Qantas Psycho Hijacking Attempt

[Red Jet]

It only begs the question - how do you argue in court that restraining this crackpots arms and legs, was an appropriate response and that it would be an efficient restraint of his (allegedly) sinister mind?? And how do you maintain that someone "thinking about" bringing a plane down is a credible threat?

It's going to be interesting to see how this one plays out..........

From the ABC news website 24 minutes ago
Man threatens to bring plane down with mind

Singapore Police are questioning a man who threatened to bring down a Qantas flight from Singapore to Sydney.
The man was restrained by flight stewards after he made threats to disrupt QF31 using mind power.
According to ABC reporter Nick Luchinelli, who was onboard the flight, it seemed the middle-aged man was either under the influence of drugs or alcohol - or possibly both.
He was suffering some sort of delusion and people who were sitting close to him in the next row said he was threatening to use the power of his mind to being the flight down.
The stewards had to take the threat seriously so he had both his arms and legs cuffed, and remained that way for the rest of the flight.
Singaporean Police boarded the flight after passengers disembarked.

[PLovett]

That he was acting in a fashion that was beginning to cause alarm among the other passengers and there was a reasonable fear, in the minds of the flight attendants, that he could become agitated and physical.

An argument along those lines would suffice. I don't think any court would take exception to the deprivation of liberty on the part of the cabin crew given recent history.

[Coleman Myers]

One too many of the amber nectar maybe ?. Poor cabin crew must have struggled to keep a straight face :}

[framer]

that restraining this crackpots arms and legs, was an appropriate response and that it would be an efficient restraint of his (allegedly) sinister mind??
They should have restrained his sinister mind.

[Jed Clampett]

Maybe he was a Frequent Flyer and the IFE had failed again.:*

[BigGun]

Grab some foil from the gally and wrap his head!

People have been doing that for years ;)

http://theboxpress.com/wp-content/uploads/tin-foil-hat-625p.jpg

[Horatio Leafblower]

Normally you must actually commit an offence to be convicted of it.

However, circumstances commonly arise where it is desirable to have a legal avenue to stop an offence that has not yet been committed, while still punishing the offender with a suitably serious sentence.

Thus we have "attempted" crimes and "conspiracy" crimes.

I cannot remember the details of the case but there is a precedent where an Irish separatist group were conspiring to murder one of the English Royals through some daft and improbable scheme that (for whatever reason) would never have succeeded.

They were found guilty of conspiracy nonetheless.

Our friend made threats to the safety of the aircraft and (without reading the legislation) that, I suspect, is an offence in and of itself. The means by which he proposed to carry out his threat is somewhat immaterial.

Cheers
:ok:

[Flight Detent]

Just a thought...

"The stewards had to take the threat seriously so he had both his arms and legs cuffed, and remained that way for the rest of the flight.
Singaporean Police boarded the flight after passengers disembarked."

...I was just wondering what the Singaporean Police were doing in Sydney...

Since the post quoted it as a Singapore to Sydney flight.

Cheers...FD...:\

[Aussie]

YEah well noted flight detent. QF31 is actually outbound.... so SYD-SIN :) Media at it again :)

[Keg]

My old man was on the flight last night. I just spoke to him to make sure that it wasn't him who was causing all the ruckus. He indicated that the loon concerned had been a bit weird in the terminal before hand also and was seated a row behind him on the aircraft. Behaviour included being 'inappropriate' with other passengers waiting and so on. Singaporean police were, as usual, pretty efficient at getting him off the aeroplane in SIN. :ok:

[drop bear ten]

He must be delussional or f#@king stupid. If he had half a brain he would have picked the reverse sector to avoid Singaporean justice, Bless 'em......:sad:

[Pinky the pilot]

I just spoke to him to make sure that it wasn't him who was causing all the ruckus.

Struth Keg!! That's a nice way to talk about your dear old Dad!:D

[Taildragger67]

Two points:

1. my understanding is that applicable laws & regulations will contain something about "refusing to comply with a reasonable request from the crew". If he hasn't so complied, then strictly liability on that point alone - let alone what he might have deluded himself into thinking he might be able to do.

2. I don't think much of this will matter as he'll be up before the Singapore authorities and (agreeing with Drop Bear Ten) I'm not sure that they are likely to look at certain proffered defences in the same way that other jurisdictions might... Unfortunately trying to argue that you must by definition be nuts trying-on something like this heading into Singapore will likewise most likely meet with a blank stare.

[crosscutter]

what has been missed off all media reports was his continued threats that he had explosives and "would blow up the a/c". Sound justification to tie him up me thinks

[onprofile]

How many times have drunk or mentaly unbalanced passengers been allowed to board a/c by ground staff, even though the pax had been seen to be a potential problem at the gate ? Airlines should be more vigilent and indeed have a duty of care to ensure that it doesn't happen.

[psycho joe]

He was suffering some sort of delusion and people who were sitting close to him in the next row said he was threatening to use the power of his mind to being the flight down.

Gawd I wish I'd thought of that. Mind projection!:rolleyes:

You think you know the human brain, then BANG. suddenly someone displays absolute pure genious, a cerebral giant walking amongst mere mortals. It is true that no true genious is recognised in their own lifetime.

Of course if I can be so bold as to speculate. I think where his plan went awry was when he used his mind to BEING the flight down instead of BRING the flight down. But then I'm sure that's just a typo as that's the sort of mistake that a rookie would make, not a master of the cranial arts.

Then again, what kind of restraints do QANTAS use? Metal or plastic? The military use plastic because of it's well documented ability to block mind projection.

Don't believe me? Try googling "the men who stare at goats". The movie is a p!sstake but the fact is that the U$ gov spent millions on studying mind projection.

[BigGun]

Plastic now after they removed the metal ones form the flt deck and the baton

[Icarus2001]

how do you argue in court that restraining this crackpots arms and legs, was an appropriate response Why would one need to argue this in court. CC have not been charged with unlawful detention so no need to defend their actions.

I don't think much of this will matter as he'll be up before the Singapore authorities Do they have jurisdictional authority over an occupant (Aus?) in a VH registered aircraft in flight, where the alleged offence of (?) occured?

[bbear75]

Were his legs really restrained for the duration of the flight? I find that hard to believe.... most airlines procedures are arms only, in case of the need for evacuation. And yes,the restraints are plastic.

[Arthur Boy]

Is this loon an Aussie? Hell, I dont really care which part of the galaxy he is from, I just love the stooooopidity of doing this going into SIN! As others have pointed out above, I am sure the locals will deal with this in an appropriate manner, unlike the wrist-slappers we laughingly have here.

[Icarus2001]

U.N. - Convention on Offences and Certain Other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft (1963) (http://www.privacyinternational.org/article.shtml?cmd%5B347%5D=x-347-144175)

U.N. - Convention on Offences and Certain Other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft (1963)

JURISDICTION

Article 3 The State of registration of the aircraft is competent to exercise jurisdiction over offences and acts committed on board. Each Contracting State shall take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction as the State of registration over offences committed on board aircraft registered in such State. This Convention does not exclude any criminal jurisdiction exercised in accordance with national law.

Article 10 For actions taken in accordance with this Convention, neither the aircraft commander, any other member of the crew, any passenger, the owner or operator of the aircraft, nor the person on whose behalf the flight was performed shall be held responsible in any proceeding on account of the treatment undergone by the person against whom the actions were taken.

[Keg]

Is this loon an Aussie?

Irish I think.

Pinky. It did fleetingly cross my mind that my Dad may have lost the plot but I didn't really entertain it for more than a second or three. :ok:

[Taildragger67]

Singapore might decide to invoke its aptly-named Hijacking of Aircraft and Protection of Aircraft and International Airports Act.

Does what it says on the tin...

[Boomerang_Butt]

BBear, we can tie their legs up if we think it's needed, you just have to make sure there is ONLY hand restraints plus a seatbelt (on the lap as normal) for landing for the reason you stated. During the flight they can be trussed up like a turkey for all anyone cares. Once someone has threatened to kill/destroy the aircraft, the niceties are OVER! :ok:

[Dashtrash]

a brief investigation found him unarmed

[Flugbegleiter]

Why did this even make the news? Oh that's right, because it was witnessed by a journalist. If only they could see half the crazy stuff that we see as crew; this was pretty minor, really.

I'm really sick of the incompetent Australian press.

[Led Zep]

a brief investigation found him unarmed

Love ya work. :} :ok: