this post was submitted on 11 Mar 2024
1604 points (99.2% liked)

News

35724 readers
2595 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

John Barnett had worked for Boeing for 32 years, until his retirement in 2017.

In the days before his death, he had been giving evidence in a whistleblower lawsuit against the company.

Boeing said it was saddened to hear of Mr Barnett's passing. The Charleston County coroner confirmed his death to the BBC on Monday.

It said the 62-year-old had died from a "self-inflicted" wound on 9 March and police were investigating.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] EatATaco@lemm.ee 4 points 2 years ago (3 children)

I think a “probably” is pretty reasonable considering the circumstances.

No, it's not. It's based on nothing but suspicion. Unless I'm missing something, there is nothing that indicates that this was even a murder, let alone anything linking that murder to Boeing. It's just blind speculation. It's the same shit I deal with constantly with Trump supporters, where their suspicions about the 2016 are more important than actually having the facts to back it up.

[–] HaywardT@lemmy.sdf.org 6 points 2 years ago (2 children)

At this moment we have no motive for suicide and motive for murder.

[–] evergreen@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago

What if the dude was so stressed out by all of this he just said fuck it, I'm done, and blew his brains out?

I'm not saying I think this is true any more than I think Boeing had him killed. Just providing it as a plausible motive for suicide to show that we really need more information to be revealed from a proper investigation before we attach ourselves to assumptions.

[–] EatATaco@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago

But we have actual evidence for suicide (coroner report) and none for murder. But sure your ignorance of what's going on in his life trumps actual facts.

[–] sanpedropeddler@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I know its speculation, that's why I'm using the word probably. There is a rock solid motive, but no hard evidence. Which is why I'm not going to outright claim they did it. Maybe your definition of probably is different than mine, but to me, it means there is a very real possibility that I'm wrong.

[–] EatATaco@lemm.ee 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I know its speculation, that’s why I’m using the word probably.

Blind speculation. You have nothing to support the claim. You're just suspicious about it. There is no "probably" here, it just a possibility.

Maybe your definition of probably is different than mine, but to me, it means there is a very real possibility that I’m wrong.

Probably means more likely than not. You have precisely zero to back up your claim. The evidence suggests that Trump probably (i.e. more likely than not) raped Jean Carroll, which is why a jury found him liable for it. If you brought the evidence you have right now that Boeing killed this guy for a civil claim, you would be laughed out of court.

[–] sanpedropeddler@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 years ago (1 children)

There is no "probably" here, it just a possibility.

Its a possibility that seems very likely, that's what I mean by probably.

If you brought the evidence you have right now that Boeing killed this guy for a civil claim, you would be laughed out of court.

That's very interesting, however, I am not in court.

[–] EatATaco@lemm.ee 4 points 2 years ago

Its a possibility that seems very likely, that’s what I mean by probably.

So we do have different definitions of probably. Yours just means reasonably possible. Mine actually means probably, which is "Most likely; presumably."

That’s very interesting, however, I am not in court.

I understand that. But you are claiming that it "probably" happened, and I'm pointing out to you that the evidence you've provided wouldn't even come close to be enough to make the claim in court. It's so far from it that you wouldn't even make it to a trial where a jury would then weigh the evidence to determine how likely it is.

[–] nonailsleft@lemm.ee 1 points 2 years ago