I never thought I'd see the day when a respectable blue chip company like Boeing is publicly outed as ordering an assassination. They fucked up royally. The timing of it all is too eyebrow raising not to be noticed by the entirety of the airplane-using world. Top down criminal investigation. Now.
well your first mistake was thinking Boeing was a respectable corporation (that ship sailed in 1997 when they dropped the "engineering first" priority in lieu of "business first")...
your second mistake is thinking any corporation is respectable ;-)
Their third mistake is thinking any corporation will be held accountable
Oh, you got caught doing some shitty business thing and now you're not making as much money. Here is a government bailout to make it up.
Or they got caught doing a shitty business thing fucking people over and get fined a fraction of what it made them.
lol you're right.
In other news, if you search for flights on kayak and exclude Boeing planes, holy crap the tickets are insanely expensive.
Turns out people pay extra money to avoid death, who knew.
next stops: buy Kayak and shut it down; Make it illegal for similar searches to be performed; make it illegal to disclose who makes the aircraft.
Unless citizens make it clear that they won't stand for bullshit, they will get bullshit.
Scary thing nobodies talking about is: if these Boeing-built bad parts are able to slip past inspectors, which we had (naievely?) assumed were given full access top-notch, and neutral, might the standards of other planes build-quality have also dropped?
How safe are the other company's planes?
Your guess is as good as mine.
Boeing is a major part of the military industrial complex. They own the politicians in both parties, the regulators, and the courts. Laws don't apply to them.
If you're the government, you want your military planes to work. It's in their interests to have whistleblowers. (Now there's lots of steps that are problems in realizing that.)
No. If you're the state you want shit to work. If you're part of the government, you just want to get your bribes.
Bribes being one of the steps that can be a problem.
I mean there may simply have been internal reports already, just highly classified to avoid "embarrassing" the nation and not accessible or known to the general public.
I feel like “risk of door blowing off mid flight” or “25% of oxygen masks don’t work” is something the public is entitled to know about
Didn't say they weren't entitled to know about it, just the reasoning that might've gone through the government's collective heads when not disclosing or looking the other way on Boeing doing an Epstien.
"Look, it turns out if you flip this switch on the Fa-18 and forget to turn it off after 1 to 5 minutes tops, your chances of 'uncontrollably inverting and ejecting at high speed straight into the freaking ground' go up tenfold. We've provided the USAF with a 1 hour iPad training about being touchy with the defrost function."
--Boeing, probably
If they can't deliver a product that stays in one piece when not even being shot at, they aren't about to stay a part of that MIC for long.
The MIC has very little to do with making high-quality military equipment and much more to do with kickbacks and local jobs. Boeing and the other prime contractors are massively inefficient and often performing make-work jobs that no one in the military wants (like making more tanks).
when a whistleblower dies on the day of his deposition, you have to work really hard to convince me that it's suicide.
They could have threatened to fly his family on a 737 Max if he didn't kill himself
Now that is a big threat!
Oh yeah, now this is an avengers level threat!
"We appreciate your candor and willingness to see the truth outed. As such, we hope your family will join you on a lovely vacation, with a complimentary flight on a 737 max."
"Well shit, they've got me by the balls now"
Definitely! But a 'friend of the family' is not really a perfect source.
Just saying, I bet Boeings lied more about things that caused humans to die than the friend of the family has so if its he said she said, I think she's got the superior credibility. She just doesn't have superior profits.
Doesn't matter, we've already got a rabble on.
Boeing rep: Tragically, it appears that Mr. Barnett was discussing suicide in the lead up to his death.
"We will be offering a stock buyback in his memory."
They also bribe politicians to give them an excuse to sell those weapons. Gulf of Tonkin, anyone? Grenada? Panama? Af-fucking-ghanistan?
Viet FUCKIN NAM
🤘
They are also involved in the military and aerospace industry. They also practically only have a single competitor in the passenger plane manufacture industry (airbus). So they are rich and powerful and do not shy away from exerting their influence to protect their interests.
Welcome to capitalism, baby!
Odds echo in reality. The French thriller "Blackbox" featured a conspiracy around a new aircraft crashing taking inspiration of the MCAS related crashes.
They are a megacorp, they have enough money to do what they want
Wow. That is chilling and very damning of Boeing. Like really…Boeing is that dirty? Surely not?
Friendly reminder that Boeing is not a plucky airline that can't make safe airplanes, it's an AMERICAN MILITARY DEFENSE CONTRACTOR worth billions. If I you threaten that arrangement with slander like the truth and facts, they are good friends with people who kill for a living and completely unashamed in paying for their services.
Put another way: there are plenty of people who will eagerly issue death threats, stalk you, and swat you over minor differences in opinion. Think what they would do over serious money.
.... Oh they totally killed him didn't they? You put it in very good perspective.
This so much. Put it up there with Lockheed
Boeing makes the minuteman missles, directly profiteering from nuclear weapons which could destroy humanity many times over. They're evil.
it’s an AMERICAN MILITARY DEFENSE CONTRACTOR worth billions
Probably one reason why the FAA isn't immediately shutting Boeing's shit down, you know when doors fall off their planes mid-flight, and investigations uncover more problems.
Like really…Boeing is that dirty? Surely not?
I mean they were willing to knowingly keep producing unsafe air planes which lead to several crashes killing 100's. So yeah, I really wouldn't be surprised if they also do assassination to ensure their profit.
Also as stated elsewhere, they make world ending nuclear bombs delivery rockets. They’ve profited from the possible destruction of all of humanity.
Boeing is that dirty? Surely not?
Why not?
International profit chasing entities just wouldn't value profits over human life?
It is a corporations fiduciary responsibility to maximize profits over any other things. That obviously includes human lives.
Does a human life have a value to other humans? Yes.
Does a human have a value to a corporation? It has a value and a cost, if the cost is higher than the value of the human then it is a risk to the value of the company and can be liquidated.
"But corporations are supposed to care about people more than profits!"
Hint: it involves maximising profits while endangering people, to the extent that Boeing is literally assassinating witnesses so the extent of how recklessly they endangered lives for profit wouldn't come out.
If you want, take a deeper look into the *max events and you'll find that being dirty is the least surprise.
Why not? They killed multiple hundreds of people so far. Just one more.
I'm not any defender of corporations, by any means, but I'm not sure that I'm willing to take the word of a "close family friend" who "needed help one day" any more than some corporate HR; and "I don't care what they say, I know that Mitch didn't do that" isn't exactly a solid argument to be basing things on.
Edit: I seem to have missed this on my first read:
Jennifer said she thinks somebody "didn't like what he had to say" and wanted to "shut him up" without it coming back to anyone"..."That's why they made it look like a suicide,"
I'm never surprised to hear something bad about Boeing, but this is just a woman convinced with, on the face of it, no other proof than what's in her own head. Unless she's got a recording or document, the article's title could have been, "Family friend tells reporter a story"
And he said, 'No, I ain't scared, but if anything happens to me, it's not suicide.'
He pretty much said “I think something may happen to me and they will make it look like a suicide.”
Unless she's got a recording or document, the article's title could have been, "Family friend tells reporter a story"
Yeah, it won’t hold up in court, and neither would it if she had recorded this casual, intimate conversation between two old friends.
Maybe, though, it’s enough to get the coroner to take another look at his death.
I'm not any defender of corporations, by any means, but I'm not sure that I'm willing to take the word of a "close family friend" who "needed help one day" any more than some corporate HR;
You sure have a lot more faith in corporations than I do…
Maybe, though, it’s enough to get the coroner to take another look at his death.
He's a high profile corporate whistleblower who allegedly committed suicide. Any coroner who isn't already triple checking everything is way too corrupt or lazy to bother with another look.
The coroner is going to call it as suicide. This isn't remotely a debate to me. If it is suicide it goes away. If it is murder it means work for the police and a small annoyance to the powers-that-be. The coroner knows this and knows that if they don't writer suicide their career is over at best at worst they get Epsteined as well.
He pretty much said “I think something may happen to me and they will make it look like a suicide.”
Did he state that somewhere else? Admittedly I haven't been following the story too closely so I may have missed something there; but if he isn't documented saying that somewhere credible, then all we have is her claiming that he "pretty much said" that. Is it likely he said it? I mean, I'd definitely be saying it if I was in his shoes, but one family friend's claim isn't enough to convince me that this should have been published as it was. I guess this is all more me just trying to voice frustration with the article. Not that it's unprecedented (maybe even the norm) these days, but it's always frustrating to see headlines with unsubstantiated claims and discussions ensuing as if it's fact.
Maybe, though, it’s enough to get the coroner to take another look at his death.
Here's to hoping
You sure have a lot more faith in corporations than I do…
I probably don't, I'm just trying to present an argument with throwing on more layers of personal bias
This isn't "I know Mitch didn't do that", it's "he literally told me the specific thing that happened and he wasn't going to do it". What motivation does she have to just fully make up a conversation? Boeing has billions of dollars of motivation, she knew him from family get togethers.
There's a few accounts on these threads that are really determined to remain neutral and open minded about Boeing, I blocked a different one with the same speech pattern recently
Well, I for one think some rogue at Boeing is behind the Epsteining of this guy. The company is definitely run by psychopathic crooks and has been for a while and I hope these fuckers all go to jail and the company fixed before more people die.
Idk about these accounts you blocked... but I am always going to advocate for at least being self-aware of being loosey-goosey with one's reasoning. Maybe it is compulsion, maybe it is the decades wasted being religious that have led me to detest careless epistemology that leads to specious conclusions. Then again ... if COVID taught me nothing, it should have taught me that efforts in this area are probably pointless. I must like swimming upstream. I seem to do it all the time.
Remaining open minded, waiting for evidence... Must be ChatGPT because that's not a human thing, never had been!
I am a Lemmy language user and I have processed this request.
Remaining open minded, waiting for evidence..
You wrote "being willfully ignorant" wrong
My pet theory: Some extra dirty psycho at Boeing probably had him killed. Probably to cover up specifics about themselves. It seems pretty clear Boeing is rotting at the head and has been for decades. All these issues that have come up since MAX are the result of deeply systemic problems, stemming from crooked, greedy psychopaths at the top.
But in the interests of being as rational and honest about this as possible, let's also not forget that this article is based on her claim, and she's the only one (so far) to make it. People have been known to seek attention with bullshit. It's evidence, yeah, is it really unimpeachable? Well.....
Think about it like this: if there was a dated and notarized statement in his handwriting saying the same thing that she claims he told her, that would be more trustworthy.
But again, pet theory, some Boeing sicko was covering their own ass by having him Epsteined. Totally plausible.
I don't think this is the last we will be hearing about this.
Amazing how standards of evidence work. I am a Jesus Mythicist and pretty much all we have to "prove" Jesus was real is one guy saying he meet some unnamed person who had a dream. But here we have a direct eyewitness stating what they heard a week ago and that isn't good enough.
What motivation does she have to just fully make up a conversation?
That's my point: we have no idea. We have no information other than that her and Barnett's mothers are best friends and that he was a pallbearer at her father's funeral. She could be a well educated individual that is doing her best to make a point and draw attention to something, or she could be someone who believes tons of stuff that is blatantly false and is telling her opinion to anyone who will listen. Either way, (copying from my other comment) I guess this is all more me just trying to voice frustration with the article. Not that it’s unprecedented (maybe even the norm) these days, but it’s always frustrating to see headlines with unsubstantiated claims and discussions ensuing as if it’s fact."
There is literally no other corroboration that could be given, it's a personal conversation between friends or friendly acquaintances, reported as such. There's nothing wrong with the article. This is the maximum amount of corroboration for a private conversation (none) and it's reported as a conversation, with information about the speaker's relationship and direct quotes. Just because people don't record their lives in unalterable write-once media doesn't mean personal conversations simply should never be the subject of reporting. We have headline news stories about US generals' personal conversations with Trump and his denials, and no one thinks "well, that shouldn't be reported because either side could be lying and without recording they're both equally suspicious".
I'm certain you don't actually follow a philosophy of "nothing anyone says can ever be given any more credence than anyone else" because it's an impossible way to live. And whatever high-minded "no one can ever know absolute truth" ideas you have, claiming that a HR rep and a family friend have the same level of believability is ridiculous. On one side you someone whose job is literally to say things to protect a billion dollar company and the other a family friend with nothing to gain talking about a pretty reasonable conversation one might have.
There’s nothing wrong with the article.
I guess I can concede that the article describes what happened, so maybe it was the headline that set off my skepticism. In my opinion there's a big difference between:
'If anything happens, it's not suicide': Boeing whistleblower's prediction before death
and
'If anything happens, it's not suicide': Family friend reports Boeing whistleblower's prediction before death
I know I'm being pedantic, that it's just clickbait, and that's the reality of today's media; but I've spent the last 8-10 years watching some my family radicalized by headlines like this (albeit on different topics) and feel pretty strongly about it, I suppose. After realizing a few years ago the negative effect internet echo chambers were having on me I started to try and be a little more skeptical about things I was reading, especially if I agreed with them. Most of the time I just try to keep quiet but, apparently, felt like trying to start a discussion about it this morning.
claiming that a HR rep and a family friend have the same level of believability is ridiculous.
You probably have a point here. I could have better phrased my statement as something like, "I’m not sure that I’m willing to take the word of a "close family friend" who agrees with my point of view than I am a "close family friend" who disagrees with my point of view" or something similar. For instance, if the women in the article told the reporter, "he was very unhappy and told me he might kill himself" I'd still be thinking there was a convincing chance that Boeing was directly responsible because I wouldn't consider her any more credible just because she's agreeing with me.
My brother in whatever, for your information that is called a "witness"
Fascinating
I feel the same about the response given that I'm agreeing with everyone's sentiments overall and only questioning the validity of a single source. Suppose I need to get a better feel for the site before trying to be more active.
Naw, you're good. Change nothing about yourself. :) You are spot on and you have my upvotes.
Folks are in angry mob mode and can't be bothered with even a hint of nuance or reason, apparently. Even if you are convinced Boeing totally killed the guy and state that clearly...
Anyway, peace out man. I hope for once corporate scum faces consequences.
Epstein. Your argument is disproven
I can see you were born yesterday.
I'm curious if some one who disagreed with you - on something that they found completely, obviously true - tried to convince you they were right by saying that their mom's friend's daughter made a claim about it, how inclined would you be to believe them or that daughter?
I think we all agree that Barnett suspected that something would happen; and we all agree that Boeing is a terrible company that is capable, and guilty, of terrible things. My point it just that there is concrete evidence of these things and articles should rely on something other than some person made a claim with nothing but, "it's obvious" or "I know" to back it up
And it still won't look like anything to them even after they find out the handgun wasn't registered to him. And after they find out the suicide note (pro tip: real suicides generally don't include a note) was written super-generically.
And after they find out the suicide note... was written super-generically.
To whom it may concern,
I cannot take it anymore. If I have a wife and/or kids, tell them that I love them.
Good bye cruel world,
[Don't forget to change this text to the assassinated target's name]
pro tip: real suicides generally don't include a note
The rate in the graph varies between 20 and 40 percent.
Nice reference! 🤜🤛
What feds, Boeing has been the only entity responsible for regulating Boeing for nearly two decades. I'm sure they'll find themselves not guilty.
I don't know whether or not he killed himself, and I strongly suspect he didn't, but I sure as hell know this warrants an intense and thorough investigation. All company and private emails of executives, with forensics to determine if anything was deleted. Long interrogations to see if alibis match up.
There isn't enough evidence to throw the book at Boeing, but there is enough to search every single little thing related to them.
There isn’t enough evidence to throw the book at Boeing, but there is enough to search every single little thing related to them.
What am I missing? What evidence is there at all that they did it? Don't get me wrong, I'm certainly highly suspicious that they were involved, but you have to have a lot more than suspicion.
His death, under suspicious circumstances, objectively benefits Boeing in an ongoing criminal investigation.
That seems like sufficient justification to conduct an investigation.
His death, under suspicious circumstances, objectively benefits Boeing in an ongoing criminal investigation.
This is motive, not evidence.
That seems like sufficient justification to conduct an investigation.
The fact that he has died is sufficient justification to conduct an investigation, and I'm sure they will. But the claim was that they have enough evidence against Boeing to subpoena basically everything they have. And Boeing having a motive to kill someone is not evidence that they did it, and would not pass a judge if anyone were to seek some kind of warrant.
Not sure why you're being down voted, what you are saying is accurate. I guess the others are of the "Boeing is bad, therefore it's pitchfork time" mindset and not justice and due process.
Yup, that's lemmy for you. The facts don't matter, only the narrative.
"Yup, that's $blank for you."
Same shit's been said ever since the caveman developed complex enough language to say. That's a lazy, tired, and vacuous trope you're mindlessly spouting there, tiger.
That's cavemen for you. Always getting angry over stones being thrown but not realizing they're throwing the exact same stone.
I mean your response to an over-generalization is to increase the level of generalization to include literal cavemen. I wonder at what point cavemen developed a sense of irony?
Lazy and tired, but unfortunately still true.
Thanks for sharing your knowledge, from the rest of us.
if theyre killing witnesses, theyre too big to prosecute, and I think they should be shutdown and sold for parts
Well corpos are people now, so I think Boeing should be put on a bus to Texas and summarily executed for its crimes against humanity and treason against US persons.
Can't have it both ways, Capital!
I volunteer to administer the lethal dose of fire...
Imagine the weird "humane" process.
"We're draining the bank accounts now..." (watching numbers in all accounts drop to zero)
"And now, we're gonna pull the listing from the stock exchange..." (onlookers gasp)
"Before we invalidate your business license and jail your entire C-suite, have ye any last words?"
If they’re killing witnesses, they’re probably working with the government. This is America after all, where money is the ONLY thing that matters.
Can’t let a big business fail, that would communism.
So the US government will not even investigate this because of the close ties / relationship with Boeing?
I swear to god, the US and its oligarchy is just russia "at home"
Always has been.
Our pig just has nicer lipstick.
The best lipstick.
our glorious pig's glorious lipstick of the highest caliber*
Oh, I was wondering why I recognized your name!
My apologies that you couldn’t get laid in high school.
Are you going to explain this? Cuz it really sounds like you fucked a 12 year old when you were in high school.
How does getting laid in high school equal fucking a 12 year old? What's the context here?
Jax took that comment way out of context.
The original thread was about puberty blockers being blocked by NHS when prescribed to kids with gender dysphoria.
At no point did a specific age come up, but it’s assumed that puberty blockers would be most effective before puberty.
However by this point in the thread, Jax had commented that they didn’t feel comfortable with kids taking birth control, a different tangent.
I responded, in sarcastic tone (and to a reply to Jax’s post, as in, to a third party), as if surprised to learn that people should be taking birth control or receiving HPV vaccines before they start having sex (as in, not when they start having sex).
Jax responds that they just aren’t comfortable with kids having sex.
I respond with the quote above, Jax replies with:
So you're either suggesting that 12 year olds should be fucking high schoolers, or you're just too dumb to think about what you said. I'll give you a few minutes.
I don’t know where that leap came from, but it followed me here a day or two later.
AITA?
A lot of shitty things are done under the guise of, "It makes me feel uncomfortable"
Trans people especially, anything to do with them really, Oh I make you uncomfortable, guess we will just magically stop existing.
And for the uncomfortable people out there, most times the "stop existing" thing, comes in the form of unaliving because we aren't cis like everyone else.. that's kinda the whole thing
I think there's a real Red Scare style trend among zoomers with regards to pedophilia. Any time they can find the slightest pretext to link someone to pedophilia, they'll do it and then call a mob with pitchforks.
Different conversation. Was talking about the effects of GnRH on the body, it led to a conversation of the similar effects of birth control on kids. I mentioned how I didn't like the idea of kids needing to take birth control, which then brings us to that comment.
The kids in question would have been 12, right around when puberty starts. So the "sorry you didn't get laid in high school" sure fucking sounds like this person is saying that they think it's normal for high schoolers to fuck 12 year olds. You can draw whatever conclusions you want from that, I've drawn mine.
Edit: you can look through my comments, I stand by everything I've said.
Ah, I see. From what limited info you've given here, it sounds like you blew a common saying way out of proportion, but maybe I'm missing some of the more important context.
The context is children taking puberty blockers, which means taking them at around 12 years old.
The context is exactly what I stated it as, I have blown exactly nothing out of proportion. I gave them the opportunity to explain themselves originally, they declined by not responding, so tell me exactly what conclusion should I draw?
"Oh it's fine that this person insulted me when I'm expressing my feelings (I cannot believe I just referred to being creeped out by kids taking birth control and fucking high schoolers as feelings), they deserve the respect they didn't give me."
Absolutely not, if the above is what you're suggesting you can have these hands too.
Edit: I have to add, I did just randomly find this person again. I did not go out of my way to follow their comments. I just realized that might seem possible.
Edit: I have to add, I did just randomly find this person again.
I... regardless, bringing this unrelated beef into this thread is a rude fucking thing to do to both them and us. Like i haven't seen this level of pettiness in a good bit.
Keep it in your own thread. Isn't that like a golden Internet rule?
I think it's fair to bring up particularly shitty takes if you see someone in the wild. I do it with known trolls.
🤷♂️ don't say shit you can't stand by
kids taking birth control and fucking high schoolers
I think this is the issue. These are two separate statements and you're conflating them.
"Someone didn't get laid in high school" is a pretty common phrase that just means you're lame. I think it's a coincidence that the original topic was prepubescent puberty blockers.
The alternative is that someone just decided out of nowhere to proclaim their love for pedophilia. I think it's far more likely that you misunderstood them.
My comment: My point is moreso that kids shouldn't be having sex, but sure yeah. Read into it guys.
Their response: Sorry you couldn't get laid in high school.
Really? So you really think this is out of context? When it is quite literally the context? I have a feeling I'm going to get snapped from this thread at some point so I sent you a DM.
I do, actually. I mean really, take a step back and think about it. Why would someone just casually advocate for a sexual relationship between high schoolers and 18 year olds? That's not how conversations work. That's not how people work.
His point was just, "actually, kids do have sex, a lot, even if you weren't aware of it when you were a kid".
I feel like you're trying to turn this into a pedophilia thing. It's such a stretch. You misunderstood, and you decided that the worst possible interpretation was the one you were gonna go with.
You are making that up, nobody said it won't be investigated and the case he was a whistle blower for isn't being stopped by this.
I do hope you're right.
I hope every single Boeing plane gets grounded until every single plane gets independently checked by a reputable 3rd party.
But my hopes are idealistic, and the real world is far from ideal.
The case isn't stopped but it's a lot less likely to succeed now.
And I'll believe there'll be an investigation when there is one.
The article doesn't say this, where did you get that info?
Seriously. Once we nationalize it and it starts operating like it used to, it would be a shining example of why nationalization works.
It's also why you're going to see an tsunami of useful idiots saying we shouldn't do it.
Then flush everyone from director up, and investigate middle management, and put people in that actually have some fucking ethics. Jesus H Christ.
Go further, nationalize the MIC. I'm not gonna sit here and pretend the United States doesn't need to manufacture arms for itself and it's allies, but we absolutely do not need thousands of useless C-suite middlemen making millions of dollars from the process. Boeing is just the canary in the coal mine, I would not be surprised if other frequent contractors have also significantly decreased their ability to produce useful goods in favor of growing their profit margins. Great for profits, but not exactly what you're looking for to protect troops.
Oh look he got Epsteined.
Can we popularize "Barnett didn't kill himself"?
I swear if I am ever a whistleblower I am going to hire someone for minimum wage to hang out in my hotel room while I sleep and they can play on their phone, eat burritos, and play video games until the trial is fully over. And also make sure they have the ability to livestream the moment something weird happens.
Also I don't know put a thousand or so videos on YouTube with email links to everyone I have ever known with me saying all the damaging stuff and that I am not suicidal.
$60 or so dollars a day is worth it to me to not get silenced like a fucking Russian critic.
Until they pay your minimum wage dude to poison your cup-noodles when you're both looking
Ted wouldn't do that. He is my boy, we play x-box together.
You can still be silenced like a few US presidents. Or even blown up with explosives. Even the government pulled that one on those anarchists in Philadelphia. Because wiping out your entire neighborhood to get rid of you could very well be on the table.
Oh that's fine, I only like 1 of my neighbor's.
one simple trick private investigators don't want you to know about that will save you millions and your mental health: Don't use the internet.
Look, we all know he didn't off himself, but here's my issue with these stories where a friend or family member says that the person said they told them it won't be suicide:
If Barnett really said that, why not also set up a dead man's switch? If he was truly afraid that he had info so damming he'd be killed for it, then why not set it up so that the info still finds a way to come out even in the event of his death?
If anything, ensuring the info comes out one way or another might have even protected him.
He already published his information and was in the process of repeating it in front of a court.
His death prevented him from giving his information as sworn testimony which a dead man switch could not do.
I believe that's not actually true at all. It can and has been used as sworn testimony.
The thing is, there's a difference between thinking a company will kill you, and THINKING a company will kill you.
Well because according to his quote he wasn't afraid. I don't think he thought the company he worked for for 30 years would do this. Seems he said this remark only in response to what she asked.
It just takes one psycho in management with their own ass on the line to do something insane to cover their tracks.
That's my thought if this conspiracy were true. It wasn't some evil corporation assassinating the guy, it was one of the menial workers who had more to lose from his testimony.
"Hurr durr, it wasn't the evil corporation. It was just the evil lackey of the evil corporation".
Yeah because there's a difference..
Not only that, but isn't a dying declaration specifically admissible as fact or something? I'm only vaguely recollecting this, so I'm likely wrong.
Yeah something is clicking in my head about it being a federal level hearsay exception. Where is a lawyer when you need one?
It would have been really nice to have some kind of automated testimony upload or something.
Have it in writing. "I have zero intention of killing myself and my life is great save for my horrendous former employer that should go straight to hell."
ANYTHING more substantial than "Y'know he told me once..."
Maybe his family was threatened?
Someone on lemmy said it yesterday. Those Boeing shits could have put him in a no-win. Tell him that if he drops it they will still sue him and if he continues they will also sue.
This was my thought. As terrible as it is.
Basically "We have a van outside your house. You have two options..."
Man, wish they could've gone into witness protection and testified from an undisclosed remote location or something...
Unless it really was suicide via blackmail/ extortion.
If you don't kill yourself were going to kill all your family and friends.
Give him videos of the surveillance on all of them to scare him.
Still seems more likely they did kill him, but that might be a reason for no Deadman switch
I'd wanna be in witness protection and unreachable if I was whistle-blower at that level just to avoid situations like that.
how many dead man switches have you setup?
Holy shit some Boeing motherfuckers better go TO BIG JAIL
If Corporations are People, I say Boeing should get the Death Penalty and be Nationalized.
They won't.
had* better go
Shit's getting real.
John Oliver better watch his back.
It's important to remember that whistleblowing is extremely stressful, so much that it's one of the main things the government talks about on their whistleblowing site:
Practice self-care and stress-reducing activities throughout your whistleblowing process. It is common to experience toxic forms of retaliation – from professional isolation to gaslighting (manipulating someone by psychological means into questioning their own sanity) – which can lead to post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, or even thoughts of harm.
Researchers have found the same thing, being a whistleblower is terrible for your mental health:
About 85% suffered from severe to very severe anxiety, depression, interpersonal sensitivity and distrust, agoraphobia symptoms, and/or sleeping problems, and 48% reached clinical levels of these specific mental health problems. These specific mental health problems were much more prevalent than among the general population.
In addition, "Half of Patients With Suicidal Thoughts Deny It"
Not only did approximately 50% of people with suicidal thoughts deny having those thoughts, roughly 50% of people who had died by suicide, and 30% of people who had attempted suicide had denied having suicidal ideation in the week or month beforehand.
Furthermore, in many cases, people who had disclosed in apps and on paper that they had thoughts of suicide then denied that they had suicidal ideation when questioned directly in face-to-face assessments or interviews. For example, in one study, nearly 60% of those who reported their suicidal ideation on an app then denied their suicidal ideation in a telephone interview less than 24 hours later.
So, just because he denied he was suicidal doesn't mean that's necessarily true. He might have been trying to appear strong to everyone while suffering in silence.
This should definitely be investigated as possibly being murder. And, even if the investigation does determine that he shot himself, they should keep looking to see if he was being blackmailed or if he might have been pressured into suicide.
I just can't imagine an executive at Boeing going out and hiring a hit man. But, what I can imagine them doing is hiring a team of private investigators to go through this guy's entire life and dig up every bit of dirt on him. It could be they found something really embarrassing and were going to blackmail him with it. It could be that they found something innocent that they could frame as being awful, like to make him look like he was a child molester or something.
I just can’t imagine an executive at Boeing going out and hiring a hit man
Really? That's weird, I totally can. It's an exceptionally narrow-minded and short-sighted knee-jerk reaction to a perceived threat of one's executive career. Most coked-out executives already have a massive god complex once they get their MBA and are installed above the proles workers. I can absolutely realistically imagine one Boeing executive getting angry enough and coked-out enough to just decide, "fuck it, I'm going to fix this problem for us before he threatens my career and reputation any more".
The information you present about whistleblowing being stressful is fair. He may indeed have been driven to kill himself instead of being straight-up assassinated like others believe. I refuse, however, to give the benefit of doubt to a massive corporation who has already demonstrated a complete lack of regard for human life and an extremely poor track record of moral and ethical decision-making. This needs to be investigated under the assumption that a hit is an entirely possible reality. Unless you'd rather that nobody blows the whistle on anything in the future - you've already demonstrated that it's an incredibly stressful action. If there's the lingering remote possibility that you can be simply assassinated over it and everyone will look the other way, nobody will ever raise their voice again. The nature of his actions before his death demand a comprehensive and exhaustive investigation into if any person from Boeing had anything to do with it whatsoever, or whistleblowing will continue sliding into something only the insane consider.
Really? That’s weird, I totally can.
While Boeing executives may be criminals, they're pretty much exclusively white collar criminals. They went to business school, not the military. They come from rich households. They don't have gang or organized crime affiliations. How would they know anything about hiring hit men?
Hiring a firm to do PR and to dig up dirt on a whistleblower, sure, that's within their skillset. That's even something they can brag about in board meetings because it's legal. It's the kind of thing they can google, or have a secretary research for them. It doesn't matter if transcripts leak. But, hiring a hit man, how do they know they won't get caught -- and this time for the kind of crime where people actually get sent to real prisons?
This needs to be investigated under the assumption that a hit is an entirely possible reality.
Sure, they should work under the assumption that it was a very careful hitman who made it look like a suicide. They should be 10x more careful than they normally would if they even suspected it might be a suicide. But, I still think driving him to suicide is much more likely.
IMO, the kind of press this is getting is part of the reason I don't think it was a hit. If this were Russia, sure. A hit sends the message to anybody else that they better not think of doing the same thing. The press will tell whatever story the government wants. Even on social media nobody very few people will speak up in Russia. But, in the US, this death is going to draw so much more attention to Boeing. Just look at how many articles there are about the whistleblower's death vs. how many there were about him beforehand. Corporations are used to managing news cycles when it comes to legal cases and congressional hearings. Those are boring and don't tend to go viral. But a whistleblower dying as he was giving testimony, that's exciting, it's like the movies, so it's all everyone's going to talk about.
Unless he had even more damaging information that he somehow didn't give to anybody yet, despite the fact he had already been testifying, it seems like the damage his death does is much higher than the damage his testimony would have done.
You didn't think executives would resort to violence?
Let me introduce you to Coca Cola and Shell. And the East and West India Companies before them.
These guys approved MCAS knowing it could create situations that were were unrecoverable. They aren't above killing people for profit.
Let me introduce you to Coca Cola and Shell.
They've been found guilty of killing people on American soil? I hadn't heard that, do tell.
And the East and West India Companies before them.
Yeah, the 1400s are really relevant here.
These guys approved MCAS knowing it could create situations that were were unrecoverable.
Yes, white collar crime.
Get your history correct atleast. East India Company was in charge of India until 1857 and squeezed it dry. It was basically an early blueprint of modern day capitalism and imperialism.
I was off by a couple of centuries, but it's hardly relevant now. If the most recent example of bad corporate behaviour you can find is from a company that was dissolved 150 years ago, you don't have much of an argument.
Your naiveness is super precious. You can't see someone with incredible amounts of wealth hiring someone else to make a problem go away?
OK! Next time, you should try a couple of Google searches before wasting all that time typing out nonsense. I didn't even finish the first page of search results, there were so many. And they are just the ones dumb enough to get caught.
Again, did you even read this link? This isn't an executive in a multi-billion dollar defense contractor. This is an "executive" at a family-owned auto dealership.
Another one I know you didn't read. Again, this isn't a multi-billion dollar defense contractor, this is a tiny company with only 50 employees. And, most importantly, he tried to hire a hitman and failed.
Yet another one you didn't read. Yes, it's "Amazon", but it's Amazon Mexico. The hit happened in Mexico City. It was also his wife that he arranged to have killed, not an enemy of Amazon's business. And, importantly, if his goal was to get away with murder, he failed. The hitman he hired testified against him.
If you think this happens, find an example where it's:
A hit ordered by an exec of a multi-billion dollar company
Against an enemy of the company (not settling personal scores)
It happened in the US, and an American was killed
You probably believe you can find one of those, because you're adorably naïve and watch a lot of exciting movies. But, I'm betting you won't find any. But, great job googling "exec" and "hitman", you really showed your google-fu. I just wish you'd read the links you posted and saved me some time.
I, personally, have been harmed by people paid by Boeing.
Ok, care to elaborate?
No.
I was actually hired by Boeing as a hitman once, didn't pay very good tbh
So what do you mean by white collar crime? Does it include killing people or not? Because knowingly bringing about systems that result in the death of people, having a private security contractor that you know will shoot striking workers in your third world countries plantation or ordering a hit on someone are all the same. It is decided that people will die for the companies profit and just because the people who order it dont do it directly themselves, doesn't change the gravity of it.
Also there os myriads of examples from today, where western companies directly or indirectly order people to get killed, just usually in third countries. The idea that a defense company with billions of profits at stake every year doesn't have access to hitmen is unconvincing. Why wouldn't they? Just as the mafia is branching into white business, white business of size are employing criminal means.
If you still think there is some unpenetrable divide, all you need is a private detective agency that has a history of dealing with problems "reliably" in the past.
So what do you mean by white collar crime?
It's a pretty well defined term.
Does it include killing people or not?
It may mean being responsible for their deaths, but not in a way in which you could be charged for murder.
Also there os myriads of examples from today, where western companies directly or indirectly order people to get killed
Almost always indirectly, and almost never on US soil. Not hiring a hitman to stage a suicide in the US. The kinds of things that US corporations do are the kinds of things they can talk about at board meetings without worrying that they'll go to jail of the meeting is bugged. They can talk about hiring SecuriCo in Zambia to deal with unrest at the mine. Or, they can talk with hiring the law firm Goldman, Burke and Mott to deal with the bad PR from the whistleblower. They're not going to chat about going onto a dark web server to hire a hit man to kill a whistleblower. That's movie stuff, not reality.
These guys approved MCAS knowing it could create situations that were were unrecoverable.
Yes, white collar crime.
If that's "white collar crime" then so is hiring a hitman.
You're being rather naive. Sure, those bosses would have a hard time doing violence on other people, personally. But through another person? Nah. The same as approving MCAS, knowing it will kill people.
Also, you need to take a basic history lesson. "1400's" is a really bad guess.
You’re being rather naive.
And you watch too much TV.
I haven't had one in ~14 years.
I do live in a bad part of town and this guy used to be my neighbour (before he died a few years ago.)
Chill guy all in all (except when someone snitched and he lost like 2 pound of meth). Interesting stories as well.
Made really good risotto.
I don't need a TV. :)
If that’s “white collar crime” then so is hiring a hitman.
No, it isn't. If you hire a hitman you can be tried for conspiracy to commit murder. If you approve a system that could be unsafe for an airplane, your company might have to pay a fine. They're vastly different crimes, even if one results in a lot more deaths.
You’re being rather naive
You watch too many movies.
Sure, those bosses would have a hard time doing violence on other people, personally. But through another person? Nah
They might have the mindset required to hire a hitman. But, they don't have the connections. They also don't want to take on the personal liability of doing that. These are almost all finance guys who have MBAs. They wouldn't make a decision like this on their own, and they wouldn't be able to talk about it in a board meeting without risking a conspiracy charge.
The MCAS decision is ridiculous, but it exactly the kind of thing they can discuss in a board meeting without risking criminal charges. Even if the meeting had been recorded, the transcript would be boring board-room talk, nothing that they could be indicted for.
They might have the mindset required to hire a hitman. But, they don't have the connections.
Anyone can find a hitman online, all it takes is 15min to get to know how deep web markets work. They're by far the least reliable service ofc, but it is sold and there are escrow services as well. How well they work in cases like that is a whole other matter, but I, personally, find it rather ludicrous a suggestion that a high-level Boeing boss who manages the complexities of a job like that (especially when simultaneously playing Jenga with airline safety) wouldn't be able to figure out how to access a black market.
Especially when they could always hire a person to do that for them. Do they trust anyone at all, with any of their criminal shenanigans? Well surely the co-conspirators at least. These massive, systemic changes that made Boeing go from trusted airline to killing whistleblowers weren't the actions of one man.
And if there was a group of men, then it's shared responsibility. Even if they conspire to hire a hitman. It doesn't feel as much like a violent crime when it's done in white-collars and agreed on in a fancy hotel suite.
Especially when they could always hire a person to do that for them. Do they trust anyone at all, with any of their criminal shenanigans?
Yes, and that's the problem. This isn't the sort of thing an executive would do on their own without talking to other execs about it. If they did that they'd have to trust that the other execs would back them up and not turn them in. And, this is a real, serious crime. This isn't a crime where the company has to pay a fine. This is a crime where they would personally be liable for conspiracy to commit murder.
These massive, systemic changes that made Boeing go from trusted airline to killing whistleblowers weren’t the actions of one man.
Exactly my point. Those took a whole group of executives discussing their plans openly in meetings. They wouldn't discuss actually breaking the law in meetings like that. Instead, they'd talk about who they'd have to lobby to get the laws changed how they wanted, what pressure they could put on regulators, what kinds of PR campaigns they'd need to run, etc. Those are things that people might see as dishonest and unethical, but they're all legal. If someone in the meeting objected to the decisions, they'd have a little debate and then some decision would be made. The other execs wouldn't have to worry that the conversation would leak and they'd be charged with serious crimes. If the conversation leaked there might be a bit of embarrassment, they'd have to hire a PR firm, and done.
The decisions they made almost certainly cost lives, but even if you had transcripts for those meetings, even an ambitious prosecutor probably couldn't find any actual crimes being committed. The execs at Boeing almost all have finance backgrounds, so most of the meetings would have been about money, and how much they could save while keeping an "acceptable safety margin" -- which we might not think is acceptable, but they'd have the lawyers to argue that it was acceptable.
You don't go from open discussions about how to increase profits by outsourcing work to discussing how to hire a hitman to kill one of your whistleblowers. That's suddenly stuff where the people in the room would be chargeable for conspiracy to commit murder.
The Mitchell & Webb parody proves my point. Removing Webb's character makes it back into a movie scenario. His character shows just how ludicrous those movie scenes really are. At some point when murder is being discussed, someone is going to actually have to check "just to be clear, you mean murder, right?". Because you're not going to order to have someone murdered just because the CFO used an ambiguous term.
If I were to link a bunch of drug busts, would it make drug markets any smaller?
Like I said, they're the most unreliable service, but you really don't have to be that smart to use one responsibly. It's not like going on Craigslist looking for a guy who thinks he's hidden himself by using incognito mode.
"rentahitman.com" lol might as well set up a stand called "we sell meth here mister police man". I hope you do realise the impossibility of me proving just how many successful hit jobs there have been which no-one was ever caught?
No, see they can all talk about this particular person being a problem, in the board room. Without talking about anything criminal, or even thinking about anything criminal towards him.
But later in the night, a few of those execs are getting drunk in a fancy suite, doing blow. They know what they've done vis-a-vis the airline jenga. There's even evidence against them. They would be stressed. Substance abuse is very common in the business world, as are dark triad personality traits and the occasional psychotic behaviour. (CEO psychopathy prevalence is something fierce compared to the average.)
If there's enough plausible deniability and shared responsibility, those people rarely do. Even when it's very clear death was indirectly caused by some of the decision of the leaders, they rarely get into trouble.
Ofc conspiracy to murder is a bit different than cooking the books for instance, but when we're talking about airline safety, they're not too dissimilar
Sorry for the second reply, we're both avid talkers and I've already taken half an ambien.
At some point when murder is being discussed, someone is going to actually have to check "just to be clear, you mean murder, right?
With all respect, I disagree. And I've been friends with actual murderers. Well a murderer. I mean, I only knew him after his sentence, dk what he did when he did the murdering. Just that I've been in circles with a lot of people's who've done various crimes, and unless theyre referring to their trials or sentences or something, they never mention the crime. It's all euphemisms.
The actual confirmation bit would be online with an escrow service, after finding s reliable one.
unless theyre referring to their trials or sentences or something, they never mention the crime. It’s all euphemisms.
I can imagine that if you're someone who assumes they're being bugged all the time. Like, Mafiosi wanting to talk business without actually saying something that could be used in court against them. But, I don't think that's the world that Boeing execs live in.
And I think it is.
Most low level users are in that group, being so pissed if you ever mention the real name of anything. Before actually good protected comm apps like Wickr, Signal etc, buying drugs was such a hassle. Sometimes two people would meet only to realise that neither of them have drugs, they both want to buy.
I don't think the execs live in a world where people have to spell out murder if they're gonna murder someone.
Frankly speaking, whether or not a hitman was hired, Boeing is culpable.
Organizing a concerted effort to drive someone to suicide is just as illegal as murdering them. End of story.
If there's evidence they organized a concerted effort to drive someone to suicide, definitely. Otherwise they're just culpable for gross violations of safety that have cost lives of airline passengers.
I would also say it could be manslaughter if the stress from the retaliation from whistleblowing caused him to kill himself
But, in the US, this death is going to draw so much more attention to Boeing.
Attention sure, nothing will happen to Boeing though. They own too many politicians, and too many powerful people need them to stay where they are. I have no doubt they killed him.
Attention sure, nothing will happen to Boeing though.
There's more of a chance of something happening now than there was before the whistleblower died.
Laws don't apply to rich people. They'll find a fall guy.
pretty much exclusively white collar criminals.
Very much so. It would be hard to believe they would do it themselves. However, enrolling the right assistance should not be too difficult for them. They even have access to more options than the average business executive.
They went to business school, not the military.
They are not military, but they have plenty of contacts there. Boeing is a big player in the military industry, they certainly know a lot of people in that world, both in government positions and the private sector.
They don’t have gang or organized crime affiliations.
Several of them don't, but organized crime is within reach. Illegal recreational drugs are not uncommon in the business world. Dealers are more often than not connected to the organized crime. Networking in that world is something within business people's skills.
Hey, who knows, maybe some of those execs started working many years ago as humble machine gun and bazooka salespeople. And who knows what kind of interesting characters they met during those days. While totally not burying their heads into a mountain of white powder sitting in the middle of the table.
driving him to suicide is much more likely.
It is very likely. High stress would have played against him if he was being bullied or threatened. Also, less involved than having them murdered.
it seems like the damage his death does is much higher than the damage his testimony would have done.
Depends on what you consider damage here. The testimony could have been perceived as a threat to important business deals (and to bonuses). It is not infrequent to see executives caring only about their profits, even in detriment of the company as a whole.
They are not military, but they have plenty of contacts there.
They may have contracts with generals, but not much in the way with soldiers on the ground. If it were a defence contractor that made small arms, then maybe. But, this is Boeing.
Illegal recreational drugs are not uncommon in the business world
Sure... but executives don't go to the bad parts of town to get them. The guy they're buying from is most likely someone who can travel in C-Suite circles and not draw attention. Maybe they're also a member of the golf club and have a legitimate business as a cover. The execs aren't getting in their Mercedes and cruising down to the ghetto to score. The dealers may have connections to organized crime, but not in a way that is obvious to anyone.
Hey, who knows, maybe some of those execs started working many years ago as humble machine gun and bazooka salespeople.
We know, their profiles are public.
The Boeing CEO, David L. Calhoun:
After graduating from college, Calhoun was hired by General Electric (GE). He decided to join GE in part because he would be working in Lehigh Valley in eastern Pennsylvania, where he grew up.[3] He worked at GE for 26 years, overseeing transportation, aircraft engines, reinsurance, lighting and other GE units, before being appointed vice chairman and a member of GE's Board of Directors in 2005.[
The COO, Stephanie Pope:
Pope was an Eisenhower Fellow in Brussels and Ireland in 2008 and has a bachelor's degree in accounting from Southwest Missouri State University and a Master of Business Administration from Lindenwood University.
Pope joined Boeing in 1994 and rose through the ranks to take on senior-level roles at all three of the company's key businesses.
The CFO, Brian West:
West received a bachelor’s degree in finance from Siena College and a Master of Business Administration from the Columbia Business School.
Previously, West spent 16 years at General Electric, where he served as chief financial officer of GE Aviation and chief financial officer of GE Engine Services.
The Chair, Supply Chain Operations Council, William A. Ampofo II:
Ampofo has a bachelor’s degree in finance from Adelphi University and a Master of Business Administration from George Washington University.
Before joining The Boeing Company in April 2016, Ampofo spent 22 years at United Technologies Corporation (UTC), holding roles of increasing responsibility in finance, information technology, corporate strategy and operations at its corporate headquarters and its Pratt & Whitney, Sikorsky and UTC Aerospace Systems (UTAS) divisions.
Just look through their execs and find anybody with even a hint of dirt under their fingernails:
It is not infrequent to see executives caring only about their profits, even in detriment of the company as a whole.
Sure, so they hire PR firms, and private investigators, and call up friendly reporters to try to get them to publish a negative article. They aren't going to order a hit and make it look like a suicide.
While Boeing executives may be criminals, they’re pretty much exclusively white collar criminals. They went to business school, not the military. They come from rich households. They don’t have gang or organized crime affiliations. How would they know anything about hiring hit men?
Someone has never seen the first RoboCop movie.
Ah yes, thank you for proving my point. People who watch too many movies think that real life is like movies.
What's next? Getting shot makes you fly backwards through the air? Getting knocked out makes you unconscious for hours, but you wake up with nothing more than a sore head? Silencers go "thwpt" and nobody can hear them from more than a meter away?
Ah yes, thank you for proving my point. People who watch too many movies think that real life is like movies.
What’s next? Getting shot makes you fly backwards through the air? Getting knocked out makes you unconscious for hours, but you wake up with nothing more than a sore head? Silencers go “thwpt” and nobody can hear them from more than a meter away?
Dude, relax, no need to be rude. It's just a humorous Internet forum comment, that makes a valid point.
Or are you trying to tell me that powerful corporations don't have very strong security departments with connections?
Or are you trying to tell me that powerful corporations don’t have very strong security departments with connections?
They have security departments filled with normal people who the execs couldn't trust to do something like this (or order something like this) without ratting them out. They don't order hits. That's movie stuff, like every grocery bag must have a baguette and greens poking out of it, or turning on your TV at the exact moment a news report starts.
They have security departments filled with normal people who the execs couldn’t trust to do something like this
So huge multi-billion corporations wouldn't hire the best of the best, when it comes to security?
Just the bottom line this, we're not going to agree, but you'd have to be pretty naive to think that those kind of things, with billions of dollars and economies hanging in the balance, doesn't really happen.
Unfortunately.
Life imitates art in some ways, but people getting shot in the shoulder still have fucked up shoulders and often die, no matter how much movies want you to believe that it's a wound you can just shrug off.
Similarly, executives make business decisions that result in thousands of people dying. But, executives in multi-billion dollar companies don't contract out to hitmen to murder people who hurt their companies. That's just movie stuff, and you're naive to think it happens in reality.
But, executives in multi-billion dollar companies don’t contract out to hitmen to murder people who hurt their companies.
And you know this how?
Common sense? The lack of historical precedent? The fact I can watch movies and be aware that they don't represent reality?
But, executives in multi-billion dollar companies don’t contract out to hitmen to murder people who hurt their companies.
And you know this how?
Common sense? The lack of historical precedent? The fact I can watch movies and be aware that they don’t represent reality?
Mainly my sense of humour, and biased belief in equal parts.
Murder by proxy.
They fucking killed him with a hit man dude...
Of course they didn't this isn't a movie
In the real world companies like Boeing don't hire hit men, they use the cia
And your evidence for that is?
I'll testify about it tommorow...
STOMPYI, was never heard from again...
k
There's maybe an absurd theory no one has considered: He worried that the accusations weren't going to be taken seriously, so he killed himself in a relatively suspicious manner/timing, to make sure public trust in Boeing disappeared.
It seems unlikely because there was a lot of interest in the stuff he was testifying about, but it's possible.
Another site in which "accidentally" the GdpR cookie forms weirdly aren't scrollable so you can't reject them
It's not GDPR but the cookie law. Stop villanizing the GDPR.
I'm pretty sure the form is there exactly because GDPR needs it to be.
Also I'm not villanising it, I'm villanising the corporations who only pretend to comply.
How does GDPR affect EU cookie law?
Recital 30 of the General Data Protection Regulation considers cookies as part of personal data. It requires websites and web publishers to obtain valid consent when collecting personal data from users. Therefore, the GDPR and Cookie Law work in tandem in the European Union
This particular instance of a cookie notice is really bad. The gdpr is there for a reason and a lot of websites can come up with better solutions to that cookie law.
Yeah, my point exactly.
This one sucks.
I like the option of opting out, and way too many websites uses shenanigans to get you to accept implicitly or explicitly. And even when you don't they hide "legitimate interest" checkmarks everywhere and you have to scroll a 100 miles to do them.
I still do.
But sites in which you can't even scroll to see the "refuse" bit? Haiyaaaaaa
I hate cookie banners, but I'm not villanizing the cookie law; I'm villanizing all the websites that try to spy on me
That's fair! The cookie law requires that you can reject just as easy as accept, and mostly you just cannot.
Personally I think the minimum cookies should be the default required by law and if people want to opt in too more, they can do so on a specific page of the website. Get rid of those stupid banners which I have to reject every single time.
They could just respect the DNT standard... yet they decided to ignore it
People in this situation might consider putting themselves under video surveillance.
Like Epstein was
And mentioning on social media so it's public/informing journalists so they can make it public beforehand that you don't plan on killing yourself.
The trouble with that is someone might say you DID plan to kill yourself, and tried to frame Boeing for your own death by telling people you weren't suicidal. Thus it's preferable to leave video evidence, that could also help catch the culprits.
It still leaves the possibility that you yourself hired a hit squad to kill you. Alex Murdaugh and Jussie Smollett both did things like that. Only for a beating in Smollett's case, but Murdaugh actually wanted to be fatally shot, leaving an insurance policy behind.
I know right. Exactly my thoughts. If you are a whistleblower, install secret camers in your house and always keep a recorder (audio/video) in your pocket or chest.
Although in a few years this is obsolete. AI ftw.
He was staying in a hotel btw for the trial. He had given 2 days of testimony and didn’t show for the 3rd.
Still possible, but harder when you’re not at home.
Gonna come out that the hotel parking lot camera was down for maintenance that night
And the guy at the front desk ran an errand for five hours.
I would be going to pretty great lengths to ensure I didn't get Epsteined or, if I did, the mfers behind it got theirs. I'd be sending hand written letters to every goddamn person knew that I wasn't suicidal.
And I would be really careful about my opsec. Oh, you thought I was at that motel? Fuck you pricks, I ditched the rental, took a bus and switched five times, changed clothes twice and snuck to a culvert to sleep, you fucking corpo assassins. Good luck with that. .!..
Or always stay in sight of two other people and eat and drink only from sealed packages purchased from random grocery stores.
Let's assume for the sake of argument that he did commit suicide. The next question I would ask is "why would he do that"?
You don't have to give bastards the benefit of the doubt. That's how they win, by taking advantage of your desire for fairness when they have none of their own.
When airplanes crash!.....at that point the whistleblower had passed away in what looked like a suicide. But how did Boeing manage to pull that off? Join us for the next hour as we explain the science behind involuntary assisted suicide! We'll be interviewing putin corp's CEO Putin, who is an expert in these sort of things but too old to die by hanging.
NOVA got dark this week.
It's too bad he didn't write a short letter saying the same thing and give it to her for safekeeping. As of right now all we have is her word. I'm hopeful that she'll testify.
Makes me wonder, how much does a professional hitman pay troll factories for white washing the crime with "but how do you know it wasn't a suicide", specially the ones that are equally professional about it not being flagrant? How much does it compare to cases in Russia for people suiciding out of windows with multiple gunshots?
When something isn't clearly black and white, without the facts and investigative research, continuing to discuss it usually makes it end up becoming a 50-50% grey area that grossly distorts as much as a completely black and white presumption would. In those cases, the initial "gut feeling" impression and the general education and awareness of a person involved may end up corresponding more to the reality, specially in cases actively trying to suppress the truth.
"Boeing", a non-living fictional mythos that has been accepted as a "person" so that the industrial revolution could be fueled, did not kill him. But there were plenty of psychopaths with power and influence who would have been affected by his deposition. some who've also been spearheading expansion into countries where dealing with and coming to compromises with its lowest ethical lowlifes (some of them also being potential or existing customers) would have been a necessity.
Im having trouble opening this article, it says something about a "client side error" but in text that is almost that same color as the background and is hard to read. Anyone else having this or know how I can fix it?
abcnews4.com
'If anything happens, it's not suicide': Boeing whistleblower's prediction before death
Anne Emerson
3–4 minutes
John Barnett's family friend Jennifer doesn't think the Boeing whistleblower committed suicide in Charleston. In fact, she says he predicted what may happen to him days before he left for his deposition. March 14, 2024. (Provided-FILE, WCIV)
CHARLESTON COUNTY, S.C. (WCIV) — A close family friend of John Barnett said he predicted he might wind up dead and that a story could surface that he killed himself.
But at the time, he told her not to believe it.
"I know that he did not commit suicide," said Jennifer, a friend of Barnett's. "There's no way."
Jennifer said they talked about this exact scenario playing out. However, now, his words seem like a premonition he told her directly not to believe.
"I know John because his mom and my mom are best friends," Jennifer said. "Over the years, get-togethers, birthdays, celebrations and whatnot. We've all got together and talked."
READ MORE: "Mystery lingers around Boeing whistleblower's death at Charleston hotel."
When Jennifer needed help one day, Barnett came by to see her. They talked about his upcoming deposition in Charleston. Jennifer knew Barnett filed an extremely damaging complaint against Boeing. He said the aerospace giant retaliated against him when he blew the whistle on unsafe practices.
For more than 30 years, he was a quality manager. He'd recently retired and moved back to Louisiana to look after his mom.
"He wasn't concerned about safety because I asked him," Jennifer said. "I said, 'Aren't you scared?' And he said, 'No, I ain't scared, but if anything happens to me, it's not suicide.'"
Jennifer added: "I know that he did not commit suicide. There's no way. He loved life too much. He loved his family too much. He loved his brothers too much to put them through what they're going through right now."
Jennifer said she thinks somebody "didn't like what he had to say" and wanted to "shut him up" without it coming back to anyone.
READ MORE: "'John was brave': Boeing whistleblower's lawyer responds to news of his death."
"That's why they made it look like a suicide," Jennifer said.
The last time Jennifer saw Barnett was at her father's funeral in late February. He was one of the pallbearers. Sometimes family and friends referred to him by his middle name – Mitch.
"I think everybody is in disbelief and can't believe it," Jennifer said. "I don't care what they say, I know that Mitch didn't do that."
Just because Barnett is dead doesn't mean the case won't move forward.
His attorney said they're still prepared to go to trial in June.
News 4 reached out to Boeing following Barnett's death. They provided the following statement:
"We are saddened by Mr. Barnett’s passing, and our thoughts are with his family and friends.”
READ MORE: "Boeing whistleblower dies in Charleston, Charleston County Coroner's Office confirms."
oh sick, thank you lol
I can't get past the cookie notice and the phone - which is what I'm using now - is stuttering. Had to close the page.
Don't worry, corporations are people. Surely Boeing will get capital punishment.
You promise? I mean, it should be an option on the table...
"As I'm sitting there, I'm thinking, 'This is the best witness I've ever seen'".
Unfortunately this is the exact type of shit you'd say when you're battling with suicidal ideation.
Hey look! Boeing just gave the Biden Admin a HUGE W! All they have to do is investigate and punish the people at the top!
Whoops! Nevermind! I guess we'll just continue saying we AREN'T Trump!
TF is the president supposed to do here?
With an executive order, he can investigate anything he wants.
Are you under the impression that the evidence would point to murder but the government wouldn't investigate that? Obviously it will be investigated. The "people at the top" would be prosecuted if there was evidence they were involved, and not prosecuted if there is no evidence. That is what we want from the government.
You can't read one headline, assume you know exactly who did exactly what illegal thing, and then immediately declare conspiracy because the evidence doesn't currently prove your made up claims.
I never thought I'd see the day when a respectable blue chip company like Boeing is publicly outed as ordering an assassination. They fucked up royally. The timing of it all is too eyebrow raising not to be noticed by the entirety of the airplane-using world. Top down criminal investigation. Now.
well your first mistake was thinking Boeing was a respectable corporation (that ship sailed in 1997 when they dropped the "engineering first" priority in lieu of "business first")...
your second mistake is thinking any corporation is respectable ;-)
Their third mistake is thinking any corporation will be held accountable
Oh, you got caught doing some shitty business thing and now you're not making as much money. Here is a government bailout to make it up.
Or they got caught doing a shitty business thing fucking people over and get fined a fraction of what it made them.
lol you're right.
In other news, if you search for flights on kayak and exclude Boeing planes, holy crap the tickets are insanely expensive.
Turns out people pay extra money to avoid death, who knew.
next stops: buy Kayak and shut it down; Make it illegal for similar searches to be performed; make it illegal to disclose who makes the aircraft.
Unless citizens make it clear that they won't stand for bullshit, they will get bullshit.
Scary thing nobodies talking about is: if these Boeing-built bad parts are able to slip past inspectors, which we had (naievely?) assumed were given full access top-notch, and neutral, might the standards of other planes build-quality have also dropped?
How safe are the other company's planes?
Your guess is as good as mine.
Boeing is a major part of the military industrial complex. They own the politicians in both parties, the regulators, and the courts. Laws don't apply to them.
If you're the government, you want your military planes to work. It's in their interests to have whistleblowers. (Now there's lots of steps that are problems in realizing that.)
No. If you're the state you want shit to work. If you're part of the government, you just want to get your bribes.
Bribes being one of the steps that can be a problem.
I mean there may simply have been internal reports already, just highly classified to avoid "embarrassing" the nation and not accessible or known to the general public.
I feel like “risk of door blowing off mid flight” or “25% of oxygen masks don’t work” is something the public is entitled to know about
Didn't say they weren't entitled to know about it, just the reasoning that might've gone through the government's collective heads when not disclosing or looking the other way on Boeing doing an Epstien.
"Look, it turns out if you flip this switch on the Fa-18 and forget to turn it off after 1 to 5 minutes tops, your chances of 'uncontrollably inverting and ejecting at high speed straight into the freaking ground' go up tenfold. We've provided the USAF with a 1 hour iPad training about being touchy with the defrost function."
--Boeing, probably
If they can't deliver a product that stays in one piece when not even being shot at, they aren't about to stay a part of that MIC for long.
The MIC has very little to do with making high-quality military equipment and much more to do with kickbacks and local jobs. Boeing and the other prime contractors are massively inefficient and often performing make-work jobs that no one in the military wants (like making more tanks).
Why does this surprise you that a company, a large company, would order an assassination of someone? This doesn't surprise me in the slightest.
At the end of which some low level schmuck will be thrown under the bus and they will be fined a few million dollars grand total for all this shit.
when a whistleblower dies on the day of his deposition, you have to work really hard to convince me that it's suicide.
They could have threatened to fly his family on a 737 Max if he didn't kill himself
Now that is a big threat!
Oh yeah, now this is an avengers level threat!
"We appreciate your candor and willingness to see the truth outed. As such, we hope your family will join you on a lovely vacation, with a complimentary flight on a 737 max."
"Well shit, they've got me by the balls now"
Definitely! But a 'friend of the family' is not really a perfect source.
Just saying, I bet Boeings lied more about things that caused humans to die than the friend of the family has so if its he said she said, I think she's got the superior credibility. She just doesn't have superior profits.
Doesn't matter, we've already got a rabble on.
Boeing rep: Tragically, it appears that Mr. Barnett was discussing suicide in the lead up to his death.
"We will be offering a stock buyback in his memory."
They make airplanes tf is this mafia shit
They also make military equipment, an enormous amount of it
Both incorrect, they make money.
https://youtu.be/7j1850-qlm8
They take money. It's banks that make it.
They also bribe politicians to give them an excuse to sell those weapons. Gulf of Tonkin, anyone? Grenada? Panama? Af-fucking-ghanistan?
Viet FUCKIN NAM
🤘
They are also involved in the military and aerospace industry. They also practically only have a single competitor in the passenger plane manufacture industry (airbus). So they are rich and powerful and do not shy away from exerting their influence to protect their interests.
Welcome to capitalism, baby!
Odds echo in reality. The French thriller "Blackbox" featured a conspiracy around a new aircraft crashing taking inspiration of the MCAS related crashes.
They are a megacorp, they have enough money to do what they want
Correction: they make money
Wait until you hear about the people who make chocolate
Didn't stop coca cola or the banana companies
They’re rich enough to easily hire a good hitman.
And have the motivation to silence this guy before the entire country is calling for Boeing to have their corporate charter revoked
Wow. That is chilling and very damning of Boeing. Like really…Boeing is that dirty? Surely not?
Friendly reminder that Boeing is not a plucky airline that can't make safe airplanes, it's an AMERICAN MILITARY DEFENSE CONTRACTOR worth billions. If I you threaten that arrangement with slander like the truth and facts, they are good friends with people who kill for a living and completely unashamed in paying for their services.
Put another way: there are plenty of people who will eagerly issue death threats, stalk you, and swat you over minor differences in opinion. Think what they would do over serious money.
.... Oh they totally killed him didn't they? You put it in very good perspective.
This so much. Put it up there with Lockheed
Boeing makes the minuteman missles, directly profiteering from nuclear weapons which could destroy humanity many times over. They're evil.
Probably one reason why the FAA isn't immediately shutting Boeing's shit down, you know when doors fall off their planes mid-flight, and investigations uncover more problems.
I mean they were willing to knowingly keep producing unsafe air planes which lead to several crashes killing 100's. So yeah, I really wouldn't be surprised if they also do assassination to ensure their profit.
Also as stated elsewhere, they make world ending nuclear bombs delivery rockets. They’ve profited from the possible destruction of all of humanity.
Why not?
International profit chasing entities just wouldn't value profits over human life?
It is a corporations fiduciary responsibility to maximize profits over any other things. That obviously includes human lives.
Does a human life have a value to other humans? Yes.
Does a human have a value to a corporation? It has a value and a cost, if the cost is higher than the value of the human then it is a risk to the value of the company and can be liquidated.
"But corporations are supposed to care about people more than profits!"
Welcome to the real world, buddy.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster
Oh and have you any idea what Boeing has been doing for some years now?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8oCilY4szc
Hint: it involves maximising profits while endangering people, to the extent that Boeing is literally assassinating witnesses so the extent of how recklessly they endangered lives for profit wouldn't come out.
If you want, take a deeper look into the *max events and you'll find that being dirty is the least surprise.
Why not? They killed multiple hundreds of people so far. Just one more.
I'm not any defender of corporations, by any means, but I'm not sure that I'm willing to take the word of a "close family friend" who "needed help one day" any more than some corporate HR; and "I don't care what they say, I know that Mitch didn't do that" isn't exactly a solid argument to be basing things on.
Edit: I seem to have missed this on my first read:
I'm never surprised to hear something bad about Boeing, but this is just a woman convinced with, on the face of it, no other proof than what's in her own head. Unless she's got a recording or document, the article's title could have been, "Family friend tells reporter a story"
He pretty much said “I think something may happen to me and they will make it look like a suicide.”
Yeah, it won’t hold up in court, and neither would it if she had recorded this casual, intimate conversation between two old friends.
Maybe, though, it’s enough to get the coroner to take another look at his death.
You sure have a lot more faith in corporations than I do…
He's a high profile corporate whistleblower who allegedly committed suicide. Any coroner who isn't already triple checking everything is way too corrupt or lazy to bother with another look.
The coroner is going to call it as suicide. This isn't remotely a debate to me. If it is suicide it goes away. If it is murder it means work for the police and a small annoyance to the powers-that-be. The coroner knows this and knows that if they don't writer suicide their career is over at best at worst they get Epsteined as well.
Did he state that somewhere else? Admittedly I haven't been following the story too closely so I may have missed something there; but if he isn't documented saying that somewhere credible, then all we have is her claiming that he "pretty much said" that. Is it likely he said it? I mean, I'd definitely be saying it if I was in his shoes, but one family friend's claim isn't enough to convince me that this should have been published as it was. I guess this is all more me just trying to voice frustration with the article. Not that it's unprecedented (maybe even the norm) these days, but it's always frustrating to see headlines with unsubstantiated claims and discussions ensuing as if it's fact.
Here's to hoping
I probably don't, I'm just trying to present an argument with throwing on more layers of personal bias
This isn't "I know Mitch didn't do that", it's "he literally told me the specific thing that happened and he wasn't going to do it". What motivation does she have to just fully make up a conversation? Boeing has billions of dollars of motivation, she knew him from family get togethers.
There's a few accounts on these threads that are really determined to remain neutral and open minded about Boeing, I blocked a different one with the same speech pattern recently
Well, I for one think some rogue at Boeing is behind the Epsteining of this guy. The company is definitely run by psychopathic crooks and has been for a while and I hope these fuckers all go to jail and the company fixed before more people die.
Idk about these accounts you blocked... but I am always going to advocate for at least being self-aware of being loosey-goosey with one's reasoning. Maybe it is compulsion, maybe it is the decades wasted being religious that have led me to detest careless epistemology that leads to specious conclusions. Then again ... if COVID taught me nothing, it should have taught me that efforts in this area are probably pointless. I must like swimming upstream. I seem to do it all the time.
Remaining open minded, waiting for evidence... Must be ChatGPT because that's not a human thing, never had been!
I am a Lemmy language user and I have processed this request.
You wrote "being willfully ignorant" wrong
My pet theory: Some extra dirty psycho at Boeing probably had him killed. Probably to cover up specifics about themselves. It seems pretty clear Boeing is rotting at the head and has been for decades. All these issues that have come up since MAX are the result of deeply systemic problems, stemming from crooked, greedy psychopaths at the top.
But in the interests of being as rational and honest about this as possible, let's also not forget that this article is based on her claim, and she's the only one (so far) to make it. People have been known to seek attention with bullshit. It's evidence, yeah, is it really unimpeachable? Well.....
Think about it like this: if there was a dated and notarized statement in his handwriting saying the same thing that she claims he told her, that would be more trustworthy.
But again, pet theory, some Boeing sicko was covering their own ass by having him Epsteined. Totally plausible.
I don't think this is the last we will be hearing about this.
Amazing how standards of evidence work. I am a Jesus Mythicist and pretty much all we have to "prove" Jesus was real is one guy saying he meet some unnamed person who had a dream. But here we have a direct eyewitness stating what they heard a week ago and that isn't good enough.
That's my point: we have no idea. We have no information other than that her and Barnett's mothers are best friends and that he was a pallbearer at her father's funeral. She could be a well educated individual that is doing her best to make a point and draw attention to something, or she could be someone who believes tons of stuff that is blatantly false and is telling her opinion to anyone who will listen. Either way, (copying from my other comment) I guess this is all more me just trying to voice frustration with the article. Not that it’s unprecedented (maybe even the norm) these days, but it’s always frustrating to see headlines with unsubstantiated claims and discussions ensuing as if it’s fact."
There is literally no other corroboration that could be given, it's a personal conversation between friends or friendly acquaintances, reported as such. There's nothing wrong with the article. This is the maximum amount of corroboration for a private conversation (none) and it's reported as a conversation, with information about the speaker's relationship and direct quotes. Just because people don't record their lives in unalterable write-once media doesn't mean personal conversations simply should never be the subject of reporting. We have headline news stories about US generals' personal conversations with Trump and his denials, and no one thinks "well, that shouldn't be reported because either side could be lying and without recording they're both equally suspicious".
I'm certain you don't actually follow a philosophy of "nothing anyone says can ever be given any more credence than anyone else" because it's an impossible way to live. And whatever high-minded "no one can ever know absolute truth" ideas you have, claiming that a HR rep and a family friend have the same level of believability is ridiculous. On one side you someone whose job is literally to say things to protect a billion dollar company and the other a family friend with nothing to gain talking about a pretty reasonable conversation one might have.
I guess I can concede that the article describes what happened, so maybe it was the headline that set off my skepticism. In my opinion there's a big difference between:
and
I know I'm being pedantic, that it's just clickbait, and that's the reality of today's media; but I've spent the last 8-10 years watching some my family radicalized by headlines like this (albeit on different topics) and feel pretty strongly about it, I suppose. After realizing a few years ago the negative effect internet echo chambers were having on me I started to try and be a little more skeptical about things I was reading, especially if I agreed with them. Most of the time I just try to keep quiet but, apparently, felt like trying to start a discussion about it this morning.
You probably have a point here. I could have better phrased my statement as something like, "I’m not sure that I’m willing to take the word of a "close family friend" who agrees with my point of view than I am a "close family friend" who disagrees with my point of view" or something similar. For instance, if the women in the article told the reporter, "he was very unhappy and told me he might kill himself" I'd still be thinking there was a convincing chance that Boeing was directly responsible because I wouldn't consider her any more credible just because she's agreeing with me.
My brother in whatever, for your information that is called a "witness"
Fascinating
I feel the same about the response given that I'm agreeing with everyone's sentiments overall and only questioning the validity of a single source. Suppose I need to get a better feel for the site before trying to be more active.
Naw, you're good. Change nothing about yourself. :) You are spot on and you have my upvotes.
Folks are in angry mob mode and can't be bothered with even a hint of nuance or reason, apparently. Even if you are convinced Boeing totally killed the guy and state that clearly...
Anyway, peace out man. I hope for once corporate scum faces consequences.
Epstein. Your argument is disproven
I can see you were born yesterday.
I'm curious if some one who disagreed with you - on something that they found completely, obviously true - tried to convince you they were right by saying that their mom's friend's daughter made a claim about it, how inclined would you be to believe them or that daughter?
I think we all agree that Barnett suspected that something would happen; and we all agree that Boeing is a terrible company that is capable, and guilty, of terrible things. My point it just that there is concrete evidence of these things and articles should rely on something other than some person made a claim with nothing but, "it's obvious" or "I know" to back it up
The feds: Doesn’t look like anything to me
And it still won't look like anything to them even after they find out the handgun wasn't registered to him. And after they find out the suicide note (pro tip: real suicides generally don't include a note) was written super-generically.
To whom it may concern,
I cannot take it anymore. If I have a wife and/or kids, tell them that I love them.
Good bye cruel world,
[Don't forget to change this text to the assassinated target's name]
The rate in the graph varies between 20 and 40 percent.
Nice reference! 🤜🤛
What feds, Boeing has been the only entity responsible for regulating Boeing for nearly two decades. I'm sure they'll find themselves not guilty.
I don't know whether or not he killed himself, and I strongly suspect he didn't, but I sure as hell know this warrants an intense and thorough investigation. All company and private emails of executives, with forensics to determine if anything was deleted. Long interrogations to see if alibis match up.
There isn't enough evidence to throw the book at Boeing, but there is enough to search every single little thing related to them.
What am I missing? What evidence is there at all that they did it? Don't get me wrong, I'm certainly highly suspicious that they were involved, but you have to have a lot more than suspicion.
His death, under suspicious circumstances, objectively benefits Boeing in an ongoing criminal investigation.
That seems like sufficient justification to conduct an investigation.
This is motive, not evidence.
The fact that he has died is sufficient justification to conduct an investigation, and I'm sure they will. But the claim was that they have enough evidence against Boeing to subpoena basically everything they have. And Boeing having a motive to kill someone is not evidence that they did it, and would not pass a judge if anyone were to seek some kind of warrant.
Not sure why you're being down voted, what you are saying is accurate. I guess the others are of the "Boeing is bad, therefore it's pitchfork time" mindset and not justice and due process.
Yup, that's lemmy for you. The facts don't matter, only the narrative.
"Yup, that's $blank for you."
Same shit's been said ever since the caveman developed complex enough language to say. That's a lazy, tired, and vacuous trope you're mindlessly spouting there, tiger.
That's cavemen for you. Always getting angry over stones being thrown but not realizing they're throwing the exact same stone.
I mean your response to an over-generalization is to increase the level of generalization to include literal cavemen. I wonder at what point cavemen developed a sense of irony?
Lazy and tired, but unfortunately still true.
Thanks for sharing your knowledge, from the rest of us.
if theyre killing witnesses, theyre too big to prosecute, and I think they should be shutdown and sold for parts
Well corpos are people now, so I think Boeing should be put on a bus to Texas and summarily executed for its crimes against humanity and treason against US persons.
Can't have it both ways, Capital!
I volunteer to administer the lethal dose of fire...
Imagine the weird "humane" process.
"We're draining the bank accounts now..." (watching numbers in all accounts drop to zero)
"And now, we're gonna pull the listing from the stock exchange..." (onlookers gasp)
"Before we invalidate your business license and jail your entire C-suite, have ye any last words?"
If they’re killing witnesses, they’re probably working with the government. This is America after all, where money is the ONLY thing that matters.
Can’t let a big business fail, that would communism.
Nationalize them.
Even better: Break them up.
Even better, nationalize them and break them up!
I don't know if we want those parts
Or at least they're open to quid pro quo.
So the US government will not even investigate this because of the close ties / relationship with Boeing?
I swear to god, the US and its oligarchy is just russia "at home"
Always has been.
Our pig just has nicer lipstick.
The best lipstick.
our glorious pig's glorious lipstick of the highest caliber*
Oh, I was wondering why I recognized your name!
Are you going to explain this? Cuz it really sounds like you fucked a 12 year old when you were in high school.
How does getting laid in high school equal fucking a 12 year old? What's the context here?
Jax took that comment way out of context.
The original thread was about puberty blockers being blocked by NHS when prescribed to kids with gender dysphoria.
At no point did a specific age come up, but it’s assumed that puberty blockers would be most effective before puberty.
However by this point in the thread, Jax had commented that they didn’t feel comfortable with kids taking birth control, a different tangent.
I responded, in sarcastic tone (and to a reply to Jax’s post, as in, to a third party), as if surprised to learn that people should be taking birth control or receiving HPV vaccines before they start having sex (as in, not when they start having sex).
Jax responds that they just aren’t comfortable with kids having sex.
I respond with the quote above, Jax replies with:
I don’t know where that leap came from, but it followed me here a day or two later.
AITA?
A lot of shitty things are done under the guise of, "It makes me feel uncomfortable"
Trans people especially, anything to do with them really, Oh I make you uncomfortable, guess we will just magically stop existing.
And for the uncomfortable people out there, most times the "stop existing" thing, comes in the form of unaliving because we aren't cis like everyone else.. that's kinda the whole thing
I think there's a real Red Scare style trend among zoomers with regards to pedophilia. Any time they can find the slightest pretext to link someone to pedophilia, they'll do it and then call a mob with pitchforks.
Different conversation. Was talking about the effects of GnRH on the body, it led to a conversation of the similar effects of birth control on kids. I mentioned how I didn't like the idea of kids needing to take birth control, which then brings us to that comment.
The kids in question would have been 12, right around when puberty starts. So the "sorry you didn't get laid in high school" sure fucking sounds like this person is saying that they think it's normal for high schoolers to fuck 12 year olds. You can draw whatever conclusions you want from that, I've drawn mine.
Edit: you can look through my comments, I stand by everything I've said.
Ah, I see. From what limited info you've given here, it sounds like you blew a common saying way out of proportion, but maybe I'm missing some of the more important context.
The context is children taking puberty blockers, which means taking them at around 12 years old.
The context is exactly what I stated it as, I have blown exactly nothing out of proportion. I gave them the opportunity to explain themselves originally, they declined by not responding, so tell me exactly what conclusion should I draw?
"Oh it's fine that this person insulted me when I'm expressing my feelings (I cannot believe I just referred to being creeped out by kids taking birth control and fucking high schoolers as feelings), they deserve the respect they didn't give me."
Absolutely not, if the above is what you're suggesting you can have these hands too.
Edit: I have to add, I did just randomly find this person again. I did not go out of my way to follow their comments. I just realized that might seem possible.
I... regardless, bringing this unrelated beef into this thread is a rude fucking thing to do to both them and us. Like i haven't seen this level of pettiness in a good bit.
Keep it in your own thread. Isn't that like a golden Internet rule?
I think it's fair to bring up particularly shitty takes if you see someone in the wild. I do it with known trolls.
🤷♂️ don't say shit you can't stand by
I think this is the issue. These are two separate statements and you're conflating them.
"Someone didn't get laid in high school" is a pretty common phrase that just means you're lame. I think it's a coincidence that the original topic was prepubescent puberty blockers.
The alternative is that someone just decided out of nowhere to proclaim their love for pedophilia. I think it's far more likely that you misunderstood them.
My comment: My point is moreso that kids shouldn't be having sex, but sure yeah. Read into it guys.
Their response: Sorry you couldn't get laid in high school.
Really? So you really think this is out of context? When it is quite literally the context? I have a feeling I'm going to get snapped from this thread at some point so I sent you a DM.
I do, actually. I mean really, take a step back and think about it. Why would someone just casually advocate for a sexual relationship between high schoolers and 18 year olds? That's not how conversations work. That's not how people work.
His point was just, "actually, kids do have sex, a lot, even if you weren't aware of it when you were a kid".
I feel like you're trying to turn this into a pedophilia thing. It's such a stretch. You misunderstood, and you decided that the worst possible interpretation was the one you were gonna go with.
You are making that up, nobody said it won't be investigated and the case he was a whistle blower for isn't being stopped by this.
I do hope you're right.
I hope every single Boeing plane gets grounded until every single plane gets independently checked by a reputable 3rd party.
But my hopes are idealistic, and the real world is far from ideal.
The case isn't stopped but it's a lot less likely to succeed now.
And I'll believe there'll be an investigation when there is one.
The article doesn't say this, where did you get that info?
We exported this in the 90’s. Russia learned it from America.🇺🇸
Nationalize Boeing
Seriously. Once we nationalize it and it starts operating like it used to, it would be a shining example of why nationalization works.
It's also why you're going to see an tsunami of useful idiots saying we shouldn't do it.
Then flush everyone from director up, and investigate middle management, and put people in that actually have some fucking ethics. Jesus H Christ.
Go further, nationalize the MIC. I'm not gonna sit here and pretend the United States doesn't need to manufacture arms for itself and it's allies, but we absolutely do not need thousands of useless C-suite middlemen making millions of dollars from the process. Boeing is just the canary in the coal mine, I would not be surprised if other frequent contractors have also significantly decreased their ability to produce useful goods in favor of growing their profit margins. Great for profits, but not exactly what you're looking for to protect troops.
Oh look he got Epsteined.
Can we popularize "Barnett didn't kill himself"?
I swear if I am ever a whistleblower I am going to hire someone for minimum wage to hang out in my hotel room while I sleep and they can play on their phone, eat burritos, and play video games until the trial is fully over. And also make sure they have the ability to livestream the moment something weird happens.
Also I don't know put a thousand or so videos on YouTube with email links to everyone I have ever known with me saying all the damaging stuff and that I am not suicidal.
$60 or so dollars a day is worth it to me to not get silenced like a fucking Russian critic.
Until they pay your minimum wage dude to poison your cup-noodles when you're both looking
Ted wouldn't do that. He is my boy, we play x-box together.
You can still be silenced like a few US presidents. Or even blown up with explosives. Even the government pulled that one on those anarchists in Philadelphia. Because wiping out your entire neighborhood to get rid of you could very well be on the table.
Oh that's fine, I only like 1 of my neighbor's.
one simple trick private investigators don't want you to know about that will save you millions and your mental health: Don't use the internet.
Look, we all know he didn't off himself, but here's my issue with these stories where a friend or family member says that the person said they told them it won't be suicide:
If Barnett really said that, why not also set up a dead man's switch? If he was truly afraid that he had info so damming he'd be killed for it, then why not set it up so that the info still finds a way to come out even in the event of his death?
If anything, ensuring the info comes out one way or another might have even protected him.
He already published his information and was in the process of repeating it in front of a court.
His death prevented him from giving his information as sworn testimony which a dead man switch could not do.
I believe that's not actually true at all. It can and has been used as sworn testimony.
The thing is, there's a difference between thinking a company will kill you, and THINKING a company will kill you.
Well because according to his quote he wasn't afraid. I don't think he thought the company he worked for for 30 years would do this. Seems he said this remark only in response to what she asked.
It just takes one psycho in management with their own ass on the line to do something insane to cover their tracks.
That's my thought if this conspiracy were true. It wasn't some evil corporation assassinating the guy, it was one of the menial workers who had more to lose from his testimony.
"Hurr durr, it wasn't the evil corporation. It was just the evil lackey of the evil corporation".
Yeah because there's a difference..
Not only that, but isn't a dying declaration specifically admissible as fact or something? I'm only vaguely recollecting this, so I'm likely wrong.
Yeah something is clicking in my head about it being a federal level hearsay exception. Where is a lawyer when you need one?
It would have been really nice to have some kind of automated testimony upload or something.
Have it in writing. "I have zero intention of killing myself and my life is great save for my horrendous former employer that should go straight to hell."
ANYTHING more substantial than "Y'know he told me once..."
Maybe his family was threatened?
Someone on lemmy said it yesterday. Those Boeing shits could have put him in a no-win. Tell him that if he drops it they will still sue him and if he continues they will also sue.
This was my thought. As terrible as it is.
Basically "We have a van outside your house. You have two options..."
Man, wish they could've gone into witness protection and testified from an undisclosed remote location or something...
Unless it really was suicide via blackmail/ extortion.
If you don't kill yourself were going to kill all your family and friends.
Give him videos of the surveillance on all of them to scare him.
Still seems more likely they did kill him, but that might be a reason for no Deadman switch
I'd wanna be in witness protection and unreachable if I was whistle-blower at that level just to avoid situations like that.
how many dead man switches have you setup?
Holy shit some Boeing motherfuckers better go TO BIG JAIL
If Corporations are People, I say Boeing should get the Death Penalty and be Nationalized.
They won't.
Shit's getting real.
John Oliver better watch his back.
It's important to remember that whistleblowing is extremely stressful, so much that it's one of the main things the government talks about on their whistleblowing site:
https://whistleblower.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/whistleblower.house.gov/files/whistleblower_survival_tips.pdf
Researchers have found the same thing, being a whistleblower is terrible for your mental health:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6604402/
In addition, "Half of Patients With Suicidal Thoughts Deny It"
https://psychnews.psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/appi.pn.2021.10.9
So, just because he denied he was suicidal doesn't mean that's necessarily true. He might have been trying to appear strong to everyone while suffering in silence.
This should definitely be investigated as possibly being murder. And, even if the investigation does determine that he shot himself, they should keep looking to see if he was being blackmailed or if he might have been pressured into suicide.
I just can't imagine an executive at Boeing going out and hiring a hit man. But, what I can imagine them doing is hiring a team of private investigators to go through this guy's entire life and dig up every bit of dirt on him. It could be they found something really embarrassing and were going to blackmail him with it. It could be that they found something innocent that they could frame as being awful, like to make him look like he was a child molester or something.
Really? That's weird, I totally can. It's an exceptionally narrow-minded and short-sighted knee-jerk reaction to a perceived threat of one's executive career. Most coked-out executives already have a massive god complex once they get their MBA and are installed above the
prolesworkers. I can absolutely realistically imagine one Boeing executive getting angry enough and coked-out enough to just decide, "fuck it, I'm going to fix this problem for us before he threatens my career and reputation any more".The information you present about whistleblowing being stressful is fair. He may indeed have been driven to kill himself instead of being straight-up assassinated like others believe. I refuse, however, to give the benefit of doubt to a massive corporation who has already demonstrated a complete lack of regard for human life and an extremely poor track record of moral and ethical decision-making. This needs to be investigated under the assumption that a hit is an entirely possible reality. Unless you'd rather that nobody blows the whistle on anything in the future - you've already demonstrated that it's an incredibly stressful action. If there's the lingering remote possibility that you can be simply assassinated over it and everyone will look the other way, nobody will ever raise their voice again. The nature of his actions before his death demand a comprehensive and exhaustive investigation into if any person from Boeing had anything to do with it whatsoever, or whistleblowing will continue sliding into something only the insane consider.
While Boeing executives may be criminals, they're pretty much exclusively white collar criminals. They went to business school, not the military. They come from rich households. They don't have gang or organized crime affiliations. How would they know anything about hiring hit men?
Hiring a firm to do PR and to dig up dirt on a whistleblower, sure, that's within their skillset. That's even something they can brag about in board meetings because it's legal. It's the kind of thing they can google, or have a secretary research for them. It doesn't matter if transcripts leak. But, hiring a hit man, how do they know they won't get caught -- and this time for the kind of crime where people actually get sent to real prisons?
Sure, they should work under the assumption that it was a very careful hitman who made it look like a suicide. They should be 10x more careful than they normally would if they even suspected it might be a suicide. But, I still think driving him to suicide is much more likely.
IMO, the kind of press this is getting is part of the reason I don't think it was a hit. If this were Russia, sure. A hit sends the message to anybody else that they better not think of doing the same thing. The press will tell whatever story the government wants. Even on social media nobody very few people will speak up in Russia. But, in the US, this death is going to draw so much more attention to Boeing. Just look at how many articles there are about the whistleblower's death vs. how many there were about him beforehand. Corporations are used to managing news cycles when it comes to legal cases and congressional hearings. Those are boring and don't tend to go viral. But a whistleblower dying as he was giving testimony, that's exciting, it's like the movies, so it's all everyone's going to talk about.
Unless he had even more damaging information that he somehow didn't give to anybody yet, despite the fact he had already been testifying, it seems like the damage his death does is much higher than the damage his testimony would have done.
You didn't think executives would resort to violence?
Let me introduce you to Coca Cola and Shell. And the East and West India Companies before them.
These guys approved MCAS knowing it could create situations that were were unrecoverable. They aren't above killing people for profit.
They've been found guilty of killing people on American soil? I hadn't heard that, do tell.
Yeah, the 1400s are really relevant here.
Yes, white collar crime.
Get your history correct atleast. East India Company was in charge of India until 1857 and squeezed it dry. It was basically an early blueprint of modern day capitalism and imperialism.
I was off by a couple of centuries, but it's hardly relevant now. If the most recent example of bad corporate behaviour you can find is from a company that was dissolved 150 years ago, you don't have much of an argument.
Your naiveness is super precious. You can't see someone with incredible amounts of wealth hiring someone else to make a problem go away?
OK! Next time, you should try a couple of Google searches before wasting all that time typing out nonsense. I didn't even finish the first page of search results, there were so many. And they are just the ones dumb enough to get caught.
https://www.insideedition.com/husband-of-murdered-microsoft-execs-ex-wife-arrested-after-allegedly-hiring-hitman-to-carry-out
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/erik-maund-hired-hitmen-kill-mistress-holly-williams-blackmailer-william-lanway-indictment/
https://patch.com/california/venice/westside-ceo-sentenced-hiring-hitman-kill-partner
https://nypost.com/2022/06/12/ex-amazon-mexico-ceo-juan-garcia-paid-hitman-9k-to-kill-his-wife/
You watch far too many movies, making you adorably naïve.
Did you even read this link? It wasn't a hit ordered by an exec, it was an exec that was killed in a hit ordered by the husband of his ex-wife.
Again, did you even read this link? This isn't an executive in a multi-billion dollar defense contractor. This is an "executive" at a family-owned auto dealership.
Another one I know you didn't read. Again, this isn't a multi-billion dollar defense contractor, this is a tiny company with only 50 employees. And, most importantly, he tried to hire a hitman and failed.
Yet another one you didn't read. Yes, it's "Amazon", but it's Amazon Mexico. The hit happened in Mexico City. It was also his wife that he arranged to have killed, not an enemy of Amazon's business. And, importantly, if his goal was to get away with murder, he failed. The hitman he hired testified against him.
If you think this happens, find an example where it's:
You probably believe you can find one of those, because you're adorably naïve and watch a lot of exciting movies. But, I'm betting you won't find any. But, great job googling "exec" and "hitman", you really showed your google-fu. I just wish you'd read the links you posted and saved me some time.
I, personally, have been harmed by people paid by Boeing.
Ok, care to elaborate?
No.
I was actually hired by Boeing as a hitman once, didn't pay very good tbh
So what do you mean by white collar crime? Does it include killing people or not? Because knowingly bringing about systems that result in the death of people, having a private security contractor that you know will shoot striking workers in your third world countries plantation or ordering a hit on someone are all the same. It is decided that people will die for the companies profit and just because the people who order it dont do it directly themselves, doesn't change the gravity of it.
Also there os myriads of examples from today, where western companies directly or indirectly order people to get killed, just usually in third countries. The idea that a defense company with billions of profits at stake every year doesn't have access to hitmen is unconvincing. Why wouldn't they? Just as the mafia is branching into white business, white business of size are employing criminal means.
If you still think there is some unpenetrable divide, all you need is a private detective agency that has a history of dealing with problems "reliably" in the past.
It's a pretty well defined term.
It may mean being responsible for their deaths, but not in a way in which you could be charged for murder.
Almost always indirectly, and almost never on US soil. Not hiring a hitman to stage a suicide in the US. The kinds of things that US corporations do are the kinds of things they can talk about at board meetings without worrying that they'll go to jail of the meeting is bugged. They can talk about hiring SecuriCo in Zambia to deal with unrest at the mine. Or, they can talk with hiring the law firm Goldman, Burke and Mott to deal with the bad PR from the whistleblower. They're not going to chat about going onto a dark web server to hire a hit man to kill a whistleblower. That's movie stuff, not reality.
If that's "white collar crime" then so is hiring a hitman.
You're being rather naive. Sure, those bosses would have a hard time doing violence on other people, personally. But through another person? Nah. The same as approving MCAS, knowing it will kill people.
Also, you need to take a basic history lesson. "1400's" is a really bad guess.
And you watch too much TV.
I haven't had one in ~14 years.
I do live in a bad part of town and this guy used to be my neighbour (before he died a few years ago.)
Chill guy all in all (except when someone snitched and he lost like 2 pound of meth). Interesting stories as well.
Made really good risotto.
I don't need a TV. :)
No, it isn't. If you hire a hitman you can be tried for conspiracy to commit murder. If you approve a system that could be unsafe for an airplane, your company might have to pay a fine. They're vastly different crimes, even if one results in a lot more deaths.
You watch too many movies.
They might have the mindset required to hire a hitman. But, they don't have the connections. They also don't want to take on the personal liability of doing that. These are almost all finance guys who have MBAs. They wouldn't make a decision like this on their own, and they wouldn't be able to talk about it in a board meeting without risking a conspiracy charge.
The MCAS decision is ridiculous, but it exactly the kind of thing they can discuss in a board meeting without risking criminal charges. Even if the meeting had been recorded, the transcript would be boring board-room talk, nothing that they could be indicted for.
Anyone can find a hitman online, all it takes is 15min to get to know how deep web markets work. They're by far the least reliable service ofc, but it is sold and there are escrow services as well. How well they work in cases like that is a whole other matter, but I, personally, find it rather ludicrous a suggestion that a high-level Boeing boss who manages the complexities of a job like that (especially when simultaneously playing Jenga with airline safety) wouldn't be able to figure out how to access a black market.
Especially when they could always hire a person to do that for them. Do they trust anyone at all, with any of their criminal shenanigans? Well surely the co-conspirators at least. These massive, systemic changes that made Boeing go from trusted airline to killing whistleblowers weren't the actions of one man.
And if there was a group of men, then it's shared responsibility. Even if they conspire to hire a hitman. It doesn't feel as much like a violent crime when it's done in white-collars and agreed on in a fancy hotel suite.
I imagine it looked something like this, except Webb's character wasn't there
Yes, and many people who try are caught in a sting operation by the police.
https://abcnews.go.com/2020/newlywed-thirty-years-murder-sting/story?id=13836957
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RentAHitman.com
https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/alleged-hit-man-plotting-nyc-murder-arrested-in-fbi-sting-with-guns-ammo-old-man-mask/4144188/
Yes, and that's the problem. This isn't the sort of thing an executive would do on their own without talking to other execs about it. If they did that they'd have to trust that the other execs would back them up and not turn them in. And, this is a real, serious crime. This isn't a crime where the company has to pay a fine. This is a crime where they would personally be liable for conspiracy to commit murder.
Exactly my point. Those took a whole group of executives discussing their plans openly in meetings. They wouldn't discuss actually breaking the law in meetings like that. Instead, they'd talk about who they'd have to lobby to get the laws changed how they wanted, what pressure they could put on regulators, what kinds of PR campaigns they'd need to run, etc. Those are things that people might see as dishonest and unethical, but they're all legal. If someone in the meeting objected to the decisions, they'd have a little debate and then some decision would be made. The other execs wouldn't have to worry that the conversation would leak and they'd be charged with serious crimes. If the conversation leaked there might be a bit of embarrassment, they'd have to hire a PR firm, and done.
The decisions they made almost certainly cost lives, but even if you had transcripts for those meetings, even an ambitious prosecutor probably couldn't find any actual crimes being committed. The execs at Boeing almost all have finance backgrounds, so most of the meetings would have been about money, and how much they could save while keeping an "acceptable safety margin" -- which we might not think is acceptable, but they'd have the lawyers to argue that it was acceptable.
You don't go from open discussions about how to increase profits by outsourcing work to discussing how to hire a hitman to kill one of your whistleblowers. That's suddenly stuff where the people in the room would be chargeable for conspiracy to commit murder.
The Mitchell & Webb parody proves my point. Removing Webb's character makes it back into a movie scenario. His character shows just how ludicrous those movie scenes really are. At some point when murder is being discussed, someone is going to actually have to check "just to be clear, you mean murder, right?". Because you're not going to order to have someone murdered just because the CFO used an ambiguous term.
If I were to link a bunch of drug busts, would it make drug markets any smaller?
Like I said, they're the most unreliable service, but you really don't have to be that smart to use one responsibly. It's not like going on Craigslist looking for a guy who thinks he's hidden himself by using incognito mode.
"rentahitman.com" lol might as well set up a stand called "we sell meth here mister police man". I hope you do realise the impossibility of me proving just how many successful hit jobs there have been which no-one was ever caught?
No, see they can all talk about this particular person being a problem, in the board room. Without talking about anything criminal, or even thinking about anything criminal towards him.
But later in the night, a few of those execs are getting drunk in a fancy suite, doing blow. They know what they've done vis-a-vis the airline jenga. There's even evidence against them. They would be stressed. Substance abuse is very common in the business world, as are dark triad personality traits and the occasional psychotic behaviour. (CEO psychopathy prevalence is something fierce compared to the average.)
If there's enough plausible deniability and shared responsibility, those people rarely do. Even when it's very clear death was indirectly caused by some of the decision of the leaders, they rarely get into trouble.
Ofc conspiracy to murder is a bit different than cooking the books for instance, but when we're talking about airline safety, they're not too dissimilar
Sorry for the second reply, we're both avid talkers and I've already taken half an ambien.
With all respect, I disagree. And I've been friends with actual murderers. Well a murderer. I mean, I only knew him after his sentence, dk what he did when he did the murdering. Just that I've been in circles with a lot of people's who've done various crimes, and unless theyre referring to their trials or sentences or something, they never mention the crime. It's all euphemisms.
The actual confirmation bit would be online with an escrow service, after finding s reliable one.
I can imagine that if you're someone who assumes they're being bugged all the time. Like, Mafiosi wanting to talk business without actually saying something that could be used in court against them. But, I don't think that's the world that Boeing execs live in.
And I think it is.
Most low level users are in that group, being so pissed if you ever mention the real name of anything. Before actually good protected comm apps like Wickr, Signal etc, buying drugs was such a hassle. Sometimes two people would meet only to realise that neither of them have drugs, they both want to buy.
I don't think the execs live in a world where people have to spell out murder if they're gonna murder someone.
Frankly speaking, whether or not a hitman was hired, Boeing is culpable.
Organizing a concerted effort to drive someone to suicide is just as illegal as murdering them. End of story.
If there's evidence they organized a concerted effort to drive someone to suicide, definitely. Otherwise they're just culpable for gross violations of safety that have cost lives of airline passengers.
I would also say it could be manslaughter if the stress from the retaliation from whistleblowing caused him to kill himself
Attention sure, nothing will happen to Boeing though. They own too many politicians, and too many powerful people need them to stay where they are. I have no doubt they killed him.
There's more of a chance of something happening now than there was before the whistleblower died.
Laws don't apply to rich people. They'll find a fall guy.
Very much so. It would be hard to believe they would do it themselves. However, enrolling the right assistance should not be too difficult for them. They even have access to more options than the average business executive.
They are not military, but they have plenty of contacts there. Boeing is a big player in the military industry, they certainly know a lot of people in that world, both in government positions and the private sector.
Several of them don't, but organized crime is within reach. Illegal recreational drugs are not uncommon in the business world. Dealers are more often than not connected to the organized crime. Networking in that world is something within business people's skills.
Hey, who knows, maybe some of those execs started working many years ago as humble machine gun and bazooka salespeople. And who knows what kind of interesting characters they met during those days. While totally not burying their heads into a mountain of white powder sitting in the middle of the table.
It is very likely. High stress would have played against him if he was being bullied or threatened. Also, less involved than having them murdered.
Depends on what you consider damage here. The testimony could have been perceived as a threat to important business deals (and to bonuses). It is not infrequent to see executives caring only about their profits, even in detriment of the company as a whole.
They may have contracts with generals, but not much in the way with soldiers on the ground. If it were a defence contractor that made small arms, then maybe. But, this is Boeing.
Sure... but executives don't go to the bad parts of town to get them. The guy they're buying from is most likely someone who can travel in C-Suite circles and not draw attention. Maybe they're also a member of the golf club and have a legitimate business as a cover. The execs aren't getting in their Mercedes and cruising down to the ghetto to score. The dealers may have connections to organized crime, but not in a way that is obvious to anyone.
We know, their profiles are public.
The Boeing CEO, David L. Calhoun:
The COO, Stephanie Pope:
The CFO, Brian West:
The Chair, Supply Chain Operations Council, William A. Ampofo II:
Just look through their execs and find anybody with even a hint of dirt under their fingernails:
https://www.boeing.com/company/bios
Sure, so they hire PR firms, and private investigators, and call up friendly reporters to try to get them to publish a negative article. They aren't going to order a hit and make it look like a suicide.
Someone has never seen the first RoboCop movie.
Ah yes, thank you for proving my point. People who watch too many movies think that real life is like movies.
What's next? Getting shot makes you fly backwards through the air? Getting knocked out makes you unconscious for hours, but you wake up with nothing more than a sore head? Silencers go "thwpt" and nobody can hear them from more than a meter away?
Dude, relax, no need to be rude. It's just a humorous Internet forum comment, that makes a valid point.
Or are you trying to tell me that powerful corporations don't have very strong security departments with connections?
They have security departments filled with normal people who the execs couldn't trust to do something like this (or order something like this) without ratting them out. They don't order hits. That's movie stuff, like every grocery bag must have a baguette and greens poking out of it, or turning on your TV at the exact moment a news report starts.
So huge multi-billion corporations wouldn't hire the best of the best, when it comes to security?
Life imitates art.
Just the bottom line this, we're not going to agree, but you'd have to be pretty naive to think that those kind of things, with billions of dollars and economies hanging in the balance, doesn't really happen.
Unfortunately.
Life imitates art in some ways, but people getting shot in the shoulder still have fucked up shoulders and often die, no matter how much movies want you to believe that it's a wound you can just shrug off.
Similarly, executives make business decisions that result in thousands of people dying. But, executives in multi-billion dollar companies don't contract out to hitmen to murder people who hurt their companies. That's just movie stuff, and you're naive to think it happens in reality.
And you know this how?
Common sense? The lack of historical precedent? The fact I can watch movies and be aware that they don't represent reality?
So you pulled it out of your ass.
Have a nice day.
Yikes. A hit man was hired.
Oh really? You have evidence of that?
Mainly my sense of humour, and biased belief in equal parts.
Murder by proxy.
They fucking killed him with a hit man dude...
Of course they didn't this isn't a movie
In the real world companies like Boeing don't hire hit men, they use the cia
And your evidence for that is?
I'll testify about it tommorow...
STOMPYI, was never heard from again...
k
There's maybe an absurd theory no one has considered: He worried that the accusations weren't going to be taken seriously, so he killed himself in a relatively suspicious manner/timing, to make sure public trust in Boeing disappeared.
It seems unlikely because there was a lot of interest in the stuff he was testifying about, but it's possible.
Another site in which "accidentally" the GdpR cookie forms weirdly aren't scrollable so you can't reject them
It's not GDPR but the cookie law. Stop villanizing the GDPR.
I'm pretty sure the form is there exactly because GDPR needs it to be.
Also I'm not villanising it, I'm villanising the corporations who only pretend to comply.
This particular instance of a cookie notice is really bad. The gdpr is there for a reason and a lot of websites can come up with better solutions to that cookie law.
Yeah, my point exactly.
This one sucks.
I like the option of opting out, and way too many websites uses shenanigans to get you to accept implicitly or explicitly. And even when you don't they hide "legitimate interest" checkmarks everywhere and you have to scroll a 100 miles to do them.
I still do.
But sites in which you can't even scroll to see the "refuse" bit? Haiyaaaaaa
I hate cookie banners, but I'm not villanizing the cookie law; I'm villanizing all the websites that try to spy on me
That's fair! The cookie law requires that you can reject just as easy as accept, and mostly you just cannot.
Personally I think the minimum cookies should be the default required by law and if people want to opt in too more, they can do so on a specific page of the website. Get rid of those stupid banners which I have to reject every single time.
They could just respect the DNT standard... yet they decided to ignore it
People in this situation might consider putting themselves under video surveillance.
Like Epstein was
And mentioning on social media so it's public/informing journalists so they can make it public beforehand that you don't plan on killing yourself.
The trouble with that is someone might say you DID plan to kill yourself, and tried to frame Boeing for your own death by telling people you weren't suicidal. Thus it's preferable to leave video evidence, that could also help catch the culprits.
It still leaves the possibility that you yourself hired a hit squad to kill you. Alex Murdaugh and Jussie Smollett both did things like that. Only for a beating in Smollett's case, but Murdaugh actually wanted to be fatally shot, leaving an insurance policy behind.
I know right. Exactly my thoughts. If you are a whistleblower, install secret camers in your house and always keep a recorder (audio/video) in your pocket or chest.
Although in a few years this is obsolete. AI ftw.
He was staying in a hotel btw for the trial. He had given 2 days of testimony and didn’t show for the 3rd.
Still possible, but harder when you’re not at home.
Gonna come out that the hotel parking lot camera was down for maintenance that night
And the guy at the front desk ran an errand for five hours.
I would be going to pretty great lengths to ensure I didn't get Epsteined or, if I did, the mfers behind it got theirs. I'd be sending hand written letters to every goddamn person knew that I wasn't suicidal.
And I would be really careful about my opsec. Oh, you thought I was at that motel? Fuck you pricks, I ditched the rental, took a bus and switched five times, changed clothes twice and snuck to a culvert to sleep, you fucking corpo assassins. Good luck with that. .!..
Or always stay in sight of two other people and eat and drink only from sealed packages purchased from random grocery stores.
Let's assume for the sake of argument that he did commit suicide. The next question I would ask is "why would he do that"?
You don't have to give bastards the benefit of the doubt. That's how they win, by taking advantage of your desire for fairness when they have none of their own.
When airplanes crash!.....at that point the whistleblower had passed away in what looked like a suicide. But how did Boeing manage to pull that off? Join us for the next hour as we explain the science behind involuntary assisted suicide! We'll be interviewing putin corp's CEO Putin, who is an expert in these sort of things but too old to die by hanging.
NOVA got dark this week.
It's too bad he didn't write a short letter saying the same thing and give it to her for safekeeping. As of right now all we have is her word. I'm hopeful that she'll testify.
Makes me wonder, how much does a professional hitman pay troll factories for white washing the crime with "but how do you know it wasn't a suicide", specially the ones that are equally professional about it not being flagrant? How much does it compare to cases in Russia for people suiciding out of windows with multiple gunshots?
When something isn't clearly black and white, without the facts and investigative research, continuing to discuss it usually makes it end up becoming a 50-50% grey area that grossly distorts as much as a completely black and white presumption would. In those cases, the initial "gut feeling" impression and the general education and awareness of a person involved may end up corresponding more to the reality, specially in cases actively trying to suppress the truth.
"Boeing", a non-living fictional mythos that has been accepted as a "person" so that the industrial revolution could be fueled, did not kill him. But there were plenty of psychopaths with power and influence who would have been affected by his deposition. some who've also been spearheading expansion into countries where dealing with and coming to compromises with its lowest ethical lowlifes (some of them also being potential or existing customers) would have been a necessity.
Im having trouble opening this article, it says something about a "client side error" but in text that is almost that same color as the background and is hard to read. Anyone else having this or know how I can fix it?
abcnews4.com 'If anything happens, it's not suicide': Boeing whistleblower's prediction before death Anne Emerson 3–4 minutes
John Barnett's family friend Jennifer doesn't think the Boeing whistleblower committed suicide in Charleston. In fact, she says he predicted what may happen to him days before he left for his deposition. March 14, 2024. (Provided-FILE, WCIV)
CHARLESTON COUNTY, S.C. (WCIV) — A close family friend of John Barnett said he predicted he might wind up dead and that a story could surface that he killed himself.
But at the time, he told her not to believe it.
"I know that he did not commit suicide," said Jennifer, a friend of Barnett's. "There's no way."
Jennifer said they talked about this exact scenario playing out. However, now, his words seem like a premonition he told her directly not to believe.
"I know John because his mom and my mom are best friends," Jennifer said. "Over the years, get-togethers, birthdays, celebrations and whatnot. We've all got together and talked."
READ MORE: "Mystery lingers around Boeing whistleblower's death at Charleston hotel."
When Jennifer needed help one day, Barnett came by to see her. They talked about his upcoming deposition in Charleston. Jennifer knew Barnett filed an extremely damaging complaint against Boeing. He said the aerospace giant retaliated against him when he blew the whistle on unsafe practices.
For more than 30 years, he was a quality manager. He'd recently retired and moved back to Louisiana to look after his mom.
"He wasn't concerned about safety because I asked him," Jennifer said. "I said, 'Aren't you scared?' And he said, 'No, I ain't scared, but if anything happens to me, it's not suicide.'"
Jennifer added: "I know that he did not commit suicide. There's no way. He loved life too much. He loved his family too much. He loved his brothers too much to put them through what they're going through right now."
Jennifer said she thinks somebody "didn't like what he had to say" and wanted to "shut him up" without it coming back to anyone.
READ MORE: "'John was brave': Boeing whistleblower's lawyer responds to news of his death."
"That's why they made it look like a suicide," Jennifer said.
The last time Jennifer saw Barnett was at her father's funeral in late February. He was one of the pallbearers. Sometimes family and friends referred to him by his middle name – Mitch.
"I think everybody is in disbelief and can't believe it," Jennifer said. "I don't care what they say, I know that Mitch didn't do that."
Just because Barnett is dead doesn't mean the case won't move forward.
His attorney said they're still prepared to go to trial in June.
News 4 reached out to Boeing following Barnett's death. They provided the following statement:
"We are saddened by Mr. Barnett’s passing, and our thoughts are with his family and friends.”
READ MORE: "Boeing whistleblower dies in Charleston, Charleston County Coroner's Office confirms."
oh sick, thank you lol
I can't get past the cookie notice and the phone - which is what I'm using now - is stuttering. Had to close the page.
Don't worry, corporations are people. Surely Boeing will get capital punishment.
You promise? I mean, it should be an option on the table...
A good follow-up to this story, worth the watch.
https://youtu.be/ggh35ud9BrU
From the video...
Unfortunately this is the exact type of shit you'd say when you're battling with suicidal ideation.
Hey look! Boeing just gave the Biden Admin a HUGE W! All they have to do is investigate and punish the people at the top!
Whoops! Nevermind! I guess we'll just continue saying we AREN'T Trump!
TF is the president supposed to do here?
With an executive order, he can investigate anything he wants.
Are you under the impression that the evidence would point to murder but the government wouldn't investigate that? Obviously it will be investigated. The "people at the top" would be prosecuted if there was evidence they were involved, and not prosecuted if there is no evidence. That is what we want from the government.
You can't read one headline, assume you know exactly who did exactly what illegal thing, and then immediately declare conspiracy because the evidence doesn't currently prove your made up claims.