Female pilot suing former employer after being told she's 'too short' to fly; Gloria Allred represen

[Palmpilot]

John Wayne Gacy was such an upstanding individual, and a pinnacle of light.

Made me look it up!

"Gacy became known as the "Killer Clown" because of his charitable services at fund-raising events, parades, and children's parties where he would dress as "Pogo the Clown"[6] or "Patches the Clown", characters that he had created."​

 

[EdFred]

Just pointing out that ad hominem aren't always incorrect.

 

[Juliet Hotel]

Now you want to chip away at our ability to make any character judgement at all? Nah. You can’t have that. I’ll continue to make my judgements on her character based on the facts as they come to light. So far, I’m unimpressed.

You are free to do the same.

That's right, I am free to do the same. I am also free to say I don't know enough relevant facts at this point to be comfortable making any kind of character judgement. Not as much fun but I have plenty of other fun in my life so I think I'll be fine.

 

[Palmpilot]

Just pointing out that ad hominem aren't always incorrect.

That's why I described it as "inherently weak" instead of "always incorrect." If your goal is to determine whether or not someone is a good person, ad hominem arguments are both unavoidable and appropriate. If your goal is to determine the merits of a legal case, then not so much.

Note that in the example you gave, if someone argued that Gacy was a good person because of his charitable work and therefore he could not be guilty of the crimes he was charged with, that would be an example of an ad hominem argument, and it would have been 100% incorrect.

Even worse would be arguing that the prosecutor was a creep and therefore Gacy could not be guilty.

 

[Cooter]

Ad hominem arguments are inherently weak, especially when it comes to legal matters.

Credibility is a factor that isn’t overlooked in legal disputes.

 

[Palmpilot]

Credibility is a factor that isn’t overlooked in legal disputes.

Credibility of witnesses, yes, but I don't think the motivations of the attorneys are admissible.

 

[Cooter]

Credibility of witnesses, yes, but I don't think the motivations of the attorneys are admissible.

POA isn’t a courtroom, I’m not sure why you want to force that standard. Sharing opinions and establishing legal standing aren’t the same thing, and everyone here knows it. Do you limit your own opinions to those that would be admissible? People make judgements based on many factors, experience and character included.
If ad hominem arguments are inherently weak, why is witness credibility so often pursued?

 

[SkyDog58]

John Wayne Gacy was such an upstanding individual, and a pinnacle of light.

Oh now you’re just clowning around.

 

[Palmpilot]

POA isn’t a courtroom, I’m not sure why you want to force that standard. Sharing opinions and establishing legal standing aren’t the same thing, and everyone here knows it. Do you limit your own opinions to those that would be admissible? People make judgements based on many factors, experience and character included.

I'm just expressing my opinions.

If ad hominem arguments are inherently weak, why is witness credibility so often pursued?

If ad hominem arguments aren't inherently weak, why do courts have rules restricting how the credibility of a witness can be impeached?

 

[Cooter]

I'm just expressing my opinions.

Is it your opinion that other’s opinions on a forum should be held to a courtroom standard?

 

[Palmpilot]

Is it your opinion that other’s opinions on a forum should be held to a courtroom standard?

No, but it's my opinion that opinions based on weak and irrelevant arguments aren't very useful.

 

[Salty]

No, but it's my opinion that opinions based on weak and irrelevant arguments aren't very useful.

So now you know what other people know and what it’s based on.

For someone that Has never even heard of the very well known lawyer involved maybe your opinions are indeed weak and irrelevant, but that’s your problem, you’re still entitled to your choice to remain ignorant and opinion-less. Very few people that have chosen to educate themselves about Allred have a very high opinion of her.

Even Wikipedia has this to say

Allred's public statements and behavior have resulted in criticism. In 2012, The Atlantic described her as "the ambulance chaser of feminism" after she defended two women involved in a sexual battery lawsuit against actor John Travolta.[74] The Daily Beast journalist Tricia Romano also labeled her as a "publicity hound."[75] The New Republic journalist Jeffrey Rosen also described Allred as "a longtime master of the press conference."[18]

 

[Cooter]

No, but it's my opinion that opinions based on weak and irrelevant arguments aren't very useful.

Useful for what purpose? Trying to make sense of the news, processing events through a lens of experience and knowledge, voicing our opinions for others' evaluation and considering those of others; OR, for convincing a jury and protecting the rights of the accused? The high standard of a courtroom exists for a purpose that doesn't apply here.

 

[Groundpounder]

Hope this works out for this lady, cause she ain't getting another job in aviation. $75k isn't that much, especially after Gloria Alred takes her cut.

 

[Palmpilot]

Useful for what purpose? Trying to make sense of the news, processing events through a lens of experience and knowledge, voicing our opinions for others' evaluation and considering those of others; OR, for convincing a jury and protecting the rights of the accused? The high standard of a courtroom exists for a purpose that doesn't apply here.

I think the needs of a society and the individuals in it are best served by drawing logically sound inferences and avoiding illogical inferences. To serve that purpose, requiring strict adherence to court rules in casual discussions would probably be going overboard, but I do think there is a lot that we can learn from studying courtroom methods, especially in regard to such things as not pre-judging things when we don't have all the evidence, and in regard to not jumping to conclusions based on irrelevancies like the size of her shirt and whom she hired as an attorney.

 

[Salty]

I think the needs of a society and the individuals in it are best served by drawing logically sound inferences and avoiding illogical inferences. To serve that purpose, requiring strict adherence to court rules in casual discussions would probably be going overboard, but I do think there is a lot that we can learn from studying courtroom methods, especially in regard to such things as not pre-judging things when we don't have all the evidence, and in regard to not jumping to conclusions based on irrelevancies like the size of her shirt and whom she hired as an attorney.

Even in court we will never have "all the evidence". There's no point in talking about anything if you require all evidence before beginning the discussion.

 

[Cooter]

I think the needs of a society and the individuals in it are best served by drawing logically sound inferences and avoiding illogical inferences. To serve that purpose, requiring strict adherence to court rules in casual discussions would probably be going overboard, but I do think there is a lot that we can learn from studying courtroom methods, especially in regard to such things as not pre-judging things when we don't have all the evidence, and in regard to not jumping to conclusions based on irrelevancies like the size of her shirt and whom she hired as an attorney.

I mostly agree, but it's not illogical to infer motives. Ad hominem isn't illogical, projecting a pattern based on experience isn't illogical, and being suspicious of those who have a shady history isn't illogical.

 

[Palmpilot]

So now you know what other people know and what it’s based on.

For someone that Has never even heard of the very well known lawyer involved maybe your opinions are indeed weak and irrelevant, but that’s your problem, you’re still entitled to your choice to remain ignorant and opinion-less. Very few people that have chosen to educate themselves about Allred have a very high opinion of her.

Even Wikipedia has this to say

It's entirely possible that my opinions are weak and irrelevant, but no one has yet explained how Allred's reputation proves whether the case has merit or not.

Now if someone could come up with verifiable statistics on what percentage of her cases she loses, that might be of some interest, but it would still be no more than a plausibility argument.

Do you think that bad lawyers never take good cases?

 

[Salty]

As long as you are not on the jury. At that point you would need to disclose your bias. I would too, and probably would not be selected.

I can have a bias and still be an impartial juror. I wouldn't hide my opinions, but I would also make it clear I understand they aren't evidence and can't be used in my deliberations.

I doubt I'd be chosen for a high profile trial such as this, but I have been chosen to sit on a jury in the past, despite heavy questioning during voir dire. I was hoping to not be chosen, but I answered all questions honestly.

Heck, the guy in my trial was guilty as hell IMO, but the prosecution didn't prove it. It should have never made it to court IMO, they had nothing but a bunch of hearsay and weak circumstantial evidence. There was a LOT of it, but that's all they had. A bad jury might have convicted him and as I said, I think he deserved it, but the prosecution didn't come close to meeting their burden.

 

[Salty]

It's entirely possible that my opinions are weak and irrelevant, but no one has yet explained how Allred's reputation proves whether the case has merit or not.

Now if someone could come up with verifiable statistics on what percentage of her cases she loses, that might be of some interest, but it would still be no more than a plausibility argument.

Do you think that bad lawyers never take good cases?

Stats are pretty useless since settling out of court can and is done even when the plaintiff is not guilty. It would be more meaningful to see how often she even makes it to court, but even that leaves us with assuming a reason for it. There's no way to prove it.

 

[Palmpilot]

Even in court we will never have "all the evidence". There's no point in talking about anything if you require all evidence before beginning the discussion.

Perhaps it was a poor choice of words on my part. Maybe "a sufficient airing of the evidence" would be better.

Earlier in the thread, people were pointing out that there is "more to the story," which I agree with. I don't think we know enough RELEVANT facts to draw a valid conclusion about the merits of the lawsuit.

 

[Salty]

Perhaps it was a poor choice of words on my part. Maybe "a sufficient airing of the evidence" would be better.

Earlier in the thread, people were pointing out that there is "more to the story," which I agree with. I don't think we know enough RELEVANT facts to draw a valid conclusion about the merits of the lawsuit.

We're always going to disagree on what "a sufficient airing is". By "we", I mean any two of us. We will not all have read the same things, or understood the validity of their source. Etc, etc, etc....

 

[Palmpilot]

I mostly agree, but it's not illogical to infer motives. Ad hominem isn't illogical, projecting a pattern based on experience isn't illogical, and being suspicious of those who have a shady history isn't illogical.

Perhaps so, but jumping from that to "the case has no merit" would be illogical.

 

[Salty]

Perhaps so, but jumping from that to "the case has no merit" would be illogical.

hyperbolic would be more accurate IMO.

 

[Palmpilot]

Stats are pretty useless since settling out of court can and is done even when the plaintiff is not guilty. It would be more meaningful to see how often she even makes it to court, but even that leaves us with assuming a reason for it. There's no way to prove it.

Like I said, it would be no more than a plausibility argument at best.

 

[Everskyward]

I can have a bias and still be an impartial juror. I wouldn't hide my opinions, but I would also make it clear I understand they aren't evidence and can't be used in my deliberations.

Yeah, you only need to disclose your bias during jury selection, but even if you say that it wouldn't influence your decision, the lawyer for the plaintiff would probably say, "We thank and excuse juror number #". You are not sworn in here on POA, nor is it a court.

 

[Palmpilot]

By the way, one reason I'm discussing legal standards of evidence is that this is a thread about a legal case.

 

[Salty]

By the way, one reason I'm discussing legal standards of evidence is that this is a thread about a legal case.

We will likely never see all the evidence. So trying to treat this like a court is a bit silly IMO

 

[SkyDog58]

Yeah, you only need to disclose your bias during jury selection, but even if you say that it wouldn't influence your decision, the lawyer for the plaintiff would probably say, "We thank and excuse juror number #". You are not sworn in here on POA, nor is it a court.

The bad thing is that what constitutes bias is often in the eye of the beholder. For instance, one lawyer might decide that anyone involved in aviation as a pilot, mechanic, etc. is biased and unable to render an impartial verdict and therefore seek to excuse that juror. A different lawyer might think that having an aviation knowledgeable person on the jury would be beneficial to justice. I believe that the lawyer who calls it bias is actually showing a preference for a more ignorant jury that he or she can manipulate and dupe.

 

[Everskyward]

The bad thing is that what constitutes bias is often in the eye of the beholder. For instance, one lawyer might decide that anyone involved in aviation as a pilot, mechanic, etc. is biased and unable to render an impartial verdict and therefore seek to excuse that juror. A different lawyer might think that having an aviation knowledgeable person on the jury would be beneficial to justice. I believe that the lawyer who calls it bias is actually showing a preference for a more ignorant jury that he or she can manipulate and dupe.

I think they are looking for people who don't have a preconceived notion about the case, and if they do, they need to make a judgment whether or not the person can recognize and put aside this bias to consider only the facts presented. If you want to call that "ignorance", OK. Of course, it also depends which side of the case the particular lawyer is on.

 

[SkyDog58]

I think they are looking for people who don't have a preconceived notion about the case, and if they do, they need to make a judgment whether or not the person can recognize and put aside this bias to consider only the facts presented. If you want to call that "ignorance", OK. Of course, it also depends which side of the case the particular lawyer is on.

I have a friend who like me is an A&P/IA and pilot with multiple ratings. He was called for jury duty and the case happened to be a wrongful death suit for an airplane crash. When the plaintiff's lawyer learned of his aviation background, he was dismissed. According to my friend, the rationale was that he would show bias and default to believing the side of the defendant who was an aircraft repair shop. This couldn't be further from the truth. My friend as do practically all maintenance folks I have worked with take aviation safety very seriously and give no quarter to those that jeopardize it. If the evidence had shown the shop was at fault, my friend would have been more able to see that than his fellow jurors and even help them to understand. However, the risk that he might interpret the evidence in favor of the shop was more than the plaintiff's lawyer was willing to accept. They would rather be in the position of telling the jury how to interpret the evidence or have their experts do so. Lawyers believe it is better to have people without specific knowledge on the jury than those with some subject matter expertise. They want to control the narrative regardless of the truth.

 

[Everskyward]

I have a friend who like me is an A&P/IA and pilot with multiple ratings. He was called for jury duty and the case happened to be a wrongful death suit for an airplane crash. When the plaintiff's lawyer learned of his aviation background, he was dismissed. According to my friend, the rationale was that he would show bias and default to believing the side of the defendant who was an aircraft repair shop. This couldn't be further from the truth. My friend as do practically all maintenance folks I have worked with take aviation safety very seriously and give no quarter to those that jeopardize it. If the evidence had shown the shop was at fault, my friend would have been more able to see that than his fellow jurors and even help them to understand. However, the risk that he might interpret the evidence in favor of the shop was more than the plaintiff's lawyer was willing to accept. They would rather be in the position of telling the jury how to interpret the evidence or have their experts do so. Lawyers believe it is better to have people without specific knowledge on the jury than those with some subject matter expertise. They want to control the narrative regardless of the truth.

I would have reacted in the same way as the plaintiff's lawyer and not taken the chance with your friend.

 

[mryan75]

Attorneys write motions and make public statements to support the case of their client. Somewhere between 50-75% of the details in most news stories are incorrect.

And it has been shown that 86% of statistics are made up on the spot.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

And it has been shown that 86% of statistics are made up on the spot.

Well, in this case, that is a rough estimate based on my personal experience. But I am certainly open to someone providing more accurate estimates.

When it comes to the details in news reports, I am constantly amazed at how much is incorrectly reported. Most people I know that have been the subject of news reporting say the same thing. The overall gist is correct, but the details are often mistaken. Unclear to me why that should be the case. I also wonder if it has gotten any worse over time, as some acquaintances contend, or if we just notice it more now that one can crosscheck things more easily.

 

[EdFred]

I think they are looking for people who don't have a preconceived notion about the case, and if they do, they need to make a judgment whether or not the person can recognize and put aside this bias to consider only the facts presented. If you want to call that "ignorance", OK. Of course, it also depends which side of the case the particular lawyer is on.

Is a preconceived notion like a preconceived embryo?
As soon as you have any idea, it's conceived. You can't have a pre-idea.

 

[Palmpilot]

We will likely never see all the evidence. So trying to treat this like a court is a bit silly IMO

I think it's silly to draw conclusions based on insufficient evidence.

 

[chartbundle]

I think it's silly to draw conclusions based on insufficient evidence.

That certainly would reduce the number of threads on this website by about a factor of 100.

 

[Kristin]

Do they base that at all on the merits of the case, or is it just automatic that when a lawsuit gets filed, the insurance company pays up?

Occasionally, but not all that often IMX.

 

[Josh Jackson]

If it took her even one day to land another job, which is beyond likely, she has some claim for back pay, even if she did get another job. As for the rest, it is the attorney's job to throw everything up against the wall to see what sticks.

do you know what future pay is awarded for? future pay is awarded for all the time from the DAY of the filing in court. Meaning, she is asking essentially for her pay to be started right now. Even the worst lawyer wouldn't ask for that if she was already receiving a paycheck, because it wouldn't be substantiated.

 

[OneCharlieTango]

Standards of evidence and typical PoA pecker measuring aside, that press conference is theater, and Gloria Allred is a dirtbag. We'll never know the truth because that's not what courts do. Suits are just lawyer contests. What's-her-name the plaintiff has chosen to go high profile. Not what I would've done (probably -- who knows?), but it's her prerogative.