There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

Potatos_are_not_friends ,

This is the most stupidest criminal ever.

The camera is a “iPhone taped to the toilet”.

https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/96f270b5-9a4f-4ebc-aa96-2e4d23400db8.webp

Daxtron2 ,

That is hilariously bad

rottingleaf ,

If I hadn’t read what the photo is about, I would think it’s just a notice that the seat should not be used as it’s, eh, “broken” as written, and the phone with the light is there as an additional joke. But whatever.

June ,

Seems pretty damning assuming the girl’s story is true.

JustZ ,
@JustZ@lemmy.world avatar

Can anyone link the complaint?

Stuka ,

How exactly is one supposed to just know someone’s a criminal? And what do they think the flight attendants job description is?

Throw the guy in jail, terrible it happened. But I dont see how they’re gonna get anywhere in that lawsuit

Deceptichum ,
@Deceptichum@kbin.social avatar

How do you know this guy is guilty and should be thrown in jail?

BreakDecks ,

The whole point of the lawsuit is that they couldn’t find evidence because the other flight attendants gave him his phone back after he’d been caught. They’re suing because he committed an obvious offense against a minor, and the employees didn’t take the accusation seriously enough not to let evidence get destroyed.

The criminal case may be a lost cause now, but the evidence we do have is pretty damning and does warrant a lawsuit against the company that enabled what happened.

RippleEffect ,

Innocent until proven guilty only applies in the courts. For everywhere else, it seems to be guilty until proven innocent, and sometimes still guilty despite proof.

Deceptichum ,
@Deceptichum@kbin.social avatar

That's because most people are complete fucking morons.

It's nothing something we should ever remain silent on and let be acceptable.

Fal ,
@Fal@yiffit.net avatar

So you’d be totally ok letting someone, who you’ve seen on video beating a child, babysit for you? After all, innocent until proven guilty

Deceptichum ,
@Deceptichum@kbin.social avatar

Are you a fucking idiot?

If you watch someone do the thing, you can be pretty assured they are guilty of doing the thing.

Fal ,
@Fal@yiffit.net avatar

Allegedly

Deceptichum ,
@Deceptichum@kbin.social avatar

It’s not ann allegation if you’ve seen it happen.

Fal ,
@Fal@yiffit.net avatar

It literally is. This thread is about assumption of innocence until convicted.

HerbalGamer ,
@HerbalGamer@sh.itjust.works avatar

YOU HAVE PROOF OF THEM DOING IT

wildginger ,

But legally, proof isnt “proof” until a jury has reviewed and determined on it

HerbalGamer , (edited )
@HerbalGamer@sh.itjust.works avatar

who you’ve seen on video beating a child,

In this scenario, you yourself are the judge and have viewed the video footage.

BobTheDestroyer ,
@BobTheDestroyer@lemmy.world avatar

https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/8e665fe1-8d22-4033-a19e-c361f5463524.webm

Fal ,
@Fal@yiffit.net avatar

That’s the entire fucking point dude. You’re always the judge.

Innocent until proven guilty only applies in the courts. For everywhere else, it seems to be guilty until proven innocent, and sometimes still guilty despite proof.

That’s because most people are complete fucking morons.

It’s nothing something we should ever remain silent on and let be acceptable.

This is the entire start of the thread. We don’t need to wait for the courts. It’s entirely justifiable to make up your mind with whatever evidence is presented, regardless if it’s enough to actually convict in court

WhyDoesntThisThingWork ,

Especially if it’s a man being accussed

GFGJewbacca ,

Lawyers for the 14-year-old and her parents say that American “knew or should have known the flight attendant was a danger.” They say the failure of other crew members to confiscate the employee’s phone allowed him to destroy evidence.

Well that’s pretty damning. Makes me wonder how many other times this flight attendant has done this.

Deceptichum , (edited )
@Deceptichum@kbin.social avatar

Tf?

Do you see that image, look how fucking visible the flash is and it’s in the dead centre of the seat. No way a 14 year old would not see that giant arse phone stickers to the lid.

Also

The family said an FBI agent later told the girl’s mother they did not arrest the man because they did not find any incriminating images on his phone.

Innocent until proven guilty, and allegedly he’s been cleared by the FBI. Yet you’re here acting like he’s guilty, has a history of this, and should never have been hired.

dream_weasel ,

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.

Deceptichum ,
@Deceptichum@kbin.social avatar

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.

ColeSloth ,

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

Deceptichum ,
@Deceptichum@kbin.social avatar

No it does not.

Quote me exactly where it says anything remotely close to this.

ColeSloth ,

“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 ,
@Deceptichum@kbin.social avatar

So a theory.

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

ColeSloth ,

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 ,
@Deceptichum@kbin.social avatar

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 ,

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 ,
@Deceptichum@kbin.social avatar

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 ,

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 ,
@Deceptichum@kbin.social avatar

Who do you expect to question it?

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

wildginger ,

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 ,
@Deceptichum@kbin.social avatar

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 ,

… 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 ,
@Deceptichum@kbin.social avatar

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 ,

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.

dream_weasel ,

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.

Deceptichum ,
@Deceptichum@kbin.social avatar

You mean like how they let him go after checking it wasn’t him?

dream_weasel ,

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.

Deceptichum ,
@Deceptichum@kbin.social avatar

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.

dream_weasel ,

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.

Deceptichum ,
@Deceptichum@kbin.social avatar

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.

dream_weasel ,

Circumstantial evidence is not nothing dude.

  • Directs young girl to different bathroom
  • In bathroom first
  • His phone in the bathroom
  • Photographic evidence of said phone in a compromising position.

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)

Deceptichum ,
@Deceptichum@kbin.social avatar

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?

dream_weasel ,

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?

Modern_medicine_isnt ,

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.

Deceptichum ,
@Deceptichum@kbin.social avatar

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.

girlfreddy ,
@girlfreddy@lemmy.ca avatar

Found the air attendant.

dream_weasel ,

Your comment doesn’t even make sense unless you dropped a “/s”.

MNByChoice ,

Seems to be a civil lawsuit, so the standards are different. The investigation is also ongoing. Obtaining the photos is unlikely the only crime. Attempting to obtain the photos is also likely a crime. The FBI agent is not the judge of what is our is not illegal.

The flight attendant was not identified. They are not getting paid, but that is fully different than being punished for a crime (still has a negative impact on them.)

themeatbridge ,

Ummmm Was that an employee’s phone taped to the toilet seat? Criminals being unbelievably bad at crime is not a defense. The FBI can’t arrest somebody without evidence, but nobody is claiming that they didn’t tape a phone to a toilet seat.

rottingleaf ,

Ah, about destroying evidence - last I checked, it’s not as simple as just deleting stuff. So (if investigators get their hands on the actual phone, if they get a decent digital forensics expert, if Apple cooperates maybe) there’ll be evidence of both the root crime and the crime of trying to conceal it.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •