a novel about crashing a highjacked airliner into the Capitol and Ralph Nader called for locked cabins during his presidential campaign.
Totally unforseen???!!!ClydeTri
Sep 9, 2003 11:17 AM
Sligly different..the one in the Clancy novel was done by the pilot himself..I still think that the terrorists might have gotten the idea from that novel....and a locked cabin door would have posed no help, it has to be armored.
Totally unforseen???!!!Tri_Rich
Sep 9, 2003 12:05 PM
Even if it was the pilot, and I honestly don't remember, it still means the idea of crashing a commercial airliner into important buildings was not "totally unforseen" as Doug claimed.

I also believe the Nader campaign wanted armored as well as locked cabin doors; certainly the idea was the prevention of hijackings.
Good pointmohair_chair
Sep 9, 2003 12:14 PM
I saw a movie--actually, TWO movies--about asteroids crashing into the Earth. What are we doing NOW to prevent this now totally foreseeable event?

Obviously the Port Authority is busy reinforcing the mid-city terminal, so they don't get sued.

(I only hope Bruce Willis and Ben Affleck are still around when it happens.)

I also saw a movie about dinosaurs running loose in San Diego....
do we have any protection against...ClydeTri
Sep 9, 2003 12:16 PM
Godzilla and Mothra should Japan turn them loose against us? It was in the movies, so it is forseen :)
of course!mohair_chair
Sep 9, 2003 12:24 PM
Sleep well tonight. We've got Johnny Sokko and his Flying Robot to protect us.
You are ignoring the <i>real world</i> incidents. . .czardonic
Sep 9, 2003 12:35 PM
. . .that seperate 9/11 from science fiction.

And as a matter of fact, research is being done to figure out how to protect earth from massive asteroids.
such as?mohair_chair
Sep 9, 2003 12:52 PM
No one had hijacked an airliner and purposely flown it into a building until Sep 11. It was only fictional until it wasn't. You claim all kinds of things were foreseeable and therefore people were negligent, so you can't turn around and say that ideas that appear in fiction today can not happen tomorrow. You can't conveniently ignore fiction and then lash out against it when it comes to fruition. Or, I guess you can, since that is what you are doing.

I think an asteroid will hit the Earth. What are you doing now to keep me from being physically or emotionally affected? Hurry up. I'm putting together my legal defense team right now.

At least we have sn69 to dish out the pain on those dinosaurs in San Diego.
Planes have been hijacked.czardonic
Sep 9, 2003 1:16 PM
Planes have been intentionally crashed into buildings.

Anyone who can't connect those two dots has no business making decisions that effect the safety of others.

I find it strange that you and your side-kick are demanding to know what I am doing about these dangers and drafting excuses for the people who are actually charged with protecting us from them.
Hindsight is REMARKABLY 20/20...nmBikeViking
Sep 9, 2003 12:44 PM
intervening criminal actfiltersweep
Sep 9, 2003 11:54 AM
Good lord... I'm agreeing with Doug on this one?!

Seriously, this is why people buy life insurance- to provide for their survivors. Suing the Port Authority for not protecting people on the ground?! Boeing?! The wrong people are being sued. Of course, we are also at war with the wrong people as well...
The terrorists are not responsible for 9/11! Boeing is! NOT! nmClydeTri
Sep 9, 2003 11:57 AM
yes nmmohair_chair
Sep 9, 2003 10:26 AM
yall all diverged.....ClydeTri
Sep 9, 2003 10:55 AM
My point is why are people greedy? Why do they want to sue for money every chance they get? Accidents happen, and this was NOT an accident, but an intentional act, but what in the human nature makes people immediately see $$$$ signs. Is it inborn or a learned trait?
Something about feeding their children. . .czardonic
Sep 9, 2003 11:06 AM
. . .and paying their bills after having lost a significant portion of their income (and a loved one) due to someone else's negligence seems to have distorted these people's judgement.
what about getting a job and working rather ....ClydeTri
Sep 9, 2003 11:18 AM
than sueing? Interesting concept, eh?
Right and left define 'greed' differently.OldEdScott
Sep 9, 2003 11:26 AM
Or at least worry about it in different places. As this exchange shows pretty clearly.
ol ed....ClydeTri
Sep 9, 2003 11:30 AM
my profession makes me aware of the concepts of liability, negilegence, gross negilegence,etc. If somebody really does commit a "harm" against another person they should be held liable. However, this, 9/11, was the intentional act of some terrorists, an act of war in reality. How is the Port Authority of NYC liable? Did they exhibit gross negilegence? As an educated person with an engineering background I see no gross negligence here by the port authority, the airlines, Boeing. Sue the estates of the hijackers if any of them have any assests that can be gone after, but to sue the port authority, airlines, boeing is just being greedy..wanting money paid for by the suffering of others.
Hey, I agree.OldEdScott
Sep 9, 2003 11:44 AM
Unlike most communists, I'm not in the pocket of the trial lawyers. The lawsuits seem without merit.

All I'm saying is, the penny ante greed of average folks looking to strike it rich by suing people they think have deep pockets bothers me a lot less than Enron-type Greed. It DOES bother me, just not as much.

We commies tend to be tolerant of The Folks.
Why hold people or corporations responsible for their negligence. .czardonic
Sep 9, 2003 11:28 AM
. . .when we just impugn the work ethic of those whom they injure? An interesting concept as far as its folly and injustice, perhaps.

I think you are just jealous that someone else might be getting a lot of money that you won't be getting.
read on the concept of negilegence vs gross negligence nmClydeTri
Sep 9, 2003 11:31 AM
I suspect that my grasp of the concepts exceeds yours. . .czardonic
Sep 9, 2003 11:36 AM
. . .given your non sequitur reference to them.

But the negligence on the part of the Airlines in this case, where they ignored known and demonstrated dangers, qualifies as "gross" in my book.
and that is where the jury comes in....ClydeTri
Sep 9, 2003 11:39 AM
they will be asked to make that decision....and the plaintiff attorneys will go for women, minorities, and the less educated. The defense attornies will go for people educated in the sciences, people who tend to think with logic, not emotion...
Jealousy, an emotion, is the only logical explanation . . .czardonic
Sep 9, 2003 11:50 AM
. . .for your peevish choice to excuse those who ignored risks to save a buck and condemn those who are trying to hold them responsible.

Logic should also tell you that our safety relies on sober, realistic cost-benefit analyses. Corporations will not make these decisions responsibly if the cost of taking risks is eliminated from the equation.

FWIW, I don't think that the Port Authority is responsible.
then why are these people sueing the Port Authority? greed???ClydeTri
Sep 9, 2003 11:53 AM
I haven't heard their case. . .czardonic
Sep 9, 2003 12:03 PM
. . .so it would be grossly unfair for me to dismiss it as simple greed.
in any case they should be sueing....Fender
Sep 9, 2003 1:15 PM
the U.S. government and not Boeing or the airlines. The CIA and FBI had knowledge that there would be some kind of terrorist attack and yet the failed to provide enough security (somewhat similar to Pearl Harbor).
Sep 9, 2003 11:09 AM
I think you have the wrong original sin. People today are lazy first, greedy second. Only chumps work for a living. When that accident comes along, no matter how trivial or tragic, you gotta go for it. It's a winning lottery ticket.
What about the laziness and greed of the Airlines?czardonic
Sep 9, 2003 11:32 AM
What about the winning lottery ticket that they cashed in with the government when their own corner cutting came back and bit them in the pocketbook?
what the hell are you talking about?mohair_chair
Sep 9, 2003 12:08 PM
Are you talking about the same airlines that have lost billions of dollars a year BEFORE Sep 11?

Are you talking about the same airlines that were flying half empty planes ON Sep 11?

Their laziness and greed wasn't paying off very well, was it? Please, explain to me what is lazy and greedy about airlines. Then explain to me what you would do about it.
They refused to address known vulnerabilities.czardonic
Sep 9, 2003 12:30 PM
What I would have done about it is address them. It would have cost the same money to do so before 9/11 as it did after, but they wouldn't have lost the additional billions they lost upon the revelation of their incompetence and misplaced priorities.

But maybe that kind of thinking is for "chumps". After all, as you point out, they've been losing money for years. It wasn't until they contributed to a tragedy that they got their big government handout.
Question for Czardonic...ClydeTri
Sep 9, 2003 12:35 PM
So, are they still "negligent" for not spending the 7 to 8 billion necessary to put anti-missile protection systems on all the commercial aircraft? Are you willing to pay much much more to fly? And if mandated to do so, and some of the airlines go out of business or have significant cuts in service because of this, are they being greedy by having to lay off tens of thousands of workers? A shoulder fired anti-aircraft missile is very foreseeable. Are you willing to help pay? You and every flyer in the form of doubled or tripled ticket prices...which would cause a significant recession in the airline industry..which the liberals would boo hoo hoo about.
and continuing....ClydeTri
Sep 9, 2003 12:38 PM
and these systems are not 100%, an aircraft that is equipped with a protection system is hit, should the airline be "sueable"? Dont forget, that is an intentional act, not an accident, just as 9/11 were all intentional acts.
There is a big difference between. . .czardonic
Sep 9, 2003 12:50 PM
. . .taking reasonable measures and having them fail on you, and ignoring those measures all together.

This suit does not hold that the airlines etc. were the perpetrators of 9/11. It holds that they are responsible for the negligence on their part that made 9/11 possible. Its just one of those rare instances in life where there are more than two sides to the story.
WOnder what state the cases will be filed in? NY? PA?ClydeTri
Sep 9, 2003 12:54 PM
It is my understanding that states have widely varying laws on this, some use comparative negligence, some contributory, some require 100% on one parts behalf, some dont. SOme have much great burdens of proof to prove gross negilegence....guess the lawyers will shop to find the states that they can file in where they can win the easiest and get the biggest payoffs...goes back to money, doesnt it?
Sep 9, 2003 12:44 PM
If you want to see a recession, just wait until a MANPAD actually hits a civilian aircraft. 7 or 8 billion is pennies compared to the hit the industry and our economy in general would take.

Question for you: How the heck does El Al manage to implement every single one of the measures that you swear will cripple other airlines?

Incidentally, I would be in favor of government grants to help defray these costs. Its the government grants to line the pockets of executives while they lay off attendents that I object to.
you are truly insanemohair_chair
Sep 9, 2003 12:45 PM
You can talk in generalities all day and never have to back it up. Well I'm calling you on it. Give me a list of known vulnerabilities the greedy and lazy and murdering (you said they contributed to the tragedy) airlines could have prevented. It doesn't have to be a comprehensive list--three or four will do.
First, let's talk about hyperbole.czardonic
Sep 9, 2003 1:06 PM
Insane? Talking in generalities all day and never having to back it up is a symptom of insanity? Sheesh.

1) They could have prevented terrorists from taking control of the cockpit, as El Al was doing before 9/11. Planes have been hijacked before and pilots have been attacked in the cockpit(usually drunk or disturbed people).
2) They could have prevented terrorists from bringing deadly bladed weapons onto the plane. They claim that they have since, so I don't know what their excuse was before.

Those are the only two that would have been necessary to prevent 9/11. That seems to count as comprehensive. However, just so you don't cop out and claim that I could "only" come up with two reasons instead of the mere three or four you asked for. . .

3) They could prevent planes from being drastically re-routed. Modern aircraft operate on fly-by-wire and GPS systems that are as easily over-ridden from the ground.
Sep 9, 2003 12:09 PM
Would this change if punitive damages wer not awarded to the damaged party but put toward something else; a state's emergency relief fund perhaps?
never forget..who gains from all these lawsuits....moreClydeTri
Sep 9, 2003 11:59 AM
who gains from all these lawsuits? win or lose? the lawyers! and the judge who allowed them to proceed? a lawyer!
Put the blame in the right spot.eyebob
Sep 9, 2003 12:47 PM
The trial and lawsuit are (in-part) meant to uncover the truth. If it's a whacky judgement then you blame the jury. Remember them? Your peers? Besides, there are safeguards in place to protect from excessive damages being awarded.

Know the truth and it shall set you free (or something like that) Let the lawsuits rip on this one. I for one think (much like the automobile airbag suits) that it'll shed light on the uncomfortable fact that airlines routinely cut corners to "save" money. That's part of why it can be so cheap to fly but that type of burden isn't without it's risks to the industry.

agree in part, however....ClydeTri
Sep 9, 2003 12:50 PM
If they sue and it drags out in courts and even if the airlines/boeing/port authority win, they will spend literally millions in legal fees, which will be passed along to the consumers, yes, you and me. We will pay more for each airline ticket and the lawyers will get the money. Strange how that works isnt it?
So, the greediness comes full circle.czardonic
Sep 9, 2003 1:19 PM
You want these suits to be dismissed because you don't want to pay more to fly.
Sue themselvescycleguy
Sep 9, 2003 1:53 PM
How about they sue themselves for not providing enough insurance in the case of their own death. Or enough savings or enough already!! Just sue Tom Clancy and Ralph Nader.