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:
Here is the link to that article from 2003 concerning the club’s soundproofing:
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.
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?
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.
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.
The first article does far more to place the blame on the band’s pyrotechnics rather than the foam.
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.
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.
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 BLAME[sup]TM[/sup] 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.
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?
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:
Makes me go huh? Didn’t the guy running the place know they were doing pyrotechnics and say something ahead of time?
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.
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.
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.
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.