John & Martha held by police at gun point

DeeG said:
And asking someone at the FBO? Most of the airports out here have no tower, no FBO, no fuel, just a couple of hangars (if that).
Click to expand...

In this case, there were PLENTY of people - ATC, FBO's, etc. that could have made the distinction quite easily, and probably also done a quick lookup for the officers involved. It sounds like they had plenty of lead time to make such a determination before the plane even landed as well.

There isn't a Dept of Licensing in the country that would assign a previously stolen plate to a different vehicle.
Click to expand...

Incorrect - I know this first-hand, because I have been in a situation analogous to the Kings' myself that was handled MUCH better, and I believe offers a lesson in how the police should have handled the situation.

The officers there were told that the tail number came back to a stolen airplane. They did what they were supposed to do. One of my guys makes a traffic stop and I see that the car/license plate is stolen? I relay that to the officer and you can bet the occupants will come out of that vehicle at gunpoint.
Click to expand...

Well, I was pulled over for driving a truck with a "stolen trailer" by the Illinois State Police. In fact, within a VERY short time after being pulled over, I had every District 5 state trooper on duty that night behind me.

Basically, one trooper had run my plates around the time when I went through the Elgin toll, and they came up as stolen. (EPIC sees the tail number, reports it as stolen.) A minute or two later, he pulled me over and backup was already on the way. (Tower directs J&M to a remote area of the airport.) I pulled right over. (J&M proceeded as directed to the specified location, presumably seeing police cars LONG before they got there.) The Illinois state trooper, probably figuring I wouldn't have bothered pulling over if I was a thief, did not pull his gun. (SBA police, with their adrenaline and haste high, do not bother making this deduction, and pull their guns.) The trooper explained the situation, and asked for my permit book, which contains registration and other similar info, and said it might be a while. (J&M are handcuffed and thrown in the back of separate police cruisers.) I waited, both inside and outside my truck, while the troopers attempted to figure out what was going on. (J&M sit handcuffed in the back of police cruisers while the police attempt to figure out what was going on.) Eventually, it was determined that the trailer was not the stolen one. (Eventually, it was determined that the airplane was not the stolen one.)

Two situations that start, and end, exactly the same - Yet in one, several guns were drawn on a pair of innocent citizens, while in the other the police were able to handle the situation calmly without any show of force. I can tell you that I am at 6'4" and, uh, strongly built, for damn sure a lot more intimidating than John and Martha, yet for some reason those (local) police acted as if they were extremely intimidated by a pair of older, skinny, folksy, friendly people. Clearly, law enforcement officials have a difficult job to do, but in this case it appears that very little good judgement was exercised.

How it SHOULD have gone: Police get the call and set up their "trap". ATC directs the plane to that location. J&M taxi in and shut down, making no attempts to escape the police. The police deduce from that that J&M are probably not an immediate threat, and proceed with caution (and WITHOUT their guns out) to the airplane. They ask J&M to step out, and take them each to separate areas (NOT sitting in the back seat of cruisers). The OIC asks them each individually what they are doing with this airplane, and getting the same, legal, correct story from both, makes another deduction that these are not airplane thieves. The OIC collects their contact info and their local plans and allows them to leave the airport, and then contacts EPIC to resolve the clearly erroneous report.

I know the police have a dangerous job, but it is inexcusable to use force in lieu of judgement.
 
Law Enforcement Folks: Does it generally take 4 police cruisers' worth of officers with guns drawn, 2 with long guns, to pull over a cooperating (as in not fleeing) vehicle and handcuff the occupants to make a determination as to whether it is stolen or not?
 
This was all because of the most BORING vhs videos those two put out back in the 80's...... see people do remember..!!
 
Cool...now they will have some new material to make another damn video about.:goofy:
 
article said:
Folks; I don't have to tell you that the plight of aviation is not a healthy one right now -- this industry is dying the death of a thousand cuts... and here's even more stunning evidence that we're all in serious trouble. Two of aviation's best known figures, and experts in virtually segments of sport, general and business aviation were held and detained at gunpoint just 24 hours ago... by the Santa Barbara Police Department .
Click to expand...

timwinters said:
Wow, seems a tad melodramatic. LEOs do stupid stuff like this every day to folks from all walks of life, not just pilots. And guess I wouldn't really expect most city & small town cops to know that an online FAA database even exists.
Click to expand...

DeeG said:
We have access to the DB through our normal LE system, not the internet. But you have to keep in mind, most non pilots can't tell the difference between a 150 and a 172. I had one of my fellow dispatchers ask me two days ago if a Piper PA 32 was a helicopter, because she couldn't tell by looking at the info we get.

And as far as John and Martha being two of the most recognizable pilots out there, if you're not a pilot, how would you know "who" they were?

And most of you don't seem to understand that not all comm centers (much less MDT's) have internet access. We are pretty much limited to the LE FAA database, which can be confusing at best. And what we get on our screen looks nothing like what you get when you run a tail number through the FAA internet site or the airport data.com site. (And I cannot access the airportdata.com site though our work internet, its blocked.)

And asking someone at the FBO? Most of the airports out here have no tower, no FBO, no fuel, just a couple of hangars (if that).

There isn't a Dept of Licensing in the country that would assign a previously stolen plate to a different vehicle. That would be sheer stupidity. I put the blame on the FAA for doing just that. Not enough tail numbers to go around? then do what every state in the nation does when the current format of plates runs out of numbers. Change the format.

The officers there were told that the tail number came back to a stolen airplane. They did what they were supposed to do. One of my guys makes a traffic stop and I see that the car/license plate is stolen? I relay that to the officer and you can bet the occupants will come out of that vehicle at gunpoint. And if the registered owner of the car just happens to be the one driving? Doesn't matter, car is still in the system as stolen. He/She has some 'splaining to do before they are released.
Click to expand...

I was referring to the article being melodramatic and playing up pilots as misunderstood and abused and the victims. I didn't mean to infer that the cops were.
 
Last edited:
flyingcheesehead said:
In this case, there were PLENTY of people - ATC, FBO's, etc. that could have made the distinction quite easily, and probably also done a quick lookup for the officers involved. It sounds like they had plenty of lead time to make such a determination before the plane even landed as well.



Incorrect - I know this first-hand, because I have been in a situation analogous to the Kings' myself that was handled MUCH better, and I believe offers a lesson in how the police should have handled the situation.



Well, I was pulled over for driving a truck with a "stolen trailer" by the Illinois State Police. In fact, within a VERY short time after being pulled over, I had every District 5 state trooper on duty that night behind me.

Basically, one trooper had run my plates around the time when I went through the Elgin toll, and they came up as stolen. (EPIC sees the tail number, reports it as stolen.) A minute or two later, he pulled me over and backup was already on the way. (Tower directs J&M to a remote area of the airport.) I pulled right over. (J&M proceeded as directed to the specified location, presumably seeing police cars LONG before they got there.) The Illinois state trooper, probably figuring I wouldn't have bothered pulling over if I was a thief, did not pull his gun. (SBA police, with their adrenaline and haste high, do not bother making this deduction, and pull their guns.) The trooper explained the situation, and asked for my permit book, which contains registration and other similar info, and said it might be a while. (J&M are handcuffed and thrown in the back of separate police cruisers.) I waited, both inside and outside my truck, while the troopers attempted to figure out what was going on. (J&M sit handcuffed in the back of police cruisers while the police attempt to figure out what was going on.) Eventually, it was determined that the trailer was not the stolen one. (Eventually, it was determined that the airplane was not the stolen one.)

Two situations that start, and end, exactly the same - Yet in one, several guns were drawn on a pair of innocent citizens, while in the other the police were able to handle the situation calmly without any show of force. I can tell you that I am at 6'4" and, uh, strongly built, for damn sure a lot more intimidating than John and Martha, yet for some reason those (local) police acted as if they were extremely intimidated by a pair of older, skinny, folksy, friendly people. Clearly, law enforcement officials have a difficult job to do, but in this case it appears that very little good judgement was exercised.

How it SHOULD have gone: Police get the call and set up their "trap". ATC directs the plane to that location. J&M taxi in and shut down, making no attempts to escape the police. The police deduce from that that J&M are probably not an immediate threat, and proceed with caution (and WITHOUT their guns out) to the airplane. They ask J&M to step out, and take them each to separate areas (NOT sitting in the back seat of cruisers). The OIC asks them each individually what they are doing with this airplane, and getting the same, legal, correct story from both, makes another deduction that these are not airplane thieves. The OIC collects their contact info and their local plans and allows them to leave the airport, and then contacts EPIC to resolve the clearly erroneous report.

I know the police have a dangerous job, but it is inexcusable to use force in lieu of judgement.
Click to expand...

*When* did your incident occur? *Why* did it occur?

These are two very important distinctions. The when speaks for itself.

The why is a little more complex. When you were pulled over, did your car come up as stolen, as well? Did your trailer tags come up stolen, but still match your name, or the address for your car, or some other kind of information indicating something other than criminal activity? What information was there in the database about your trailer?

These are some, out of many, potential differences, which would also explain the difference in treatment.

As for the sentiments raised, yeah, I agree that a show of force isn't a good thing. I agree that it seems ridiculous to have 30 police officers show up to handle something that, in retrospect, merits 4 (2 for each person in the plane), or at most 6.

At the same time, as I think I posted above, retrospect and hindsight aren't luxuries that are available at the time these incidents occur. While it's always valuable to look back and ask what could have been done differently, the reality is that when faced with a report of a stolen vehicle with no other information (there apparently wasn't, despite all the suggestions of "talk to the air traffic tower" and the like, which your average cop - or any other person - simply is not going to think of), you're dealing with a potentially dangerous situation.

So, I don't like the show of force, I don't like seeing every police officer in 5 counties show up for any incident that might be dangerous - I don't like the image, and that's just for starters.

But, I'm not unsympathetic to what is being faced.
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
*When* did your incident occur? *Why* did it occur?
Click to expand...

At night, a couple years ago.

The why is a little more complex. When you were pulled over, did your car come up as stolen, as well? Did your trailer tags come up stolen, but still match your name, or the address for your car, or some other kind of information indicating something other than criminal activity? What information was there in the database about your trailer?
Click to expand...

Tractor did not come up as stolen. Trailer did come up as stolen, but the record of it being stolen did not indicate what type of vehicle it was. (Turned out that it was a *tractor* that had been stolen with that plate number, not a *trailer*, but they actually let me go before they knew that.) What they knew was that the Milwaukee County Sheriff's Department had put in that plate number as stolen. That's all they knew at the time I was pulled over.

Milwaukee County could not resolve the issue in a timely manner. The IL troopers ended up letting me go because A) It was properly registered as a company trailer, and B) I was driving a company truck. And probably C) I had no criminal record. Since Milwaukee County could not tell them whether or not the vehicle had ever been recovered or what type of vehicle it was, there was no use keeping me any longer as I had cooperated and they had all my info.

Later, I found out what had happened, and the company had enough trouble getting that plate number cleared that 4 or 5 of our other drivers were pulled over with it before everything was resolved. NONE of them at gunpoint.

At the same time, as I think I posted above, retrospect and hindsight aren't luxuries that are available at the time these incidents occur. While it's always valuable to look back and ask what could have been done differently, the reality is that when faced with a report of a stolen vehicle with no other information (there apparently wasn't, despite all the suggestions of "talk to the air traffic tower" and the like, which your average cop - or any other person - simply is not going to think of), you're dealing with a potentially dangerous situation.
Click to expand...

There wasn't much information available to them in my incident either, but they didn't feel the need to show force. Like you said, it's a potentially dangerous situation. Were I one of the officers, I'd definitely be on high alert (with my hand on the gun, ready to draw, but still in the holster) - But in this situation, I don't think going in with guns drawn first was justified.
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
Dave,

I think I might have addressed your questions indirectly. Didn't mean to ignore your questions - frankly, I agree with what you've written, but at the same time, there are plenty of people out there who have shown themselves willing to open fire.

At the end of the day, our system creates a compromise between the interests of liberty and the interests of enforcing the law. Sometimes the scale tips in favor of liberty, and sometimes in favor of law enforcement.
Click to expand...

Dave: I've probably been under more hostile fire than the vast majority of LEOs; maybe some of the current vets that are LEOs have been shot at as much as I have been. I've been shot at many times and not returned fire while trying to determine if I was receiving friendly or enemy fire so as to not hurt friendlies (automatic weapon fire at that). These folks they need to be reasonable and take into account these could be innocent folks!

Let's see: the police knew the plane was arriving and it had been on an IFR flight plane (nothing suspicious there). They could have asked anyone at the FBO or a line boy to verify aircraft type and they didn't. The could have checked the aircraft database and didn't.
They arranged with tower to have the plane taxi over to a specified area where they could have made arrangements to be behind cover and direct the occupants to exit the aircraft so they could be observed to not be armed.

Just what did the occupants do to deserve having deadly force directed at them?

I'm sorry, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Had they not gone where directed; not complied with instructions or had the police not had time to set up before they came, it could be a bit different, but the police held all the cards and could have set up in a manner that avoided this from what has been provided.

Heck, they have several weapons, I'm sure vests, and cover; they didn't need to assault these innocent folks.

Get out of the plane with your hands up (of where ever the LEOs wanted) is all that was needed while the police were in covered, defensive positions.

I just don't buy it. I know LEOs are under a lot of stress, but incidents like this just shouldn't occur. They can leave lasting emotional harm on those threatened. What if there were kids in that plane?

Dave
 
Last edited:
If "stolen" were the only criteria the police had to go on, then guns were an overreaction.

But if "stolen, associated with drug trafficking (DEA case XYZ)" is the message the cops got, then that's a whole different story. And it comes down to how quickly the cops scaled back down the force continuum once they were dealing with the Kings.
 
Dave Siciliano said:
Dave: I've probably been under more hostile fire than the vast majority of LEOs; maybe some of the current vets that are LEOs have been shot at as much as I have been. I've been shot at many times and not returned fire while trying to determine if I was receiving friendly or enemy fire so as to not hurt friendlies (automatic weapon fire at that). These folks they need to be reasonable and take into account these could be innocent folks!

Let's see: the police knew the plane was arriving and it had been on an IFR flight plane (nothing suspicious there). They could have asked anyone at the FBO or a line boy to verify aircraft type and they didn't. The could have checked the aircraft database and didn't.
They arranged with tower to have the plane taxi over to a specified area where they could have made arrangements to be behind cover and direct the occupants to exit the aircraft so they could be observed to not be armed.

Just what did the occupants do to deserve having deadly force directed at them?

I'm sorry, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Had they not gone where directed; not complied with instructions or had the police not had time to set up before they came, it could be a bit different, but the police held all the cards and could have set up in a manner that avoided this from what has been provided.

Heck, they have several weapons, I'm sure vests, and cover; they didn't need to assault these innocent folks.

Get out of the plane with your hands up (of where ever the LEOs wanted) is all that was needed while the police were in covered, defensive positions.

I just don't buy it. I know LEOs are under a lot of stress, but incidents like this just shouldn't occur. They can leave lasting emotional harm on those threatened. What if there were kids in that plane?

Dave
Click to expand...

Dave,

You make your point as well as ever, and I can't even attempt to argue against what you've written. Your points are well-taken on this end.

I don't disagree - as I think I wrote earlier, it both annoys and concerns me to say 20 police officers, in full battle gear (there's nothing else to call it) and armed to the teeth, do what it should reasonably, resistance or not, take 5 to do.

I'm just trying to explain why it's done that way. I don't uniformly agree with it, and in many instances it's taken too far (the use of "no-knock" warrants, for instance), but in other instances it can be appropriate.

The ultimate points I'm trying to make are: 1) these things are judged based on what is known at the time; 2) what was known at the time here was that there was a report of a stolen airplane that, by all information available, was corroborated; and 3) I don't think that having guns drawn in an instance of a stolen vehicle is *necessarily* an incorrect decision.
 
Re: This is outrageous! Kings handcuffed by police.

Uh oh, sorry!:crazy:
 
I think the police could have asked the the Kings to wait in the FBO with an officer while they checked it out. Guns, cuffs, and stuffing them into a police car was way over the top.
 
Dave Siciliano said:
Dave: I've probably been under more hostile fire than the vast majority of LEOs; maybe some of the current vets that are LEOs have been shot at as much as I have been. I've been shot at many times and not returned fire while trying to determine if I was receiving friendly or enemy fire so as to not hurt friendlies (automatic weapon fire at that). These folks they need to be reasonable and take into account these could be innocent folks!

Let's see: the police knew the plane was arriving and it had been on an IFR flight plane (nothing suspicious there). They could have asked anyone at the FBO or a line boy to verify aircraft type and they didn't. The could have checked the aircraft database and didn't.
They arranged with tower to have the plane taxi over to a specified area where they could have made arrangements to be behind cover and direct the occupants to exit the aircraft so they could be observed to not be armed.

Just what did the occupants do to deserve having deadly force directed at them?

I'm sorry, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Had they not gone where directed; not complied with instructions or had the police not had time to set up before they came, it could be a bit different, but the police held all the cards and could have set up in a manner that avoided this from what has been provided.

Heck, they have several weapons, I'm sure vests, and cover; they didn't need to assault these innocent folks.

Get out of the plane with your hands up (of where ever the LEOs wanted) is all that was needed while the police were in covered, defensive positions.

I just don't buy it. I know LEOs are under a lot of stress, but incidents like this just shouldn't occur. They can leave lasting emotional harm on those threatened. What if there were kids in that plane?

Dave
Click to expand...
Well said Dave. I don't think many of these police officers really have ever undergone much for tactical training nor have they ever been in an actual engagement. They don't get to show their force much and they jump at the opportunity.

Something tells me the calm, cool, and collected attitude you have takes some experience to obtain. I'm willing to bet the first time someone starts taking fire is much different then the 10th time.

Pointing a deadly weapon at someone is dangerous. Pointing 20 deadly weapons are someone is extremely dangerous. People don't seem to think that way for some reason and realize the risk their applying to a person who is likely not going to resist and may be innocent.
 
Last edited:
jesse said:
Well said Dave. I don't think many of these police officers really have ever undergone much for tactical training nor have they ever been in an actual engagement. They don't get to show their force much and they jump at the opportunity.

Something tells me the calm, cool, and collected attitude you have takes some experience to obtain. I'm willing to bet the first time someone starts taking fire is much different then the 10th time.\
Click to expand...

Part of this is, I think, the unknown factor. I've done hundreds (maybe over a thousand) felony stops in my career, I've been in riots, been shot at numerous times, been stabbed, and worked 17 years is very high volume, very violent cities.
If I'm doing a felony stop on a car (or a surround on a house, or whatever), I know exactly how many cars and officers I need, exactly where they need to be, and know exactly how I'm going to do it.

But now you tell cops they're going to do a felony stop on a plane? Something they've never trained for, never done, and are going to have to make up tactics as they go. When cops are are confronted with a situation they have never dealt with or trained for, the reaction is to bring more than you think you need and to be extra careful because you don't know where your vulnerabilities are. You can always release them after things are stable.

Once we had to do a felony stop on a motorhome, we had probably double the number of officers we would normally have, because we weren't sure how we were going to do it (all the windows, room for people to run around inside with weapons, etc). It turns out we didn't need them, but the default reaction in an unusual situation is to bulk up until you know what is what.

Lastly, photos show they took the Kings out, cuffed them while standing, and put them in cars. Cuffs and in cars is standard procedure. You take one out at a time and secure them one at a time, so the situation remains controlled.
They didn't prone them out on the ground like you normally would do with a stolen vehicle, or anything else. They did what I have done when you start a felony stop and the person who gets out makes you start reconsidering if this is a legit steal. Dial back, but run it by the numbers until everyone's secure, the vehicle is cleared to make sure there's no one hiding in the vehicle with a weapon, and then start figuring out what you actually have.

Control of the scene and the operation is in everyone's best interest. Uncontrolled scenes lead to conflict and confusion. Varying from the trained and practiced way of doing things creates confusion. Confusion leads to bad outcomes. Keep things calm, controlled, and get the scene stable and secure as rapidly as possible keeps things as safe as possible for everyone involved.

One thing, according to the FBI study of cops killed in the line of duty, "The most salient behavioral descriptors characterizing these officers appeared to be their good-natured demeanor and conservative use of physical force, as compared to other law enforcement officers in similar situations. They were also perceived as being well-liked by the community and the department, friendly to everyone, "laid back," and "easy going."
Further: "Officers' improper approaches and lack of control of both situations and individuals were found to be likely contributors to the killings."
Cops find themselves in a no win situation, where the very traits that people want in cops (and that most cops would like to exhibit) are the same traits that make them more likely to end up dead.

And remember there's lots of dead cops from people who didn't "look" like criminals. For more information, google my friends Detectives Randy Bell and Ricky Childers (Tampa PD), and FL Trooper Jim Crooks, all killed by a guy that seemed to be grieving father. http://www.wtsp.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=135125
 
Last edited:
The oldest person to kill a police officer was 96, the youngest was 6. I doubt either of them looked like the "typical" cop killer? I think Alan explained very well why things are done the way they are.
 
I had an officer stop me for a tail light being out (unknown to me)... He came nonchalantly strolling up directly to my side window, 3 feet away from the car, with a smile on his face and his hands hanging empty and asked for my license and registration... He got the documents followed by a new rectal opening being verbally ripped out by me...

He made so many errors I couldn't count them all... Had I been a bad guy he would have been dead on that road that night... By the time I was done chewing on him the smile was gone... Next day I called his chief and and chewed on him... I hope this small town department took my criticism to heart...

Look folks, the officer is not your friend and you sure as heck are not his friend... I expect him to consider you a mass murderer with dead bodies in the trunk until proven otherwise - even if all you did was a rolling stop at an empty intersection on a sleepy Sunday... If he does this, then the odds are that this 23 year old will get to go home at the end of the shift to his wife and baby... If he doesn't think this way, then the odds plummet drastically...

denny-o
 
Dr. O said:
I had an officer stop me for a tail light being out (unknown to me)... He came nonchalantly strolling up directly to my side window, 3 feet away from the car, with a smile on his face and his hands hanging empty and asked for my license and registration... He got the documents followed by a new rectal opening being verbally ripped out by me...

He made so many errors I couldn't count them all... Had I been a bad guy he would have been dead on that road that night... By the time I was done chewing on him the smile was gone... Next day I called his chief and and chewed on him... I hope this small town department took my criticism to heart...

Look folks, the officer is not your friend and you sure as heck are not his friend... I expect him to consider you a mass murderer with dead bodies in the trunk until proven otherwise - even if all you did was a rolling stop at an empty intersection on a sleepy Sunday... If he does this, then the odds are that this 23 year old will get to go home at the end of the shift to his wife and baby... If he doesn't think this way, then the odds plummet drastically...

denny-o
Click to expand...

With all due respect, that's bull****.
 
I think you're all talking over the main difference between a responding to a stolen airplane and a road stop.

With an airplane, Barney thinks, "OMG! I'm gonna get me a terrist! ..or at least a drug runner! Big time, here I come! The FBI will finally look at my application. I'll be on America's Most Wanted!'
 
ScottM said:
Well they could look at the airplane's VIN B)B)
Click to expand...
Actually they could. Airplanes are supposed to have data plates with the serial number on them. That's not to say that a determined thief couldn't have altered it but a determined thief could have also repainted the airplane with a bogus N-number. A determined thief probably wouldn't have filed a flight plan with the stolen N-number, though.
 
Everskyward said:
Actually they could.
Click to expand...
True that airplanes have dataplates. But they have no VIN.

VINs are an international standard where participating countries and vendors agree upon the format of the number and coordinate to prevent duplication.

Airplane dataplates show the model number and serial number that is specific to whatever format the manufacturer decides to use. There could potnetially be duplicates too.
 
150man said:
With all due respect, that's bull****.
Click to expand...
Emphasis mine.

Seriously, the attitude that police need to shoot first, ask questions later is what makes so many people question the intelligence level of LEOs.
 
SkyHog said:
Emphasis mine.

Seriously, the attitude that police need to shoot first, ask questions later is what makes so many people question the intelligence level of LEOs.
Click to expand...

This should make us all feel safe:

Police can deprive people of liberty, health or life itself. Surely, we only entrust such authority to those with the intelligence, insight and wisdom to handle such power? Nope. At least, not in my state of Connecticut, not since the 1996 state supreme court decision Jordan v New London.
Robert Jordan applied for a police job in New London and scored 33 on his qualification exam, equivalent to a 125 IQ. That's one standard deviation above the mean – smart, but no genius by any definition. The city refused to hire him, stating a preference for those who scored 27 or lower; the suggested median for a patrol officer was 21. New London's argument was that smart people would find police work boring, and leave the profession after receiving expensive training. Jordan sued for discrimination – and lost. The court ruled there's nothing discriminatory about a city's desire to ensure only C-students get to carry police badges.
Click to expand...

Taken from:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/aug/16/police-usa-civil-liberties
 
This just in:
From Max Trescott email earlier this week.

It's like Paul Harvey's "The Rest of the Story!"


You may have heard that John and Martha King were detained over the weekend at gunpoint after they landed in Santa Barbara to visit a friend. According to an AOPA story, "upon landing at Santa Barbara, the airplane was directed to a remote part of the airport instead of the FBO where the Kings planned to park. There, four police cruisers were parked. After shutting down the engine, King was ordered out of the aircraft with his hands up and told to back slowly toward the officers, who had guns drawn. After he was handcuffed and placed in a cruiser, Martha was ordered to similarly exit the aircraft. She too was handcuffed and placed in a separate cruiser." What the story doesn't say is that this is...
the second time a pilot has been detained and handcuffed for flying N50545!
In January 2009, Jim Pitman, a friend of mine who was a Cessna employee at the time, posted an account on Facebook of his run in with police. While he was handcuffed, he was detained in a far less threatening manner than the Kings were. Here's information from his posting: "So I got to spend some time handcuffed in the back of a police car on the ramp in Wichita today.
"Here's the story... I pick up my new Skyhawk (N50545) at the factory in Independence Kansas and head for Wichita for some company meetings. As soon as I land the cops are there to greet me, saying they need to ask me some questions. I first think some of my friends are playing a practical joke, but they assure me they are serious and proceed to handcuff me. By this time I knew it was not a joke, and of course, was completely cooperative.
"Apparently N50545 is a tail number that used to be assigned to another airplane that was reported stolen several years ago. The officers were very friendly and it only took about 20 minutes to clear everything up. I was smiling the entire time knowing what a great story this was going to be :)"
The incident over the weekend with the Kings was far less cordial and is getting far more attention. AOPA President Craig Fuller was understandably outraged. "Simply put, this incident is as outrageous as it is inexplicable and raises serious questions about the coordination of information among federal and local authorities. A $2 app for an iPad and 30 seconds would have discovered sufficient information to raise serious doubt that John and Martha King, who filed an instrument flight plan in a Cessna 172, were instead flying an older stolen Cessna 150 whose N number had long ago been retired and reissued by the FAA."
I followed up with Jim a few minutes ago by phone, broke the news to him about this second incident, and asked for his thoughts. He said that "it was shocking that this could have happened again years later. My flight was the plane's very first flight away from the factory in Independence and I then flew it for several months around the West, including into Santa Barbara, without incident." Asked about the difference in the way he was treated versus the Kings he said "The police in Wichita were totally cool with me and there were no guns drawn."
So pilots beware. In the post 9/11 era, small planes continue to be regarded by the public and sometimes law enforcement as objects of terror. If confronted by law enforcement, remember to use the words "Yes sir" frequently until things get sorted out. Hopefully there won't be a third incident in which pilots are detained for flying N50545. You can hear Martha describing the incident in a 15 minute podcast at avweb.com.
Click to expand...


Having it happen once is bad, having the airplane STILL showing up as stolen is inexcusable. The Kings should have a lawsuit against whoever owns the system where the airplane is listed as stolen.
 
TMetzinger said:
You can hear Martha describing the incident in a 15 minute podcast at avweb.com..
Click to expand...
Her interview is here. John King did a couple of interviews with Jim Campbell of ANN here and here. They're also reporting that the Santa Barbara police chief is apologizing.
Jim [Campbell],

You will be pleased to know that the Santa Barbara Police Chief just called John, and apologized clearly and profusely for the incident.

He said that the police don't have any training for aircraft stops, and used the only procedure they knew - a "hot stop" on a stolen vehicle.

John suggested that perhaps police departments should have national training, and an "SOP", so they can do aircraft intercepts - when necessary - properly. John will provide him with ideas on the kind of training police should receive in this regard.

The conversation was very cordial.

--Martha
Click to expand...
Apparently Spencer, their Psychic detective, wasn't there that day! :)
 
And exactly as I expected, a very classy response from the Kings - They posted this on Twitter:

Our "Gunpoint-at-the-Airport" Ordeal and the learning opportunity it presents: http://bit.ly/bfBD1y #aviation #N50545
Click to expand...

Here's where the bit.ly link leads: http://johnandmartha.kingschools.com/2010/08/31/our-gunpoint-at-the-airport-ordeal/

Very well written, and I hope AOPA and the Kings can work together to educate law enforcement (and customs) officers about how to deal with airplanes. Maybe they can make a video. ;)
 
The incident occurred at the primary towered airport in class C airspace. The tower WAS open. There were far more knowledgeable persons (about airplanes) on the airport proper the police could have verified information with if they cared to. They could have allowed them to park at the FBO and met them after they deplaned. Plus, they could have waited until they left the plane and verified the data covertly without putting ANYONE in jeopardy.
It's been proven before. Just following orders is no excuse. If you can't bring a little intelligence to the job, find something else to do. No one is safe with you there.
And the fact that a similar incident occurred not long before should prove to all that data the government keeps is faulty and misleading. Will the Kings now find themselves on the national no fly list (another fine database owned and operated by our government).
What is it going to take to clean up these databases?
 
silver-eagle said:
What is it going to take to clean up these databases?
Click to expand...

What would be the motivation to clean-up the databases? There are no consequences (for the government) for the errors so there is no reason to do the work. After all, the LEOs are just doing what they are trained to do as explained by several posters here.:rolleyes2:
 
Well, it is not BS...
Just for a few items... His car was not outboard of mine so he was not shielded from being sideswiped by oncoming traffic.. He did not put his spotlight onto my side mirror to both illuminate me and to have glare in my eyes as he approached.. He did not stay tight to the car so he could see down into my lap... He did not stop while he was behind my shoulder, instead coming directly in line with me... If I had a gun in my lap, I raise my hand he is a dead man...
Now, nowhere did I say he had to pull his gun or be nasty on a routine traffic stop... But I do prefer that officers take the basic steps to stay alive...

As far as the police stop on the Kings, I don't have enough 'actual' information to have a firm opinion... The force level employed was high... PD's do not understand aviation and since 9/11 consider every airplane to a threat... That is unfortunate - and not likely to change...
 
Dr. O said:
Well, it is not BS...
Just for a few items... His car was not outboard of mine so he was not shielded from being sideswiped by oncoming traffic.. He did not put his spotlight onto my side mirror to both illuminate me and to have glare in my eyes as he approached.. He did not stay tight to the car so he could see down into my lap... He did not stop while he was behind my shoulder, instead coming directly in line with me... If I had a gun in my lap, I raise my hand he is a dead man...
Click to expand...

And when I got pulled over the other night, the cop did ALL of the above, and was still courteous as all get out.

As a side note - In VA all CCW permit holders are crosslinked to vehicle registrations so the cops can punch in a plate number and know if the vehicles owner is a CCW permit holder. This helps keep things a little safer, I think - no officer has ever overreacted when spotting my weapon. I generally have my license and registration out and my hands on the wheel when they walk up, and that further reduces tension. I had one officer ask me (politely!) to keep my hands on the wheel until he'd seen my license and verified it was in fact me, otherwise I've gotten the same treatment whether I've been armed or not.

Back on topic - I think the Kings could do a very good training aid for law enforcement on how to deal with airplanes safely. Pretty much only SWAT or airport police get any familiarity with airplanes, and then generally only the transport planes.

I've seen one "takedown" for a FRZ bust in person. I thought it was well done - the cops (USCS and locals) did have weapons out, but they were all behind cover and the weapons were pointed down. The airplane stopped, the cops gave commands to slowly exit the airplane, and then lie down on the ground. The folks on the airplane complied, and they were quickly frisked, cuffed (for everyone's safety), and the weapons were all put away. After about 5 minutes where the airplane was given a cursory search and the IDs were run, everyone was released from the cuffs and escorted into the FBO where the serious interview started. But the USCS guys clearly had a plan and a clue - something most local police wouldn't have for an airplane incident.
 
TMetzinger said:
I've seen one "takedown" for a FRZ bust in person. I thought it was well done - the cops (USCS and locals) did have weapons out, but they were all behind cover and the weapons were pointed down. The airplane stopped, the cops gave commands to slowly exit the airplane, and then lie down on the ground. The folks on the airplane complied, and they were quickly frisked, cuffed (for everyone's safety), and the weapons were all put away. After about 5 minutes where the airplane was given a cursory search and the IDs were run, everyone was released from the cuffs and escorted into the FBO where the serious interview started. But the USCS guys clearly had a plan and a clue - something most local police wouldn't have for an airplane incident.
Click to expand...

All that for violation of a FAR? Geeze, I hope they never find anything wrong with my airplane, heaven forbid catch me flying too low or too close to clouds. I can only imagine the response.
 
Well, I didn't have a huge problem with this until hearing that this had happened before. That's just inexcusable, and a huge problem. Lawsuit time...

Oh, as for traffic stops: When I get stopped, I turn on the dome light, open both side windows, keep my hands at 10 and 2 on the wheel, wait for the officer to come up. I tell him where what he or she has asked for is located and slowly retreive it after receiving acknowledgement.

That has, on more than one occasion, resulted in me getting a reduced ticket. In any event, it always seems to make them a bit friendlier. Except in NYC, those guys are just a pain no matter what you do.
 
Last edited:
Ted DuPuis said:
Oh, as for traffic stops: When I get stopped, I turn on the dome light, open both side windows, keep my hands at 10 and 2 on the wheel, wait for the officer to come up. I tell him where what he or she has asked for is located and slowly retreive it after receiving acknowledgement.

That has, on more than one occasion, resulted in me getting a reduced ticket. In any event, it always seems to make them a bit friendlier. Except in NYC, those guys are just a pain no matter what you do.
Click to expand...

I would think that would make the cop think that you're very experienced at getting stopped!
 
PittsDriver said:
I would think that would make the cop think that you're very experienced at getting stopped!
Click to expand...

Who says I'm not? :wink2:

In college I got a lot of speeding tickets. Something about a 300 hp sports car that liked cruising at about 25" and 2500 RPM (or 100 mph). However I acted the same on the first stop as the last time I've gotten pulled over. They did always appreciate the the courtesy.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Oh, as for traffic stops: When I get stopped, I turn on the dome light, open both side windows, keep my hands at 10 and 2 on the wheel, wait for the officer to come up. I tell him where what he or she has asked for is located and slowly retreive it after receiving acknowledgement.

That has, on more than one occasion, resulted in me getting a reduced ticket. In any event, it always seems to make them a bit friendlier. Except in NYC, those guys are just a pain no matter what you do.
Click to expand...

I just foof my hair, smile, and bat the eyelashes. Generally results in NO ticket :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top