MUScoop
MUScoop => The Superbar => Topic started by: Cheeks on September 07, 2019, 01:39:11 PM
-
https://www.apnews.com/6f03105ca6ff4a36bb728626802565eb
Glad they caught him. Not sure how attempted murder isn’t one of the charges.
-
Because it would be an overcharge.
-
Because it would be an overcharge.
If we was successful, he would be charged with murder...yes?
-
He wasn’t trying to make the plane crash. He was trying to create a problem that would have created overtime for him.
-
He wasn’t trying to make the plane crash. He was trying to create a problem that would have created overtime for him.
Wait....what? I know that is his claim and defense....but if that plane crashed because he purposefully tried to sabotage it you and I know what the outcome would be.
-
Yeah but creating a dangerous situation where someone dies isn’t attempted murder. Trying to kill someone is. He wasn’t trying to kill anyone. At least so far there is no evidence to suggest as such. Maybe some will be found. Until then attempted murder is prosecutorial overreach. We have too much of that as it is.
-
https://www.apnews.com/6f03105ca6ff4a36bb728626802565eb
Glad they caught him. Not sure how attempted murder isn’t one of the charges.
Doesn't that charge require intent though?
-
Doesn't that charge require intent though?
I don’t know, good question.
-
While the specifics vary by state, murder (or attempted murder) generally requires intent to kill, except in the case of felony murder - generally, killing a person while committing certain felonies.
I don't know the nuances of the law, but I would assuming intentionally damaging a commercial aircraft could very well be a felony, in which case the felony murder rule might overcome the intent requirement.
-
Im no lawyer but i would think conspiracy to attempted murder would be a possible charge, which, IIRC, carries the same punishment as attempted murder.
Legal beagles can correct me of I'm wrong.
-
Im no lawyer but i would think conspiracy to attempted murder would be a possible charge, which, IIRC, carries the same punishment as attempted murder.
Legal beagles can correct me of I'm wrong.
Not a possible charge. Would require two or more individuals plotting an attempted murder. There were neither two or more people, nor was there a plot to attempt to murder anyone.
-
The fact there is a charge of “damaging or disabling a plane” would make me think the attempted murder element is assumed in the seriousness of the charge.
-
Ok, read the while article.
This guy is a huge dumbass, not a terrorist. Withdrawn prior speculation.
Lock it, this aint going no where good.
-
Ok, read the while article.
This guy is a huge dumbass, not a terrorist. Withdrawn prior speculation.
Lock it, this aint going no where good.
No doubt a dumbass, I am just saying if something catastrophic happened in the air, intent or not, this guy would be seeing the end of times.
-
No doubt a dumbass, I am just saying if something catastrophic happened in the air, intent or not, this guy would be seeing the end of times.
If an airplane manufacturer were to cut corners, do you think the should/would "be seeing the end of times"?
-
Im no lawyer but i would think conspiracy to attempted murder would be a possible charge, which, IIRC, carries the same punishment as attempted murder.
Legal beagles can correct me of I'm wrong.
My beagle found that offensive.
-
If an airplane manufacturer were to cut corners, do you think the should/would "be seeing the end of times"?
Cut corners with the intent to sabotage? Absolutely. Fortunately there is a built in prevention for this which is profit. If a manufacturer cut corners knowing it would lead to a crash, they would go out of business. If you are trying to equate Boeing here I think you are way way off base.
-
Wait....what? I know that is his claim and defense....but if that plane crashed because he purposefully tried to sabotage it you and I know what the outcome would be.
But the plane didn't crash. You can't charge people with an offense based on what might have happened. to charge someone with attempted murder, you have to prove intent (that, by definition, is what attempt is - the intent to do something. As in, I am attempting to illustrate how you don't understand the law here, though I likely will fail).
Every time someone texts while driving there's a risk they miss a pedestrian in the road and kill him/her. That doesn't mean people who get caught texting while driving ought to be charged with attempted manslaughter.
-
But the plane didn't crash. You can't charge people with an offense based on what might have happened. to charge someone with attempted murder, you have to prove intent (that, by definition, is what attempt is - the intent to do something. As in, I am attempting to illustrate how you don't understand the law here, though I likely will fail).
Every time someone texts while driving there's a risk they miss a pedestrian in the road and kill him/her. That doesn't mean people who get caught texting while driving ought to be charged with attempted manslaughter.
So if someone shoots at someone, misses is it attempted murder? The plane didn’t crash....ergo the victim wasn’t hit by the bullet.
-
So if someone shoots at someone, misses is it attempted murder? The plane didn’t crash....ergo the victim wasn’t hit by the bullet.
You're missing the key word, "intent". If someone shoots at someone, it is reasonably easy to prove there was an intent to cause serious bodily harm or death.
If they damage an airplane, in a way that experts agree would be very noticeable before takeoff, with the intent of the plane aborting takeoff, it is nearly impossible to prove an intent to cause serious bodily harm or death.
-
So if someone shoots at someone, misses is it attempted murder? The plane didn’t crash....ergo the victim wasn’t hit by the bullet.
Not always. In fact, nonfatal shootings often don't lead to attempted murder charges, but rather something like aggravated battery with a firearm, because intent can be hard to prove.
That said, when you shoot at someone, it's often being done with the intent to kill or with the knowledge that death is a probable outcome.
In this airplane mechanic case, there's no evidence the guy intended to kill anyone or a that deadly crash was the probable outcome. Had this not been caught before takeoff, the outcome would have been forcing the pilots to fly manually, not the plane falling out if the sky.
I know you're the expert on all things, Cheeks, but you're way out of your lane here. Federal prosecutors aren't famous for undercharging, you know?
-
Not always. In fact, nonfatal shootings often don't lead to attempted murder charges, but rather something like aggravated battery with a firearm, because intent can be hard to prove.
Very good point.
-
So if someone shoots at someone, misses is it attempted murder? The plane didn’t crash....ergo the victim wasn’t hit by the bullet.
Another mountain to die on!
-
Another mountain to die on!
Lots of mountains near the ‘Lectric city, eh?
-
Looks like a lot of Scoopers stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
-
We were talking about this today at work regarding Kawahi Leonard’s sister who was arrested for murdering an 84 year old woman yesterday. She and another person broke the woman’s skull in the bathroom and stole her purse. I’m sure the intent wasn’t to kill her or break her skull, but that’s what happened and thus charged with murder.
Maybe I am over sensitive because it is a plane and the margins for error on safety is so much different than a car, it when I read sabotage and tampering with gauges, engines, etc.....well let’s just say i’d Like the most severe deterrent possible.
-
Ties to terrorism?
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/article235199172.html
-
Ties to terrorism?
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/article235199172.html
Looks like a sensationalistic headline.
“I have evidence before me that suggests you could be sympathetic to terrorists,” McAliley said,
He better have more than that to call it “ties to terrorism.”
-
Looks like a sensationalistic headline.
“I have evidence before me that suggests you could be sympathetic to terrorists,” McAliley said,
He better have more than that to call it “ties to terrorism.”
I for one am going to let this fully play out before rushing to judgement. I will mention that prosecutors typically take the hardest line in their prosecutions because the accused is more likely to take a plea for a lighter sentence.
Its a pretty messed up system.
If this guy had terrorist ties though, give him his trial and convict on the evidence.
-
I for one am going to let this fully play out before rushing to judgement. I will mention that prosecutors typically take the hardest line in their prosecutions because the accused is more likely to take a plea for a lighter sentence.
Its a pretty messed up system.
If this guy had terrorist ties though, give him his trial and convict on the evidence.
Agree completely.
-
I for one am going to let this fully play out before rushing to judgement.
What are you, Canadian?
-
Delta pilot arrested after trying to fly while drunk.
People could have died.
Why no attempted murder charges?
https://abcnews.go.com/US/video-shows-delta-pilot-charged-fly-intoxicated-arrest/story?id=65702148
-
Delta pilot arrested after trying to fly while drunk.
People could have died.
Why no attempted murder charges?
https://abcnews.go.com/US/video-shows-delta-pilot-charged-fly-intoxicated-arrest/story?id=65702148
Go for it....I like the idea....even though there is a co-pilot redundancy. A little different than trying to sabotage a plane that could have not revealed the problem until going the runway at 230 knots while rotating. But yes, go for it. Strict laws, bet it would cut down immensely on these guys drinking and trying to fly a plane.
-
Go for it....I like the idea....even though there is a co-pilot redundancy. A little different than trying to sabotage a plane that could have not revealed the problem until going the runway at 230 knots while rotating. But yes, go for it. Strict laws, bet it would cut down immensely on these guys drinking and trying to fly a plane.
So every DUI and DWI should bring an attempted murder charge too?
-
So every DUI and DWI should bring an attempted murder charge too?
Here's the thing that troubles me. If you kill someone while DUI, you can be charged for murder. But if I don't kill them, then it's not attempted murder? Yet if I shoot someone and kill them, it's murder....if I shoot and miss....attempted murder is often the charge. What if the guy was merely trying to shoot him in the leg and intent was not to kill? Seems inconsistent to me.
To answer your question, I put more importance on objects traveling 500 knots with small margins for error when people are trying to sabotage them, or the operators of those vessels are impaired...especially when 150 souls are on board. I don't condone DUI at all, and there are needless deaths every year. I'd love to see much tougher penalties. How many times do we see some ahole that had prior convictions of DUI go out and kill people while DUI? Way too many.
-
NM
-
You can be charged with homicide by a moving vehicle too, not just manslaughter.
-
Go for it....I like the idea....even though there is a co-pilot redundancy. A little different than trying to sabotage a plane that could have not revealed the problem until going the runway at 230 knots while rotating. But yes, go for it. Strict laws, bet it would cut down immensely on these guys drinking and trying to fly a plane.
There was navigation system redundancy in the Miami case.
From the article you linked (but apparently didn't read):
But Alani’s assistant federal public defender, Christian Dunham, said the prosecutors were exaggerating the evidence. He pointed out that there was a second navigation system still working on the plane so his alleged sabotage could not have caused it to crash.
-
You can be charged with homicide by a moving vehicle too, not just manslaughter.
From a legal standpoint, homicide is not the same as murder. Homicide just means one person killing another. (Hence terms like justifiable homicide or reckless homicide).
Murder requires either the intent to kill someone, but to do so unlawfully, or intentionally committing an act that's likely to result in an unlawful killing.
That's why the vast, vast majority of fatal drunk driving cases carry charges like reckless homicide or aggravated DUI, not murder.
-
There was navigation system redundancy in the Miami case.
From the article you linked (but apparently didn't read):
But Alani’s assistant federal public defender, Christian Dunham, said the prosecutors were exaggerating the evidence. He pointed out that there was a second navigation system still working on the plane so his alleged sabotage could not have caused it to crash.
I’d like to hear from more than the public defender, counselor. I appreciate their input, but will weigh both sides.
-
From a legal standpoint, homicide is not the same as murder. Homicide just means one person killing another. (Hence terms like justifiable homicide or reckless homicide).
Murder requires either the intent to kill someone, but to do so unlawfully, or intentionally committing an act that's likely to result in an unlawful killing.
That's why the vast, vast majority of fatal drunk driving cases carry charges like reckless homicide or aggravated DUI, not murder.
I agree it isn’t common, though we have a high profile case heating up locally on this very subject....very much in the news here.
https://ktla.com/2019/09/18/dui-driver-charged-with-murder-in-fathers-day-crash-that-killed-dad-of-2-in-north-hills-da/
-
I’d like to hear from more than the public defender, counselor. I appreciate their input, but will weigh both sides.
So you're accusing the a lawyer admitted to the federal bar of lying to a judge in court. Based on what, exactly?
-
So you're accusing the a lawyer admitted to the federal bar of lying to a judge in court. Based on what, exactly?
I’m sorry, please show me where I accused the lawyer of lying.
Thank you
-
What are you, Canadian?
You gotta problem, guy?
*sips the piss that passes for timmy's joe these days*
-
So every DUI and DWI should bring an attempted murder charge too?
Dude, he's that dense. Don't bother.
Minimal grip on law, slightly larger grip on reality.
Opinionated af... but ya know.
-
I’m sorry, please show me where I accused the lawyer of lying.
Thank you
Well, you questioned the the attorney's statement about the backup navigation system. Whether or not there was a backup navigation system is a matter of fact, not opinion. There either was one or there was not.
Ergo, f the statement is untrue, he's lying. And by your unwillingness to accept his word on the matter, you're suggesting he could be lying.
-
Well, you questioned the the attorney's statement about the backup navigation system. Whether or not there was a backup navigation system is a matter of fact, not opinion. There either was one or there was not.
Ergo, f the statement is untrue, he's lying. And by your unwillingness to accept his word on the matter, you're suggesting he could be lying.
No, I said I want to hear more than just the defense attorney’s comments...he is hired to spin and advocate for his client. Nowhere did I say he was lying... I clearly said I appreciate their input (how is that saying they are lying) and said I will weigh both sides. How you come to your conclusion....not your best work.
-
Dude, he's that dense. Don't bother.
Minimal grip on law, slightly larger grip on reality.
Opinionated af... but ya know.
Describing yourself again?
-
Describing yourself again?
(https://media.giphy.com/media/pvbBQfxHPIPcs/giphy.gif)
-
(https://media.giphy.com/media/pvbBQfxHPIPcs/giphy.gif)
When in doubt, Hards goes to the sexual offender as his go to guy in humor.
-
When in doubt, Hards goes to the sexual offender as his go to guy in humor.
::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
-
No, I said I want to hear more than just the defense attorney’s comments...he is hired to spin and advocate for his client. Nowhere did I say he was lying... I clearly said I appreciate their input (how is that saying they are lying) and said I will weigh both sides. How you come to your conclusion....not your best work.
Classic Cheeks.
This whole thread started with you asking an entirely reasonable question ... whether attempted murder would be an appropriate charge in this case. After it was explained to you why it was not, you could have just said "OK, thanks" and moved on. Instead, you've doubled down and dug your heels in on a losing argument for no reason whatsoever.
-
Very good people on both sides
-
Classic Cheeks.
This whole thread started with you asking an entirely reasonable question ... whether attempted murder would be an appropriate charge in this case. After it was explained to you why it was not, you could have just said "OK, thanks" and moved on. Instead, you've doubled down and dug your heels in on a losing argument for no reason whatsoever.
It still makes you wrong to suggest I said the defense was lying. Instead of just an ”Ok, thanks” from you and admit that is not what I said, you double down. Lots of irony.
-
Very good people on both sides
Justice for Juicy
-
It still makes you wrong to suggest I said the defense was lying. Instead of just an ”Ok, thanks” from you and admit that is not what I said, you double down. Lots of irony.
I've already explained this to you. It's not my fault you either lack the mental capacity to understand or - more likely - are choosing to play dumb. Either way, I don't need to explain it again. If you want to answer, scroll up.
-
I've already explained this to you. It's not my fault you either lack the mental capacity to understand or - more likely - are choosing to play dumb. Either way, I don't need to explain it again. If you want to answer, scroll up.
And I said that’s great, appreciate his input but want to hear from more than just him....that is not calling him a liar...it is asking for more information. He can say there is a secondary system, he can say there is redundancy, I don’t know that to be true and would like another source to confirm this. That isn’t calling him a liar, it is asking for another source to validate it. Why is this so hard for you to understand? God forbid a prosecutor or public defender ever give an answer that sometimes doesn’t include the entire picture....this is why we get to hear both sides.
-
And I said that’s great, appreciate his input but want to hear from more than just him....that is not calling him a liar...it is asking for more information. He can say there is a secondary system, he can say there is redundancy, I don’t know that to be true and would like another source to confirm this. That isn’t calling him a liar, it is asking for another source to validate it. Why is this so hard for you to understand? God forbid a prosecutor or public defender ever give an answer that sometimes doesn’t include the entire picture....this is why we get to hear both sides.
Got it. You're not suggesting he could be lying, you're just saying he might not be telling the truth.
My bad.
-
Got it. You're not suggesting he could be lying, you're just saying he might not be telling the truth.
My bad.
Nope, you still don’t get it. I’m saying he is a lawyer, not an aviation expert. I’d like more information before rendering any decision. I’ll let the experts in the trial make that call and let the chips be as they may. For example, I’ll bet 500 economists might say something and 500 different economists might say something different. Does that make them liars or simply with a different point of view.
Do you get it now?
-
Nope, you still don’t get it. I’m saying he is a lawyer, not an aviation expert. I’d like more information before rendering any decision. I’ll let the experts in the trial make that call and let the chips be as they may. For example, I’ll bet 500 economists might say something and 500 different economists might say something different. Does that make them liars or simply with a different point of view.
Do you get it now?
This isn't a matter of opinion that requires an aviation expert or 500 economists to render judgement upon. It's a simple matter of fact. Either the plane was equipped with a backup system or it was not equipped with a backup system. The only reason why you would need to hear from the other side is because you doubt the truthfulness of the attorney's statement.
This will be my last post because this is dumb and I should know better.
-
This isn't a matter of opinion that requires an aviation expert or 500 economists to render judgement upon. It's a simple matter of fact. Either the plane was equipped with a backup system or it was not equipped with a backup system. The only reason why you would need to hear from the other side is because you doubt the truthfulness of the attorney's statement.
This will be my last post because this is dumb and I should know better.
Actually it is a matter of opinion. A non aviation expert can say there is a backup system, whether there is or whether it would be able to function or impacted by this sabotage effort is what we will find out at trial. I look forward to waiting to see what the situation is. In the meantime, again, I am not calling him a liar...I will wait for the experts on both sides to present their case. Thanks, counselor.
-
Nope, you still don’t get it. I’m saying he is a lawyer, not an aviation expert. I’d like more information before rendering any decision. I’ll let the experts in the trial make that call and let the chips be as they may. For example, I’ll bet 500 economists might say something and 500 different economists might say something different. Does that make them liars or simply with a different point of view.
Do you get it now?
97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming.
but I guess you'll just let the experts make that call.
Hypocrite.
-
97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming.
but I guess you'll just let the experts make that call.
Hypocrite.
that is patently wrong, but sounds really really convincing. although this study by earl ritchie and published in forbes on 12/2016 still calculates the percentage to be around 80% and admittedly quite unanimous, there are still varying degrees of agreement within that 80%. a big concern are the extremists not being held accountable for their knee jerk reactions to an ever impending "armageddon". if both sides were to be presented equally and fairly, the number may be even lower. i am not by any means advocating for unrestricted use/burning of fossil fuels. i do however wish some of the leaders of the "97%" would truly lead and restrict their use of our carbon based fuels. my hopes are that level heads will prevail for the betterment of all.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2016/12/14/fact-checking-the-97-consensus-on-anthropogenic-climate-change/#e08f85d11576
-
that is patently wrong, but sounds really really convincing. although this study by earl ritchie and published in forbes on 12/2016 still calculates the percentage to be around 80% and admittedly quite unanimous, there are still varying degrees of agreement within that 80%. a big concern are the extremists not being held accountable for their knee jerk reactions to an ever impending "armageddon". if both sides were to be presented equally and fairly, the number may be even lower. i am not by any means advocating for unrestricted use/burning of fossil fuels. i do however wish some of the leaders of the "97%" would truly lead and restrict their use of our carbon based fuels. my hopes are that level heads will prevail for the betterment of all.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2016/12/14/fact-checking-the-97-consensus-on-anthropogenic-climate-change/#e08f85d11576
The point I was making was that Cheeks here likes to defer to the 'experts' when it works for him.
-
97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming.
but I guess you'll just let the experts make that call.
Hypocrite.
False. Many say humans are contributors, but not the sole reason.
What do you think about these predictions when all these scientists over the years said was about to happen but did not? Scientists, right? It is a complex world.
https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions
-
that is patently wrong, but sounds really really convincing. although this study by earl ritchie and published in forbes on 12/2016 still calculates the percentage to be around 80% and admittedly quite unanimous, there are still varying degrees of agreement within that 80%. a big concern are the extremists not being held accountable for their knee jerk reactions to an ever impending "armageddon". if both sides were to be presented equally and fairly, the number may be even lower. i am not by any means advocating for unrestricted use/burning of fossil fuels. i do however wish some of the leaders of the "97%" would truly lead and restrict their use of our carbon based fuels. my hopes are that level heads will prevail for the betterment of all.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2016/12/14/fact-checking-the-97-consensus-on-anthropogenic-climate-change/#e08f85d11576
Your statement that it is patently false is incorrect. Your article doesn't disprove his statement, especially since he said "Climate experts". He correctly categorized the scientists to be consistent with the Cook et al. conclusions.
The author of your Forbes article says this is incorrect, but he doesn't have really anything to support it, besides that he disagrees with some of the methodology. That is an opinion, and opinion can't indicate something is "patently false".
-
False. Many say humans are contributors, but not the sole reason.
What do you think about these predictions when all these scientists over the years said was about to happen but did not? Scientists, right? It is a complex world.
https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions
wooooooosh
-
He plead guilty today of trying to destroy the plane. Sentencing in March.
One count of attempting to destroy an aircraft
https://wsvn.com/news/local/former-american-airlines-mechanic-pleads-guilty-to-attempted-sabotage-of-aircraft/
-
He plead guilty today of trying to destroy the plane. Sentencing in March.
One count of attempting to destroy an aircraft
https://wsvn.com/news/local/former-american-airlines-mechanic-pleads-guilty-to-attempted-sabotage-of-aircraft/
You're so far out of your element here.
-
You're so far out of your element here.
Just reporting what the media said. If you are saying the media is wrong in how they described it....verbatim...”plead guilty for trying to destroy a plane”....read yesterday’s articles....if you are saying the media is out of their element, well don’t let me slow you down.
Out of their element
http://www.mercurynews.com/tracy-man-pleads-guilty-to-attempting-to-destroy-aircraft
https://wsvn.com/news/local/former-american-airlines-mechanic-pleads-guilty-to-attempted-aircraft-destruction/
And on and on and on....
-
Let me get back to the core issue here.
The dude who decided to create a maintenance problem for a 737 out of Miami and then was caught before the plane reached the air should and has been charged with interfering with the operation of an aircraft. Because federal charges were brought against him, the likelihood of acquittal is very low (federal prosecutors tend to being things that are overwhelmingly in their favor). And, because the defendant is in the federal system, he'll be in jail for a long time.
As a regular on a U.S. airline, I'm grateful for both the systems that caught the problem and the federal prosecutors for making sure this doesn't happen again.
On the DUI issue, our court system has come a long way in 40 years. We're tough on DUI for the same reason we're tough on the airline mechanic: too many lives have been ended or ruined by irresponsible intoxicated operation of a motor vehicle. I don't care what you call the offense, as long as it's severely punished.
-
Just reporting what the media said. If you are saying the media is wrong in how they described it....verbatim...”plead guilty for trying to destroy a plane”....read yesterday’s articles....if you are saying the media is out of their element, well don’t let me slow you down.
Out of their element
http://www.mercurynews.com/tracy-man-pleads-guilty-to-attempting-to-destroy-aircraft
https://wsvn.com/news/local/former-american-airlines-mechanic-pleads-guilty-to-attempted-aircraft-destruction/
And on and on and on....
Right. But he wasn't charged with attempted murder as you initially suggested.
Let me get back to the core issue here.
The dude who decided to create a maintenance problem for a 737 out of Miami and then was caught before the plane reached the air should and has been charged with interfering with the operation of an aircraft. Because federal charges were brought against him, the likelihood of acquittal is very low (federal prosecutors tend to being things that are overwhelmingly in their favor). And, because the defendant is in the federal system, he'll be in jail for a long time.
As a regular on a U.S. airline, I'm grateful for both the systems that caught the problem and the federal prosecutors for making sure this doesn't happen again.
On the DUI issue, our court system has come a long way in 40 years. We're tough on DUI for the same reason we're tough on the airline mechanic: too many lives have been ended or ruined by irresponsible intoxicated operation of a motor vehicle. I don't care what you call the offense, as long as it's severely punished.
No this is another example of a ridiculous sentence. 20 years. For a crime that caused no harm to anyone.
And, while you are right about DUI in general, the only way an offender serves a sentence that long in Wisconsin is if they actually kill someone.
We incarcertate too many people for too long in our society. For a society that supposedly cares about "freedom," we have too many ways to take away that freedom for too long a time.
-
The not-at-all trivial fact Cheeks and dgies are missing/ignoring here is that the defendant in this case took a plea deal under which he'll do up to three years in prison (and almost certainly less when all is said and done).
There is ZERO chance a U.S. attorney and a federal judge (both appointed by Republican presidents, if that matters to tou) agree to those terms if they thought for one moment that this guy was trying to bring down a plane and murder some 150 people, or even they thought his actions created a likelihood of that occurring.
Cheeks somehow acting like this proves he was right all along is hilarious. This plea deal proves that no one in authority believes this guy was a serious threat to hurt anyone or had the intention to do so.
-
Right. But he wasn't charged with attempted murder as you initially suggested.
No this is another example of a ridiculous sentence. 20 years. For a crime that caused no harm to anyone.
And, while you are right about DUI in general, the only way an offender serves a sentence that long in Wisconsin is if they actually kill someone.
We incarcertate too many people for too long in our society. For a society that supposedly cares about "freedom," we have too many ways to take away that freedom for too long a time.
Uhm, I said he should be in my opinion. On Dec 19th I merely reported what the media said, and Pakuni for some reason took issue with me using the EXACT words reported in several articles.
-
The not-at-all trivial fact Cheeks and dgies are missing/ignoring here is that the defendant in this case took a plea deal under which he'll do up to three years in prison (and almost certainly less when all is said and done).
There is ZERO chance a U.S. attorney and a federal judge (both appointed by Republican presidents, if that matters to tou) agree to those terms if they thought for one moment that this guy was trying to bring down a plane and murder some 150 people, or even they thought his actions created a likelihood of that occurring.
Cheeks somehow acting like this proves he was right all along is hilarious. This plea deal proves that no one in authority believes this guy was a serious threat to hurt anyone or had the intention to do so.
Politics...no one cares who was appointed by whom but you here to somehow justify a point. I belong to neither party, but have belonged to both in my past...will never again.
Secondly, that is not what I said at all in term of your implication. I repeated what media said...”destroy an aircraft” then you went on the attack. ...ironically. In my view he should be charged with attempted murder. He wasn’t, long ago we all knew that here. I merely stated with the exact words the media used what he pled to...if the media got that wrong...so be it. The intent thing is a joke here...a drunk guy that wipes out a family on Christmas Eve didn’t intend to wipe them out either, but can still be charged with attempted murder. That was my argument from day one and will remain so....you disagree...10,000 economists say this while 10,000 others say that....disagreements abound everywhere...that’s life.
When asked if he intended to kill people he said no. When asked if he would put his family members on a plane that had that system sabotaged....he said NO.
-
Let me get back to the core issue here.
The dude who decided to create a maintenance problem for a 737 out of Miami and then was caught before the plane reached the air should and has been charged with interfering with the operation of an aircraft. Because federal charges were brought against him, the likelihood of acquittal is very low (federal prosecutors tend to being things that are overwhelmingly in their favor). And, because the defendant is in the federal system, he'll be in jail for a long time.
As a regular on a U.S. airline, I'm grateful for both the systems that caught the problem and the federal prosecutors for making sure this doesn't happen again.
On the DUI issue, our court system has come a long way in 40 years. We're tough on DUI for the same reason we're tough on the airline mechanic: too many lives have been ended or ruined by irresponsible intoxicated operation of a motor vehicle. I don't care what you call the offense, as long as it's severely punished.
Unfortunately that is not likely to happen. He originally pled not guilty and faced 20 years if found guilty. He instead agreed to a plea deal and will get far far less....sadly.
-
Uhm, I said he should be in my opinion.
Glad you are in favor of putting people in jail for a crime for which there was no evidence to suggest they are guilty. Quite the tyrant you are.
-
The not-at-all trivial fact Cheeks and dgies are missing/ignoring here is that the defendant in this case took a plea deal under which he'll do up to three years in prison (and almost certainly less when all is said and done).
There is ZERO chance a U.S. attorney and a federal judge (both appointed by Republican presidents, if that matters to tou) agree to those terms if they thought for one moment that this guy was trying to bring down a plane and murder some 150 people, or even they thought his actions created a likelihood of that occurring.
Cheeks somehow acting like this proves he was right all along is hilarious. This plea deal proves that no one in authority believes this guy was a serious threat to hurt anyone or had the intention to do so.
Thanks for the clearification. Good news!
-
Glad you are in favor of putting people in jail for a crime for which there was no evidence to suggest they are guilty. Quite the tyrant you are.
When certain types of people - let's say MLB executives named Brandon - are guilty of wrongdoing, Cheeks thinks it's unfair to impose punishment because we can't ever know his true intent.
When other types of people - let's say working class guys named Abdul-Majeed - are guilty of wrongdoing, they must face the most extreme punishment possible, whatever his intent might have been.
Weird.
To borrow a phrase you wrote in another thread, Cheeks should have just taken the 'L.' But that's impossible, because he knows better than everyone, including the federal prosecutors and judge who've reviewed all the evidence.
#cheeksneverwrong
-
Glad you are in favor of putting people in jail for a crime for which there was no evidence to suggest they are guilty. Quite the tyrant you are.
He tried to sabotage a plane which had 150 people on it. He admitted to trying to sabotage an aircraft, but he said he meant no harm. If that plane had taken off and if (yes, if) it crashed and people died, it would not have mattered if he meant harm or not.
I'm a tyrant? No...I just don't give passes to people that are pouting about their labor issues and decide to mess with safety systems on commercial aircraft and then say cut the guy a break. I call it common sense. Then again, I'm one of those tyrants I guess that watches people walk into an APPLE STORE, steal a phone in broad daylight and walk out with it knowing there is nothing that can now be done about it here. Just thumb their nose at all the regulars who are paying their phones. Same guy, can come back 15 minutes later and do it again. Each event, individualized, and below $900 in value.....yup, I'm a tyrant.
-
When certain types of people - let's say MLB executives named Brandon - are guilty of wrongdoing, Cheeks thinks it's unfair to impose punishment because we can't ever know his true intent.
When other types of people - let's say working class guys named Abdul-Majeed - are guilty of wrongdoing, they must face the most extreme punishment possible, whatever his intent might have been.
Weird.
To borrow a phrase you wrote in another thread, Cheeks should have just taken the 'L.' But that's impossible, because he knows better than everyone, including the federal prosecutors and judge who've reviewed all the evidence.
#cheeksneverwrong
#fakenews I said we need to find intent and have no problem with the guy getting fired once that information was provided on his actions. It was the rush to judgment before we had that information. Good try CHuckles
You leave out ALL the facts and only provide the parts that suit you...why am I not surprised.
-
He tried to sabotage a plane which had 150 people on it. He admitted to trying to sabotage an aircraft, but he said he meant no harm. If that plane had taken off and if (yes, if) it crashed and people died, it would not have mattered if he meant harm or not.
And this is where you illustrate how pathetically out of your element you are here.
In this country, we do not hand out punishments based on the worst possible one-in-a-million outcome of someone's offense.
Someone driving past a stop sign could cause a crash with another vehicle. And that vehicle could be a minivan carrying a family of eight. And the impact of the crash could kill one or all of them.
Still, to my knowledge, nobody's ever been charged, convicted and sentenced to decades in prison on eight counts of manslaughter for rolling through a stop sign.
This is so, so, so dumb. You literally believe you understand the case better than the prosecutors and judge who had the evidence.
Must be what it's like for Neil deGrasse Tyson to discuss planetary physics with a flat earther.
Still, it's fun to watch you lash out like a three-year-old every time you're exposed.
-
He tried to sabotage a plane which had 150 people on it. He admitted to trying to sabotage an aircraft, but he said he meant no harm. If that plane had taken off and if (yes, if) it crashed and people died, it would not have mattered if he meant harm or not.
But it didn't crash and people didn't die. And there is no evidence to suggest that he intented for either to occur. That's the point.
I'm a tyrant? No...I just don't give passes to people that are pouting about their labor issues and decide to mess with safety systems on commercial aircraft and then say cut the guy a break. I call it common sense. Then again, I'm one of those tyrants I guess that watches people walk into an APPLE STORE, steal a phone in broad daylight and walk out with it knowing there is nothing that can now be done about it here. Just thumb their nose at all the regulars who are paying their phones. Same guy, can come back 15 minutes later and do it again. Each event, individualized, and below $900 in value.....yup, I'm a tyrant.
OK...no idea how this is relevant in any way. But I guess that's part of your schtick.
-
And this is where you illustrate how pathetically out of your element you are here.
In this country, we do not hand out punishments based on the worst possible one-in-a-million outcome of someone's offense.
Someone driving past a stop sign could cause a crash with another vehicle. And that vehicle could be a minivan carrying a family of eight. And the impact of the crash could kill one or all of them.
Still, to my knowledge, nobody's ever been charged, convicted and sentenced to decades in prison on eight counts of manslaughter for rolling through a stop sign.
This is so, so, so dumb. You literally believe you understand the case better than the prosecutors and judge who had the evidence.
Must be what it's like for Neil deGrasse Tyson to discuss planetary physics with a flat earther.
Still, it's fun to watch you lash out like a three-year-old every time you're exposed.
Really, seems some are trying to do that right now in front of all the public to see....but I digress.
Are you equivocating rolling through a stop sign to purposefully sabotaging part of a plane's safety systems? What about a car rolling through a stop sign in which the brake lines were purposely cut (sabotaged) by someone and the car hit and killed a kid...that would have been a much better example than the lame one you brought up.
I would like to applaud you for playing the race and affluency card, however. Like I give one damn where the guy was from, what his name was and whether he was middle class or not....he sabotaged a plane. PERIOD. But of course as is the pattern here by certain people, that's where you go.
Do you have any opinions on Idaho you would like to share? I think TSmith has some.
-
Just reporting what the media said. If you are saying the media is wrong in how they described it....verbatim...”plead guilty for trying to destroy a plane”....read yesterday’s articles....if you are saying the media is out of their element, well don’t let me slow you down.
Out of their element
http://www.mercurynews.com/tracy-man-pleads-guilty-to-attempting-to-destroy-aircraft
https://wsvn.com/news/local/former-american-airlines-mechanic-pleads-guilty-to-attempted-aircraft-destruction/
And on and on and on....
A post of you now defending the accuracy of the media?!? Now I’ve seen everything.
-
But it didn't crash and people didn't die. And there is no evidence to suggest that he intented for either to occur. That's the point.
OK...no idea how this is relevant in any way. But I guess that's part of your schtick.
Yup, and sometimes we have punishments for certain crimes based on what COULD HAVE happened. Surely you know this. Based on the potential risk of bodily harm, injury, death to others...whether it occurs or not. All I'm saying is that should have been considered here....but you know, I have it out for airline mechanics that have names that aren't Judeo Christian per Pakuni.....apparently the whole sabotaging the plane thing we will just ignore, it's because of the guy's name. Sweet Jesus.
-
A post of you now defending the accuracy of the media?!? Now I’ve seen everything.
You should read more often, I defend them plenty when they do their damn job right, don't spike stories, make up lies, etc. I've also said here there are many great, honest journalists. It's the pretty boys that I don't care about that totally abuse their calling to public in the pursuit of truth when they do exactly the opposite. You really need to read more Jables. Happy to provide links for you.
-
You should read more often, I defend them plenty when they do their damn job right, don't spike stories, make up lies, etc. I've also said here there are many great, honest journalists. It's the pretty boys that I don't care about that totally abuse their calling to public in the pursuit of truth when they do exactly the opposite. You really need to read more Jables. Happy to provide links for you.
And you should practice what you preach. Despite your misguided belief you are not an authority on every single topic that comes up in every thread on this board.
Reading articles and posting them doesn’t make you an expert. I could read a thousand articles on brain surgery. Doesn’t make me an expert.
Do you honestly think that so many people disagree and take issue with you simply because they don’t like you? Or do you think maybe it’s more likely due to the fact that you hijack every single topic by promising to link articles that you’ve read, name dropping people that no one gives a flying fart about or calling everyone out for even the slightest mention of politics and then (completely unironically I might add) bringing them up yourself.
Go ahead and get the last word in. It’s what you do. But remember, self-awareness is an extremely power thing.
-
And you should practice what you preach. Despite your misguided belief you are not an authority on every single topic that comes up in every thread on this board.
Reading articles and posting them doesn’t make you an expert. I could read a thousand articles on brain surgery. Doesn’t make me an expert.
Do you honestly think that so many people disagree and take issue with you simply because they don’t like you? Or do you think maybe it’s more likely due to the fact that you hijack every single topic by promising to link articles that you’ve read, name dropping people that no one gives a flying fart about or calling everyone out for even the slightest mention of politics and then (completely unironically I might add) bringing them up yourself.
Go ahead and get the last word in. It’s what you do. But remember, self-awareness is an extremely power thing.
I know I am not an authority on every topic on this board (nor have I ever claimed to be)....so welcome to accusing me of something you just did yourself.
Agree, reading articles and posting them doesn't make anyone an expert. That wasn't the point, but whatever.
Hijack EVERY SINGLE TOPIC....fakenews. Lazy. False. I name drop exactly for that reason, because I know it irritates some of you and because it is 100% true of those people I am mentioning....guilty pleasure knowing both are true. Put me on ignore, very simple to do.
I give what I get here. If people call me out for politics, I will do the exact same thing to them when they do it. Watching your hypocrisy and others over it only reinforces the selective outrage.
Oh, I will get the last word in because so much of what you said was false....what is also a powerful thing is refuting falsehoods. There are hundreds of threads I don't even participate in...so how am I hijacking EVERY SINGLE TOPIC? LOL. Let alone claiming to be an authority on it.
-
I know I am not an authority on every topic on this board (nor have I ever claimed to be)....so welcome to accusing me of something you just did yourself.
Agree, reading articles and posting them doesn't make anyone an expert. That wasn't the point, but whatever.
Hijack EVERY SINGLE TOPIC....fakenews. Lazy. False. I name drop exactly for that reason, because I know it irritates some of you and because it is 100% true of those people I am mentioning....guilty pleasure knowing both are true. Put me on ignore, very simple to do.
I give what I get here. If people call me out for politics, I will do the exact same thing to them when they do it. Watching your hypocrisy and others over it only reinforces the selective outrage.
Oh, I will get the last word in because so much of what you said was false....what is also a powerful thing is refuting falsehoods. There are hundreds of threads I don't even participate in...so how am I hijacking EVERY SINGLE TOPIC? LOL. Let alone claiming to be an authority on it.
Thank God you’re too busy to post during work hours.
-
Thank God you’re too busy to post during work hours.
Thank God I took this week off....allowed me to do a few things today
Mowed the front and back lawns
Fixed the Christmas lights on one of our palm trees
Dealt with the body shop (my son and I were in a car accident 10 days ago, fortunately not our fault and no injuries...but lots of damage to my pick up truck...picked him up from airport After flying in from Milwaukee)
Sold my wife’s iPhone since she got a new one for Christmas
Did four loads of laundry
Helped my daughter with her college applications due early next week
Wrote some thank you cards for Christmas gifts
Sent a few emails for work
Took out all the recycling and garbage for tomorrow morning’s pickup
Had a nice 20 minute convo with the neighbor who recently retired and he’s moving out of state
Spoke to my mom on the phone...I call her 4 or 5 days a week to check in on her health
Hung up a wine artwork piece for my wife (she did have to work today)
Took the dog on a walk
Installed the Roomba (gift for house) and watched the dog go nuts trying to attack it
Shared some thoughts here on Scoop......triggered several people on Scoop apparently
Slow day, it nice to have the week off...first one I took all year long.
Merry Christmas
-
Me, I’m going ice fishing today.
Hopefully streaming the game on my tablet too.
-
Yup, and sometimes we have punishments for certain crimes based on what COULD HAVE happened. Surely you know this. Based on the potential risk of bodily harm, injury, death to others...whether it occurs or not. All I'm saying is that should have been considered here....but you know, I have it out for airline mechanics that have names that aren't Judeo Christian per Pakuni.....apparently the whole sabotaging the plane thing we will just ignore, it's because of the guy's name. Sweet Jesus.
Of course you have crimes for things that might have caused harm. That's why it is a crime to do what he did. A 20 years sentence is way too harsh however.
But you are calling for attempted murder. Which is insanely ridiculous because there is zero evidence to suggest he wanted to murder anyone.
-
Of course you have crimes for things that might have caused harm. That's why it is a crime to do what he did. A 20 years sentence is way too harsh however.
But you are calling for attempted murder. Which is insanely ridiculous because there is zero evidence to suggest he wanted to murder anyone.
I find it insanely ridiculous someone tried to sabotage a commercial airliner with 150 people on it, admits he wouldn't put his family on the plane and he will get his hand slapped.
-
I find it insanely ridiculous someone tried to sabotage a commercial airliner with 150 people on it, admits he wouldn't put his family on the plane and he will get his hand slapped.
Three years in federal prison for a crime that harmed no one isn’t a hand slap.
-
I find it insanely ridiculous someone tried to sabotage a commercial airliner with 150 people on it, admits he wouldn't put his family on the plane and he will get his hand slapped.
Please direct your outrage to the U.S
Attorney for the Southern District of Florida. Explain to her how you know the proper disposition of her case.
-
I name drop exactly for that reason, because I know it irritates some of you...Watching your hypocrisy and others over it only reinforces the selective outrage...Oh, I will get the last word in
Sigh.
There was once a Scoop poster that was banned time and time and time again for being a miserable a-hole. After yet another such banning, the poster once again created another user name and started posting, only this time he issued a lengthy apology claiming he had a change of heart. His apology included these gems:
"First, let me come out and apologize. For being a hypocrite, offensive and challenging, fill in a bunch of other not so glowing terms."
And:
"My worst, my absolute worst about me came on this message board….and for that I apologize to you. The desire to be right all the time, push buttons, get the last word in, etc. Just not good. So vastly different to whom I am in the real world…shy, quiet, speak only when I need to make a point. But not here. UGH. Embarrassing."
As well as:
"I’ll stand up and be the first to admit being an epic hypocrite on this over the years. 100%. OWNING IT! The worst at times."
Now, Scoopers of good heart took this fellow at his word and were happy to give him the benefit of the doubt. Others were more wary, given the poster's long string of bannings and consistently a-hole behavior. And alas, it was this latter group who were correct, for within 24 hours said poster was once again arguing, "clarifying", and generally reverting to his a-hole behavior.
I say this because maybe, just maybe, you'd like to reflect on what the multi-banned poster said by way of apology, and perhaps even consider whether adopting such behavior in the New Year would be a better course than continuing to be a miserable a-hole hated by all. It would be a nice New Year's resolution, though I admit the idea is probably far-fetched. But here it is, in case you have a real change of heart.
https://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=52588.0
-
Sigh.
There was once a Scoop poster that was banned time and time and time again for being a miserable a-hole. After yet another such banning, the poster once again created another user name and started posting, only this time he issued a lengthy apology claiming he had a change of heart. His apology included these gems:
"First, let me come out and apologize. For being a hypocrite, offensive and challenging, fill in a bunch of other not so glowing terms."
And:
"My worst, my absolute worst about me came on this message board….and for that I apologize to you. The desire to be right all the time, push buttons, get the last word in, etc. Just not good. So vastly different to whom I am in the real world…shy, quiet, speak only when I need to make a point. But not here. UGH. Embarrassing."
As well as:
"I’ll stand up and be the first to admit being an epic hypocrite on this over the years. 100%. OWNING IT! The worst at times."
Now, Scoopers of good heart took this fellow at his word and were happy to give him the benefit of the doubt. Others were more wary, given the poster's long string of bannings and consistently a-hole behavior. And alas, it was this latter group who were correct, for within 24 hours said poster was once again arguing, "clarifying", and generally reverting to his a-hole behavior.
I say this because maybe, just maybe, you'd like to reflect on what the multi-banned poster said by way of apology, and perhaps even consider whether adopting such behavior in the New Year would be a better course than continuing to be a miserable a-hole hated by all. It would be a nice New Year's resolution, though I admit the idea is probably far-fetched. But here it is, in case you have a real change of heart.
https://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=52588.0
Thanks for posting this.
Three hopes/requests:
1. Cheeks, please resist the urge to defend yourself against your own words. Resist the urge to explain why "Cheeks" acts the way he does. Resist the urge to point out that others are hypocritical and/or constantly attacking "Cheeks" so it's only right that he respond. Please note that I'm referring to "him" in the third person -- not second. I know the real person who "plays" Cheeks on this board; I don't think he would be recognizable to those who only know "Cheeks" (just like I suspect "Cheeks" would be unrecognizable to many). In the past, I've allowed my friendship with the real person to cause me to defend "Cheeks." Increasingly, I've felt that they're not remotely the same and that "Cheeks" is often indefensible.
2. For those of you who seem to relish trolling/attacking/baiting Cheeks, please resist the urge. Resist constantly mentioning Cheeks in various threads. Resist trolling him hoping that he will relapse and prove you right yet again. Many of you (some of whom I've had non-Scoop interactions with) also have turned into insufferable characters who I'm sure bear no resemblance to real people...at least I hope not. By the way, thanks for an early start on this MU82. Please keep it up.
3. Mods, if the event that the first two hopes/requests fall on deaf ears -- admittedly a fairly likely outcome -- please do not resist the urge to use the ban hammer.
-
Three years in federal prison for a crime that harmed no one isn’t a hand slap.
Compared to 20 it is....and can he get out in advance of three years for being a swell guy?
-
Please direct your outrage to the U.S
Attorney for the Southern District of Florida. Explain to her how you know the proper disposition of her case.
I'd like to...can you provide an address? Thanks
-
Thanks for posting this.
I don't even bother with TSmith any longer. His Idaho racist remarks were the last straw. So it's all good, he can say whatever he wants. God bless him
-
Compared to 20 it is....
Yeah, compared to the henious maximum, it most certainly is!
and can he get out in advance of three years for being a swell guy?
I certainly hope so!
-
I'd like to...can you provide an address? Thanks
lookitupyourself@dontbelazy.com
-
lookitupyourself@dontbelazy.com
With all of your connections and Cura Personalis attitude, I'm sorry to see this....maybe a New Year's resolution on improvement for you.
-
Yeah, compared to the henious maximum, it most certainly is!
I certainly hope so!
Of course you do....wash...rinse...repeat..do again...it's like a song, only it isn't. Heinous maximum for sabotaging a plane was only 20 years...that's what is heinous...should have been 50.
-
I don't even bother with TSmith any longer. His Idaho racist remarks were the last straw. So it's all good, he can say whatever he wants. God bless him
Reconsider Jams' words. Reflect.
-
With all of your connections and Cura Personalis attitude, I'm sorry to see this....maybe a New Year's resolution on improvement for you.
"Cura Personalis" says the guy who wants public executions and 20-year prison sentences for victimless property crimes.
-
"Cura Personalis" says the guy who wants public executions and 20-year prison sentences for victimless property crimes.
Very true, I don't have a warm spot in my heart for criminals who want to destroy planes and admit they would not allow their families to travel on it after what he had done. Yup, I'm just super crazy on that front.
-
Very true, I don't have a warm spot in my heart for criminals who want to destroy planes and admit they would not allow their families to travel on it after what he had done. Yup, I'm just super crazy on that front.
Hmmmm... Seems like your Jesuit education didn't really take.
-
Very true, I don't have a warm spot in my heart for criminals who want to destroy planes and admit they would not allow their families to travel on it after what he had done. Yup, I'm just super crazy on that front.
#fakenews
-
Amazing how someone immediately responses to arguments and contentious posts, but completely ignores Still's good natured and well intentioned post on how to make things better around here. Sigh
-
Hmmmm... Seems like your Jesuit education didn't really take.
Maybe needs some influence from the Premonstratensians, @1na
-
Hmmmm... Seems like your Jesuit education didn't really take.
Which part....be happy to list all kinds of teachings the Jesuits provided that aren't adhered to here by you and others.....Hmmmm...seems like your Jesuit education didn't really take. What they describe as the "KEY SOCIAL EVIL" is just one of many of those teachings that folks here missed class that day...apparently. ;)
-
Amazing how someone immediately responses to arguments and contentious posts, but completely ignores Still's good natured and well intentioned post on how to make things better around here. Sigh
Aren't we all being good natured and well intentioned? Sure feels like it...
-
Which part....be happy to list all kinds of teachings the Jesuits provided that aren't adhered to here by you and others.....Hmmmm...seems like your Jesuit education didn't really take. What they describe as the "KEY SOCIAL EVIL" is just one of many of those teachings that folks here missed class that day...apparently. ;)
Heed the words of wise Jams:
"Ultimately would ask you to come together here, stop the labeling of others. As perhaps one of the biggest purveyors of this crap, I know what it looks like."
-
Which part....be happy to list all kinds of teachings the Jesuits provided that aren't adhered to here by you and others.....Hmmmm...seems like your Jesuit education didn't really take. What they describe as the "KEY SOCIAL EVIL" is just one of many of those teachings that folks here missed class that day...apparently. ;)