News
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.
view the rest of the comments
Of course! Let's consider the following extremely reasonable options:
The attendant accidentally left his phone in the bathroom (with the flash on, or no passcode so a malicious 14 yo could turn it on). Kid goes in the bathroom and hatches a plot. Peels the sticker perfectly off broken seat lid, attaches the phone, and takes a picture of it.
Same as above, but the girl finds a pad of the stickers and a sharpie also left on the bathroom, thereby removing the need to peel. OR she carries her own pad of the united broken stickers and a sharpie.
The kid pickpockets his phone on the way by and either of the options above. Roll for dexterity!
The bathroom was so dark at the start of the flight, our good Samaritan flight attendant tapes a phone with the light on under a broken sticker (even though it's fine to use) and writes seat broken on it just so everyone is aware anyway. Everyone can now see and doesn't fall in.
All completely sane and reasonable alternatives to assuming an unnamed individual (who is not getting publicly maligned because he's unidentified) was trying to add kiddie fun bits to his spank bank.
Or it’s a parents phone, staged for a photo being why nothing was found on the accused’s, not that anything was ever taken.
In which case there is no traction for police or anyone else and this doesn't become an article. Flight attendant says "no my phone is right here" and it's all done. This theory doesn't hold water.
You mean like how they let him go after checking it wasn’t him?
That's not what the article says. It says 1) they didn't confiscate the phone after the incident, and 2) there were no pictures when they later checked.
He was not detained because there were no pictures on the phone. Luckily there is no feature in a phone that lets you remove videos or photos once taken, otherwise his innocence beyond reasonable doubt might be questioned.
Mate.
Deleting a photo off your phone does not wipe the data, they can recover that in seconds after plugging your phone in and copying all the data which is frequently done at airports.
I would agree with you except it says the father was shown no pictures and later that the FBI didn't arrest him. What it doesn't say is the duration in between dad and FBI. There is not some permanent record of deleted files in your iPhone if you keep using it and it's not confiscated. It doesn't read like authorities picked the FA up at the stop, but more like this is a protracted dispute.
Even if no pictures in the first place it's still suspicious AF and the sort of thing I would expect to receive a special visit by Chris Hansen.
No.
It is not suspicious at, the accused has done literally nothing wrong.
All they have is a claim leveled against them with nothing to support it.
Stop judging innocent people based on nothing.
Circumstantial evidence is not nothing dude.
This is all evidence. There's no refutation in the article. The only thing that is not there is some direct indicator of intent. It was enough to warrant a phone search and to dismiss him from work, and a clean search doesn't mean dick by itself because intent to snag this kind of photo is also a punishable offence:
18 U.S. Code § 2251 - Sexual exploitation of children See section (e)
So what if there’s no refutation in the article?
Do you expect the journalist ever got a chance to speak to the attendant?
When they rang the company to speak to them about the incident what is more likely “Oh yeah sure I’ll transfer you over to him have a nice chat” or “We here at Flight Company take all matters very seriously and will look into the matter”?
Why do you assume because this article is one sided hearsay, that it must be the truth and journalists investigated every angle so a lack of mention is an omission of guilt?
I expect that people are basically good and that nobody is out to frame this person. The fact that they are not named makes it much easier to discuss the situation on the merits and is the only reason I'm commenting. It's not like this is some rag news site and anything that the girl or the FA write is necessarily hearsay since airlines don't have bathroom cams. There is no reasonable "other side" I can conceive which would also play the role of reasonable doubt.
More to the point, the case doesn't have to be solved beyond a reasonable doubt to investigate in the first place, or to report on. If AP News named him I would also take issue, but that isn't the case right now.
Why defend a faceless story to a fault?
That one would be easily refuted by the other flight attendents since the complaint claims he was given his phone back. One assumes no one is refuting his phone was in the bathroom at least.
And did anyone ask them to back up the claim for the news article?
We don’t even have one sides story let alone others involved in it.
If you read the article, it seems the phone was most definitely the flight attendants.
No it does not.
Quote me exactly where it says anything remotely close to this.
"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.
So a theory.
Lawyers presented a theory for why no images were found, and you take that as evidence?
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?
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.
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.
No, you gave me a quote that doesn’t back-up your claim.
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?
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.
Who do you expect to question it?
Who else has the journalist spoken to other than comments from the family’s lawyer?
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.
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.
....... 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?
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.
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.
Found the air attendant.
Your comment doesn't even make sense unless you dropped a "/s".