<story><title>Water Slide That Decapitated Boy Violated Basic Design Standards</title><url>https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/26/us/waterslide-boy-decapitated-charges.html</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>crazypyro</author><text>edit: The owner was arrested just today, so I had missed that.&lt;p&gt;Can someone explain why they are charging the 29 year old director of operations who started as a lifeguard and had no formal training or connection to engineering&amp;#x2F;design and not one of the designers or owners, both of which are mentioned in the indictment multiple times?&lt;p&gt;It doesn&amp;#x27;t make a lot of sense to me other than they needed to charge someone.</text></item><item><author>teraflop</author><text>The full indictment [1] is well worth reading. The most relevant sections for HN, in my opinion:&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; 35. [Designer Jeffrey] HENRY compared the construction of Verrückt to an arms race against rival waterparks.&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; 37. HENRY admitted that he was ignoring established industry safety standards because he felt he could redefine those standards with his own achievements. While describing his vision of how Verrückt would change the industry, HENRY explained, &amp;quot;[W]e&amp;#x27;re going to set the standards up, and set the education up, and we&amp;#x27;re gonna redefine many of the definables that have been defined in the industry that we couldn&amp;#x27;t find good reasons for.&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;Also check out paragraphs 85-89 for some incredibly unethical behavior on the part of one of Schlitterbahn&amp;#x27;s attorneys.&lt;p&gt;[1]: &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.wycocourtks.org&amp;#x2F;uploads&amp;#x2F;4&amp;#x2F;4&amp;#x2F;1&amp;#x2F;2&amp;#x2F;4412070&amp;#x2F;2018-03-21_indictment__miles_swkc__filed_redacted.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.wycocourtks.org&amp;#x2F;uploads&amp;#x2F;4&amp;#x2F;4&amp;#x2F;1&amp;#x2F;2&amp;#x2F;4412070&amp;#x2F;2018-03-...&lt;/a&gt;</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>tzs</author><text>As others have noted, there has been another arrest. The operations director was merely the first. So, the question then becomes why him first?&lt;p&gt;According to the article:&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; As investigators were looking into the death of the boy, Caleb Schwab, in August 2016, Mr. Miles, then the operations director, hid or destroyed documents detailing injuries sustained by riders, the indictment said.&lt;p&gt;I&amp;#x27;d guess that this might have something to do with it. Even if it turns out that no one did anything actually criminal in regards to the building and operation of the ride itself, destroying evidence to impede an investigation is criminal. The criminal charges for this are probably also easier to prove than the ones related to the ride itself.&lt;p&gt;Furthermore, even if it turns out there was nothing actually criminal in the operation of the ride, so that none of the owners or designers are guilty of anything, he can still go down for destroying evidence.&lt;p&gt;In short...he&amp;#x27;s potentially double screwed. So indict him first, point out that even if he gets off on the ride-related charges (which is plausible...he can try to argue that he is not an engineer, so he trusted the judgment of the engineers who designed and built the thing), they&amp;#x27;ve got him on the destroying evidence thing. His only realistic hope, therefore, is to accept a deal. Tell him you really want to nail the owners and designers, and offer him a deal.</text></comment>
<story><title>Water Slide That Decapitated Boy Violated Basic Design Standards</title><url>https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/26/us/waterslide-boy-decapitated-charges.html</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>crazypyro</author><text>edit: The owner was arrested just today, so I had missed that.&lt;p&gt;Can someone explain why they are charging the 29 year old director of operations who started as a lifeguard and had no formal training or connection to engineering&amp;#x2F;design and not one of the designers or owners, both of which are mentioned in the indictment multiple times?&lt;p&gt;It doesn&amp;#x27;t make a lot of sense to me other than they needed to charge someone.</text></item><item><author>teraflop</author><text>The full indictment [1] is well worth reading. The most relevant sections for HN, in my opinion:&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; 35. [Designer Jeffrey] HENRY compared the construction of Verrückt to an arms race against rival waterparks.&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; 37. HENRY admitted that he was ignoring established industry safety standards because he felt he could redefine those standards with his own achievements. While describing his vision of how Verrückt would change the industry, HENRY explained, &amp;quot;[W]e&amp;#x27;re going to set the standards up, and set the education up, and we&amp;#x27;re gonna redefine many of the definables that have been defined in the industry that we couldn&amp;#x27;t find good reasons for.&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;Also check out paragraphs 85-89 for some incredibly unethical behavior on the part of one of Schlitterbahn&amp;#x27;s attorneys.&lt;p&gt;[1]: &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.wycocourtks.org&amp;#x2F;uploads&amp;#x2F;4&amp;#x2F;4&amp;#x2F;1&amp;#x2F;2&amp;#x2F;4412070&amp;#x2F;2018-03-21_indictment__miles_swkc__filed_redacted.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.wycocourtks.org&amp;#x2F;uploads&amp;#x2F;4&amp;#x2F;4&amp;#x2F;1&amp;#x2F;2&amp;#x2F;4412070&amp;#x2F;2018-03-...&lt;/a&gt;</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>Maybestring</author><text>&amp;gt;Evidence suggests that the park planned to delay maintenance until the park closed for the season.&lt;p&gt;When a safety feature was out of service, they decided to keep running it. That sounds like a director of operations decison.&lt;p&gt;And much easier case to prove than design deficiency.</text></comment>