• Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    185
    ·
    6 months ago

    Whatever lawyer or lawyers thought “blame the victimized child” was a good defense strategy need to be disbarred.

        • Halafax@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          6 months ago

          Two so far. No closet is deep enough to bury that many skeletons. The first few murders are to slow further whistleblowers, it’s just business to Boeing.

          • Cataphract@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            Two that we know of. I doubt this was a recent decision, probably years of employees “suicide or accidents” that should be looked into.

    • gedaliyah@lemmy.worldM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      33
      ·
      6 months ago

      Sorry, but If my employer asked me to defend a p3do and blame a 9-yo instead, I might just have to take that golden parachute. There are plenty of other high-paying corporate law positions out there.

    • VaultBoyNewVegas@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      6 months ago

      Ehh, not far from the standard defense strategy of blaming a rape victim. Personally, I’d like to see victim blaming thrown out of a courtroom/law and any attorney that tries it to be at the very least reprimanded for it and at most sanctioned like fined or disbarred. All attacking victims do is prevent people coming forward and it keep criminals free.

    • ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      6 months ago

      Women get blamed for being victimized constantly because it works. If there was no backlash the judge probably would have agreed with it.

  • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    89
    ·
    6 months ago

    Essentially:

    We did don’t know this would become a public interest story in national media

    It wasn’t an accident, it was the boilerplate answer corporate lawyers always give.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      48
      ·
      6 months ago

      It apparently worked multiple times until he got caught according to the article.

      My question is- I’m not going to look, but with the vast amount of porn on the internet, I’m sure you can find toilet cam pissing and shitting porn. Why take this sort of risk?

  • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    50
    ·
    6 months ago

    im so glad that this picture exists, because this man will NEVER fucking live this down.

    Not only did he commit a heinous crime, but he’s also a fucking dumbass.

    Also, i’m shocked they didn’t immediately settle this case. You would think doing anything other than immediately settling this would be corporate suicide.

    • Tiefling IRL
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      6 months ago

      When has there been anything resembling judicial corporate death in the last 10 years

      • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        judicial

        im not talking about legal corpo death, i’m talking about death in the public eye. The ruling doesn’t matter, the fact that they even tried to fight this is fucking wild.

    • Lev_Astov@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      6 months ago

      It sounds like it’s their insurance company that is handling the thing and their first action was to fight instead of settle. If AA really wanted to send the right message to the public with this announced backtracking, they’d have announced that they’d just dropped their previous insurance company in favor of one that’s not completely insane.

      • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        6 months ago

        the ONLY reason i can assume the started fighting this, was because they didn’t know about the image.

        Big fucking mistake it turns out. The only reason i mention settlements is because they’re privately settled and often give people fuck tons of money. The dude would’ve be arrested anyway, so it’s only good PR at the end of the day, since now they likely would have an NDA, but apparently whoever is working for them is a little fucking stupid.

  • BigMacHole@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    6 months ago

    The problem is that American Airlines needs another TAX PAYER FUNDED BAILOUT so they can hire BETTER lawyers and buy BETTER cameras to spy on little girls peeing! We could take money from EDUCATION and give it to AMERICAN AIRLINES TOILET CAMERA FUND!

  • cogman@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    6 months ago

    Behold, how capitalists justify immoral behavior. “it’s not my fault my actions hurt so many people, they should have realized I was going to hurt them and stopped me”

        • Rekhyt@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          6 months ago

          The station is owned by FOX Television Stations, not Sinclair. If you want to tell someone to fuck off, tell it to Rupert Murdoch, who ultimately is the owner of the FOX corp.

          Seriously, blindly assuming “this must be bad because it sounds like something I dont like” and parroting an irrelevant"Fuck X" is the same thing as people saying “Dominion stole the election” when Dominion machines weren’t even in use in their county.

  • 3volver@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    6 months ago

    Holy shit I thought this was The Onion. They are clinging at straws. Fuck corporate greed, all my homies hate big corporations. Never flying with them again.

  • kandoh@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    6 months ago

    Will never understand the people who get off on women using the bathroom. Is it just the thrill of stripping them of their privacy?

    • Khanzarate@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      6 months ago

      In a sense, yes.

      Usually they phrase it like “sharing in their most intimate moments” but without consent that’s just an innocuous way of saying exactly your first reaction.

      In some ways, its related to loneliness, filling a need they haven’t filled other ways.

    • Stupidmanager@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      6 months ago

      Upskirts, peepingtoms, spy cameras, rape… it’s about non-consent and if I remember one of my college classes chapters, a sense of power over others. It’s a mental illness and needs treatment, but here in Murica, we just put people in jail.

      • Railing5132@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        6 months ago

        Eeehhhh, I’m kinda OK with this guy being excused from general society for a bit. I’d prefer he had the chance to learn how to be a better human (like the Nordic countries’ models), but I can hope and vote for those changes while he’s in time out.

        • Stupidmanager@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          6 months ago

          Yeah, sorry it was meant to be implied but not said. He committed a crime, strong punishment and lifetime tracking is fine.

    • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      6 months ago

      the same reason anybody ever has a kink.

      Scratches a particular itch, in this case it just happens to be extremely illegal, unlike most kinks.