Feb 2003 club fire (100 killed) - owners getting off pretty damned easy

[wolf_meister]

In February, 2003, a nightclub in Rhode Island, "The Station", erupted into an inferno when the band "Great White" used pyrotechnics which ignited the club's acoustic soundproofing foam.
Earlier this year, the band's technician, Daniel Biechele was sentenced to 4 years in prison.
Personally, I think Biecele was not to blame for this disaster but rather it was the cheapskate owners.
Marc Philip, a sound technician for another band that previously played there stated:
Acoustic foam is an expensive specialty item, and some club owners choose much-cheaper bedding pads instead
Here is the link to that article from 2003 concerning the club's soundproofing:
http://www.projo.com/extra/2003/stationfire/archive/projo_20030223_club23.a7b7b.html

Now for the 2 owners of the club. One is getting 4 years in prison and the oher will get 500 hours of community service.
http://www.projo.com/news/content/projo_20060921_fire21.32c97a6.html
The fact that 100 people died seems to indicate serious infractions of fire codes.
Considering the flammibility of the soundproofing, (and the 100 deaths), don't you think these 2 guys are getting very lenient sentences?

[JohnT]

The person setting up the pyrotechnics should have been aware of the structural conditions of the area where they were being used and he is to blame for this incident. After all, there was nothing wrong with the "cheaper" sound proofing until it started being set on fire by the pyrotechical display.

[JohnT]

Ahhh... missed this line:

For the Derderians*, the state charged they had violated the fire code by putting up flammable soundproofing foam. They will enter their no contest pleas to the 100 counts of misdemeanor manslaughter. Despite the name, misdemeanor manslaughter is a felony.

The owners share some of the blame, but I can't see that they share any more than the "expert" Great White hired for their show.

*The owners.

[D_Odds]

The RI AG agrees with you, wolfmeister. However, your quote leaves the wrong impression about The Station. While it may have been in disrepair, neither article stated that the club used bedding pads, and it noted that acoustic foam is not necessarily flame retardant.
Even acoustic foam, however, comes in different varieties: Acoustical Surfaces Inc., for example, a Minnesota company, sells polyurethane foam labeled with a warning that it is "flammable and may emit toxic fumes," as well as melamine foam that is classified as a Class A fire retardant.

Auralex, an Indiana company whose products are sold by Guitar Center stores in this region, makes acoustic foams rated as Class B, fire-safe enough that a flame would extinguish quickly.

All the above products look about the same: like egg-crate pads, except with pyramid-shaped peaks rather than the rounded shapes on bedding. People familiar with The Station's soundproofing foam said they believe it was pyramid-shaped -- meaning real acoustic foam -- but nobody was sure.
...
But regardless of what the foam was, everyone interviewed familiar with the club agreed that the small size of the stage and the low ceiling -- they estimated 10 to 15 feet -- would have sufficed to convince any reasonable person not to light pyrotechnics there.

"With all due respect, you'd have to be a real idiot not to know this probably isn't a good idea," said Joe Magnanti, whose band, Hawkins Rise, had played at the club several times, and who attended shows there frequently.
The first article does far more to place the blame on the band's pyrotechnics rather than the foam.

[D_Odds]

Me too, JohnT, and I read through it twice. Thanks.

[Cheesesteak]

I agree with John T. The owners violated the fire code by putting up cheap foam. The pyrotechnician lit a fire in the space without verifying that it was safe to do so.

I'm shocked that we would expect the owners to get a more severe sentence than the guy who deliberately created the flames that started the fire. It's the pyro guy's responsibility to ensure that it is safe to use his pyro. The only way I could see giving them the same sentence is if they told the pyro that everything was fireproof.

I'm not sure how I feel about letting one brother take the rap for the other. I could see one getting a more severe sentence for more culpability, but not deliberately taking all the jail time so little bro can avoid it.

[wolf_meister]

It's the pyrotechnician's fault? No, it doesn't seem that way to me.
Let's suppose a small fire had started for some other reason (a carelessly discarded cigarette) and eventually it set fire to the foam. Would it be the "careless cigarette discarder" that would be to blame? I think they used cheap foam that eventually would have led to some catastrophic fire no matter who or what started it.

[Anaamika]

It's the pyrotechnician's fault? No, it doesn't seem that way to me.
Let's suppose a small fire had started for some other reason (a carelessly discarded cigarette) and eventually it set fire to the foam. Would it be the "careless cigarette discarder" that would be to blame? I think they used cheap foam that eventually would have led to some catastrophic fire no matter who or what started it.
I don't know about the rest of it, but why wouldn't the careless cigarette discarder be blamed, if they had ashtrays?

[jsgoddess]

It's the pyrotechnician's fault? No, it doesn't seem that way to me.
Let's suppose a small fire had started for some other reason (a carelessly discarded cigarette) and eventually it set fire to the foam. Would it be the "careless cigarette discarder" that would be to blame?

Yes, just as a cigarette in Yosemite that starts an enormous forest fire is the fault of the butt-leaver.

[Excalibre]

I don't know about the rest of it, but why wouldn't the careless cigarette discarder be blamed, if they had ashtrays?
Because it's not reasonable to assume that accidentally dropping a cigarette will cause a fire that will kill a hundred people. Honestly, this is the absolute basics of tort law. Shouldn't most people know something about this? Besides, isn't that sort of obvious? The line is, admittedly, sometimes blurry, but people aren't legally held legally accountable if they engage in an action that can't be reasonably foreseen to have a negative result.

It sure sounds like both the club owners and the pyrotechnician share some responsibility for this. It doesn't sound like it was a safe place to engage in pyrotechnics - but at the same time, accidents happen, which is precisely why things like building codes and fire codes exist. If, hypothetically, someone built a structure so flammable that a carelessly discarded - or accidentally dropped - cigarette could quickly cause a blaze that killed a hundred people, they would certainly be held responsible. It doesn't sound like this was quite that bad, but if the owner covered the walls with eminently flammable material, he's obviously got some share of the responsibility for the results.

Why is it necessary to designate one single person as THE GUY TO BLAMETM when multiple people's actions went into causing this event? And why should only the person who commits the last act proximate to an accident be held accountable? That's a useful idea in some cases, but isn't it pretty obvious that it's a principle with some exceptions?

Imagine that I set an extremely delicate vase on the very edge of a shelf that's a tad unstable. It's a beautiful vase and a priceless Ming Dynasty antique. It's painted with a lovely crane motif. Now, imagine if Anaamika walked by and carelessly bumped into the shelf. The vase falls and breaks. Is Anaamika entirely to blame? Of course not. I could foresee, in placing my Ming vase on a precarious shelf, that it is highly likely that some minor accident would eventually knock it off. Sure, Anaamika shouldn't walk around bumping into things - and she might share some of the responsibility, particularly if she was being careless in some way. But just because hers is the proximate cause of the vase's destruction doesn't mean it's rational to blame the entire event on her.

Equally, if someone builds a club in such a way that it's particularly vulnerable to fire, invites crowds of people, and has musicians perform (and wasn't he aware of the band's intention to use pyrotechnics? I have to imagine that bands usually check with the manager of the venue before doing things like that.), isn't he partially responsible if an accident happens? A certain amount of care is expected in someone who makes a facility open to the public. Not covering the walls with extremely flammable material strikes me as a pretty reasonable standard.

[Excalibre]

Yes, just as a cigarette in Yosemite that starts an enormous forest fire is the fault of the butt-leaver.
Actually, a lot of people would say that it's the fault of poor forest management practices on the part of the U.S. government.

[woodstockbirdybird]

Actually, a lot of people would say that it's the fault of poor forest management practices on the part of the U.S. government.

Really? Why would they say that? Is the U.S.

[woodstockbirdybird]

Fucking piece of shit. Anyway, to continue:

Is the U.S. government supposed to be able to have rangers or volunteers stationed at 10-foot intervals across thousands of acres of National Park to ensure nobody flicks a cigarette? Or are they supposed to somehow make nature non-flammable?

[Anaamika]

Because it's not reasonable to assume that accidentally dropping a cigarette will cause a fire that will kill a hundred people. Honestly, this is the absolute basics of tort law. Shouldn't most people know something about this? Besides, isn't that sort of obvious? The line is, admittedly, sometimes blurry, but people aren't legally held legally accountable if they engage in an action that can't be reasonably foreseen to have a negative result.


Thank you for the description. And thankfully, I don't know much about it at all. Thankfully because I have never remotely been in such a situation - neither having dropped the proverbial cigarette nor plastered my walls with, say, paper.

As for the rest of it, this quote:

But regardless of what the foam was, everyone interviewed familiar with the club agreed that the small size of the stage and the low ceiling -- they estimated 10 to 15 feet -- would have sufficed to convince any reasonable person not to light pyrotechnics there.

Makes me go huh? Didn't the guy running the place know they were doing pyrotechnics and say something ahead of time?

[Dead Badger]

Is the U.S. government supposed to be able to have rangers or volunteers stationed at 10-foot intervals across thousands of acres of National Park to ensure nobody flicks a cigarette? Or are they supposed to somehow make nature non-flammable?I think the argument is that our conservative fire-prevention methods result in a larger than natural build-up of dead, highly flammable material on forest floors. As a result, we get far vaster fires than would otherwise happen, just more rarely. By contrast, sporadic smaller burn-offs would be the more natural process, periodically reducing the available fuel without a catastrophic all-consuming inferno.

[woodstockbirdybird]

I think the argument is that our conservative fire-prevention methods result in a larger than natural build-up of dead, highly flammable material on forest floors. As a result, we get far vaster fires than would otherwise happen, just more rarely. By contrast, sporadic smaller burn-offs would be the more natural process, periodically reducing the available fuel without a catastrophic all-consuming inferno.

Ah, thanks. Even so, any dipshit old enough to hold a cigarette between his/her lips knows that grass/brush/etc. is liable to catch fire if a flaming fucking smoke is tossed on it.

[Cheesesteak]

The club owners are businessmen who run a bar with a stage. The pyrotechnician is a person (supposedly) trained in the safe use of fire. It is the pyro's job to assess the stage and surroundings and decide whether or not it is safe to use fire. The entire point of having a pyrotechnician is to safely use fire in your show.

I don't think a couple of businessmen are qualified to know whether or not it is safe, especially since they're not working with this pyro package day after day. The dipshit with the cigarette has also not been trained in the use of fire, nor has he been entrusted with the safe use of fire in that environment.

[jsgoddess]

Actually, a lot of people would say that it's the fault of poor forest management practices on the part of the U.S. government.

Well, for me there would be plenty of blame to throw around. But cigarette smokers are waving fire around. I can't exonerate them if they catch something on fire.

[Excalibre]

Thank you for the description. And thankfully, I don't know much about it at all. Thankfully because I have never remotely been in such a situation - neither having dropped the proverbial cigarette nor plastered my walls with, say, paper.
I think you miss my point. Which is that I'm still pissed about my goddamn vase, Anaamika.

[JohnT]

Because it's not reasonable to assume that accidentally dropping a cigarette will cause a fire that will kill a hundred people. Honestly, this is the absolute basics of tort law. ... Not covering the walls with extremely flammable material strikes me as a pretty reasonable standard.

Since we're not talking about an accidental cigarette fire here, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that setting off exploding flash pots within a building could start a fire unless done properly.

Blame the owners all you want, I just don't see the case where the pyrotechnic superviser gets a pass.

[Excalibre]

Since we're not talking about an accidental cigarette fire here, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that setting off exploding flash pots within a building could start a fire unless done properly.

Blame the owners all you want, I just don't see the case where the pyrotechnic superviser gets a pass.
Me neither. Remember? I'm the one who said that I don't see why it all has to be pinned on one single person.

[D_Odds]

The issue, and why the owners were convicted, was failure to follow fire safety standards. I understand this to mean they should have used better, flame-retardant soundproofing, by law. Obviously, not every place is required to use this, else there would be no market for the flammable soundproofing. I'm surprised a public venue would not be regularly inspected by a fire marshall, and such a danger pointed out.

[Green Cymbeline]

What about this information from the borthers' defense attorney, from the second link. Looks like the foam manufacturer and the fire inspector had small parts in this too. And it looks like the brothers were unaware of the foam's dangerousness. If they had no knowledge, because the manufacturer withheld safety info, and the fire inspector never said anything about the foam when he saw it, then can they really be held criminally negligent?

If there was a trial, Hagerty (Kathleen M. Hagerty, who represents Michael Derderian) last night said that the defense thought it had a good case to present. "We hung the foam in the nightclub, but there are so many extenuating circumstances that we would have brought out."

The foam the brothers ordered for the club was "sound foam," she said, "which in any place of public assembly must be fire-retardant. But instead of getting the sound foam they'd ordered, they got packing foam and were never told that they weren't getting the sound foam they had ordered.

"Foam comes with a material data warning safety sheet that was never given to the Derderians by the salesman from American Foam and we would have presented testimony from employees of American Foam who would have told the jury that they were under orders from the owner not to supply that sheet unless the buyer specifically asked for it. But the manufacturer of the foam had sent a letter to the distributors encouraging them to give the safety sheet to the end-user."

Hagerty also said that the defense would have presented evidence that Denis Larocque, the West Warwick fire inspector, had inspected The Station six times after the foam was installed there, and that while it was all over the walls of the club, he never once cited the Derderians for having flammable soundproofing in their club.

Larocque "cited the club for a door that opened the wrong way and it was covered with this foam, and for a panic bar that was broken on a door behind that door. The only way to see through the panic bar is to stick your finger through the foam and open it," Hagerty said.

[whole bean]

Because it's not reasonable to assume that accidentally dropping a cigarette will cause a fire that will kill a hundred people. Honestly, this is the absolute basics of tort law. Shouldn't most people know something about this? Besides, isn't that sort of obvious? The line is, admittedly, sometimes blurry, but people aren't legally held legally accountable if they engage in an action that can't be reasonably foreseen to have a negative result.
Actually, basic torts law is: duty, breach, causation, damages. Forseeability is an element of both duty (to whom do you owe a duty) and causation (were the damages foreseeable). I'm not so sure you win in your defense of the cigarette tosser -- it's a question of fact for the jury.

Imagine that I set an extremely delicate vase on the very edge of a shelf that's a tad unstable. It's a beautiful vase and a priceless Ming Dynasty antique. It's painted with a lovely crane motif. Now, imagine if Anaamika walked by and carelessly bumped into the shelf. The vase falls and breaks. Is Anaamika entirely to blame? Of course not. I could foresee, in placing my Ming vase on a precarious shelf, that it is highly likely that some minor accident would eventually knock it off. Sure, Anaamika shouldn't walk around bumping into things - and she might share some of the responsibility, particularly if she was being careless in some way. But just because hers is the proximate cause of the vase's destruction doesn't mean it's rational to blame the entire event on her.
Your example relates to comparative fault, not causation. Anamikka is at fault, but you (the plaintiff) were also at fault; depending on the jurisdiction and the percentage of fault the jury assigns to each of you, her liability for the damages to the vase is either lessened or erased.


Equally, if someone builds a club in such a way that it's particularly vulnerable to fire, invites crowds of people, and has musicians perform (and wasn't he aware of the band's intention to use pyrotechnics? I have to imagine that bands usually check with the manager of the venue before doing things like that.), isn't he partially responsible if an accident happens? A certain amount of care is expected in someone who makes a facility open to the public. Not covering the walls with extremely flammable material strikes me as a pretty reasonable standard.
this is joint tortfeasors, and you're right. both parties share liabilty.

Here's the big problem, the OP is about a criminal case, not a wrongful death suit. None of this forseeability/causation/torts talk is relevant. In criminal cases, people are convicted of crimes, not held liable for torts. You can have joint defendants, accomplice libaility, etc.

[Excalibre]

Actually, basic torts law is: duty, breach, causation, damages. Forseeability is an element of both duty (to whom do you owe a duty) and causation (were the damages foreseeable). I'm not so sure you win in your defense of the cigarette tosser -- it's a question of fact for the jury.


Your example relates to comparative fault, not causation. Anamikka is at fault, but you (the plaintiff) were also at fault; depending on the jurisdiction and the percentage of fault the jury assigns to each of you, her liability for the damages to the vase is either lessened or erased.



this is joint tortfeasors, and you're right. both parties share liabilty.

Here's the big problem, the OP is about a criminal case, not a wrongful death suit. None of this forseeability/causation/torts talk is relevant. In criminal cases, people are convicted of crimes, not held liable for torts. You can have joint defendants, accomplice libaility, etc.
This would be why I'm not a lawyer. Also, I haven't gone to law school, nor have I passed the bar.

My point remains, though - it's nonsense to pretend that only the person who lit the fire would be held responsible. (Though nyctea's point suggesting that perhaps the owners believed that they had used flame-retardant foam is obviously relevant.)

[Caffeine.addict]

Actually, basic torts law is: duty, breach, causation, damages. Forseeability is an element of both duty (to whom do you owe a duty) and causation (were the damages foreseeable). I'm not so sure you win in your defense of the cigarette tosser -- it's a question of fact for the jury.


Your example relates to comparative fault, not causation. Anamikka is at fault, but you (the plaintiff) were also at fault; depending on the jurisdiction and the percentage of fault the jury assigns to each of you, her liability for the damages to the vase is either lessened or erased.


this is joint tortfeasors, and you're right. both parties share liabilty.

Here's the big problem, the OP is about a criminal case, not a wrongful death suit. None of this forseeability/causation/torts talk is relevant. In criminal cases, people are convicted of crimes, not held liable for torts. You can have joint defendants, accomplice libaility, etc.

Using the Anamikka scenario, in a state where the rule was contributory negligence, she might not be liable if it is found that you were negligent in leaving the vase in an unsafe place.

whole bean, can't you have negligent homicide (http://data.opi.state.mt.us/bills/mca/45/5/45-5-104.htm)*, in that kind of scenario, duty, forseeability might come into play. A reading of the article doesn't seem to mention that however.

Does anyone know if a civil suit has been filed? I'd be curious to see the pleadings and who the named parties are.

* Note, I don't know much about criminal law since I know the bare minimum required to pass a bar exam. I haven't looked at it in a long time, and I wasn't all that wild about it when I did. I pic ked the first available negligent homicide statute that popped up. I haven't looked at the elements of the statute.

[Paul in Qatar]

Cases like these make me glad I am not a judge.

[wolf_meister]

Okay, I'll try another analogy.

Citing a Wikipedia article about the Cocoanut Grove, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cocoanut_Grove_fire
the infamous fire started as follows:
It was believed that a young man, possibly a soldier, had removed a lightbulb in order to give him privacy while kissing his date. Stanley Tomaszewski, a 16-year-old busboy, was instructed to put the light back on by retightening the bulb. As he attempted to tighten the lightbulb back into its socket, the bulb fell out in his hand. In the dimly-lit lounge, Tomaszewski, unable to see the socket, lit a match for a moment to illuminate the area, found the socket, blew out the match, and replaced the bulb. Almost immediately, patrons saw something ignite in the canopy of artificial palm fronds draped above the tables.
<snip>
Busboy Stanley Tomaszewski, who had survived the fire and later testified at the inquiry, was exonerated, as he was not responsible for the flammable decorations or the safety code violations.

Technically, the busboy started the fire and his actions were nowhere nearly as dramatic as a pyrotechnic display. However, it seems that both the Cocoanut Grove and the Station were firetraps waiting for a disaster to occur and the person that sets off the fire should not be the one to get 100% of the blame.

[Caffeine.addict]

I think that the Cocoanut Grove case might be different in that there, the place was covered in flammable materials and to make matters worse, most of the exits had been welded shut to prevent people from sneaking out and the only exit was a revolving door.

There is a huge difference in a waiter lighting a match, which the 1940s would have been common in a nightclub since smoking was accepted and a guy setting off a pyrotechnics show in a relatively small wooden structure.

Look at this way, is it reasonable for you in a 1940s nightclub to light a match? Sure it is.

Is it reasonable for you as a pyrotechnics guy to set them off in an enclosed wooden structure? Not really?

[ralph124c]

The fact is, RI is a small, insular place. All the judges and lawyers know eachother. It puzzles me why such short sentences were involved-a good prosecutor should have been able to nail them! the fact is, the State AG is upo for re-election-and the puppet masters who run the state don't want the dirty linen aired 9like why RI granfathers clubs without sprinkler systems)!
In the halls of justice, the only justic is in the halls. (attributed to the late Lenny Bruce).

[whole bean]

whole bean, can't you have negligent homicide (http://data.opi.state.mt.us/bills/mca/45/5/45-5-104.htm)*, in that kind of scenario, duty, forseeability might come into play. A reading of the article doesn't seem to mention that however.
it's my understanding that a finding of criminal negligence requires a showing of a gross deviation from standards of reasonable care -- i.e. it's a tougher showing than negligence in a tort -- and a different burden of proof. I was simplying saying that the references to tort law were misplaced.

Excalibre looked like he setting up a Palsgraf type case with his vase before he veered into comparitive fault (contributory negligence) territory

[Eutychus]

It's probably best that we wait until the 29th (the day of the official hearing) to see how this plays out. Now Atty. Gen. Patrick Lynch (who once said "fuck you" to my current girlfriend when she stood him up for a date) is saying that he did not authorize this deal and he has either lost control of his office or is furiously backpedaling since he had told the relatives of the victims that he would not be accepting a plea deal. Apparently he's talking big about making a big stink in court when the official court date comes around.

I'm surprised a public venue would not be regularly inspected by a fire marshall, and such a danger pointed out.

It was and that's another issue. There's quite a bit of venom around here wondering why the fire inspectors were not brought up on charges for letting sub-standard insulation pass muster as well.

[wolf_meister]

Caffeine.addict
Heck, I'll grant you there is a huge difference between lighting a match and setting off a pyrotechnic display. (I thought I made that clear in my previous post). Also I know the Cocoanut Grove was the pinnacle of fire violations. The exit signs were obscured, exit doors that weren't welded shut opened inward and not outwards. I think I'll cite the Wikipedia article again:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cocoanut_Grove_fire
Other unlocked doors opened inwards, rendering them useless against the crush of people trying to escape. Fire officials later testified that, had the doors swung outwards, at least 300 lives could have been spared.

Out of the 30 or posts so far, and in spite of all the links I've read, perhaps ralph124c has found the answer (but it won't be on the 6:00 o'clock news)
The fact is, RI is a small, insular place. All the judges and lawyers know eachother. It puzzles me why such short sentences were involved-a good prosecutor should have been able to nail them! the fact is, the State AG is up for re-election-and the puppet masters who run the state don't want the dirty linen aired (like why RI granfathers clubs without sprinkler systems)!

That is quite relevant to the outcome of the Cocoanut Grove fire. From the same Wikipedia article:
The club's owner, Barney Welansky, who had boasted of his ties to the Mafia and to Boston mayor Maurice J. Tobin, was eventually found guilty of manslaughter.
<snip>
Barney Welansky, whose connections had allowed the nightclub to operate while in violation of the loose standards of the day, was convicted on nineteen counts of manslaughter (nineteen victims were randomly selected to represent the dead). Welansky was sentenced to twelve to fifteen years in prison. He served nearly 4 years before being quietly pardoned by Massachusetts Governor Maurice Tobin, who had been mayor of Boston at the time of the fire.
Emphasis mine.

Yes, I'd say ralph124c's posting is the best explanation of the lenient sentences.
To paraphrase the words of the great American philosopher, Yogi Berra , it seems as if history has repeted itself all over again.

[Eutychus]

The fact is, RI is a small, insular place. All the judges and lawyers know eachother. It puzzles me why such short sentences were involved-a good prosecutor should have been able to nail them! the fact is, the State AG is upo for re-election-and the puppet masters who run the state don't want the dirty linen aired 9like why RI granfathers clubs without sprinkler systems)!
In the halls of justice, the only justic is in the halls. (attributed to the late Lenny Bruce).

Rhode Island ... where the politicians love us so much they even make our liscense plates for us.

[wolf_meister]

Eutychus
I took so darned long writing my posting, yours appeared in the meantime.
You too raise some very interesting points. It sure seems just about everybody in Rhode Island public office or employment would not want the details of this fire to come to light.

[Eutychus]

Eutychus
I took so darned long writing my posting, yours appeared in the meantime.
You too raise some very interesting points. It sure seems just about everybody in Rhode Island public office or employment would not want the details of this fire to come to light.

The scuttlebutt around the state is that this will likely turn into an OJ thing. They may be able to get the plea bargain through for the criminal rap, but there will still be the possibility of civil prosecution where more details may eventually come out.

[Caffeine.addict]

Caffeine.addict
Heck, I'll grant you there is a huge difference between lighting a match and setting off a pyrotechnic display. (I thought I made that clear in my previous post). Also I know the Cocoanut Grove was the pinnacle of fire violations. The exit signs were obscured, exit doors that weren't welded shut opened inward and not outwards. I think I'll cite the Wikipedia article again: rest of the quote removed by me


I think that the difference if large enough that the comparison between the two regarding fault doesn't really apply.

There does seem to be an issue as to whether the sound proofing was the proper kind. However, I think that only an idiot would set off pyrotechnics in that kind of club and to do so deserves some kind of punishment as seems to have been the case.

I think that some kind of punishment is merited for the owners and for the pyrotechnics guy however, I don't think that a lengthy prison sentence is the right punishment.

These guys are probably going to get hit with a massively large civil suit which will wipe them out financially. That coupled with the prison sentences seems appropriate to me.

[Eutychus]

These guys are probably going to get hit with a massively large civil suit which will wipe them out financially.

Probably not. They've both already declared and been awarded a bankruptcy judgement. If the civil suit does anything at all, it will be just to give the victim's families some sort of closure.

[PunditLisa]

My brother was arrested in the late 80's for flicking his Bic at a Heart concert at Riverfront Coliseum (aka U.S. Bank Arena). It boggles the mind why anyone would think pyrotechnics in a smaller, crowded club would be a good idea.

The good thing is that there were lessons learned that have changed fire code laws around the country. One hopes that it will have prevented other senseless deaths.

[wolf_meister]

Caffeine.addict
As with all comparisons and analogies, they are never 100% dead on accurate. (Mine certainly was not). Still, another interesting similarity is the fact that the owner of the Cocoanut Grove and the owners of The Station were allowed to continue running their establishments despite fire violations. Now I see why there may have been a lot of people that were quite agreeable to the plea bargain and did not want some very incriminating facts to be brought out during a trial.

and Eutychus
I hope that a civil trial will at least bring out the fact that corruption and knowing the "right people" had a great deal to do with this tragedy.

[Caffeine.addict]

wolf_meister
Still, another interesting similarity is the fact that the owner of the Cocoanut Grove and the owners of The Station were allowed to continue running their establishments despite fire violations. Now I see why there may have been a lot of people that were quite agreeable to the plea bargain and did not want some very incriminating facts to be brought out during a trial.

That is a rather disturbing similarity. As a general rule, how often a fire inspection is done? Does this happen often? In any jurisdiction?

Eutychus
Probably not. They've both already declared and been awarded a bankruptcy judgement. If the civil suit does anything at all, it will be just to give the victim's families some sort of closure.

Are the families suing anyone else?

[ralph124c]

Rhode Island ... where the politicians love us so much they even make our liscense plates for us.3
Yeah: this case reminded me of Buddy Cianci's assault upon his ex-wife's boyfriend: probabtion for beating a guy up, threatening him, and burning him with a log! The big loser here is the people: you have now learned that:
1) you cannot trust a permit of occupancy (even signed by the local police chief)
2) you cannot sue anybody rich and powerful (like the Dederians)
3) the state "justice" dept. is useless-it will always protect itself
4) your fire dept. inspectors are useless
But on the other hand, people get the government they deserve. Just maybe, you RI Dopers will turn out this worse than useless AG! :smack:

[Northern Piper]

Probably not. They've both already declared and been awarded a bankruptcy judgement. If the civil suit does anything at all, it will be just to give the victim's families some sort of closure.But they may well have fire insurance, which would pay out a judgment against them by the families.

[wolf_meister]

Caffeine Addict
Yeah things are getting very disturbing about that fire. Here's a recent article:
http://www.projo.com/news/content/projo_20060923_fire23.3185c18.html
Consider the unanswered questions around West Warwick fire inspector Denis P. Larocque. His voice, publicly silent now for more than three years, is what many people wanted to hear on the stand. Larocque inspected the club several times before the fire and never noted in any of his reports the illegal and highly flammable packing foam on the walls, used for sound insulation, which burned like gasoline once sparked by pyrotechnics fired by the rock band Great White.
How did he not note the foam?

And it was Larocque who twice in three months raised the nightclub's legal capacity, to 404 people, after Michael Derderian asked if the building could hold more. A year before the fire, the club's capacity was set at 253 people in its normal configuration and 317 when tables and chairs were removed.

Why did he raise the capacity?

Some 458 people were inside the nightclub when it burned on Feb. 20, 2003, killing 100 people and injuring more than 200 others.

[wolf_meister]

I happen to be watching Court TV at the moment.
The families of those who died in the fire are each giving their 5 minute statements.

Also, Court TV is bringing to light some new facts:
(Sorry, since this information is gathered from television, there are no cites).
• Pyrotechnics were used several times by different bands before the night of the fire.
• One of the gases produced by the burning foam was hydrogen cyanide.

It seems there are many reasons why this case was not brought to court.

[ralph124c]

Just read the book "Killer Show". No explanation as to why the Dederian brothers were never charged with criminal negligence.
I suspect the RI AG was seriously conflicted (he wanted to run for governor).
Last week, the Providence Journal reported that almost half the nightclubs and restaurants in Providence still have not been inspected (for compliance with fire codes).