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

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

and liberals want more public schools

what did you mean by that?

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

He was asked twice, he didn't threaten twice...

What is the purpose of this post?

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by JaJae

What is the purpose of this post?

There is supposed to be repeated "threats" to warrant the presence of law enforcement at the gates

"In turn, company personnel may file the incident report with the FAA."

The attendant MAY file a complaint, which MAY be taken by the FAA, which MAY be subject to some sort of action...however in some light research I didn't find any examples

You are acting like this is common way to deal with such things, and its not

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

There is supposed to be repeated "threats" to warrant the presence of law enforcement at the gates

um no.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

You are acting like this is common way to deal with such things, and its not

I just called my friend Lisa who is a flight attendent for United based out of Orlando. She says it is. If a passenger threatens you in any way you're supposed to tell your superior who then turns it over to terminal security. From there charges are typically filed by the airport, the security company or her company.

She says you don't have to break the law twice to be charged with the crime.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

You are acting like this is common way to deal with such things, and its not

And you know this...how?

From personal experience, a couple was getting fresh in the seats behind me on a plane. So fresh that they were asked to stop, much like what happened here. The flight attendant asked them to stop, but they continued. No threats were given, but the cops were waiting for them when we arrived.

I'd say this is how these situations are handled frequently, based on this article.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

And you know this...how?

From personal experience, a couple was getting fresh in the seats behind me on a plane. So fresh that they were asked to stop, much like what happened here. The flight attendant asked them to stop, but they continued. No threats were given, but the cops were waiting for them when we arrived.

I'd say this is how these situations are handled frequently, based on this article.

that sounds like a police state to me, thank god the democrats were chosen by the people of american to control congress before it expanded beyond airports

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by JaJae

I just called my friend Lisa who is a flight attendent for United based out of Orlando. She says it is. If a passenger threatens you in any way you're supposed to tell your superior who then turns it over to terminal security. From there charges are typically filed by the airport, the security company or her company.

She says you don't have to break the law twice to be charged with the crime.

Maybe that is what they are told post 9/11, because of anti-terrorism laws

However, the article clearly says that your friend MAY tell her boss and it clearly implies there was a real threat, i don't see the "threat" of complaining to a persons boss at a later date is a "real threat"

Anyway, if your friend elects to tell your boss, they MAY turn it over to terminal security, who MAY turn it over to someone else, and from there to...etc etc

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

that sounds like a police state to me, thank god the democrats were chosen by the people of american to control congress before it expanded beyond airports

Yes, a police state that does its job in keeping peace and civility in our society. Shame on them for not wanting lewd and lascivious behavior going on in public!!!

Or is it that the 2 dirty people have the right to suck each other off, and the other 250 people on the plane do not have the right to not have to see that?

[motivez]

This isn't about whether or not they were right or wrong, obviously they shouldn't have done what they did on the plane. If it's against airline rules and not illegal, they still shouldn't have done it because it violated those rules.

However, there's really no reason that laws written to deal with "terrorists" and "terrorism" should be applied to ordinary citizens bad judgment. It should really be left to you know, actual terrorists.

The definition of terrorist and terrorism in the patriot act is far too broad, it could probably be stretched to cover a wide range of "normal" criminal offenses..

I think it does matter what law they're charged under because I think it's just another example of the Government going too far with some of the stuff that's supposedly designed to 'keep us safe'..

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Maybe that is what they are told post 9/11, because of anti-terrorism laws

However, the article clearly says that your friend MAY tell her boss and it clearly implies there was a real threat, i don't see the "threat" of complaining to a persons boss at a later date is a "real threat"

Anyway, if your friend elects to tell your boss, they MAY turn it over to terminal security, who MAY turn it over to someone else, and from there to...etc etc

And they did. What's your problem with this? Are you suggesting that flight attendents who are threatened on the job shouldn't report it? I have no idea what your argument is. Are you suggesting, when a flight attendent is threatened they shouldn't use their discretion on whether they feel threatened and just not report the incident?

i don't see the "threat" of complaining to a persons boss at a later date is a "real threat"

Persing snapped back threatening the flight attendant with "serious consequences" if he did not leave them alone.

You're really stretching. His words and tone weren't disclosed. All we know is that his behavior was taken as a clear threat to the flight attendent who decided to report the incident. There is nothing wrong with that. Now the courts will decide whether or not he is guilty, that's part of our Democracy. And it's a good thing.

People shouldn't be afraid to report cases of when they feel they've been threatened because the media and people of certain political ideologies will get upset at the name of the law.

[motivez]

It's not about the name of the law, it's about the scope and intention.. and misapplication.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by motivez

It's not about the name of the law, it's about the scope and intention.. and misapplication.

The scope and the intention is to allow flight attendents to have legal rights on what goes on in the cabin of an airplane. It wasn't misapplied at all. People are just upset that it's now listed under the Patriot Act and not the FAA. I don't see what the big deal is personally.

The law is clear. It is not vague. You have to listen to the instructions of a flight attendent or you can be brought up on charges... and not threaten them. They're not in a public park or some other place where they have the right to do whatever they want. Nor do they have the right to threaten another person. The FAA would have treated this case the same as it is being treated under the Patriot Act. But the FAA doesn't have the same jurisdiction anymore.

[motivez]

Oh, I forgot. There was nothing flight attendants could do before the Patriot Act if they were "threatened"

The law isn't clear.. I'm not the only one who thinks that the definition of "terrorism" and "terrorist" are far too broad/vague in the law, and could be misapplied to cases where it shouldn't be used. This is obviously one of those cases.

[SICKGUY]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Yes, a police state that does its job in keeping peace and civility in our society. Shame on them for not wanting lewd and lascivious behavior going on in public!!!

Or is it that the 2 dirty people have the right to suck each other off, and the other 250 people on the plane do not have the right to not have to see that?

im always amazed at how simplistic conservative outlooks are. there is the right way, and there is the wrong way. there is no such thing as an in between with you guys.

getting arrested for something like indecent exposure would be understandable, but what does the fbi have to do with 2 people getting freaky on a plane?

[SICKGUY]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

and liberals want more public schools

are you making a generalization that this guy is somehow a product of our public school system? he is a member of the mile high club, and a dickhead (so it seems) but where do you even draw a conclusion on public schooling??

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by motivez

Oh, I forgot. There was nothing flight attendants could do before the Patriot Act if they were "threatened"

The law isn't clear.. I'm not the only one who thinks that the definition of "terrorism" and "terrorist" are far too broad/vague in the law, and could be misapplied to cases where it shouldn't be used. This is obviously one of those cases.

Yes before federal law covered them under the FAA regulations. Now Federal law covers them under the Patriot Act. Same outcomes, different name.

Nobody called him a terrorist. Where did anyone call him a terrorist? This entire situation is blown out of proportion. You can see it right in the source and thread title:

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

Rather than:

Ridiculous: Man threatens flight attendent, charged with violating Patriot Act

It's all a play on verbage. Patriot Act, Terrorist, fooling around on airplane, threatening to call back later and file a complaint.. there's a lot of doublespeak going on here.

The short and skinny of the issue is the man has been charged under current federal laws for threatening a flight attendent under the Patriot Act rather than the old way of using the FAA. If you're saying we should have two laws, one for "terrorists" and one for "non-terrorists" that's one thing. But even then it would likely still be covered under the Patriot Act and where do you draw the line of who is and isn't a terrorist? It would kind of make the entire idea pointless.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by motivez

Oh, I forgot. There was nothing flight attendants could do before the Patriot Act if they were "threatened"

The law isn't clear.. I'm not the only one who thinks that the definition of "terrorism" and "terrorist" are far too broad/vague in the law, and could be misapplied to cases where it shouldn't be used. This is obviously one of those cases.

That goes in with my point...the old system, part of which you linked to...had a series of actions that MAY be taken...meaning there were levels of administration officials who took it nice and slowly and were generally lax about non-injurious issues

In a regular world, the guy would either get a warning after the flight in writing, or be banned from ever flying on that airline ever again, and have the right to make his case in a court of law against it...that's fair, thats how the old system worked

That one snappy comment (that we aren't even sure happened in the manner described) results in armed federal officers waiting to arrest you...thats a step towards fascism

Facing the possibility of 20 years of jail under anti-terrorism laws...

That's a hell of a thing to have on your resume "yes I'm a convicted felon under the anti-terrorism patriot act" then when no one wants to hire the guy, you are going to complain when you have to pay for his food stamps, and for his kids medical care