Station Nightclub Fire - Trials
#1
Posted 10 May 2006 - 04:21 PM
This man was the stage manager for the 80's rock band Great White, which was authorized to put on the pyrotechnics display by Jeffrey and Michael Derderian, who booked the act and owned the club.
He lit the fuse, and he's going away until at least 2010.
Is this a fair sentence? Do you believe this man bears the brunt of the responsibility for the fire?
What kind of sentence would you like to see imposed on the club owners, who brought in this act in the first place and whose building was outfitted with highly-flammable sound proofing near the stage?
#2
Posted 10 May 2006 - 05:33 PM
#4
Posted 11 May 2006 - 05:32 AM
I believe if he expected people to get hurt, he would have not made the choice he did. Should he be punished, absolutely, but so should:
the club owners for foolishly lining the club, and any authorities who inpected the club and allowed it to stay open.
The families do seem to be digging into this guy. He didn't murder anybody, he made a stupid mistake.
This should never have happened.
#5
Posted 11 May 2006 - 11:51 AM
but it's been 3 years, i think it's time to move on.
#6
Posted 11 May 2006 - 05:58 PM
#7
Posted 11 May 2006 - 06:51 PM
#8
Posted 12 May 2006 - 02:07 PM
Frankie811, on May 11 2006, 08:51 PM, said:
I'm sure you saw the way this man broke down... he wrote 100 apology letters! He was railroaded into being a scapegoat. He got screwed!
If you're gonna put this guy away for 4 years, the Derderian's should get 25 to life. It just blows my mind that the WWRI fire marshall gave everybody the slip.
#9
Posted 12 May 2006 - 02:36 PM
Dan, on May 12 2006, 04:07 PM, said:
#10
Posted 12 May 2006 - 02:51 PM
Dan, on May 10 2006, 05:21 PM, said:
This man was the stage manager for the 80's rock band Great White, which was authorized to put on the pyrotechnics display by Jeffrey and Michael Derderian, who booked the act and owned the club.
He lit the fuse, and he's going away until at least 2010.
Is this a fair sentence? Do you believe this man bears the brunt of the responsibility for the fire?
What kind of sentence would you like to see imposed on the club owners, who brought in this act in the first place and whose building was outfitted with highly-flammable sound proofing near the stage?
If the owner of the club authorized the pyrotechnics, then he should be the one in trouble.
#12
Posted 12 May 2006 - 02:57 PM
Frankie811, on May 12 2006, 03:53 PM, said:
Sorry, I guess being from another area I only knew half the story.
Either way, they own the club and should be held fully responsible for whatever happens in there within their control. They had to know there would be pyrotechnics, so why not shut the show down if they knew that? They most definitely should shoulder the blame here.
#13
Posted 12 May 2006 - 03:12 PM
SBCmetroguy, on May 12 2006, 04:57 PM, said:
Either way, they own the club and should be held fully responsible for whatever happens in there within their control. They had to know there would be pyrotechnics, so why not shut the show down if they knew that? They most definitely should shoulder the blame here.
if the fire marshall didn't say they weren't allowed to have pyro there... why should they believe otherwise? the fire marshall said it met code, i think he's the one who should be held responsible. for instance, electrical stuff can easily start a fire. they say once a spark hit the sound proofing, it went up instantly... an electrical fire on stage could have easily done the same thing.
#15
Posted 13 May 2006 - 08:17 AM
runawayjim, on May 12 2006, 05:12 PM, said:
#16
Posted 13 May 2006 - 02:22 PM
Frankie811, on May 12 2006, 04:53 PM, said:
C'mon Frankie, we all know that they bought that highly-flammable foam to act as sound proofing on the cheap, and Great White had always put on these types of displays when they performed in other cities. Did you expect Mr. Pine to advise them to be truthful at the press conference? He's their lawyer!
Jim and Jen are right, the fire could've been started with much less than the pyro-display, this being before the R.I. statewide smoking ban took effect.
#17
Posted 13 May 2006 - 02:29 PM
Dan, on May 13 2006, 04:22 PM, said:
Jim and Jen are right, the fire could've been started with much less than the pyro-display, this being before the R.I. statewide smoking ban took effect.
they used cheap flammable sound proofing, but they also got the blessing of the fire marshall... if they didn't meet fire code, they couldn't have stayed open and wouldn't have used that stuff. the only person i think anyone should be going after (regardless of who gave permission to use pyro) is the fire marshall, but he's not even being looked at.
but i still say the families need to just give it up and move on with their lives. it was an accident, and that's really what it comes down to.
#18
Posted 13 May 2006 - 05:08 PM
#19
Posted 15 May 2006 - 10:32 AM
runawayjim, on May 13 2006, 04:29 PM, said:
#20
Posted 15 May 2006 - 01:49 PM
KRC, on May 15 2006, 11:32 AM, said:
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users













