this post was submitted on 02 Dec 2023
492 points (98.4% liked)

News

23296 readers
3284 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 6 points 11 months ago (1 children)

"Lawyers for the family suggested that the flight attendant removed the phone and erased images of the girl before letting her father see his iPhone photos."

There's another spot as well mentioning the father taking the phone from him, but some crap ad is keeping the text covered up. So yes. It says the guy got the phone back and then the dad demanded to see his pictures on his phone.

[–] Deceptichum@kbin.social -3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

So a theory.

Lawyers presented a theory for why no images were found, and you take that as evidence?

[–] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Jesus christ, man. The article literally says he made the Steward show the pictures on his phone. Did you fail reading comprehension back in grade school?

[–] Deceptichum@kbin.social -2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Lawyers for the family suggested that the flight attendant removed the phone and erased images of the girl before letting her father see his iPhone photos.

That does not say the phone was most definitely his in any way, shape, or form.

For all you know the father demanded to look at his phone, he let him, the father found nothing and claimed he must've taken the phone back and deleted the photos. That does not prove fucking shit, it's one sides story that is so far not backed up by any evidence.

[–] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

You wanted the quote from the article. I gave you the quote from the article. Don't go claiming "well the article might not be true" yadda yadda yadda. Don't go changing the argument to something else after I showed you that you were wrong, dumbass.

[–] Deceptichum@kbin.social -1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

No, you gave me a quote that doesn’t back-up your claim.

If you read the article, it seems the phone was most definitely the flight attendants.

If you read the article, the only link between the phone in the seat and the one in the attendants position is the suggestion of a third party lawyer.

No where is a definitive claim laid out that they are the same phone.

Is it so hard for you people to stop trying to ruin innocent people’s lives with your witch hunt?

[–] wildginger@lemmy.myserv.one 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

The guys phone was taped to the seat, thats not even being questioned

The only thing in question is if there were photos on the phone that was taped to the seat, a phone which he said belongs to him.

[–] Deceptichum@kbin.social 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Who do you expect to question it?

Who else has the journalist spoken to other than comments from the family’s lawyer?

[–] wildginger@lemmy.myserv.one 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

The guy being accused.

If it wasnt his phone, he would immediately clear himself by saying "hey boss, my phone is right here in my hand, the kid is lying about that being my phone, mine was never in that bathroom."

The phone was, as reported by the FBI, given back to the man being accused before they asked him to let them look at the photo gallery.

If it wasnt his phone, they wouldnt have given it to him in the first place. Very easy way to clear his name, when the girl accused him on the plane.

[–] Deceptichum@kbin.social 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

How do you know that’s not what happened?!

You are literally taking one sides story at face value and using the lack of something being reported as damning evidence.

And it was not reported by the fucking FBI, it was the family that said the FBI cleared him. The FBI has announced nothing and you believe they have because you’re trying to justify blaming an innocent person.

[–] wildginger@lemmy.myserv.one 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

....... Because the guy was removed from working, and american airlines wouldnt let people openly think they hired a pedophile if they immediately proved he wasnt a pedophile on the plane?

Think that through for a second dude, why would the company risk their name being dragged through the mud in a lawsuit if, while the plane was literally still in the air, multiple eye witnesses could confirm and corroberate that the accused employee immediately showed that his phone had not entered the bathroom?

[–] Deceptichum@kbin.social 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Anyone would be stood down from the job after an allegation like that. It’s standard practice, it means nothing.

Think about man, why would a company risk talking about an ongoing legal case with the media. They send them the canned statement “we take this seriously blah blah blah” and that’s it.

You think the P.R. Team has more sway than the companies law firm?

Just because something was not said, does not mean it’s because it must be true.

[–] wildginger@lemmy.myserv.one 1 points 11 months ago

They wouldnt talk to the media at all, they would kill this dead and deader before the kid or her dad could talk to a lawyer.

You arent understanding what I am saying. You are claiming that this man is being framed by either the girl, or her dad, for some alterior motive. If he could immediately prove the phone wasnt his, and that he was being set up, the airline would pull so many legal strings around their neck they wouldnt even risk making this into news.

Like. You grok what happens if this is proven false, yes? The airline will legally destroy this family for risking their name becoming the pedo plane people. They do not want this news article to exist. They have already lost major ground because this exists.

If they could have killed this before the public learned about it, they would. If they could prove the man was innocent, they would have made the girls lawyer understand this was a losing battle. And by losing, I mean losing money.

The fact that the lawyer took it to the news implies that they dont have much evidence to go on, and want a ton of public pressure on the airline. Probably for a data scrub of the phone. But the fact that they were capable of taking it to the news means the airline couldnt prove innocence and nip this in the bud.