Rhode Island Fire Farce...

[fett]

Spaceace said it all. Great post . There is nothing like getting a "small town" horror story put in the national spotlight. Thanks.

[Ralph E.]

Actually, there was a fire inspection in December 2002, the fire occured in February 2003. However, the inspector is "immune" to prosecution by law.

And yes, this along with many other trials over the past 10-15 years give me a right (not that anyone has to agree with it) to say that our justice system is a complete and total wreck, absolutely disgraceful.

[YetAnotherOne]

You can bet that if a contractor had done that work we would have heard about it and that contractor would be front-page news. They probably went themselves or had an employee, like maybe a bouncer who wasn't busy during the day, go get the cheapest insulation they could find.

Maybe and if that's the case the owners got off far too easy. But my point remains: you don't *KNOW* that this is the case and no one has ever, to my knowledge, proven that it is. The situation is absolutely tragic but we shouldn't let our emotions lead us into a situation where we demand that folks who may well be relatively innocent be railroaded to appease the burn-them-at-the-stake mentality of the screaming mob.

[lerxstcat]

Maybe and if that's the case the owners got off far too easy. But my point remains: you don't *KNOW* that this is the case and no one has ever, to my knowledge, proven that it is. The situation is absolutely tragic but we shouldn't let our emotions lead us into a situation where we demand that folks who may well be relatively innocent be railroaded to appease the burn-them-at-the-stake mentality of the screaming mob.

I worked in the contracting business for 20 years and I know very well that if contractor liability is even a possibility of being an issue, it will be brought up. With the publicity this case has had I doubt such a contractor would escape the scrutiny of the media. You can technically say I don't know and be correct, technically, but in the real world I'm certain that contractor would've been chased by reporters of all the networks, if he existed.


And Ralph, again, the club being inspected for GENERAL fire safety in December 2002 does NOT mean it was rated for pyro. Pyro has to be permitted upon each occasion for use, unless it was an in-house system owned by the club and would always use the same stuff. That isn't covered at all by a general inspection. Also, the club was protected by a grandfather clause from having fire sprinklers installed that are required in new structures. Such sprinklers might not have saved the building, but they probably would have held up the flames long enough for a lot more people to escape alive.

So to me, they were too cheap to put in sprinklers, because they didn't have to, so they very likely didn't use a soundproofing contractor, because again, they were cheap, and CNN would have had that contractor running from a camera crew IF he existed. I can't PROVE that's the case but I am pretty firm in that belief, as my educated guess.

[YetAnotherOne]

I don't disagree with any of that but we, as a society, are far too quick to judge people and situations when we may not have enough information to actually have an informed opinion. All I know about this I've seen in the media and that's not enough for me to feel that the club owners are culpable enough that they should spend a lot of time in jail. Perhaps they are but I don't have enough information to feel that way yet.

[lerxstcat]

Certainly you have the right to your opinion as much as I do.

I recall I was surfing the boards at Metal Sludge when RockNRev, a poster there, posted about the fire from watching his local news. He was on it before CNN was, and was interviewed by media afterwards, because his band had played there and he went to the club often.

The owners initially tried to claim they didn't allow pyro in the club, but Rev was one of several musicians who attested that pyro was a regular occurrence in The Station. The only different factor was that soundproofing, which was new. Before that it was bare walls in the area that went up.

That's why I formed the opinion that the owners would lie their way out of it if they could (they tried) and that if they had a contractor to serve up as the scapegoat, that they would have done that too. You could say that the management acted in ways the owners were unaware of, but legally there is the concept that if you didn't know, you should have. You're supposed to supervise your employees to the extent that you know they're fulfilling legal obligations, not dealing dope out of your club, etc..

I guess the "eyewitness" account of someone who knew the place had a lot to do with forming my opinion.

[DRH]

RI Fire Farce

It is convenient for all(except the victims of course) involved that it did not go to trial.

No testimony under oath, no information showing involvement/responsibility of politically connected people.