Air Marshal acted improperly. Here's the proof:

Following the homicide, all of the so-called news outlets immediately declared that (1) the passenger said something about having a bomb and (2) the shooter was simply following policy. All of them. They somehow came to these extremely specific conclusions before any facts were even known.

But none of the so-called news outlets knew what, if anything, the guy said, and none of them had any idea what the "policy" was/is. In both cases, they probably still don't.

So, why would they report such things? How can it be that every single news outlet reported the exact same nonsense?

Well, as always, the government's media operatives had to get the simpletons on board before any real information trickled out. This is how they do things now. They win the debates before the debates begin.

Everybody is still discussing the out-of-the-gate lies, and ignoring the real story. And when the real story comes out, the lies will still be applied.

It's the same as 9/11 and Iraq. We can never discuss this stuff with the Morans because the Morans will never be able to see beyond the initial lies.

As long as the liars take the first punch, and as long as the so-called news media are willing to do the the government's bidding, the liars will always win.

quote each other.

It's that simple.

Yes, indeed - the 2006 official pResident Asshat portrait:

:rofl: The chimp is reading again?

are a nice touch.

hilarious

:toast:

....... and I'm so weak.

No, this is what's known as "Unholy Shit":

Sorry, my standard of proof is a little higher than that.

that something is being covered up.

1) You're using differing early reports as circumstantial evidence of a "cover-up". There's no proof of any coverup yet, just circumstantial evidence.

2) You're creating a defined connection between this circumstantial evidence and whether this FAM acted properly when none exists. (example: The FAM could have acted properly according to his training and mission, but the FAM program still looks bad. The program might initiate your alleged coverup to cast itself in a better light).

You're making a statement of "fact" without going through any logical processes.

1b. Circumstantial evidence is proof; that's why they call it circumstantial evidence.

2. Whether or not the "FAM" acted properly according to his training or mission has nothing to do with whether or not he acted properly.

there is no way in Hell that circumstantial evidence is "proof" of anything. If you were near the Dakota on the evening of 12/8/80, that could be offered as circumstantial evidence in a case accusing you of the murder of John Lennon. Part 2 of your thesis is accurate. Part 1b is horseshit.

in murder cases every day.

Circumstantial evidence is used as evidence in building a chain of evidence in an attempt to establish proof. Circumstantial evidence, in and of itself, is never, has never, and will (hopefully) never be "proof" of anything.

Here's circumstantial evidence as proof, according to the logic you are abusing.

According to my logs, which I can reproduce for you if you like, someone pinged a UDP port on my system and 9:03pm (local). Since the time stamp on the message to which this is a response is 9:03pm(local), then we know you, personally, were online at 9:03pm. Therefore, you pinged my UDP port in an attempt to gain access to my system.

In the real world, there are two very clear things wrong with that logic and several small ones. But, I am using circumstantial evidence, and if such evidence is proof all by itself, then you are guilty.

gets people convicted of murder EVERY DAY.

Straw man circumstantial evidence is funny.

No, what I did is called reductio ad absurdum. Get your logic terms straight, at least. And while we're at it, there is such a term for what you're doing as well.

I'll just say it plain. You're wrong. People are often convicted of murder based on a collection of circumstantial evidence, but, if the justice system is working at all and the accused has competent representation, rarely on a single, vague piece of it. Legal proof in a criminal court is usually based on a combination of circumstantial (he was near the murder scene), real (murder weapon has his finger prints), and often documentary evidence (he had written a letter threatening to kill the victim). Together these elements build a decent case. Separate, any competent defense lawyer could drive fleets of argumentative trucks through the holes.

Small story: Two men in my home town were among the first people ever convicted of murder based entirely on circumstantial evidence. The key missing piece of real evidence was the body of the victim. Neither did any physical indication nor witness testimony exist that proved she was dead, thus under normal circumstances preventing the prosecution from getting past the first hurdle of showing that a crime had even been committed. This was something everyone "knew" happened, though. It was a small town, and the defendants were social outcasts. So, the burden of proof was lower for them. Those convicted of the murder have been able to parley these circumstances into numerous appeals and commutations of sentences, despite the fact the body was eventually found.

The key part of every appeal they went through was that they were convicted on circumstantial evidence alone that did not even prove a crime had been committed. One defendant is a free man today. The other had a new trial ordered, after the body was found, and was convicted by using real, DNA evidence that linked the two together along with the murder weapon at the time of death.

No sense.

Anything of substance that is, or are you reduced to these childish games.

If you care not to address the points that have been raised in opposition to your notions, that's your prerogative. It does little for your position, however.

<plonk>

You say, "Circumstantial evidence, in and of itself, is never, has never, and will (hopefully) never be "proof" of anything."

You're not only wrong, but you made this up. When you get caught making things up, you automatically lose the debate.

I win.

So, this is a game to you? We have people in government that work by that philosophy, and I don't find it very impressive in them either.

Gee, I thought this was a discussion forum wherin we discuss things, not throw out random crap so we can "win."

I'm not real clear from where you're getting this "you made that up" stuff, but since you've used it quite often when you get into a disagreement, I gather it's your standard response when you have no response. Whatever the case, I'm inventing nothing. A basic education would teach you that.

But, anyway, here's the thing. You're wrong. Several people have told you why you're wrong, and you have yet to come up with anything in the way of a coherent, intelligent argument in opposition. So, I'd say this discussion is done, since you don't have anything to add of importance. I'll move on now and let you add your own one-liner if you choose to do so.

You're just a brute.

If you're not familiar with the concept of debating, perhaps you shouldn't spend time in a forum where a lot of debating is done. Or you can go out and read about it.

As far as the random crap you threw out there about circumstantial evidence never being proof, it's just laughable. No big deal. You're just wrong.

proof
n.

1. The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.

...

Commonknowledgious.

Ask a lawyer. Many of them, including DAs, prefer that to eyewitness testimonies which is often very, very wrong. Most cases are built on this type of evidence.

Ask that lawyer about the difference between proof and evidence.

are dismissed. Jesus.

idiot

as in CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, means lesser or poor, you too are mistaken.

But thanks for letting me know.

It's quite irritating.

You know what I've written, and what I wrote clearly stated that circumstantial evidence does not equal proof. I said nothing regarding "lesser or poor," and you know that.

Evidence of any sort is not proof. It is EVIDENCE. Wether circumstantial, physical, eye-witness. It is not proof. A jury is not required to "prove" a person is guilty. A jury must find by a preponderance of evidence wether a person is guilty or not. Circumstantial evidence IS evidence and can be used to determine guilt or innocence. A person can be found guilty by reason of circumstantial evidence alone. I cannot comment on how often and/or how egregiously this occurs, but the system definitely allows this to happen.

In many cases, physical evidence is lacking, and eye-witnesses are un-reliable. In a case like this, prosecutors are forced to use circumstantial evidence to build and present the case.

Lee Harvey Oswald is a classic case. His guilt was established and "confirmed" strictly on circumstantial evidence. There is no PROOF that election fraud occurred last year, but the circumstantial evidence suggests it, and the circumstantial evidence is pervasive enought to beg for an investigation. Of course, the other side cries foul because there is no physical evidence (conveniently destroyed or legally withheld), and no credible eye-witnesses can be found (in their eyes).

SO, the circumstantial evidence in the passenger shooting suggests that something other than the official story happened. I agree that this does not constitute "proof", it is definetly evidence, and should not be disregarded because it is not of a physical or observable nature.

1) Circumstantial evidence isn't "proof", it's circumstantial evidence, that's why they call it circumstantial evidence.

2) That's EXACTLY the issue. If the FAM complied with his training and mission, the procedure is at fault, not him.

Oh, and there were plenty of differing reports...have you READ any of the articles?

That's the point of the post. (Please read it.)

Just because you didn't break the rules doesn't mean you didn't do something wrong.

Circumstantial evidence is proof, but you can play all kinds of semantic games with it.

...

and pretend to ignore.

Until then, there's just no point...you clearly don't understand.

You are apparently unwilling to accept that fact. Right?

Evidence is not proof. In the circumstance at hand we have EVIDENCE. We do not have PROOF.

from this post http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1977353



PRENSA LATINA

...a great piece on what you are talking about, the other night:

If you want see it (and you should, it's quite an amazing amount of "news" lunacy), it's the clip labeled "Tortured Logic"

<http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/the_daily_show/videos/most_recent/index.jhtml>

But as far as what actually happened, It's the same thing that happens almost every day somewhere in the world, an accidental shooting by Police or Law Enforcement, except that most of them don't ever make the cable "news."

If you don't quite believe me, Google these exact words (with the quotes)

"accidentally shot" "by police"

and see how many of these cases you remember getting full, stop everything coverage, by Cable "news" ratings (expletive deleted)'s.

... is the fact that, given that there was no bomb (that's a fact) and no claim by him of having a bomb (that's currently the preponderance of evidence) and that his wife was pleading for restraint (according to many independent and uncontradicted reports), it's pretty clear that an innocent person was shot to death in the name of 'national security.'

Instead of examining and discussing the system or the emerging details of the event itself to work towards finding out how to ensure that innocent people aren't killed, the Defenders of Authority avoid, evade, and escape all acceptance of social responsibility by continuing to shift the entire blame onto the victim (with some letting off some to his wife).

Either the system is broken or we're willing to let innocents be murdered without recourse.

Sheesh! Talk about malicious and self-serving posturing! The nationalist fascists seem to be infecting DU. :eyes:

Some crazy, crazy posts the last two days on DU... as there were after the Underground shooting. Makes you wonder, doeent' it? Either many progressives aren't progressives, or that there are plenty of fascists on here. *sigh*

bomb? I am not aware of it. Is this like Rummy's "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence?"

I'm a pilot and if someone on my plane did what this guy did according to dozens of eyewitnesses, I'd have shot him myself.

And I carry a handgun when I fly.

eyewitnesses?

That's pitiful. "According to ... witnesses" that's all he did. In the throes of a full-blown bipolar anxiety attack (psychotropic medication cessation rebound effects can be an absolute horror), he didn't meekly and promptly obey the demands of stangers with guns. Capital offense. That's fucking insane!

by me as a threat to me and my passengers. I'm sorry you don't like my approach to it so I suggest if you're prone to going berserk, stay the hell off my airplane.

Do you really think panic attacks should be punishable by immediate execution?

http://www.forbes.com/entrepreneurs/feeds/ap/2005/12/09/ap2381208.html

NOBODY heard the word "bomb" except those working for corporations that could be sued for wrongful death.

And the people who blame the Iraqi people for "allowing" the insurgency to grow. And the people who blame the starving in Africa for not "moving to where there's food."

When was the last time people died because a guy had a panic attack in an airport? When was the last time people died because a guy kept running in panic when an Air Marshal told him to stop? I mean, when was the last time that anybody in the US died from an airport bomb? When was the last time an American citizen smuggled a bomb onto a domestic flight?

But now we have at least one example of a sick and completely innocent man being shot to death in front of his wife because of the off-chance that he was sort of bogeyman. And we are supposed to praise our government for "saving us" from the "very real" potential of our own paranoid fantasies?

Which threats are real and which have simply become the equivalent of mythic societal archetypes by their constant saturation of corporate media? How many people are you willing to kill to stop the POTENTIAL threat of avian flu? How many people are you willing to shoot for not slowing down enough at checkpoints when martial law comes to save your neighborhood, like it came to save New Orleans from all those vicious Negro baby rapers?

Once again students of history, what is the only thing we have to fear?

to so much trouble to shoot someone in public. What would could possibly constitute a motive?

let alone in public.

They told the guy to stop or they'd shoot. When he didn't stop, well ... what other choices were they left with? They had to save face, now didn't they? I mean, you wouldn't want to embolden other potential panic attack victims with an inexcessive show of force, now would you?

All sarcasm aside, has anyone here ever heard the term "excessive use of force" before?

Here's Repug Mica's take on why:


The most enthusiastic response, however came from Congressman John Mica, a Florida Republican whose district office is located in Maitland, the same town where Rigoberto Alpizar lived.

<snip>

Summing up his attitude to the gunning down of a mentally ill airplane passenger—one of his own constituents—Mica declared, “This should send a message to a terrorist or anyone else who is considering disrupting an aircraft with a threat.”

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/dec2005/shot-d09.shtm...

As soon as heard the first reports I said to myself "This is a cover-up.", but I only said that to myself because I have seen the characters on "24" do that time and time again. The feds are always the first to show up and dispense their version before any facts are known.