Engineer for third rate, brokered AM daytimer manages to burn down island

[John McNary]

Sigh. Here we go again.

You quote labor laws about contract crews. Those laws have nothing to do with criminal negligence or criminal violations of fire codes.

That law you didn't even know about until I pointed it out to you roughly 48 hours ago clearly states that!

Just because I did not bring up a law that has no application on this case does not mean I was unaware of it. Bringing in a inapplicable labor law in a criminal arson case is not going to make your case.

Of course, maybe I am out of my element since I had hands-on experience applying certain labor laws...

That's for damn sure, no maybe about it: you are waaaay out of your element.

Arson laws, fire codes and negligence torts are not impacted by labor codes one iota. Maybe Crawford did not violate OSHA codes, maybe it did. I make no argument about labor laws, other than they do not apply to the fact KBRT and its contractor both clearly violated Los Angeles County fire codes, and possibly criminally conspired to do so, with disasterous results. Such criminal charges have nothing to do with your silly labor laws, and your thrice pointing out a irrelevant, falacious argument is noted.

Using your whacked theory of labor law supremecy, a man who hires a thug to kill his wife is not guilty of any crime because California labor laws protect him from the actions of an independent contractor. Rubbish.

 

[EDwalker]

Bringing in a inapplicable labor law in a criminal arson case is not going to make your case.

Did I miss something? I've read nothing about criminal arson charges being filed in this case.

 

[John McNary]

....yet.

 

[dbdigital]

Of course, it's entirely possible that we don't know all of the facts surrounding the starting of this blaze. In the course of the investigation some facts may come to light that have not yet been made public. In the end, it will be up to the county prosecutor to determine if only the contractor is responsible or if KBRT should also be held accountable for some reason.

I highly suspect, though, that regardless of the who is ultimately held responsible, KBRT will be hit with a very stiff fine for something like, not sufficiently clearing away dry brush from the antenna site or not having the proper extinguishing equipment on the premises. It seems to me that the CE could have done more than simply dial 911, but who knows.

I don't think they'll get away from this disaster squeaky clean. The station should just be thankful that no loss of life occurred.

I agree with you on all accounts, especially that Crawford should be very thankful no loss of life occurred. If I ran the station, I'd be trying to do something to give back to the people of Catalina Island and ease their sufferring as best as I could.

Yes, for KBRT to give something back to the community would be a wise move. Not only would it be the right thing to do but could head off any backlash from the residents of Avalon (like voting the KBRT "farm" off the island).

Not to sound crass about it, but it would be a good P.R. move on the station's part.

db

 

[John McNary]

They could start with a $3 million check to LA County for firefighting costs,
$500,000 per day of lost tourism dollars to island businesses,
$500,000 to the USC marine biology proghram that lost priceless frozen DNA samples from decades worth of research
$3 million to SC Edison for burned power lines (that its ratepayers will have to pay for),. and whatever it cost the United States navy to operate 5 hovercrafts on a round the clock basis for 48 hours to get the firetrucks to the island.

Also, 5 bucks to Radio Info dot com for all the bandwidth this has chewed up.

 

[Kent]

You quote labor laws about contract crews. Those laws have nothing to do with criminal negligence or criminal violations of fire codes.

Again, if Crawford could have foreseen the dangers, they should have rescheduled the appointment with the tower crew and should be held at least partly responsible for the fire.

That's for damn sure, no maybe about it: you are waaaay out of your element.

That would obviously be because I have experience with employers' rights and responsibilities. You say you were aware of the difference between employees and independent contractors, but your messages have proven you know very little about it.

Arson laws, fire codes and negligence torts are not impacted by labor codes one iota. Maybe Crawford did not violate OSHA codes, maybe it did. I make no argument about labor laws, other than they do not apply to the fact KBRT and its contractor both clearly violated Los Angeles County fire codes, and possibly criminally conspired to do so, with disasterous results. Such criminal charges have nothing to do with your silly labor laws, and your thrice pointing out a irrelevant, falacious argument is noted.

Once again, if Crawford violated the law, whether labor or any other law, it should be held responsible. The idea that labor laws do not apply, however, is false. You effectively hinged your entire reasoning for Crawford's culpability on an incorrect interpretation of labor laws and only began to change it to fire code violations after you were challenged. Also, OSHA is only one aspect of labor laws, and I have never had experience making decisions on them. They didn't fall under my former section in Missouri. When I worked as a deputy in that section, I dealt with new employer determinations, business transfers, and employee/independent contractor disputes. All business, whether in radio or anywhere else, must follow all applicable state and federal laws, including labor laws. By the way, I appreciate the notation! The fact that you apparently now think your original rationale for this thread is falacious is a definite victory! Thank you very much!

Using your whacked theory of labor law supremecy, a man who hires a thug to kill his wife is not guilty of any crime because California labor laws protect him from the actions of an independent contractor. Rubbish.

Once again, you prove you know very little about the application of labor laws. A man who hires a thug to kill his wife couldn't possibly hide behind labor laws because he knows the end result will be a murder, which is illegal, when he initiates the act by hiring the thug, and, remember, he also controls that end result. Also, if someone hired someone to run drugs from San Diego to Seattle, they can't hide behind the independent contractor laws because it was illegal to have drugs in the first place and, again, they were aware of and controlled the end result, which would be that someone in Seattle ended up possessing drugs when they otherwise wouldn't have had them. My point has always been simply that Crawford did not have any legal right to supervise the tower crew when it was doing its job. If Crawford knew or should have known there was serious risk of danger before this tower operation started, they cannot escape on the grounds that they used independent contractors because, once again, they could have, and should have, rescheduled the appointment for after any risks had been corrected. However, if it was simply a freak accident, the tower crew is responsible and should be held as such.

 

[John McNary]

The idea that labor laws do not apply, however, is false.

Labor laws do not, ever, provide a shield for a criminal act. Period.

You effectively hinged your entire reasoning for Crawford's culpability on an incorrect interpretation of labor laws and only began to change it to fire code violations after you were challenged.

Never, not onmce, did I say this was a labor law violation. Fire codes are criminal codes. This shows your fundamental mistake. Labor laws do not matter here, and I never said they did. I said criminal laws (and civil torts) then and I say that now.

A man who hires a thug to kill his wife couldn't possibly hide behind labor laws because he knows the end result will be a murder, which is illegal...

Hey, legal beagle, who says there has to be an intent to commit a crime? There are numerous crimes on the books that require no mens rea. Negligent homicide, for example.

A man who commits a crime through his negligence does not have to have any intent at all. Intent is not an element to every crime.

A company that fails to obtain mandatory fire permits has committed a crime that it may never have intended to violate. But its reckless act still makes it guilty, and thus unfit to hold a license.