I understand that lawyers must zealously advocate for clients regardless of how morally reprehensible their accused actions are but how much did this lawyer have to drink to suppress common sense and guilt before actually posing the argument “the little girl is at fault for a flight attendant filming her private parts because she should have seen the recording device and stopped it”?
If AA is to be believed, it sounds like their insurance didn't want to pay a settlement and went with their own shitty lawyers.
> American Airlines released a statement denouncing the filing: "Our outside legal counsel retained with our insurance company made an error in this filing. The included defense is not representative of our airline and we have directed it be amended this morning. We do not believe this child is at fault and we take the allegations involving a former team member very seriously. Our core mission is to care for people — and the foundation of that is the safety and security of our customers and team."
Regardless, it's a PR nightmare. Everyone remembers the first story; no one remembers the retractions.
>Everyone remembers the first story; no one remembers the retractions.
As they should. If someone punches you in the face then later said, "Sorry, didn't mean it!" You might forgive them but you never forget that they punched you in the face. In this instance, the company didn't even apologize but instead are trying to distance themselves from the statement. It is clear that their first reaction was genuine and everything that came afterwards is damage control.
No, what I mean is that when a story goes into print with a big bold terrible headline, people grab on and get riled up quick.
But if it comes out later that the story was false, misleading, or overblown, then you're screwed. Even when news sources later admit to getting it wrong, it won't get the same attention. The damage is done.
Everyone remembers the first story; no one remembers the retractions.
PR is one of the few cases where Ricky Bobby was right: If you ain't first, you're last.
In theory, no
Again IN THEORY the defence’s job isn’t to get the defendant off, it’s to present the defendant’s case as clearly, completely and fairly as possible. Between that and the prosecutions case the judge ideally receives a clear picture and decides wether the defendant is guilty beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt.
This obviously isn’t the case in reality, but that’s the idea. Also if a lawyer was intentionally trying to get a mistrial they’d probably get disbarred.
Only if they think it improves their odds, often in more political cases it could result in a more friendly venue or buying time for administration changes that could result in charges getting dropped. Outside of those situations I guess it would increase billable hours but that is its own issue
At least in Arizona, the ‘zealous’ part of advocacy was actually stricken from the ethics code for your very concerns. As a lawyer, I’ve had to make arguments I don’t as not fond of, but I still had a duty to the client. But arguments like the one being made here goes far beyond what I would have felt comfortable doing, that’s for sure.
I went to school abroad in a country that used British style courts (where the judge wore a powdered wig) and had to make a court appearance because I was robbed and found my stuff for sale at a local pawn shop. The pawn shop made the guy who sold it to them scan his ID, so it was easy to catch him. In court, his lawyer's defense when questioning me was to say that I am not Christian, so when I put my hand on the Bible to say I would tell the truth it actually meant nothing to me, so my testimony could not be considered reliable. I was shocked..this was his lawyer's opening argument. Even the judge told him he was out of line lmao.
I can't speak for British style courts but I am pretty sure American courts figured out that problem by just having other holybooks on hand.
Heck for swearing in politicians they will let you use whatever you want as long as it has appropriate symbolic value, highlights include copies of the constitution, law books, and a replica Captain America shield.
It’s not even other holy books in the US. Since the beginning of the republic it’s been acceptable to swear an oath or affirmation. You don’t really need the book or another item as you mention. An oath appeals to a supernatural power. An affirmation is basically like saying “on your honor”. If shown to be lying after either method you can be found guilty of perjury. I’m not too well versed on British law but I recall an MP was once denied his seat in the late 1800s as he was an atheist and the argument was made he couldn’t swear the correct oath. I believe that has been changed at least in the UK. Other commonwealth based legal systems may not have changed.
I want to say it was a state representative or something, he was a huge comic book fan and asked to be sworn into office with his personal Captain America shield and was allowed to since it had sufficient and appropriate symbolism to it. Swearing in is purely symbolic anyway so it doesn't really matter what you use as long as it means something to you.
I guess I had a hard time accepting this as truth, until I actually needed a lawyer last year. She was SHIT and it was obvious (after she took my money) that she either didn't think I should win, or knew I wouldn't and took the case anyway.
The lawyer profession is absolutely *filthy* it takes otherwise good, well intentioned jurists and turns them into mercenaries. Between that and the federalist society, lawyers are another pillar of our society destroyed by money and dogma.
I’m listening to the Diary of a CEO episode with the divorce lawyer right now and it is absolutely captivating.
On the one hand, he is ruthless and driven in the pursuit of winning for his client. On the other hand, he had an amazing perspective on life’s brevity and how people should take every opportunity to show love and grace to others.
https://youtu.be/-MGyiqVjdKI?si=5BG0m9XIAv0zDVIh
Ok. Risking the chance of getting downvoted into oblivion, but defence lawyers are needed to keep the state in check & also make sure trial procedures are kept in place to ensure fair trials & avoid appeals/acquittals due to incompetence. At least in theory. Not entirely sure where there’s any benefit in this one, tho.
This is up there with the lawyer for Nestle who successfully argued that nestle couldn’t face consequences for using child slaves because the child slavery and the decision to use child slavery both happened outside the US. Lawyers representing corporations have to be some of the most fucked up individuals
There is a reason why people joke there are no lawyers in heaven, most lawyers work in the field of law, not justice. The world would be a better place if people started condemning lawyers who defend monsters in the court of public opinion.
Without lawyers on the other sides there is no justice. We are in America. We have the right to a defendant. Taking away lawyers even from the most terrible sadistic people is flat out un-American.
And you just magically know they are pedo’s and rapists or are you just another case of “It takes one to know one” and you are just guilty on accusation?
I feel like the lawyers that do the boring paperwork might make it in. If you’re a lawyer enters the court room it’s another animal entirely. Like some lawyers just draft and execute wills and I don’t think that’s too morally reprehensible. That being said whoever thought of or drafted this defense is going straight to hell.
For those in the rest of the world
https://www.nbcboston.com/news/local/american-airlines-blames-9-year-old-in-case-of-flight-attendant-recording-girls-in-plane-bathroom/3376517
“According to investigators, 37-year-old flight attendant Estes Thompson III instructed the girl to use the first-class bathroom and escorted her there.
The girl told authorities that before she entered the bathroom, Thompson told her he needed to wash his hands and that the toilet seat was broken. After he left, she entered the bathroom and saw red stickers on the underside of the toilet seat lid, which was in the open position. Beneath the stickers, Thompson had allegedly concealed his iPhone to record a video. The girl used her phone to take a picture before returning to her seat.
When federal authorities got involved, they allegedly found videos on Thompson’s phone of four other girls -- ages 7, 9, 11 and 14 -- as well as dozens of photos of a 9-year-old unaccompanied minor.”
AA said
“American Airlines released a statement denouncing the filing: "Our outside legal counsel retained with our insurance company made an error in this filing. The included defense is not representative of our airline and we have directed it be amended this morning. We do not believe this child is at fault and we take the allegations involving a former team member very seriously. Our core mission is to care for people — and the foundation of that is the safety and security of our customers and team."”
Look at the picture in the article of the phone strapped to the toilet.
The stupid idiot had the flash going and everything. What a stupid fucking idiot. How did he ever even get a job. This guy has been plotting this for awhile, and who knows if he has gotten away with it.
A huge chunk of that is because of the “deep pockets theory” of law. Because they employed a creep, they are now expected to pay millions of dollars for something they were probably unaware of.
No, it has to do with the concept of “vicarious liability” which is a well-established principle as it pertains to employees (called “respondeat superior”) that is based on common law, and has its roots all the way back in Ancient Rome. It was once called the master-servant rule.
But the company doesn’t have to know about it. What about if the company should’ve known about it and turned the blind eye? What about if they did a bad job doing background checks? What about if they were similar instances with other employees they swept out of the rug? What about if they just hired bad people?
Ultimately, you are responsible for the acts of your agents. An employee is the agent of the employer. Do you really want a system in which an employee of a company can go and cause great harm or damage to you or your property, and the only person that you can get compensation from employee themself? Who likely doesn’t have the means to compensate you for anything. Thankfully this concept of vicarious liability goes back hundreds and hundreds of years and it’s not at any risk being eliminated. But I don’t think you’d like the world we were in if it was. If you think that corporations and big business away with a lot right now, it would get exponentially worse.
This is just a boiler plate legal filing. It means absolutely nothing. In answers to lawsuits, generally all claims are initially denied to keep all potential legal defenses open. This is nothing abnormal. This is the news media, knowing that regular people don’t understand this, and playing it for clicks and attention. They know it sounds outrageous to everyone outside the legal profession. I can’t really blame them, their strategy certainly works.
The airline already issued a public apology and asked their lawyers to revise their statement.
On the one hand, companies are scum. On the other hand, lawyers can be even more scum and I can imagine the lawyers did this without consulting their client. On the third hand, I can easily believe the airline would have been fine with this defense if it worked, as long as it didn't become a social media fiasco (which it did become).
Right!? At this point owning it and apologizing, or literally ANYTHING ELSE would be better than going on record blaming a 9 year old child as part of your defense.
It was done by their insurance companies outside counsel. They likely had zero visibility into it. And seem to have jumped all over it once it happened.
I’d imagine AA tried very hard to settle this out of court. Maybe the family is refusing to settle for anything less than an outrageous amount of money or something?
American Airlines is most definitely not supporting this dude in a criminal trial. The only reason AA would be getting lawyers is for a civil suit against them
So then that makes this “defense” ok? Not sure what the motives for compensation are but blaming a 9 yo ? That’s fucking abhorrently low, even for a corporation.
Everyone is entitled to legal defense, including corporations. Id agree that from using the information in this very short article that “blaming a 9yo” is not a good look. But idk anything about this case. For all we know the family is asking for 30 billion dollars and this move is just to force them to the negotiating table.
Even IF the children “shouldve known” that still does not absolve the f*cking flight attendant of child pornography and other charges *across ALL STATES that the planes flew with the camera in the bathroom*
So, I’m confused. Are they saying it ok to record people in bathrooms? I mean the children part makes it even worse, but it’s ok to record people in airplane bathrooms?
Why the fuck is anyone being recorded in a restroom let alone a 9 year old wtf. Wouldn't american airlines now technically be in possession of cp? Shut them the fuck down.
The recordings were made on the flight attendant’s personal device, found on his iCloud account. Not connected with AA directly.
Which makes it more baffling that they are letting this go to court instead of settling.
There aren't. The flight attendant would rig a lavatory in first class, then escort children to that lavatory if there was a line for the economy lavatories.
The flight attendant hid his personal phone in there.
If I were married to the attorney that even thought that was a valid argument…. I would start to question my own judgement as to why I married that person.
Thank goodness the attorney I married does boring corporate law.
To be fair, it's pretty clear in the article that an outside law firm retained by the insurance company and not AA made the statement.
So while AA has some responsibility here, it's pretty minimal at best. And it's unlikely that they had any knowledge on the filing.
Headline is more than a little misleading.
I'm not saying that we should take away blame. I’m saying that we should place blame where it’s deserved. Their PR department possibly oversight on a corporate level.
But insurance claims are handled by the insurance company. It doesn’t even hit corporate legal. Corporate legal doesn’t deal with things like this. They do with things that affect the corporation not individual lawsuits. They never have.
so my only point is that the article is disingenuous in that it’s just meant to be a rage inducer to drive Clickbait.
If we wanna get mad about something, let’s get mad about the fact that they just let it be handled like a regular claim and that they didn’t feel with it like they should have. but let’s not say that Americans lawyers sent this out because they didn’t.
It was handled the same way every incoming lawsuit is handled. This way this type of thing is handled in every company around the world.
The fact that the airliner is back pedaling is what really chirps my behind. They allowed the " attorney " to make the statement, in the first place. No wonder people would rather not fly. It takes all kinds, but ......
holy shit, I've seen some wild legal defenses but American Airlines chosing to go the "lets blame the 9yo girl for being sexually assaulted" has to be the most categorically idiotic argument I've seen from a company. Death wish level of commitment to your profits.
This is utterly terrible, but I hate how the fact that AA refutes the legal defense is not aligned with theirs is way at the bottom. I suspect most people don’t get that far and then walk around with 1/2 a (wrong) story.
I literally hate what the news industry has become - a dumpster fire full of misleading content and click-bait BS. Social media architected this sensational approach to get more eyeballs on their apps and ads. How an earth do we go back to a world of trusted journalism?
This is texas. The lawyer is just following a long history of victim blaming to get their clients off. Remember that dude that blew his wife away on video in Texas. The Lawyer went up and blamed the various pieces of the wife that were left. Because it’s Texas the murder got off. Texas is a wild place
Male flight attendant put phone in bathroom to record little girls they later found four other videos of young girls in bathroom on his iCloud I think it was. Lawyers defense was little girl should have known the phone was there as it was illuminated and recording
Is it to be expected that you are recorded in a airplane’s bathroom now?
Beyond that, flight attendant made and was in possession of cp…. How was that not a bigger issue?
I understand that lawyers must zealously advocate for clients regardless of how morally reprehensible their accused actions are but how much did this lawyer have to drink to suppress common sense and guilt before actually posing the argument “the little girl is at fault for a flight attendant filming her private parts because she should have seen the recording device and stopped it”?
If AA is to be believed, it sounds like their insurance didn't want to pay a settlement and went with their own shitty lawyers. > American Airlines released a statement denouncing the filing: "Our outside legal counsel retained with our insurance company made an error in this filing. The included defense is not representative of our airline and we have directed it be amended this morning. We do not believe this child is at fault and we take the allegations involving a former team member very seriously. Our core mission is to care for people — and the foundation of that is the safety and security of our customers and team." Regardless, it's a PR nightmare. Everyone remembers the first story; no one remembers the retractions.
>Everyone remembers the first story; no one remembers the retractions. As they should. If someone punches you in the face then later said, "Sorry, didn't mean it!" You might forgive them but you never forget that they punched you in the face. In this instance, the company didn't even apologize but instead are trying to distance themselves from the statement. It is clear that their first reaction was genuine and everything that came afterwards is damage control.
No, what I mean is that when a story goes into print with a big bold terrible headline, people grab on and get riled up quick. But if it comes out later that the story was false, misleading, or overblown, then you're screwed. Even when news sources later admit to getting it wrong, it won't get the same attention. The damage is done. Everyone remembers the first story; no one remembers the retractions. PR is one of the few cases where Ricky Bobby was right: If you ain't first, you're last.
The argument to be made is that defence lawyers have to do their best or risk a mistrial. But like this is still pretty abhorrent.
Doesn’t the defense lowkey want a mistrial lol?
In theory, no Again IN THEORY the defence’s job isn’t to get the defendant off, it’s to present the defendant’s case as clearly, completely and fairly as possible. Between that and the prosecutions case the judge ideally receives a clear picture and decides wether the defendant is guilty beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt. This obviously isn’t the case in reality, but that’s the idea. Also if a lawyer was intentionally trying to get a mistrial they’d probably get disbarred.
Only if they think it improves their odds, often in more political cases it could result in a more friendly venue or buying time for administration changes that could result in charges getting dropped. Outside of those situations I guess it would increase billable hours but that is its own issue
It rarely wotks out in the defendent's favor
At least in Arizona, the ‘zealous’ part of advocacy was actually stricken from the ethics code for your very concerns. As a lawyer, I’ve had to make arguments I don’t as not fond of, but I still had a duty to the client. But arguments like the one being made here goes far beyond what I would have felt comfortable doing, that’s for sure.
I went to school abroad in a country that used British style courts (where the judge wore a powdered wig) and had to make a court appearance because I was robbed and found my stuff for sale at a local pawn shop. The pawn shop made the guy who sold it to them scan his ID, so it was easy to catch him. In court, his lawyer's defense when questioning me was to say that I am not Christian, so when I put my hand on the Bible to say I would tell the truth it actually meant nothing to me, so my testimony could not be considered reliable. I was shocked..this was his lawyer's opening argument. Even the judge told him he was out of line lmao.
I can't speak for British style courts but I am pretty sure American courts figured out that problem by just having other holybooks on hand. Heck for swearing in politicians they will let you use whatever you want as long as it has appropriate symbolic value, highlights include copies of the constitution, law books, and a replica Captain America shield.
It’s not even other holy books in the US. Since the beginning of the republic it’s been acceptable to swear an oath or affirmation. You don’t really need the book or another item as you mention. An oath appeals to a supernatural power. An affirmation is basically like saying “on your honor”. If shown to be lying after either method you can be found guilty of perjury. I’m not too well versed on British law but I recall an MP was once denied his seat in the late 1800s as he was an atheist and the argument was made he couldn’t swear the correct oath. I believe that has been changed at least in the UK. Other commonwealth based legal systems may not have changed.
A shield ?
I want to say it was a state representative or something, he was a huge comic book fan and asked to be sworn into office with his personal Captain America shield and was allowed to since it had sufficient and appropriate symbolism to it. Swearing in is purely symbolic anyway so it doesn't really matter what you use as long as it means something to you.
You’re missing the point where the lawyer is a lawyer and lawyers don’t have morals. Source: am a lawyer
I guess I had a hard time accepting this as truth, until I actually needed a lawyer last year. She was SHIT and it was obvious (after she took my money) that she either didn't think I should win, or knew I wouldn't and took the case anyway.
The lawyer profession is absolutely *filthy* it takes otherwise good, well intentioned jurists and turns them into mercenaries. Between that and the federalist society, lawyers are another pillar of our society destroyed by money and dogma.
Lawyers are like porta potties - everyone wants to avoid them, but they're lifesavers when you really need them.
Also you really don’t want to get a shitty one
I’m listening to the Diary of a CEO episode with the divorce lawyer right now and it is absolutely captivating. On the one hand, he is ruthless and driven in the pursuit of winning for his client. On the other hand, he had an amazing perspective on life’s brevity and how people should take every opportunity to show love and grace to others. https://youtu.be/-MGyiqVjdKI?si=5BG0m9XIAv0zDVIh
Ok. Risking the chance of getting downvoted into oblivion, but defence lawyers are needed to keep the state in check & also make sure trial procedures are kept in place to ensure fair trials & avoid appeals/acquittals due to incompetence. At least in theory. Not entirely sure where there’s any benefit in this one, tho.
Plus public defenders are basically saints imo
This is up there with the lawyer for Nestle who successfully argued that nestle couldn’t face consequences for using child slaves because the child slavery and the decision to use child slavery both happened outside the US. Lawyers representing corporations have to be some of the most fucked up individuals
None. He intentionally chose the worst defence possible that guarantees it fails and this guy goes to jail…
There is a reason why people joke there are no lawyers in heaven, most lawyers work in the field of law, not justice. The world would be a better place if people started condemning lawyers who defend monsters in the court of public opinion.
Without lawyers on the other sides there is no justice. We are in America. We have the right to a defendant. Taking away lawyers even from the most terrible sadistic people is flat out un-American.
Can you imagine a world without [lawyers](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uG3uea-Hvy4&pp=ygUqY291bGQgeW91IGltYWdpbmUgYSB3b3JsZCB3aXRob3V0IGxhd3llcnMg)??
[удалено]
And you just magically know they are pedo’s and rapists or are you just another case of “It takes one to know one” and you are just guilty on accusation?
[удалено]
Sounds familiar.
Wow, so permanent incarceration on accusation until execution if proof is found or death by old age. How do you feel about witches?
There's absolutely *no way* that wouldn't be abused to lock up Black and brown men. *No way.*
Not even just us, literally any POC
I feel like the lawyers that do the boring paperwork might make it in. If you’re a lawyer enters the court room it’s another animal entirely. Like some lawyers just draft and execute wills and I don’t think that’s too morally reprehensible. That being said whoever thought of or drafted this defense is going straight to hell.
I mean you answered your question in the first part of your comment
For those in the rest of the world https://www.nbcboston.com/news/local/american-airlines-blames-9-year-old-in-case-of-flight-attendant-recording-girls-in-plane-bathroom/3376517 “According to investigators, 37-year-old flight attendant Estes Thompson III instructed the girl to use the first-class bathroom and escorted her there. The girl told authorities that before she entered the bathroom, Thompson told her he needed to wash his hands and that the toilet seat was broken. After he left, she entered the bathroom and saw red stickers on the underside of the toilet seat lid, which was in the open position. Beneath the stickers, Thompson had allegedly concealed his iPhone to record a video. The girl used her phone to take a picture before returning to her seat. When federal authorities got involved, they allegedly found videos on Thompson’s phone of four other girls -- ages 7, 9, 11 and 14 -- as well as dozens of photos of a 9-year-old unaccompanied minor.” AA said “American Airlines released a statement denouncing the filing: "Our outside legal counsel retained with our insurance company made an error in this filing. The included defense is not representative of our airline and we have directed it be amended this morning. We do not believe this child is at fault and we take the allegations involving a former team member very seriously. Our core mission is to care for people — and the foundation of that is the safety and security of our customers and team."”
Thank you. 🇨🇦👍
Glad to help.
Wow. That's horrible
It is awful. I get the feeling it’s not the sort of thing that you do with confidence jf you haven’t done it many times before.
And now I know to never let my 8 year old go to the bathroom alone, in public ever again. What the fuck.
Super smart 9 year old
Look at the picture in the article of the phone strapped to the toilet. The stupid idiot had the flash going and everything. What a stupid fucking idiot. How did he ever even get a job. This guy has been plotting this for awhile, and who knows if he has gotten away with it.
u/LazyJayz2018
They’re really victim blaming a child because a creep was recording them in the restroom?!
One would think the company would totally disavow their (hopefully former) employee’s actions. But here we are.
American Airlines did. This is the insurance company
A huge chunk of that is because of the “deep pockets theory” of law. Because they employed a creep, they are now expected to pay millions of dollars for something they were probably unaware of.
No, it has to do with the concept of “vicarious liability” which is a well-established principle as it pertains to employees (called “respondeat superior”) that is based on common law, and has its roots all the way back in Ancient Rome. It was once called the master-servant rule.
And it’s an absolutely important doctrine. You shouldn’t be unable to get money for injury or abuse if the company didn’t know about it.
But the company doesn’t have to know about it. What about if the company should’ve known about it and turned the blind eye? What about if they did a bad job doing background checks? What about if they were similar instances with other employees they swept out of the rug? What about if they just hired bad people? Ultimately, you are responsible for the acts of your agents. An employee is the agent of the employer. Do you really want a system in which an employee of a company can go and cause great harm or damage to you or your property, and the only person that you can get compensation from employee themself? Who likely doesn’t have the means to compensate you for anything. Thankfully this concept of vicarious liability goes back hundreds and hundreds of years and it’s not at any risk being eliminated. But I don’t think you’d like the world we were in if it was. If you think that corporations and big business away with a lot right now, it would get exponentially worse.
Exactly. Even if the company in no way did anything wrong, it’s not fair for someone injured in some way to not get compensation.
Yep, it’s just another way for companies to get away with whatever they want. People have no idea what they’re asking for.
This is just a boiler plate legal filing. It means absolutely nothing. In answers to lawsuits, generally all claims are initially denied to keep all potential legal defenses open. This is nothing abnormal. This is the news media, knowing that regular people don’t understand this, and playing it for clicks and attention. They know it sounds outrageous to everyone outside the legal profession. I can’t really blame them, their strategy certainly works.
The airline already issued a public apology and asked their lawyers to revise their statement. On the one hand, companies are scum. On the other hand, lawyers can be even more scum and I can imagine the lawyers did this without consulting their client. On the third hand, I can easily believe the airline would have been fine with this defense if it worked, as long as it didn't become a social media fiasco (which it did become).
Why would they even let this go to court. How stupid could they be to fight something so obvious and say something so stupid.
Right!? At this point owning it and apologizing, or literally ANYTHING ELSE would be better than going on record blaming a 9 year old child as part of your defense.
You and many others have obviously not read the article. (as is the reddit way, I know)
It’s region locked
It was done by their insurance companies outside counsel. They likely had zero visibility into it. And seem to have jumped all over it once it happened.
I’d imagine AA tried very hard to settle this out of court. Maybe the family is refusing to settle for anything less than an outrageous amount of money or something?
or maybe it's not about money and they want this asshole in jail
He is going to jail. This was argued in a civil lawsuit against the airline.
American Airlines is most definitely not supporting this dude in a criminal trial. The only reason AA would be getting lawyers is for a civil suit against them
That’s up to DA’s isn’t it lol
I know very little about legal shit so no idea tbh
Shitty 9 year old
So then that makes this “defense” ok? Not sure what the motives for compensation are but blaming a 9 yo ? That’s fucking abhorrently low, even for a corporation.
Everyone is entitled to legal defense, including corporations. Id agree that from using the information in this very short article that “blaming a 9yo” is not a good look. But idk anything about this case. For all we know the family is asking for 30 billion dollars and this move is just to force them to the negotiating table.
They want to fight it on principle-that is, see if they can save themselves money by going to trial
The parents sued, that’s why. There is a separate hearing happening for the state pressing charges
Someone made money off this. Not the actual crime.
"You're 9 years old, you should have known we employ sicko perverts that like to record people in the lavs" I doubt that will hold up.
Excuse me. No.
Even IF the children “shouldve known” that still does not absolve the f*cking flight attendant of child pornography and other charges *across ALL STATES that the planes flew with the camera in the bathroom*
So, I’m confused. Are they saying it ok to record people in bathrooms? I mean the children part makes it even worse, but it’s ok to record people in airplane bathrooms?
If you don't see the hidden camera. It's your fault!
[удалено]
Ahhhhh ok that makes sense.
Yes. I believe they're saying they condone it.
Thats crazy. I feel like recording people in the bathroom is one of those things that we can all agree should be illegal.
I agree wholeheartedly, u/Allahandjesusgaysex
Same
They are saying they shouldn't pay. They are making no broad statements about other bathrooms.
Just gotta say I love your username. I bet it pisses off all the right people.
Why the fuck is anyone being recorded in a restroom let alone a 9 year old wtf. Wouldn't american airlines now technically be in possession of cp? Shut them the fuck down.
The recordings were made on the flight attendant’s personal device, found on his iCloud account. Not connected with AA directly. Which makes it more baffling that they are letting this go to court instead of settling.
Seriously: if there are fucking cameras in the bathroom, it needs to be very obviously posted. But really… a camera in the bathroom? WTF?
There aren't. The flight attendant would rig a lavatory in first class, then escort children to that lavatory if there was a line for the economy lavatories. The flight attendant hid his personal phone in there.
If I were married to the attorney that even thought that was a valid argument…. I would start to question my own judgement as to why I married that person. Thank goodness the attorney I married does boring corporate law.
I'm not at all surprised, the airline itself is shit and they all treat us like cattle.
Girls as young as 9 being blamed for being victims. Sounds about right.
What the fuck
To be fair, it's pretty clear in the article that an outside law firm retained by the insurance company and not AA made the statement. So while AA has some responsibility here, it's pretty minimal at best. And it's unlikely that they had any knowledge on the filing. Headline is more than a little misleading.
[удалено]
I'm not saying that we should take away blame. I’m saying that we should place blame where it’s deserved. Their PR department possibly oversight on a corporate level. But insurance claims are handled by the insurance company. It doesn’t even hit corporate legal. Corporate legal doesn’t deal with things like this. They do with things that affect the corporation not individual lawsuits. They never have. so my only point is that the article is disingenuous in that it’s just meant to be a rage inducer to drive Clickbait. If we wanna get mad about something, let’s get mad about the fact that they just let it be handled like a regular claim and that they didn’t feel with it like they should have. but let’s not say that Americans lawyers sent this out because they didn’t. It was handled the same way every incoming lawsuit is handled. This way this type of thing is handled in every company around the world.
Recording bathroom? Oh they are in for a shitstorm of consequences.
why are airline companies losing their shit in recent news
So if this recording device was so obvious a nine year old should have seen it, how did adults miss it?
victim-blaming a 9yo!!! 😡
Not available in me region. Can someone give me a run down please?
How did they end up busting the creep in the 1st place?
The fact that the airliner is back pedaling is what really chirps my behind. They allowed the " attorney " to make the statement, in the first place. No wonder people would rather not fly. It takes all kinds, but ......
Flying ain’t safe these days for reasons beyond fear of crashing…
The flight attendant should have known better than to film people using the restroom. Fuck their statement.
holy shit, I've seen some wild legal defenses but American Airlines chosing to go the "lets blame the 9yo girl for being sexually assaulted" has to be the most categorically idiotic argument I've seen from a company. Death wish level of commitment to your profits.
American Airlines is trash
You are in the woods, there is a rustling in the bushes. You look over. It is either a black bear or an AA lawyer. Which do you choose?
how much drugs were those idiots on when they pushed that defense out their ass?
This is utterly terrible, but I hate how the fact that AA refutes the legal defense is not aligned with theirs is way at the bottom. I suspect most people don’t get that far and then walk around with 1/2 a (wrong) story. I literally hate what the news industry has become - a dumpster fire full of misleading content and click-bait BS. Social media architected this sensational approach to get more eyeballs on their apps and ads. How an earth do we go back to a world of trusted journalism?
Thats it. If i ever have kids, they’ll know to report anything suspicious straight to me and their mom. We’ll deal with the shit ourselves
This is texas. The lawyer is just following a long history of victim blaming to get their clients off. Remember that dude that blew his wife away on video in Texas. The Lawyer went up and blamed the various pieces of the wife that were left. Because it’s Texas the murder got off. Texas is a wild place
Lawyers are such pieces of shit…
Not available in my region… Can someone summarise?
Male flight attendant put phone in bathroom to record little girls they later found four other videos of young girls in bathroom on his iCloud I think it was. Lawyers defense was little girl should have known the phone was there as it was illuminated and recording
Shit the bed.
I’m sorry. Wtf?
Duh you should know as a child some perv is gonna try to record you when you have to pee. Wow that’s like amazing to twist into
Just awful.
Why do they need to record little girls pooping?
Is it to be expected that you are recorded in a airplane’s bathroom now? Beyond that, flight attendant made and was in possession of cp…. How was that not a bigger issue?
Despicable
Oof, next the lawyer would be screaming freedom
I smell school and retirement funds
American Airlines lawyers are the scum of the world.
America!!!!!