And here's where the system sells us out to BP

[Try2B_Comprehensive]

Counter-pitting me for Not being a lawyer? It is kind of a twist. If the formula is IANAL= moron, well then I guess that’s settled. Next.

But yes, it is an emotional pitting. Of course I still hate BP. Some points in the article suggest the people settling are being jerked around:

The massive scope of the case — a maze of claims and counterclaims between the companies, federal and state governments and plaintiffs’ attorneys — has elicited comparisons to the tobacco litigation of the 1990s.

Maybe a grain of truth, but I resent comparing 200+ million barrels of oil dumped into the sea by surprise due to avoidable gross negligence to individuals spending their money on and using a product they should know is poisonous. Tobacco is self-inflicted. Oil spills like this are worse than murder.

Millions of pages of legal briefs have been filed. One Justice Department lawyer said it would take him 210 years to read all the pages submitted into the record if he read 1,000 pages a day.

Maybe that’s true too, but I found it upsetting. This lousy article is coaching people’s attitudes with flawed reasoning. One guy is not going to be tasked with sequentially reading every page of every document associated with the case. But hey, trials are hard, so let’s just quit.

Chris Jones, an attorney, said he’s not surprised that BP would seek to avoid a long, costly trial.

“I know that is part of the game, so to speak,” he said. “As long as they’re paying a lot of money for the damage they caused, it would give me some relief.”

Those are the worst lines in the article. Gee, a lot of money… that’s 4 months’ rent! As long as they pay ‘a lot of money’, I guess I’ll be satisfied. No need to spend a lot of frustrating hours figuring out how much actual damage was caused, just so long as it is ‘a lot of money’.

If these ideas are being pushed by BP, then they are that more despicable. If they are the attitudes of the people settling, then I simply don’t agree because I want real justice served, not merely the payment of ‘a lot of money’. This case becomes even more distressing if BP seems to walk away without taking full responsibility. I think a trial would result in a larger judgement than a settlement, which comes across as less than full responsibility.

To compare to the guy who runs down your kid in his car and can never pay you back for it: in jail for manslaughter, he can’t run down anyone else’s kid.

I guess I want to see BP forced to end their relationship with the DoD, if not liquidated. Otherwise, it appears the DoD isn’t defending us from threats, all while it’s wildly overblown budget is the main cause of our colossal national debt. This makes my country look corrupt.

[Princhester]

I was reading this book on parenting the other day and it was discussing ways to respond when your 4 year old does that typical 4 year old thing like suddenly waking up at 2am and announcing that you never make him his favourite dinner and that it is totally unfair that his older brother is taller than him and that it’s your fault that it is nearly a whole year till his next birthday and why does the cat scratch him for no reason? According to this book, the correct approach is to give him a cuddle and acknowledge that he is upset and that life is annoying and hard to understand sometimes but will probably be OK. The correct approach is not to point out that you make his favourite dinner once a week, that it’s normal that his older sibling should be bigger, you can’t do anything to make his birthday come faster and the cat only scratched him because he was teasing it which he’s been told not to do a dozen times.

There is no point in trying to reason with a 4 year old at 2am when they are in that sort of mood because they aren’t emotionally stable enough and they are not rational.

So I guess what I’m trying to say is, I don’t think there is much point in trying to discuss this rationally with Try2B Comprehensive.

[bucketybuck]

@Try2B_Comprehensive

Maybe a grain of truth, but I resent comparing 200+ million barrels of oil dumped into the sea by surprise due to avoidable gross negligence to individuals spending their money on and using a product they should know is poisonous. Tobacco is self-inflicted. Oil spills like this are worse than murder.

Who says it wasn’t self-inflicted? Those penguins didn’t have to drink all that oil you know.

[armedmonkey]

@bucketybuck

Who says it wasn’t self-inflicted? Those penguins didn’t have to drink all that oil you know.

This has been under-reported in the press. The penguins have already conquered the entire continent of Antarctica, and now they are after our natural resources. if they are in the Gulf of Mexico they are well out of their national waters. This is a national security threat.

Who wasn’t chilled by “The March of the Penguins”? That film showed a uniformed military force conquering everything they came of cross. The Nazi propaganda film “Triumph of the Will” was in black and white. What colors are penguins I ask you. WHAT COLORS ARE PENGUINS!?

We need to bomb these uniformed bastards before they breach the equator.

[amanset]

@Candyman74

Saw thread title in Tapatalk. Knew immediately who the thread starter was. Couldn’t resist clicking through to confirm!

Still hate BP, huh?

I’m just hanging around for the bit where he just starts hating us, the Brits. That’s when it gets fun.

As a circumcised Brit, he probably hates me with the fire of a thousand suns.

[Cheesesteak]

@Try2B_Comprehensive

I think a trial would result in a larger judgement than a settlement, which comes across as less than full responsibility.

It just occurred to me, the Plaintiff’s Steering Committee, and the 340 lawyers that are working for the plaintiff side, may not realize this. Someone should call them right away and direct them to this thread, so they don’t make a terrible, terrible mistake!

I suspect that they’re trying to get the best deal possible for their clients, instead of focusing on the ruination of BP. Talk about missing the point.

To compare to the guy who runs down your kid in his car and can never pay you back for it: in jail for manslaughter, he can’t run down anyone else’s kid.

Until he gets out of jail, then it’s all “Why isn’t he still in jail? My baby is still dead!” The better way would be to install a torture device on his person and give the parents the button. Then, every time they feel sad, they can punish him again, and demand more money.

[Aji_de_Gallina]

There’s a saying at least in Spanish speaking legal circles “Es mejor un mal arreglo que un buen juicio”; (It’s better to get a bad settlement than a good trial)

This is because civil litigation may go forever and you need the money now. Getting 2 million buck in 2027 may be good for your kids, but if your business was ruined, you’re broke today.

[Acsenray]

@Try2B_Comprehensive

If they are the attitudes of the people settling, then I simply don’t agree because I want real justice served, not merely the payment of ‘a lot of money’.

The entire civil law system is created for the very purpose of allowing people who have been harmed to get a satisfactory amount of money to compensate them for their losses.

I think a trial would result in a larger judgement than a settlement, which comes across as less than full responsibility.

What makes you think you know better than the plaintiffs themselves what their chances are and what’s a better deal?

I guess I want to see BP forced to end their relationship with the DoD, if not liquidated.

Yeah, you know what? That was never going to happen in a civil claim for damages against BP. “End your relationship with the Department of Defense” and “liquidate” are not available as remedies in a civil action.

This makes my country look corrupt.

No, it doesn’t. It just makes you look clueless.

[Procrustus]

Gee, a lot of money… that’s 4 months’ rent! As long as they pay ‘a lot of money’, I guess I’ll be satisfied. No need to spend a lot of frustrating hours figuring out how much actual damage was caused, just so long as it is ‘a lot of money’.

It’s a myth that a trial can determine “actual damage” with any accuracy. What you would get is a lot of estimates and projections. Even then, of course, the defendant doesn’t have to pay. Look at the Exxon trial, the jury awarded $287 million in “actual damages” and $500 billion in punitive damages. 20 years later, the fight is almost over, and the jury’s award almost completely vacated. I think BP paying $16 billion now to settle the claims looks pretty good in comparison.

[Sitnam]

@Procrustus

Why all the hate for BP? Corporations are people, my friend.

I’ll believe that when I see one executed.

[Ogre]

@Cheshire_Human

Are you sure you’re not a sock of the OP’s? You seem just as dumb.

Nope. Just a humble biologist who has spent time doing field work in oiled and unoiled salt marshes and who has extensive contacts across the Southeast who have done everything from seagrass work to pelagic zooplankton studies, and who has seen that the scale of ecological damage is massive, vast, incredible - and that the scale of that damage is going to be downplayed, hand-waved away, laughed at, and eventually frittered away to small-claims scale by a system and a populace who couldn’t find its own ass with a flashlight, scientifically speaking, and who is heavily vested in allowing corporations to destroy common property with essentially no consequences.

[Rachellelogram]

@JohnT

Tsunamis?

Water you talking about??

[JohnT]

It was a joke that played badly. Don’t worry about it.

[Robb]

@Ogre

Nope. Just a humble biologist who has spent time doing field work in oiled and unoiled salt marshes and who has extensive contacts across the Southeast who have done everything from seagrass work to pelagic zooplankton studies, and who has seen that the scale of ecological damage is massive, vast, incredible - and that the scale of that damage is going to be downplayed, hand-waved away, laughed at, and eventually frittered away to small-claims scale by a system and a populace who couldn’t find its own ass with a flashlight, scientifically speaking, and who is heavily vested in allowing corporations to destroy common property with essentially no consequences.

That is an amazing 107-word sentence. You held it together almost to the end.

Not that it matters to you, but plaintiffs can’t collect for someone else’s damages. Also, the “system” has little power to alter settlements between private litigants.

[Acsenray]

@Ogre

Nope. Just a humble biologist who has spent time doing field work in oiled and unoiled salt marshes and who has extensive contacts across the Southeast who have done everything from seagrass work to pelagic zooplankton studies, and who has seen that the scale of ecological damage is massive, vast, incredible - and that the scale of that damage is going to be downplayed, hand-waved away, laughed at, and eventually frittered away to small-claims scale by a system and a populace who couldn’t find its own ass with a flashlight, scientifically speaking, and who is heavily vested in allowing corporations to destroy common property with essentially no consequences.

It’s not within the power of civil claimants to solve the world’s problems. Civil jurisprudence gives them the power to seek payment only for their own individual injuries.

[Rachellelogram]

@JohnT

It was a joke that played badly. Don’t worry about it.

>:[ I was joking back. grr, and stuff.

[Chessic_Sense]

@Ogre

I see you glossed over the “ecological” part. Well done.

Why didn’t you just stick with that one, then?

@rachelellogram

I wonder what the ocean would get in a settlement!

A lot of clams.

[Try2B_Comprehensive]

@Acsenray

What makes you think you know better than the plaintiffs themselves what their chances are and what’s a better deal?

The lousy arguments I quoted and other bad thinking found in the article I cited. If the article is representative, I question the competence of everyone involved. It is debatable, but my legal naivete aside I may in fact know better.
For instance, I do not believe statistical averages concerning results of trials v settlements will hold in this case, considering the overwhelming case of the plantiffs.

Yeah, you know what? That was never going to happen in a civil claim for damages against BP. “End your relationship with the Department of Defense” and “liquidate” are not available as remedies in a civil action.

For convenience I’ll grant you ‘liquidate’, but as far as the relationship with the DoD goes, I do not think you are entirely correct. A full trial would expose to all, removed from the heated passions of the ‘moment’ (so to speak), expressed by experts and entered into the official record, the full ignominy of BP’s deeds. Consider the Cadet Honor Code:

West Point’s Cadet Honor Code reads simply that
“A cadet will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do.”
Cadets accused of violating the Honor Code face a standardized investigative and hearing process (see Investigative and Hearing System.). If they are found guilty by a jury of their peers, they face severe consequences, up to and including expulsion from the Academy.

I think the average American, after observing the full trial, would tend to agree that BP has failed grievously to adhere to The Code, and ought to be treated with ‘expulsion from the Academy’ (the relationship with the DoD in this case) considering the particular severity and temerity of their crimes.

And so the trial is sorely necessary, civil and/or otherwise.

[Try2B_Comprehensive]

@amanset

I’m just hanging around for the bit where he just starts hating us, the Brits. That’s when it gets fun.

As a circumcised Brit, he probably hates me with the fire of a thousand suns.

In a decision, BP may be defined in a way that does not refer to ‘Brits’ one way or the other. I certainly never entertained any distinction between circumcised and uncircumcised Brits.

[Princhester]

@Try2B_Comprehensive

The lousy arguments I quoted and other bad thinking found in the article I cited. If the article is representative, I question the competence of everyone involved. It is debatable, but my legal naivete aside I may in fact know better.
For instance, I do not believe statistical averages concerning results of trials v settlements will hold in this case, considering the overwhelming case of the plantiffs.

It seems to me that either:

1/ you could be some sort of genius who has been able to see “bad thinking” and “lousy arguments” that the teams of professionals involved in this thing haven’t been able to see, or

2/ things are far, far more complex and involved than you are aware, and that you are essentially clueless about the workings of the law to an extent that when you started this thread you didn’t even know this was a civil case not involving such concepts as “the full penalty” or “innocence”, and that the idea that you are in a position to declare upon the competence of those involved gives a whole new meaning to the word “laughable”, and that you pronouncing on the matter after reading a few short media scribblings is like pronouncing on the competence of NASA engineers based on a child’s crayon drawing of the space shuttle you once saw.

I think it may be the latter. What do you think, dumbass?