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

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by AVengeance

I really don't see where she was being threatened with physical harm. Also, just because the media are being good little lap-dogs now and staying hush-hush on the Patriot Act part of it (which is more NEWS than the rest of the story) doesn't mean it's okay.

1) the man made obscure threats to a flight attendant- bad idea
2) there were already laws to cover this

The Patriot Act is simply a credit card with no limit for spending their police state power any way they choose.

except the patriot act has nothing to do with the situation because it was a federal crime before the PA. Interstate planes are under the jurisdiction of the federal govt. The federal police are handling the case. The only difference is the title of the book, the law is in.

Explain how you think this has anything to do with a police state expanding when people were tried under the same law before the PA ?

Originally Posted by hsmith

"i am going to beat the shit out of you" is a threat

Argue with your boss then say "you and him are going to have a serious confrontation after work" and see how he reacts.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

Argue with your boss then say "you and him are going to have a serious confrontation after work" and see how he reacts.

non sequitur

the customer did not say "we are going to have a serious confrontation after the flight"

[phreak]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

non sequitur

the customer did not say "we are going to have a serious confrontation after the flight"

ummm...

The flight attendant told them to stop asking for alcohol. Persing said, "You and I are gonna have some serious confrontation when we get off this plane."

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by phreak

ummm...

Mid-flight sexual play lands US couple afoul of anti-terrorism law
Nov 14 6:53 PM US/Eastern






A couple's ill-concealed sexual play aboard a Southwest Airlines flight from Los Angeles got them charged with violating the Patriot Act, intended for terrorist acts, and could land them in jail for 20 years.
According to their indictment, Carl Persing and Dawn Sewell were allegedly snuggling and kissing inappropriately, "making other passengers uncomfortable," when a flight attendant asked them to stop.



"Persing was observed nuzzling or kissing Sewell on the neck, and ... with his face pressed against Sewell's vaginal area. During these actions, Sewell was observed smiling," reads the indictment filed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

On a second warning from the flight attendant, Persing snapped back threatening the flight attendant with "serious consequences" if he did not leave them alone.

The comment was enough to have the couple, both in their early 40s, arrested when the plane reached its destination in Raleigh, North Carolina, and charged with obstructing a flight attendant and with criminal association.

They have been placed under legal surveillance until their trial on February 5. If found guilty, they both could be sent to jail for up to 20 years.

Persing's lawyer William Peregoy said his client was not feeling well when he placed his head on his companion's lap, and that he only threatened the flight attendant with reporting him to his superiors on landing.

^^^ I don't see that in there? thats the OP link...?

[JaJae]

Charlotte Observer | 11/13/2006 | Sex on plane doesn't fly in Raleigh

Sex on plane doesn't fly in Raleigh

ANDREA WEIGL
(Raleigh) News & Observer

RALEIGH - A California couple whose in-flight friskiness on the way to Raleigh was a bit much for other passengers are facing federal charges for harassing the flight attendant who asked them to stop.

Carl Warren Persing and Dawn Elizabeth Sewell are scheduled to go to trial Dec. 11 at the federal courthouse in Wilmington for their behavior during a Sept. 15 flight. The indictment states that "the defendants repeatedly engaged in overt sexual activity in the cabin of the plane to such an extent that the flight attendant had to direct them to stop."

But Persing and Sewell wouldn't halt their public displays of affection, and Persing threatened the flight attendant who made the request and refused to serve them alcohol, according to the court records.

Efforts to reach Persing, of Lakewood, Calif., and Sewell, of Huntington Beach, Calif., were unsuccessful. Their defense lawyers did not return messages Monday.

It is unclear how often disruptive passengers are charged with crimes. The Federal Aviation Administration tracks only incidents involving unruly passengers that are reported by the flight crew and are not referred to law enforcement. There were 79 incidents this year as of Sept. 20 -- in comparison to last year's total of 203.

FBI special agent Michael Sutton wrote in an affidavit that Persing and Sewell were on a Southwest Airlines flight from Los Angeles to Raleigh with a stop in Phoenix. On the first trip, Persing and Sewell sat in separate rows, and Persing was served one alcoholic drink. From Phoenix to Raleigh, the pair sat next to each other.

While in the plane on the ground in Phoenix, the couple was kissing, embracing and "acting in a manner that made other passengers uncomfortable," Sutton wrote in his affidavit.

"Persing was observed nuzzling or kissing Sewell on the neck, and around the collarbone in the vicinity of her breast," Sutton wrote. Persing was also observed with his face pressed against Sewell's lower body.

At first, the couple complied with a request from a flight attendant to stop their behavior. But they soon resumed during the flight.

When asked again, according to Sutton's affidavit, Persing told the flight attendant: "I'm going to give you one warning to get out of my face."

Things deteriorated from there, according to Sutton's affidavit: The flight attendant refused to serve them alcohol. Persing called the flight attendant "a punk." Persing kept asking for alcohol.

Sewell told the flight attendants that she worked for a lawyer and it was illegal not to serve alcohol to them. The flight attendant told them to stop asking for alcohol. Persing said, "You and I are gonna have some serious confrontation when we get off this plane."

When the couple got off the plane in Raleigh, law enforcement officials were waiting.

Sounds reasonable to me.

He was right, there was a serious confrontation when he got off the plane, just not with the flight attendant

Joining the mile-high club has consequences

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

non sequitur

the customer did not say "we are going to have a serious confrontation after the flight"

read the AP link.

Pair Accused of 'Overt' Plane Activity - washingtonpost.com
Charlotte Observer | 11/13/2006 | Sex on plane doesn't fly in Raleigh
Press-Telegram - Local couple in mile-high mess over frisky flight

[AVengeance]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

Argue with your boss then say "you and him are going to have a serious confrontation after work" and see how he reacts.

Well, it's getting near Christmas Bonus season, so this experiment will have to wait, but I seriously doubt that I would be charged with terrorism.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by AVengeance

Well, it's getting near Christmas Bonus season, so this experiment will have to wait, but I seriously doubt that I would be charged with terrorism.

Nobody was charged with terrorism....

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by AVengeance

Well, it's getting near Christmas Bonus season, so this experiment will have to wait, but I seriously doubt that I would be charged with terrorism.

he was charged with threatening a flight personal NOT TERRORISM.

How hard is it to understand ?

[avsp]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

he was charged with threatening a flight personal NOT TERRORISM.

How hard is it to understand ?

Under the 'old' law would it be the case that the accused would be 'placed under legal surveillance'?

Is the meaning of 'legal surveillance' a provision of & defined in The Patriot Act?

Apologies for not doing my own research.

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by avsp

Under the 'old' law would it be the case that the accused would be 'placed under legal surveillance'?

Is the meaning of 'legal surveillance' a provision of & defined in The Patriot Act?

Apologies for not doing my own research.

They are the only ones reporting it. I have no idea what the article is talking about




btw, the FBI is the ones who arrested him. So the only change is the title of the book the law is in.