From: ahk@chinet.com   
      
   dpeltier@my-deja.com wrote:   
   >John Albert  wrote:   
      
   >>The questions remain -- who moved the air brake handle, and why?   
      
   >>But again, this doesn't "fit the narrative" that the authorities   
   >>(prosecutors) want to use to prosecute the employees. So -- at least for   
   >>now, there is no "report", so that this information can be kept surpressed.   
      
   >John, I don't think any of us have seen or heard what the prosecutors'   
   >theory of the case is, but the question of happened to the automatic brakes   
   >seems totally irrelevant to me. The train was required to have a sufficient   
   >number of handbrakes set to hold the train without air, and it did not.   
   >Seems to me the criminal case - at least for the engineer - will be all   
   >about determining whose fault that was, and whether it rises to the level   
   >of criminal recklessness. What happened with the automatic brakes should   
   >have been totally irrelevant, if handbrakes had been set as required. . . .   
      
   That's a tort; that's not criminally negligent conduct. Failure to set   
   a sufficient number of brakes by policy means that the railroad is on   
   the hook for losses, but it's not a criminal act. Now, if the engineer   
   had failed to set any brakes, that would be criminal negligence.   
      
   --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03   
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)