dermdoc said:
In my opinion, people with integrity do not act like this.
txags92 said:dermdoc said:
In my opinion, people with integrity do not act like this.
Sometimes lack of integrity and listening to very bad legal and public relations advice can look the same. I have no dog in that fight, but having been involved in more than one case where lawsuits started flying, I understand that silence on the part of a party getting sued doesn't always mean they don't have anything they would prefer to be saying.
AxelFoley85 said:
The deification of these camps and the people run them is just plain weird to me.
dermdoc said:Fdsa said:dermdoc said:Fdsa said:
https://kerrcountylead.com/the-monster-in-the-canyon-what-the-storm-actually-was-and-what-was-never-asked/
"Scientists estimate the three-hour rainfall totals over the South Fork carried a 1-in-1,000-year probability a 0.1% chance of occurring in any given year. Even across a full 24 hours, the totals represented a 1-in-200-year event. Most flood infrastructure is designed around 1-in-100-year events. A common misconception is worth stating plainly: a 1-in-1,000-year event does not mean the region is safe from a similar event for the next millennium. The odds reset every year.
This is the scientific context that was entirely absent from two days of legislative testimony this week. When Sen. Jos Menndez the committee's only Democrat and the member who came closest to raising the science asked investigator Casey Garrett about the rate of rise at the confluence near Hunt, noting from prior research that the river appeared to rise approximately 29 feet in roughly 45 minutes, Garrett confirmed the investigators had not examined that question. No other member pursued it.
The committee spent nearly 13 hours establishing what people did and did not do in the hours before the surge arrived. It did not spend a single minute examining what the surge actually was."
The flood happened. That is a fact. The committee and future jury (if a trial actually occurs) SHOULD focus on how the people acted, responded, and had planned. That is what they are judging. Not the severity of the flood. They can't judge Mother Nature.
If as a doc, I am confronted by the rarest, most horrific med case that ever happened I do not get a free pass because it is so rare or horrific. I am judged by how I respond to the challenge.
In my opinion, the Eastlands failed miserably and had no plan. Your opinion seems to differ which is fine,
The severity of the event does matter when you're talking about gross negligence.
Why was the scope of the investigation changed? Do you not think the other victims of the flood deserve some answers on what the state or county could have done differently?
As I have stated before, I think if you are a camp that is in charge of the safety of 700 girls there should be a heightened sense of responsibility and liability. I know not all on here agree with me.
Fdsa said:dermdoc said:Fdsa said:dermdoc said:Fdsa said:
https://kerrcountylead.com/the-monster-in-the-canyon-what-the-storm-actually-was-and-what-was-never-asked/
"Scientists estimate the three-hour rainfall totals over the South Fork carried a 1-in-1,000-year probability a 0.1% chance of occurring in any given year. Even across a full 24 hours, the totals represented a 1-in-200-year event. Most flood infrastructure is designed around 1-in-100-year events. A common misconception is worth stating plainly: a 1-in-1,000-year event does not mean the region is safe from a similar event for the next millennium. The odds reset every year.
This is the scientific context that was entirely absent from two days of legislative testimony this week. When Sen. Jos Menndez the committee's only Democrat and the member who came closest to raising the science asked investigator Casey Garrett about the rate of rise at the confluence near Hunt, noting from prior research that the river appeared to rise approximately 29 feet in roughly 45 minutes, Garrett confirmed the investigators had not examined that question. No other member pursued it.
The committee spent nearly 13 hours establishing what people did and did not do in the hours before the surge arrived. It did not spend a single minute examining what the surge actually was."
The flood happened. That is a fact. The committee and future jury (if a trial actually occurs) SHOULD focus on how the people acted, responded, and had planned. That is what they are judging. Not the severity of the flood. They can't judge Mother Nature.
If as a doc, I am confronted by the rarest, most horrific med case that ever happened I do not get a free pass because it is so rare or horrific. I am judged by how I respond to the challenge.
In my opinion, the Eastlands failed miserably and had no plan. Your opinion seems to differ which is fine,
The severity of the event does matter when you're talking about gross negligence.
Why was the scope of the investigation changed? Do you not think the other victims of the flood deserve some answers on what the state or county could have done differently?
As I have stated before, I think if you are a camp that is in charge of the safety of 700 girls there should be a heightened sense of responsibility and liability. I know not all on here agree with me.
for sure, they will be judged on what a reasonable camp operator would have done in those circumstances with the information they had. I think one could argue it was negligence (not gross) to not have someone watching the rate of the water rise. That would have showed them they were not dealing with a 5-7" rain. At one point in that evening, the lightning was the biggest threat and the perceived flooding threat was from the Guadalupe, not the creek from behind the hill. This was risk assessment calculus at its worst and they got the answer wrong. Gross negligence would be not even showing up to take the test.
Corps_Ag12 said:
Just curious since a 1 in a 1,000 year event happens just days later.
Fdsa said:dermdoc said:Fdsa said:dermdoc said:Fdsa said:
https://kerrcountylead.com/the-monster-in-the-canyon-what-the-storm-actually-was-and-what-was-never-asked/
"Scientists estimate the three-hour rainfall totals over the South Fork carried a 1-in-1,000-year probability a 0.1% chance of occurring in any given year. Even across a full 24 hours, the totals represented a 1-in-200-year event. Most flood infrastructure is designed around 1-in-100-year events. A common misconception is worth stating plainly: a 1-in-1,000-year event does not mean the region is safe from a similar event for the next millennium. The odds reset every year.
This is the scientific context that was entirely absent from two days of legislative testimony this week. When Sen. Jos Menndez the committee's only Democrat and the member who came closest to raising the science asked investigator Casey Garrett about the rate of rise at the confluence near Hunt, noting from prior research that the river appeared to rise approximately 29 feet in roughly 45 minutes, Garrett confirmed the investigators had not examined that question. No other member pursued it.
The committee spent nearly 13 hours establishing what people did and did not do in the hours before the surge arrived. It did not spend a single minute examining what the surge actually was."
The flood happened. That is a fact. The committee and future jury (if a trial actually occurs) SHOULD focus on how the people acted, responded, and had planned. That is what they are judging. Not the severity of the flood. They can't judge Mother Nature.
If as a doc, I am confronted by the rarest, most horrific med case that ever happened I do not get a free pass because it is so rare or horrific. I am judged by how I respond to the challenge.
In my opinion, the Eastlands failed miserably and had no plan. Your opinion seems to differ which is fine,
The severity of the event does matter when you're talking about gross negligence.
Why was the scope of the investigation changed? Do you not think the other victims of the flood deserve some answers on what the state or county could have done differently?
As I have stated before, I think if you are a camp that is in charge of the safety of 700 girls there should be a heightened sense of responsibility and liability. I know not all on here agree with me.
for sure, they will be judged on what a reasonable camp operator would have done in those circumstances with the information they had. I think one could argue it was negligence (not gross) to not have someone watching the rate of the water rise. That would have showed them they were not dealing with a 5-7" rain. At one point in that evening, the lightning was the biggest threat and the perceived flooding threat was from the Guadalupe, not the creek from behind the hill. This was risk assessment calculus at its worst and they got the answer wrong. Gross negligence would be not even showing up to take the test.
txags92 said:Fdsa said:dermdoc said:Fdsa said:dermdoc said:Fdsa said:
https://kerrcountylead.com/the-monster-in-the-canyon-what-the-storm-actually-was-and-what-was-never-asked/
"Scientists estimate the three-hour rainfall totals over the South Fork carried a 1-in-1,000-year probability a 0.1% chance of occurring in any given year. Even across a full 24 hours, the totals represented a 1-in-200-year event. Most flood infrastructure is designed around 1-in-100-year events. A common misconception is worth stating plainly: a 1-in-1,000-year event does not mean the region is safe from a similar event for the next millennium. The odds reset every year.
This is the scientific context that was entirely absent from two days of legislative testimony this week. When Sen. Jos Menndez the committee's only Democrat and the member who came closest to raising the science asked investigator Casey Garrett about the rate of rise at the confluence near Hunt, noting from prior research that the river appeared to rise approximately 29 feet in roughly 45 minutes, Garrett confirmed the investigators had not examined that question. No other member pursued it.
The committee spent nearly 13 hours establishing what people did and did not do in the hours before the surge arrived. It did not spend a single minute examining what the surge actually was."
The flood happened. That is a fact. The committee and future jury (if a trial actually occurs) SHOULD focus on how the people acted, responded, and had planned. That is what they are judging. Not the severity of the flood. They can't judge Mother Nature.
If as a doc, I am confronted by the rarest, most horrific med case that ever happened I do not get a free pass because it is so rare or horrific. I am judged by how I respond to the challenge.
In my opinion, the Eastlands failed miserably and had no plan. Your opinion seems to differ which is fine,
The severity of the event does matter when you're talking about gross negligence.
Why was the scope of the investigation changed? Do you not think the other victims of the flood deserve some answers on what the state or county could have done differently?
As I have stated before, I think if you are a camp that is in charge of the safety of 700 girls there should be a heightened sense of responsibility and liability. I know not all on here agree with me.
for sure, they will be judged on what a reasonable camp operator would have done in those circumstances with the information they had. I think one could argue it was negligence (not gross) to not have someone watching the rate of the water rise. That would have showed them they were not dealing with a 5-7" rain. At one point in that evening, the lightning was the biggest threat and the perceived flooding threat was from the Guadalupe, not the creek from behind the hill. This was risk assessment calculus at its worst and they got the answer wrong. Gross negligence would be not even showing up to take the test.
I don't remember exactly what point in the timeline it was, but in the investigators presentation to the committee hearing, they mention Dick was down near the river monitoring the rising water with a flashlight prior to ordering the evacuations. However, having the only guy who knew "the plan" down at the river instead of in the office with the comms leading the response was not ideal.
Fdsa said:txags92 said:Fdsa said:dermdoc said:Fdsa said:dermdoc said:Fdsa said:
https://kerrcountylead.com/the-monster-in-the-canyon-what-the-storm-actually-was-and-what-was-never-asked/
"Scientists estimate the three-hour rainfall totals over the South Fork carried a 1-in-1,000-year probability a 0.1% chance of occurring in any given year. Even across a full 24 hours, the totals represented a 1-in-200-year event. Most flood infrastructure is designed around 1-in-100-year events. A common misconception is worth stating plainly: a 1-in-1,000-year event does not mean the region is safe from a similar event for the next millennium. The odds reset every year.
This is the scientific context that was entirely absent from two days of legislative testimony this week. When Sen. Jos Menndez the committee's only Democrat and the member who came closest to raising the science asked investigator Casey Garrett about the rate of rise at the confluence near Hunt, noting from prior research that the river appeared to rise approximately 29 feet in roughly 45 minutes, Garrett confirmed the investigators had not examined that question. No other member pursued it.
The committee spent nearly 13 hours establishing what people did and did not do in the hours before the surge arrived. It did not spend a single minute examining what the surge actually was."
The flood happened. That is a fact. The committee and future jury (if a trial actually occurs) SHOULD focus on how the people acted, responded, and had planned. That is what they are judging. Not the severity of the flood. They can't judge Mother Nature.
If as a doc, I am confronted by the rarest, most horrific med case that ever happened I do not get a free pass because it is so rare or horrific. I am judged by how I respond to the challenge.
In my opinion, the Eastlands failed miserably and had no plan. Your opinion seems to differ which is fine,
The severity of the event does matter when you're talking about gross negligence.
Why was the scope of the investigation changed? Do you not think the other victims of the flood deserve some answers on what the state or county could have done differently?
As I have stated before, I think if you are a camp that is in charge of the safety of 700 girls there should be a heightened sense of responsibility and liability. I know not all on here agree with me.
for sure, they will be judged on what a reasonable camp operator would have done in those circumstances with the information they had. I think one could argue it was negligence (not gross) to not have someone watching the rate of the water rise. That would have showed them they were not dealing with a 5-7" rain. At one point in that evening, the lightning was the biggest threat and the perceived flooding threat was from the Guadalupe, not the creek from behind the hill. This was risk assessment calculus at its worst and they got the answer wrong. Gross negligence would be not even showing up to take the test.
I don't remember exactly what point in the timeline it was, but in the investigators presentation to the committee hearing, they mention Dick was down near the river monitoring the rising water with a flashlight prior to ordering the evacuations. However, having the only guy who knew "the plan" down at the river instead of in the office with the comms leading the response was not ideal.
yes, that is correct...hindsight, when the water barely started to rise, you could have someone constantly monitoring the rise. It was one foot every two minutes - that's not normal and Dick probably recognized this, but too late. Granted, water was rising from unusual places that night, not just the Guadalupe.
Ducks4brkfast said:Fdsa said:txags92 said:Fdsa said:dermdoc said:Fdsa said:dermdoc said:Fdsa said:
https://kerrcountylead.com/the-monster-in-the-canyon-what-the-storm-actually-was-and-what-was-never-asked/
"Scientists estimate the three-hour rainfall totals over the South Fork carried a 1-in-1,000-year probability a 0.1% chance of occurring in any given year. Even across a full 24 hours, the totals represented a 1-in-200-year event. Most flood infrastructure is designed around 1-in-100-year events. A common misconception is worth stating plainly: a 1-in-1,000-year event does not mean the region is safe from a similar event for the next millennium. The odds reset every year.
This is the scientific context that was entirely absent from two days of legislative testimony this week. When Sen. Jos Menndez the committee's only Democrat and the member who came closest to raising the science asked investigator Casey Garrett about the rate of rise at the confluence near Hunt, noting from prior research that the river appeared to rise approximately 29 feet in roughly 45 minutes, Garrett confirmed the investigators had not examined that question. No other member pursued it.
The committee spent nearly 13 hours establishing what people did and did not do in the hours before the surge arrived. It did not spend a single minute examining what the surge actually was."
The flood happened. That is a fact. The committee and future jury (if a trial actually occurs) SHOULD focus on how the people acted, responded, and had planned. That is what they are judging. Not the severity of the flood. They can't judge Mother Nature.
If as a doc, I am confronted by the rarest, most horrific med case that ever happened I do not get a free pass because it is so rare or horrific. I am judged by how I respond to the challenge.
In my opinion, the Eastlands failed miserably and had no plan. Your opinion seems to differ which is fine,
The severity of the event does matter when you're talking about gross negligence.
Why was the scope of the investigation changed? Do you not think the other victims of the flood deserve some answers on what the state or county could have done differently?
As I have stated before, I think if you are a camp that is in charge of the safety of 700 girls there should be a heightened sense of responsibility and liability. I know not all on here agree with me.
for sure, they will be judged on what a reasonable camp operator would have done in those circumstances with the information they had. I think one could argue it was negligence (not gross) to not have someone watching the rate of the water rise. That would have showed them they were not dealing with a 5-7" rain. At one point in that evening, the lightning was the biggest threat and the perceived flooding threat was from the Guadalupe, not the creek from behind the hill. This was risk assessment calculus at its worst and they got the answer wrong. Gross negligence would be not even showing up to take the test.
I don't remember exactly what point in the timeline it was, but in the investigators presentation to the committee hearing, they mention Dick was down near the river monitoring the rising water with a flashlight prior to ordering the evacuations. However, having the only guy who knew "the plan" down at the river instead of in the office with the comms leading the response was not ideal.
yes, that is correct...hindsight, when the water barely started to rise, you could have someone constantly monitoring the rise. It was one foot every two minutes - that's not normal and Dick probably recognized this, but too late. Granted, water was rising from unusual places that night, not just the Guadalupe.
He certainly recognized it as he then drove his Tahoe down to Bubble Inn and had the girls pile in.
AxelFoley85 said:
The deification of these camps and the people run them is just plain weird to me.
jh0400 said:
The specifics around rainfall rate are a red herring meant to distract from the fact that it appears that there was no viable plan of communication or evacuation. Two minutes to act or two hours, if there was no plan to put into action, then that's the basis for gross negligence for someone trusted with the care of hundreds of children. When this goes to trial I'd expect a parade of expert witnesses outlining what good looks like with regard to flood evacuation plans. It's lack of preparation that's the root cause.
Badace52 said:
Here's the timeline... its a bit long. Judge for yourselves if there was time to move these girls and if that was a valid evacuation plan. Its a long video but until you watch it your opinion will not be very informed.
https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1LQHiBMFW3/?mibextid=wwXIfr
jh0400 said:
If there had been a plan in place that was documented, drilled, and executed to the best of their abilities with a similar outcome due to weather, then the magnitude would matter as you could reasonably claim no liability due to an act of god.
jh0400 said:
If there had been a plan in place that was documented, drilled, and executed to the best of their abilities with a similar outcome due to weather, then the magnitude would matter as you could reasonably claim no liability due to an act of god.
txags92 said:jh0400 said:
If there had been a plan in place that was documented, drilled, and executed to the best of their abilities with a similar outcome due to weather, then the magnitude would matter as you could reasonably claim no liability due to an act of god.
A better plan would have almost certainly saved every life that night at Mystic. It they had even adhered to their own meager plan and used their walkie talkies to communicate to each cabin when to evacuate and where to go, and had 1 counselor in front of each group leading and 2 behind them sweeping for stragglers, everybody would have survived. But they had to walkie talkies to the cabins and only 2 counselors per cabin.
But the rate of rise ultimately was A factor that resulted in deaths even if it was not the ultimate factor or the only factor.
Senator Blutarski said:
If you want to learn about the magnitude of the storm and flood, this is the best I have seen yet:
Kerr County Lead: The monster in the canyon: What the storm actually was and what was never asked
edit to add: credit to fdsa for linking this earlier.
dermdoc said:txags92 said:jh0400 said:
If there had been a plan in place that was documented, drilled, and executed to the best of their abilities with a similar outcome due to weather, then the magnitude would matter as you could reasonably claim no liability due to an act of god.
A better plan would have almost certainly saved every life that night at Mystic. It they had even adhered to their own meager plan and used their walkie talkies to communicate to each cabin when to evacuate and where to go, and had 1 counselor in front of each group leading and 2 behind them sweeping for stragglers, everybody would have survived. But they had to walkie talkies to the cabins and only 2 counselors per cabin.
But the rate of rise ultimately was A factor that resulted in deaths even if it was not the ultimate factor or the only factor.
I was okay until your last sentence. Did you watch the video?
txags92 said:dermdoc said:txags92 said:jh0400 said:
If there had been a plan in place that was documented, drilled, and executed to the best of their abilities with a similar outcome due to weather, then the magnitude would matter as you could reasonably claim no liability due to an act of god.
A better plan would have almost certainly saved every life that night at Mystic. It they had even adhered to their own meager plan and used their walkie talkies to communicate to each cabin when to evacuate and where to go, and had 1 counselor in front of each group leading and 2 behind them sweeping for stragglers, everybody would have survived. But they had to walkie talkies to the cabins and only 2 counselors per cabin.
But the rate of rise ultimately was A factor that resulted in deaths even if it was not the ultimate factor or the only factor.
I was okay until your last sentence. Did you watch the video?
Yes, I did and I stand by my statement. The timeline made it clear that Dick, Edward, and Glenn were in the process of trying to evacuate the remaining cabins with girls in them and were stymied by how fast the water rose. The speed of the rise was A factor in the deaths. It was not THE factor that caused the deaths. Had the water risen to the exact same height, but done so 15 minutes slower, it is likely that nobody would have died at Mystic except for maybe the girl that left her group to go back to the cabin during the evacuation.
dermdoc said:txags92 said:dermdoc said:txags92 said:jh0400 said:
If there had been a plan in place that was documented, drilled, and executed to the best of their abilities with a similar outcome due to weather, then the magnitude would matter as you could reasonably claim no liability due to an act of god.
A better plan would have almost certainly saved every life that night at Mystic. It they had even adhered to their own meager plan and used their walkie talkies to communicate to each cabin when to evacuate and where to go, and had 1 counselor in front of each group leading and 2 behind them sweeping for stragglers, everybody would have survived. But they had to walkie talkies to the cabins and only 2 counselors per cabin.
But the rate of rise ultimately was A factor that resulted in deaths even if it was not the ultimate factor or the only factor.
I was okay until your last sentence. Did you watch the video?
Yes, I did and I stand by my statement. The timeline made it clear that Dick, Edward, and Glenn were in the process of trying to evacuate the remaining cabins with girls in them and were stymied by how fast the water rose. The speed of the rise was A factor in the deaths. It was not THE factor that caused the deaths. Had the water risen to the exact same height, but done so 15 minutes slower, it is likely that nobody would have died at Mystic except for maybe the girl that left her group to go back to the cabin during the evacuation.
Do you agree that driving down in individual vehicles is not an efficient way to convey the need to evacuate? Doesn't it seem like a simple announcement over the camp's loudspeaker to evacuate would have been more effective? Do you believe that the water rose so fast that nothing could have been done to save the lives? I would say that Dick, Edward, and Glenn were heroic. You can be heroic and still be negligent. The negligence occurred before the flood.
And an answer either way is okay. The jury will decide.
txags92 said:dermdoc said:txags92 said:dermdoc said:txags92 said:jh0400 said:
If there had been a plan in place that was documented, drilled, and executed to the best of their abilities with a similar outcome due to weather, then the magnitude would matter as you could reasonably claim no liability due to an act of god.
A better plan would have almost certainly saved every life that night at Mystic. It they had even adhered to their own meager plan and used their walkie talkies to communicate to each cabin when to evacuate and where to go, and had 1 counselor in front of each group leading and 2 behind them sweeping for stragglers, everybody would have survived. But they had to walkie talkies to the cabins and only 2 counselors per cabin.
But the rate of rise ultimately was A factor that resulted in deaths even if it was not the ultimate factor or the only factor.
I was okay until your last sentence. Did you watch the video?
Yes, I did and I stand by my statement. The timeline made it clear that Dick, Edward, and Glenn were in the process of trying to evacuate the remaining cabins with girls in them and were stymied by how fast the water rose. The speed of the rise was A factor in the deaths. It was not THE factor that caused the deaths. Had the water risen to the exact same height, but done so 15 minutes slower, it is likely that nobody would have died at Mystic except for maybe the girl that left her group to go back to the cabin during the evacuation.
Do you agree that driving down in individual vehicles is not an efficient way to convey the need to evacuate? Doesn't it seem like a simple announcement over the camp's loudspeaker to evacuate would have been more effective? Do you believe that the water rose so fast that nothing could have been done to save the lives? I would say that Dick, Edward, and Glenn were heroic. You can be heroic and still be negligent. The negligence occurred before the flood.
And an answer either way is okay. The jury will decide.
Yes, I even said that in one of the previous posts leading up to this. If they had simply used the loudspeaker to tell everybody to evacuate the cabins and go to high ground or had used their walkie talkies to summon the other adults that were not trapped on the wrong side of the bridge to help with the evacuation, they would have easily had enough time to get everybody out. There are plenty of ways that this could have turned out differently, but the fast rise of the water was A contributing factor in why it didn't.
