This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
2015 Philadelphia train derailment article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 3 days |
A news item involving 2015 Philadelphia train derailment was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 14 May 2015. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
There's a bit of misinformation on this page (and in the rather protracted discussion about ATC on this Talk page).
The official investigation by the National Transportation Safety Board has completed long ago, and the NTSB accident report has been published. This report contains a distillation of the facts uncovered in the investigation. Further information in the form of raw factual reports are also available on the NTSB website in the accident docket. The NTSB docket search engine makes direct links difficult, but the search engine will yield information if one keys the accident ID DCA15MR010. The information pertinent to this discussion is given in the document titled Signal factual.
With the accident report and docket completed and made public, IMHO there should no longer be any need to rely upon mass media accounts, which oftentimes reflect an ignorance of railroad terminology and technology, or are sensationalist in the hope of adding to advertising revenue.
I quote a very long passage from the Signal factual document verbatim (with some less pertinent parts omitted). The highlighting has been added by me to emphasize the most significant details:
To sum up this very large excerpt from the NTSB document:
As per WP:BURDEN, the burden for inserting material into an article lies with the editor who proposes to insert it. As a large chunk of material currently in the lede of the article has no source, I'm formally requesting that the editor in question provide sources for those statements. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia based on reliable sources, and material that can't be supported by a reliable source must be removed. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 04:32, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
There may be new details in this beautifully written piece, just published. (Pinging E.M.Gregory, who worked hard on Rachel Jacobs' page; that said, she is mentioned here only in passing.) Vesuvius Dogg ( talk) 01:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/amtrak-crash/charges-reinstated-against-amtrak-engineer-deadly-philadelphia-crash-n845141 "PHILADELPHIA — An Amtrak engineer was ordered Tuesday to stand trial for a deadly 2015 derailment in Philadelphia as a judge reinstated involuntary manslaughter and reckless endangerment charges." 2601:1C2:4E02:3020:4146:2231:C4F1:8E76 ( talk) 22:39, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Apparently there have been a series of dismissals of this case, followed by reinstatements. See: https://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2020/05/15/judge-reinstates-charges-against-brandon-bostian-in-deadly-philadelphia-amtrak-crash/ "Ruling on an appeal brought by the state attorney general’s office, Stabile found the dismissal was based on fact-finding that should happen in a trial, a decision that McMonagle said would be appealed. Stabile said the lower court’s role was only to determine whether the state presented enough evidence to warrant a trial, and prosecutors met that burden, he ruled." It appears that at least two judges dismissed these charges based on false fact-finding that should have occurred at a trial, by a jury. Are there any factors involved that might motivate a judge or judges to improperly defend Brandon Bostian from these charges? Allassa37 ( talk) 06:01, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
The section Criminal investigation, charges, and dismissal contains this sentence:
"On May 9, 2017, Philadelphia prosecutors said Bostian, the train's engineer, would not face any criminal charges because there was no evidence that he had acted with criminal intent."
The incompetence of such reasoning leaves me speechless.
Were the prosecutors seriously unaware that there exist laws against involuntary manslaughter?
This is just astonishing.
Note: I am in no way passing judgment on the engineer. I am only pointing out that lack of "criminal intent" is not sufficient reason not to charge someone.
This ought to be so obvious to anyone who has graduated from law school (as well as to any educated adult who has not graduated from law school) that I have to wonder exactly what was going through the prosecutors' minds (and palms) who initially decided that no criminal intent was reason to not charge the engineer. 2601:200:C000:1A0:E480:78DC:C9A5:A603 ( talk) 02:47, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
2015 Philadelphia train derailment article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 3 days |
A news item involving 2015 Philadelphia train derailment was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 14 May 2015. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
There's a bit of misinformation on this page (and in the rather protracted discussion about ATC on this Talk page).
The official investigation by the National Transportation Safety Board has completed long ago, and the NTSB accident report has been published. This report contains a distillation of the facts uncovered in the investigation. Further information in the form of raw factual reports are also available on the NTSB website in the accident docket. The NTSB docket search engine makes direct links difficult, but the search engine will yield information if one keys the accident ID DCA15MR010. The information pertinent to this discussion is given in the document titled Signal factual.
With the accident report and docket completed and made public, IMHO there should no longer be any need to rely upon mass media accounts, which oftentimes reflect an ignorance of railroad terminology and technology, or are sensationalist in the hope of adding to advertising revenue.
I quote a very long passage from the Signal factual document verbatim (with some less pertinent parts omitted). The highlighting has been added by me to emphasize the most significant details:
To sum up this very large excerpt from the NTSB document:
As per WP:BURDEN, the burden for inserting material into an article lies with the editor who proposes to insert it. As a large chunk of material currently in the lede of the article has no source, I'm formally requesting that the editor in question provide sources for those statements. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia based on reliable sources, and material that can't be supported by a reliable source must be removed. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 04:32, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
There may be new details in this beautifully written piece, just published. (Pinging E.M.Gregory, who worked hard on Rachel Jacobs' page; that said, she is mentioned here only in passing.) Vesuvius Dogg ( talk) 01:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/amtrak-crash/charges-reinstated-against-amtrak-engineer-deadly-philadelphia-crash-n845141 "PHILADELPHIA — An Amtrak engineer was ordered Tuesday to stand trial for a deadly 2015 derailment in Philadelphia as a judge reinstated involuntary manslaughter and reckless endangerment charges." 2601:1C2:4E02:3020:4146:2231:C4F1:8E76 ( talk) 22:39, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Apparently there have been a series of dismissals of this case, followed by reinstatements. See: https://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2020/05/15/judge-reinstates-charges-against-brandon-bostian-in-deadly-philadelphia-amtrak-crash/ "Ruling on an appeal brought by the state attorney general’s office, Stabile found the dismissal was based on fact-finding that should happen in a trial, a decision that McMonagle said would be appealed. Stabile said the lower court’s role was only to determine whether the state presented enough evidence to warrant a trial, and prosecutors met that burden, he ruled." It appears that at least two judges dismissed these charges based on false fact-finding that should have occurred at a trial, by a jury. Are there any factors involved that might motivate a judge or judges to improperly defend Brandon Bostian from these charges? Allassa37 ( talk) 06:01, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
The section Criminal investigation, charges, and dismissal contains this sentence:
"On May 9, 2017, Philadelphia prosecutors said Bostian, the train's engineer, would not face any criminal charges because there was no evidence that he had acted with criminal intent."
The incompetence of such reasoning leaves me speechless.
Were the prosecutors seriously unaware that there exist laws against involuntary manslaughter?
This is just astonishing.
Note: I am in no way passing judgment on the engineer. I am only pointing out that lack of "criminal intent" is not sufficient reason not to charge someone.
This ought to be so obvious to anyone who has graduated from law school (as well as to any educated adult who has not graduated from law school) that I have to wonder exactly what was going through the prosecutors' minds (and palms) who initially decided that no criminal intent was reason to not charge the engineer. 2601:200:C000:1A0:E480:78DC:C9A5:A603 ( talk) 02:47, 21 February 2022 (UTC)