Originally Posted by TiredSoul

Stop being so tone deaf.
The video shows the defendant performing a bodily function.
The strong suggestion is that surveillance video of other people performing such functions exists.
This would include minors and cabin crew.
We are talking about felonies here.
You really don’t need to be a lawyer for this.


So I commit a robbery with an unloaded gun. My defense: gun wasn’t loaded so it wasn’t a real armed robbery.

So I commit a robbery with a toy gun.
My defense: gun wasn’t real so it wasn’t a real robbery.

For all intents and purposes it was suggested the bathroom was under surveillance.
Whether it really was or not is (almost) irrelevant.
Same as the bank teller not being required to be able to tell an unloaded gun from a loaded gun there is no requirement for cabin crew to be up to date with the capabilities of the latest surveillance equipment.

This is not a $20 bill coming out of the ACARS printer.

Originally Posted by MudhammedCJ

Maybe a refresher course on logic will help you a bit. Because you are obviously lacking in that department.

Originally Posted by e6bpilot

This whole thing has jumped the shark.

Originally Posted by e6bpilot

And if you stir the pot enough the trolls keep trolling. This whole thing has jumped the shark.
This lawsuit is idiotic and has no merit.

I am out.

Originally Posted by TiredSoul

I think if you stir the pot enough the mysoginists come floating up.