This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I don't know that the new charges necessarily obviate the idea that the gun is unsafe. I don't know that the facts have been revealed in enough specificity to have a complete picture, but let's suppose the following happened: The guy threw his holstered gun down on the desk, and contact with the surface caused it to discharge, killing the other guy. The first guy then lied about what happened to investigators, claiming the gun was just sitting on the desk when it went off. Federal law defines involuntary manslaughter as "[T]he commission...without due caution and circumspection, of a lawful act which might produce death".
I don't think it's unreasonable to argue that the careless handling of a loaded firearm in the manner described above qualifies as a lawful act which might produce death performed in an incautious manner. But it's also true that a firearm so handled shouldn't go off accidentally. I would suspect that there will be a civil suit stemming from this, and Sig got lucky that it happened in Wyoming, where juries are stingy, giving the case a decent chance at settlement. But now they're on notice like they've never been before, and unless they recall the gun outright or come up with a fix, no matter how clunky, that absolutely prevents that from happening, they run the risk of having to explain to a Philadelphia jury why that was just too expensive and said jury deciding that trebling that amount is a just way of calculating punitive damages. It's still a tough spot to be in.
From what was revealed, the gun belonged to the guy who was killed after he set it down on the table, aimed at himself.
If we find out it was not the gun of the guy that killed him then who knows what happened. Foul play? Horse play? Total accident?
One should never fling a loaded gun or flag oneself or another to the utmost degree possible.
More options
Context Copy link
More of a legal question than anything, but wouldn’t a recall be a tacit admission of guilt? It seems like it might well be, as you’d have to have an understanding of the mechanism that’s causing the failure so you can replace either the part or replace the gun with a completely different design that removes the offending mechanism.
Great question. Yes, the existence of a recall, while not a tacit admission of guilt, can be used as evidence that a product is defective. But part of taking prudent legal action is knowing when you're beat. On the one side you have a victim, possibly a law enforcement officer, who is seriously injured or worse because a gun went off when it shouldn't have. On the other side you have a company with millions of dollars in military and police contracts insisting that the product is perfectly safe even though the exact same thing has happened several times before and the plaintiff has an expert who can describe the defect and explain to the jury exactly how the accident occurred. Make that argument to the right jury and a 5 million dollar wrongful death verdict balloons into 50 million in punitive damages. If the company hasn't figured it out yet, the jury will help them, and they will keep helping them until they either fix the problem or go out of business.
Do a recall now and it will cost a bundle, but a certain percentage of people will take advantage of the recall (especially considering that a large number of guns are owned by institutional customers), preventing some suits from being filed, and accidents that do result in suits net them some advantages. First, punitive damages are much less of a risk since they took affirmative steps to mitigate the problem. Second, it may reduce the liability if the company can prove that the user was on notice that the product was dangerous and should be modified or discarded, and neglected to take advantage of the recall program, based on a theory of comparative negligence or voluntary assumption of the risk. The downside is that it would cost a hell of a lot of money, but they could theoretically have to do it anyway. If a police department bought a bunch of these and was apprehensive about using them, they could try to sue on a theory of breach of implied warranty. This wouldn't be an easy case, though.
That makes sense. I just wanted a bit of clarification about what the liability situation is. The law can get counterintuitive at times.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I can imagine some recalls are just about adding a redundant safety feature to address perception of a weakness even if the existing safety features already work perfectly. While this is unpleasant for engineer brains, it can be necessary as typically marketing requirements trump engineering purity.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I appreciate the perspective and the time you took to break down the legal aspect. The final report and possible trial will be interesting.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link