I want to debate whether Philips actually committed corporate manslaughter. That's law, not semantics. The OP said the executives should be in jail for manslaughter. Do you think the criterion for going to jail for manslaughter should be "it made people feel angry on a website"? I don't.
Nothing. Am I supposed to be an educated lawyer to comment on the morally bankrupt state of our "justice" system that allows corporations to get away with clear, obvious, documented-over-many-years, manslaughter?
You should read the article I linked in a sibling comment.
I think it is obvious that you cannot say what counts as manslaughter if you don't in fact know what counts as manslaughter. "Something I read about in an article, where people died and it seemed very wrong" is not the definition, and shouldn't be, for obvious reasons.
I opened my argument by stating that the justice system is broken due to decades of political inbreeding. That's not a verifiable fact, that's my opinion. You keep trying to drag me into semantic debates about the specifics of what the law are, when my argument has always been about what the law ought to be.
I'm confident that the law aligns with my notion of what the law "ought to be" in this case because the damage is so clear, with years of documented coverups. Whether I'm right or wrong on this is really besides the point.
If you insist on arguing in support of corporations being allowed to kill people with impunity, please don't waste my time with it.
> "Something I read about in an article, where people died and it seemed very wrong"
That's such a bad faith take on the article that goes into exhaustive detail and pinpoint accurate accounting of events with many insider sources and commentary from medical professionals, you must be trolling.
