I think they call it 'scare in the community' ?!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Guest
Posts: n/a
A reply to SID 555
SID555
Gut amüsiert es mich nicht nie, wie Liberale bei ihrem illiberalsten sind, wenn jemand ihre gemütlichen Meinungen herausfordert.
Jetzt rufen Sie mir einen Neo Nazi und einen Wunsch geistige Krankheit auf mir. Um den zweiten Punkt zuerst zu nehmen, habe ich Depression in der Vergangenheit gehabt und habe die " dunkle Nacht der Seele " gewußt, aber hat über ihm bekommen. Es war höllisch, aber es brachte mich nicht dazu, Leute zu verprügeln, töten Sie jemanden, zerstören Sie Eigenschaft oder benehmen Sie sich in einer unsozialen Art.
Auf dem ersten Punkt, den ich nicht wünsche, den Staat ein ganzes Rennen und eine Religion in einer methodischsten Art als Hitler und die Nazis vernichten zu sehen, machte zu den Juden. Noch ich will die britische Regierung fremde Länder eindringen sehen, unterjochen Sie ihre Leute, beschlagnahmen Sie ihre Eigenschaft und so weiter Noch wieder habe ich keinen Wunsch, das Staatliche Institut eine Geheime Polizei zu haben, Konzentration zeltet, Folter und solche ähnliche Instrumente von Unterdrückung. Deshalb würde ich scheinen, irgendeine Prüfung zu scheitern, der ein Neo Nazi betrachtet werden sollte.
Ich flehe zum Unterstützen der Rechte, Eigenschaft, Sicherheit und gesunden Seins von anständig schuldig, Gesetz dauernde, ehrliche Bürger. Von starker Bestrafung für gewaltsame Verbrecher, Vergewaltiger, Mörder, Terroristen, sogar die Todesstrafe für absichtlichen Mord. Haft für ihren eigenen Namen sowie das von Gesellschaft gewaltsamer Wahnsinniger wie das man berichtete heute wer, befreite in die Gemeinde, traf sein Auto noch einen Autofahrer bei hoher Geschwindigkeit und tötete so einen unschuldigen Bürger. Ich stimme überein, daß Minderheiten geschützt werden sollten, aber erlaubt nicht, um zur Mehrheit zu diktieren noch setzt bei Vorteil über sie. Meine Idee einer Demokratie ist eine, wo die Regel der Mehrheit vorherrscht.
Deshalb lehne ich Ihren Liberalismus vollständig SID 555 ab. Ich könnte mich wirklich weniger über Sie nicht sorgen oder das, an dem Sie mich denken.
Schließlich, weil Sie mich als einen Neo Nazi betrachten, befestige ich dieses auf Deutsch statt Englisches.
Read, Mark and Inwardly digest!
SID555
Gut amüsiert es mich nicht nie, wie Liberale bei ihrem illiberalsten sind, wenn jemand ihre gemütlichen Meinungen herausfordert.
Jetzt rufen Sie mir einen Neo Nazi und einen Wunsch geistige Krankheit auf mir. Um den zweiten Punkt zuerst zu nehmen, habe ich Depression in der Vergangenheit gehabt und habe die " dunkle Nacht der Seele " gewußt, aber hat über ihm bekommen. Es war höllisch, aber es brachte mich nicht dazu, Leute zu verprügeln, töten Sie jemanden, zerstören Sie Eigenschaft oder benehmen Sie sich in einer unsozialen Art.
Auf dem ersten Punkt, den ich nicht wünsche, den Staat ein ganzes Rennen und eine Religion in einer methodischsten Art als Hitler und die Nazis vernichten zu sehen, machte zu den Juden. Noch ich will die britische Regierung fremde Länder eindringen sehen, unterjochen Sie ihre Leute, beschlagnahmen Sie ihre Eigenschaft und so weiter Noch wieder habe ich keinen Wunsch, das Staatliche Institut eine Geheime Polizei zu haben, Konzentration zeltet, Folter und solche ähnliche Instrumente von Unterdrückung. Deshalb würde ich scheinen, irgendeine Prüfung zu scheitern, der ein Neo Nazi betrachtet werden sollte.
Ich flehe zum Unterstützen der Rechte, Eigenschaft, Sicherheit und gesunden Seins von anständig schuldig, Gesetz dauernde, ehrliche Bürger. Von starker Bestrafung für gewaltsame Verbrecher, Vergewaltiger, Mörder, Terroristen, sogar die Todesstrafe für absichtlichen Mord. Haft für ihren eigenen Namen sowie das von Gesellschaft gewaltsamer Wahnsinniger wie das man berichtete heute wer, befreite in die Gemeinde, traf sein Auto noch einen Autofahrer bei hoher Geschwindigkeit und tötete so einen unschuldigen Bürger. Ich stimme überein, daß Minderheiten geschützt werden sollten, aber erlaubt nicht, um zur Mehrheit zu diktieren noch setzt bei Vorteil über sie. Meine Idee einer Demokratie ist eine, wo die Regel der Mehrheit vorherrscht.
Deshalb lehne ich Ihren Liberalismus vollständig SID 555 ab. Ich könnte mich wirklich weniger über Sie nicht sorgen oder das, an dem Sie mich denken.
Schließlich, weil Sie mich als einen Neo Nazi betrachten, befestige ich dieses auf Deutsch statt Englisches.
Read, Mark and Inwardly digest!
Guest
Posts: n/a
There is a Times Law Report on an Air Rage case today, following an appeal.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,21835,00.html
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,21835,00.html
Guest
Posts: n/a
Three cheers for the Judges, both the original and the appeal court Justices!
I only wish other Judges took so robust a line against malefactors.
As a matter of interest, who paid for this lout's appeal? Probably Legal Aid, that is the poor suffering taxpayer.
I only wish other Judges took so robust a line against malefactors.
As a matter of interest, who paid for this lout's appeal? Probably Legal Aid, that is the poor suffering taxpayer.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Tartan Gannet -
As I've said before, I'm an airline captain with a terrific prejudice against sky-rage.
I'm well aware that passengers such as the deceased CAN be restrained in a civilized manner, with minimal threat or harm to anyone.
My constant question - "Why won't the industry move in that direction?"
However, toward your "rules" I respectfully submit that your group of "decent, law abiding citizens" should not be allowed contain those who constitute a murderous mob.
Hypocrisy at it's finest! Do you claim to be a Christian, also???
Not only did the mob kill the kid, but they were still standing on him when the police came through the door at the gate. They had to be told by the police to get off him.
If that's your definition of "decent, law abiding citizens," you've got a real problem.
I join the rest on these threads as to being fed-up with the nut cases. They ARE dangerous.
However, my common response when a flight attendant tells me we have a distrubed passenger on board is, "Did you serve him [alcohol]?" To date, the answer is a consistent, "Yes."
In a majority of my questionings, the passenger was suspected to be a potential problem prior to boarding.
I've headed off many a disturbed passenger incident by ordering that he/she not be served - it works. My constant plea to flight attendants is, "Just give me an early warning." When they comply with that request, there is no ensuing significant problem. No guarantees, of course.
When a problem appears to be continuing after the alcohol cut-off, I go back and give them a speech about, "We're just concerned for your welfare." The idea that somebody cares seems to be powerful - even when it's a manipulative lie. Results needed; that's all.
The occurence of flipped-out passengers with no background or other plausible explanation is common enough to warrant a NASA study.
There is one case in the U.S. where a former airline employee slipped by security with a .44 and took out a whole plane over California.
Another case where a pilot came close to doing the same on a freighter.
In both cases, the individuals were known to be unstable, but boarded anyway.
In the second case, the nut nearly killed the copilot, who will never fly again. With all that, the flight crew subdued him. No doubt you'll call them stupid for not killing him.
A U.S. Government report illustrates that the FAA is knowingly and miserably failing in their security mission - yet nothing changes.
Further, while it is not advertised, the cockpit doors are designed for pressure relief in a way that they got discovered by accident by the nut cases and have now become a magnet for terrorists.
Where's the FAA with their infamous "emergency authority" now???? They are still getting off grounding pilots and carriers with it. Here's a perfect case for the application of emergency authority.
You want a finger to point - go for it. They are all yours. Not enough courage to do it? I'm not surprised.
I'm all for agressive attention to the sky-rage problem. But just as in accidents themselves, sky rage investigations tell us that the necessary ingredients are present prior to approaching the aircraft - with rare exception.
I'm deeply involved in thre aviation safety issues. What are YOU doing besides prostituting sites such as this for some cheap-shot self-agrandizement?
The expression you were looking for was, "Quite frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn." Or, at least cite it in terms of paraphrase.
Get a psychiatrist; get a life!
As I've said before, I'm an airline captain with a terrific prejudice against sky-rage.
I'm well aware that passengers such as the deceased CAN be restrained in a civilized manner, with minimal threat or harm to anyone.
My constant question - "Why won't the industry move in that direction?"
However, toward your "rules" I respectfully submit that your group of "decent, law abiding citizens" should not be allowed contain those who constitute a murderous mob.
Hypocrisy at it's finest! Do you claim to be a Christian, also???
Not only did the mob kill the kid, but they were still standing on him when the police came through the door at the gate. They had to be told by the police to get off him.
If that's your definition of "decent, law abiding citizens," you've got a real problem.
I join the rest on these threads as to being fed-up with the nut cases. They ARE dangerous.
However, my common response when a flight attendant tells me we have a distrubed passenger on board is, "Did you serve him [alcohol]?" To date, the answer is a consistent, "Yes."
In a majority of my questionings, the passenger was suspected to be a potential problem prior to boarding.
I've headed off many a disturbed passenger incident by ordering that he/she not be served - it works. My constant plea to flight attendants is, "Just give me an early warning." When they comply with that request, there is no ensuing significant problem. No guarantees, of course.
When a problem appears to be continuing after the alcohol cut-off, I go back and give them a speech about, "We're just concerned for your welfare." The idea that somebody cares seems to be powerful - even when it's a manipulative lie. Results needed; that's all.
The occurence of flipped-out passengers with no background or other plausible explanation is common enough to warrant a NASA study.
There is one case in the U.S. where a former airline employee slipped by security with a .44 and took out a whole plane over California.
Another case where a pilot came close to doing the same on a freighter.
In both cases, the individuals were known to be unstable, but boarded anyway.
In the second case, the nut nearly killed the copilot, who will never fly again. With all that, the flight crew subdued him. No doubt you'll call them stupid for not killing him.
A U.S. Government report illustrates that the FAA is knowingly and miserably failing in their security mission - yet nothing changes.
Further, while it is not advertised, the cockpit doors are designed for pressure relief in a way that they got discovered by accident by the nut cases and have now become a magnet for terrorists.
Where's the FAA with their infamous "emergency authority" now???? They are still getting off grounding pilots and carriers with it. Here's a perfect case for the application of emergency authority.
You want a finger to point - go for it. They are all yours. Not enough courage to do it? I'm not surprised.
I'm all for agressive attention to the sky-rage problem. But just as in accidents themselves, sky rage investigations tell us that the necessary ingredients are present prior to approaching the aircraft - with rare exception.
I'm deeply involved in thre aviation safety issues. What are YOU doing besides prostituting sites such as this for some cheap-shot self-agrandizement?
The expression you were looking for was, "Quite frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn." Or, at least cite it in terms of paraphrase.
Get a psychiatrist; get a life!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Help is at hand with regard to Air Ragers, a system is currently in production to purge these individuals and to stop them from using this form of transport.
This will save the Airlines time and money whilst ensuring the good citizens get the peace and relaxation they deserve, some help is needed and maybe you can help (Post to: [email protected])
What we are looking for is information on the LAN/WAN structure of Airline/Airport systems, who they are owned by Airline/Airport or Third Party as these LAN/WAN - Intranets need to be accesible to our servers, alternatively the contact details for your IT guy will do..
Failing this it will be down to snail mail technology with the speed of a slug/CAA
All incoming mail will be greatfully received
Do nothing and nothing happens
Cheers !
------------------
This will save the Airlines time and money whilst ensuring the good citizens get the peace and relaxation they deserve, some help is needed and maybe you can help (Post to: [email protected])
What we are looking for is information on the LAN/WAN structure of Airline/Airport systems, who they are owned by Airline/Airport or Third Party as these LAN/WAN - Intranets need to be accesible to our servers, alternatively the contact details for your IT guy will do..
Failing this it will be down to snail mail technology with the speed of a slug/CAA
All incoming mail will be greatfully received
Do nothing and nothing happens
Cheers !
------------------
Guest
Posts: n/a
FOR THE LYNCH MOB -
Both sides agree encephalitis led to Alaska Airlines attack
By Kim Curtis
The Associated Press
By Kim Curtis
The Associated Press
SAN FRANCISCO - A hulking passenger who broke into the cockpit of an Alaska Airlines plane and lunged for the controls in March was suffering a rare reaction to encephalitis, lawyers on both sides agreed.
Prosecutors and the attorney for Peter Bradley, 39, were working yesterday on a plea bargain.
Bradley has no memory of the attack, and experts needed weeks to unravel the mystery, according to his attorney, Jerrold Ladar. They concluded that encephalitis - an inflammation of the brain - had made him delirious.
The plane was traveling from Mexico to San Francisco on March 16 when Bradley, returning from a family reunion, began babbling, stripping off his clothes and wandering from seat to seat. He then broke into the cockpit yelling, "I'm going to kill you!" and grabbed for the controls.
The pilot momentarily lost control of the jet as the co-pilot used an ax to fend off Bradley. Passengers tackled him and held him down.
Bradley was charged with committing a violent act likely to endanger an airplane and assaulting a flight crew, offenses that carry up to 20 years in prison each. A trial was scheduled for Oct. 30.
He was freed on bail and returned to his job as a carpenter in Blue Springs, Mo. He has suffered no subsequent outbursts.
Bradley had no alcohol or illegal drugs in his system and no history of psychiatric problems.
He had been suffering from headaches for almost a month, however, and his condition worsened with a lack of sleep and the changing air pressure in the plane, his lawyer said.
Doctors on both sides agreed on the diagnosis, Ladar wrote in court papers.
Assistant U.S. Attorney David Hall said yesterday that the court should find Bradley committed a crime while temporarily insane and not dismiss charges on the grounds of a medical condition.
The judge said he would rule next month on that point. Bradley is expected in court Thursday to give permission in response to the prosecution's request for a psychiatric evaluation.
Both sides agree encephalitis led to Alaska Airlines attack
By Kim Curtis
The Associated Press
By Kim Curtis
The Associated Press
SAN FRANCISCO - A hulking passenger who broke into the cockpit of an Alaska Airlines plane and lunged for the controls in March was suffering a rare reaction to encephalitis, lawyers on both sides agreed.
Prosecutors and the attorney for Peter Bradley, 39, were working yesterday on a plea bargain.
Bradley has no memory of the attack, and experts needed weeks to unravel the mystery, according to his attorney, Jerrold Ladar. They concluded that encephalitis - an inflammation of the brain - had made him delirious.
The plane was traveling from Mexico to San Francisco on March 16 when Bradley, returning from a family reunion, began babbling, stripping off his clothes and wandering from seat to seat. He then broke into the cockpit yelling, "I'm going to kill you!" and grabbed for the controls.
The pilot momentarily lost control of the jet as the co-pilot used an ax to fend off Bradley. Passengers tackled him and held him down.
Bradley was charged with committing a violent act likely to endanger an airplane and assaulting a flight crew, offenses that carry up to 20 years in prison each. A trial was scheduled for Oct. 30.
He was freed on bail and returned to his job as a carpenter in Blue Springs, Mo. He has suffered no subsequent outbursts.
Bradley had no alcohol or illegal drugs in his system and no history of psychiatric problems.
He had been suffering from headaches for almost a month, however, and his condition worsened with a lack of sleep and the changing air pressure in the plane, his lawyer said.
Doctors on both sides agreed on the diagnosis, Ladar wrote in court papers.
Assistant U.S. Attorney David Hall said yesterday that the court should find Bradley committed a crime while temporarily insane and not dismiss charges on the grounds of a medical condition.
The judge said he would rule next month on that point. Bradley is expected in court Thursday to give permission in response to the prosecution's request for a psychiatric evaluation.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Im sorry for the bloke with encephalitis... BUT! He presented a danger to the other pax and crew and had an armed air marshal been present, in my opinion he would have been in order to restrain him by whatever means necessary especially given that he was yelling "Im going to kill you" and made for the cockpit door . The text says that the pilot lost control of the jet temporarily. Had a crash occurred killing all aboard then Im sure that the relatives would have been conforted to know "oh the perp was temporarily out of control owing to a brain disease, he didnt mean to harm anyone" as their folks would still be every bit as dead! Surprise as it may be to you Skydrifter, Im glad this man was restrained with no real damage to himself or any others on that plane and would feel the case ought to be thrown out of Court as a provable medical condition was the cause.
However, let me give you a couple of analogies. I am walking down the road when an aggressive teenager carrying what I take to be a knife tries to mug me. I consider that I am justified in using whatever force is required and available to me to prevent him and to protect myself and if this results in my having to bang his head off the wall resulting in his demise, so be it. If his corpse is subsequently found to have a toy plastic dagger in its hand, that's tough! A second example. I am in a country where rabies is endemic (or enzootic if you prefer). A dog aproaches with what appears to be foaming spittle in its mouth, I shoot it. Now if it DID have rabies it wasnt its fault, it didn't wish to harm me, but to protect myself and others I had to shoot it. Again, lets say it had only eaten sherbert that some kids had left on the ground, and was free of all infections,I would still consider I was right to shoot it, given the evidence available to me. You have to call it as it happens and your pax with the Brain Disorder would have appeared at first view to be a real and present danger to the aircraft, its crew and passengers. The report says that the F/O had to use an axe to ward him off. Let's say the F/O had actually had to use the axe on the deranged pax and had killed him as a result. To me he would be blameless, having done his duty and protected his passengers, fellow crew and anyone on the ground that the plane could have hit had it crashed. Subsequent autopsy would have revealed the illness of the pax in question but I still say that the F/O would have been in the right given the knowledge available to him in that split second- "Justifiable Homicide"
In the end ,Skydrifter, we have a totally different value system, I believe in "the greatest good for the greatest number" or if your prefer, "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one". I think you may be coming from somwhere else. Now no doubt you or others will throw the old debating society cliche' at me "What if it was you with the temporary derangement?" Well, I hope it never happens , but I accept the fact that I could be the victim of a mistaken killing, to me its one of the risks of life, an insignificant one when weighed against the many others we all face during our span.
What is really needed is some form of incap agent, a spray for example to render harmless any pax behaving in such a dangerous manner, or for that matter air ragers who assualt cabin crew and other pax, without causing them any lasting injury. I realise that aerosols used in aircraft can be problematical and other innocent pax could be affected by the spray, but surely science and technology can come up with some solution to this matter, such as the Police pepper spray shot into the perp's eyes as now being used instead of CS gas by UK Police Forces.
BTW Skydrifter, I see from your profile that your are a pilot in Seattle, and as I am not likely to visit the USA I doubt we will ever meet, so be happy that I will not be part of your SLF and I will be equally pleased that you are not in the left hand seat of the airplane I am on. Id rather Capt Ed Toner came out of retirement to fly me if the need arose.
[This message has been edited by Tartan Gannet (edited 23 October 2000).]
However, let me give you a couple of analogies. I am walking down the road when an aggressive teenager carrying what I take to be a knife tries to mug me. I consider that I am justified in using whatever force is required and available to me to prevent him and to protect myself and if this results in my having to bang his head off the wall resulting in his demise, so be it. If his corpse is subsequently found to have a toy plastic dagger in its hand, that's tough! A second example. I am in a country where rabies is endemic (or enzootic if you prefer). A dog aproaches with what appears to be foaming spittle in its mouth, I shoot it. Now if it DID have rabies it wasnt its fault, it didn't wish to harm me, but to protect myself and others I had to shoot it. Again, lets say it had only eaten sherbert that some kids had left on the ground, and was free of all infections,I would still consider I was right to shoot it, given the evidence available to me. You have to call it as it happens and your pax with the Brain Disorder would have appeared at first view to be a real and present danger to the aircraft, its crew and passengers. The report says that the F/O had to use an axe to ward him off. Let's say the F/O had actually had to use the axe on the deranged pax and had killed him as a result. To me he would be blameless, having done his duty and protected his passengers, fellow crew and anyone on the ground that the plane could have hit had it crashed. Subsequent autopsy would have revealed the illness of the pax in question but I still say that the F/O would have been in the right given the knowledge available to him in that split second- "Justifiable Homicide"
In the end ,Skydrifter, we have a totally different value system, I believe in "the greatest good for the greatest number" or if your prefer, "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one". I think you may be coming from somwhere else. Now no doubt you or others will throw the old debating society cliche' at me "What if it was you with the temporary derangement?" Well, I hope it never happens , but I accept the fact that I could be the victim of a mistaken killing, to me its one of the risks of life, an insignificant one when weighed against the many others we all face during our span.
What is really needed is some form of incap agent, a spray for example to render harmless any pax behaving in such a dangerous manner, or for that matter air ragers who assualt cabin crew and other pax, without causing them any lasting injury. I realise that aerosols used in aircraft can be problematical and other innocent pax could be affected by the spray, but surely science and technology can come up with some solution to this matter, such as the Police pepper spray shot into the perp's eyes as now being used instead of CS gas by UK Police Forces.
BTW Skydrifter, I see from your profile that your are a pilot in Seattle, and as I am not likely to visit the USA I doubt we will ever meet, so be happy that I will not be part of your SLF and I will be equally pleased that you are not in the left hand seat of the airplane I am on. Id rather Capt Ed Toner came out of retirement to fly me if the need arose.
[This message has been edited by Tartan Gannet (edited 23 October 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Sky Drifter, have you considered your position vis a vis your total incapacitation following an attack when your softly softly approach is met with physical violence.
You might better be advised to encourage the cabin staff to offload at boarding, instead of bringing the problem into the air so that you can demonstrate your counseling skills.
Creating a potential single pilot situation may not be the end of the world (Most FOs can land the aeroplane and cross out a name above them on the seniorty list at the same time)but is it wise.
You might better be advised to encourage the cabin staff to offload at boarding, instead of bringing the problem into the air so that you can demonstrate your counseling skills.
Creating a potential single pilot situation may not be the end of the world (Most FOs can land the aeroplane and cross out a name above them on the seniorty list at the same time)but is it wise.
Guest
Posts: n/a
VIOLENT PAX -
Rest assured that I am not in favor of pampering an obviously dangerous passenger. However, there are less than deadly methods available.
A standard procedure for flight attendants is to identify "able-bodied passengers" to assist with an evacuation. A sky-rage situation is no different.
Consider the possibility that the report of the off-duty policeman on the Southwest is accurate. They are as expert as they come at subduing violent perps.
I've been on the backs of many to screen such potential problems at the gate and found that prevention has been effective. There's nothing new or secret about that.
In too many cases airlines who have wanted to prosecute a sky-rage problem have been stopped at the argument, "You are known to have boarded the questionable passenger. You are also known to have served him/her alcohol." A lot of cases have walked because of that.
If clearly and absolutely necessary, I wouldn't blame anyone for 'dusting' someone such as a terrorist.
However, once a passenger is clearly subdued, there is no excuse for moving onward to the conscious choice of killing.
My crusade is for education, procedures and implements such as straps, ties and cuffs to restore passenger safety. Such have been around for years and proven to work.
A low pressure pepper spray can be made available.
There can be no doubt that there are extremes in which a killing might be inadvertently effected, such as in a case of a passenger 'dusted' with PCP. In cases such as that, I'm quite willing to comment, "Too bad, but it was unavoidable under the circumstances."
However, until it is patently clear that death is necessary, even if inadvertent, I cannot condone the mob mentality, particularly it's encouragement.
As a co-pilot I used to prompt the captain that regardless of what company policy was, who did he want left in charge if something happened in a confrontation. Hence, I've had my share of passenger confrontations as a copilot as well, including a few which nearly got violent. I'm no stranger to the potential of a pilot getting creamed.
The Alaska 259 incident is a prime example. If ever there was an excuse to use a crash-axe, they had it with not even myself questioning it's fatal use. Notice that the guy is still alive. It was as close as any who've survived. A civilized mentality appropriately was employed.
I fail to understand this "Hey, let's kill somebody!" attitude.
If you want to take the Salt Lake issue one step further, imagine the crew or company being held responsible for the excessive force. There are laws are out there which could have sent a few people on the crew to prison.
If you don't want to preserve life for any other reason, how about considering the crews liability under the laws. Only the political winds prevent that from happening. Ask the cops in the Rodney King beating.
With rare exception, restraint is appropriate and enough.
With no other choice available, I promise you, I'll be the first to swing a crash axe. I fully agree that the lives of all on board are the first priority with no exceptions.
Until it is reasonably clear that no other choice is available, I respectfully that civilized standards should prevail.
In an actual circumstance, I'll give the welfare of the passengers the benefit of the doubt over the life of a violent passenger - but not until it's clear that the unenviable choice MUST be made.
Rest assured that I am not in favor of pampering an obviously dangerous passenger. However, there are less than deadly methods available.
A standard procedure for flight attendants is to identify "able-bodied passengers" to assist with an evacuation. A sky-rage situation is no different.
Consider the possibility that the report of the off-duty policeman on the Southwest is accurate. They are as expert as they come at subduing violent perps.
I've been on the backs of many to screen such potential problems at the gate and found that prevention has been effective. There's nothing new or secret about that.
In too many cases airlines who have wanted to prosecute a sky-rage problem have been stopped at the argument, "You are known to have boarded the questionable passenger. You are also known to have served him/her alcohol." A lot of cases have walked because of that.
If clearly and absolutely necessary, I wouldn't blame anyone for 'dusting' someone such as a terrorist.
However, once a passenger is clearly subdued, there is no excuse for moving onward to the conscious choice of killing.
My crusade is for education, procedures and implements such as straps, ties and cuffs to restore passenger safety. Such have been around for years and proven to work.
A low pressure pepper spray can be made available.
There can be no doubt that there are extremes in which a killing might be inadvertently effected, such as in a case of a passenger 'dusted' with PCP. In cases such as that, I'm quite willing to comment, "Too bad, but it was unavoidable under the circumstances."
However, until it is patently clear that death is necessary, even if inadvertent, I cannot condone the mob mentality, particularly it's encouragement.
As a co-pilot I used to prompt the captain that regardless of what company policy was, who did he want left in charge if something happened in a confrontation. Hence, I've had my share of passenger confrontations as a copilot as well, including a few which nearly got violent. I'm no stranger to the potential of a pilot getting creamed.
The Alaska 259 incident is a prime example. If ever there was an excuse to use a crash-axe, they had it with not even myself questioning it's fatal use. Notice that the guy is still alive. It was as close as any who've survived. A civilized mentality appropriately was employed.
I fail to understand this "Hey, let's kill somebody!" attitude.
If you want to take the Salt Lake issue one step further, imagine the crew or company being held responsible for the excessive force. There are laws are out there which could have sent a few people on the crew to prison.
If you don't want to preserve life for any other reason, how about considering the crews liability under the laws. Only the political winds prevent that from happening. Ask the cops in the Rodney King beating.
With rare exception, restraint is appropriate and enough.
With no other choice available, I promise you, I'll be the first to swing a crash axe. I fully agree that the lives of all on board are the first priority with no exceptions.
Until it is reasonably clear that no other choice is available, I respectfully that civilized standards should prevail.
In an actual circumstance, I'll give the welfare of the passengers the benefit of the doubt over the life of a violent passenger - but not until it's clear that the unenviable choice MUST be made.
Guest
Posts: n/a
TG,
You are a complete clot. An absolute shower.
The pax concerned murdered the 'perp' when he'd already been adequately restrained (bet you feel good using that word, just like Clint in Dirty Barry IV. He's no wet liberal, he'd show these Pruners who take the mick out of you.....).
Yet to question that criminal over-reaction makes one a liberal do-gooder. Well if we were liberal do-gooders, we wouldn't laugh at some-one as pathetically under-endowed in the common sense and humanity departments, would we?
Your tough talk, shooting sherbert-eating dogs and banging teenagers heads against walls gives me a clear mental image of you, and I'm sorry to say that what I picture is an inadequate, sad, pathetic loser.
You yourself said: "We do not need this kind of dangerous person in society. I for one would happily live knowing that one of this type of scum had been eliminated."
Many might think that your own far-right wing views and intemperance might mark you out as dangerous. I certainly think that Society would be better off without your like, but prefer to hope that you could be rehabilitated through education and brotherly love!
You are a complete clot. An absolute shower.
The pax concerned murdered the 'perp' when he'd already been adequately restrained (bet you feel good using that word, just like Clint in Dirty Barry IV. He's no wet liberal, he'd show these Pruners who take the mick out of you.....).
Yet to question that criminal over-reaction makes one a liberal do-gooder. Well if we were liberal do-gooders, we wouldn't laugh at some-one as pathetically under-endowed in the common sense and humanity departments, would we?
Your tough talk, shooting sherbert-eating dogs and banging teenagers heads against walls gives me a clear mental image of you, and I'm sorry to say that what I picture is an inadequate, sad, pathetic loser.
You yourself said: "We do not need this kind of dangerous person in society. I for one would happily live knowing that one of this type of scum had been eliminated."
Many might think that your own far-right wing views and intemperance might mark you out as dangerous. I certainly think that Society would be better off without your like, but prefer to hope that you could be rehabilitated through education and brotherly love!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Not surprisingly, I agree with everything that Skydrifter has said on this subject.
Mr Gannet - I am sure we are all very impressed with your German but it's been a long time since my GCSE so if you want me to read your reply I suggest you translate it. Also I think you must have cared just a little to have stayed up all night with the German dictionary drafting your post.
Clearly there are situations where force has to be used, but it was what you said first which I and others objected to:
I fail to see what is amusing about a mob beating a mentally ill pax to death (reasonable force?), clearly your sense of humour differs from mine - I am glad that is not the only place where we differ.
Mr Gannet - I am sure we are all very impressed with your German but it's been a long time since my GCSE so if you want me to read your reply I suggest you translate it. Also I think you must have cared just a little to have stayed up all night with the German dictionary drafting your post.
Clearly there are situations where force has to be used, but it was what you said first which I and others objected to:
This is why I had a smile when I read about the teenaged pax who went off his rocker on an aircraft over the USA and was given his just deserts by the other PAX, that is he was terminated.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Jackonicko, I wondered how long it would take you to crawl back out of your lavatory pan? You have confirmed for me why I have such a detestation for the yellow gutter press. I would compare you to the Biblical Onan, but that suggests a sense of purpose!
Contrast your purile playground level of name calling, with the measured and reasoned response of Skydrifter, he has put his case quite sensibly and while I have to say that I have no time for those who endanger the lives of others by their conduct, his suggestions, if the sutuation permits, such as straps, quick action handcuffs, pepper spray would certainly reassure and protect both crew and the other pax. I also endorse his view of airlines being far stricter in allowing already drunk or disturbed pax onto an aircraft. In the end it is the lives and safety of the other pax, the crew and of course the people on the ground (remember Lockerbie) which are paramount.
Jackonicko, I treat your other insults with contempt. I will correct you on a few factual points. I am neither sad nor a loser having an enjoyable job, various hobbies, good friends. Neither am I "right-wing!" indeed in economics I stand to the left of centre, and I am pro abortion and euthanasia, secularist as regards education, against censorship and the imposing of Judeo-Christian sexual morality on consenting adults in private . Only on Law and Order do I take a hard line pro capital and corporal punishment stance. Sorry to confound your stereotype of an ill-educated trailer trash red-neck, I went to Grammar (not spelt "Grammer"), School and got 4 A levels,History, English, Chemistry and Physics, and have qualifications in Electronics. I dont know what paper you write for and I assume it is under a name other than Jackonicko. I dont suppose I read it as I only read the local newspapers in my home town or use Teletex, BBC Radio Four or the Internet for other news. Still, if you care to mention your paper I will gladly avoid purchasing same in error.
Regards to Skydrifter, though I will still entrust my flying to the hands of the "Nigels" of BA. Jackonicko, try a camping holiday on Gruiniard Island!
Contrast your purile playground level of name calling, with the measured and reasoned response of Skydrifter, he has put his case quite sensibly and while I have to say that I have no time for those who endanger the lives of others by their conduct, his suggestions, if the sutuation permits, such as straps, quick action handcuffs, pepper spray would certainly reassure and protect both crew and the other pax. I also endorse his view of airlines being far stricter in allowing already drunk or disturbed pax onto an aircraft. In the end it is the lives and safety of the other pax, the crew and of course the people on the ground (remember Lockerbie) which are paramount.
Jackonicko, I treat your other insults with contempt. I will correct you on a few factual points. I am neither sad nor a loser having an enjoyable job, various hobbies, good friends. Neither am I "right-wing!" indeed in economics I stand to the left of centre, and I am pro abortion and euthanasia, secularist as regards education, against censorship and the imposing of Judeo-Christian sexual morality on consenting adults in private . Only on Law and Order do I take a hard line pro capital and corporal punishment stance. Sorry to confound your stereotype of an ill-educated trailer trash red-neck, I went to Grammar (not spelt "Grammer"), School and got 4 A levels,History, English, Chemistry and Physics, and have qualifications in Electronics. I dont know what paper you write for and I assume it is under a name other than Jackonicko. I dont suppose I read it as I only read the local newspapers in my home town or use Teletex, BBC Radio Four or the Internet for other news. Still, if you care to mention your paper I will gladly avoid purchasing same in error.
Regards to Skydrifter, though I will still entrust my flying to the hands of the "Nigels" of BA. Jackonicko, try a camping holiday on Gruiniard Island!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Tartan,
So angry, so hostile, and after I called you .... a clot. A complete shower. How could I have stooped so low?
So sorry to have confirmed (more of) your infantile prejudices. I don't have Skydrifter's patience or humanity, I'm afraid, and the previous thread taught me that reason is not a tool to use with you. While your banter is getting a good deal better, and while you may have a handful of A-levels (no S-levels? Degree? Post-graduate?) I'm afraid that you've missed the point.
Which is that whatever your academic distinctions, your knee-jerk, inhumane reactions and approval for violent vigilante action marks you out as an emotionally under-developed, insensitive fool. (And I bet your headmaster would be proud of you today, if you went where I think you went.)
Perhaps a loving relationship (with some-one else) would help? (And after your Onan quip, I'd point out that your own hand doesn't really qualify as a proper sexual partner). Were you abandoned as a baby? Help me empathise, because I don't hate you, I just feel genuinely sad for you.
You'd best avoid the Telegraph, Times, Express, Mail, and most UK/US aviation magazines, BTW. Also Radio 4, 5, and World Service. Best stop watching TV, too. And of your local papers, you'd best avoid (well, most of them, I'm afraid, as we're near neighbours). But Teletext is safe, and I believe that there are some ultra-right wing rags which masquerade as papers, published by the BNP and similar organisations. You can be assured that they haven't been sullied by contact with JN!
PS: How about an anger management course? Or you could take up knitting? Perhaps its your diet - if you were to become a vegetarian, perhaps? Just trying to help.
Yours, In brotherly love,
Jacko.
So angry, so hostile, and after I called you .... a clot. A complete shower. How could I have stooped so low?
So sorry to have confirmed (more of) your infantile prejudices. I don't have Skydrifter's patience or humanity, I'm afraid, and the previous thread taught me that reason is not a tool to use with you. While your banter is getting a good deal better, and while you may have a handful of A-levels (no S-levels? Degree? Post-graduate?) I'm afraid that you've missed the point.
Which is that whatever your academic distinctions, your knee-jerk, inhumane reactions and approval for violent vigilante action marks you out as an emotionally under-developed, insensitive fool. (And I bet your headmaster would be proud of you today, if you went where I think you went.)
Perhaps a loving relationship (with some-one else) would help? (And after your Onan quip, I'd point out that your own hand doesn't really qualify as a proper sexual partner). Were you abandoned as a baby? Help me empathise, because I don't hate you, I just feel genuinely sad for you.
You'd best avoid the Telegraph, Times, Express, Mail, and most UK/US aviation magazines, BTW. Also Radio 4, 5, and World Service. Best stop watching TV, too. And of your local papers, you'd best avoid (well, most of them, I'm afraid, as we're near neighbours). But Teletext is safe, and I believe that there are some ultra-right wing rags which masquerade as papers, published by the BNP and similar organisations. You can be assured that they haven't been sullied by contact with JN!
PS: How about an anger management course? Or you could take up knitting? Perhaps its your diet - if you were to become a vegetarian, perhaps? Just trying to help.
Yours, In brotherly love,
Jacko.
Guest
Posts: n/a
FFS guys !
This a forum in which your are meant to 'discuss' medical matters.
Now if you're unable to do that in grown-up manner than please use personal/private emails to indulge your purile point-scoring, off one another - i.e. do not indulge yourselves in here with such tripe ! comprende ?
This a forum in which your are meant to 'discuss' medical matters.
Now if you're unable to do that in grown-up manner than please use personal/private emails to indulge your purile point-scoring, off one another - i.e. do not indulge yourselves in here with such tripe ! comprende ?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Couldn't agree more, that's the whole point. Let's deal with it on the basis of it being a medical/psychological/alcohol problem, not one of pure criminality. And let's avoid knee-jerk vigilante responses, too.
TG very wisely doesn't show an E-Mail address, otherwise I'm sure m,any would happily tell him what they thought in terms far less restrained than are uttered here.
[This message has been edited by Jackonicko (edited 29 October 2000).]
TG very wisely doesn't show an E-Mail address, otherwise I'm sure m,any would happily tell him what they thought in terms far less restrained than are uttered here.
[This message has been edited by Jackonicko (edited 29 October 2000).]
