Surprised this hasn’t happened more

[Hards Alumni]

When in doubt, Hards goes to the sexual offender as his go to guy in humor.

 

[Pakuni]

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.

[jesmu84]

Very good people on both sides

[Cheeks]

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.

[Cheeks]

Very good people on both sides

Justice for Juicy

[Pakuni]

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.

[Cheeks]

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.

[Pakuni]

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.

[Cheeks]

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?

[Pakuni]

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.

[Cheeks]

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.

[Hards Alumni]

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.

[rocket surgeon]

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

[Hards Alumni]

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. 

[Cheeks]

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

[forgetful]

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".

[Hards Alumni]

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

[Cheeks]

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/

[Pakuni]

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.

[Cheeks]

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....

[dgies9156]

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.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

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. 

[Pakuni]

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.

[Cheeks]

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.

[Cheeks]

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.