Did they violate his rights or is this how it should be done ...

eman1200 said:
violate his right to...........blow up a plane? violate his right to rant terroristic threats? what rights exactly are you referring to?
Click to expand...

I was being totally facetious (for the bleeding hearts) as I believe they should have opened the door and let this idiot experience a bit of "free fall."
Seeing as how they didn't toss him out an open door I hope they toss him under a jail and lose the keys. :deadhorse:
 
As soon as he said 'going to bomb the plane', he should have had his hands cleared (detonator or cell phone), and probably made unconscious. If anything, not aggressive enough. He had WAY too much time to act.

I'd like to see the events leading up to this, though.....This likely is just one side of a story - but no matter how the story started, 'bomb the plane' is not the right ending....
 
Give him flying lessons - if he learns to fly before hitting the ground, all to the good
 
What a genius. What was the intended result here?

Hates flying and needed a good way to get on a no-fly list?
 
Pugs said:
My guess is they don't have enough duct tape on board to allow me to get him trussed up like I'd want. :)
Click to expand...
Guess we have to start packing zip ties in the carry on with all these on board incidents occurring lately. :oops:
 
In some of the incidents since 9/11, the Federal Air Marshals didn't have to stop the would be threat, they had to stop the other passengers from beating the guy to death. TSA, cockpit doors, armed FOs, none of that is necessary to prevent another 9/11. The passengers on United 93 figured that out very quickly.
 
Surprised the plane didn't have a concealed restraint kit, right next to the defibrillator.
 
midwestpa24 said:
In some of the incidents since 9/11, the Federal Air Marshals didn't have to stop the would be threat, they had to stop the other passengers from beating the guy to death. TSA, cockpit doors, armed FOs, none of that is necessary to prevent another 9/11. The passengers on United 93 figured that out very quickly.
Click to expand...
I think collective security by passengers has made any type of takeover event virtually impossible. I can promise I won't be one of the idiots that pulls out his phone and starts recording video when stuff like this occurs. I have a significant personal interest in airliner safety when I'm on board, and won't think twice before becoming involved.
 
I certainly hope that this isn't one of those situations where one of these guys get hurt and then sues the airlines, the pilots, the passengers, etc., and gets a bunch of money.
Could have been his stupid plan all along.
Hard to imagine him winning, but I've heard stupider ****.
 
3393RP said:
I think collective security by passengers has made any type of takeover event virtually impossible. I can promise I won't be one of the idiots that pulls out his phone and starts recording video when stuff like this occurs. I have a significant personal interest in airliner safety when I'm on board, and won't think twice before becoming involved.
Click to expand...
I agree and I'd also act in this situation. The big problem with passengers though is we'll focus on this guy and not see other bad actors.
 
Darryl Snover said:
As soon as he said 'going to bomb the plane', he should have had his hands cleared (detonator or cell phone), and probably made unconscious. If anything, not aggressive enough. He had WAY too much time to act.

I'd like to see the events leading up to this, though.....This likely is just one side of a story - but no matter how the story started, 'bomb the plane' is not the right ending....
Click to expand...
It doesn’t matter what led up to it. His actions are 100% inexcusable.
 
Paul Thomas said:
I agree and I'd also act in this situation. The big problem with passengers though is we'll focus on this guy and not see other bad actors.
Click to expand...
The +1 rule. Always look for and expect to find at least one more threat, and one more weapon when you’re searching a suspect and fine one. Scan the bystanders during and after the incident - one or more of them may be backup for the initial threat, or waiting to act until everyone thinks it’s over with and has let their guard down.
 
3393RP said:
I think collective security by passengers has made any type of takeover event virtually impossible. I can promise I won't be one of the idiots that pulls out his phone and starts recording video when stuff like this occurs. I have a significant personal interest in airliner safety when I'm on board, and won't think twice before becoming involved.
Click to expand...
Hopefully. Almost a third of the population was born after 9/11 or was a young child at the time and would have little to no memory of it. The vigilance when it was fresh may well have faded. Twenty years ago, the most of the passengers would’ve been stacked up on each other mauling the guy.
 
Silly question, but imagining that scenario, is there ever a moment (no pun intended) that so many passengers run to the back and tackle this guy that it's enough to stall the plane?
Seemingly most jets could handle it, at least temporarily, but I have no idea.
 
As has been said, the right to free speech doesn't include shouting "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. Without knowing the backstory, it appears this clown deserved the treatment he got.
 
Skyrys62 said:
Silly question, but imagining that scenario, is there ever a moment (no pun intended) that so many passengers run to the back and tackle this guy that it's enough to stall the plane?
Seemingly most jets could handle it, at least temporarily, but I have no idea.
Click to expand...
I always wanted to try it to see if you could get the autopilot to kick itself off. ;)
 
Dana said:
As has been said, the right to free speech doesn't include shouting "FIRE!" in a crowded theater.
Click to expand...
That's not true. But it doesn't included threatening to blow up a plane in flight. And the other passengers couldn't infringe his first amendment rights, anyway
 
Nothing says freedom like caterwauling for the murder of somebody for using words you don't like. Better still if they're brown.
 
MauleSkinner said:
It requires a carriage return at the end of the line.
Click to expand...

I was bored. From the operators contract:

https://www.easyjet.com/en/terms-and-conditions Terms and Conditions | easyJet

Right to refuse carriage

We may refuse to carry you and/or your Baggage, or remove you from a flight if you have already boarded, without any liability on our part, if we reasonably believe:

you or your Baggage may put the safety of the aircraft or the health or safety of any person in the aircraft or airport in danger or at risk;
…

your mental or physical state is a danger or risk to yourself, the aircraft or any other person on it;

you have caused harm to, injured, or used threatening, abusive, insulting, discriminatory, obscene or lewd language or behaviour towards a member of our staff, Ground Crew or any Passengers

you have made a bomb threat or other security threat;

you have committed a criminal offence during the Booking process, the check-in or boarding process, at the airport or on board the aircraft;

you are a hazard or risk to yourself or other persons or to property;

you have not observed our instructions with respect to safety or security, either on board or at the airport.

…


It seems one or more of the above obligations were abrogated by the passenger in question.
 
ateamer said:
The +1 rule. Always look for and expect to find at least one more threat, and one more weapon when you’re searching a suspect and fine one. Scan the bystanders during and after the incident - one or more of them may be backup for the initial threat, or waiting to act until everyone thinks it’s over with and has let their guard down.
Click to expand...
And/or bozo #1 is merely a distraction so bozo #2 can enact plan without being seen…
 
I am not a lawyer (and if one would like to chime in that would be terrific). But, as I understand it. The First Amendment restrains GOVERNMENT from restricting free speech (I think this is what @Lindberg was alluding to in #27 . . . Lindberg in 27, Deja Vu). Neither the carrier, nor the other passengers are the government. In a contract, people can freely trade certain rights (like freedom of speech) for consideration (such as carriage). I would imagine that the dumb****'s ticket forbids acting in a threatening manner.

Without justification, maybe . . . maybe, a passenger who was beaten by other passengers could sue a carrier for not exercising good judgement and allowing the beat-down. But . . . I don't think there is a place in the US that is sufficiently liberal to agree that physically reacting to an announced and realistic threat could give rise to a civil action.
 
billsgs126 said:
The First Amendment restrains GOVERNMENT from restricting free speech (I think this is what @Lindberg was alluding to in #27 . . . Lindberg in 27, Deja Vu). Neither the carrier, nor the other passengers are the government. In a contract, people can freely trade certain rights (like freedom of speech) for consideration (such as carriage). I would imagine that the dumb****'s ticket forbids acting in a threatening manner.
Click to expand...
I always love when people have the impression that the 1st amendment allows them to say whatever they want, whenever they want, with zero repercussions. It doesn't.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

It doesn't say you can't get kicked off a plane. It doesn't say your employer can't discipline or terminate you. It doesn't say you won't get socked in the mouth. Only that Congress and the Federal Government can't restrict or prohibit free speech.
 
Hengelo said:
Nothing says freedom like caterwauling for the murder of somebody for using words you don't like. Better still if they're brown.
Click to expand...
Castigating those imaginary white supremacists again, huh?
 
Dana said:
As has been said, the right to free speech doesn't include shouting "FIRE!" in a crowded theater.
Click to expand...

It most certainly does. All that's needed is a fire. The truth is an absolute defense for speech, but let's not start an argument about the existence of truth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top