Ridiculous: Couple fool around on airplane, charged with violating Patriot Act

[motivez]

Uhhh, yeah. Okay. Next time you cut someone off in traffic and are charged with being a terrorist, let me know how much of a "big deal" it is

I love how no one cares about blatant abuse of power, misapplication of law, etc.. as long as it's happening to people they don't know. So disgusting.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by motivez

Uhhh, yeah. Okay. Next time you cut someone off in traffic and are charged with being a terrorist, let me know how much of a "big deal" it is

I love how no one cares about blatant abuse of power, misapplication of law, etc.. as long as it's happening to people they don't know. So disgusting.

He was charged with being a terrorist? I thought he was:

charged with obstructing a flight attendant and with criminal association.

Which is a law that was implimented under the Patriot Act. Doesn't say anything about him being a terrorist that I can see. And there has been no abuse of power yet. He's been charged. It doesn't say they're holding him. He just has to appear before court for his actions on the plane. I think we're all jumping the gun a bit early here.

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by motivez

Uhhh, yeah. Okay. Next time you cut someone off in traffic and are charged with being a terrorist, let me know how much of a "big deal" it is

I love how no one cares about blatant abuse of power, misapplication of law, etc.. as long as it's happening to people they don't know. So disgusting.

What are you talking about? The article didn't say he was a terrorist...

[motivez]

He's being charged with ANTI TERRORISM laws because of the ridiculously vague definition of "terrorist" and "terrorism" present in the patriot act

He should have not been charged under the Patriot Act, there's other laws that are more applicable to the scope of the situation.

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by motivez

He's being charged with ANTI TERRORISM laws because of the ridiculously vague definition of "terrorist" and "terrorism" present in the patriot act

He should have not been charged under the Patriot Act, there's other laws that are more applicable to the scope of the situation.

He wont be charged as a terrorist. The laws may have been in an antiterror section of the bill but I find it hard to believe if not outright impossible for him to be charged as a terrorist.

[R-Type]

Originally Posted by JaJae

It could also be because the new law overwrites the old one. For example, in my state we have manslaughter. Do it with a car and it's vehicular manslaughter. The charges could be less could be worse, but you're now charged under a different crime because what you did is covered under a new law.

I understand that new laws can replace older ones and that there are different classes. However, charge trumping like this makes the defendant's supposed actions 'look worse' than they really are to the public (where some are potential future jurors). Bringing PATRIOT into play makes me wonder what the state's true goal is because they didn't have to if their case was strong. Is it to scare the public into letter-perfect compliance? Is it an attack on sexual 'immorality?' Is it an attempt to equate supposed sexual 'immorality' with terrorism? I don't know, but just because the 'threat' took place on an airplane instead of a restaurant shouldn't make it any worse a crime, but that's exactly what the state is trying to do.

Originally Posted by JaJae

Threatening a flight attendent is now covered under the Patriot Act. I'm pretty sure you have to be charged for under the Patriot Act now that the laws have passed. It doesn't necessarily make him a terrorist and it doesn't mean he's going to get 20 years behind bars. It's just the new statute his crime falls under.

It might be, but just knowing he's being charged under the PATRIOT act would be enough to bias the jury into a conviction. Most people have been conditioned to think 'TERRORIST' when PATRIOT is invoked (omg PATRIOT? ..and he was having sex in public?!!? he must be guilty!!). You can thank PNAC and the media for that one.

Originally Posted by JaJae

I could rob a store and get up to 40 years, doesn't mean I will. It's taken on a case by case basis depending on the severity of the incident. The media always likes to report the inflated maximum sentence. Very rarely does anyone ever get that.

Oh, they will if the jury can be convinced emotionally, which is SOP for both sides in a case. This is the kind of thing that I'd like to see guarded against in legal process.

[JaJae]

Before the Patriot act threatening a flight attendant would still be a federal crime and subject to laws regarding the FAA. Now the laws are outlined under the Patriot Act. It really makes no difference. In either case he's looking at the same punishment and charge. I know people see the Patriot Act and cringe, but it's really no different than what we've been doing for quite some time now. It's just called something else.
http://www.raes-hfg.com/reports/12oc...9-interfer.rtf

[R-Type]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Before the Patriot act threatening a flight attendant would still be a federal crime and subject to laws regarding the FAA. Now the laws are outlined under the Patriot Act. It really makes no difference. In either case he's looking at the same punishment and charge. I know people see the Patriot Act and cringe, but it's really no different than what we've been doing for quite some time now. It's just called something else.
http://www.raes-hfg.com/reports/12oc...9-interfer.rtf

Ahh, that I did not know. Thanks for the link. I guess we'll see if they try for a 'terrorist' charge or not.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Before the Patriot act threatening a flight attendant would still be a federal crime and subject to laws regarding the FAA. Now the laws are outlined under the Patriot Act. It really makes no difference. In either case he's looking at the same punishment and charge. I know people see the Patriot Act and cringe, but it's really no different than what we've been doing for quite some time now. It's just called something else.
http://www.raes-hfg.com/reports/12oc...9-interfer.rtf

Look at the sections

Category 2 for "verbal abuse" requires just a written warning, and at most a filing with the FAA at a later date

I think it's a stretch to even call it that, because its supposed to be continual verbal abuse, that was one outburst...but even if they did stretch it...its nothing close to the threat of 20 years in prison

To be confronted by authorities at the airport, the passenger must either:
-Continually stop the staff from doing their jobs (such as landing, flying, etc)
-Injure staff
-Cause an emergency landing
-Passenger has ignored written notification and warning and continues to interupt the flight


From the evidence laid in the article, the couple clearly failed that test

However, if you use anti-terrorist legislation, it looks as though you can possibly get someone thrown in jail for 20 years

[R-Type]

hmm.. maybe it would help if I read the 'whole' doc instead of skimming over it quickly... alright well, I've made my point as it's still valid then.

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Look at the sections

Category 2 for "verbal abuse" requires just a written warning, and at most a filing with the FAA at a later date

I think it's a stretch to even call it that, because its supposed to be continual verbal abuse, that was one outburst...but even if they did stretch it...its nothing close to the threat of 20 years in prison

MAX penalty is 20 years. Wait until the sentencing before freaking out.


older case, though the guy went a bit nuts

FindLaw for Legal Professionals - Case Law, Federal and State Resources, Forms, and Code

5 years probation and huge fine. ~20k


So if they get much more then that, we can bitch

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Look at the sections

NOTICE: Your behavior may be in violation of Federal law.
You should immediately cease if you wish to avoid prosecution and your removal from this aircraft at the next point of arrival.

This is a formal warning that Federal law prohibits the following (reference Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) parts 91 and 121):

• Threatening, intimidating, or interfering with a crewmember (section 91.11)
• Smoking on a nonsmoking flight or in the lavatory (section 121.317)
• Drinking any alcoholic beverages not served by a crewmember or creating an alcohol-related disturbance (section 121.575)

An incident report will be filed with the FAA. If you do not refrain from these activities you will be prosecuted. The Federal Aviation Act provides for civil monetary fines and, in some cases, imprisonment.

I did. When someone threatens or intimidates a crew member they're supposed to notify the FAA which then charges them under Federal law. He was asked twice. And then threatened the flight attendant. They did their job and reported it. Now we'll see what happens with the charges.

[JaJae]

Federal Aviation Administration - Passengers & Cargo - Unruly Passengers

General notes

* Interfering with the duties of a crewmember violates federal law.
* Federal Aviation Regulations 91.11, 121.580 and 135.120 state that“no person may assault, threaten, intimidate, or interfere with a crewmember in the performance of the crewmember’s duties aboard an aircraft being operated.”
* The FAA’s database contains only those incidents reported to the FAA. Reporting is at the discretion of the crewmember
* Security violations are excluded. Those cases are handled by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA).
* Updated numbers are posted on this web page quarterly.
* The repercussions for passengers who engage in unruly behavior can be substantial. They can be fined by the FAA or prosecuted on criminal charges.As part of the FAA’s Reauthorization Bill (April 16, 2000) the FAA can propose up to $25,000 per violation for unruly passenger cases. Previously, the maximum civil penalty per violation was $1,100. One incident can result in multiple violations.

This is nothing new guys. So far there has been no gross violation of someone's rights.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Look at the sections

Category 2 for "verbal abuse" requires just a written warning, and at most a filing with the FAA at a later date

I think it's a stretch to even call it that, because its supposed to be continual verbal abuse, that was one outburst...but even if they did stretch it...its nothing close to the threat of 20 years in prison

To be confronted by authorities at the airport, the passenger must either:
-Continually stop the staff from doing their jobs (such as landing, flying, etc)
-Injure staff
-Cause an emergency landing
-Passenger has ignored written notification and warning and continues to interupt the flight


From the evidence laid in the article, the couple clearly failed that test

However, if you use anti-terrorist legislation, it looks as though you can possibly get someone thrown in jail for 20 years

What people aren't getting is that there are still rules in place to deal with this stuff that lie outside of legislation aimed at terrorists.. which carry much harsher penalties.

It's blatant misuse of the Patriot Act, and it's just another reason it needs to be repealed and rewritten with specific and exact language, this time written by sane people who weren't angry and willing to pass bullshit in the heat of the moment after 9/11.

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by motivez

What people aren't getting is that there are still rules in place to deal with this stuff that lie outside of legislation aimed at terrorists.. which carry much harsher penalties.

It's blatant misuse of the Patriot Act, and it's just another reason it needs to be repealed and rewritten with specific and exact language, this time written by sane people who weren't angry and willing to pass bullshit in the heat of the moment after 9/11.

You realize its been significantly rewritten upon renewal right?

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by motivez

It's blatant misuse of the Patriot Act, and it's just another reason it needs to be repealed and rewritten with specific and exact language, this time written by sane people who weren't angry and willing to pass bullshit in the heat of the moment after 9/11.

I think it's being used as intended. The Patriot Act took over many laws regarding the FAA and air trafficing. It's not being misused, it's being used as was intended. It overwrote those laws for a reason.

It's one thing to disagree with reclassifying things under the Patriot Act, it's another to say it's blatant misuse.

And does it really matter what the subheading the law falls under? As long as the charge and punishment fit the crime? How are his rights being violated in any way just because the law is classified under the Patriot Act and not FAA Federal air trafficing laws?

I think people are blowing this completely out of proportion. It makes no difference.

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by motivez

What people aren't getting is that there are still rules in place to deal with this stuff that lie outside of legislation aimed at terrorists.. which carry much harsher penalties.

Before the PATRIOT act, he would have still have been arressted by the FBI. No change has shown up so far. If he is sentenced for 10 years, fine.

[ballz2wallz]

I guess if the Patriot Act contains 'lewd and lascivious behavior' as well as 'threats made against a flight attendant' then I don't care what it falls under, they were wrong and should be punished.

I doubt they'll get 20 yrs, if jail time at all. If so, they need a reality check. Discipline ftmfw.