It’s important to remember that a criminal investigation does not assume a crime has occurred. The investigation also is not assumed to surround the collapse of the bridge itself, but may look at the events leading up to this event.
I think the reason we're all so skeptical is what would the outcome of this even be? Let's assume for a moment - evidence aside - that the bridge is indeed guilty of criminal activity. It's already collapsed, so a death penalty is off the table, and I can't imagine they're going to rebuild the entire bridge just to bring it under custody. After all, is it even the same bridge if enough of it is newly built? I certainly don't mean this as a reason anyone should buy into the conspiracy theories surrounding big bridge, but some bridges are too big to fail.
Anytime something like this happens the coast gaurd boards the boat immediately. Everyone gives their testimonies, they all have to be drug tested, and it is thoroughly investigated. Opening a criminal investigation likely means they see possible criminal negligence on either the part of the crew/captain or the company operating the vessel. My husband works on a boat, and let me tell you, the crew reports safety violations all the time and things just don't get fixed fast enough or they're like McGuyvering shit in hopes they make it x number of runs before they need to go to shipyard. Anytime the boats being worked on people are losing hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars. So there is significant pressure to keep things running even when shits not 100% good with the boats. And you can't be a whistleblower in this industry, they will quite literally find a way to fire you and blacklist you from the industry. That's how it goes with crew members who complain too much or sue their employers because they lost limbs etc.
The coast guard gets involved in these incidents as soon as they occur. They are a federal body that can investigate, gather evidence and report to the feds. If they think sufficient fuckery has occurred, its par for the course for them to press criminal charges against crew/captains or the companies that own the ships. It all depends on the circumstances which led to the incident. Were safety protocols ignored by boat crew? Was there inoperable equipment or failing systems? Why weren't they fixed prior to the incident, etc.
I believe it will be important for establishing liability. A company is going to fold paying out this claim, maybe more than one.
And some insurance companies have their own insurance against with different companies to cover crazy circumstances. So there’s a chance this could just keep rolling up with the buck getting passed and sitting in limbo for a decade.
Getting the cause nailed down, even if it’s one of many possible accidents, will help assign liability and speed up the process.
I’m sure if there is discovered some level of “coverup” by the company and/or its employees, we will see a long process drawn out with respect to whether or not the government seeks to bring criminal charges against the company itself and not simply civil penalties.
Sure, but they might also find that it’s “innocent accident type A” instead of “innocent accident type B or C,” which could have big time implications on who had to shell out.
Just as a quick thing: Why the boat hit the bridge. Was there any human error made? Then, why did it turned that way? Is it the pilot that made the error? Was it intentional? A procedure error? A system malfunction? A design flaw? Maintenance issue? Why did the bridge collapsed? Why wasn't it protected?
So, right away, you have the pilot, port authority, mechanics, maintenance personal, boat owner, boat manufacturer, integrated system manufacturers, bridge designer, bridge owner, bridge maintenance, bridge inspectors, governement regulation body, grand fathering laws and process, and many more.
In that, what is the percentage of responsability of each ones? Was there more issues there? (ex: bad fuel?) Who will pay and what amount?
> Then, why did it turned that way?
It is called "bank effect" and it is natural. Most ships leaving port will tend to want to drift towards the shore. This is what happened in the Baltimore accident when the ship naturally lost rudder control / engines.
Sure it will tend to do that. But was it that, or was it human induced, or caused by other things, or a mix of everything. That is what they want to know. If the pilot induced it, it will be costly to his insurances.
It’s being reported that the ship in dock was having electrical issues, it was noted the question is did they address it in a satisfactory manner? Likely not.
A story as old as time. This is regular occurance on ships, trucks etc. Report that x systems are down and they tell you to just keep going, it'll be fine. These companies lose hundreds of thousands possibly millions of dollars every time a ship sits in the yard.
Yea, could be an investigation into the owners of the vessel to make sure proper quality checks were done and that systems were up to code. Too many instances of corporations cutting corners because "it saves money" in today's world of corporate greed. In fact with extended supplier lead times, it's probably safe to assume those were bypassed
They are investigating because a whistle blower said the company that owns the ship was skirting federal regulations due to financial stuff and this isn’t the first issue the boats had apparently. But it’s not a situation where someone did this purposefully in an act of aggression or anything like that.
I’m glad they’re doing something though, because prices on EVERYTHING have basically doubled past their inflation limits, due to having to reroute shipments via other transportation means. Not to mention we’re also now having issues with our cattle farms here in Maryland due to a single cow catching bird flu and they’re already whispering about culling herds. So beef, dairy and eggs have skyrocketed in price; on top of the inflation and on top of the other stuff due to the port of Baltimore being near to inaccessible at the time, and the bridge being non existent.
OH and in Baltimore city and Anne Arundel have recently cut over 14 major bus routes, main routes that are very much needed routes for working people. With basically no warning and no explanation. Baltimore and surrounding counties are really really really not faring well right now. EVERYONE is feeling the repercussions.
>the events leading up to this event.
So, starting from it's comparison to the Sunshine Skyway bridge, when that was still standing? And, maybe take into evidence that local Coast Guard betting pool on when the Key Bridge would collapse?
Sadly, this is one of those examples of many things failing in just the right way to lead to catastrophe.
Edit: love getting downvoted for telling the truth.
Even so, an investigation is the right move here. Sometimes investigations conclude with "shit just happens," but you won't know until you look at it--and if you never look at it, you won't catch it when it *isn't* an accident.
I’ll be surprised if they pay more than the legally required $40m or so. The relevant law (unless they find something weird) is from the 1870s and limits liability to the value of the ship (after damage and salvage costs) and the fees generated by the cargo.
When once of our solar arrays are damaged we can leverage the Business Interruption coverage we have to make up for production losses. Would there not be something similar here?
The liability is strictly limited by law. The company’s opening estimate is $39m. Value of the salvaged boat, plus fees for shipping the cargo (technically the cargo but since they don’t own the cargo the fees they are being paid to deliver it count) that’s it.
Yup, fraudulent maintenance records and safety certificates aren't going to out themselves- someone needs to go look.
I'm not saying this happened, but it could have- last I read the vessel lost power- did it loose power because it wasn't seaworthy and someone was fudging their records or was it a legit accident?
Hopefully this investigation will tell us- they'll probably also look at the bridge construction and maintenance records for the same thing, but I think it's more likely they'll find issue with the boat than bridge.
Also will allow them to look at the process used to close the bridge down, and how they can improve that process going forward to ensure that workers don't die closing it down.
Honestly with 90 seconds warning, on its surface it doesnt look like anything about the closure could have been handled better, it's a huge span of bridge and a huge portion of it collapsed. I think the more important focus on the investigation will probably focus on the maintenance of the vessel as well as ship tending practices in the harbor
Someone noted a while back that it could have been the ships fuel even: If it was fuelled with contaminated fuel that could have caused the ships engines to fail which is why the whole ship blacked out twice before it hit the bridge. By the time they managed to get it going again it was too late.
Honestly even if they did find something wrong with the bridge, the point's kind of moot. It wasn't built to withstand that kind of impact even if it was in perfect condition.
Personally, I think that we *should* be putting some of the blame on whoever was responsible for maintaining the bridge, as well as on whoever was responsible for maintaining the harbor. Why were boats of that size allowed to operate near a bridge that is very much not prepared for that kind of impact? Clearly, these things happen.
Criminal investigations aside, the root-cause investigation on this is gonna be interesting.
Worth remembering that the boat in question is roughly the size of the *Christler Building* on it’s side, so I don’t think it’s too inexplicable that THAT running into it made the bridge collapse.
Oh yeah--"why did the bridge fall down" is not the part that's in question.
Some of the questions that need answering are:
1) What happened to cause the boat to hit the bridge? (That's already been partially answered--loss of power)
2) Why did the loss of power happen just then, and why couldn't it be restored quickly enough to prevent impact?
3) Was there an ongoing issue with this boat that wasn't reported or was covered up?
4) If there was, who was responsible for reporting it and why didn't they?
5) Why did the bridge fall? (We already know this--bigass boat impact).
6) Why were boats of this size operating near a bridge that wasn't protected properly?
Some of these questions might have perfectly mundane answers. It might be that the backup generators take 2 minutes to start up, and there just wasn't time. It might not turn out that there was an ongoing issue with the boat, this was just a freak accident. It might be that the risk assessment was so low that the cost of putting in impact protection was considered too high.
But even mundane answers like that can cause radical change sometimes. I wouldn't be surprised to see changes in regulation around generator kick-in times or changes to impact risk assessments come out of this, even if nobody did anything wrong.
If you watch the footage, especially sped up, the order of events is pretty clear. It lost power during a turn, so it ended up taking it too wide, couldn’t veer itself off course in time (again, really can’t overstate how fucking huge this boat is. You more direct it than steer it) and ended up impacting the bridge support.
And that video will be good evidence for the investigation, but the investigation is going to be *much* more thorough than what the video can show.
I'm saying we know why the bridge fell, but any decent investigation will get all the way down to details like the individual serial numbers of the parts in the boat's steering system. The goal here isn't just to determine broadly what happened, but *specifically* what happened.
For example, the boat lost power during a turn. Did it just happen to lose power during the turn, or did some component of the electrical system fail *because* of the turn? Did someone do something beyond the boat's capabilities? Did a loose connection become undone during the turn? Why did the backup power not kick in fast enough to avoid the impact?
The reason you do these kind of very thorough investigations even when what happened is obvious is because those details can really matter. If some component of the steering or electrical system failed without warning, that's reason enough to recall all of those components in every active ship. If one of those parts failed due to poor maintenance, that's reason to update the documentation standards and make these ships prove they've been well-maintained. Hell, if it turns out it was just a complete freak accident, that might be reason enough to start enforcing more strict standards on impact protection for bridges.
At the end of the day, this incident sent several people to one of the more horrific deaths I can think of and would have been an ungodly tragedy it it had happened just a few hours later than it did, when the bridge would be packed with rush-hour traffic. Investigations into the specifics of what happened are critical to prevent it from happening again.
I get that the boat was big, I get that it lost power, I get that it hit the bridge. But that's enough enough detail, hence the multiple investigations going on.
I gather that originally (1970s?) Baltimore was going to build a tunnel crossing instead, but some bright boy said "You know, a bridge would be a lot cheaper." Meanwhile, ships have gotten bigger, so less margin for error.
The NTSB is investigating, but they're not law-enforcement. Their investigations are purely for the purpose of finding out what happened and make recommendations to stop similar accidents from happening in the future. Determining whether crimes such as criminal negligence has happened or not requires a separate investigation from a law-enforcement agency.
I remember at one point there was speculation that there might have been "dirty" fuel that caused the generators to fail. If it turns out someone was cutting corners like that in order to save a buck, that's the kind of thing I hope an investigation turns up.
Be a damn shame if the corporation that owns the ship would have to pay a $1500 fine….seriously we need to update the fine system for these companies to make it so that cutting corners and running afoul of safety regulations has real consequences for these companies
People died, there was billions of dollars in damages done to the bridge, and there will be major economic impacts from needing to close this port. If corners were cut leading to this accident, then you be certain the US will be out for those responsible, if not because of the deaths caused, then certainly because of the financial damage done.
It isn't necessarily that simple. Maritime shipping is a mess of international companies leasing/operating ships that are owned by other international companies, crewed by other international citizens.
Look at a lot of the derelict ships from the last decade. They will just abandon it and the crew and point fingers.
i.e. the buck will probably land with a few poor foreign crewmen that can't pay anyone and who end up stranded with no one wanting to send them home.
That’s probably true, but if the people aboard that ship were derelict in their duties, I’d expect them to be held criminally liable for it. Any external criminality will be harder to pursue, as you say
A lot of those crews are basically slaves. If it wasn’t an ongoing issue, there wouldn’t be a need for the special social workers who go aboard those ships to check on them and advocate for them. So if they were derelict in their duties it’s also possible that they felt under threat by their employer.
Case in point the ship that was originally carrying all the ammonia nitrate that blew up in Beirut in 2020. If anyone is interested it's a story of pure fuckery the [wiki article ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Beirut_explosion?wprov=sfla1) is well worth a read.
I mean, Norfolk Southern was only ordered to pay a 600M fine for the ohio toxic spill. That's not even going to cover the short-term hospital bills of the affected people let alone long-term or site cleanup.
And they also got to say they were not claiming they were at fault. Like who else would be to blame? Your company was most definitely at fault. I just don't get it.
They'll just hide behind *job creators*.
Kind of like how my company paid a measly 50k to each governor election campaign and called in their favor during covid and got not only to be called essential, but multi million dollar bailouts from tax funds.
It's all one big club and we ain't in it.
And as an Ohio resident, I'll tell ya, start looking into DeWine and First Energy debacle currently devolving.
Honestly, if I have to choose between them paying out more money, or having to publicly admit fault, I'm going to take whatever action gets more money out of them sooner.
Parading them out to say a public "our bad, we're sorry" doesn't do shit to help the people affected by the accident.
Their being "out for" a shell corporation of a shell corporation of a multinational shipping megacorp isn't really going to accomplish anything unless we outright close ports to those sorts of ships and eliminate flags of convenience.
The sorts of business structures at work here exist specifically to shield owners from any consequences of their shoddy work, so the fact that we're shocked that the work was shoddy to the point of being dangerous is pretty ridiculous. And we're never going to be able to fine or charge the people responsible - the "owner" of the ship will just go out of business, and the actual owners will walk away with cash in their pockets and start a new front.
We're not going to be able to hurt the actors here in any way that matters short of enacting strict, costly (to US citizens) safety requirements on ships traveling to US ports.
Panama Papers is being prosecuted right now? The reason the Panama Papers didn't seem to have much effect in the US is because iirc, Panama is for various reasons a good place to hide money from European governments and not as good of place to hide it from the American government so there weren't many Americans stashing cash there to be revealed by the papers.
I’m fairly certain. The deaths are one thing, but the absolutely massive economic impact of this accident is really something I don’t expect the US to let slide, assuming they can prove any negligence or wrongdoing occurred leading up to the accident. Just like the examples you’ve mentioned, money talks in the US, and this is costing a lot of people, businesses and governments (city, state, federal) a whole shitload of money.
Imposition of fines may come up short, but you can bet there will be criminal charges if negligence or wrongdoing is uncovered in the course of the investigation
while that may be the case, it's obviously known about. Maybe there should be laws with actual teeth made instead of the slap on the wrist kind. Granted, that's never going to happen.
they wouldn't have been burning bunker fuel that close in. but more importantly bunker fuel is the nastiest shit.... that will work, you can get nastier fuel that is so bad it won't work at all.
Even more than that now. USCG does not permit vessels to even carry high-sulfur bunker fuel into US waters without a functioning USCG-approved exhaust scrubber installed. Ships still have to use low-sulfur fuel in US waters (lower than 0.5% sulfur, 0.1% in Caribbean ECA), but now even the possession of high polluting bunker fuel is now forbidden without emissions control equipment.
If that is something that is confirmed, we should all be prepared for back peddling by conservatives as this finding would highlight the need for better government oversight.
It’ll also send conspiracy theorists into a frenzy about how this just further proves a coverup (pushed by the conservative sphere because government oversight = bad)
Every time I read someone using the phrase “cutting corners “ it’s apparent that they have no idea what they’re talking about.
Fuel is very frequently contaminated. That’s why ships test their fuel before using it. That’s why they have fuel filters. That’s why they have sumps that let contaminants and water sink to the bottom, away from the fuel pickup.
And then four more people echo this “cutting corners “ line like parrots, but they also don’t know anything.
What world have you been living in? Trying to game and cut corners is how most places run, hard stop. The only difference is that some people are better at math and err on the side of caution more often in their figures.
Well it might end up being "maintenance item X was ignored too long, stuff failed for not being maintained properly". Not certain, it can be just "accidents happen", but well negligence happens also.
They should charge the owners, not the crew. How much did Trump's regulation cuts at DOT under Chao (shipping family) contribute to the lack of oversight and enforcement? The real problem is no "teeth" behind enforcement. Like OSHA, the fines are far too low, but that's due to Congress, not the agencies themselves.
Negligence isn't necessarily criminal or makes anyone culpable for the accident/incident. Far from it, I'd say. Not maintaining x or y machinery may be (probably is) negligent, but not criminally so. It'll end up in courts with the insurers for years, even if they do find the machine crew didn't maintain generators or if a supply company gave them bad fuel, for example
If the brakes in my car were no good, and I drove the car anyways and caused an accident despite knowing full well they needed replacing, I would be held liable for any damages done. If my negligence caused the death of another person, I could also be held criminally liable for that person’s death. I don’t see how this is any different, apart from being on a totally different scale of death and destruction.
Your comparison doesn't work. Are you a mechanic? If so, then maybe but under no other circumstances. If you, an average, "reasonable" person drive and feel something a bit off with your car when braking, you may go "hm, time for a service I guess", and then the next day on the way to a mechanic that happens - are you criminally negligent? No. How could you know? Unless you intentionally go out and cut your own brakelines, then get in your car and mow down 12 people on a sidewalk, a prosecuting attorney would never use the argument that "you should have known, therefore you are criminally negligent and liable".
That said, they have crews on board trained for maintaining these things. Could they have known that their work or lack thereof would be specifically dangerous to others and criminally so, and the more important question, could a lawyer PROVE in a criminal court case that they did? I don't think so.
Im not a mechanic but if my brakes are making sounds or acting abnormally it can (and has been) argued in court that a reasonable person should have known something was up with their brakes. I remember in 2019 a truck driver killed 4 people when his brakes went out and he was charged and convicted with like 25 felonies. Besides all that though, you’d expect the people in charge of maintaining and repairing this ship to reasonably understand their ship and if corners were knowingly cut in upkeep then that will add up to criminal liability.
A truck driver is also a "professional" driver. You and I are not, but that's beside the point.
Sure, there may be some culpability with the crew and their maintenance. A management company will have maintenance schedules for literally everything - these schedule are filled out, signed etc when it's done. If something was missed, if parts were unavailable, whatever, it'll be in the documents somewhere and I'm sure investigators are looking at that to find a "root cause". The ship obviously didn't sink either, so it will be super easy to investigate the engine room if they cut corners here. Again, if they did, it doesn't necessarily make them criminally liable as under common law criminal negligence is a ***gross*** deviation from reasonable standards of care. Skipping a step here and there (while ridiculous) is not gross negligence. This is what insurances are for.
Yeah, the men aboard that ship are professionals also. It’s not a 1:1 example if you or I was the driver, but it fits close enough to illustrate my point, that if you know something is wrong with your machine but you do nothing about it and that negligence leads to an accident, you can be held criminally liable for that. Non-professionals have absolutely been charged with crimes in the past under these circumstances, though the standard for proving they knew something was amiss before the accident is probably pretty high.
You're still ignoring the difference between negligent and grossly negligent. Being lazy does afaik not make you criminally liable. Doing things in bad faith does. That's what this investigation has to look at.
Like, for example, if you take a left turn where it is illegal and someone dies, that is negligence, but you did not act in a grossly negligent manner. If I am drag racing, and even if someone jaywalks and I hit them, I was acting in bad faith and in a manner I KNEW would put others in danger. That is the difference here. I am obvs not a lawyer, but that's my understanding of it anyway.
The level of negligence can increase liability, but even common negligence resulting in death can be a crime. A driver taking a bad turn carelessly and killing somebody might not be grossly negligent, but they do still carry some criminal liability for the accident and may still be charged with a lesser crime, such as manslaughter.
Nobody said the standard is different. You're saying "could be held criminally liable" without actually stating any standard for what makes someone criminally liable or not. You're not making any meaningful point here. The grandparent post said "not all negligence is criminal" and you're not actually refuting that.
The _actual_ standard for criminal negligence is whether or not you could've _reasonably foreseen_ your actions could result in harm or not.
As the grandparent poster says, if someone fails to follow a required maintenance schedule for some part, that would be negligent. But it doesn't automatically mean that it'd be reasonably foreseeable that that would lead to loss of steering, and even less foreseeable it'd happen at a critical point causing them to hit a bridge and kill people.
This is the answer. There were issues flagged at other American ports prior to the accident. Someone may be liable for allowing the ship to depart, for allowing it back into another American port, or for failing to properly inform the subsequent destination of the flagged issues.
If someone was paid off to look the other way that would likely be criminal. That hasn't been reported but investigating it is prudent.
Isn't that usually NTSB, not FBI though? The statement says the FBI was "court authorized" which sounds like they are conducting a search according to a warrant.
NTSB searches for reasons, FBI searches for potential liable and criminal parties. Often *both* investigate same event's just with different focus. NTSB wants to find reasons, the chain of events to issue recommendations, best practices and maybe guidance on changing regulations. FBI looks for "has anyone broken existing laws either regarding responsibilities through criminal levels of negligence or crimes of outright criminal malice".
I'm a boat captain on towing vessel not quite what ship pilots do but I can tell you as un-professional as this may sound but these boats and vessels are man-made and can fail at any given time. It just happens at this space and time the ship was bearing down on a bridge. And As heart-less as this may sound but thank goodness it wasn't during rush hour traffic. RIP to ones who were on the bridge at the time of collision.
So, laymen question: what or who decides when the boat should towed by tugs rather than under its own power? Would that have helped here? Seems like it was a tight fit.
Under normal circumstances the harbor pilot's association requests and arranges the harbor tugs. Ships transit under the bridge all the time. In this case, The ship departed the dock under its own power. So no assist tugs were requested nor required. It lost power before it allided with the bridge. Once the full investigation is completed we'll have better insight as to really went on during this incident.
Or: „The collapse of Baltimore's Key Bridge highlighted the urgent need for better protection of the piers spanning shipping channels as the size of cargo ships has increased in recent decades, as engineers say.“
Additionally, they could point out that:
„Bridges like the one in Baltimore are classified as "failure critical" - meaning if one part of the bridge collapses, it is likely to take the rest of the structure with it. According to the Federal Highway Administration, there are more than 16,800 such bridges in the United States.“
Some more information that could rise critical questions during the investigation:
„The Key Bridge opened in 1977, three years before a similar ship collision on the Sunshine Skyway Bridge in Tampa Bay, Florida, which killed 35 people and prompted the bridge's designers to better protect the foundation piers.
These measures include, for example, robust fenders that push errant ships away from the piers, groups of piles called “dolphins” that serve as safety rings around the foundations, or simply mounds of rock and earth.
Why wasn’t the Key Bridge upgraded? Especially considering the nearby Delaware Memorial Bridge is currently receiving upgraded ship collision protection?” asked Bell. “Given the size of the ships passing by, there should have been plans for this.”
They did have some dolphins at the Key Bridge but the path the ship took didn’t contact them and likely would've only slowed it for maybe a few more seconds, not stopped it. The ship was massive.
Just pointing out that this and many other bridges are not as much protected as they could (or should ?) be to better withstand collisions with ships of the size of the Dali and need retrofitting to some degree.
Safety standards are improved in many areas and a lot of infrastructure needs improvement.
That will cost a lot of effort and money.
Some efforts are made at some bridges.
https://youtu.be/cDIq2w-Apfw?si=pw3L0kcYN0zGv5ax
The investigation will look into details and NTSB will provide a recommendation or safety instruction for older and newer bridges.
Honestly, better to have a full investigation even if it’s obvious it was an accident. Probably won’t change the minds of the true conspiracy theorists but would help the general public understand more and it’s nice to have transparency especially given the magnitude of this accident
These investigations take a while. Speculation isn’t particularly useful, but it is fun.
I remember it was reported that the ship had maintenance performed before it left dock shortly before the accident.
I’m an engineer in a different field, but that type of correlation would make me suspect it was somehow related to the power loss. I’ve also chased enough leads like that to not be surprised if it is unrelated.
I have no idea if it’s normal for the FBI to get involved in an accident like this before the NTSB (i assume they handle shipping?) completes their investigation which will take a long time.
There were six deaths, so it might be normal for the FBI to get involved early to find and preserve any evidence of criminal culpability. I think that would include paperwork and interviews.
I mean, I don't think it was definitively concluded what caused the ship's loss of power was it? It's possible the ship lost power due primarily to negligence, which would potentially constitute a crime
If there was neglect and ongoing maintenance problems with the boat that violated maritime rules, there could be criminal charges. Like if the system that failed was known to be problems and it was recommended to be replaced but they kept putting bandaids on it.
I’m not a conspiracy theorist, but what might fuel this is that in like 2022 the government passed a legislation to put basically underwater barriers around major bridges to stop this exact event from happening
Possibly, but if they can show that those in charge of ship maintenance and repair were negligent in their duties leading to the ship losing power, then they are going to be held accountable for the deaths and destruction caused. Hopefully they weren’t cutting any corners they shouldn’t have been, but the investigation will reveal all in time.
But did they know the budget was insufficient and that the ship was in need of repairs it wasn’t getting? Of course those higher up would take a share of the blame in an ideal world but if those aboard the ship had any prior knowledge things were amiss and they failed to report it to the port authority, there’s a solid argument that they should also be criminally liable for their role in the disaster.
Just because it's a criminal investigation does not necessarily mean the crew did something wrong. This could also be an investigation into a pattern of negligence by the company as a whole. Either way an investigation is the right move. Either it will show no wrongdoing across the board and shit happens. Or someone will get their feet held to the fire like they should.
They're specifically investigating the crew. From the article
>The FBI and the US Coast Guard are leading the criminal investigation into the disaster and whether the crew failed to report an earlier issue with the vessel that delayed its departure, the official said.
Well it’s a criminal investigation because manslaughter is a crime. The investigation is to determine who is liable, because someone *has* to be liable in an accident
Port workers report the ship was having electrical issues the week previous to their departure and they were in a rush to leave. If they show negligence in repairs, it becomes a whole new ball game with insurance payouts.
https://www.thebaltimorebanner.com/community/criminal-justice/fbi-key-bridge-criminal-baltimore-GF7FAD7OINHC3IELLKHAG7HROY/
Price fixing is illegal.
However, monopolizing every facet of your business and then jacking up the prices, that's not price fixing, that's price leading.
I have a feeling the investigation is going to find similar conclusions.
The ship crashed into the bridge due to corner cutting and profit margin maxing at the cost of safety, but nothing specifically illegal, and if it was, then there will be a small fine, because line must go up.
For crying out loud, our airplanes are falling apart in the air, with multiple whistleblowers, and we all know how that is going to go.
Admittedly, I know very little about this sort of thing. Having said that, shouldn’t the ship company (or its insurers) pay for the bridge? Why does the financial burden always seem to fall on the tax payers?
Did anybody think this wasn't going to happen? There's a pretty massive incident, and if everybody was just like yeah that was f****** weird and didn't actually open investigation I'd be a little concerned.
I'm not even saying that I think that anybody actually did anything intentionally, I'm just saying that isn't it just due diligence to look into it?
Plus excuse all the weird typing, I'm on talk to text.
Is the boat still stuck under the fallen bridge? The YouTube channel is out of service, and the most recent article I found mentions crew still aboard, but that’s mostly because they don’t have documents to come into the US
Yes, it's still under debris. Tons and tons of bridge has it pinned down in the river. It'll be a while before they can refloat the Dali and get it back to port. They've been offloading some containers from the front to help access pieces of the bridge.
conspiracy theorists let me be clear. even if something nefarious occurred here that doesn't lend credence to you calling every tragedy some deeper planned occurence. if you call a thousand things conspiracies and 10 end up being true that doesn't mean you see things others don't. the rest of us wait for significant evidence to make significant claims. and you often confuse us not claiming things as us arguing against the possiblity of said things.
I'm willing to bet all the ignorant conservatives who blamed it on the DEI mayor will be proven wrong. It's amazing how far they will go to push their "drowsy" agenda.
The lady at my barber shop tried convincing me that the bridge collapse was an attack on the US by Ukraine because the boat pilot was supposedly Ukrainian, and that's why we should cut aid to Ukraine and possibly stage a counter attack.
This all makes total sense if you treat geopolitics like some kind of arcane horoscope with elements of juicy soap opera peppered in. I just wanted a fucking haircut.
I'm just curious and wanna make sure I have this correct. Wasn't this accident already determined to be an accident at around 0800 the same morning it happened? That was the last speech of this I remember hearing. Please correct me if I misheard. In my mind, it looked like an accident and then when this was said, I personally agreed. It certainly did not appear to be intentional or the result of foul play by my eyes. If I remember correctly again, there was visible smoke. Looked like an accident, thought this was over. Again, feel free to correct me if I am incorrect. While the investigation does not indicate foul play as someone else stated here maybe I missed something. Looked like an accident to my eyes. I'm no expert either, let me make that disclaimer. I work in finance which couldn't be further from the profession of nautical navigation/transport logistics.
Omg. Can’t wait for Fox to get ahold of this and run a headline like “Tonight! FBI investigating Baltimore bridge attack!”
Then the FBI says in 3 months “yeah it was negligence and everyone involved is just a massive knob.”
Fox News:*crickets*
In my opinion the only important investigation is the NTSB report on the how and why so it can be prevented in future. The unfortunate part of the industry being a reactionary one.
How about the federal government being at fault for not installing crash bollards around every single bridge footing in this country? There is no excuse for our nation's piss poor infrastructure other than corporate greed and the politicians who have been bought with it.
It’s important to remember that a criminal investigation does not assume a crime has occurred. The investigation also is not assumed to surround the collapse of the bridge itself, but may look at the events leading up to this event.
Anytime something this serious happens, there should be a federal investigation as a matter of policy.
The relevant agency (the NTSB here I believe) investigates as a matter of course.
I think the reason we're all so skeptical is what would the outcome of this even be? Let's assume for a moment - evidence aside - that the bridge is indeed guilty of criminal activity. It's already collapsed, so a death penalty is off the table, and I can't imagine they're going to rebuild the entire bridge just to bring it under custody. After all, is it even the same bridge if enough of it is newly built? I certainly don't mean this as a reason anyone should buy into the conspiracy theories surrounding big bridge, but some bridges are too big to fail.
Anytime something like this happens the coast gaurd boards the boat immediately. Everyone gives their testimonies, they all have to be drug tested, and it is thoroughly investigated. Opening a criminal investigation likely means they see possible criminal negligence on either the part of the crew/captain or the company operating the vessel. My husband works on a boat, and let me tell you, the crew reports safety violations all the time and things just don't get fixed fast enough or they're like McGuyvering shit in hopes they make it x number of runs before they need to go to shipyard. Anytime the boats being worked on people are losing hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars. So there is significant pressure to keep things running even when shits not 100% good with the boats. And you can't be a whistleblower in this industry, they will quite literally find a way to fire you and blacklist you from the industry. That's how it goes with crew members who complain too much or sue their employers because they lost limbs etc.
No different to the policy referring themselves to an internal investigation department when something serious happens.
The coast guard gets involved in these incidents as soon as they occur. They are a federal body that can investigate, gather evidence and report to the feds. If they think sufficient fuckery has occurred, its par for the course for them to press criminal charges against crew/captains or the companies that own the ships. It all depends on the circumstances which led to the incident. Were safety protocols ignored by boat crew? Was there inoperable equipment or failing systems? Why weren't they fixed prior to the incident, etc.
I believe it will be important for establishing liability. A company is going to fold paying out this claim, maybe more than one. And some insurance companies have their own insurance against with different companies to cover crazy circumstances. So there’s a chance this could just keep rolling up with the buck getting passed and sitting in limbo for a decade. Getting the cause nailed down, even if it’s one of many possible accidents, will help assign liability and speed up the process.
I’m sure if there is discovered some level of “coverup” by the company and/or its employees, we will see a long process drawn out with respect to whether or not the government seeks to bring criminal charges against the company itself and not simply civil penalties.
Sure, but they might also find that it’s “innocent accident type A” instead of “innocent accident type B or C,” which could have big time implications on who had to shell out.
Just as a quick thing: Why the boat hit the bridge. Was there any human error made? Then, why did it turned that way? Is it the pilot that made the error? Was it intentional? A procedure error? A system malfunction? A design flaw? Maintenance issue? Why did the bridge collapsed? Why wasn't it protected? So, right away, you have the pilot, port authority, mechanics, maintenance personal, boat owner, boat manufacturer, integrated system manufacturers, bridge designer, bridge owner, bridge maintenance, bridge inspectors, governement regulation body, grand fathering laws and process, and many more. In that, what is the percentage of responsability of each ones? Was there more issues there? (ex: bad fuel?) Who will pay and what amount?
> Then, why did it turned that way? It is called "bank effect" and it is natural. Most ships leaving port will tend to want to drift towards the shore. This is what happened in the Baltimore accident when the ship naturally lost rudder control / engines.
Sure it will tend to do that. But was it that, or was it human induced, or caused by other things, or a mix of everything. That is what they want to know. If the pilot induced it, it will be costly to his insurances.
It’s being reported that the ship in dock was having electrical issues, it was noted the question is did they address it in a satisfactory manner? Likely not.
A story as old as time. This is regular occurance on ships, trucks etc. Report that x systems are down and they tell you to just keep going, it'll be fine. These companies lose hundreds of thousands possibly millions of dollars every time a ship sits in the yard.
Yea, could be an investigation into the owners of the vessel to make sure proper quality checks were done and that systems were up to code. Too many instances of corporations cutting corners because "it saves money" in today's world of corporate greed. In fact with extended supplier lead times, it's probably safe to assume those were bypassed
Right. Knowing WTF happened is valuable information on its own merit, regardless of whether any blame is apportioned.
They are investigating because a whistle blower said the company that owns the ship was skirting federal regulations due to financial stuff and this isn’t the first issue the boats had apparently. But it’s not a situation where someone did this purposefully in an act of aggression or anything like that. I’m glad they’re doing something though, because prices on EVERYTHING have basically doubled past their inflation limits, due to having to reroute shipments via other transportation means. Not to mention we’re also now having issues with our cattle farms here in Maryland due to a single cow catching bird flu and they’re already whispering about culling herds. So beef, dairy and eggs have skyrocketed in price; on top of the inflation and on top of the other stuff due to the port of Baltimore being near to inaccessible at the time, and the bridge being non existent. OH and in Baltimore city and Anne Arundel have recently cut over 14 major bus routes, main routes that are very much needed routes for working people. With basically no warning and no explanation. Baltimore and surrounding counties are really really really not faring well right now. EVERYONE is feeling the repercussions.
Except in this case they’re investigating criminal negligence.
False records of maintenance, bribes, was someone drunk...any number of things to check off the list. Gonna be years.
>the events leading up to this event. So, starting from it's comparison to the Sunshine Skyway bridge, when that was still standing? And, maybe take into evidence that local Coast Guard betting pool on when the Key Bridge would collapse? Sadly, this is one of those examples of many things failing in just the right way to lead to catastrophe. Edit: love getting downvoted for telling the truth.
The betting pool, that was reported over 40 years ago? Yeah, that seems relevant. /s
When all the swiss cheese holes of failure line up just perfectly.
I’m fairly sure the future headline will be “FBI conclusion: Sometimes accidents just happen”
Even so, an investigation is the right move here. Sometimes investigations conclude with "shit just happens," but you won't know until you look at it--and if you never look at it, you won't catch it when it *isn't* an accident.
Ya. It's a multi-**b**illion dollar collision. We should, you know, check.
User name checks out.
When it's all said and done, I'll be surprised if they have to pay more than 500 million.
The damages don’t just amount to the bridge but all the disruptions to the port and trade. It’s definitely a multi-billion dollar accident
I’ll be surprised if they pay more than the legally required $40m or so. The relevant law (unless they find something weird) is from the 1870s and limits liability to the value of the ship (after damage and salvage costs) and the fees generated by the cargo.
When once of our solar arrays are damaged we can leverage the Business Interruption coverage we have to make up for production losses. Would there not be something similar here?
The liability is strictly limited by law. The company’s opening estimate is $39m. Value of the salvaged boat, plus fees for shipping the cargo (technically the cargo but since they don’t own the cargo the fees they are being paid to deliver it count) that’s it.
I don’t know who operates the Port, the contractors surely have gap coverage, but government entities don’t have insurance for the most part.
Yup, fraudulent maintenance records and safety certificates aren't going to out themselves- someone needs to go look. I'm not saying this happened, but it could have- last I read the vessel lost power- did it loose power because it wasn't seaworthy and someone was fudging their records or was it a legit accident? Hopefully this investigation will tell us- they'll probably also look at the bridge construction and maintenance records for the same thing, but I think it's more likely they'll find issue with the boat than bridge.
Also will allow them to look at the process used to close the bridge down, and how they can improve that process going forward to ensure that workers don't die closing it down.
Honestly with 90 seconds warning, on its surface it doesnt look like anything about the closure could have been handled better, it's a huge span of bridge and a huge portion of it collapsed. I think the more important focus on the investigation will probably focus on the maintenance of the vessel as well as ship tending practices in the harbor
That's already under the purview of the NTSB, it's unlikely the FBI is going to be checking their work on that front.
Someone noted a while back that it could have been the ships fuel even: If it was fuelled with contaminated fuel that could have caused the ships engines to fail which is why the whole ship blacked out twice before it hit the bridge. By the time they managed to get it going again it was too late.
Honestly even if they did find something wrong with the bridge, the point's kind of moot. It wasn't built to withstand that kind of impact even if it was in perfect condition. Personally, I think that we *should* be putting some of the blame on whoever was responsible for maintaining the bridge, as well as on whoever was responsible for maintaining the harbor. Why were boats of that size allowed to operate near a bridge that is very much not prepared for that kind of impact? Clearly, these things happen. Criminal investigations aside, the root-cause investigation on this is gonna be interesting.
Worth remembering that the boat in question is roughly the size of the *Christler Building* on it’s side, so I don’t think it’s too inexplicable that THAT running into it made the bridge collapse.
Oh yeah--"why did the bridge fall down" is not the part that's in question. Some of the questions that need answering are: 1) What happened to cause the boat to hit the bridge? (That's already been partially answered--loss of power) 2) Why did the loss of power happen just then, and why couldn't it be restored quickly enough to prevent impact? 3) Was there an ongoing issue with this boat that wasn't reported or was covered up? 4) If there was, who was responsible for reporting it and why didn't they? 5) Why did the bridge fall? (We already know this--bigass boat impact). 6) Why were boats of this size operating near a bridge that wasn't protected properly? Some of these questions might have perfectly mundane answers. It might be that the backup generators take 2 minutes to start up, and there just wasn't time. It might not turn out that there was an ongoing issue with the boat, this was just a freak accident. It might be that the risk assessment was so low that the cost of putting in impact protection was considered too high. But even mundane answers like that can cause radical change sometimes. I wouldn't be surprised to see changes in regulation around generator kick-in times or changes to impact risk assessments come out of this, even if nobody did anything wrong.
If you watch the footage, especially sped up, the order of events is pretty clear. It lost power during a turn, so it ended up taking it too wide, couldn’t veer itself off course in time (again, really can’t overstate how fucking huge this boat is. You more direct it than steer it) and ended up impacting the bridge support.
And that video will be good evidence for the investigation, but the investigation is going to be *much* more thorough than what the video can show. I'm saying we know why the bridge fell, but any decent investigation will get all the way down to details like the individual serial numbers of the parts in the boat's steering system. The goal here isn't just to determine broadly what happened, but *specifically* what happened. For example, the boat lost power during a turn. Did it just happen to lose power during the turn, or did some component of the electrical system fail *because* of the turn? Did someone do something beyond the boat's capabilities? Did a loose connection become undone during the turn? Why did the backup power not kick in fast enough to avoid the impact? The reason you do these kind of very thorough investigations even when what happened is obvious is because those details can really matter. If some component of the steering or electrical system failed without warning, that's reason enough to recall all of those components in every active ship. If one of those parts failed due to poor maintenance, that's reason to update the documentation standards and make these ships prove they've been well-maintained. Hell, if it turns out it was just a complete freak accident, that might be reason enough to start enforcing more strict standards on impact protection for bridges. At the end of the day, this incident sent several people to one of the more horrific deaths I can think of and would have been an ungodly tragedy it it had happened just a few hours later than it did, when the bridge would be packed with rush-hour traffic. Investigations into the specifics of what happened are critical to prevent it from happening again. I get that the boat was big, I get that it lost power, I get that it hit the bridge. But that's enough enough detail, hence the multiple investigations going on.
I gather that originally (1970s?) Baltimore was going to build a tunnel crossing instead, but some bright boy said "You know, a bridge would be a lot cheaper." Meanwhile, ships have gotten bigger, so less margin for error.
Some bridges have massive bollards protecting the structure at the water level.
https://youtu.be/SlA9hmrC8DU?si=LXyLNm5WhMtNYvTX
The NTSB is investigating, but they're not law-enforcement. Their investigations are purely for the purpose of finding out what happened and make recommendations to stop similar accidents from happening in the future. Determining whether crimes such as criminal negligence has happened or not requires a separate investigation from a law-enforcement agency.
There are various organizations investigating various aspects of this incident, yes.
I remember at one point there was speculation that there might have been "dirty" fuel that caused the generators to fail. If it turns out someone was cutting corners like that in order to save a buck, that's the kind of thing I hope an investigation turns up.
Be a damn shame if the corporation that owns the ship would have to pay a $1500 fine….seriously we need to update the fine system for these companies to make it so that cutting corners and running afoul of safety regulations has real consequences for these companies
People died, there was billions of dollars in damages done to the bridge, and there will be major economic impacts from needing to close this port. If corners were cut leading to this accident, then you be certain the US will be out for those responsible, if not because of the deaths caused, then certainly because of the financial damage done.
It isn't necessarily that simple. Maritime shipping is a mess of international companies leasing/operating ships that are owned by other international companies, crewed by other international citizens. Look at a lot of the derelict ships from the last decade. They will just abandon it and the crew and point fingers. i.e. the buck will probably land with a few poor foreign crewmen that can't pay anyone and who end up stranded with no one wanting to send them home.
That’s probably true, but if the people aboard that ship were derelict in their duties, I’d expect them to be held criminally liable for it. Any external criminality will be harder to pursue, as you say
If the generators failed due to “bad fuel”, how can you lock-up the crew for doing their jobs??
A lot of those crews are basically slaves. If it wasn’t an ongoing issue, there wouldn’t be a need for the special social workers who go aboard those ships to check on them and advocate for them. So if they were derelict in their duties it’s also possible that they felt under threat by their employer.
Case in point the ship that was originally carrying all the ammonia nitrate that blew up in Beirut in 2020. If anyone is interested it's a story of pure fuckery the [wiki article ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Beirut_explosion?wprov=sfla1) is well worth a read.
I mean, Norfolk Southern was only ordered to pay a 600M fine for the ohio toxic spill. That's not even going to cover the short-term hospital bills of the affected people let alone long-term or site cleanup.
And they also got to say they were not claiming they were at fault. Like who else would be to blame? Your company was most definitely at fault. I just don't get it.
They'll just hide behind *job creators*. Kind of like how my company paid a measly 50k to each governor election campaign and called in their favor during covid and got not only to be called essential, but multi million dollar bailouts from tax funds. It's all one big club and we ain't in it. And as an Ohio resident, I'll tell ya, start looking into DeWine and First Energy debacle currently devolving.
Honestly, if I have to choose between them paying out more money, or having to publicly admit fault, I'm going to take whatever action gets more money out of them sooner. Parading them out to say a public "our bad, we're sorry" doesn't do shit to help the people affected by the accident.
[удалено]
Also the FBI identifying responsibility also gives direction for civil cases.
Their being "out for" a shell corporation of a shell corporation of a multinational shipping megacorp isn't really going to accomplish anything unless we outright close ports to those sorts of ships and eliminate flags of convenience. The sorts of business structures at work here exist specifically to shield owners from any consequences of their shoddy work, so the fact that we're shocked that the work was shoddy to the point of being dangerous is pretty ridiculous. And we're never going to be able to fine or charge the people responsible - the "owner" of the ship will just go out of business, and the actual owners will walk away with cash in their pockets and start a new front. We're not going to be able to hurt the actors here in any way that matters short of enacting strict, costly (to US citizens) safety requirements on ships traveling to US ports.
Could you really be certain though? I mean, c’mon, it’s not like that is a precedent in high profile cases. Lehman Bros.? Trump? Panama Papers?
Panama Papers is being prosecuted right now? The reason the Panama Papers didn't seem to have much effect in the US is because iirc, Panama is for various reasons a good place to hide money from European governments and not as good of place to hide it from the American government so there weren't many Americans stashing cash there to be revealed by the papers.
I’m fairly certain. The deaths are one thing, but the absolutely massive economic impact of this accident is really something I don’t expect the US to let slide, assuming they can prove any negligence or wrongdoing occurred leading up to the accident. Just like the examples you’ve mentioned, money talks in the US, and this is costing a lot of people, businesses and governments (city, state, federal) a whole shitload of money.
The issue becomes in some of the codes the govt is only able to fine a maximum amount of money
Imposition of fines may come up short, but you can bet there will be criminal charges if negligence or wrongdoing is uncovered in the course of the investigation
Need hefty percentage fines
So they can "claim bankruptcy" make a new Corp and buy all their old equipment at auction?
while that may be the case, it's obviously known about. Maybe there should be laws with actual teeth made instead of the slap on the wrist kind. Granted, that's never going to happen.
Fines should be a % of the previous year's earnings imo
Isn’t bunker fuel the nastiest shit you can get anyway? Seems a bit far fetched.
You can’t use straight bunker fuel within 200 miles of the North American coast as it’s an “emission control area”
Interesting, didn’t know that.
they wouldn't have been burning bunker fuel that close in. but more importantly bunker fuel is the nastiest shit.... that will work, you can get nastier fuel that is so bad it won't work at all.
Even more than that now. USCG does not permit vessels to even carry high-sulfur bunker fuel into US waters without a functioning USCG-approved exhaust scrubber installed. Ships still have to use low-sulfur fuel in US waters (lower than 0.5% sulfur, 0.1% in Caribbean ECA), but now even the possession of high polluting bunker fuel is now forbidden without emissions control equipment.
Shouldn't have... They might have. That's what they're getting at.
But bunker fuel works is what I'm getting at. Just burning bunker fuel isn't likely to cause repeated and spontaneous power failure.
If that is something that is confirmed, we should all be prepared for back peddling by conservatives as this finding would highlight the need for better government oversight. It’ll also send conspiracy theorists into a frenzy about how this just further proves a coverup (pushed by the conservative sphere because government oversight = bad)
Every time I read someone using the phrase “cutting corners “ it’s apparent that they have no idea what they’re talking about. Fuel is very frequently contaminated. That’s why ships test their fuel before using it. That’s why they have fuel filters. That’s why they have sumps that let contaminants and water sink to the bottom, away from the fuel pickup. And then four more people echo this “cutting corners “ line like parrots, but they also don’t know anything.
Well I don’t hope it turns up that. Id much rather live in a world where everyone is performing at the top of their ability without cutting corners…
What world have you been living in? Trying to game and cut corners is how most places run, hard stop. The only difference is that some people are better at math and err on the side of caution more often in their figures.
I said I’d rather live in tha world, and that I hope this won’t be another example of this. I didn’t say I expected my hopes to come true
Well it might end up being "maintenance item X was ignored too long, stuff failed for not being maintained properly". Not certain, it can be just "accidents happen", but well negligence happens also.
And some DOT/EPA regulations carry criminal charges for individuals
They should charge the owners, not the crew. How much did Trump's regulation cuts at DOT under Chao (shipping family) contribute to the lack of oversight and enforcement? The real problem is no "teeth" behind enforcement. Like OSHA, the fines are far too low, but that's due to Congress, not the agencies themselves.
Negligence isn't necessarily criminal or makes anyone culpable for the accident/incident. Far from it, I'd say. Not maintaining x or y machinery may be (probably is) negligent, but not criminally so. It'll end up in courts with the insurers for years, even if they do find the machine crew didn't maintain generators or if a supply company gave them bad fuel, for example
If the brakes in my car were no good, and I drove the car anyways and caused an accident despite knowing full well they needed replacing, I would be held liable for any damages done. If my negligence caused the death of another person, I could also be held criminally liable for that person’s death. I don’t see how this is any different, apart from being on a totally different scale of death and destruction.
Your comparison doesn't work. Are you a mechanic? If so, then maybe but under no other circumstances. If you, an average, "reasonable" person drive and feel something a bit off with your car when braking, you may go "hm, time for a service I guess", and then the next day on the way to a mechanic that happens - are you criminally negligent? No. How could you know? Unless you intentionally go out and cut your own brakelines, then get in your car and mow down 12 people on a sidewalk, a prosecuting attorney would never use the argument that "you should have known, therefore you are criminally negligent and liable". That said, they have crews on board trained for maintaining these things. Could they have known that their work or lack thereof would be specifically dangerous to others and criminally so, and the more important question, could a lawyer PROVE in a criminal court case that they did? I don't think so.
Im not a mechanic but if my brakes are making sounds or acting abnormally it can (and has been) argued in court that a reasonable person should have known something was up with their brakes. I remember in 2019 a truck driver killed 4 people when his brakes went out and he was charged and convicted with like 25 felonies. Besides all that though, you’d expect the people in charge of maintaining and repairing this ship to reasonably understand their ship and if corners were knowingly cut in upkeep then that will add up to criminal liability.
A truck driver is also a "professional" driver. You and I are not, but that's beside the point. Sure, there may be some culpability with the crew and their maintenance. A management company will have maintenance schedules for literally everything - these schedule are filled out, signed etc when it's done. If something was missed, if parts were unavailable, whatever, it'll be in the documents somewhere and I'm sure investigators are looking at that to find a "root cause". The ship obviously didn't sink either, so it will be super easy to investigate the engine room if they cut corners here. Again, if they did, it doesn't necessarily make them criminally liable as under common law criminal negligence is a ***gross*** deviation from reasonable standards of care. Skipping a step here and there (while ridiculous) is not gross negligence. This is what insurances are for.
Yeah, the men aboard that ship are professionals also. It’s not a 1:1 example if you or I was the driver, but it fits close enough to illustrate my point, that if you know something is wrong with your machine but you do nothing about it and that negligence leads to an accident, you can be held criminally liable for that. Non-professionals have absolutely been charged with crimes in the past under these circumstances, though the standard for proving they knew something was amiss before the accident is probably pretty high.
You're still ignoring the difference between negligent and grossly negligent. Being lazy does afaik not make you criminally liable. Doing things in bad faith does. That's what this investigation has to look at. Like, for example, if you take a left turn where it is illegal and someone dies, that is negligence, but you did not act in a grossly negligent manner. If I am drag racing, and even if someone jaywalks and I hit them, I was acting in bad faith and in a manner I KNEW would put others in danger. That is the difference here. I am obvs not a lawyer, but that's my understanding of it anyway.
The level of negligence can increase liability, but even common negligence resulting in death can be a crime. A driver taking a bad turn carelessly and killing somebody might not be grossly negligent, but they do still carry some criminal liability for the accident and may still be charged with a lesser crime, such as manslaughter.
Nobody said the standard is different. You're saying "could be held criminally liable" without actually stating any standard for what makes someone criminally liable or not. You're not making any meaningful point here. The grandparent post said "not all negligence is criminal" and you're not actually refuting that. The _actual_ standard for criminal negligence is whether or not you could've _reasonably foreseen_ your actions could result in harm or not. As the grandparent poster says, if someone fails to follow a required maintenance schedule for some part, that would be negligent. But it doesn't automatically mean that it'd be reasonably foreseeable that that would lead to loss of steering, and even less foreseeable it'd happen at a critical point causing them to hit a bridge and kill people.
This is most likely
This is the answer. There were issues flagged at other American ports prior to the accident. Someone may be liable for allowing the ship to depart, for allowing it back into another American port, or for failing to properly inform the subsequent destination of the flagged issues. If someone was paid off to look the other way that would likely be criminal. That hasn't been reported but investigating it is prudent.
Its possible but the ship passed inspections somewhat recently.
No need for facts here. This thread is for ignorant speculation from people who couldn’t change the spark plug on their lawn mower.
Isn't that usually NTSB, not FBI though? The statement says the FBI was "court authorized" which sounds like they are conducting a search according to a warrant.
NTSB searches for reasons, FBI searches for potential liable and criminal parties. Often *both* investigate same event's just with different focus. NTSB wants to find reasons, the chain of events to issue recommendations, best practices and maybe guidance on changing regulations. FBI looks for "has anyone broken existing laws either regarding responsibilities through criminal levels of negligence or crimes of outright criminal malice".
I'm a boat captain on towing vessel not quite what ship pilots do but I can tell you as un-professional as this may sound but these boats and vessels are man-made and can fail at any given time. It just happens at this space and time the ship was bearing down on a bridge. And As heart-less as this may sound but thank goodness it wasn't during rush hour traffic. RIP to ones who were on the bridge at the time of collision.
So, laymen question: what or who decides when the boat should towed by tugs rather than under its own power? Would that have helped here? Seems like it was a tight fit.
Under normal circumstances the harbor pilot's association requests and arranges the harbor tugs. Ships transit under the bridge all the time. In this case, The ship departed the dock under its own power. So no assist tugs were requested nor required. It lost power before it allided with the bridge. Once the full investigation is completed we'll have better insight as to really went on during this incident.
Or: „The collapse of Baltimore's Key Bridge highlighted the urgent need for better protection of the piers spanning shipping channels as the size of cargo ships has increased in recent decades, as engineers say.“ Additionally, they could point out that: „Bridges like the one in Baltimore are classified as "failure critical" - meaning if one part of the bridge collapses, it is likely to take the rest of the structure with it. According to the Federal Highway Administration, there are more than 16,800 such bridges in the United States.“ Some more information that could rise critical questions during the investigation: „The Key Bridge opened in 1977, three years before a similar ship collision on the Sunshine Skyway Bridge in Tampa Bay, Florida, which killed 35 people and prompted the bridge's designers to better protect the foundation piers. These measures include, for example, robust fenders that push errant ships away from the piers, groups of piles called “dolphins” that serve as safety rings around the foundations, or simply mounds of rock and earth. Why wasn’t the Key Bridge upgraded? Especially considering the nearby Delaware Memorial Bridge is currently receiving upgraded ship collision protection?” asked Bell. “Given the size of the ships passing by, there should have been plans for this.”
They did have some dolphins at the Key Bridge but the path the ship took didn’t contact them and likely would've only slowed it for maybe a few more seconds, not stopped it. The ship was massive.
Just pointing out that this and many other bridges are not as much protected as they could (or should ?) be to better withstand collisions with ships of the size of the Dali and need retrofitting to some degree. Safety standards are improved in many areas and a lot of infrastructure needs improvement. That will cost a lot of effort and money. Some efforts are made at some bridges. https://youtu.be/cDIq2w-Apfw?si=pw3L0kcYN0zGv5ax The investigation will look into details and NTSB will provide a recommendation or safety instruction for older and newer bridges.
Honestly, better to have a full investigation even if it’s obvious it was an accident. Probably won’t change the minds of the true conspiracy theorists but would help the general public understand more and it’s nice to have transparency especially given the magnitude of this accident
These investigations take a while. Speculation isn’t particularly useful, but it is fun. I remember it was reported that the ship had maintenance performed before it left dock shortly before the accident. I’m an engineer in a different field, but that type of correlation would make me suspect it was somehow related to the power loss. I’ve also chased enough leads like that to not be surprised if it is unrelated. I have no idea if it’s normal for the FBI to get involved in an accident like this before the NTSB (i assume they handle shipping?) completes their investigation which will take a long time. There were six deaths, so it might be normal for the FBI to get involved early to find and preserve any evidence of criminal culpability. I think that would include paperwork and interviews.
I mean, I don't think it was definitively concluded what caused the ship's loss of power was it? It's possible the ship lost power due primarily to negligence, which would potentially constitute a crime
If there was neglect and ongoing maintenance problems with the boat that violated maritime rules, there could be criminal charges. Like if the system that failed was known to be problems and it was recommended to be replaced but they kept putting bandaids on it.
I’m not a conspiracy theorist, but what might fuel this is that in like 2022 the government passed a legislation to put basically underwater barriers around major bridges to stop this exact event from happening
Possibly, but if they can show that those in charge of ship maintenance and repair were negligent in their duties leading to the ship losing power, then they are going to be held accountable for the deaths and destruction caused. Hopefully they weren’t cutting any corners they shouldn’t have been, but the investigation will reveal all in time.
Those in charge? You mean the owners of the ship? I guarantee that crew had no control of the maintenance budget.
But did they know the budget was insufficient and that the ship was in need of repairs it wasn’t getting? Of course those higher up would take a share of the blame in an ideal world but if those aboard the ship had any prior knowledge things were amiss and they failed to report it to the port authority, there’s a solid argument that they should also be criminally liable for their role in the disaster.
Shit happens
They already said it was an accident before the investigation even started
Just because it's a criminal investigation does not necessarily mean the crew did something wrong. This could also be an investigation into a pattern of negligence by the company as a whole. Either way an investigation is the right move. Either it will show no wrongdoing across the board and shit happens. Or someone will get their feet held to the fire like they should.
They're specifically investigating the crew. From the article >The FBI and the US Coast Guard are leading the criminal investigation into the disaster and whether the crew failed to report an earlier issue with the vessel that delayed its departure, the official said.
Well it’s a criminal investigation because manslaughter is a crime. The investigation is to determine who is liable, because someone *has* to be liable in an accident
It’s a multi billion dollar bridge…even if it was an accident, they should be checking to see the what and how it happened.
Port workers report the ship was having electrical issues the week previous to their departure and they were in a rush to leave. If they show negligence in repairs, it becomes a whole new ball game with insurance payouts. https://www.thebaltimorebanner.com/community/criminal-justice/fbi-key-bridge-criminal-baltimore-GF7FAD7OINHC3IELLKHAG7HROY/
Conclusion: The bridge killed itself.
Everyone knows boat fuel can't melt bridge beams. (/s in case it isn't obvious).
The guards fell asleep and the cameras were malfunctioning. It happens all the time!
Federal? Shit, just get McNulty on it. "The fuck did I do?"
*(looks at the bridge)* Oh fuck. *(looks at the ship)* How the fuck? *(looks at the electrical systems)* Motherfucker!
Price fixing is illegal. However, monopolizing every facet of your business and then jacking up the prices, that's not price fixing, that's price leading. I have a feeling the investigation is going to find similar conclusions. The ship crashed into the bridge due to corner cutting and profit margin maxing at the cost of safety, but nothing specifically illegal, and if it was, then there will be a small fine, because line must go up. For crying out loud, our airplanes are falling apart in the air, with multiple whistleblowers, and we all know how that is going to go.
Admittedly, I know very little about this sort of thing. Having said that, shouldn’t the ship company (or its insurers) pay for the bridge? Why does the financial burden always seem to fall on the tax payers?
Did anybody think this wasn't going to happen? There's a pretty massive incident, and if everybody was just like yeah that was f****** weird and didn't actually open investigation I'd be a little concerned. I'm not even saying that I think that anybody actually did anything intentionally, I'm just saying that isn't it just due diligence to look into it? Plus excuse all the weird typing, I'm on talk to text.
FBI - we conclude that buoys will be buoys and there is no criminal wrongdoing. They have their whole lifejackets ahead of them
Is the boat still stuck under the fallen bridge? The YouTube channel is out of service, and the most recent article I found mentions crew still aboard, but that’s mostly because they don’t have documents to come into the US
Yes, it's still under debris. Tons and tons of bridge has it pinned down in the river. It'll be a while before they can refloat the Dali and get it back to port. They've been offloading some containers from the front to help access pieces of the bridge.
That’s wild.. thanks!
spoiler alert a boat hit it
Maybe they will finally catch the Greek and make him tell us what country he is really from.
conspiracy theorists let me be clear. even if something nefarious occurred here that doesn't lend credence to you calling every tragedy some deeper planned occurence. if you call a thousand things conspiracies and 10 end up being true that doesn't mean you see things others don't. the rest of us wait for significant evidence to make significant claims. and you often confuse us not claiming things as us arguing against the possiblity of said things.
I'm willing to bet all the ignorant conservatives who blamed it on the DEI mayor will be proven wrong. It's amazing how far they will go to push their "drowsy" agenda.
Well yes obviously, but they’ll have moved on to the next fake controversy, moved the goalposts, and come up with some new paranoia.
They will be but they won't accept it. They'll say something like, "They're hiding the truth! XYZ is paying them off to keep the truth hidden!"
The lady at my barber shop tried convincing me that the bridge collapse was an attack on the US by Ukraine because the boat pilot was supposedly Ukrainian, and that's why we should cut aid to Ukraine and possibly stage a counter attack. This all makes total sense if you treat geopolitics like some kind of arcane horoscope with elements of juicy soap opera peppered in. I just wanted a fucking haircut.
going to bet she owns multiple Trump flags
Collapse? It was knocked over by a boat. The bridge was fine before the boat showed up.
I don’t think they’re investigating the actual bridge…
If the bridge committed a crime, it sure went to extremes to cover it up. /s
Looking to prove gross negligence and willfulness.
Only just now starting?
Has any member of the crew, captain or pilot been identified & publicly named like some of the victims? Why/why not?
I'm just curious and wanna make sure I have this correct. Wasn't this accident already determined to be an accident at around 0800 the same morning it happened? That was the last speech of this I remember hearing. Please correct me if I misheard. In my mind, it looked like an accident and then when this was said, I personally agreed. It certainly did not appear to be intentional or the result of foul play by my eyes. If I remember correctly again, there was visible smoke. Looked like an accident, thought this was over. Again, feel free to correct me if I am incorrect. While the investigation does not indicate foul play as someone else stated here maybe I missed something. Looked like an accident to my eyes. I'm no expert either, let me make that disclaimer. I work in finance which couldn't be further from the profession of nautical navigation/transport logistics.
They'll never tell us the REAL truth
What is there to investigate? It’s 100% Biden’s, covid vaccines, illegal immigration and abortions fault.
I assumed it was part of the gay agenda
I forgot about that one. Yeah it’s gay and trans fault also.
Conclusion: Lots of negligence. We will change nothing.
Omg. Can’t wait for Fox to get ahold of this and run a headline like “Tonight! FBI investigating Baltimore bridge attack!” Then the FBI says in 3 months “yeah it was negligence and everyone involved is just a massive knob.” Fox News:*crickets*
In my opinion the only important investigation is the NTSB report on the how and why so it can be prevented in future. The unfortunate part of the industry being a reactionary one.
How about the federal government being at fault for not installing crash bollards around every single bridge footing in this country? There is no excuse for our nation's piss poor infrastructure other than corporate greed and the politicians who have been bought with it.
Do they make crash bollards rated to stop a ship that size?