Thanks, I was just about to post that exact quote...
One can only hope...
So no matter which story is true, the guy's a liar... and may be a thief as well. I'm still scratching my head over why anyone would care what he has to say, or contribute to his attempts to suck money out of YouTube.
Your post is a pot shot against the NTSB, who is merely stating as a matter of fact that a piece of evidence was stolen and therefore could not be analyzed.
It's not up to you, or internet con artists, to decide whether evidence is relevant or not.
As my previous post stated - the issue is that someone has to not be doing their job FIRST for Gryder to even gain access. I think you’re wrong and the NTSB failed to ensure that all relevant evidence was secured.
I am wrong about what? What you wrote is completely orthogonal to what I wrote.
There's plenty of evidence not from the NTSB that he's a criminal and a sociopath in addition to a lying narcissist. That's just my opinion, of course.
I’m not defending him, not one iota. I have personally interacted with him about two different accidents telling him why he was wrong about something, and he wouldn’t listen, but he appears to be correct when he says that the NTSB frequently isn’t doing their job. Both things can be true in this instance.
Trespassing is usually subject to a LOT of interpretation. If a news reporter showed up on scene, they 100% would not be accused of trespassing. If DG hadn't picked up the light, he probably wouldn't be, either. The question is: Did someone on site actually ask him to leave, or was this accusation leveled at him after the fact.
Civil? That would be up to a judge/jury. If I were the family's lawyer, I would certainly want to push this angle.
It's hardly "ad hominem" when the NTSB doesn't mention any person in their report, just the light was stolen (which is not under dispute).
Why? Collision with a tall object on the approach path would seem to immediately raise questions about visibility, which would immediately call warning lights into question.
I can't find it either. Went through the whole docket. When I get some time when the week starts, I'll try and see if the local PD has it, and also I'll *try* to reach out to the NTSB to see where it is. Wish me luck. haha.
That guy seems to have remained on the public right of way. So no trespassing occurring. But was Gryder actually violated for anything? It seems to be clear enough that he tampered with and concealed items that the NTSB would have liked to have for its investigation. And whether he thinks they're good at their jobs or not, he's not entitled to do that. Of course, when he wrecked that poor guys Cessna he refused to cooperate with the NTSB investigation there too, so no surprise.
I sure looks to me like that guy was shooting from inside the property on the second half of the video. All I'm saying is that there'd better not be a double-standard, and the fact that he found the light seems to me to be evidence of sloppy accident investigation, which isn't a good look.
That's a stretch. If he's on their property at all, he's on the very edge of an external parking lot. According to the report, Gryder actually entered the property and retrieved the light. And then hid it from investigators. If he was anything other than a completely self-absorbed **** brick and actually cared one single iota about air safety, he would have done exactly the opposite and instead called investigators' attention to the light and immediately turned it over.
I doesn't look that simple to me. The first responders weren't trespassing simply by entering the property, and neither is a person who walks up to the door to ask to use the restroom at a place of business, even if that's dumb, or if they are trying to apply for a job. There are all kinds of reasons that a person an enter a property before it elevates to criminal trespass. The question remains: Did someone at the plant tell him to leave and he refused?
legislature.idaho.gov
They didn't have to if he crossed the fence. Criminal trespass warnings are usually given when someone initially has permission to be in a place and then the permission is revoked, like if you're kicked out of a Walmart and told to never come back.I doesn't look that simple to me. I have to deal with this somewhat frequently as a photographer. The question remains: Did someone at the plant tell him to leave and he refused?
Section 18-7008 – Idaho State Legislature
I dunno, looks like the Oats Family Center is "open" to the public pretty much and that parking lot would be right where you'd need to be.
So no one knows what trespassing means. You can totally go onto other people's property and take their stuff without consequence because the law is so vague. But not really.
Don't exaggerate. If you heard about an accident of a friend of yours in a public parking lot, let's say some Walmart, and went to see for yourself what happened, the chances of it being considered a trespass by all but the most unreasonable people is extremely slim and we all know that, and I'd include the dock areas, too. Trespass is generally reserved for those who are doing something with criminal intent. I don't think Gryder started with criminal intent, at all. Like him or not, he does want to see accidents reduced and the NTSB doing their job.
The facts in evidence are all to the contrary. If that were true, he'd cooperate with them and help them do their job better, rather than obstruct and interfere with their investigations.
That argument is so full of holes it’s not worth parsing.
