[Lokibob]

"I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt"

He has the lives of 100+ people in his hands. He deserves no "benefit of the doubt".

[mudblood]

"He deserves no "benefit of the doubt"."

Sure he does. What if he had a stroke? What if there was a major malfunction, or sabotage? What if this is a cover up for something clandestine? What if? Hey, I'm all for being a conservative, pull-yourself-up by the bootstrap sort of person, but that doesn't mean we have to act like A-holes too.

[Polybius]

So....you're gonna defend the Captain? This is usually a pretty big no-no for a ship's commander, a career-ender......woofer

I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt.....Elle Bee

He has the lives of 100+ people in his hands. He deserves no "benefit of the doubt".......Lokibob

Every incident is different and none of us know enough about this particular grounding to make an informed decision regarding it at the current time.

However, every individual deserves the "benefit of the doubt" until an investigation has determined the facts.

It has been argued that the so-called "zero-defect" military culture in vogue today favors the rise of officers who are risk-averse careerists whose foremost concern is making sure that absolutely nothing goes wrong on their watch.

On 7 July 1908, the young CO of the USS Decatur, the first destroyer commissioned in the U.S. Navy, ran his ship aground as he entered Batangas Harbor in the Philippines. That young officer was reprimanded for "neglect of duty" and relieved of command but, because of his otherwise spotless record, he was given another chance and the incident was not a "career-ender".

That naval officer went on to do well in the Navy.

So much so that he now has a CVN named after him.