PV speaks out on Phil's case
Jan 28, 2011, 7:15 pm
#1
Suspended
Original Poster
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 4,953
Jan 28, 2011, 7:29 pm
#2
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 331
What a load of xxxxx. The only thing correct in the entire blog is the fact that Phil had a BP. The rest is a complete fabrication. Gotta love how they leave it all out there so that anyone who doesn't actually check will have no idea of the outcome of the trial or check the videos and recordings to hear for themselves what really happened. I cannot believe they continue to get away with posting outright lies on that blog. At least the first two comments, which will probably be deleted, take them to task.
Last edited by Mimi111; Jan 28, 2011 at 8:25 pm
Jan 28, 2011, 8:43 pm
#6
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: SEA/YVR/BLI
Programs: UA "Lifetime" Gold, AS MVPG100K, OW Emerald, HH Lifetime Diamond, IC Plat, Marriott Gold, Hertz Gold
Posts: 9,490
It's disturbing to read this on an official government-sponsored blog, and I'm not referring to the extraordinarily poor topic sentence:
A recent case - New Mexico v. Phillip Mocek - is making the news recently.
How long was the jury out again? An hour or so? Perhaps the blogger is missing the verdict recently.
A recent case - New Mexico v. Phillip Mocek - is making the news recently.
How long was the jury out again? An hour or so? Perhaps the blogger is missing the verdict recently.
Last edited by Fredd; Jan 28, 2011 at 8:58 pm
Jan 28, 2011, 8:56 pm
#7
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 111
A recent case - New Mexico v. Phillip Mocek - is making the news recently. The case stemmed from Mr. Mocek’s failure to cooperate with the instructions of Albuquerque police officers at the Albuquerque International Sunport Airport after interactions he had with TSA transportation security officers....
Libel - a false and malicious publication printed for the purpose of defaming a living person
Jan 28, 2011, 9:24 pm
#8
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Programs: SW Rapid Rewards, Hilton Honors, Marriott, Avis First
Posts: 4,831
At best, the post by Bob is exceptional disingenuous.
The fact the defense did not call a single witness and the jury returned with "not guilty" verdicts in about an hour is a complete repudiation of the prosecution's case and the testimony of the ABQ cop and the TSO supervisor.
Of course, we can all forget hoping that Bob will quote the testifying TSO supervisor who said (paraphrase) "I don't know why we check ID. I just do what I am told."
(But, dang, I might pay good money to see that quote appear on the TSA blog.)
The fact the defense did not call a single witness and the jury returned with "not guilty" verdicts in about an hour is a complete repudiation of the prosecution's case and the testimony of the ABQ cop and the TSO supervisor.
Of course, we can all forget hoping that Bob will quote the testifying TSO supervisor who said (paraphrase) "I don't know why we check ID. I just do what I am told."
(But, dang, I might pay good money to see that quote appear on the TSA blog.)
Jan 29, 2011, 11:39 am
#11
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Programs: SW Rapid Rewards, Hilton Honors, Marriott, Avis First
Posts: 4,831
And, like clockwork, TSORon shows up in the comments of that post to tell everyone that Bob is the only one telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and that leaving out the fact that Phil was acquitted is irrelevant.
Jan 29, 2011, 11:41 am
#12
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: An NPR mind living in a Fox News world
Posts: 14,165
At best, the post by Bob is exceptional disingenuous.
The fact the defense did not call a single witness and the jury returned with "not guilty" verdicts in about an hour is a complete repudiation of the prosecution's case and the testimony of the ABQ cop and the TSO supervisor.
Of course, we can all forget hoping that Bob will quote the testifying TSO supervisor who said (paraphrase) "I don't know why we check ID. I just do what I am told."
(But, dang, I might pay good money to see that quote appear on the TSA blog.)
The fact the defense did not call a single witness and the jury returned with "not guilty" verdicts in about an hour is a complete repudiation of the prosecution's case and the testimony of the ABQ cop and the TSO supervisor.
Of course, we can all forget hoping that Bob will quote the testifying TSO supervisor who said (paraphrase) "I don't know why we check ID. I just do what I am told."
(But, dang, I might pay good money to see that quote appear on the TSA blog.)
Can anyone help me figure out the motivation behind this? I'm baffled.
Jan 29, 2011, 11:45 am
#13
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,195
What I did say was:
The difference between a lie and the truth is that one is false and the other is not. Nothing Bob said about the situation with Mr. Mocek was inaccurate, and therefore not a lie. Its time for folks to recognize the difference between what they wish to believe and the facts.
Al, it is intellectually dishonest to allude that being found “not guilty” is the same as being innocent. We both know better.
Jan 29, 2011, 11:51 am
#14
Join Date: Nov 2010
Programs: UA PE, FL A+Elite, X-DL Silver, X-AA Gold, HH Diam, Marriott Silv
Posts: 213
For the life of me, I am still trying to figure out a reason why the TSA would even post something like this. In my 35 years of government service, I do not recall a single instance in which any government agency published something like this after a court case had been decided against them.
Can anyone help me figure out the motivation behind this? I'm baffled.
Can anyone help me figure out the motivation behind this? I'm baffled.
Jan 29, 2011, 11:57 am
#15
Join Date: Sep 2006
Programs: JAL, ANA
Posts: 118
TSORon, I assume you are familiar with the concept of lying by omission?
One lies by omission when omitting an important fact, deliberately leaving another person with a misconception. Lying by omission includes failures to correct pre-existing misconceptions.
To lie by omission is to remain silent and thereby withhold from someone else a vital piece (or pieces) of information. The silence is deceptive in that it gives a false impression to the person from whom the information was withheld. It subverts the truth; it is a way to manipulate someone into altering their behavior to suit the desire of the person who intentionally withheld the vital information; and, most importantly, it's a gross violation of another person's right of self-determination.
I believe that is the issue people are taking with Blogger Bob's post.
I'm more curious as to what BB means by thanking the local police for their support. Why one would want to waste police resources for charges which don't stick among a jury of one's peers is beyond me. Of course conspiracy theorists will likely point out that doing so would cause more people to conform to the TSA's requests.
One lies by omission when omitting an important fact, deliberately leaving another person with a misconception. Lying by omission includes failures to correct pre-existing misconceptions.
To lie by omission is to remain silent and thereby withhold from someone else a vital piece (or pieces) of information. The silence is deceptive in that it gives a false impression to the person from whom the information was withheld. It subverts the truth; it is a way to manipulate someone into altering their behavior to suit the desire of the person who intentionally withheld the vital information; and, most importantly, it's a gross violation of another person's right of self-determination.
I believe that is the issue people are taking with Blogger Bob's post.
I'm more curious as to what BB means by thanking the local police for their support. Why one would want to waste police resources for charges which don't stick among a jury of one's peers is beyond me. Of course conspiracy theorists will likely point out that doing so would cause more people to conform to the TSA's requests.