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

motivez · 11-17-2006, 07:51 PM

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.

Mid-flight sexual play lands US couple afoul of anti-terrorism law

Seriously, this is so friggen ridiculous and it's one of the main reasons I think the Patriot Act is bullshit.. the damn laws are so vague that pretty much anyone can be defined as a terrorist, or supporting terrorism, or whatever.. because terrorism isn't defined well enough.

Does anyone actually think this is an acceptable use of the patriot act? They shouldn't have been fooling around, at least not in the public part of the plane.. but charging them with violating the patriot act? 20 years?

Nonphixion · 11-17-2006, 07:58 PM

The "War on Terror" is a government's blank check for violence, wars, and tyranny as a whole. Yes this is an absurd case, but it only demonstrates the outreach of these ill-defined terms.

Terrorism is a tactic; not an enemy as those in power would like you to believe.

JaJae · 11-17-2006, 07:58 PM

He threatened a flight attendent. He deserved to be arrested under whatever law deems him guilty. If the Patriot act took over laws regarding threatening air traffic personnel, I'm ok with that. As long as it's still illegal and the punishment fits the crime.

If he gets 20 years for it, that's one thing. But I don't have a problem with him being brought up on charges because of it. If the punishment doesn't fit the crime that's one thing. But I don't care what the law is called that they're hitting him with, as long as he's being hit by something.

Thorgrim · 11-17-2006, 08:05 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

He threatened a flight attendent. He deserved to be arrested under whatever law deems him guilty. If the Patriot act took over laws regarding threatening air traffic personnel, I'm ok with that. As long as it's still illegal and the punishment fits the crime.

If he gets 20 years for it, that's one thing. But I don't have a problem with him being brought up on charges because of it. If the punishment doesn't fit the crime that's one thing. But I don't care what the law is called that they're hitting him with, as long as he's being hit by something.

talk about prejudging someone, mr murtha, if your boss said there would be serious consequences if you didn't hand in your work on time...did he just threaten you with physical violence?

Did the guy even admit he said "serious consequences" or was that just what the flight attendant said?

You have to have a jury determine the facts of the case, you can not

6SpeedTA95 · 11-17-2006, 08:09 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

talk about prejudging someone, mr murtha, if your boss said there would be serious consequences if you didn't hand in your work on time...did he just threaten you with physical violence?

Did the guy even admit he said "serious consequences" or was that just what the flight attendant said?

You have to have a jury determine the facts of the case, you can not

You're right which is why its ridiculous to prejudge the situation and blame it on the patriot act and assume they're going to get 20 years when the case is just beginning.

motivez · 11-17-2006, 08:13 PM

They were charged UNDER the patriot act, did you bother to read the story?

Thorgrim · 11-17-2006, 08:13 PM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

You're right which is why its ridiculous to prejudge the situation and blame it on the patriot act and assume they're going to get 20 years when the case is just beginning.

They said "could get" and they charged him with that...that's a fact

As far as repealing the patriot act or blaming it...I didn't say that in this thread, but Montana conservative Jon Tester wants to repeal the entire Patriot Act (he'll be on MTP this sunday)

motivez · 11-17-2006, 08:15 PM

This thread isn't meant to be about the time they might serve or whether or not they're right or wrong, it's about misuse and misapplication of a bad law that's far too vague and broad..

We have other laws in place to deal with verbal assault, threats, "inappropriate" public behavior, etc..

These people are not terrorists, and shouldn't be charged with laws designed to deal with terrorists. They're just some horny couple that made a bad decision.

Thorgrim · 11-17-2006, 08:17 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

We have other laws in place to deal with verbal assault, threats, "inappropriate" public behavior, etc..

These people are not terrorists, and shouldn't be charged with laws designed to deal with terrorists. They're just some horny couple that made a bad decision.

Amen

dpakman91 · 11-17-2006, 08:19 PM

My favorite part is:

"Sewell was observed smiling."

R-Type · 11-17-2006, 08:34 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

If the punishment doesn't fit the crime that's one thing. But I don't care what the law is called that they're hitting him with, as long as he's being hit by something.

The second sentence contradicts the first. You SHOULD care that they are processed using the correct law...because if they're not, and the legal system works as it should, they would be set free. Of course, it doesn't work that way usually, and they'll likely be found guilty no matter what law they use to prosecute with because the 'offense' involved sex.

I know that many conservatives are insecure about sex, but sexual desire does NOT equate to terrorism, nor does forcefully telling a flight attendant to back off.

JaJae · 11-17-2006, 08:36 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

talk about prejudging someone, mr murtha, if your boss said there would be serious consequences if you didn't hand in your work on time...did he just threaten you with physical violence?

Did the guy even admit he said "serious consequences" or was that just what the flight attendant said?

You have to have a jury determine the facts of the case, you can not

Can we get serious here please?

JaJae · 11-17-2006, 08:40 PM

Originally Posted by R-Type

The second sentence contradicts the first. You SHOULD care that they are processed using the correct law...because if they're not, and the legal system works as it should, they would be set free. Of course, it doesn't work that way usually, and they'll likely be found guilty no matter what law they use to prosecute with because the 'offense' involved sex.

I know that many conservatives are insecure about sex, but sexual desire does NOT equate to terrorism, nor does forcefully telling a flight attendant to back off.

If they're on a plane, what local jurisdiction do you use? This is the proper law. As long as he doesn't get a long sentence for this I don't have a problem with it. Being charged under the PATRIOT act doesn't mean you're being charged as a full blown terrorist. And it wasn't telling her to back off, it was a clear threat.

Diamond Cross · 11-17-2006, 08:45 PM

I'm in complete agreement with motivez on this one. The guy didn't threaten to blow up the plane. This is a gross misuse of the USA Patriot Act, and while this is a slippery slope argument, it is a valid because how many other times can it be misused? Especially on a forum like this where tempers are bound to erupt sooner or later, and there's already been some insulting over some of the subjects. Use the correct laws for the correct offenses or chaos ensues and the system might break down.

Think of it, what the damage could be if everyone started using the USA Patriot Act to hurt people that insulted them or threatened violence of any sort.

Or maybe all crimes should just be classified as a terrorist act? Maybe that would drive America's crime rate down.

R-Type · 11-17-2006, 09:01 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

If they're on a plane, what local jurisdiction do you use?

common sense? How would they be charged if there was no patriot act? I'm still unclear as to what crime was committed. We dont arrest people for using foul language or 'leave me alone or else' statements. This is why I assumed that sex was the motivating factor for the extreme charges. If they were singing loudly instead, I doubt they've been charged under the patriot act if they were charged at all.

Originally Posted by JaJae

Being charged under the PATRIOT act doesn't mean you're being charged as a full blown terrorist.

the act was specifically meant to fight terrorism. No terrorism found here.. If it's being used for other things, then there's a problem with that law, not with peoples' behavior.

Originally Posted by JaJae

And it wasn't telling her to back off, it was a clear threat.

It's hard to tell from the article, but I fail to see how it even approaches terrorism or threatens anyone on the plane in any way. Sure, their behavior might be annoying, but that's really about it.

JaJae · 11-17-2006, 09:09 PM

Originally Posted by R-Type

common sense? How would they be charged if there was no patriot act?

I would assume it would be a federal issue before the patriot act, but I do not know what the jurisdiction would be on a plane.

I'm still unclear as to what crime was committed. We dont arrest people for using foul language or 'leave me alone or else' statements.

Yes we do.

the act was specifically meant to fight terrorism. No terrorism found here.. If it's being used for other things, then there's a problem with that law, not with peoples' behavior.

The act was specifically meant to protect us from terrorism. Part of that includes threatening passengers and flight personnel. Where do you draw the line? It's taken on a case by case basis.

It's hard to tell from the article, but I fail to see how it even approaches terrorism or threatens anyone on the plane in any way. Sure, their behavior might be annoying, but that's really about it.

You weren't the girl. It is hard to tell, but it's usually considered a crime based on how it's perceived. If I were to tell you I'm gonna kill you in a joking manner, you probably wouldn't call the police and feel threatened. Yet if I said it with a smile and a laugh and you felt legitimately threatened by I'd be in trouble, even if I swore up and down I was only kidding. It reverts back to the "victim" when it comes to charging someone. She had every right to press charges against him for that threat if she felt violated. Now what the courts do with it is another story. I would hope they wouldn't throw the book at him. And if they do, with this information, I'd jump up with everyone else and call it an abuse of the PATRIOT act. However, we have to remember the PATRIOT overwrote many laws. There are many things covered under the PATRIOT act now that we wouldn't necessarily consider "terrorism".

R-Type · 11-17-2006, 09:47 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

Yes we do.

That's scary. People make idle threats all the time so I fail to see how such laws are really enforceable. Law against 'threats' tied with steep penalties just makes things worse because it makes the innocent become vengeful for being seriously wronged by the state. If someone flipped the bird at me, and I decided to press charges under PATRIOT and won, that guy would have me in his sights for life..and who knows what he'd do once out of prison.

Originally Posted by JaJae

The act was specifically meant to protect us from terrorism. Part of that includes threatening passengers and flight personnel. Where do you draw the line? It's taken on a case by case basis.

I don't know, but it seems like no one wants to use common sense judgement anymore. They want government to decide every little life battle for them. This kind of lazy mentality is part of what begot laws like the PATRIOT act to begin with.

Originally Posted by JaJae

You weren't the girl. It is hard to tell, but it's usually considered a crime based on how it's perceived. If I were to tell you I'm gonna kill you in a joking manner, you probably wouldn't call the police and feel threatened. Yet if I said it with a smile and a laugh and you felt legitimately threatened by I'd be in trouble, even if I swore up and down I was only kidding. It reverts back to the "victim" when it comes to charging someone. She had every right to press charges against him for that threat if she felt violated. Now what the courts do with it is another story. I would hope they wouldn't throw the book at him. And if they do, with this information, I'd jump up with everyone else and call it an abuse of the PATRIOT act. However, we have to remember the PATRIOT overwrote many laws. There are many things covered under the PATRIOT act now that we wouldn't necessarily consider "terrorism".

Have you considered the probable fact that the REASON they were charged under PATRIOT and not under a lesser statute was precisely because law enforcement knew they could get that conviction from a jury due to its 'sexual nature'? See, the problem with our system is that neither side is out for the truth. The prosecution, from the street cop to the state prosecutor, goes for the MAXIMUM penalty they can possibly get away with, even if it's not rationally called for, and that forces the defense to pull out all the stops also.

We also have to remember that the PATRIOT act passed because of a bunch of false assumptions (lies?) about terrorism. PNAC set up the situation so that anyone who voted 'no' would trainwreck their political career. This calls into question the validity of PATRIOT in the first place. Was it the will of the people which enabled this couple to receive these outrageous charges? I truely wonder.. I guess the evangelists got what they wanted with PATRIOT though: a law that lets them burn 'immoral' people at the stake for the slightest unrelated infraction.

That's true, I'm not the girl.. I wouldn't have pressed charges. Instead I would've informed my superior about the complaints and the threat instead. Or perhaps I'd've found a funny way to diffuse their behavior without demanding that they stop. Then everyone laughs at their foolishness and we go on from there.

JaJae · 11-17-2006, 09:55 PM

Originally Posted by R-Type

Have you considered the probable fact that the REASON they were charged under PATRIOT and not under a lesser statute was precisely because law enforcement knew they could get that conviction from a jury due to its 'sexual nature'?

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.

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.

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.