493
submitted 11 months ago by throws_lemy@lemmy.nz to c/news@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] dream_weasel@sh.itjust.works 6 points 11 months ago

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@kbin.social -1 points 11 months ago

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@sh.itjust.works 3 points 11 months ago

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@kbin.social 1 points 11 months ago

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@sh.itjust.works 1 points 11 months ago

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?

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

News

23267 readers
4050 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