Japanese boat crashes into US Navy destroyer in Pacific Fleet’s 5th collision this year

[AndrewJin]

Wow, such a high level of incompetence that requires a full report.

The US needs to increase the standards of recruitment, not further lower them to encourage more losers to join the army as with the purpose of paying off bad debt.

I read even the mentally-challenged can be recruited.

American soldiers mostly have high PPP level of IQ/EQ/skill.
They are the disgrace to the American people but the hero to the disgusting jewish military complex.
Their only task is to waste the money generated from normal ill-health americans.

 

[Han Patriot]

Oh My God, you still don't have a grip on what the report stated.

The report is generated to the performance detail (All the point you quote is the lack of performance for individual or there of) However, that does NOT mean these criteria add up to the blame lay on US Navy, because the substantial assessment of ACX Crystal and Alnic MC is LACKING in this assessment, all the point were to discuss as to why the loss of life of this incident. Not whether or not US Navy caused the collision.
​

I think you are the one not understanding what the report said. The report specifically identified faults of the Navy's performance relating to the crash. So faults in performance does not contribute to cause of accident now? Do you even understand what you are saying?

I have been reiterating this same point over and over again, whether or not those civilian ships are at fault does not render the US NAVY being faultless. Do you grasp this basic concept or you are just like the US sailor failing to understand basic concepts in seamanship? How does fault in causing loss of life not equate to the cause of the crash when the crash itself was the cause of this loss of life. How can you be responsible to one action but not to the other action which was the source of that action in the first place? It's like saying you are responsible for the death due to stabbing but not the stabbing itself. Does it make sense to you genius?

As I said before, the performance of US Crew were indeed at fault since day 2, (FOR THE LAST TIME) but whether or not ALL THESE POINT were the main reason of the collision is not known, because at the time we do not know what did ACX crystal and Alnic MC did, and since International Convention on Avoiding Collision call for both ship to evade each other when they were given a chance. And DID YOU KNOW ACX CRYSTAL AND ALNIC MC COMPLIES TO THE RULES AT ALL? If not, how can you say US navy was solely responsible on causing the collision?

There you go, you yourself admitted the performance of the US crew was at fault. And how does this performance fault not lead to the crash? Care to explain to me? Common sense isn't it? Are you blind or something or just plain stpd? That report is specifically identifying the performance faults leading to that collision not the aftermath of the collision. This is the title of the report >
REPORT ON THE COLLISION BETWEEN USS FITZGERALD (DDG 62) AND MOTOR VESSEL ACX CRYSTAL

Were they talking about performance faults during training or something? Were they talking about performance faults 2 months before the collission on the ship? Were they talking about performance 2 days before? No right? It is specifically identifying performance faults leading to the collision. Understand genius.

All these faults are the points leading to the collision, it takes two to crash understand? I have already explained many times it does not matter if the civilian ship was also at fault, it could be both ship were at fault and caused the accident, but it does not make US NAVY NOT AT FAULT AND DIDN'T CAUSED THE ACCIDENT. Do you grasp this basic concept?​

Did the US navy judged on the incident? Tell me in which report, article and news conference they directly claim reasonability on the incident?

​

They claim responsibility in performance faults leading to the collision. Does it mean they are responsible for this alone? Does it meant the civilian ship is not responsible too? No, as mentioned many times before, both ships could be at fault and caused the incident, but this does not mean US NAVY IS NOT AT FAULT AND CAUSED THE ACCIDENT. The report specifically said the incident could have been avoided if standard navy procedures were practiced. Understand? Stop arguing for the sake of arguing and try to understand things my dear law student.

I never said it was not involved in Professionalism, but rather your claim about the Professionalism is MISPLACED and UNRELATED.

Navy is a force you used to fight a war, not taking passenger and go from A to B. Navy Crew did not have the same service life as a Professional watercraft operator (Cargo Operation, Ferry Operator) where a shell life of a Navy Enlist is 3 years span and an Officer for 4 years, and in these 3 years, they don't spend all the time went to sea. On the other hand, Navy sailor were never called "PROFESSIONAL SEAMAN" as in ships hand, and ships crew in merchant navy.

Wow, you are really one thick head, you mean to tell me performance and professionalism has nothing to do with the CRASH? . If they are not related then what is genius?

How are you gonna fight wars if you cannot navigate your ships safety from point A TO B?. You mean naval crews are just trained to fire cannons and missiles?

Seamanship is the art of operating a ship or boat.
Professionalism is the competency or skill expected of a professional.

Just because you don't create a rank called 'Professional Seaman'. This does not mean that all NAVAL CREWS need not be professional in their seamanship. That's why there is a Seaman Professional Apprenticeship Career program for Naval crews.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seaman

Seaman is the third enlisted rank from the bottom in the U.S. Navy and U.S. Coast Guard, ranking above seaman apprentice and below petty officer third class.

Navy job is to fight a war, for which, you operate a ship to do so, so if my job is a 88M in the Army (Motor Transport Operator, which mean a truck driver) would I need to be a professional driver (Like a long haul trucker) to deliver my soldier to war? I don't, I only need to know how to operate a truck and that's it you are to fight a war, not to driver people from A to B.

You are a genius, you are equating a naval ship to driving a truck now.


Do you understand the scale and complexity in operating a naval ship? OMG, you are 'smarter' than I thought.

Navy crews need to go through basic seamanship training to operate a ship and even army truck drivers need to go through their own training program to be certified to drive an army truck, so you expect a rookie to just drive a truck? Civilian truck drivers go through their own licensing programs. Btw, what is your point of argument here. Are you saying Navy crews do not need to be professionally trained in seamanship?

 

[Han Patriot]

And blaming people on crashing or colliding then it was unprofessional is pointless, so you know the law, does that mean you will never crash? Also did you actually know what caused the collision to begin with? In civil law, a crash or collision in automobile is not automatically a negligence incident. There are number of factor behind being a culpable incident, and even so, if I crash my car because I was negligence, that does not translate to I am not Professional. If then, all the taxi driver, bus driver, limo driver, truck driver would have their license taken away for being "Unprofessional" after a collision, if that happen, you won't have any "Professional" driver left.

They were called "ACCIDENT" for a reason and if you are having an accident that mean you are unprofessional, on your job, then I guess, nobody in any job is professional.

So we should just accept the death of the 17 sailors as karma? . Stop going off topic and talking about you driving your car or struck.

Navy crew goes through professional seamanship training and that makes them professionals in their profession. They are supposed to be competent in their work during active duty. If they did not perform according to incorporated procedures and protocols, that makes them 'negligent' in their actions. This is not an 'accident', this is an INCIDENT. Understand?

If there is bad weather and they were operating as per their training and procedures, the ships collided and there were no other actions which could have remedied that situation, it is an ACCIDENT. However for this debate, I am using it interchangeably for convenience sake.

Again, the term in Law is Compounded Clause I cannot tell you more until you go and study law, which mean when both side are faulted in an accident, the one that contribute more to an accident is the one that clause the accident. The Lamma IV and Sea Smooth accident is the prime example when 1 ship collided with the other (Where Sea Smooth is the cause) but both skipper went to jail for the death of 39 person, because both side is at fault. But in term of insurance, it would be Sea Smooth insurance broken have to compensate Lamma IV operator, because Sea Smooth is at fault.

Why can't you tell me more since you an an ARMY PROFESSIONAL, A LAWYER and much more? . So how does this law work? Please explain dear genius. Remember to state the related law for reference ya. Compensation or whether the ship was 20% cause of the incident still does not make the US NAVY FAULTLESS AND NOT CAUSE THE INCIDENT. Do you understand?

1.) I never claim US Navy officer is not at fault. Having faults and causing the incident is two different set of argument. What do you know about ACX Crystal? Any detail you know would excuse or absorb ACX Crystal on any fault? If you don't know then how do you know US Navy caused the collision.

So explain to me how being at fault means not causing the accident? You still have not explain to me. .

As I said, it take ACX crystal 36 minutes to response to the accident and a whole hour to turn around, which suggest nobody is in the pilot house when that happen. Which mean unless you can show me there were indeed radio log and sea log and any physical evidence on whether or not ACX was staffed during the collision, their part play bigger than the US Navy because Rule 5 and 7 of International Convention on Collision avoidance stated look our staff and pilot house MUST BE STAFFED. Which on rule 17, it stated vessel with right of way are still required to make action if the give way party did not, and compounding the rules, where US Navy only broke rule 16 (did not give way when it should be) but ACX Crystal broke 3 rules, 5, 7 and 17. So, you tell me who caused the accident?

Or you can give me information as to ACX crystal were indeed staffed during the collision? If not, then how do you know US Navy caused the collision

Again how does the fault of the ACX CRYSTAL if there ever was, meant the US NAVY IS NOT AT FAULT AND DIDN'T CAUSE THE ACCIDENT?

So? I can quote you pacific merchant vessel rule which give non-liability clause to US military personnel, the family of the sailor who was killed in these accident can sue the federal Government, but that does not mean US Navy cause the incident, as I said, read the above.

You did, you blame the US Navy, which is fine with me because you are nobody, and well, you can believe what you believe. I don't care.

Yes I blame it for the lack of professionalism in seamanship, being at fault in operating a naval vessel and causing an incident. I did not blame the naval ship solely for the incident. You need to get this right.

So? Just because US provides immunity to their naval ships does not meant their ships are not at fault and caused an incident. Japanese courts can't prosecute US Marines raping civilians anyway, does it mean they are not guilty? Pretty skewed logic there my friend.

Why can't fault be determined if you only investigate one party??? SERIOUSLY?? You are asking me this?

So, you punch me in the face in an argument, should I tell the police to investigate just you? And even if I may have put a knife or gun on your head, then it ALWAYS GOING TO END UP YOUR FAULTS, does that sound alright to you?

Yes I am asking you this. Why can't fault in not operating a naval vessel properly leading to a collision be investigated individually?.

No I tell the police to investigate both but if the police investigates me first and finds me at fault, I AM STILL AT FAULT regardless of whether the other party is also at fault since it takes two to fight. Same as a car crash explained by you earlier, both parties can be at fault and caused an accident, but that does not make any of the party faultless.

The same logic applies to the ships, you need two ships to crash. If the other party is following procedures and maritime law, then he is faultless and did not cause the accident. But now, the report specifically said the naval crews did not follow standard protocol nor the maritime rules. So they are at fault and caused the incident. The outcome now is whether the civilian ship also caused the incident. Regardless, the Navy ship is still at fault and caused the incident.

Before you said you did not blame anyone and now you said "The answer is IT IS"? Again, tell me or show me what ACX Crystal did and support your argument and I am gladly apologise to you and say you are right.

Otherwise, if you know nothing like me, what you do should be shut up and wait for the investigation to come to light.

Read my sentence properly, I said I did not blame anybody as the sole cause of the incident since the outcome of the civilian ship is not known.

But I blame the naval crews for lack of professionalism in seamanship and causing the crash.

American soldiers mostly have high PPP level of IQ/EQ/skill.
They are the disgrace to the American people but the hero to the disgusting jewish military complex.
Their only task is to waste the money generated from normal ill-health americans.

Do you understand Jhungary's mindset here? His mentality is I am dirty and you are dirty too, so it is OK. It's the typical Indian mindset. What I am trying to make him understand is, it is not OK, you are not supposed to be dirty, you are supposed to bathe and wear clothing.

 

[TaiShang]

So we should just accept the death of the 17 sailors as karma? . Stop going off topic and talking about you driving your car or struck.

Navy crew goes through professional seamanship training and that makes them professionals in their profession. They are supposed to be competent in their work during active duty. If they did not perform according to incorporated procedures and protocols, that makes them 'negligent' in their actions. This is not an 'accident', this is an INCIDENT. Understand?

If there is bad weather and they were operating as per their training and procedures, the ships collided and there were no other actions which could have remedied that situation, it is an ACCIDENT. However for this debate, I am using it interchangeably for convenience sake.



Why can't you tell me more since you an an ARMY PROFESSIONAL, A LAWYER and much more? . So how does this law work? Please explain dear genius. Remember to state the related law for reference ya. Compensation or whether the ship was 20% cause of the incident still does not make the US NAVY FAULTLESS AND NOT CAUSE THE INCIDENT. Do you understand?


So explain to me how being at fault means not causing the accident? You still have not explain to me. .



Again how does the fault of the ACX CRYSTAL if there ever was, meant the US NAVY IS NOT AT FAULT AND DIDN'T CAUSE THE ACCIDENT?




Yes I blame it for the lack of professionalism in seamanship, being at fault in operating a naval vessel and causing an incident. I did not blame the naval ship solely for the incident. You need to get this right.

So? Just because US provides immunity to their naval ships does not meant their ships are not at fault and caused an incident. Japanese courts can't prosecute US Marines raping civilians anyway, does it mean they are not guilty? Pretty skewed logic there my friend.





Yes I am asking you this. Why can't fault in not operating a naval vessel properly leading to a collision be investigated individually?.

No I tell the police to investigate both but if the police investigates me first and finds me at fault, I AM STILL AT FAULT regardless of whether the other party is also at fault since it takes two to fight. Same as a car crash explained by you earlier, both parties can be at fault and caused an accident, but that does not make any of the party faultless.

The same logic applies to the ships, you need two ships to crash. If the other party is following procedures and maritime law, then he is faultless and did not cause the accident. But now, the report specifically said the naval crews did not follow standard protocol nor the maritime rules. So they are at fault and caused the incident. The outcome now is whether the civilian ship also caused the incident. Regardless, the Navy ship is still at fault and caused the incident.


Read my sentence properly, I said I did not blame anybody as the sole cause of the incident since the outcome of the civilian ship is not known.

But I blame the naval crews for lack of professionalism in seamanship and causing the crash.


Do you understand Jhungary's mindset here? His mentality is I am dirty and you are dirty too, so it is OK. It's the typical Indian mindset. What I am trying to make him understand is, it is not OK, you are not supposed to be dirty, you are supposed to bathe and wear clothing.

You have an endless amount of sympathy and good will, my friend. Too much effort already put with little concrete progress on the receiving end.

Let's agree that it was the fault of everything else, from subatomic particles to remote galaxies, but not the fault of the "ultra mega hyper professional US army.

Can we settle on this mid point?

 

[jhungary]

So we should just accept the death of the 17 sailors as karma? . Stop going off topic and talking about you driving your car or struck.

Navy crew goes through professional seamanship training and that makes them professionals in their profession. They are supposed to be competent in their work during active duty. If they did not perform according to incorporated procedures and protocols, that makes them 'negligent' in their actions. This is not an 'accident', this is an INCIDENT. Understand?

What you are implying is Navy is a Professional Force, since they were a Professional Force, they are not allowed to have accident. And I said, what you implying is pointless.

And no, the term negligent is not just for someone not to perform their duty, but rather in a degree of reckless behaviour that knowingly perform an action that would result in injury or death, that is the definition of the term "Negligent"

So, if you are a soldier, it is not a negligent when you misfire your weapon when you clean it and hit someone. But if you are waving a gun in public with your safety off, this is negligent whether or not you are a service member.

Again, Law seems to be too complicate for you.

If there is bad weather and they were operating as per their training and procedures, the ships collided and there were no other actions which could have remedied that situation, it is an ACCIDENT. However for this debate, I am using it interchangeably for convenience sake.

How do you know what factor played in this let's call it incident?

Do you know the distant between Crystal and Fitzgerald?
Do you know the direction where both Crystal and Fitzgerald travel?
Do you know the sealane surrounding the area?
Do you know the bridge condition of each ship?

If not, good weather or bad weather, how do you know there are "NO OTHER ACTION" like you said?

Why can't you tell me more since you an an ARMY PROFESSIONAL, A LAWYER and much more? . So how does this law work? Please explain dear genius. Remember to state the related law for reference ya. Compensation or whether the ship was 20% cause of the incident still does not make the US NAVY FAULTLESS AND NOT CAUSE THE INCIDENT. Do you understand?

I am not a lawyer, my wife is a lawyer.

You have a hand and a brain right? Go search it yourself It's under "Tort of Negligence" in Commonwealth and US, it was called "Shared Fault" and the term describing the fault and responsibility is "Contributory Negligence" and "Comparative Negligent", where Contributory Negligence is you get zero AND THE OTHER PARTY ABSORB OF BLAME even if someone cause the accident but you contribute toward the accident, while the second one "Comparative Negligent" is you will get a percentage of compensation and blame according to the fault you contribute.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/contributory_negligence
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/comparative_negligence

Geez, do you need me to feed you?

So explain to me how being at fault means not causing the accident? You still have not explain to me. .

See above, and use your google instead of asking anything.

Again how does the fault of the ACX CRYSTAL if there ever was, meant the US NAVY IS NOT AT FAULT AND DIDN'T CAUSE THE ACCIDENT?

First of all, again, there were responsibility or "Fault" you can claim in the US Navy Officer in this incident, but if ACX crystal were to contribute more in this factor, the blame will be on them, because COLREGS rules are of equal weight, and if Crystal broke 3 of them and US Navy only break 1, then the Blame is on Crystal not on Fitzgerald. Because they contribute more toward the accident.

If you crashed your car while sleeping at wheel at me when I was illegally crossing the road, whose to blame in this incident? Oh, because I J-Walk, and I have to pay for your damage?

Yes I blame it for the lack of professionalism in seamanship, being at fault in operating a naval vessel and causing an incident. I did not blame the naval ship solely for the incident. You need to get this right.

Again, US Navy is not a ferry service, if they misfire a missile at China, that is to blame for the lack of professional seamanship, to cause an accident, there are not any "Professionalism" involved,

1.) No matter how "Professional" you can be, you will STILL CAUSE accident
2.) US Navy professionalism lies somewhere else not going from A to B. You don't need to train for 4 years in a merchant navy college to be an officer in the Navy which you do if you have to do commercial shipping, Navy were there to fight, not to go from A to B.

Just because they were Navy, that does not mean they are accident free, I don't see people blame Chinese or Russian Navy suffer mishap (And Russian have a lot of mishap) do you ever call Russian Navy unprofessional. You are funny.

So? Just because US provides immunity to their naval ships does not meant their ships are not at fault and caused an incident. Japanese courts can't prosecute US Marines raping civilians anyway, does it mean they are not guilty? Pretty skewed logic there my friend.

They are no guilty because they are not guilty, because there are NOTHING to be guilty in an accident, if you can proof malice in the incident, where either side intended to crash on one and other, then we can come back and talk about who's "Guilty" if not, then well, you lose.

And in this case, who's responsible is unknown, because at this point we know absolutely nothing about ACX Crystal, unless we can clear this beyond reasonable doubt, we cannot lay blame on ANYONE.

Again, unless you know something we all don't know, otherwise whatever you think is whatever you think, it's not acceptable as official position.

Yes I am asking you this. Why can't fault in not operating a naval vessel properly leading to a collision be investigated individually?.No I tell the police to investigate both but if the police investigates me first and finds me at fault, I AM STILL AT FAULT regardless of whether the other party is also at fault since it takes two to fight. Same as a car crash explained by you earlier, both parties can be at fault and caused an accident, but that does not make any of the party faultless.

The same logic applies to the ships, you need two ships to crash. If the other party is following procedures and maritime law, then he is faultless and did not cause the accident. But now, the report specifically said the naval crews did not follow standard protocol nor the maritime rules. So they are at fault and caused the incident. The outcome now is whether the civilian ship also caused the incident. Regardless, the Navy ship is still at fault and caused the incident.

How do you know who and which side leading to a collision to begin with?

Then how do you know what happen if you investigate individually, this is probably the most nonsense comment I have ever heard.

Having fault and having to blame for the incident is two different concept.

Faults are liable to punitive damage to any party that was hurt, but the blame is WHOLELY liable for anyone involved in this incident.

First of all, I never, EVER said no fault was made by individual with the Navy, and they would be held accountable for that, and they did, and the Navy will be liable to punitive damage to the crew who were injured and killed in this accident. Because the Navy let down their sailor with they killed and injured needlessly

However, the general blame is unknown, which we need to because we need to assign a liability to the party AS A WHOLE, which mean everyone can claim damage on. Which mean who's to blame on this incident, and the party that was blamed have to take responsibility and liable for ANY DAMAGE to ANYTHING INVOLVING this accident.

Having fault does not mean you caused the accident, and the other side of the coin is also true, have no liability to the accident does not mean you are faultless, at no time I claim no party were faultless.

Who's at fault is a different concept than who's to blame. I don't know why you still asking me that.​

Read my sentence properly, I said I did not blame anybody as the sole cause of the incident since the outcome of the civilian ship is not known.

But I blame the naval crews for lack of professionalism in seamanship and causing the crash.

Again, what professionalism you are talking about. As I told you before, knowing rules and following rule still means accident can happen.

Navy fight war, not to go from A to B, this is an ACCIDENT, do tell me how this is unprofessionalism, because they crashed? because they didn't follow rules? or because you said they are unprofessional, then they are unprofessional?

And then even if professionalism is lacking, what are there to blame? Even if I concede USN is acting unprofessional, does that actually mean anything? At the end of the day, being professional does not have any co-relation of having an accident. So? I don't know what you are blaming unless you try to say US Navy being unprofessional caused this accident, but then you flat out denied it because as you said

"I did not lay any blame on any body"

can't argue with boat refugees.....
They have no logistics or reasoning.
You are just wasting your time, they are the same type of people.

probably can't argue with Chicom like you too, like a robot...

 

[AndrewJin]

You have an endless amount of sympathy and good will, my friend. Too much effort already put with little concrete progress on the receiving end.

Let's agree that it was the fault of everything else, from subatomic particles to remote galaxies, but not the fault of the "ultra mega hyper professional US army.

Can we settle on this mid point?

It's Trump's wife's fault.
Her former showgirl business and history of prosti**** are harming the military complex and soldier's ability to drink properly.

 

[TaiShang]

It's Trump's wife's fault.
Her former showgirl business and history of prosti**** are harming the military complex and soldier's ability to drink properly.

I ascribe most of the blame on declining professionalism of the US army due to diminishing qualities inhuman resource acquisition standards.

That's the conclusion I arrived at having read all the available literature.

 

[Han Patriot]

What you are implying is Navy is a Professional Force, since they were a Professional Force, they are not allowed to have accident. And I said, what you implying is pointless.

I am not implying, I am TELLING you they are supposed to be a professional force. Multiple cases of incompetency indicates a widespread drop in professionalism. Accidents happen due to uncontrollable circumstances not because of a negligence and a failure to adhere to naval protocols.

And no, the term negligent is not just for someone not to perform their duty, but rather in a degree of reckless behaviour that knowingly perform an action that would result in injury or death, that is the definition of the term "Negligent"

Negligence is not just due to someone not performing their duty, it is also due to someone not performing their duty properly resulting in incidences like this. It is also because of a neglect in conforming to standards, rules and protocols set in place to prevent such incidents.

Negligence

Conduct that falls below the standards of behavior established by law for the protection of others against unreasonable risk of harm.

So, if you are a soldier, it is not a negligent when you misfire your weapon when you clean it and hit someone. But if you are waving a gun in public with your safety off, this is negligent whether or not you are a service member.
Again, Law seems to be too complicate for you.

It is not negligent if you clean your weapon as per procedures and established rules and hit someone. Example, maybe you are supposed to remove the bullet cartridge before cleaning and if somehow the bullet explodes accidentally, then you are not guilty of negligence. Law is not complicated but you are complicated, because you pretend you know law and then twist it around as if there is no the US NAVY HAS NO FAULT AND DID NOT CAUSE THE INCIDENT.

How do you know what factor played in this let's call it incident?

Do you know the distant between Crystal and Fitzgerald?
Do you know the direction where both Crystal and Fitzgerald travel?
Do you know the sealane surrounding the area?
Do you know the bridge condition of each ship?

If not, good weather or bad weather, how do you know there are "NO OTHER ACTION" like you said?

A very simple reason, they did not follow maritime rules nor follow naval procedures during operations leading up to the collision. The navy report did not report any natural anomalies leading up to the collision.

I am not a lawyer, my wife is a lawyer.

You have a hand and a brain right? Go search it yourself It's under "Tort of Negligence" in Commonwealth and US, it was called "Shared Fault" and the term describing the fault and responsibility is "Contributory Negligence" and "Comparative Negligent", where Contributory Negligence is you get zero AND THE OTHER PARTY ABSORB OF BLAME even if someone cause the accident but you contribute toward the accident, while the second one "Comparative Negligent" is you will get a percentage of compensation and blame according to the fault you contribute.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/contributory_negligence
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/comparative_negligence

Geez, do you need me to feed you?

Right, my grandmother is a lawyer in that case.. It seems to me you are just copy pasting sites without explaining your idea or argument and trying to avoid answering this question. It's the same overwhelm your opponent tactic but instead of you writing an essay, you are posting legal tomes to me.

Yes, you need to explain to me how the US Navy is 'FAULTLESS AND DID NOT CAUSE' the incident legally. You can point to me a tome and I won't understand. I need you professional explanation. Shared fault, comparative negligent, contributory negligence, answer me one question, is there any fault in the navy however minuscule you try to paint it to be?

First of all, again, there were responsibility or "Fault" you can claim in the US Navy Officer in this incident, but if ACX crystal were to contribute more in this factor, the blame will be on them, because COLREGS rules are of equal weight, and if Crystal broke 3 of them and US Navy only break 1, then the Blame is on Crystal not on Fitzgerald. Because they contribute more toward the accident.

First you already admit there is FAULT. You are not explaining to me how this FAULT does not lead to a CAUSE. Doesn't matter how much CAUSE each side contribute, I am asking you a simple question, did or did not the US Navy was at FAULT and CAUSED the incident, however minuscule the percentage maybe?

If you crashed your car while sleeping at wheel at me when I was illegally crossing the road, whose to blame in this incident? Oh, because I J-Walk, and I have to pay for your damage?

Both would be at FAULT and both CAUSED the accident and the degree of CAUSE as you said might depend on the percentage each of the party is responsible for, but tell me how does it make you FAULTLESS in crossing the road illegally? How are you not contributing to that accident due to your reckless act, however minuscule the act might seem? Now multiply this concept to a few thousand ton ship housing few hundred sailors and 17 of them died. So stop thinking this is just a car crash, this is not, the severity it caused is massive.

Again, US Navy is not a ferry service, if they misfire a missile at China, that is to blame for the lack of professional seamanship, to cause an accident, there are not any "Professionalism" involved,

You don't have to be a ferry to transport goods and humans. Naval ships transport goods, personnel and equipment to FIGHT wars. How can you say there is no professionalism involved, when these sailors were professionally trained by the Navy through the NAVY PROFESSIONAL SEAMANSHIP program to operate ships? Are you telling me your Navy is supposed to be a ragtag band of brothers?

Do you know what is opposite of a professional military? It's a militia genius.

1.) No matter how "Professional" you can be, you will STILL CAUSE accident
2.) US Navy professionalism lies somewhere else not going from A to B. You don't need to train for 4 years in a merchant navy college to be an officer in the Navy which you do if you have to do commercial shipping, Navy were there to fight, not to go from A to B.

Yup nobody disagrees with that. You can cause an accident, however well trained you are. But if you cannot perform your job competently while following rules and regulations, then you are not just causing an accident. You are causing an incident. Can you explain to me how are supposed to fight if you can't get from point A to B safely? What about logistics? Who is gonna feed and fuel your fleet? Are you even coherent?

Just because they were Navy, that does not mean they are accident free, I don't see people blame Chinese or Russian Navy suffer mishap (And Russian have a lot of mishap) do you ever call Russian Navy unprofessional. You are funny.

Stop shifting the goal post. What has Chinese or Russian accidents got to do with US Navy professionalism and competency? If it's accident, nobody can blame you, but how may 'accidents' did you get this year? If it's an accident, why fire the commanders? ANSWER ME GENIUS.

They are no guilty because they are not guilty, because there are NOTHING to be guilty in an accident, if you can proof malice in the incident, where either side intended to crash on one and other, then we can come back and talk about who's "Guilty" if not, then well, you lose.

Not guilty? How about not following maritime rules? How about not following naval protocols and procedures? Ah, it's just an accident, ooopps, 17 dead yankees. Guilty or not, it's not my call, but I do know the NAVY is at FAULT and CAUSED an incident.

And in this case, who's responsible is unknown, because at this point we know absolutely nothing about ACX Crystal, unless we can clear this beyond reasonable doubt, we cannot lay blame on ANYONE.

Again, unless you know something we all don't know, otherwise whatever you think is whatever you think, it's not acceptable as official position.

The question is not whether there is anyone responsible, the question is whether both parties are responsible.. The navy report had been very explicit in stating that the 'accident' was avoidable had those sailors followed procedures.

How do you know who and which side leading to a collision to begin with?

Then how do you know what happen if you investigate individually, this is probably the most nonsense comment I have ever heard.

Having fault and having to blame for the incident is two different concept.

I do not need to know who started it, crashes happen simultaneously, how do start a crash first? You need both to bang each other at the precise time to crash genius. Or you need me to explain physics to you? I know two sides crashed, and one side is already proven at fault.

Faults are liable to punitive damage to any party that was hurt, but the blame is WHOLELY liable for anyone involved in this incident.

First of all, I never, EVER said no fault was made by individual with the Navy, and they would be held accountable for that, and they did, and the Navy will be liable to punitive damage to the crew who were injured and killed in this accident. Because the Navy let down their sailor with they killed and injured needlessly

However, the general blame is unknown, which we need to because we need to assign a liability to the party AS A WHOLE, which mean everyone can claim damage on. Which mean who's to blame on this incident, and the party that was blamed have to take responsibility and liable for ANY DAMAGE to ANYTHING INVOLVING this accident.

You admitted that the navy is at fault several times and then now you talk about damages. The debate is not whether the navy will be liable for damages, the debate was about whether the navy was at fault in operating their ship, yes they were. A very simple concept, I am just asking you this:

1) Did the US NAVY operate professionally as per procedures and rules: NO
2) Did their ship crash into another ship: YES.

Having fault does not mean you caused the accident, and the other side of the coin is also true, have no liability to the accident does not mean you are faultless, at no time I claim no party were faultless.

Who's at fault is a different concept than who's to blame. I don't know why you still asking me that.

​

Again, what professionalism you are talking about. As I told you before, knowing rules and following rule still means accident can happen.

Navy fight war, not to go from A to B, this is an ACCIDENT, do tell me how this is unprofessionalism, because they crashed? because they didn't follow rules? or because you said they are unprofessional, then they are unprofessional?

And then even if professionalism is lacking, what are there to blame? Even if I concede USN is acting unprofessional, does that actually mean anything? At the end of the day, being professional does not have any co-relation of having an accident. So? I don't know what you are blaming unless you try to say US Navy being unprofessional caused this accident, but then you flat out denied it because as you said

"I did not lay any blame on any body"



probably can't argue with Chicom like you too, like a robot...

Until today you still cannot answer why having fault does not mean they did not cause the incident. You do you or do you not agree the US NAVY is at FAULT? Now you are telling me there is FAULT, the next you are telling me they are not. Which is which now, your schizo kick in again? I said I did not lay blame on anybody solely since the report on the commercial ship is not out yet. But I blame the US NAVY for their fault in causing an accident however small their contribution maybe. I have been repeating this the nth time, DO YOU GET IT??

 

[Han Patriot]

I ascribe most of the blame on declining professionalism of the US army due to diminishing qualities inhuman resource acquisition standards.

That's the conclusion I arrived at having read all the available literature.

By jhungary's logic, the US military is not supposed to be a professional fighting force. And by his logic fighting only involves firing a bullet, nothing to do with operating ships to get from point A to point B safely. He reckons that's a task for ferries.

This guy is even more delusional than our indic neighbours. He also admits the US Navy is at FAULT for the collision but did not cause the collision. I asked him how can you be at fault but not cause the collision, he still can't answer till now.

 

[sinait]

By jhungary's logic, the US military is not supposed to be a professional fighting force. And by his logic fighting only involves firing a bullet, nothing to do with operating ships to get from point A to point B safely. He reckons that's a task for ferries.

This guy is even more delusional than our indic neighbours. He also admits the US Navy is at FAULT for the collision but did not cause the collision. I asked him how can you be at fault but not cause the collision, he still can't answer till now.

He need to ask his wife first.
If wife not free, then his wife brother.
He can also ask his wife father, wife father brother, wife father sister ... .
No need worry, the answer will come.
It will be few pages long since it took so long.
.

 

[Beast]

By jhungary's logic, the US military is not supposed to be a professional fighting force. And by his logic fighting only involves firing a bullet, nothing to do with operating ships to get from point A to point B safely. He reckons that's a task for ferries.

This guy is even more delusional than our indic neighbours. He also admits the US Navy is at FAULT for the collision but did not cause the collision. I asked him how can you be at fault but not cause the collision, he still can't answer till now.

I think he is trolling here. Everybody can see the myth of so called highly professionalism of US armed forces. They are only as good as Hollywood portray. In real time, you can beat them easily

US armed forces is only good at beating militant or lightly armed insurgent.

 

[Han Patriot]

I think he is trolling here. Everybody can see the myth of so called highly professionalism of US armed forces. They are only as good as Hollywood portray. In real time, you can beat them easily

US armed forces is only good at beating militant or lightly armed insurgent.

The US don't even dare engage a third world army like India in the 70s. They only bully countries which are extremely weak like Iraq. Once we have 6 CBGs in place, they will think twice before going to the middle of the Taiwan Straits like in 96. Our navy is the second most powerful on earth now. The gap will only get smaller.

 

[TaiShang]

The US don't even dare engage a third world army like India in the 70s. They only bully countries which are extremely weak like Iraq. Once we have 6 CBGs in place, they will think twice before going to the middle of the Taiwan Straits like in 96. Our navy is the second most powerful on earth now. The gap will only get smaller.

That was what I had in mind when you quoted my point in the previous page. Maybe they appear mighty because they avoided fighting credible opponents in recent history.

Besides, they tend to flock together. Even the helpless Iraq and more recently, Libya, got demolished by a coalition of forces.

This is, however, a plus on their part. They are able to mobilize colonized armies of other vassal states for their own wars. For example, they destroyed Libya, and it was Europe to receive the after shocks in the form of terrorism and immigration.

Nevertheless, the US army may have impressive propaganda capability to create an image of power, but these signs of unprofessionalism are very telling.

The king may in fact be less dressed up than we were told.

 

[jhungary]

I am not implying, I am TELLING you they are supposed to be a professional force. Multiple cases of incompetency indicates a widespread drop in professionalism. Accidents happen due to uncontrollable circumstances not because of a negligence and a failure to adhere to naval protocols.

Negligence is not just due to someone not performing their duty, it is also due to someone not performing their duty properly resulting in incidences like this. It is also because of a neglect in conforming to standards, rules and protocols set in place to prevent such incidents.

Again, see post above, have already perfectly clear out the definition of negligent, not gonna type again

And

1.) Your definition of Negligent is wrong, the law definition is that

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/negligence

Definition
A failure to behave with the level of care that someone of ordinary prudence would have exercised under the same circumstances. The behaviour usually consists of actions, but can also consist of omissions when there is some duty to act (e.g., a duty to help victims of one's previous conduct).

And a reasonable person determined by law
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/reasonable_person

A legal standard used in negligence (personal injury) cases. The hypothetical reasonable person behaves in a way that is legally appropriate. Those who do not meet this standard -- that is, they do not behave at least as a reasonable person would -- are considered negligent and may be held liable for damages caused by their actions.

Hence, not following procedure is not the sole factor to judge the case of negligent, but rather, is your action comparable to a normal person as legally appropriate.

IF EVERYONE FOLLOW RULES AND GUIDE LINE THERE CAN NEVER BE AN ACCIDENT If so, accident happens when somebody is neglect like you said, then it is within the law that EVERY ACCIDENT WOULD HAVE RESULT IN A NEGLIGENT CHARGE, but you don't see every motor traffic accident ended up in a culpable negligent charge, I have 5 motor collision, 3 resulting in totally my car, I was only ever charged with negligent driving one time, because that was really completely my fault (as I hit a parked car)

2.) 5 collision is with 5 different crew, and not all there exist a US Navy element is at fault , at most you can provide an argument of 5 mishap suffered by the US Navy, nothing more, and 5 with 400 deployment worldwide a year is pretty good (That 1.25% of all deployment ended up in collision)

A very simple reason, they did not follow maritime rules nor follow naval procedures during operations leading up to the collision. The navy report did not report any natural anomalies leading up to the collision.

Again HOW. DO. YOU. KNOW?

And since you don't know what ACX Crystal did, how do you know they were not to blame? Because it was assumed they did nothing wrong?

Show proof if you can proof it, if not, then it mean you don't know who is to blame

Right, my grandmother is a lawyer in that case.. It seems to me you are just copy pasting sites without explaining your idea or argument and trying to avoid answering this question. It's the same overwhelm your opponent tactic but instead of you writing an essay, you are posting legal tomes to me.

Yes, you need to explain to me how the US Navy is 'FAULTLESS AND DID NOT CAUSE' the incident legally. You can point to me a tome and I won't understand. I need you professional explanation. Shared fault, comparative negligent, contributory negligence, answer me one question, is there any fault in the navy however minuscule you try to paint it to be?

OMG, are you that lazy? And I did not say US Navy personnel is faultless, (I said that for the 10th times now)

A simple search on "SHARED NEGLIGENT" result in this law firm website by JD (Juris Doctor) David Goguen

Personal injury cases hinge on the question: Who was at fault for the accident or incident that caused the injury? And in many cases, the answer isn't very clear-cut. What if you share some level of fault for the accident? In this article we'll discuss how that might affect your case.

Fault in Legal Terms
In legal terms, fault is a loaded word. It means that someone was responsible for causing harm -- usually through carelessness that rises to the level of negligence -- and must pay compensation for all injuries and other losses stemming from that harm. If a personal injury lawsuit goes to court, the result can be a civil jury award in the hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars.

What if Multiple Parties are at Fault?
Sometimes not just one person is at fault. You may have been negligent, and someone else may also have been negligent, making both of you at fault. So, what happens in this scenario? The answer will be vital to your case.

Comparative vs. Contributory Fault Laws
In shared fault situations in a personal injury case, every state follows some variation of one of two legal rules: comparative negligence or contributory negligence.

Contributory Negligence
Contributory negligence essentially says that if you contribute to your own injury, you can't hold anyone else responsible for it. In a pure contributory negligence system, if you are even one percent at fault and you suffer hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages, you can't collect any compensation from the person who is 99 percent at fault. If you are determined to have been negligent, even a little bit, you get nothing. This is a pretty harsh rule, but it remains in place in a handful of states (check out the chart below to see which states still follow the contributory negligence rule).

Comparative Negligence
Comparative fault is different from contributory negligence. Under a comparative negligence rule, the first assessment involves the amount of fault that belongs to each person (for causing the accident or injury).

For instance, say one driver ran a red light and the other turned left too soon, right before a car accident. Both of these parties were negligent, and each contributed to the accident. The factfinder in that case (the judge or jury) would have to determine how much fault each of them contributed. For instance, perhaps the person who ran the red light was the one who was primarily responsible, and the other driver just contributed a bit with his own negligent action. The driver who ran the red might be found to be 60 percent at fault, and the driver who turned illegally, 40 percent responsible.

In such cases, under a pure comparative fault system, each party could collect damages equal to the percent of fault that belongs to the other party. For instance, say the left turn driver suffered $100,000 in damages. He/she could recover $60,000 from the red-light runner. If the red-light runner also suffered $100,000 in damages, he/she could only recover 40 percent of those costs, or $40,000, from the driver who made the left turn.

Pure Comparative Fault Vs. Modified Comparative Fault
Some states follow a "pure" comparative negligence rule, and other states have a general cut-off point in place when it comes to just how much fault an injured plaintiff can have and still collect from another at-fault party. The states that set this dividing line in the sand are referred to as "modified comparative fault states" because they've changed the pure comparative fault rules.

In states that follow a "modified comparative negligence" rule, an injured plaintiff can collect compensation from other at-fault parties as long as the plaintiff was less than 50 percent responsible for the accident or incident that led to the injuries.

First you already admit there is FAULT. You are not explaining to me how this FAULT does not lead to a CAUSE. Doesn't matter how much CAUSE each side contribute, I am asking you a simple question, did or did not the US Navy was at FAULT and CAUSED the incident, however minuscule the percentage maybe?

Both would be at FAULT and both CAUSED the accident and the degree of CAUSE as you said might depend on the percentage each of the party is responsible for, but tell me how does it make you FAULTLESS in crossing the road illegally? How are you not contributing to that accident due to your reckless act, however minuscule the act might seem? Now multiply this concept to a few thousand ton ship housing few hundred sailors and 17 of them died. So stop thinking this is just a car crash, this is not, the severity it caused is massive.​

That's because HAVING FAULT and CAUSING THE ACCIDENT is TWO DIFFERENT CONCEPT, a person at fault MAY NOT CAUSED THE ACCIDENT geez, HOW MANY TIME I HAVE TO TELL YOU, read above?

What you are thinking is "Whoever faulted caused the accident" this is wrong, as fault can be shared as mentioned above. And whoever have the biggest share of the fault is the one that cause the accident. ​

And yes, in term of law, a sea collision is of no different than an aviation collision and motor vehicle collision, you don't have a different definition for each type of collision. So I can use a bicycle accident to compare to two ship colliding, in term of law.

If you are too dumb to understand law, then that is not my problem.

You don't have to be a ferry to transport goods and humans. Naval ships transport goods, personnel and equipment to FIGHT wars. How can you say there is no professionalism involved, when these sailors were professionally trained by the Navy through the NAVY PROFESSIONAL SEAMANSHIP program to operate ships? Are you telling me your Navy is supposed to be a ragtag band of brothers?

Do you know what is opposite of a professional military? It's a militia genius.

Navy ship transit, not transport, at least in US Navy, all transport was done by Navy Sealift Command, which are "Professional Seaman" from the Merchant Navy.

How do you determine one "Professionalism" through training? Your argument is strange.

If I am unprofessional, no matter how much I train, I would be unprofessional as long as I stayed that way, because the problem is me, not the system.

So in term of the Navy, they are a PROFESSIONAL FIGHTING FORCE, not a Professional Transport force that focus from going from A to B. DO you even know how many hours seaman in the navy was trained and have experience on ship? If you compare it to a regular ferry pilot, you will be amaze.

Yup nobody disagrees with that. You can cause an accident, however well trained you are. But if you cannot perform your job competently while following rules and regulations, then you are not just causing an accident. You are causing an incident. Can you explain to me how are supposed to fight if you can't get from point A to B safely? What about logistics? Who is gonna feed and fuel your fleet? Are you even coherent?

No, just because I did something wrong, I contributed to the accident, as I said, the Captain of Fitzgerald is obliviously in the wrong because he was asleep in his quarter when Navy Reg require him to be on the bridge if ships enter decision circle like that, but can anyone claim The Navy Captain causing an accident because he was asleep in his quarter? Nope, because he did not empty the pilot house when he goes to sleep, his duty is dedicated to other people, there were lookout, there were OOD on bridge. He did not cause the accident. On the other hand did the lookout cause the accident because he did not see a 30,000 tons ship? He is in the wrong not to see it (or maybe he did see it but did not report it in time) but again, the other party would be able to see a equally large destroyer, which mean at lease, in this case, the ship collided is wrong on the both side.

And being professional and being safe is two different issue, as I explained before, being professional does not mean you will NEVER Crash. If being a professional mean you will get from A to B safely, then Paul Walker would still be alive, so does James Dean, so does Senna, so does so does anyone who is a professional driver and crash and died in the last 50 years.

Or you are going to argue Roger Rodas, James Dean, Aryton Senna were not professional driver?

So basically, everyone on this list you would claim they are not "Professional" Driver then.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driver_deaths_in_motorsport

Stop shifting the goal post. What has Chinese or Russian accidents got to do with US Navy professionalism and competency? If it's accident, nobody can blame you, but how may 'accidents' did you get this year? If it's an accident, why fire the commanders? ANSWER ME GENIUS.

Not guilty? How about not following maritime rules? How about not following naval protocols and procedures? Ah, it's just an accident, ooopps, 17 dead yankees. Guilty or not, it's not my call, but I do know the NAVY is at FAULT and CAUSED an incident.

Not all accident result in a guilty (which mean it is a criminal matter) verdict, again, if you know nothing about law, you should basically just shut up.

And how do you know Navy caused the accident?

The question is not whether there is anyone responsible, the question is whether both parties are responsible.. The navy report had been very explicit in stating that the 'accident' was avoidable had those sailors followed procedures.

So? Does that mean ACX Crystal is absorbed at fault because US navy claim procedural error on their side?

I am talking about who's to blame, not who is at fault, again, different concept, if you failed to see that, I cannot help you.

I do not need to know who started it, crashes happen simultaneously, how do start a crash first? You need both to bang each other at the precise time to crash genius. Or you need me to explain physics to you? I know two sides crashed, and one side is already proven at fault.

​

So? Again, if US navy admitted their sailor did have procedural error, DOES THAT ABSORT ACX CRYSTAL responsibility?

You admitted that the navy is at fault several times and then now you talk about damages. The debate is not whether the navy will be liable for damages, the debate was about whether the navy was at fault in operating their ship, yes they were. A very simple concept, I am just asking you this:

1) Did the US NAVY operate professionally as per procedures and rules: NO
2) Did their ship crash into another ship: YES.
​

​

Again, so? I already said the Navy is liable to their own sailor, because there exist procedual error, but whether or not the Navy is "Responsible" in this accident is open to discussion. Because as I say this again, YOU STILL DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPEN ON ACX CRYSTAL END.

And no, accident compensation is not as simple like that because first you will need to determined who is responsible then what happen next, if you do not know who is responsible, how do you know the Navy ship crashed into other ship like you said?

​

​

Until today you still cannot answer why having fault does not mean they did not cause the incident. You do you or do you not agree the US NAVY is at FAULT? Now you are telling me there is FAULT, the next you are telling me they are not. Which is which now, your schizo kick in again? I said I did not lay blame on anybody solely since the report on the commercial ship is not out yet. But I blame the US NAVY for their fault in causing an accident however small their contribution maybe. I have been repeating this the nth time, DO YOU GET IT??

I did, and you are too dumb to get the answer, I have quoted the term, the law and numerous example, if you are too dumb to understand why at fault does not mean they caused the accident, then it's you who are under the level of intelligence to understand such an argument. And that I cannot help you with.

And are flip flopping between your "Argument" first you say you do not blame anyone, then you say you "Blame the US NAVY and their fault caused the accident" This is a typical reaction when you are about to lose an argument

By jhungary's logic, the US military is not supposed to be a professional fighting force. And by his logic fighting only involves firing a bullet, nothing to do with operating ships to get from point A to point B safely. He reckons that's a task for ferries.

This guy is even more delusional than our indic neighbours. He also admits the US Navy is at FAULT for the collision but did not cause the collision. I asked him how can you be at fault but not cause the collision, he still can't answer till now.

I did not say that, I said US Navy is not supposed to be a Professional Transport, do you even know the training that distinguished between train to fight at sea and train to go from A to B?

Andit is you who are too dumb to understand the concept of shared fault, you cannot blame me for that, well, not everyone is a lawyer material but then yeah.

 

[Han Patriot]

Again, see post above, have already perfectly clear out the definition of negligent, not gonna type again

And

1.) Your definition of Negligent is wrong, the law definition is that

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/negligence



And a reasonable person determined by law
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/reasonable_person

Why is my definition wrong? Mine is from Duke.

https://sites.duke.edu/wlsa/files/2012/06/Besking-2013.pdf

- Negligence is conduct which falls below the standard (reasonable man) established by law for the protection of others against unreasonable risk of harm.

Hence, not following procedure is not the sole factor to judge the case of negligent, but rather, is your action comparable to a normal person as legally appropriate.

Not following procedures is not the sole factor in negligence, but it is A MAJOR FACTOR in negligence. It is just common sense, there is a preset step of procedures to ensure safety and if you do not those steps in ensuring safety, aren't you negligent? Explain to me how is it not negligent when you don't follow safety procedures? If you are in a nuclear power plant like on an aircraft carrier, there are shutdown procedures for the turbines, aren't you supposed to follow those shutdown procedures to ensure safety? Aren't they negligent in their duties if they fail to follow those procedures? Do you understand what you are even talking or you are just moving you mouth without thinking?

IF EVERYONE FOLLOW RULES AND GUIDE LINE THERE CAN NEVER BE AN ACCIDENT If so, accident happens when somebody is neglect like you said, then it is within the law that EVERY ACCIDENT WOULD HAVE RESULT IN A NEGLIGENT CHARGE, but you don't see every motor traffic accident ended up in a culpable negligent charge, I have 5 motor collision, 3 resulting in totally my car, I was only ever charged with negligent driving one time, because that was really completely my fault (as I hit a parked car)

DID THEY FOLLOW RULES AND PROCEDURES IN THE FIRST PLACE genius? No right? As I mentioned, if you follow rules and procedures and an accident happens, then it is an valid accident. How many times do I need to explain? Are you even listening and using some brain to understand or you just like to argue? I mean this is common sense, you don't have to type an essay to understand this SIMPLE concept.

2.) 5 collision is with 5 different crew, and not all there exist a US Navy element is at fault , at most you can provide an argument of 5 mishap suffered by the US Navy, nothing more, and 5 with 400 deployment worldwide a year is pretty good (That 1.25% of all deployment ended up in collision)

What are you even blurting about? This is a very simple question, it is whether the US NAVY was AT FAULT and CAUSED an INCIDENT for the USS Fitz/USS Mccain case. Can you understand this simple sentence? Am I blaming the navy for eternally for ALL KNOWN INCIDENTS AND ACCIDENT KNOWN TO MANKIND genius? Are you sane? Your arguments and ideas are incoherent and you keep on shifting the goal post instead of concentrating on the initial debate. Are you Indian by any chance? Normally Indians would go crazy and haywire and start talking incoherently when they cannot provide reasonable responses to a debate.

Again HOW. DO. YOU. KNOW?

And since you don't know what ACX Crystal did, how do you know they were not to blame? Because it was assumed they did nothing wrong?

Show proof if you can proof it, if not, then it mean you don't know who is to blame

It doesn't matter if ACX is at fault too, it does not render the US NAVY FAULTLESS and CAUSED the crash too. How many times do you need me to repeat this. Why are you repeating the same question over and over again. If one party is proven at fault and cause and incident, the other party can also be at fault and cause the accident, both party can be at fault and cause the accident but this does not mean the first party is free of any fault. UNDERSTAND my ignorant friend?

OMG, are you that lazy? And I did not say US Navy personnel is faultless, (I said that for the 10th times now)

READ YOUR POST AGAIN, you are incoherent, one point you admit the US NAVY is at fault, the next you are saying they are not. So WHICH IS WHICH NOW? GOSH, you are talking so much you don't even remember what you said now genius?

A simple search on "SHARED NEGLIGENT" result in this law firm website by JD (Juris Doctor) David Goguen

Personal injury cases hinge on the question: Who was at fault for the accident or incident that caused the injury? And in many cases, the answer isn't very clear-cut. What if you share some level of fault for the accident? In this article we'll discuss how that might affect your case.

Fault in Legal Terms
In legal terms, fault is a loaded word. It means that someone was responsible for causing harm -- usually through carelessness that rises to the level of negligence -- and must pay compensation for all injuries and other losses stemming from that harm. If a personal injury lawsuit goes to court, the result can be a civil jury award in the hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars.

What if Multiple Parties are at Fault?
Sometimes not just one person is at fault. You may have been negligent, and someone else may also have been negligent, making both of you at fault. So, what happens in this scenario? The answer will be vital to your case.

Comparative vs. Contributory Fault Laws
In shared fault situations in a personal injury case, every state follows some variation of one of two legal rules: comparative negligence or contributory negligence.

Contributory Negligence
Contributory negligence essentially says that if you contribute to your own injury, you can't hold anyone else responsible for it. In a pure contributory negligence system, if you are even one percent at fault and you suffer hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages, you can't collect any compensation from the person who is 99 percent at fault. If you are determined to have been negligent, even a little bit, you get nothing. This is a pretty harsh rule, but it remains in place in a handful of states (check out the chart below to see which states still follow the contributory negligence rule).

Comparative Negligence
Comparative fault is different from contributory negligence. Under a comparative negligence rule, the first assessment involves the amount of fault that belongs to each person (for causing the accident or injury).

For instance, say one driver ran a red light and the other turned left too soon, right before a car accident. Both of these parties were negligent, and each contributed to the accident. The factfinder in that case (the judge or jury) would have to determine how much fault each of them contributed. For instance, perhaps the person who ran the red light was the one who was primarily responsible, and the other driver just contributed a bit with his own negligent action. The driver who ran the red might be found to be 60 percent at fault, and the driver who turned illegally, 40 percent responsible.

In such cases, under a pure comparative fault system, each party could collect damages equal to the percent of fault that belongs to the other party. For instance, say the left turn driver suffered $100,000 in damages. He/she could recover $60,000 from the red-light runner. If the red-light runner also suffered $100,000 in damages, he/she could only recover 40 percent of those costs, or $40,000, from the driver who made the left turn.

Pure Comparative Fault Vs. Modified Comparative Fault
Some states follow a "pure" comparative negligence rule, and other states have a general cut-off point in place when it comes to just how much fault an injured plaintiff can have and still collect from another at-fault party. The states that set this dividing line in the sand are referred to as "modified comparative fault states" because they've changed the pure comparative fault rules.

In states that follow a "modified comparative negligence" rule, an injured plaintiff can collect compensation from other at-fault parties as long as the plaintiff was less than 50 percent responsible for the accident or incident that led to the injuries.

You are copy pasting one big tome of legal terms and yet you are not explaining one simple question I asked, HOW DOES BEING AT FAULT MEANT YOU DID NOT CAUSED THE CRASH? Until now you are not answering it. You are only writing gibberish and copy pasting stuff and not answering anything. This makes you look ignorant and desperate.

That's because HAVING FAULT and CAUSING THE ACCIDENT is TWO DIFFERENT CONCEPT, a person at fault MAY NOT CAUSED THE ACCIDENT geez, HOW MANY TIME I HAVE TO TELL YOU, read above?

What you are thinking is "Whoever faulted caused the accident" this is wrong, as fault can be shared as mentioned above. And whoever have the biggest share of the fault is the one that cause the accident. ​

You are TELLING me, you are not justifying your statement. I can say you are gay but I have to explain why you are gay right? I have to proof you are gay. Understand? Typing an essay without answering anything is plain stupid.

And yes I am telling you whoever is at fault caused the incident. If both are at fault, then both caused the incident. Care to explain to me why am I wrong?

And yes, in term of law, a sea collision is of no different than an aviation collision and motor vehicle collision, you don't have a different definition for each type of collision. So I can use a bicycle accident to compare to two ship colliding, in term of law.

If you are too dumb to understand law, then that is not my problem.

Yes Mr. Lawyer's husband, by your logic we don't need maritime laws, we can just apply road regulations right?

READ THIS GENIUS
https://www.houstoninjurylawyer.com/fault-maritime-collision/



WHO IS AT FAULT IN A MARITIME COLLISION?

Determining who caused a maritime collision is quite a bit different than if you were dealing with an auto collision. The rules of the road are clear and generally known by everyone legally allowed to drive. The rules and reality of navigating water are different and less well known, which can make determining fault difficult and contentious.

When looking to see who is at fault, a court will evaluate whether you and the other vessel were compliant with the Navigation Rules.

Do you understand the above statement genius? Auto collision and Ship collision are different in nature. When you are on a road, the path is set, you are on your side of the road and I am on my side. In the sea, do you see dividers and red lights, genius? NO RIGHT. So how the heck can they be the same. COMMON SENSE, PLEASE USE SOME COMMON SENSE. Geesh, how many times do I have to prove you wrong, first you said military are not supposed to be professional, then you said they don't have to follow laws and regulations, then now you can't even differentiate maritime collisions and road collisions? I am beginning to doubt your IQ now.

The statement above also makes it clear that the party who is at fault is the party not following navigation rules, as per the report, the US NAVY DID NOT follow those rules. So they were definitely at fault and caused the accident, the unknown now is whether the ACX CRYSTAL is also culpable of causing the incident. Understand. Being partially responsible for a crash does not mean you are not causing a crash. Please get this simple concept into your thick skull.

Navy ship transit, not transport, at least in US Navy, all transport was done by Navy Sealift Command, which are "Professional Seaman" from the Merchant Navy.

How do you determine one "Professionalism" through training? Your argument is strange.

So you mean every time a destroyer needs to move around with sailors, ammunition and food, they need to hire a merchant navy to transport it form point A to point B? So the sailors who are meant to operate the ships and the food, missiles and equipment on that destroyers first need to be dismantled, get down and uploaded on to a merchant navy to be transported? If those equipment and sailors onboard are removed, how are there gonna operate that ship?Are you dumb or something? . Merchant Navy is supposed to supplement the supplies and transportation for those ships understand? When you fight wars, you freaking need to move that ship from point A to point B. While moving the ship from point A to point B with sailors and equipment, you are navigating the ship and transporting them from point A to point B. So the Navy is not just about fighting wars, it is about navigating and operating a naval asset properly so that they can FIGHT wars.

If I am unprofessional, no matter how much I train, I would be unprofessional as long as I stayed that way, because the problem is me, not the system.

So in term of the Navy, they are a PROFESSIONAL FIGHTING FORCE, not a Professional Transport force that focus from going from A to B. DO you even know how many hours seaman in the navy was trained and have experience on ship? If you compare it to a regular ferry pilot, you will be amaze.

Your IQ is really low my friend, if you are unprofessional even after so much professional training, then you cause accidents, and then you get FIRED like those Navy Commanders.

See your contradiction here? First you are telling me the Navy is not meant to be professional, then now you are telling me they are a PROFESSIONAL FIGHTING FORCE. Who says they are not supposed to be a professional fighting force? I had been saying it since the beginning right? That's why I was questioning the professionalism of those sailors. Being a professional fighting force, requires you to navigate and bring those sailors on that god damn destroyer from point A to point B safely to FIGHT WARS.

No, just because I did something wrong, I contributed to the accident, as I said, the Captain of Fitzgerald is obliviously in the wrong because he was asleep in his quarter when Navy Reg require him to be on the bridge if ships enter decision circle like that, but can anyone claim The Navy Captain causing an accident because he was asleep in his quarter? Nope, because he did not empty the pilot house when he goes to sleep, his duty is dedicated to other people, there were lookout, there were OOD on bridge. He did not cause the accident. On the other hand did the lookout cause the accident because he did not see a 30,000 tons ship? He is in the wrong not to see it (or maybe he did see it but did not report it in time) but again, the other party would be able to see a equally large destroyer, which mean at lease, in this case, the ship collided is wrong on the both side.

And being professional and being safe is two different issue, as I explained before, being professional does not mean you will NEVER Crash. If being a professional mean you will get from A to B safely, then Paul Walker would still be alive, so does James Dean, so does Senna, so does so does anyone who is a professional driver and crash and died in the last 50 years.

How many times I have to repeat this? ACX CRYSTAL being at fault or any subset of it being at fault does not render the US NAVY FAUTLESS and it also does not mean the US NAVY did not caused the accident. At most it proves BOTH are at fault and cause the accident.

No, being professional in carrying out duties according to regulations meant to ensure safety is a prerequisite of a safety oriented force. Explain to me how being professional in following safety rules means you are unsafe? They go hand in hand genius. Who says safely operated ships won't crash? The debate here is about a ship not operated professionally crashing. If Paul Walker with a proper driving license still crash, then it is an accident. If he was trained to follow the rules and speed limit and also not take alcohol, and yet he crash, it is an accident. If Paul drove and did not follow those rules, then he is at fault, no matter how well he was trained in driving school. UNDERSTAND?

Or you are going to argue Roger Rodas, James Dean, Aryton Senna were not professional driver?

So basically, everyone on this list you would claim they are not "Professional" Driver then.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driver_deaths_in_motorsport

Stop going off topic and talking about your grand mother again.Please stick to the topic. Read above explanation.

Not all accident result in a guilty (which mean it is a criminal matter) verdict, again, if you know nothing about law, you should basically just shut up.

And how do you know Navy caused the accident?

Read my statement carefully. The Navy ship was at fault as per the Naval Report, that's how I know they caused the accident. Whether they are liable for criminal prosecution depends on the court not me. But it still does not make them FAULTLESS and not cause the incident. The ACX CRYSTAL may also be at fault and cause the accident, but it also does not make the US NAVY FAULTLESS AND NOT CAUSE THE ACCIDENT. And how does being at fault not cause the accident. You are still not answering me till now.

​