DEverett13

I haven't worked in this industry but I have worked around lots large equipment and sites where safety is a major concern. I am baffled by what happened here. This seems like such a blatantly dangerous undertaking I'm amazed it happened once let alone "hundreds of times".

If you're working near a crane with a properly secured load, you still never stand or work near that suspended load, no matter how well secured or light it may be. How did anyone think that working under thousands of gallons of liquid slag was reasonable? Oh, and the only thing holding it up was a mass of solidified slag?

Forget the safety guidelines, where was the common sense?

I have a hard time imagining that is standard practice, at least not in the the US, Canada, Western Europe, etc...

When comes to life an death I think it needs to be this black and white(no pun intended). A person was killed, if the police admit any wrongdoing by terminating the officer, they might as well say it was unjustified. The public outcry would be immense.

I've heard people say that it could be viewed the same as work place accident, which people are often let go for. This is not the case however. If you run someone over with a fork lift, it was an accident. You may not have been following safety guidelines, but there was no intent to harm anyone. In an officer involved shooting, there is intent to harm, therefore it is criminal if not justified.

It should have been a series, the book literally reads like a series of mini documentaries.

I don't necessarily disagree, but it is a choice to shoot. At some point the officer decides they have to shoot, whether they want to or not, and this is where the intent to harm is. When you choose to fire your weapon at someone, you are choosing to harm them. Because hurting or killing someone is inherent in shooting them, it is either justified, or criminal. There is no grey area in my opinion.