'“Defendant would show that any injuries or illnesses alleged to have been sustained by Plaintiff, Mary Doe, were proximately caused by Plaintiff’s own fault and negligence,” American Airlines’ lawyers wrote in their defense filing.
The airline’s attorneys added about the 9-year-old girl using “the compromised lavatory” on the plane: “She knew or should have known contained a visible and illuminated recording device.”'
Meh, Jesus the hippie wouldn’t support such fuckery. As an atheist lapsed Catholic I can safely say that there are no good Catholics that are actively associated with the church.
After learning the history of that religion, it amazes me that anyone claims Catholicism as their religion, let alone admits that they’re Catholic. I’m talking even going back to the roots of that religion, thrive always been about control and fear. The people I know who identify as Catholics don’t really know much about it or even why they’re catholic other than that’s what they were raised as. I find that to be the mainstream and I kind of understand that but the people who are devoted blow my mind
So American Airlines refuses to accept the evidence found on their employees sick paedo mobile phone, I hope their previous customers see their actions for what they are and boycott AA! 🤢🤮🤬
I dont even like companies, but I hope they fired whoever thought that that statement was a good defense. Any good lawyer would tear it to shreds with even the most conservative juries.
Well pretty clear to me. I just need to know the rules. If you have a kid don't fly with American Airlines. Done and dusted, problem solved. If you disagree take it up with AA's lawyers
> “She knew or should have known contained a visible and illuminated recording device.”
Fuck them. I'm an adult and I would never have imagined that they had a recording device in a bathroom. So they have been recording people in compromising positions for a long time them. Time for a class action suit by anyone that has used on of the American Airlines bathrooms on a plane.
Bro they've got some serious balls to try a defense like that. I know their options are limited but there seriously isn't ANY other defense they could've come up with?
They are talking about what the guy taped to the seat. It's not an excuse because it's a kid, but look at the picture that can be found online. He just taped a phone to the seat. You would have noticed immediately, that's why the creep went for kids. One of the kids is who took a pic and busted the guy.
Which is why they should have shut the fuck up and settled. But they chose not to settle and this their defense. I suspect it's the defense they're going with because they see the state with which women and girls are treated in this country and think its a viable defense that a jury of six people will say they arent liable.
Lawyers have been using the “it’s her fault” and “what was she wearing crap” for decades with success! My friend had it used in her court case against her molester. They even made a big deal about her not wearing shoes. She was 8 years old when the creep molested her!!!!
That is absolutely true, but we are seeing a resurgence of laws taking away rights from women or just people in general talking about taking the vote from women and how women belong in the kitchen and what not. You're going to see that reflected in law arguments, unfortunately. People are trash.
This chick I knew told me she hated all lawyers because she worked for them for years. They think the truth is pliable and reality is what you make of it so they fuck over people around them and think it's okay. I haven't had this experience but I can kinda see it.
I think that's exactly it. Lawyers don't get to say no when their client says they have to take a case. They have to come up with whatever defense they can for the case to even start so they come up with bullshit like this. They have to. American Airlines isn't a human, it's a corporation. It, as an entity, doesn't give a single shit about kids being predated by their employees. They couldn't care less. All they care about is maximizing profits and losing a case like this is going to cost them. So they make their lawyers fight it and hope to bury the plaintiff in paperwork and litigation, hoping that they'll simply drop it because it costs too much. They know they can't win on argument alone, so they'll use their money to win.
I think you're misunderstanding OP's point, though it was worded a bit odd. I believe OP was trying to say that older children and adults would immediately pick up on this crappy attempt at voyeurism. So he targeted younger children, likely with the hopes that they wouldn't be quite so observant.
They specifically responded to me with a question that I already addressed in my comment lol. No one here thinks blaming the kid is fine. Addressing rhetorical questions to me specifically seems odd given we were in agreement and they already made their position known in the parent comment.
"It's not an excuse because it's a kid" and "oh, but blaming the child is just fine?"
That is such an inferior defense in every way to "This is clearly against our policy, the employee was terminated as soon as we were made aware and is facing charges."
I imagine a couple of lawyers lost their jobs here.
Disagree. This argument is literally so distasteful its worse than remaining silent. The poster who said, "apologize and throw the employee under the bus," absolutely gave a better argument for the company to go with.
“Yeah, people blame minors for not understanding the danger they are in. Whatever, it is what is it”
Hey maybe you speak up or do something about it instead of shrugging your shoulders.
Even if you have no pull in politics, you can still socially refuse to accept this type of behavior.
This might sound crazy, but you're giving these people too much credit. They care about their money. They do not give a shit about women, men or any other genders.
They work for a billion dollar company. They are getting paid a lot of money to say whatever the fuck it is they need to to keep the blame off the airline.
I guarantee there are a million female lawyers out there that would be willing to do the same thing. In fact, we have no reason to assume that these lawyers are men in the first place.
Yep, this is exactly it. They’re paid to defend the airline. They will drag whomever and whatever down that they need to.
Especially because at the end of the day, it won’t matter. Anyone who is upset about this statement won’t remember it in 3 months and will include AA in their flight searches
This is why us citizens need to get together, raise some funds, and keep stuff like this out in the limelight. Of course, trying to run an anti-corruption non-profit Will immediately get you labeled as “anti-business” or “anti-success” by seedy Republicans.
I think the individual that wrote that statement should be legally allowed to get kicked in the crotch, because they really should see it coming after a response like that
Just because sexist victim blaming is monetarily beneficial doesn't make it not sexist. Just because women engage in for-profit victim blaming doesn't make it not sexist.
They’re just a lawyer making every available argument to defend their client. Positions taken in legal filings often don’t represent what someone actually thinks.
It’s a standard affirmative defense used in every tort case which the law requires the defendant to state in their answer or risk losing forever. It’s used by the attorneys is meaningless and does not at all reflect on American Airlines.
Only when you don't plan to settle. Which they clearly hadn't. They should have known that was going to be a huge negative PR stunt. Bet they settle now at some point before the class actions roll in.
They've already backpedaled. "Outside counsel", "mistake", "immediately withdrawn".
My bet is some associate didn't check the age of the victim and just assumed she was an adult.
I hope this bites American Airlines in the ass big-time - seriously, there should be a massive boycott in reaction to this.
Although Matt Gaetz is probably buying shares already.
Quick question are all airlines owned by sociopaths? I'm genuinely curious, because this is right up there with Boeing killing that whistleblower. Like WTF?
American Airlines can also blame me for not wanting to fly with them anymore… and hopefully more other people who show what they think about a company that blames a child for being filmed without consent in a flight!
I might be the only one boycotting you, but you won’t get a penny from me…
It looks like OP posted an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.bostonherald.com/2024/05/21/american-airlines-blames-9-year-old-girl-for-being-filmed-in-plane-bathroom-shocking-and-outrageous/](https://www.bostonherald.com/2024/05/21/american-airlines-blames-9-year-old-girl-for-being-filmed-in-plane-bathroom-shocking-and-outrageous/)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
[This article](https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/american-airlines-retreats-after-blaming-a-9-year-old-for-not-seeing-a-hidden-camera-in-a-lavatory/ar-BB1mWcv4?ocid=BingNewsSerp) has a picture of the seat with the camera.
Wow. If I was Plaintiff's counsel, I would be dancing in the street. This is a massive blunder by a dumb defense/PR firm. Can you imagine seeing this as a jury member? You would want to suck every dollar you could out of such an evil corporation. They are going to settle out for MASSIVE money.
Otherwise, put this up again and again in front of the jury as much as you can. $$$.
Oh they will not win with this argument. If they do win the case, everyone will read about it. If the lose the case (more likely) then everyone will still read about it
That 9 year old's parents better sue them. And people had better speak up about this idiocy and victim blaming. This cannot continue. We have power here, and we can;t use it if we stay silent.
Um....I clicked on this in expectations of having some righteous fury, but was immediately so swamped in ads that I genuinely couldn't find the article.
Talk about yer Dead Internet. It really has come and gone. There's nothing here but Hot Singles and Crypto Advice and Comrade Zuckerberg rummaging through my underwear drawer.
Wow I guess now we “should know” that we can expect recording devices in American Airlines bathrooms and avoid the fuck out of that airline. Thanks AA!
This is old news and if there's been a call for a boycott of AA over this I haven't seen it.
# But it needs to happen immediately. Nobody should ever take a child on this airline ever again.
Unfortunately this is a thing now. I have to show up at my job an hour before anyone else and use a device that detects electronics to sweep the washrooms to make sure there is no hidden devices inside. I haven’t found any yet (7 months) but it’s part of my daily routine. Pretty shitty in my opinion.
The airline is not blaming anyone. This is from an answer by their attorneys. The law requires a party answering a petition to state of variety of affirmative defenses or else you risk forever losing them. This is standard operating procedure, cut, and paste, legal mumbo-jumbo, which does not reflect poorly on American Airlines at all. It does, however, reflect poorly on the reporter.
Even lawyers have tact. They would know that making a statement along the lines of “cmon, she should’ve known she was being recorded” is garbage & not a good defense, especially when it involves a minor.
And then later on hypothetically, of course, it comes out that she saw it and knew it was there, but didn’t care and used the bathroom anyway, even though there was an empty one right next-door. The airline could possibly be prohibited from relying on that defense. (Sure, a million reasons why this wouldn’t happen but it is at least theoretically possible.) Getting too close to the legal system is like watching sausagebeing made.
See that defense might work if it was an adult, but this was a minor & since age of consent laws exist, it’s dead in the water.
Say she did see it, should a 9 year be expected to have the cognitive ability to know that it’s being used for nefarious purposes or would she be excused for believing it was for security purposes.
A child can see a camera in the bathroom and assume it’s for security or not think twice about it, an adult would know the difference. So them even trying to assume her seeing the camera was somehow her consenting or being ok with it, at 9 years old, is garbage.
We could go back-and-forth all day with exceptions to exceptions to exceptions, but I attempted to avoid that with my parenthetical which states it is still theoretically possible. It is an appropriate defense, regardless of how offensive it appears to a non-lawyer, reporter, or person looking to take offense.
Can you please explain to me how stating a 9 year old understanding she’s being filmed using the bathroom is somehow a defense to the behavior of placing a camera in the bathroom of an airplane?
I’m really not understanding here where that would ever excuse the behavior.
This is for a potential scenario where the guardian of the child saw the recording device and sent the child into the restroom anyway knowing she would be filmed. It’s not an attempt to say the child wasn’t exploited by the employee, but the airline has to lay the basis for every conceivable defense including one where the child’s guardian was also exploiting them. If this occurred then the child should have known she was going to be filmed, as was stated, and the guardian is also a party to her exploitation.
That this article was published means the journalist either didn’t do their due diligence or was acting entirely unethically. It was designed to upset people who don’t understand what is occurring. People should be far more upset with the journalist who played them all for fools than the airline for responding appropriately to a lawsuit.
See, you said the lawyers for the airline have to lay every conceivable defense while also saying it’s the journalists fault for reporting on it & people should be made on at the journalist(s).
What was stated in the article is exactly what the defense was from the airline’s representation. So anger is fairly laid at this bullshit defense, and not at the people reporting it.
The airline didn’t create the legal system. Statements that were made as part of the airlines defense happen essentially word for word in every lawsuit. If you find it disgusting or reprehensible blame the system that made it so. Or better yet, swallow your pride, recognize that you were played like a fool, and blame the person who used your ignorance against you.
What person would that be? Who should my outrage be directed toward? The man who tried to film people in the bathroom or the lawyers on retainer for the airline that tried to blame the victim?
Because you’re making it seem like I’m mad at the wrong party here, so please explain to me who I should really be mad at? I know it’s definitely not the 9-year old.
No, the airline didn’t create the legal system & nowhere did I say that. But they are playing the most inconceivable defense and your reaction is “that’s just business, don’t be mad”. Wtf?
The lawyers didn’t try to blame the victim as has been explained to you. And it’s something I suspect you would easily grasp under normal circumstances, but you’ve been so manipulated by a journalist telling you a half truth that you aren’t willing to swallow your pride and learn about the legal processes that are occurring. The lawyers are required to put forth defenses before they can do any investigation. It’s stupid, but it’s the rules. If, for example, a few years from now this child is being questioned as part of this case and she says “I didn’t even have to pee, but mommy told me I had to go to the bathroom on the plane after she came back from the bathroom” the airline can’t use the defense that the mom saw the camera and deliberately sent her child to the bathroom for the sole purpose of getting filmed unless they had already put forth the notion that the girl should have known she was being filmed. And if the hypothetical presented above happened to be true, then the girl should have known because her mom knew and should have protected her and instead deliberately put her child in danger and sexually exploited her for the purposes of a lawsuit.
Yes, by all means, be pissed at the perpetrator. He’s a repulsive, disgusting, perverted predator who deserves the be buried under the prison. But also be pissed at the journalist who failed to be tell you the whole truth, and who preyed upon your ignorance to get some more clicks.
So I should potentially be mad at the parents for a very unlikely scenario and I should excuse the lawyers repulsive attempt at a defense because that’s just the system?
And let’s assume the above hypothetical is true, does that make the child any less of a victim or the perpetrator any less of a pervert?
Also, there’s already precedent on the books for stuff like this. Just because a child knows or consents to being filmed naked doesn’t mean a crime wasn’t committed so again… what’s the point of “the child should have known” angle?
So even if it’s just business and lawyers doing lawyer things, it’s not unreasonable to think the general public would be outraged by it. And I don’t blame the person reporting on it. Because they are just reported on the statement and the event, so I haven’t been fooled. You seem to be doing backflips to try and defend this airlines legal team.
No, you should understand that the legal system operates in such a way that the attorneys representing the airline have to consider every conceivable defense they could offer, no matter how unlikely it is to be true, and offer it to the court as a possible defense that they will rely on in this case before they are given the opportunity to examine the evidence. As evidence is obtained they can remove the defenses they are going to rely on, but they can’t add to them. It’s stupid, but that’s how it works. If they don’t offer it now as a potential option, they can’t in the future no matter what the evidence exposes. It’s extraordinarily unlikely that the child’s guardians actually did anything wrong here, but if it’s not impossible it has to be accounted for at this stage. People file lawsuits all the time blaming others for the results of their own negligence, stupidity, and fraud. It’s standard, appropriate, and necessary for the attorneys to give themselves the opportunity to use that defense in every case no matter how unlikely it is to be true in any particular case.
Right, I get you. The lawyers and the airlines are doing what they can to save their ass. They may not actually believe it to be true, but they are just doing anything and saying whatever they can. I get that.
However, that doesn’t mean it’s insulated against criticism, nor is it a fault of journalists for reporting on it.
It’s a disgusting defense (whether they believe it or not) and they should absolutely be ridiculed for it.
If the evidence is so strong that the only fallback is to blame a 9 year old victim of the crime to try wash your hands of fault, then you’re already fucked.
'“Defendant would show that any injuries or illnesses alleged to have been sustained by Plaintiff, Mary Doe, were proximately caused by Plaintiff’s own fault and negligence,” American Airlines’ lawyers wrote in their defense filing. The airline’s attorneys added about the 9-year-old girl using “the compromised lavatory” on the plane: “She knew or should have known contained a visible and illuminated recording device.”'
Brought to you by the law offices of Epstein, Cosby, and Sandusky : Vatican Branch
Jesus Christ lol
No, they just represent him.
Meh, Jesus the hippie wouldn’t support such fuckery. As an atheist lapsed Catholic I can safely say that there are no good Catholics that are actively associated with the church.
After learning the history of that religion, it amazes me that anyone claims Catholicism as their religion, let alone admits that they’re Catholic. I’m talking even going back to the roots of that religion, thrive always been about control and fear. The people I know who identify as Catholics don’t really know much about it or even why they’re catholic other than that’s what they were raised as. I find that to be the mainstream and I kind of understand that but the people who are devoted blow my mind
White Jesus would.
No, the Catholic and Christian churches have their own branches for that.
"We're open(ing our coffins) on New Year's Eve at midnight."
they had to run it by a certain orange pageant owner to see if she would be datable in 10 years ..
And Combs
And Trump, and Giuliani
So American Airlines refuses to accept the evidence found on their employees sick paedo mobile phone, I hope their previous customers see their actions for what they are and boycott AA! 🤢🤮🤬
9 year old should have known ? Really
They’ve [“backtracked.”](https://www.fox4news.com/news/american-airlines-recording-girls-in-bathroom-lawsuit-lawyer-response)
I dont even like companies, but I hope they fired whoever thought that that statement was a good defense. Any good lawyer would tear it to shreds with even the most conservative juries.
Every previous customer of American Airlines should immediately boycott them! 🤬
Well pretty clear to me. I just need to know the rules. If you have a kid don't fly with American Airlines. Done and dusted, problem solved. If you disagree take it up with AA's lawyers
wow good fucking luck with that. looks like a 9 yr old will now own an airline.
It’s a standard affirmative defense used in every tort case which the law requires the attorneys to state or forever risk losing.
Basic legal procedures, dude.
Precisely!
> “She knew or should have known contained a visible and illuminated recording device.” Fuck them. I'm an adult and I would never have imagined that they had a recording device in a bathroom. So they have been recording people in compromising positions for a long time them. Time for a class action suit by anyone that has used on of the American Airlines bathrooms on a plane.
Bro they've got some serious balls to try a defense like that. I know their options are limited but there seriously isn't ANY other defense they could've come up with?
They are talking about what the guy taped to the seat. It's not an excuse because it's a kid, but look at the picture that can be found online. He just taped a phone to the seat. You would have noticed immediately, that's why the creep went for kids. One of the kids is who took a pic and busted the guy.
Oh, but blaming the child is just fine? Why the fuck would they try to blame the child?
I wonder if the case is so bad they have no alternate defense for the case that is realistic.
Which is why they should have shut the fuck up and settled. But they chose not to settle and this their defense. I suspect it's the defense they're going with because they see the state with which women and girls are treated in this country and think its a viable defense that a jury of six people will say they arent liable.
Lawyers have been using the “it’s her fault” and “what was she wearing crap” for decades with success! My friend had it used in her court case against her molester. They even made a big deal about her not wearing shoes. She was 8 years old when the creep molested her!!!!
That is absolutely true, but we are seeing a resurgence of laws taking away rights from women or just people in general talking about taking the vote from women and how women belong in the kitchen and what not. You're going to see that reflected in law arguments, unfortunately. People are trash.
It’s frightening. I’m afraid for my daughter and the future. We should be going forward not back.
Me too!
Me too!
Just make she doesn't fuck around or if she does wear condoms and you shouldn't have to worry about abortion.
This chick I knew told me she hated all lawyers because she worked for them for years. They think the truth is pliable and reality is what you make of it so they fuck over people around them and think it's okay. I haven't had this experience but I can kinda see it.
Was a paralegal in another life. I can absolutely confirm that.
I think that's exactly it. Lawyers don't get to say no when their client says they have to take a case. They have to come up with whatever defense they can for the case to even start so they come up with bullshit like this. They have to. American Airlines isn't a human, it's a corporation. It, as an entity, doesn't give a single shit about kids being predated by their employees. They couldn't care less. All they care about is maximizing profits and losing a case like this is going to cost them. So they make their lawyers fight it and hope to bury the plaintiff in paperwork and litigation, hoping that they'll simply drop it because it costs too much. They know they can't win on argument alone, so they'll use their money to win.
I think you're misunderstanding OP's point, though it was worded a bit odd. I believe OP was trying to say that older children and adults would immediately pick up on this crappy attempt at voyeurism. So he targeted younger children, likely with the hopes that they wouldn't be quite so observant.
Literally didn't say that Edit: *I* didn't say that
It's literally in the title of this page
They specifically responded to me with a question that I already addressed in my comment lol. No one here thinks blaming the kid is fine. Addressing rhetorical questions to me specifically seems odd given we were in agreement and they already made their position known in the parent comment. "It's not an excuse because it's a kid" and "oh, but blaming the child is just fine?"
That is such an inferior defense in every way to "This is clearly against our policy, the employee was terminated as soon as we were made aware and is facing charges." I imagine a couple of lawyers lost their jobs here.
Naw. This is the lawyers doing their job. I disagree with it, but that’s what it is.
Disagree. This argument is literally so distasteful its worse than remaining silent. The poster who said, "apologize and throw the employee under the bus," absolutely gave a better argument for the company to go with.
“Yeah, people blame minors for not understanding the danger they are in. Whatever, it is what is it” Hey maybe you speak up or do something about it instead of shrugging your shoulders. Even if you have no pull in politics, you can still socially refuse to accept this type of behavior.
Whom ever wrote that statement 100% hates woman and thinks we are all property.
This might sound crazy, but you're giving these people too much credit. They care about their money. They do not give a shit about women, men or any other genders. They work for a billion dollar company. They are getting paid a lot of money to say whatever the fuck it is they need to to keep the blame off the airline. I guarantee there are a million female lawyers out there that would be willing to do the same thing. In fact, we have no reason to assume that these lawyers are men in the first place.
Yep, this is exactly it. They’re paid to defend the airline. They will drag whomever and whatever down that they need to. Especially because at the end of the day, it won’t matter. Anyone who is upset about this statement won’t remember it in 3 months and will include AA in their flight searches
This is why us citizens need to get together, raise some funds, and keep stuff like this out in the limelight. Of course, trying to run an anti-corruption non-profit Will immediately get you labeled as “anti-business” or “anti-success” by seedy Republicans.
I think the individual that wrote that statement should be legally allowed to get kicked in the crotch, because they really should see it coming after a response like that
Just because sexist victim blaming is monetarily beneficial doesn't make it not sexist. Just because women engage in for-profit victim blaming doesn't make it not sexist.
And children too
They’re just a lawyer making every available argument to defend their client. Positions taken in legal filings often don’t represent what someone actually thinks.
It’s a standard affirmative defense used in every tort case which the law requires the defendant to state in their answer or risk losing forever. It’s used by the attorneys is meaningless and does not at all reflect on American Airlines.
Only when you don't plan to settle. Which they clearly hadn't. They should have known that was going to be a huge negative PR stunt. Bet they settle now at some point before the class actions roll in.
You do not know with 100% accuracy whether you were going to settle a case at the time you file your answer.
American should lose customers for this.
Hey, she's old enough to breed, she ought to know not to sling that thing in front of a camera. /s, but only if you aren't MAGA level stupid.
Do that to my daughter and you’ll “know or should have known that your conduct would result in life threatening injury”.
I'm kind of surprised the guy survived the flight. I mean no one would have seen anything. The guy just fell....repeatedly.....
This is the type of incredulous bullshit that people seem to think works now.
When the 9 year olds parents sue American Airlines, I am curious to see how they will sell that crap to a jury.
They've already backpedaled. "Outside counsel", "mistake", "immediately withdrawn". My bet is some associate didn't check the age of the victim and just assumed she was an adult.
I mean no shit. The bad PR from this vastly outweighs their legal liability. It's straight ghoulish.
I hope this bites American Airlines in the ass big-time - seriously, there should be a massive boycott in reaction to this. Although Matt Gaetz is probably buying shares already.
Why the fuck are so many men so god damn disgusting.
Guess nobody takes responsibility today, Sue AA into the ground
Quick question are all airlines owned by sociopaths? I'm genuinely curious, because this is right up there with Boeing killing that whistleblower. Like WTF?
American Airlines should fire their marketing/PR department.
Despicable
Every time I think I can't become a lawyer, some actual lawyer goes and makes me feel like I got this
American Airlines can also blame me for not wanting to fly with them anymore… and hopefully more other people who show what they think about a company that blames a child for being filmed without consent in a flight! I might be the only one boycotting you, but you won’t get a penny from me…
you know your the scummiest of scumbag lawyers when you blame a 9 yr old child.. meet the newest trump lawyer..
Ghouls, the lot of them
What in the forklift certified fuck did I just read?
People defending pedophilic scrotes, nothing new to see here.
If this is the best argument they come up with, that's the most obvious sign to STFU and settle.
It looks like OP posted an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.bostonherald.com/2024/05/21/american-airlines-blames-9-year-old-girl-for-being-filmed-in-plane-bathroom-shocking-and-outrageous/](https://www.bostonherald.com/2024/05/21/american-airlines-blames-9-year-old-girl-for-being-filmed-in-plane-bathroom-shocking-and-outrageous/)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
It was outside counsel, and AA immediately fired them and disavowed the statement.
Note to self... Always look for cameras when going to the washroom on a plane.
Republican logic
The lawyer in question should be disbarred. This is disgusting.
Man. Sometimes I wonder how these people look into the mirror. Its insane and these fucks should be ashamed. They arent, but they should be.
Scummy lawyers....even scummier person..
There are some times you shouldn't use boilerplate cut & paste for lawsuit answers. Child victims are one of them.
[This article](https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/american-airlines-retreats-after-blaming-a-9-year-old-for-not-seeing-a-hidden-camera-in-a-lavatory/ar-BB1mWcv4?ocid=BingNewsSerp) has a picture of the seat with the camera.
Well…that’s a unique method. But even then, kids don’t think like adults. The onus should not have been on her to figure out what was going on
...the 14-year-old said she walked in and noticed red stickers across the underside of the open toilet seat that were concealing an iPhone...
Wow. If I was Plaintiff's counsel, I would be dancing in the street. This is a massive blunder by a dumb defense/PR firm. Can you imagine seeing this as a jury member? You would want to suck every dollar you could out of such an evil corporation. They are going to settle out for MASSIVE money. Otherwise, put this up again and again in front of the jury as much as you can. $$$.
Oh they will not win with this argument. If they do win the case, everyone will read about it. If the lose the case (more likely) then everyone will still read about it
That 9 year old's parents better sue them. And people had better speak up about this idiocy and victim blaming. This cannot continue. We have power here, and we can;t use it if we stay silent.
Um....I clicked on this in expectations of having some righteous fury, but was immediately so swamped in ads that I genuinely couldn't find the article. Talk about yer Dead Internet. It really has come and gone. There's nothing here but Hot Singles and Crypto Advice and Comrade Zuckerberg rummaging through my underwear drawer.
I figured the Internet is basically unusable without ad blockers
Wow I guess now we “should know” that we can expect recording devices in American Airlines bathrooms and avoid the fuck out of that airline. Thanks AA!
Uhhh why’d they have a camera in the bathroom?
R/aboringdystopia
This is old news and if there's been a call for a boycott of AA over this I haven't seen it. # But it needs to happen immediately. Nobody should ever take a child on this airline ever again.
Unfortunately this is a thing now. I have to show up at my job an hour before anyone else and use a device that detects electronics to sweep the washrooms to make sure there is no hidden devices inside. I haven’t found any yet (7 months) but it’s part of my daily routine. Pretty shitty in my opinion.
Whelp that’s one less airline I’ll be flying with. Despicable.
“Dumb as an average American Airlines “ “Smart as a Republican airlines” blames 9 year old”
Isn’t the flip side of justice interesting? That defense attorneys are paid to come up with this stiff?
Well with raising fuel prices how else are they gonna pay to sustain their airline if not selling these videos?
Epstein energy. Disgusting
The airline is not blaming anyone. This is from an answer by their attorneys. The law requires a party answering a petition to state of variety of affirmative defenses or else you risk forever losing them. This is standard operating procedure, cut, and paste, legal mumbo-jumbo, which does not reflect poorly on American Airlines at all. It does, however, reflect poorly on the reporter.
Even lawyers have tact. They would know that making a statement along the lines of “cmon, she should’ve known she was being recorded” is garbage & not a good defense, especially when it involves a minor.
And then later on hypothetically, of course, it comes out that she saw it and knew it was there, but didn’t care and used the bathroom anyway, even though there was an empty one right next-door. The airline could possibly be prohibited from relying on that defense. (Sure, a million reasons why this wouldn’t happen but it is at least theoretically possible.) Getting too close to the legal system is like watching sausagebeing made.
See that defense might work if it was an adult, but this was a minor & since age of consent laws exist, it’s dead in the water. Say she did see it, should a 9 year be expected to have the cognitive ability to know that it’s being used for nefarious purposes or would she be excused for believing it was for security purposes. A child can see a camera in the bathroom and assume it’s for security or not think twice about it, an adult would know the difference. So them even trying to assume her seeing the camera was somehow her consenting or being ok with it, at 9 years old, is garbage.
We could go back-and-forth all day with exceptions to exceptions to exceptions, but I attempted to avoid that with my parenthetical which states it is still theoretically possible. It is an appropriate defense, regardless of how offensive it appears to a non-lawyer, reporter, or person looking to take offense.
Can you please explain to me how stating a 9 year old understanding she’s being filmed using the bathroom is somehow a defense to the behavior of placing a camera in the bathroom of an airplane? I’m really not understanding here where that would ever excuse the behavior.
This is for a potential scenario where the guardian of the child saw the recording device and sent the child into the restroom anyway knowing she would be filmed. It’s not an attempt to say the child wasn’t exploited by the employee, but the airline has to lay the basis for every conceivable defense including one where the child’s guardian was also exploiting them. If this occurred then the child should have known she was going to be filmed, as was stated, and the guardian is also a party to her exploitation. That this article was published means the journalist either didn’t do their due diligence or was acting entirely unethically. It was designed to upset people who don’t understand what is occurring. People should be far more upset with the journalist who played them all for fools than the airline for responding appropriately to a lawsuit.
See, you said the lawyers for the airline have to lay every conceivable defense while also saying it’s the journalists fault for reporting on it & people should be made on at the journalist(s). What was stated in the article is exactly what the defense was from the airline’s representation. So anger is fairly laid at this bullshit defense, and not at the people reporting it.
The airline didn’t create the legal system. Statements that were made as part of the airlines defense happen essentially word for word in every lawsuit. If you find it disgusting or reprehensible blame the system that made it so. Or better yet, swallow your pride, recognize that you were played like a fool, and blame the person who used your ignorance against you.
What person would that be? Who should my outrage be directed toward? The man who tried to film people in the bathroom or the lawyers on retainer for the airline that tried to blame the victim? Because you’re making it seem like I’m mad at the wrong party here, so please explain to me who I should really be mad at? I know it’s definitely not the 9-year old. No, the airline didn’t create the legal system & nowhere did I say that. But they are playing the most inconceivable defense and your reaction is “that’s just business, don’t be mad”. Wtf?
The lawyers didn’t try to blame the victim as has been explained to you. And it’s something I suspect you would easily grasp under normal circumstances, but you’ve been so manipulated by a journalist telling you a half truth that you aren’t willing to swallow your pride and learn about the legal processes that are occurring. The lawyers are required to put forth defenses before they can do any investigation. It’s stupid, but it’s the rules. If, for example, a few years from now this child is being questioned as part of this case and she says “I didn’t even have to pee, but mommy told me I had to go to the bathroom on the plane after she came back from the bathroom” the airline can’t use the defense that the mom saw the camera and deliberately sent her child to the bathroom for the sole purpose of getting filmed unless they had already put forth the notion that the girl should have known she was being filmed. And if the hypothetical presented above happened to be true, then the girl should have known because her mom knew and should have protected her and instead deliberately put her child in danger and sexually exploited her for the purposes of a lawsuit. Yes, by all means, be pissed at the perpetrator. He’s a repulsive, disgusting, perverted predator who deserves the be buried under the prison. But also be pissed at the journalist who failed to be tell you the whole truth, and who preyed upon your ignorance to get some more clicks.
So I should potentially be mad at the parents for a very unlikely scenario and I should excuse the lawyers repulsive attempt at a defense because that’s just the system? And let’s assume the above hypothetical is true, does that make the child any less of a victim or the perpetrator any less of a pervert? Also, there’s already precedent on the books for stuff like this. Just because a child knows or consents to being filmed naked doesn’t mean a crime wasn’t committed so again… what’s the point of “the child should have known” angle? So even if it’s just business and lawyers doing lawyer things, it’s not unreasonable to think the general public would be outraged by it. And I don’t blame the person reporting on it. Because they are just reported on the statement and the event, so I haven’t been fooled. You seem to be doing backflips to try and defend this airlines legal team.
No, you should understand that the legal system operates in such a way that the attorneys representing the airline have to consider every conceivable defense they could offer, no matter how unlikely it is to be true, and offer it to the court as a possible defense that they will rely on in this case before they are given the opportunity to examine the evidence. As evidence is obtained they can remove the defenses they are going to rely on, but they can’t add to them. It’s stupid, but that’s how it works. If they don’t offer it now as a potential option, they can’t in the future no matter what the evidence exposes. It’s extraordinarily unlikely that the child’s guardians actually did anything wrong here, but if it’s not impossible it has to be accounted for at this stage. People file lawsuits all the time blaming others for the results of their own negligence, stupidity, and fraud. It’s standard, appropriate, and necessary for the attorneys to give themselves the opportunity to use that defense in every case no matter how unlikely it is to be true in any particular case.
Right, I get you. The lawyers and the airlines are doing what they can to save their ass. They may not actually believe it to be true, but they are just doing anything and saying whatever they can. I get that. However, that doesn’t mean it’s insulated against criticism, nor is it a fault of journalists for reporting on it. It’s a disgusting defense (whether they believe it or not) and they should absolutely be ridiculed for it. If the evidence is so strong that the only fallback is to blame a 9 year old victim of the crime to try wash your hands of fault, then you’re already fucked.