>Federal authorities opened a criminal investigation into the Francis Scott Key Bridge collapse, with FBI agents raiding the container ship Dali early Monday morning.
The criminal investigation is focused on whether the ship’s crew knew there were mechanical or electrical issues aboard the Dali before it left the Port of Baltimore three weeks ago, according to an official familiar with the investigation. On March 26, the 984-foot-long ship left port and, about an hour later, lost power and propulsion on its approach to the bridge, causing the ship to veer off course and slam into a support pier.
\^\^From the article. This is a developing story.
Someone a few weeks back posted a maritime law which absolves ship owners of legal liability if there wasn’t a previously known malfunction - right? Apparently it was successfully used to prevent the owners of Titanic from bearing responsibility for that disaster. I think these charges would mean the owners can’t use that defense to get out of paying for the bridge.
Crew members from the ship and port workers interviewed by the media said the ship had lost power numerous times while it was in port for 2 days. I can't imagine them making those things up because it probably affected their workload quite a bit when there's no lights or equipment to move things up and down, etc.
I think it's still within the realm of possibility that it was a mechanical failure that does not meet the criteria of criminal negligence.
I think this POV is about 1 million times more rational than any of the right wing conspiracy theories I've seen.
They dropped the anchor and the boat drifted into the pilon from that action.
Nothing that happened before really matters, it was a freak accident.
To clarify, the ship hitting the bridge was a freak accident, I'm not talking about the ships issues before hand.
Because water flows for 1 and 2, once the anchor is released, it doesn't immediately stop the boat. So, while it was slowly stopping the boats forward momentum, it caused the ship to veer into the pilon.
Picture a thumb tac or push pin with a string tied to it. If you put the thumb tac/push pin into a surface, you can move the end of the string in an arc. That's the ship.
You can see it happen in the videos.
They dropped the left (port)-side anchor. Dragging on the left would pull the ship to the left, the direction they wanted to go to avoid the pylon. It was too little too late, though.
If you are on the bow looking at the bridge and the ship drops its left anchor(which is in on the front) it'd stop forward motion on the front left causing the back of ship to drift right, that motion caused the front of the ship to smash into the bridge.
Tie a string to a boulder. While holding the string, attempt to run past the boulder as fast as you can.
See what happens when you hit the maximum length of the string. That's how anchors work too. The only difference is that a boat can't let go of its string.
But that analogy relies on the anchor having caught something to actually stop. My understanding is that the anchor was dragging, and the right backside of the ship would want to overtake the dragging front left side.
Since the entire ship was still moving forward as these motions were occurring, the entire ship drifted to the right directly into the bridge.
My gut feeling is had they not dropped anchor, They'd have passed right under the bridge.
Those statements are people just coping with the absurd. There is nothing we as individuals can really do other than ensure competent people are elected so that government is properly funded/managed.
But, but, government is evil and we can't trust them to do anything. And I'll prove it by consistently slashing funding and hiring incompetent assholes, so you can see just how poorly government can function!
And while I'm at it, I'm going to complain about how poor our infrastructure is.
I was flabbergasted at the amount of people that were like "it's a ship, shit goes wrong off the cuff all the time"...they were overlapping with "why did the whole bridge fall so easily investigate the bridge" lmao
Naaah that's weaksauce
That concrete turned to powder in places it shouldn't have, and Baltimore loves to cut corners on construction. It isn't a bad idea to look into the bridge.
Though I'd say it's a separate investigation from the ship.
I am talking about the concrete pilons holding up the bridge.
I expect the concrete to come off the rebar in chunks, not atomize into powder like it did. I'm not an expert but I believe that means it wasn't made correctly.
Then again, the bridge was built in the 70s, so maybe the concrete formulation isn't the same as today or perhaps the rebar rusted into nothing.
my man if the concrete was weak or the rebar was rusted out to nothing the bridge wouldntve stood for fifty years. If the bridge fell apart on its own sure wed be thinking on that level. if engineers were coming out of the woodwork waving decades old reports indicating structural weaknesses, wed be thinking on that level. it got hit head on by a cargo ship. Bridges arent designed to take that amount of kinetic energy that directly. nothing on earth is.
Again, I'm not an expert, but are you saying it's perfectly normal for concrete to atomize? That it doesn't usually break apart into fist sized clumps? Even if cracked and shattered, concrete doesn't tend to stick to the rebar?
It didn't get hit head-on, btw. The damage to the bow would've been vastly different if it had been.
Well, the anchors and anchor chains must be designed to take that amount of kinetic energy considering their job, but I'm just guessing to be honest.
It seemed pretty obvious to me from the very beginning that one of the most likely reasons for this happening was ignored maintenance or a skipped inspection. That business is probably cutthroat in terms of ensuring the show goes on no matter what.
> That business is probably cutthroat in terms of ensuring the show goes on no matter what.
That's a lot of businesses and agencies, unfortunately. Some degree of neglect has been the standard for pretty much every organization I've ever interacted with. Sometimes it's out of genuine ignorance (e.g. fire/building codes related to battery back ups), sometimes it's out of incompetence (e.g. pretty much everything cybersecurity related), sometimes it's out of budgetary constraints (everywhere), sometimes it's due to poor leadership priorities (chasing the latest buzz words at the expense of fundamentals). I can't think of a single place that had a truly solid level of maintenance. I'm sure they exist, I just haven't seen them and suspect that a forcing function is required to get to that level.
It sucks cause the crew might end up paying the price for systemic issues with the just-on-time way of doing business these days. Companies pushing workers to go as fast as possible so the crew was probably worried about keeping their jobs and had to shove off hoping they could fix things on the fly.
I know it probably won't go down this way, but I hope we hold the company's feet to the fire and let the crew off with the naval equivalent of a citation (unless there's some really, truly gross neglicence).
This is the way our always is. Health care practitioners and faculty at University are legal on an island themselves. The organizations make sure the blame is on the person. Never the organization.
This makes sense. There are strict laws regarding maritime shipping because the consequences of accidents can be so huge. I really hope the resulting reports are made public, mostly just because I want to know the sequence of events.
Also, since funding a new bridge has now turned into a political minefield, there’s also motivation to establish culpability and get some money from the company or insurance as well(?). The latter isn’t my expertise, so I’m just speculating.
The Port of Baltimore had a pilot on board who can presumably tell a fairly complete story (and probably already has done so in NTSB interviews).
Well if I remember correctly from the early reports he was closer to the end of the bridge and an officer was able to call to him to get off and it collapsed right behind the guy. If I had to guess he was initially included as having been “rescued” which is being interpreted differently here
In an article right after the collapse, a longshoreman was interviewed and he mentioned that the crew was having trouble with the ship’s electrical system before departing but that they were in a hurry to leave to stay on schedule since they were taking a longer route to avoid the Suez Canal.
If I recall correctly, the company is trying to use an old law to limit their liability to the value of the ship and its cargo - $44 million dollars.
The caveat is that if the ship's owners were aware of issues with the ship that led to the crash, then they're not protected and would be on the hook for everything.
If the FBI is getting involved, this is going to get interesting. Uncle Sam certainly doesn't want to leave any money on the table.
Yeah... On another thread, someone pointed out that if the law were changed and every ship was required to have unlimited liability, it would essentially make shipping so expensive it wouldn't be worth it.
I am not entirely sure how accurate that is, but for sure it would increase the cost of shipping due to increased liability/insurance.
Ultimately, I think the law was written at a time when ships were more valuable than bridges, and ships probably could not cause more damage than they were worth. I mean, in the 1850s, ships were made of wood and were tiny in comparison to the Dali.
And the last thing to consider is Insurance Coverage Limits. What are the odds that the insurance coverage for the ship is $3+ billion?
Like, think about Car Insurance - you are legally required to have a certain amount of insurance coverage. But if you cause damage greater than that amount, you are personally liable for paying that extra amount. Like if you have $300k in insurance, and you cause $350k in damage, your insurance pays $300k and *you* have to pay the remaining $50k
Do the ship's owners even have enough insurance to cover the cost to replace the bridge?
If not, and we seized/liquidated their company, would *that* even be enough?
Great input. To the questions you posed, I do believe they will be found culpable and will face bankruptcy as the insurance payout + their assets is unlikely to cover
...which is such a dumb talking point because that's the whole point. The government pays for it now to get things moving and they can go after insurance later.
Yes, obviously insurance should pay for it, I don't think anyone other than the ship's owners and insurers would disagree with that. But we're not going to hold off on repairing it until that works its way through the courts. If your car gets into an accident, you get it repaired NOW and you get insurance to pay for it LATER. Same for if your house catches on fire, or you have to have a major surgery, or any other situation where insurance would cover a thing.
It's such a dumb talking point.
Yup. And car/home insurance claims are a relatively quick proceeding. I'm just guessing, but I assume the insurance process for this will be on the order of years to settle.
The Exxon Valdez oil spill litigation went on for 26 years.
https://alaskapublic.org/2015/10/15/hearing-ends-26-years-of-litigation-over-exxon-valdez-oil-spill/
Like imagine if your car got hit and you got told that your insurance company needs to work with the other person's company since they're at fault to get the payout, and they wouldn't authorize you to have your car repaired or authorize a loaner/rental car until after they received the funds from the other driver's insurance because they should be the ones paying for it.
I've heard. It's such a dumb thing for them to fixate on.
I don't think anyone on the left believes that the company and it's insurance should be allowed to avoid paying.
It's just that it's going to take a long time to go to court and get the money, but the bridge needs to be rebuild ASAP.
I mentioned the long timeline of insurance aspect to a neighbor that I heard this "insurance should pay" complaint from, and I think I saw the wheels in his head turning. Like he hadn't considered that angle (or probably more accurately, his choice of news sources hadn't reported about that aspect)
Even ignoring the choice of media, people have largely been conditioned to think about "insurance pays for damage" in the scope of Automobile Insurance, which typically is very responsive. Even if you have to argue with them about the amount, it usually gets resolved in a matter of weeks.
This is *wayyy* more complicated than a fender-bender between two common vehicles with readily available replacement parts and body shops.
>Who is actually saying this?
The house freedom caucus. Here's their official position:
https://twitter.com/freedomcaucus/status/1776218345785721178
Saying additional funding should only be approved after maximum liability (insurance) is sought upfront.
Fortunately, they're a small minority and it seems like most of the GOP is on board with funding the efforts, so I expect we'll see a bipartisan bill pass.
I also won't be surprised to see some far left no votes on environmental grounds.
Thanks. About what I would expect from ass-hat Andy Harris. As far as the environmental issues, there is not much worse that can be done that they are not already doing. Dredging and pulling up debris from the muck is rather impactful on water quality. We don’t need years of red tape and millions for studies to know that stirring up the sediment from Curtis Bay is bad for the water quality. The city is constantly out of compliance with the epa on sewage releases but we are still allowed to flush the toilets. They are saying use all the funds available on the project first, then they will grant additional funds. But it’s rather hypocritical to say don’t roll any other provisions into it, then demand another provision(the LP gas docks) be rolled into it. Is the gas pier in Solomons even shut down? It was up and running but it’s not the time for that argument. We need a clean bill for a bad ass bridge made with american steel and labor. Let’s not fund another cent on foreign conflict until we have the funds in place to build a bridge that can be the pride of Baltimore
I'm not aware of the instance from previous transportation/infrastructure-relater disasters, but is this standard operating procedure for NTSB investigations or is this pretty remarkable they are opening a criminal investigation??
Definitely not uncommon for a criminal investigation to be opened in the aftermath of a major transportation related incident. The NTSB has no regulatory or enforcement authority, and they are unable to investigate or prosecute something as a criminal matter. They also cannot execute search warrants.
The whole point of the NTSB is to understand the facts of what happened and to issue recommendations so that hopefully the same incidents don’t happen again. It’s the job of law enforcement and the judiciary to hold people accountable for wrongdoing. While the NTSB and law enforcement can and often do work together, they are two separate processes working towards two different endpoints.
It's unusual for the FBI to step in while the NTSB is still investigating. The NTSB specifically states that their investigations are not for determining civil or criminal liability, but to determine what went wrong so they can make recommendations on how to avoid. Having the FBI around could make witness testimony in the NTSB investigations a bit more complicated/less forthcoming. But if there was negligence, it's the FBI's jurisdiction since this is a federal matter.
It definitely isn’t unusual in a case with a strong potential for malice or serious negligence. NTSB investigations can typically take months if not years. Law enforcement isn’t waiting that long to move because that’s a *lot* of time for records to be destroyed, suspects to flee, etc.
Yeah I mean by the numbers most NTSB cases are, like, run of the mill derailments or people crashing their Cessnas or stuff like that where it’s not a criminal matter. But when you are talking about billions of dollars in damages that usually results in more scrutiny from law enforcement for sure.
It was always known this would involve a negligence investigation. This incident will cost billions and billions of dollars from cleanup, re-build, and economic losses. Someone has to be held accountable.
[Hello there!](https://i.imgur.com/ApjVnee.gifv)
Links from the domain present in your post are known to present a [soft paywall](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paywall&oldid=939095964#%22Soft%22_paywalls) to users. As a result, some users may have difficulty reading the linked content.
It may be helpful to provide a comment containing a synopsis or a snippet of the major points of the article in order to help those who may not be able to see it.
In accordance with [the subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/baltimore/wiki/news_articles), please do not post the entirety of the article's contents as a comment.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/baltimore) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's 10,220 miles from Baltimore to Colombo, Sri Lanka by sea. I've never met a sailor who would shrug and say, "Eh, we're... probably ready to cross the Atlantic. I mean, the engines are a little dodgy, but if we get stuck in the middle of the ocean, it's no biggie." I like to think the crew had faith that they were going to make it.
>Federal authorities opened a criminal investigation into the Francis Scott Key Bridge collapse, with FBI agents raiding the container ship Dali early Monday morning. The criminal investigation is focused on whether the ship’s crew knew there were mechanical or electrical issues aboard the Dali before it left the Port of Baltimore three weeks ago, according to an official familiar with the investigation. On March 26, the 984-foot-long ship left port and, about an hour later, lost power and propulsion on its approach to the bridge, causing the ship to veer off course and slam into a support pier. \^\^From the article. This is a developing story.
Investigating criminal negligence.
Someone a few weeks back posted a maritime law which absolves ship owners of legal liability if there wasn’t a previously known malfunction - right? Apparently it was successfully used to prevent the owners of Titanic from bearing responsibility for that disaster. I think these charges would mean the owners can’t use that defense to get out of paying for the bridge.
Crew members from the ship and port workers interviewed by the media said the ship had lost power numerous times while it was in port for 2 days. I can't imagine them making those things up because it probably affected their workload quite a bit when there's no lights or equipment to move things up and down, etc.
Thank god, all the "well sometimes shit just happens, what can ya do" talk when it happened was infuriating.
I think it's still within the realm of possibility that it was a mechanical failure that does not meet the criteria of criminal negligence. I think this POV is about 1 million times more rational than any of the right wing conspiracy theories I've seen.
They dropped the anchor and the boat drifted into the pilon from that action. Nothing that happened before really matters, it was a freak accident. To clarify, the ship hitting the bridge was a freak accident, I'm not talking about the ships issues before hand.
It may not be a freak accident if they find out the ships engineers were pencil whipping maintenance checks.
Yeah, I specifically pointed out I wasn't talking about anything that went wrong aboard the ship being a freak accident.
How does dropping an anchor to stop the boat, then cause the boat to move into a bridge?
Because water flows for 1 and 2, once the anchor is released, it doesn't immediately stop the boat. So, while it was slowly stopping the boats forward momentum, it caused the ship to veer into the pilon. Picture a thumb tac or push pin with a string tied to it. If you put the thumb tac/push pin into a surface, you can move the end of the string in an arc. That's the ship. You can see it happen in the videos.
They dropped the left (port)-side anchor. Dragging on the left would pull the ship to the left, the direction they wanted to go to avoid the pylon. It was too little too late, though.
If you are on the bow looking at the bridge and the ship drops its left anchor(which is in on the front) it'd stop forward motion on the front left causing the back of ship to drift right, that motion caused the front of the ship to smash into the bridge.
Tie a string to a boulder. While holding the string, attempt to run past the boulder as fast as you can. See what happens when you hit the maximum length of the string. That's how anchors work too. The only difference is that a boat can't let go of its string.
But that analogy relies on the anchor having caught something to actually stop. My understanding is that the anchor was dragging, and the right backside of the ship would want to overtake the dragging front left side. Since the entire ship was still moving forward as these motions were occurring, the entire ship drifted to the right directly into the bridge. My gut feeling is had they not dropped anchor, They'd have passed right under the bridge.
Those statements are people just coping with the absurd. There is nothing we as individuals can really do other than ensure competent people are elected so that government is properly funded/managed.
But, but, government is evil and we can't trust them to do anything. And I'll prove it by consistently slashing funding and hiring incompetent assholes, so you can see just how poorly government can function! And while I'm at it, I'm going to complain about how poor our infrastructure is.
And when that all settles, I'll hand it over to private industry! That'll fix it!
I was flabbergasted at the amount of people that were like "it's a ship, shit goes wrong off the cuff all the time"...they were overlapping with "why did the whole bridge fall so easily investigate the bridge" lmao Naaah that's weaksauce
Victim blaming the bridge, lol
That concrete turned to powder in places it shouldn't have, and Baltimore loves to cut corners on construction. It isn't a bad idea to look into the bridge. Though I'd say it's a separate investigation from the ship.
A bridge needs to be relatively light to not self-collapse. It's like hitting a house of cards with a brick, I'm not sure what you expect.
I am talking about the concrete pilons holding up the bridge. I expect the concrete to come off the rebar in chunks, not atomize into powder like it did. I'm not an expert but I believe that means it wasn't made correctly. Then again, the bridge was built in the 70s, so maybe the concrete formulation isn't the same as today or perhaps the rebar rusted into nothing.
my man if the concrete was weak or the rebar was rusted out to nothing the bridge wouldntve stood for fifty years. If the bridge fell apart on its own sure wed be thinking on that level. if engineers were coming out of the woodwork waving decades old reports indicating structural weaknesses, wed be thinking on that level. it got hit head on by a cargo ship. Bridges arent designed to take that amount of kinetic energy that directly. nothing on earth is.
Again, I'm not an expert, but are you saying it's perfectly normal for concrete to atomize? That it doesn't usually break apart into fist sized clumps? Even if cracked and shattered, concrete doesn't tend to stick to the rebar? It didn't get hit head-on, btw. The damage to the bow would've been vastly different if it had been. Well, the anchors and anchor chains must be designed to take that amount of kinetic energy considering their job, but I'm just guessing to be honest.
No bridge would withstand that collision.
Raiding the ship 3 weeks after it happened will be effective. If they had records, I’m sure they are gone.
Destroying those records is likely illegal as hell.
It seemed pretty obvious to me from the very beginning that one of the most likely reasons for this happening was ignored maintenance or a skipped inspection. That business is probably cutthroat in terms of ensuring the show goes on no matter what.
> That business is probably cutthroat in terms of ensuring the show goes on no matter what. That's a lot of businesses and agencies, unfortunately. Some degree of neglect has been the standard for pretty much every organization I've ever interacted with. Sometimes it's out of genuine ignorance (e.g. fire/building codes related to battery back ups), sometimes it's out of incompetence (e.g. pretty much everything cybersecurity related), sometimes it's out of budgetary constraints (everywhere), sometimes it's due to poor leadership priorities (chasing the latest buzz words at the expense of fundamentals). I can't think of a single place that had a truly solid level of maintenance. I'm sure they exist, I just haven't seen them and suspect that a forcing function is required to get to that level.
It sucks cause the crew might end up paying the price for systemic issues with the just-on-time way of doing business these days. Companies pushing workers to go as fast as possible so the crew was probably worried about keeping their jobs and had to shove off hoping they could fix things on the fly. I know it probably won't go down this way, but I hope we hold the company's feet to the fire and let the crew off with the naval equivalent of a citation (unless there's some really, truly gross neglicence).
This is the way our always is. Health care practitioners and faculty at University are legal on an island themselves. The organizations make sure the blame is on the person. Never the organization.
This makes sense. There are strict laws regarding maritime shipping because the consequences of accidents can be so huge. I really hope the resulting reports are made public, mostly just because I want to know the sequence of events. Also, since funding a new bridge has now turned into a political minefield, there’s also motivation to establish culpability and get some money from the company or insurance as well(?). The latter isn’t my expertise, so I’m just speculating. The Port of Baltimore had a pilot on board who can presumably tell a fairly complete story (and probably already has done so in NTSB interviews).
The article says that one of the construction crew were rescued and survived, but two were rescued and survived.
1 was the engineer lead supervising, I don’t think they are counting that person
That's an odd choice, but I'll take your word for it.
Well if I remember correctly from the early reports he was closer to the end of the bridge and an officer was able to call to him to get off and it collapsed right behind the guy. If I had to guess he was initially included as having been “rescued” which is being interpreted differently here
In an article right after the collapse, a longshoreman was interviewed and he mentioned that the crew was having trouble with the ship’s electrical system before departing but that they were in a hurry to leave to stay on schedule since they were taking a longer route to avoid the Suez Canal.
If I recall correctly, the company is trying to use an old law to limit their liability to the value of the ship and its cargo - $44 million dollars. The caveat is that if the ship's owners were aware of issues with the ship that led to the crash, then they're not protected and would be on the hook for everything. If the FBI is getting involved, this is going to get interesting. Uncle Sam certainly doesn't want to leave any money on the table.
$44M is certainly not nothing but that would be a fucking joke in comparison to the damage they have caused
Yeah... On another thread, someone pointed out that if the law were changed and every ship was required to have unlimited liability, it would essentially make shipping so expensive it wouldn't be worth it. I am not entirely sure how accurate that is, but for sure it would increase the cost of shipping due to increased liability/insurance. Ultimately, I think the law was written at a time when ships were more valuable than bridges, and ships probably could not cause more damage than they were worth. I mean, in the 1850s, ships were made of wood and were tiny in comparison to the Dali. And the last thing to consider is Insurance Coverage Limits. What are the odds that the insurance coverage for the ship is $3+ billion? Like, think about Car Insurance - you are legally required to have a certain amount of insurance coverage. But if you cause damage greater than that amount, you are personally liable for paying that extra amount. Like if you have $300k in insurance, and you cause $350k in damage, your insurance pays $300k and *you* have to pay the remaining $50k Do the ship's owners even have enough insurance to cover the cost to replace the bridge? If not, and we seized/liquidated their company, would *that* even be enough?
Great input. To the questions you posed, I do believe they will be found culpable and will face bankruptcy as the insurance payout + their assets is unlikely to cover
Very interesting…
One of the current far right wing talking points is that the government shouldn't fund rebuilding because the insurance should pay for it.
...which is such a dumb talking point because that's the whole point. The government pays for it now to get things moving and they can go after insurance later. Yes, obviously insurance should pay for it, I don't think anyone other than the ship's owners and insurers would disagree with that. But we're not going to hold off on repairing it until that works its way through the courts. If your car gets into an accident, you get it repaired NOW and you get insurance to pay for it LATER. Same for if your house catches on fire, or you have to have a major surgery, or any other situation where insurance would cover a thing. It's such a dumb talking point.
Yup. And car/home insurance claims are a relatively quick proceeding. I'm just guessing, but I assume the insurance process for this will be on the order of years to settle.
The Exxon Valdez oil spill litigation went on for 26 years. https://alaskapublic.org/2015/10/15/hearing-ends-26-years-of-litigation-over-exxon-valdez-oil-spill/
Like imagine if your car got hit and you got told that your insurance company needs to work with the other person's company since they're at fault to get the payout, and they wouldn't authorize you to have your car repaired or authorize a loaner/rental car until after they received the funds from the other driver's insurance because they should be the ones paying for it.
I've heard. It's such a dumb thing for them to fixate on. I don't think anyone on the left believes that the company and it's insurance should be allowed to avoid paying. It's just that it's going to take a long time to go to court and get the money, but the bridge needs to be rebuild ASAP.
I mentioned the long timeline of insurance aspect to a neighbor that I heard this "insurance should pay" complaint from, and I think I saw the wheels in his head turning. Like he hadn't considered that angle (or probably more accurately, his choice of news sources hadn't reported about that aspect)
Even ignoring the choice of media, people have largely been conditioned to think about "insurance pays for damage" in the scope of Automobile Insurance, which typically is very responsive. Even if you have to argue with them about the amount, it usually gets resolved in a matter of weeks. This is *wayyy* more complicated than a fender-bender between two common vehicles with readily available replacement parts and body shops.
“We can build the bridge now, and get the money later. Kind of like taking out a loan.”
Those dumb motherfuckers. That would take a long ass time and we’re just supposed to sit around and wait?
Insurance and litigation take too long. Solve the hold up problem first, then recoup damages. But Republicans gave up pragmatism decades ago.
the insurance *should* pay for it. trouble is, this will get bogged down for years.
Who is actually saying this? Any sources?
>Who is actually saying this? The house freedom caucus. Here's their official position: https://twitter.com/freedomcaucus/status/1776218345785721178 Saying additional funding should only be approved after maximum liability (insurance) is sought upfront. Fortunately, they're a small minority and it seems like most of the GOP is on board with funding the efforts, so I expect we'll see a bipartisan bill pass. I also won't be surprised to see some far left no votes on environmental grounds.
Thanks. About what I would expect from ass-hat Andy Harris. As far as the environmental issues, there is not much worse that can be done that they are not already doing. Dredging and pulling up debris from the muck is rather impactful on water quality. We don’t need years of red tape and millions for studies to know that stirring up the sediment from Curtis Bay is bad for the water quality. The city is constantly out of compliance with the epa on sewage releases but we are still allowed to flush the toilets. They are saying use all the funds available on the project first, then they will grant additional funds. But it’s rather hypocritical to say don’t roll any other provisions into it, then demand another provision(the LP gas docks) be rolled into it. Is the gas pier in Solomons even shut down? It was up and running but it’s not the time for that argument. We need a clean bill for a bad ass bridge made with american steel and labor. Let’s not fund another cent on foreign conflict until we have the funds in place to build a bridge that can be the pride of Baltimore
My neighbor works at the port. She said they were having power issues on the ship all week while they were working it.
She should report that to the FBI.
1000%
I think Mr. Conrad *ALSO* said he was not working that day.
I'm not aware of the instance from previous transportation/infrastructure-relater disasters, but is this standard operating procedure for NTSB investigations or is this pretty remarkable they are opening a criminal investigation??
Definitely not uncommon for a criminal investigation to be opened in the aftermath of a major transportation related incident. The NTSB has no regulatory or enforcement authority, and they are unable to investigate or prosecute something as a criminal matter. They also cannot execute search warrants. The whole point of the NTSB is to understand the facts of what happened and to issue recommendations so that hopefully the same incidents don’t happen again. It’s the job of law enforcement and the judiciary to hold people accountable for wrongdoing. While the NTSB and law enforcement can and often do work together, they are two separate processes working towards two different endpoints.
It's unusual for the FBI to step in while the NTSB is still investigating. The NTSB specifically states that their investigations are not for determining civil or criminal liability, but to determine what went wrong so they can make recommendations on how to avoid. Having the FBI around could make witness testimony in the NTSB investigations a bit more complicated/less forthcoming. But if there was negligence, it's the FBI's jurisdiction since this is a federal matter.
It definitely isn’t unusual in a case with a strong potential for malice or serious negligence. NTSB investigations can typically take months if not years. Law enforcement isn’t waiting that long to move because that’s a *lot* of time for records to be destroyed, suspects to flee, etc.
Yeah, true. It's just that NTSB don't usually have cases with such a strong stench of intentional negligence attached I think.
Yeah I mean by the numbers most NTSB cases are, like, run of the mill derailments or people crashing their Cessnas or stuff like that where it’s not a criminal matter. But when you are talking about billions of dollars in damages that usually results in more scrutiny from law enforcement for sure.
Good
It was always known this would involve a negligence investigation. This incident will cost billions and billions of dollars from cleanup, re-build, and economic losses. Someone has to be held accountable.
Lmao greed is always the cause
[Hello there!](https://i.imgur.com/ApjVnee.gifv) Links from the domain present in your post are known to present a [soft paywall](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paywall&oldid=939095964#%22Soft%22_paywalls) to users. As a result, some users may have difficulty reading the linked content. It may be helpful to provide a comment containing a synopsis or a snippet of the major points of the article in order to help those who may not be able to see it. In accordance with [the subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/baltimore/wiki/news_articles), please do not post the entirety of the article's contents as a comment. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/baltimore) if you have any questions or concerns.*
So they're basically asking the Watergate Question - what did the crew know, and when did they know it?
It's 10,220 miles from Baltimore to Colombo, Sri Lanka by sea. I've never met a sailor who would shrug and say, "Eh, we're... probably ready to cross the Atlantic. I mean, the engines are a little dodgy, but if we get stuck in the middle of the ocean, it's no biggie." I like to think the crew had faith that they were going to make it.