Damn, I like going down on a girl as much as the next guy, but what kind of tool gets warned twice about it and responds by threatening the flight attendant?
. . . and I mean misapplied by courts that have had time to deliberate, to say nothing of law enforcement officials who make the initial decisions to charge people with crimes.
Though it certainly looks like its being misapplied, let’s not forget that the guy verbally threatened the stewardess. Now, I LOATE airlines and despise the dictatorial powers airlines have for calling in marshalls or through you off a flight if you just make a stewardess feel ‘uneasy’.
But I do know that if you verbally threatened a stewardess with violence, your ass is going to be in cuffs quick. Misapplies? Probably, but this guy is not really presenting a sympathetic picture.
The guy didn’t explicitly threaten the flight attendant with violence. He may have been a jerk and a dick, but it’s applying the Patriot Act to stupid things like this that has opened it up to criticism.
1) In-flight sex has always been banned by the airlines. They consider it to be disruptive. This leads to some of the attraction for practioners, the thrill of getting away with something prohibited.
2) The man was charged for his conduct towards the flight attendant, not for his conduct with his partner.
I have no problem with this guy being banned from the airline for life and being charged with something appropriate. The fact is this guy isn’t a terrorist and prosecuting him like he is and threatening him with 20 years is a waste of taxpayer dollars and public goodwill.
“I’m going to give you one warning to get out of my face.”
To me, that is an implicit threat of violence given what I have read of the circumstances. As a technical, basic interpretation of the prase, its not threatening violence, but for a guy saying this to a stewardess, making a reasonable request, and after he had demanded alcohol, I have a tough time he meant he would call their home office and complain to her supervisor.
I’m not defending the use of the Patriot Act, just pointing out that, if the charges are true, this guy brought alot of this on himself.
I can see how some might get bent out of shape about the precedent that being “a jerk and a dick” on a plane now runs afoul of the Patriot Act, but I’m not terribly troubled by it. You make obnoxious and idiotic statements to a flight attendant that could reasonably be interpreted as threatening violence, then frankly you have it coming (especially if you get beligerant about a flight attendant telling you to stop going down on your g-friend in public . . . that’s pretty much the height of jackassery right there).
“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. “ - {my bold}
Is this a North Carolina thing ? Nifong in Durham, and now this in Raleigh ?
Thanks! I had done several Internet searches for the indictment after I saw news reports that they could face up to 20 years in prison. Didn’t pass the smell test, but couldn’t find the documentation to link to.
I say EXXXXXXXECUTE them both. We don’t need that kind of behavior in this country. Oh wait the Republicans lost the election. Nevermind. Drop Babies not bombs. Peace and love, groovy, dude.
November 14th, 2006 at 11:27:57 pm
Just to head off any possible criticism… I’m kidding about the Ashcroft thing. I frequently blame Ashcroft for random stuff. :)
November 14th, 2006 at 11:42:54 pm
Damn, I like going down on a girl as much as the next guy, but what kind of tool gets warned twice about it and responds by threatening the flight attendant?
November 14th, 2006 at 11:59:42 pm
Hey now, he was just resting his head in her lap because he wasn’t feeling well.
And those Carolina Panthers cheerleaders were moaning in the bathroom stall because they were upset.
;)
November 15th, 2006 at 3:44:18 am
And those Carolina Panthers cheerleaders were moaning in the bathroom stall because they were upset. That makes three of us……
November 15th, 2006 at 5:06:16 am
Alternate headline: “Mile High Club labeled ‘terrorist sympathizers’ by airline”
November 15th, 2006 at 9:35:35 am
Can I say “told you so” vis a vi misapplication of the Patriot Act?
November 15th, 2006 at 9:40:39 am
Headline: TSA Declares PDA a Terrorist Act
November 15th, 2006 at 10:24:23 am
Can I say “told you so� vis a vi misapplication of the Patriot Act?
Certainly. Of course, there probably isn’t a single statute in the United States Code that hasn’t been misapplied at one time or another.
November 15th, 2006 at 10:30:54 am
. . . and I mean misapplied by courts that have had time to deliberate, to say nothing of law enforcement officials who make the initial decisions to charge people with crimes.
November 15th, 2006 at 10:37:49 am
Angrier and dcl -
Though it certainly looks like its being misapplied, let’s not forget that the guy verbally threatened the stewardess. Now, I LOATE airlines and despise the dictatorial powers airlines have for calling in marshalls or through you off a flight if you just make a stewardess feel ‘uneasy’.
But I do know that if you verbally threatened a stewardess with violence, your ass is going to be in cuffs quick. Misapplies? Probably, but this guy is not really presenting a sympathetic picture.
November 15th, 2006 at 10:48:55 am
There, that should help.
I would say “Get a room”, but up there, there are no rooms. So . . . be patient, land, and THEN get a frikin’ room.
November 15th, 2006 at 11:05:13 am
Lojo-
The guy didn’t explicitly threaten the flight attendant with violence. He may have been a jerk and a dick, but it’s applying the Patriot Act to stupid things like this that has opened it up to criticism.
November 15th, 2006 at 12:08:36 pm
The Patriot Act was being criticized long before “stupid things like this” happened.
November 15th, 2006 at 12:08:53 pm
Two things need to be reinforced:
1) In-flight sex has always been banned by the airlines. They consider it to be disruptive. This leads to some of the attraction for practioners, the thrill of getting away with something prohibited.
2) The man was charged for his conduct towards the flight attendant, not for his conduct with his partner.
November 15th, 2006 at 1:04:14 pm
Gahrie-
I have no problem with this guy being banned from the airline for life and being charged with something appropriate. The fact is this guy isn’t a terrorist and prosecuting him like he is and threatening him with 20 years is a waste of taxpayer dollars and public goodwill.
November 15th, 2006 at 1:05:44 pm
“The Patriot Act was being criticized long before “stupid things like thisâ€? happened.”
It was criticized for having the potential to be abused which, in this case, it is.
November 15th, 2006 at 1:13:25 pm
Angrier -
“I’m going to give you one warning to get out of my face.”
To me, that is an implicit threat of violence given what I have read of the circumstances. As a technical, basic interpretation of the prase, its not threatening violence, but for a guy saying this to a stewardess, making a reasonable request, and after he had demanded alcohol, I have a tough time he meant he would call their home office and complain to her supervisor.
I’m not defending the use of the Patriot Act, just pointing out that, if the charges are true, this guy brought alot of this on himself.
November 15th, 2006 at 2:18:15 pm
I can see how some might get bent out of shape about the precedent that being “a jerk and a dick” on a plane now runs afoul of the Patriot Act, but I’m not terribly troubled by it. You make obnoxious and idiotic statements to a flight attendant that could reasonably be interpreted as threatening violence, then frankly you have it coming (especially if you get beligerant about a flight attendant telling you to stop going down on your g-friend in public . . . that’s pretty much the height of jackassery right there).
November 15th, 2006 at 4:23:51 pm
“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. “ - {my bold}
Is this a North Carolina thing ? Nifong in Durham, and now this in Raleigh ?
November 15th, 2006 at 5:11:45 pm
We be wild and crazy down here in NC, y’all!!
Nifong is Durham though, not Raleigh. Short, but significant, difference.
November 15th, 2006 at 6:37:43 pm
It appears that the news reports are wrong: they are *not* charged with violating the Patriot Act. See the Update to Orin Kerr’s post, here.
November 15th, 2006 at 6:38:09 pm
Oops:
http://www.volokh.com/archives/archive_2006_11_12-2006_11_18.shtml#1163565115
November 15th, 2006 at 7:03:44 pm
Speedster -
Thanks! I had done several Internet searches for the indictment after I saw news reports that they could face up to 20 years in prison. Didn’t pass the smell test, but couldn’t find the documentation to link to.
November 15th, 2006 at 11:44:40 pm
I say EXXXXXXXECUTE them both. We don’t need that kind of behavior in this country. Oh wait the Republicans lost the election. Nevermind. Drop Babies not bombs. Peace and love, groovy, dude.
November 16th, 2006 at 9:31:15 am
Sounds like your mom already dropped a baby . . .
November 16th, 2006 at 4:00:48 pm
Man, if that’s an act of Terrorism, we’re all in trouble.