I get your meaning, but given the training from use of restraints to use of firearms, I think you're wrong about that.

For instance, even with the duct tape, I believe (??) I've read stories where restraining people like that incorrectly can lead to death, especially if they are already compromised (asthma, etc.)

That guy in the photo probably didn't need a duct tape gag plus the force used to restrain him was probably amateurish and misapplied due to lack of training.

It is great that the passengers managed to subdue a violent drunk individual on the plane; however based upon the photo I’m not convinced that random passengers are adequate replacements for trained air marshals.

The problem is that these passengers are clearly ignorant of the proper protocols to restrain someone who is sufficiently intoxicated to require being tied up.

The last thing you want to do to someone who is that drunk is tape their mouth shut (especially on an airplane which can expose passengers to turbulent motion and make even sober passengers nauseous). That type of restraint poses a significant risk to the life of the individual being restrained because if that person had thrown up and the fluid went into their lungs (because it has no other route of escape) they could easily have choked to death. If that had occurred, then all of those passengers who strapped him down would now be criminally negligent.

Presumably air marshals would have received proper training in how to restrain a violent passenger without having to put them in jeopardy of choking to death.

Jerry and Orion,

I quite frankly don't give a damn if he would have died.

There are only a limited number of Air Marshals and FFDO's around. I think there are less than 5,000 total. The odds of one of them being on an Icelandair flight, or any flight, for that matter is not really high considering there are about 30,000 flights in the U.S. alone.

The person was acting outside of the normal bounds of behavior in a limited environment. There isn't a great way to get 9/11 to respond, in a timely fashion. So the passengers reacted as needed.

Oh, it's on, baby.

>> That type of restraint poses a significant risk
>> to the life of the individual being restrained

> I quite frankly don't give a damn if he
> would have died.

'Zackly.

'Don't give a damn' may be a little over-the-top... But JP's responding to the micromanagement that happens when people try to address every issue in the world through policy.

When you think the government is the only way to move civilization forward, the prissy and intrusive part of the human mind takes the Big Chair. You start building enormous structures out of thin strands of crystal, as if to promise that every detail will be handled correctly. The flaming complexity of these projects becomes a function of YOUR EGO.

And then, the politicians who actually implement this bullshit turn it into pork —

AND YOU, THE ARROGANT VOTER, DESERVE NO BETTER.

> not convinced that random passengers
> are adequate replacements for trained
> air marshals.

This may be the most cocksucklingly subservient passage of text on Amy's blog for 2013... I can't imagine anything more recessive.

Maybe the 5-year champ, 2010-2014. This is where people's head's are at this point in American history.

This may be the most cocksucklingly subservient passage of text on Amy's blog for 2013... I can't imagine anything more recessive.

Cocksucklingly subservient? Cocksucklingly subservient?

Why, you're nothing but a

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4D3UdxM3OU

yourself!

Seriousness aside - I Love that picture in the article - yep, tie the effing idiot up with duck tape.

But, I do wonder - who and how did they get the tape past the TSA folks?

Policy?

Oh, yeah. Sometimes it's called "law", and people fantasize a Utopia that works like they want, never noticing they've shackled themselves. Go get 'em, Crid.

Meanwhile, spread the word: screw up on an airplane, those frightened people might kill your dumb ass. Act accordingly, because precious policy doesn't apply at all then.

I heart Charles.

Jerry pissed me off. I wasn't kidding: This American habit of leaning back in easy chairs after work with a glass of wine and speculating on THE BEST POSSIBLE outcome, and then presuming that government can bring it to us at a competitive price, is exactly what's brought us to this moment. Even when a drunken fuckball is threatening hundreds of lives at 29000 feet, he wants to argue that public servants have everything under control... Because golly, it would be a shame if the rampaging monster didn't have the nicest possible ending to the fairy tale as well.

Ps. Browsing on phone. I saw there seconds of a silent Western and stopped watching

Nyah nyah

Three. Three seconds. This technology is still under development.

I'm rather fond of cocksuckers myself.

Okay, four metaphors in one blog comment.

Gimme a break, it's Sunday.

YOU KNEW WHAT I MEANT

Eaaaaasy there big fella.

Yeah, so nowhere have I said that I presume government can bring us the best possible outcome.

And nowhere have I said that we should never let the traveling public police the aircraft.

But since those are the only two positions (also known as the fallacy of the excluded middle) that makes Crid's drivel on this make any sense at all, it's not wonder Crid clings to that so closely.

It's all he's got so no one better take that away.

Given what most of us here (maybe not Crid) think of the TSA, it's interesting to consider the TSA budget is 8.1 Billion, the Air Marshall budget is less than 800 million of that 8.1 billion.

And yes, I agree, any random asshole, including your stupid younger brother, or your daughter, or your uncle or dad that drinks too much on a plane or beforehand or has a medical problem deserves the accidental and needless death because well intentioned but poorly trained passengers in their zeal put a needless duct tape gag over their mouths.

> we should never let the traveling public
> police the aircraft

Got that, Seekers?

> never

Government will handle this... Return to your seats.

Or, if you're being choked by a drunk, sit there and take it until an air marshal intervenes, and hope like Hell there's one on your flight, and that he/she is responsive and competent. Otherwise, hope that your taxes can be raised high enough that responsive and competent air marshals can be put on all flights for, y'know, next time.

If possible, you may reach past his chubby, multiply-haired knuckles to adjust the circle-pointy nozzle for maximum airflow towards your challenged nostrils, but only if possible. Try not to punch the button summoning the stewardess in error: She's probably bringing me one of those plastic bottles of Nose-itch Cabernet (2013) from that aluminum cart that slides under her countertop like a case full of of rockstar road hardware, and you have no business distracting her. Also, sometimes those gals get cranky when someone's pushed the wrong button, and you've got problems enough right now. At a moment like that, you don't need her or me to be pissed off at you too.

Because, y'know, being choked by a drunk is NOT a scenario for a response from amateurs, whether airline employees or fellow passengers, no matter how powerful, compassionate and alert they may be to your distress. No... Americans mustn't count on each other, because your attacker could be "compromised."

Am I getting carried away? That never happens on this blog.

Keep Flyin' those Friendlies, mothafuckers...

"needless duct tape."

At six miles up after a choking.

This is exactly what I was getting at here, citing the factoid from Harris (and see that commentary as well):

With the exception of the attack on U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011, every mass shooting since 1950 has taken place where civilians are forbidden to carry firearms.

The guy who gagged that drunk? I'll buy him all the duct tape he wants until the day he dies.

Come on Crid, you're often better than this, which is why you give us hope.

""needless duct tape."

At six miles up after a choking."

was really

""needless duct tape gag over their mouths"

At six miles up after a choking."

Yeah, must've been an X Files choking that he did with his 20" bifurcated devil's tongue.

> That guy in the photo probably didn't
> need a duct tape gag

You're concerned about his needs; we get it.

They may have put the duct tape over his mouth because he was spitting on other passengers.

Or, as was noted in the story, because he was shouting that the plane was going down, which can sometimes upset people who are being respectful of others in an inherently risky context such as airline flight.

They may have put the duct tape over his mouth because he was spitting on other passengers.

Or maybe they just thought it would be funny, which is enough of a reason for me.

✔!

Jim P. Says:

“I quite frankly don't give a damn if he would have died.”

Fair enough… and I quite frankly don’t give a damn if for some reason he did die due to being gagged that the passengers in question are charged with and convicted of negligent homicide.

Just because someone starts to act in an unruly fashion doesn’t give other citizens the right to do anything they damn well please. They must still act within the bounds of reason and those bounds do not include gagging a heavily intoxicated person on a plane after they have successfully been subdued.

When people effectively deputize themselves with police powers to subdue a threat they have the associated responsibility to act responsibly in the usage of that authority.

It doesn't suddenly become the wild west just because someone gets out of line.

Weren't people at this blog up in arms about the police pepper spraying students when they were sitting down?... why exactly is that a problem, but keeping a drunk man gagged after hes been completely neutralized as a threat is somehow perfectly fine because it was done by citizens instead of the police.

Those people took it upon themselves to act as the enforcers of the law, the second they did that they had an associated duty to use their power appropriately. It is here where they failed because they lack the proper training to know when they have crossed the line.

> the second they did that they had an associated
> duty to use their power appropriately.

This is so pathetic. This mentality... This fascination with wordy legalisms and Disney-fable power structures... This armchair illusion of administrative jurisprudence at distant remove from a life-or-death hazard...

I thought guys like you had it beaten out of you at recess. By, like, junior high.

> Weren't people at this blog up in arms about the
> police pepper spraying students when they were
> sitting down?...

Actually, I was kinda cool with it. We can look it up in Amy's archive if you want. It was fun being right then... It's fun being right now.

"crossed the line," he says.

Crid,

So far as I am concerned, if you are cool with the police pepper spraying people in the face when they pose zero threat and are simultaneously cool with citizens gagging someone after they have been strapped to a chair and the threat they pose has been neutralized at the very least I can respect you for being philosophically consistent.

You are utterly wrong on both counts of course, but you do get credit for consistency.

I'd argue the specifics with you about why you are wrong, but in my previous discussions with you you've outright admitted that facts don't matter when you construct your opinions... you are content to form opinions based upon notions that you've made up out of whole cloth.

It is impossible to convince anyone of anything when they don't think facts matter.

From the article: “...a disruptive male passenger who was hitting, screaming and spitting at other passengers while yelling profanities.”

Spitting. That's a good enough reason to put duct tape over his mouth. But it's true that the guy could have puked and aspirated, or suffocated if his nose plugged up. To keep him from spitting on people it would have been a lot safer to put someone's underwear over his head. And funnier too.

Orion,

Did you actually read the attached article?

Passanger drank all of his duty free liquor on the flight from Iceland to JFK yesterday. When he became unruly, (i.e. trying to choke the woman next to him and screaming the plane was going to crash), fellow passengers subdued him and tie him up for the rest of the flight. He was escorted off the flight by police when it landed.

“a disruptive male passenger who was hitting, screaming and spitting at other passengers while yelling profanities.

he was restrained by passengers and crew and was monitored for his own safety for the duration of the flight.

Does it sound like they ignored him post-restraint anywhere?

Now let's pick on some of your points:

Fair enough… and I quite frankly don’t give a damn if for some reason he did die due to being gagged that the passengers in question are charged with and convicted of negligent homicide.

A. He didn't die and B. He was monitored for the rest of the flight. It was not like he was trapped in the cargo hold.

Just because someone starts to act in an unruly fashion doesn’t give other citizens the right to do anything they damn well please. They must still act within the bounds of reason and those bounds do not include gagging a heavily intoxicated person on a plane after they have successfully been subdued.

Yes, it does. On an aircraft, anywhere in the world, the Captain on the flight has full legal rule. Until that plane lands he can determine what is legal and appropriate. If he objected then that passengers would probably have complied.

When people effectively deputize themselves with police powers to subdue a threat they have the associated responsibility to act responsibly in the usage of that authority.

That is dependent on the situation. The 9/11 hijackers had no intent to walk off the planes. That means the responsible reaction was to kill them. An interesting book to read is The Terror at Beslan. The terrorists had no plans to surrender. That means that the violence from the passengers should be at the same level. If you think that the level of violence used by the passengers, I want you to ask the passengers of United Flight 93 feel about it.

It doesn't suddenly become the wild west just because someone gets out of line.

"When he became unruly, (i.e. trying to choke the woman next to him and screaming the plane was going to crash"

Somehow I don't consider trying to choke someone is just because someone gets out of line.

Weren't people at this blog up in arms about the police pepper spraying students when they were sitting down?... why exactly is that a problem, but keeping a drunk man gagged after hes been completely neutralized as a threat is somehow perfectly fine because it was done by citizens instead of the police.

You are honestly comparing forewarned people sitting on a sidewalk in Davis, CA to about 125+ people trapped in an aluminum can 35K+ feet above the freezing Atlantic? And for a fact I didn't condemn the police at UC Davis.

Those people took it upon themselves to act as the enforcers of the law, the second they did that they had an associated duty to use their power appropriately. It is here where they failed because they lack the proper training to know when they have crossed the line.

I'd like you to compare the shooting stats on police encounters with weapons fired to civilians firing in similar situations. How many rounds are expended proves to be interesting. You also lack knowledge if any of the passengers were law enforcement or military or had medical training. You are condemning on insufficient facts.

"It doesn't suddenly become the wild west just because someone gets out of line."

Well, that's apropos.

Because "the wild west" is a body of fiction. Ammunition and lives on the American frontier were both scarce and valued. Think for ten minutes about, say, ten houses in Nebraska surviving for years with no electrical power and you'll realize that.

Tip: Justice is not the sole property of government agencies.

Even as the modern State reserves the power of life and death fo itself whenever it can.

Ken R Says:

"To keep him from spitting on people it would have been a lot safer to put someone's underwear over his head. And funnier too."

Right, and that is the point. Once the guy was strapped to the chair the people who subdued him had tons of options of how to now deal with the situation.

It was no longer an issue of neutralizing a threat the moment he was tied up. Even if they had to duct tape his mouth in the process of getting him neutralized (so he didn't bite them for example) I wouldn't really object. What I am objecting to is what happened after he was tied down.

The moment he was strapped to the chair though it became unreasonable to keep the tape over his mouth even to prevent spitting because there were tons of other ways to handle things.

Now you propose underwear, but they could have just as easily pulled his shirt over his head which would mean that if he did vomit it would be all over the inside of his clothing. Fine, not the greatest situation for him, but he wouldn't be in a situation that could lead to his death.

Something tells me that some of the people thinking this was a great idea have been drunk assholes before... something also tells me that those same people wouldn't like being hog tied, gagged, and left to potentially choke on their own vomit because of it.

Jim P. Says:

"Does it sound like they ignored him post-restraint anywhere?"

Immaterial. That they claim to have been monitoring him doesn't suddenly mean they have met the proper standard to be immune from a charge of negligence.

Doctors for example can be found negligent for issues pertaining to a patient and they could have been monitoring them the whole time.

Negligence is about failing to take proper precautions. Taping an intoxicated mans mouth shut on a flight is not justifiable in this situation and they are lucky nothing happened to him.

"A. He didn't die"

You are correct, which is why none of the people on the flight will be charged with anything.

If you are driving drunk and make it home safe and sound you won't be charged with negligent homicide either. However if you run someone over in that state and kill them it is a whole other ball game.

That things worked out in this case doesn't make the actions appropriate anymore than drunk driving is justified after the fact by observing that you didn't run someone over that time.

"Yes, it does. On an aircraft, anywhere in the world, the Captain on the flight has full legal rule. Until that plane lands he can determine what is legal and appropriate. If he objected then that passengers would probably have complied."

Actually no. The captain of the flight does not have full legal rule to do anything they please as the plane is in the air.

Would it be legal for the pilot to demand sex with your wife for example once the plane is off the ground under penalty of your death?

That is an extreme example I know, but it is to illustrate the point that the laws of the ground still apply once the plane is in the air and people are still held to account for their actions once the plane touches down again.

Pilots do not have unlimited authority on a plane. Their authority is restricted in several ways. That you do not acknowledge this is troubling.

"That is dependent on the situation. The 9/11 hijackers had no intent to walk off the planes. That means the responsible reaction was to kill them."

Again no. If those people had been effectively subdued and strapped down as this fellow had, how would killing them amount to anything other than an execution without a trial?

Well I suppose the pilot could just order their execution and it would be okay because they have complete authority to determine who gets to live and die once the plane is in the air... at least the way you describe it.

You keep missing the point though. Excessive force is defined as going beyond the force needed to neutralize the threat.

Once the threat has been neutralized no more force is needed. You don't have to kill someone if you have them tied up. Similarly, you don't have to gag someone with tape once they've been tied up.

This really isn't a difficult concept.

It ain't the practicalities, it's the 'tude.

> Once the threat has been neutralized

How would you know a threat is neutralized?

Every week there's one of these... An event where people are judging it like a television show, where the outcome has been scripted months before, and somehow the last segment is offensive somehow.

Orion, have you ever been in a violent circumstance? Just curious.

Radwaste Says:

"Because "the wild west" is a body of fiction."

I'm not exactly certain about the point you are trying to make.

That "the wild west" doesn't accurately reflect the true historical existence of the people who settled the western territories in the 19th century has little to no baring upon its use here.

The use was to conjure up the pop culture notion of a lawless land where vigilante justice was the only justice that people could count on.

I agree that this isn't an accurate depiction of what was going on during that time... but it is a pop culture reference that everyone understands.

Would you have preferred if I said "It doesn't suddenly become the world of Mad Max just because someone gets out of line."?

Orion has it right. The captain is not god, and neither are the passengers. Fine, first priority is safety of others - but if you take it on yourself to tie and gag someone, you *will* be held responsible for the consequences if the force is deemed excessive.

To put it simply Crid, while the guy was throttling people you'd be perfectly justified in taking a swing at him or clocking him on the head, which could quite easily be fatal. But once he's taped to a chair (and you do have to be careful about that kind of restraint - too tight and you have a tourniquet, which for long periods is really bad, it's not just the gag which has obvious dangers), spitting is hardly a serious threat.

This was not a fucking bomb plot, for chrissakes. If it's true, looks way over the top.

Still, whether this was too much or not, Amy's point holds - air marshalls aren't really necessary anymore.

I'd have preferred that you recognize that your judgment as being pornographically inappropriate.

I don't think you understand "excessive force."

Crid Says:

"How would you know a threat is neutralized?"

You can be confident that the threat is neutralized once his legs have been tied and his torso is strapped to the chair.

From the picture it seems fairly reasonable to conclude that the guy couldn't move.

Again, let me reiterate. If they had to tape his mouth in the process of getting him strapped down I understand. Once he was tied up it wasn't necessary to keep him gagged and made the situation more dangerous than it had to be.

"Orion, have you ever been in a violent circumstance? Just curious."

This is the point that I was actually making originally.

The reason these people screwed up is precisely because they haven't generally been exposed to violent circumstances.

People who deal with violence on a daily basis as part of their job do better at using an appropriate amount of force to deal with a threat.

My point was that air marshals (people who have been trained to deal with violent situations) would do a better job at determining both when the threat was over and when they have used enough force to resolve the situation.

These passengers didn't think that far. They were frightened because they don't generally contend with dangerous situations so they were either incapable of recognizing when things had settled down, or for some unknown reason believed a tied up drunk man remained a significant enough danger to them that they needed to be gagged.

Please keep in mind that corrections officers transport criminals by air all the time and they don't deem it necessary to gag them all for transit. These people are often known murders and rapists and get treated better than this drunk guy precisely because the officers who handle these criminals know what they are doing.

When a prisoner is known to bite and spit they also aren't gagged during transit, other methods are used that prevent them from choking.

You can't argue that passengers make a good replacement for highly trained officers when these kinds of differences exist in how situations are handled.

The passengers did an alright job from a utilitarian perspective, but it was really rather amateurish and makes for a poor replacement to trained professionals (which I remind you was my original point).

Or, if you're being choked by a drunk, sit there and take it until an air marshal intervenes, and hope like Hell there's one on your flight

No one said that the passengers and crew shouldn't have intervened Crid, just that they went too far in their restraints. If you want citizen led protection against threats, then those citizens had better know what the fuck they are doing.

> you *will* be held responsible for the
> consequences if the force is deemed excessive.

This is so INFANTILE. I don't understand how your minds could work that way. If only we had video of the woman being throttled, or the children responding to his shouts that the plane was falling... Perhaps the problem is that your emotionally stunted so the photo takes preeminence in your heart, and you can;'t recognize it as a consequence.

I think a jury would be very patient with someone who'd used a bit too much force in an incident like this. I think you could put a few single mothers and old people on the stand and your (demented) fantasies of accountability for imaginary injury to this guy would melt away.

> and you do have to be careful about that kind
> of restraint - too tight and

You have no experience with this, right? You've never had to apply violence to quell a (continuing) threat to hundreds of people in a short amount of time, right?

Someone raised you to be scold... Right?

> they went too far in their restraints.

Oh well.

PS- Says you. I think they still had a ways to go. What's he need glasses for? Why can he still turn to view other passengers?

> If you want citizen led protection against
> threats, then those citizens had better
> know what the fuck they are doing.

FUCK THAT WITH A STICK. Christ, is this a joke? Are you dorkwads playing me? Could you BE this naive? Are you old enough to drive? Or to read?

I've not been so confounded by the misshapen judgment of the people on this blog since the thing with the cowardly musician.

Alright, Bunnyboy, let's break this down.

There apparently were no marshals on this flight. (Unless the drunk was the marshal.) No narrative yet published describes any authority responding to this problem. So in this case, it was "citizen led protection" against an indisputably real "threat" versus nothing. Even if he'd not completed choking the woman to death, he'd put a charge of terror into dozens of souls that's likely to disturb sleep for many years to come.

> then those citizens had better know what
> the fuck they are doing.

OR WHAT, Bunny? What authority do you imagine to be speaking with? Is your imagination that foreshortened, that all you can turn to is some vague fear of parental retribution from your own childhood?

Let's say no citizen HAD "known what the fuck they were doing." What difference would it have made? Was Scotty from Star Trek going to appear in that cabin and stun him with a phaser? Was Jesus Christ going to appear in a flowing robe and cause a magical churchly Seconal to appear in his belly?

Or was the plane going to plunge into the ocean after he'd sucker-punched a stewardess and popped open a door for explosive decompression? ...Presumably, that's the outcome you'd have thought most just if other passengers did not know —to your squealing-Mimi satisfaction— "what the fuck they were doing."

I can't comprehend what's happening with you people. Or who you think will be available to rescue YOUR pink and puckered asshole in a flight without marshals....

But I hope AND PRESUME that next time you get on an airliner, you'll take a few minutes to chat up the people in the terminal lounge, so they'll understand that in no circumstances are you to be counted on.

Because, after all, you wouldn't know "what the fuck [you were] doing in such a crisis either, right?

And we'd hate for your drunken murderer to be "compromised."

Cot TAM, people.

Hmm, let's see.

Orion - et al - do you think that you have a duty to perform according to some policy when defending yourself?

Life is so messy. It just wouldn't be if everyone knew the procedure!

Crid,

I am curious about a few things because I am having a difficult time understanding where you think authority comes from. On that issue you appear to be extremely inconsistent.

For example, you seem to believe that the passengers had the authority to physically restrain this guy, tie him up, and gag him and that while exercising this authority they apparently shouldn't have to answer to anyone.

At the same time, the guy did not have the authority to choke another passenger on the plane and as a result had to answer to the other passengers.

What allows you to draw this distinction?

Why was this guy accountable to the other passengers for his behavior if they deem it to have been out of line, but those same passengers aren't accountable to the rest of society for their behavior if society deems it to be out of line?

You seem to be saying that it is okay for a small group of individuals to enforce their authority upon one person, but not for a larger group of individuals to enforce their authority upon the small group.

You can't have it both ways.

Just like that small group can deem his behavior to be inappropriate and hold him accountable by tying him up, so too can a larger group deem their behavior to have been inappropriate and hold them accountable by locking them up.

It's really the same argument.

The only distinction appears to be that you don't like the drunk guy and you do like the group who tied him up and gagged him.

Unfortunately for you we don't live under the rule of "King Crid", so your opinion about who you like best means essentially nothing. I don't like the drunk guy either, but that doesn't give the other passengers the right to do anything they like to him.

You're going to have to provide a rational basis for the distinction you are making because as it stands I don't see one.

Needless to say, if society at large doesn't have the authority to hold the passengers accountable if the guy died as a result of being gagged, then they didn't have the authority to tie him down in the first place.

The authority to hold others accountable for their behavior has to come from somewhere, but I can't tell where you think that source is. Jim P. suggested the authority came from the pilot, but I've already listed my objections to that notion.

Radwaste Says:

"do you think that you have a duty to perform according to some policy when defending yourself?"

Of course I do.

For example, if someone attacks me and I manage to knock them unconscious I don't get to just shoot them in the face for good measure.

I'm honestly shocked that some people here have a difficult time comprehending that violent conflicts have different phases to them.

You are acting as if once you feel under threat you are suddenly justified to do anything you feel like.

Let me ask you a question. Let's say someone physically assaults you in the street and you manage to fend them off and they are now running away from you. Are you justified in this instance to pull out a firearm and shoot them as they are retreating from you?

If the answer to this question for you is "no" then you also acknowledge that you have to abide by some policies when defending yourself. If the answer to this question for you is "yes" then don't be surprised if you are charged with a crime and hauled away by the police if you ever find yourself in this situation.

> you seem to believe that the passengers
> had the authority to physically restrain
> this guy, tie him up, and gag him

Do you think they did not? ANY of that?

Is your interior life a cartoon realm of talking animals and singing trees and Mean Mr. Wind and his Little Cloud ruffians? "Authority"?

> while exercising this authority they
> apparently shouldn't have to answer
> to anyone.

Aha! Temporal confusion is the problem. Because you've [A.] never been involved in a violent crisis yourself and [B.] have spent too much time watching TV shows (in which narratives are rote & condensed), you think this event was always already concluded as it happened... So everyone should be judged (by "authority") like Don Johnson shooting a guy on Miami Vice... You think the commercial for the Toyota dealership is ready to roll. You can't imagine a circumstance unfolding — open-ended — before your eyes, perhaps with violent death for hundreds.

But there was no authority for them to answer to just as there was none to protect them.

(Seekers: How would we explain North Korea to a guy like Orion? A corrupt authority would completely exceed his capacity for abstraction.)

In that moment, THERE WAS NO AUTHORITY beyond the decency and strength of the other passengers. They were not trained and deputized. But they wanted to live and they deserved to live, so did what they wanted to do with as high an authority as any group of people can have.

And I'm grateful to them, and I hope they'll do the same on my flight... Despite schoolmarmy, paperwork-threatening screeching from sillymen safe on the ground, e.g.:

those citizens had better know what the fuck they are doing.

…And if something goes wrong and if we don't make it, and wind up in a flaming farmyard in Shanksville, I'll be grateful to you for trying.

But if we make it and a bad guy suffers (to some trivial degree) unnecessarily, then I'll meet you in court to testify to my gratitude for your best, if imperfect, effort. And I'll get every other survivor to testify as well, because they'll all be glad to be alive, and we can prove that to a jury.

And then we'll convene down the street for a glass of beer, and then we'll trot back to stand outside the courthouse and pee into the mouths of those who think that every nightmare can have a perfect "the fuck" ending.




More in the morning. No rush: You'll still be horribly wrong.

Crid Says:

"Do you think they did not? ANY of that?

Is your interior life a cartoon realm of talking animals and singing trees and Mean Mr. Wind and his Little Cloud ruffians? "Authority"?"

It must be fun for you to live in such a black and white world.

You only speak about things in terms of extremes; there is no nuance to anything you talk about.

Either I have to accept that the passengers have the right to do pretty much anything they like, or I live in a cartoon realm.

Luckily for me I can deal with a world that is far more complicated than the one dimensional world you live in. To you things are either positive or negative, it is split down an obvious dividing line and when you are on one side you are bad and when you are on the other side you are good.

Ironically that is how children see the world... that is actually the world of cartoons and fairy tales where the bad guys are obviously bad and the good guys are obviously good and the story doesn't need to go any deeper than that to entertain the 5 year old enjoying the story.

You may classify the passengers here as heroes and the drunken guy as the villain... that is a convenient classification to be sure, but it really isn't rich enough to capture what goes on in situations like this.

These were all people on a plane. The drunken guy went too far in a social interaction and got violent with someone else. In response violence was brought to bear to restrain him.

However, it is also possible for the physical force brought to bear on the drunken guy to go too far.

This is a position you seem to reject and have provided zero justification for.

"But there was no authority for them to answer to just as there was none to protect them."

If there was no authority, then the mob of people who strapped the guy to a seat were all out of line.

In your world of "no authority" they are no more entitled to hold that guy down than we are to charge them with a crime after the fact.

As a result, since they clearly took action, society at large is entitled on exactly the same grounds to do the same with them.

Again, they are similarly situated to the drunk individual.

They don't get the free pass you so desperately want to give them. If something had gone horribly wrong and the drunk guy died as a result of being gagged we can and should expect everyone involve to be held accountable. I'm very glad that nothing like this happened for a variety of reasons, however, that is only due to luck, not due to design based upon how they handled things in that photo.

"But they wanted to live and they deserved to live, so did what they wanted to do with as high an authority as any group of people can have."

Great, which is the exact same authority the rest of society has to hold them accountable because their actions didn't stop when their lives were no longer in danger.

Surely you can't be this obtuse. The level of ones response must somehow be related to the level of danger. As the danger decreases so too must the level of the response be mitigated.

"If something goes down on MY flight, and I'm not able to stop it and no marshals are either, I want you, my cabinmates, to improvise... To do what you think is best. I want you to be courageous and experimental…"

Good, and the first thing I'll do after the guy is strapped helplessly to a chair is pull the damn gag off his mouth because it isn't necessary at that point. You're free to try and stop me, but then I suppose I am justified to strap you to a chair and gag you in response.

You must be one of those internet tough guys, all full of bold assertions of how brave you would be when in danger, but you come across as little more than a coward when one really thinks about it.

You are literally terrified of a drunken man who has been bound at his ankles, bound at his knees, had his hands bound behind his back and has been immobilized to a seat. You are so utterly terrified that you keep trying to argue how dangerous he would be if anyone were to dare to take his gag off.

What a wuss, maybe you’re afraid he’ll call you a nasty name or something.

You are literally willing to put the guys life at risk because you are afraid that even a marginal bit of decency will put you at risk of what exactly?

Even convicted murderers are flown around without having to have their mouths gagged with tape... and you're pissing yourself over an intoxicated man who is all tied up.

“But if we make it and a bad guy suffers (to some trivial degree) unnecessarily,”

Right… because for you it is all about “good guys” and “bad guys”… and I’m the one who exists in a cartoon realm?

I haven’t been talking about trivial suffering. I’ve drawn the line in a very clear position. I haven’t taken issue with the guy’s ankles being tied together. I haven’t taken issue with the guy’s knees being bound. I haven’t taken issue with the guys’s arms being tied behind his back. I haven’t taken issue with the guy being strapped and immobilized to a chair.

The one and only thing I have objected to is the man being gagged because it comes with the very real possibility of resulting in his death if he happened to vomit (remember he was drunk and on a plane… this possibility wass quite real)… and you classify this as me worrying about the guy suffering unnecessarily over trivial matters. It's not like I'm suggesting he should have been restrained in a 1st class chair or something.

You’re understanding of reality seems very limited if you can make this kind of an argument out of my stated position. Just about everything you say is a series of strawmen because you can't actually put up a good argument for why the gag was necessary once he was strapped to the seat.

I am sorry that you are apparently terrified of people who have been rendered as dangerous as a quadriplegic, but I’m more concerned for people’s lives than your irrational fears.

Wow - a rather hard-hitting back and forth on this. Thanks for the entertainment guys.

Here's the thing. *I* wasn't there. *I* am not in the position to second guess what they could've, should've, would've done. A plane is not like the train or bus - they cannot simply pull into the next station or pull over to the side of the highway and wait for the cops to come.

This guy ASSAULTED a fellow passenger. ASSAULTED. And yes, I am SHOUTING that because it is a big deal. I just hope that if someone ever attacks me while I'm on a flight, my fellow passengers don't just sit there waiting for "the authorities" to act - I could be seriously injured or even dead by then.

And yes, it could have been bad if he died from the restaint. And, as one who has asthma I know exactly what you are talking about. (Further, if someone did start choking me, my asthma might kick in and I would NOT be able to fight back; I would be struggling too hard to just get air into my lungs.)

However, I do not put myself in a position so that others feel the need to restain ME.

Once he was tied up it wasn't necessary to keep him gagged - Orion

So then, you know for a fact that this man had no communicable diseases that could have infected others thru his oral discharge? And that no one on the plane had a gimp mask? How ever did you aquire these facts?

I am curious about a few things because I am having a difficult time understanding where you think authority comes from.

From the power, might makes right baby. Its been that way since one life form started eating another. Hasnt changed yet, probably never will, and once you strip away all the pretty varnish thats what "authority" always boils down to

For example, you seem to believe that the passengers had the authority to physically restrain this guy, tie him up, and gag him and that while exercising this authority they apparently shouldn't have to answer to anyone.

You're right, much better to let him murder someone in a drunken rage and let the 'authorites' deal with it

Why was this guy accountable to the other passengers for his behavior if they deem it to have been out of line, but those same passengers aren't accountable to the rest of society for their behavior if society deems it to be out of line?

Because we werent there and no one other than the original antagonist got hurt other than his original victim who would have died had the others not intervened

You can't have it both ways.

Sure you can you're just too stupid tp understand the difference

Just like that small group can deem his behavior to be inappropriate and hold him accountable by tying him up, so too can a larger group deem their behavior to have been inappropriate and hold them accountable by locking them up.

It's really the same argument.

No its not, the people on the plane subdued and restrained him for attempting to commit murder and multiple assaults, you and your society want to punish them for no other reason than for protecting themselves in an un-PC fashion.

One is about self defence against a real threat, the other is about punishing the "wrong kind of thinking"

I don't like the drunk guy either, but that doesn't give the other passengers the right to do anything they like to him.

Really? Cause from where I'm sitting you think his right to spit on people is more important than the rights of hundereds of people not to be spit on.

You're going to have to provide a rational basis for the distinction you are making because as it stands I don't see one

The fact that you dont is kinda the problem

That and the fact you put me in a position where I have to champion crids point of view

What I don't understand is this, from the New York Post:

"Bizarrely, federal prosecutors declined to prosecute the menace because passengers wouldn’t come forward to detail the man’s threatening behavior to authorities, a source told The Post."

I mean, even if he had been insane and therefore not guilty, wouldn't the passengers still have the obligation to help make sure this doesn't happen again?

Another thing that puzzles me: He's a civil engineer.

Why do educated, accomplished people put their reputations at such risk just for the sake of a drink? I don't get it.

BTW, there was a report the same day (though it happened earlier) of a 13-year-old boy exposing himself on a plane on the way to LaGuardia, IIRC. He was not charged. Somehow, I'm disappointed.

> it really isn't rich enough to capture what
> goes on in situations like this.

What the fuck do you know know about "situations like this"? Have you been in one?

This is the infantilism by which you describe rights... With no understanding that they're composed by people, often flawed and courageous ones, rather than vice versa. Your thinking is remote and dessicated and theoretical; this is how I can tell you've lead a white girl's suburban indoor life.

> However, it is also possible for

And you're not good with commas, so I'm pretty sure you've never tried to convince anybody of anything. This argument comes from a socially undercooked soul.

> Either I have to accept that the passengers
> have the right to do pretty much anything
> they like, or I live in a cartoon realm.

No. You have to accept that in a lawless, life-or-death momentary contexts, "rights" don't count for much. All those passengers had the right to fly without being throttled, threatened, or being concerned that their lives were about to end. These "rights" did not protect them.

The Icelander did NOT have the "right" to shout, throttle or intimidate, but he did those things anyway. WITHOUT the right to do so. Got it? That's important.

Because I think that in a just world, when you've misbehaved that badly, you've surrendered a lot of your rights. So when/if they put me on a jury because the guy got neck burns from duct tape, or perhaps because he died from choking, I'll probably excuse his death... BECAUSE HE'D JUST GRAVELY THREATENED THE LIVES OF HUNDREDS OF INNOCENT AND DISTINCTLY VULNERABLE PEOPLE. If, despite his ruthlessness, they all lived and he died, my heart would go on. And I think I could persuade most any jury in the country to hear that melody, either from the floor of the court or from the deliberation room.

Seriously, how old are you?

Every now and then we get a teenager in here (Hi Chang!) who thinks that contrarianism is mechanical process rather than an ethical one.

Looks like we got some new meat.

Or is Daddy an alcoholic or something?

“So then, you know for a fact that this man had no communicable diseases that could have infected others thru his oral discharge? And that no one on the plane had a gimp mask? How ever did you aquire these facts?”

Wow… so once the guy has been effectively imprisoned the reason it’s okay to keep him gagged is because he might have a communicable disease?

Guess what, when you get on a plane everyone around you might have a communicable disease, so by your logic everyone should be gagged.

His diseases didn’t suddenly become *more* communicable once he was tied up. What you are ignoring is that it is entirely possible once he’s fully restrained to undo the mouth gag and put a piece of clothing over his head or something.

This isn’t an all or nothing situation and you should know better. Don’t be so obtuse.

“From the power, might makes right baby.”

Great. So if might makes right you have no ground to stand upon to argue against the power of the rest of society to hold people accountable if it is deemed they used excessive force.

The rest of society has more power, hence by your logic you should have zero issue with anything I’ve said.

Except that it appears that you seem to like “might makes right” for small mob mentality… but apparently don’t like it when millions of people might enact it on a small mob.

This is where that type of position becomes untenable and illogical.

“You're right, much better to let him murder someone in a drunken rage and let the 'authorites' deal with it”

Strawman argument. Nowhere have I claimed that any intervention the passengers had was unwarranted up to the point he was fully restrained. It only became unwarranted AFTER he was all tied up and the gag was no longer necessary. Your communicable disease argument is just stupid because he didn’t suddenly become a vector for the plague once he was strapped down.

“Because we werent there and no one other than the original antagonist got hurt other than his original victim who would have died had the others not intervened”

So I suppose the whole of the legal system is for naught in criminal cases because the judge and jury were never there and hence are incapable of assessing the situation. I call BS. I can easily look at the photo, read about the personal accounts and determine that the gag was no longer necessary.

But again you somehow assert that I would prefer it is no one did anything at all. This makes for a great strawman because it makes it sound like I’m siding with a killer. However I’m not siding with that guy. I’m okay with people pouncing on him, I’m okay with people restraining him. I’m not okay with one small component of how they handled things and because of this you toss your hands in the air and start arguing against the position that no one should have intervened at all.

When you are ready to actually address my argument (an argument that is MUCH more challenging to deal with) we can talk.

“No its not, the people on the plane subdued and restrained him for attempting to commit murder and multiple assaults, you and your society want to punish them for no other reason than for protecting themselves in an un-PC fashion.”

Might makes right, remember?... or does that notion go away when you don’t like that the mighty are dictating? You should have zero issue with any punishments that society chooses to offer or not to offer… society has the power, therefore based upon your logic it must always be in the right no matter what it does.

Keep in mind that this isn’t my position, I think it is fully possible for those in power to do the wrong thing. I’m just insisting that you be philosophically consistent.

“Cause from where I'm sitting you think his right to spit on people is more important than the rights of hundereds of people not to be spit on.”

This is where you have gone completely off the rails here. That guy was going to spit on “hundreds of people” if the gag was removed???

How was he going to pull that off exactly? He was unable to move and wasn’t within spitting range of “hundreds of people”. Furthermore, if you even took half a second to digest what I’ve been saying you’d know my concern has nothing to do with spitting and everything to do with his life being put at risk. Yes, even drunk assholes get to be imprisoned with a concern about their life… this is why we don’t simply execute drunk drivers on the spot.

He could have been prevented from spitting on anyone while still removing his gag. That is a problem you just can’t get around.

And yes, his right to life is more important than the rights of everyone else not to hear him ranting and raving under a piece of loose fabric.

"That and the fact you put me in a position where I have to champion crids point of view"

No I haven't because you've completely and utterly failed to understand my point of view.

You don't get to completely misrepresent my position and then claim the only alternative is the position of someone else.

There is a third option here... namely my actual position which bears little resemblance to the one you are arguing against.

Wordy.

Crid,

I always know when you are out of useful things to say when you’re entire comment becomes about the poster and not about the situation itself. I’m not going to humor that garbage because it’s just a red herring anyway meant to distract from the real meat of the argument.

I do like this tidbit though:

“You have to accept that in a lawless, life-or-death momentary contexts, "rights" don't count for much.”

Right… but how is it a life-or-death *momentary context* to keep a guy gagged for the remainder of a cross atlantic flight?

That right there is the problem.

It isn’t about what anyone did in the heat of the moment. It wasn’t about what anyone did when there was clear and present danger.

It is about what was done when the life-or-death *moment* passed and now you’ve got a fully restrained guy tied to a chair.

That isn’t a *moment* anymore. At that point clearer heads can prevail, people can catch a breath and more carefully consider what to do. That clearly didn’t happen which is a failure on their part.

The part you and some others seem to be having trouble grasping is that the life-or-death component of this situation so far as the safety of all the other passengers were concerned was over long before they landed the plane. The only one who remained in life-or-death danger was the drunk guy and it didn’t have to be that way for as long as it was. That was a choice, and they chose wrong.

People who have been trained to deal with real life-or-death situations on a regular basis know how to dial back the adrenalin once the threat has been neutralized. Others remain at a heightened state of alert for extremely long periods of time, time frames far exceeding the actual duration of the threat.

You are arguing from the same position as a child who is afraid of monsters under their bed and hence can't go to sleep. At some point people grow up and recognize that their fear was irrational.

Your fear of a completely tied up drunk individual is irrational as well. No one is suggesting he should have been set free. I'm only suggesting that once he was tied up the other passengers has a duty to remove his mouth gag and come up with another way to deal with spit if that was what they were worried about.

Concision, girlfriend, concision.

I mean, that's the problem exactly. In real life you can't talk things to death.

Crid,

You are right, that is the problem. You're all talk on this issue.

Sure you can sound all tough saying how you'd even take the tied up guys glasses... hey, maybe you'd be brave enough to punch him in the face (once he was all tied up of course because we know how much of a danger you think he would be without a gag... I can't only imagine you'd be so absolutely terrified of him without the restraints that you'd be hiding under your seat).

In real life police officers, FBI agents, and members of the armed forces deal with danger every day and somehow they manage to do it without having to resort to gagging people who've been rendered completely immobile.

I guess from your perspective all of these people must not know what the hell they are doing.

Or maybe... just maybe... you are puffing up your chest to sound tough about a situation you know next to nothing about.

Look, don't take my word for it... call up your local police precinct and ask them if it is proper procedure to hog tie a drunk person and leave them gagged. I'm confident the answer will be a resounding no.

We could DO this. There's got to be a deputized police officer within the social circle of the readers of this blog... A street cop, not an office functionary or a security company.

> call up your local police precinct and ask
> them if it is proper procedure to hog tie
> a drunk person and leave them gagged.

Be sure to mention that it was on a vulnerable airliner over a frigid ocean. Let them know the drunk had moved from belligerent to violent, throttling a woman for no reason and clearly threatening the lives of hundreds of others.

I'm not a macho guy: I'm comfortably doughy, with big brown eyes and a patient ear. At parties and stuff, cops talk to me for some reason... My conversation is sincere and non-intrusive, and they tend to open up. I've never met a cop who'd sweat the details when one murderous drunk had threatened the lives of hundreds.

So Mom would set out the bottle before you went to school in the morning, right? And by the time you got home, there'd been arguments with neighbors....

Update.

Re: Lenona's comment, let's keep an eye on this story. The only reason Noo Yawkuz wouldn't testify is that they were planning to "dealwid 'im poysonally," if you catch my drift.

Ah, it was a Reddit thing. A man was choked, not a woman.

Orion. You're fucked up.

The "wild west" reference you made is fallacious. The implied social environment didn't exist. Fallacies cannot support your argument.
Then you entirely missed re "policy" in a case of self-defense, because you didn't demonstrate YOU did anything by the implied policy. Gee, did you render your assailant unconscious in the approved manner, so as to guarantee his full recovery?

Of course not. Through all of this, you've been blind to a physical limit:
Fairness is not a natural force.

BTW-- posting longer posts than Crid doesn't mean you win... or even make your point.

Hey, it's a shame the idiot got pummeled. Next?

Radwaste Says:

"The "wild west" reference you made is fallacious. The implied social environment didn't exist. Fallacies cannot support your argument."

It isn't fallacious. The "wild west" is a pop cultural reference that everyone understands, hence it is useful for getting a point across.

It simply doesn't matter whether the environment it is supposed to reference actually existed. The "wild west" is as much a fantasy realm of the lone ranger as it is a real historical time period. Confusing the two amounts to a fallacy of equivocation on your part.

I made no claim about the historicity of the reference because it was immaterial to my point. Apparently you don't know what a fallacy is. But I'll give you a chance to prove your point. If it is fallacious, pray tell which fallacy is it? I'd like a link to the appropriate fallacy and an explanation justifying your claim.

On the contrary, your continual focus upon the usage of "wild west" when you fully comprehend what the meaning is does constitute a fallacy.

In particular it constitutes this fallacy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymological_fallacy

Here is the important part “A variant of the etymological fallacy involves looking for the "true" meaning of words by delving into their etymologies, or claiming that a word should be used in a particular way because it has a particular etymology.”

Basically you have been arguing that because the common modern day usage of “wild west” doesn’t accurately match the historical meaning that the common modern usage is flawed. To which my response is "too damn bad"... the modern usage is still valid even if it gets your knickers in a twist.

Everyone (including you) understand what I meant when I invoked the “wild west” as an analogy here. It wasn’t a reference to the actual wild west… it was a reference to the modern incarnation of the phrase which doesn’t have to match the historical reality.

"posting longer posts than Crid doesn't mean you win"

Of course it doesn't... but unfortunately what someone can say utterly wrong in five words often takes a full sentence to debunk. Just like when you keep harping about the “wild west”. What you say wrong in one sentence takes a paragraph to properly correct.

It is VERY easy to say something wrong in a few words. It is much more difficult to say something correct and actually back it up.

Didja gota college?

I'm not going to address this to anyone in particular, but here are some additional facts and things to consider in this situation.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2013/01/raging-airplane-passenger-duct-taped-to-seat/

According to this article "The man, who has not been identified, was taken by police to an area hospital where he was treated for alcohol poisoning."

So the plane lands and the guy is considered to be so intoxicated that he has alcohol poisoning which can entail all or some of the following symptoms:

1 - Vomiting
2 - Seizures
3 - Slow Breathing
4 - Irregular Breathing
5 - Low Body Temperature

So for all of you tough guys advocating that this guy needed to remain gagged for the duration of the flight, not one of you can comprehend how that is a fundamentally stupid idea to do to someone who might suffer from any of those conditions.

The moment the other passengers assumed the authority to imprison him (and that is exactly what they did when they tied him up and strapped him to a chair) they took on the associated duty to be responsible for his health and well being.

Yeah, I know that sucks... it's easier just to let the got rot and suck on his own vomit. However, if you can't be bothered with the responsibility, you've got no business assuming the authority.

The two go hand in hand.

What you are advocating is power and authority without having any responsibility or having to answer to anyone for negligence in meeting their obligations to the person they incarcerated.

Only children and immature adults think power and authority come without responsibilities and obligations.

It's really that simple.

No school, then? Simple indeed.

Y'know, it ain't about the education...

...OK, partly it is...

...Mostly it's about whether you've ever been through anything rigorous at all, some outdoor experience with eye contact that would teach you the value of a hundred and fifty innocent and terrified lives versus one incompetent life. Maybe---

• A challenging place of sink-or-swim learning, operated by — and for the benefit of — people who were smarter than you who and had no interest in your success or failure

• A business challenge... Not just holding down a job, but actually pulling something together with vendors, producers, distributors and customers to make money... Maybe with some regulator headaches as well

• Some intense physical challenge. Military training, or something sporty, anything with some real danger.

Raddy nailed it: "Fairness is not a natural force." Justice and authority come from people, not ether: They're synthetic. And when a few courageous souls on an airliner move past their fear to subdue a madman, allowances are made for their unprofessionalism and emotional dislocation.

Glad we could clear that up. Now, you go kiss a girl, one who needs to be convinced to like you, and then report back to us. 'K? Later gator!

Last obsessive post:

People ask me — stunningly attractive women, mostly — "Cridmo, where do you get the energy for these sensational bitchslapping contests?"

It's always tempting to make the answer more complicated than it needs to be. But the truth is, my enthusiasm comes from righteousness.

I think attitudes like that expressed by Orion discourage people from taking action in a crisis. Human nature works that way anyway: People know well that the world is run by authoritarian ninnies.

No matter how feckless Orion's beliefs, and his judgment is vapid indeed, people who might otherwise be disposed to courageous response will think twice about taking part in a crisis when they see ninnies criticizing, with blowhard fervor, the work of heroes.

Some blog posts are bad for America.

Well... I'm not going to sit here and let you … etc. etc.

'Night now!

Crid Says:

"...Mostly it's about whether you've ever been through anything rigorous at all, some outdoor experience with eye contact that would teach you the value of a hundred and fifty innocent and terrified lives versus one incompetent life."

You see, this is where you've really got it all backwards.

People who do this kind of a thing for a living comprehend that when you take someone into physical custody you now have an associated duty to safeguard their physical well being.

I know that must come across as very odd to someone like you... but something tells me that while you keep trying to impugn my own experience, it is actually you who doesn't understand the first thing about the obligations that are directly associated with the kind of authority being wielded in situations like this.

Here is the real crux of it that I’d like to really drive home for you.

Once the plane landed, how did the police on the ground handle the situation? These are people who do this kind of thing every day. They make life and death decisions and have to make them in a split second. They are the people who have to turn on and off their aggression level to match the actual threat presented to them. When they fail to do this appropriately we hold them fully accountable for their failure.

So what was the first thing the police did once custody of the guy was handed over to them from the passangers? The very first thing they did was they took the guy to the hospital to make certain that they met their obligation to ensure his health and well being. Yeah, maybe they didn’t like the guy… maybe they thought he was a violent jerk… none of that mattered once he was in their custody, they had to put their personal feelings aside because they understand that authority and responsibility go hand in hand… you don’t get to exercise one without the other. Their main priority once they ensured their own safety was the safety of the guy they took custody of. I can pretty much guarantee you that they didn’t transport the guy with a gag over his mouth either by the way.

So go ahead and bitch and complain about how I haven’t demonstrated to you that I personally have saved hundreds of lives or whatever other nonsensical criteria you come up with next. It wouldn’t matter anyway if I claimed to be a military veteran or a decorated police officer or whatever because such claims on the internet don’t actually prove anything. Furthermore, you’d just say it was anecdotal or dismiss it for some other reason. All of that is immaterial anyway because the one demonstrable fact we have in this specific situation is that when custody was transferred from the angry mob to the police the first thing the police did was take the guy to the hospital.

But I suppose those guys don’t know what the fuck they are doing either and “don’t know the value of a hundred and fifty innocent and terrified lives versus one incompetent life."

You’re so full of shit it’s coming out of your ears. People who work in emergency rooms and have violent drug addicts come through their doors understand that once the threat is neutralized you start to care for the patient. People who work in psychiatric wards and have violent mental patients who missed their meds understand that once the threat is neutralized and the individual is strapped to a bed sedated you then have the obligation of monitoring their vitals to make certain that they are okay. People in the military understand that prisoners of war are entitled to certain treatment as described in treaties like the Geneva Convention and if they fail to abide by those rules they can be held fully responsible for violating them.

You are correct that fairness is not a natural force, and that justice and authority come from people. But guess what… that authority doesn’t reside solely with a small group of people on one plane. Those people also have to answer to the rest of society once the plane touches down if it is deemed that they went too far. The rest of us reserve the right and authority to hold them to account if they fail to meet their obligations to their prisoner whilst they are in their custody. They are all very lucky that nothing happened to that guy during the flight, because if he died as a result of their negligence they’d be the ones in handcuffs.

People who deal with these situations on a daily basis understand the responsibilities that come with the territory… people like you see only the authority and then rant and rave the moment anyone so much as mentions that authority comes with obligations.

> People who deal with these situations on
> a daily basis understand the

You've met them?

(I skimmed. You write too long.)

I mean do you have any experience of any kind, or did you ever meet anyone who did? Or do you just know stuff?

Pardon me for jumping into this discussion out of the blue as it were, but it is just too fun to pass by.

Orion stated: "People who do this kind of a thing for a living comprehend that when you take someone into physical custody you now have an associated duty to safeguard their physical well being."

My response: No we don't. Our duty is to protect those whom we serve. The great care taken with Bad Guys (BG) is to limit liability. This has become necessary because there is always some sheep out there that will have their delicate sensibilities offended and go running to a lawyer.

Orion stated: "I can pretty much guarantee you that they didn’t transport the guy with a gag over his mouth either by the way."

My retort: Perhaps not in this particular case. But I can personally, and not just pretty much, guarantee you that prisoners and other BG's are routinely processed, transported, and stored in the fully gagged position. And nary a peep is heard.

There seems to be a lot of bantying about in this discussion of words like authority, rights, and obligation. To borrow a phrase...I don't think these words mean what you think they mean.

I would challenge you to say to Putin or Assad (personally mind you, not over the internet) that they have obligations that go with their authority.

I would also offer that "civilians" are not held to the same standards in safeguardung the health of subdued BG's as the professionals who "know what the fuck they are doing". This principle is the backbone of the good samaritan protections enshrined in law protecting the average citizen from liability when they try to help those in a life or death situation. You know, like getting the ever fucking life choked out of you at 30k feet. If said drunk douchebag asphyxiated as a result of having to be subdued do to his murder attempt on another passenger, it is doubtful any criminal charges would be filed. His family may try to sue, but good luck winning that one.

But all of this back and forth over the repercussions from what COULD have happened to him are moot. NOTHING happened to him. All those bad things that could of happened to him as a result of being gagged for a bit...DIDN'T. He's fine.

No harm, no foul.

I finally found the reference this reminds me of: CSI: Crime Scene Investigation -- Unfriendly Skies is the ninth episode of season 1.

He could have been prevented from spitting on anyone while still removing his gag. That is a problem you just can’t get around.

How? Explain in great detail, also spittle contains blood products, assuming injury during the scuffle he could have cut open his lip, tounge, gums, cheek, ect so his spit could have contained actual blood, As for his not being in spitting distance of hundereds of people, he was withing spitting distance of everyone who had to pass him to take a piss

Wanna try again?

Lujlp asks:

"How?"

You put a piece of clothing over the guys head. No need for a gag and since he can't move he can't spit on anyone.

It also prevents him from choking on his own vomit.

It really isn't that difficult.

Azenogoth Says:

“No we don't. Our duty is to protect those whom we serve.”

If you are a police officer and you do not believe that you have a duty to safeguard the physical well being of those you take into custody then you don’t deserve your badge.

Officers of the law take an oath and that oath means something… if you can’t uphold the values of that oath you don’t deserve the authority that comes with it.

There are police officers who die every year in the service of protecting the lives of the people they take into their custody because they know that once they put the cuffs on the prisoner they now have a duty to keep them safe.

Here is a reference you should read:

http://www.llrmi.com/articles/jails/jail_duty_to_protect_prisoners.shtml

“An official violates that duty, grounded in the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment, if he is deliberately indifferent to conditions that pose a substantial risk of serious harm to an inmate. “

This is the kind of thing I am talking about here. There is a certain degree of indifference to the fate of the guy who was bound and gagged that violates the guarantees of the Eighth Amendment (this indifference is mirrored by several members of this conversation as well and is rather disturbing).

The guy needed to be stopped… the guy needed to be restrained… but he didn’t need to be gagged for the remainder of a trans-atlantic flight while he was under the effects of alcohol poisoning.

What if he chokes on the clothing? What if he is clastraphobic? What if he vomits into the cloth, and the stomach acid splashes back into his eyes and he winds up blind?

You are a cruel and heartless monster Orion for suggesting a course of action that could oh so easily result in blindness, psychological trauma and death. Society should punish you for your possible evil

Wanna try again, again?

Lujlp,

Again you are being obtuse.

The questions you are asking now are very much like the questions one would expect to get from a child with the constant "what if's" to try and justify behavior that they know can't actually be justified.

Adults understand that there are no guarantees in life. All sorts of things can happen. However there is a minimum standard for behavior that is deemed to be acceptable.

Your mode of questions seems very similar to a teenager trying to justify why they drove home drunk by saying "well what if I gave the keys to my sober friend and he got into an accident because he's a worse driver than me?"… none of us can absolutely guarantee that handing the keys over to a designated driver will eliminate the possibility of an accident… but that kind of logic doesn’t justify drunk driving.

You are being stupid here and I know that you are smarter than this, it’s time to be an adult and recognize that this situation was not handled in a completely appropriate manner.

According to Orion: "If you are a police officer and you do not believe that you have a duty to safeguard the physical well being of those you take into custody then you don’t deserve your badge."

Interesting supposition, but it is not applicable. I was never a law enforcement officer. I served 20 years in the Air Force, during the early years of which one of my duties was the processing, transportation, and babysitting of prisoners. I took no oaths, nor was I bound by any obligation to not gag someone, either during ground or air transport.

You seem very quick to jump to the idea of there being a police officer in the picture at all times, with thier attendant authority and (frequently imagined by you it seems) obligations. This concept of law enforcement officers as the be all and end all of conflict resolution seems to be spouted only by those who live in large cities and who have not been the target, or close freind or family of the target of violence. Very provincial thinking.

Those of us that have experienced life outside of that bubble have learned that survival usually trumps those niceties of conflict resolution that you seem to have learned whilst watching Barney.

Your appeal to this obligation inherant to authority as imagined by you might have some weight if it had occured in a prison or in the back of a police car, with the attendant law enforcement officers who are bound by policy, training, and legal considerations. But it didn't. It happened at 30k feet above the Atlantic ocean. Over international waters. They could have, putting aside the physics of opening the cabin door at altitude, thrown the above mentioned attempted murderer out of the plane and they would have been fully justified.

The ONLY obligation that the passengers and flight crew had at that time was to survive. They swore no oaths, signed no contracts, accepted no obligations. They were in international airspace under no countries jurisdiction.

Your appeal to the 8th Ammendment is equally laughable. The offender, you know...that guy that actually tried to kill someone, was Icelandic. The other passengers were of mixed nationalities. The flight crew's nationalities were not disclosed. The incident occured in international airspace. The 8th Amendment meant jack squat at that moment. Try crying about your First Amendment right to free speech while in Burma, and see how far that gets you. Legal positions are only valid in the courts that recognize them.

Orion also mentioned: "The questions you are asking now are very much like the questions one would expect to get from a child with the constant "what if's" to try and justify behavior that they know can't actually be justified."

This one really gave me a chuckle. Isn't this the very same thing you are doing when you bemoan what MIGHT have happened to the BG as a result of his mouth being taped shut? You are using a "what if" supposition to justify your indignation at what the passengers and crew of the flight in question did to subdue the attempted murderer.

After all, that supposition is only a MIGHT have happened. NOTHING actually happened to the BG, and he is fine. What's your beef?

I am quite thankful that there are citizens who will still do what is sometimes NECESSARY, no matter how loud the sheep bleet.

While I wouldn't go as far as you did on Lujlp and say that you are being stupid, the things you are saying about a non-event are worthy of all the ridicule and derision that can be heaped upon them.

I'm not indifferent to the BG's life. I am merely of the opinion that when he rolled his dice, he took his chances. By trying to kill the person next to him, he forfeited his rights and protections. I don't hate you or the other sheep, or even dislike you really. I just think you are wrong and woefully misguided. If you are ever in San Antonio, look me up. I'll take you out for a beverage of your choice and show you how things look in the light of the real world. Or if you prefer, we can chat about safe topics that won't get you all aflutter and trigger your flight reflex.

Their should have been used instead of thier.

Damn you Captain Morgan...I am NOT illiterate!

Azenogoth,

The reason I said “if” was because I don’t like to declare what some else’s background happens to be. As for not taking any oaths while in service of the Air Force I actually find that somewhat troubling. I’ll inquire with a friend of mine who is currently in the Air Force if that is still the case or if she had to take any oaths. Just for the purposes of full disclosure she is a medical doctor in the military and they come in under the rank of captain (she recently was promoted to a major)… I know that she took a hippocratic oath as part of her profession, but I am unclear of any oaths she took or didn’t take as part of her military career.

It is my opinion that any and all individuals who serve in law enforcement, the military, and other offices of government should be required to take an oath of office (particularly to uphold the constitution). Are you sure you didn’t have to affirm that you would uphold the constitution at any point during your military career???... if you didn’t that seems odd to me, but it just may be how things are.

“You seem very quick to jump to the idea of there being a police officer in the picture at all times, with thier attendant authority and (frequently imagined by you it seems) obligations.”

I do not jump to the idea that a police officer is present at all times. My contention from the beginning has only been the following: “based upon the photo I’m not convinced that random passengers are adequate replacements for trained air marshals.”

Go ahead and look for yourself… that is what I say in my very first comment. My point then, and my point now is that because civilians often have very little training and know very little about the obligations that go hand in hand with the authority to imprison people, they do not make for adequate replacements to air marshals (who in principal should know much more about these kinds of things).

The passengers in question did an alright job in apprehending the offending individual, but after that point they did a piss poor job in managing his incarceration. They probably didn’t know any better… but that is the point isn’t it.

As for me imagining the “obligations” of officers of the law, allow me to link you to the kind of oath officers take BEFORE being issued a badge:

http://www.theiacp.org/PoliceServices/ProfessionalAssistance/Ethics/WhatistheLawEnforcementOathofHonor/tabid/150/Default.aspx

Now sure, an individual officer might not take any of it seriously… they might simply be a thug looking to leverage the power of the state to abuse their fellow citizens… however that oath isn’t imaginary.

They swear under penalty of perjury that they will “I will always have the courage to hold myself
and others accountable for our actions.” And that they will “always uphold the constitution”.

If these things are nothing more than words to someone… it is means nothing to them… then they have no business accepting the job.

There are countless officers who take these responsibilities and obligations extremely seriously, so seriously that they are some of the bravest and most noble people in our society. People willing to not only give up their lives to project children… but people who are willing to give up their lives to protect suspected murderers. It’s not an easy job to be sure, but if you want the authority that comes with the office you also take on the burdens of the oath. If someone can’t do it they should get out of the way and make room for someone else who can.

Please keep in mind also that all I have done in this thread is hold the position that people should be expected to be held to account for their actions (even including scared passengers who bound and gag a drunk and violent individual). This position is fully consistent with the oath many officers of the law end up taking. So to assume my position is out of sorts with the ideals of our society is to also assume that the oath many police officers take is out of sorts with the ideals of our society.

“Those of us that have experienced life outside of that bubble have learned that survival usually trumps those niceties of conflict resolution that you seem to have learned whilst watching Barney.”

Look… do what you feel is necessary for you to survive. If it was really necessary for your survival it shouldn’t matter if you are held to account for your actions, now should it?

I mean, if it was necessary for your survival then even if you are tossed in jail after the fact you are still better off than being dead.

The reason we hold people accountable after the fact is primarily to ensure that as they are making their survival decisions they also try and consider if what they are doing is really necessary to get the job done. Sometimes the answer is yes, but other times the answer is no. If the moment someone enters into what they deem to be a “survival situation” we abide by the notion that “anything goes” we run into some serious problems.

There is actually a famous legal case that addresses issues like this:

http://teacherweb.com/ON/PerthDistrictCollegiateInstitute/CindyRotar/DudleyvStephens.pdf

It is really an interesting read to be sure… but the crux of the matter is that there were people on a ship that went down. After a long while starving at sea, the surviving people decided to kill one of the remaining individuals to eat him so they could survive. Guess what happened when they were eventually rescued?

They were put on trial and found guilty because… and I quote “He prefaced his opinion by expressing doubt whether a situation of necessity had truly existed.”

You see that?... Even though the members of the ship thought they were doing what they needed to survive, they were still held to account by the rest of society once they were back on shore. Furthermore, they were found guilty on the basis that regardless of what they thought at the time, no matter how hungry they might have been, that what they deemed to be necessary wasn’t actually necessary.

So sure… do what you need to do to survive in the heat of the moment. However, when the dust settles you don’t get to bitch and moan about how society holds you to account for the decisions that were made. We are all accountable for what we do, even when the situation is difficult and survival is uncertain.

So you are wrong when you say this:

"The ONLY obligation that the passengers and flight crew had at that time was to survive."

Hundreds of years of legal precedent and the foundations upon which our very society is built declare that their obligations go beyond their concerns for their own survival.

Again you are being obtuse.

Pot, meet kettle.

The questions you are asking now are very much like the questions one would expect to get from a child with the constant "what if's" to try and justify behavior that they know can't actually be justified.

Seriously pot, have you meet kettle?

Lujlp,

This isn't a "pot meet kettle" situation.

There is a fundamental difference in the degree of risk associated with gagging a person who is suffering from alcohol poisoning and the degree of risk of putting a shirt over their head.

Your objection that vomit will somehow bounce off the fabric, get in his eye and make him go blind is simply not the same as the objection that if someone vomits while gagged there is a significant possibility they will aspirate the vomit.

If you can't recognize this difference then I am afraid I cannot help you.

Jim Carrey, a la Liar Liar, said it best....

"STOP BREAKING THE LAW ASSHOLE!!!"

Or how bout Wil Smith, a la MIB....

"Ain't start nothin, won't be nothin!"

If you don't want to end up hog tied to your chair and gagged, maybe don't assault other people? Especially post 9/11. Duh!

Everyone is so concerned about this guys rights. What about the right of the other passengers to a flight uninterrupted by non-provoked assaults?

Crid, are you ever respectful to anyone?!?!? Or are your own limited views impeding your cognitive processes, thereby requiring an insult when anyone disagrees with you? Is that it? I feel bad for you!

"People ask me — stunningly attractive women, mostly — "Cridmo, where do you get the energy for these sensational bitchslapping contests?"

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! Hey Crid! When was your last acid trip???

Azenogoth,

I forgot to address this part.

“Your appeal to the 8th Ammendment is equally laughable. The offender, you know...that guy that actually tried to kill someone, was Icelandic. The other passengers were of mixed nationalities. The flight crew's nationalities were not disclosed. The incident occured in international airspace. The 8th Amendment meant jack squat at that moment. Try crying about your First Amendment right to free speech while in Burma, and see how far that gets you. Legal positions are only valid in the courts that recognize them.”

Alright, so you object to me invoking the 8th Amendment on the grounds that the individual in question isn’t American but is instead Icelandic.

Fair enough, but you should be aware that the Icelandic Constitution has even more stringent prohibitions when it comes to the treatment of prisoners so I’m not sure how this argument helps your case. In particular Articles 67 through 70 would apply. Here are some relevant quotes:

“Any person deprived of his liberty for other reasons shall be entitled to have the legality of the measure reviewed by a court as soon as possible.”

“No one may be subjected to torture or any other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

All of this seems like more to go on than simply a prohibition against “cruel and unusual punishment” provided by the US constitution now doesn’t it?

But wait… maybe you don’t think that either US law or Icelandic law applies in a plane.

I object to the idea that once on a plane we are all subjected to mob rule and that once back on the ground the rest of society doesn’t have the authority to question what happened while the plane was in the air, that sounds far more dangerous than it is useful.

We aren’t talking about Burma here… we are talking about two democratic 1st world nations. Just because you end up on a plane doesn’t mean all of those protections go out the window.

You don’t even believe your own argument, because if you did… what exactly was wrong about the guy choking the other passenger in the first place?

That action is only illegal if we proscribe to the notion that even in the air we don’t have the right to kill each other. Furthermore, if he did manage to kill someone, don’t you think we should be able to hold him to account once the plane lands?

If national laws do not apply once a plane is in the air, on what grounds can we arrest anyone who commits a crime on an airplane? This is the problem you’ve created for yourself that needs to be addressed… it’s also a bullshit argument because we all know that national laws remain in effect on an airplane (in fact *more* laws apply on an airplane than on the ground… how many other places can you name where you can be subjected to arrest for getting up to take a piss when someone else tells you that you need to remain seated).

Look, I know where you are coming from, I know why you want things to be a certain way. The problem is that there is no rationally consistent and objective way to get there.

If we allow mobs of passengers the go ahead to do anything they like because they say they felt they were in danger and then say that they can't be held accountable once they land we are opening up a very nasty can of worms.

A can of worms that I suspect you don't really want to open.

So what laws were in effect on the plane?... US law?... Icelandic law?... International law of some variety?... Marshal law?... or no law at all?

Nitpicking my selection of the 8th amendment doesn't defeat the general thrust of my argument, it simply turns it around and means you have to answer some more fundamental questions.

I assume of course that you realized that other nations have laws too.

Ahh. Now you are getting to some meat in your argument. Unless of course my use of the term meat offends you, and then I would say...well shit, I'm not sure what else I would say.

With regard to specific oaths. Yes, I did swear an oath of service during my initial enlistment, and each subsequent re-enlistment. But not a single one of those oaths were to NOT GAG SOME MURDEROUS ASSHOLE. Unless of course a duly appointed officer in my chain of command gave me an order, written or verbal, to not do so. Of course even in the Air Force I have never run into an officer silly enough to give such an order. On the contrary, spitters, biters, and those saying or yelling things that may inflame or inform other prisoners are ROUTINELY GAGGED AS A MATTER OF COURSE. There are procedures and equipment specifically for that purpose. Just because NYPD officers aren't allowed to do so as a matter of POLICY does not make it ILLEGAL.

National laws apply in an airplane when the airplane is over that nation's airspace, and thus within its territorial boundries. Once you fly into another nation's airspace, shit changes and you are now under the jurisdiction of the nation over which you are flying. Just try acting the fool when flying in Saudi airspace and see if U.S. laws will save you.

As to all that "we are talking about two democratic 1st world nations. Just because you end up on a plane doesn’t mean all of those protections go out the window" crap you just stated...well, if you can't see how wrong that is, you obviously don't get around much. If you are in a plane, train, boat, or automobile within the sovereign territory (airspace, waterways, or land) of Burma you are subject to Burmese law, and the U.S. Constitution and laws can't do a damned thing to protect or save you. Just like Icelandic laws don't mean jack shit here.

So what nation's jurisdiction applies in the case we are discussing? Iceland's? Nope. The U.S.? Nope. In international airspace, just like at sea, the captain of the vessel IS THE LAW. The captain would have been fully justified in ordering the MURDEROUS shitstain shot dead, or stabbed in the neck with a spork. Not that he would be justified in ordering the same for anyone else, or on a whim. But in international airspace or seas, the captain of the vessel has a LOT more authority than you realize.

Now, as the article did not mention what air carrier the incident took place on, let's assume just for the sake of argument that it was either an Icelandic or U.S. flag carrier. As a flag carrier, that airline is bound by the regulatory and legal requirements set forth by the flag nation. If the air carrier does not adhere to these requirements when operating outside of the airspace, and thus jurisdiction, of that nation, the air carrier may be subject to fines or revocation of their operating licenses. Not criminal prosecution.

Now where your argument may have some legs is in the application of international law. Most civilized nations are signatories to a number of treaties that allow and accomodate cross national application of police efforts. This essentially lets all of the sheep feel better when the less testosterone challenged of us have to get all medieval on pirates and such.

However, I challenge you to cite the law, either U.S., Icelandic, or international treaty that states that THOU SHALT NOT GAG A MURDEROUS FUCKTARD ON A PLANE. Go ahead...I'll wait.

But almost any of us CAN cite numerous laws that prohibit the attempted murder of the person next to you. Do you want the actual references, or can we just take that as a given?

In your repeated appeal to the 8th Ammendment, you mention the prohibition against cruel or unusual punishment, which is a prohibition placed on the State. Define for us please YOUR definition of cruel and unusual punishment, and how exactly it applies to a group of non-sheep who adequately subdued and secured a MURDEROUS BG.

But then my main question to you still remains unanswered. Since the MURDEROUS BG wasn't harmed in the slightest, what is your conniption fit over?

Orion, my what ifs are no more than your what ifs,

What if dont mean a crap when what was, was nothing.

Also "legally" they did not take him into custody as no one uttered the words "We are taking you into custody", they "bound" him for the authorities which given he was in the act of commiting murder was quite charitiable as they had the right under the law to kill him, as he was not in their custody they had no duty as to his care

National laws apply in an airplane when the airplane is over that nation's airspace, and thus within its territorial boundries. Once you fly into another nation's airspace, shit changes and you are now under the jurisdiction of the nation over which you are flying.

Azenogoth, it was my understanding that airplanes, as opposed to boats, as far as international travel goes on public comercial transit is under the laws of the port of departure until the wheels hit dirt.

I might be wrong on that, though. Other than that small point right on

Lujlp, as a matter of typical practice, you are correct in application. It is a matter of negotiated treaty common among civilized nations much like extradition. I don't personally know the details of that form of jurisprudence as my experience lies in the more practical and day to day aspects of international air transport.

I can attest however, that nations can and have exerted jurisdiction over aircraft immediately upon their entrance into sovereign airspace.

The hoops and hurdles that had to be navigated were handled by the JAGs.

Azenogoth, it was my understanding that airplanes, as opposed to boats, as far as international travel goes on public comercial transit is under the laws of the port of departure until the wheels hit dirt. -- lujlp at January 8, 2013 4:06 PM

I grew up in the age when states were changing from 18 to 21 for alcohol. Back then I could be served in the air under 21 because there were still states that were 18. Neither the arrival or destination state mattered. I could be served under 21.

A flight from Britain to Thailand would probably pass over several Muslim countries. I can't see them changing the rules in-flight at 35K feet; but maybe they do.?

So I'm going to presume (same as assuming a** u me) that the Captain's law works in general.

Azenogoth,

Thanks for the response, and thanks for acknowledging that my argument has some “meat” to it. Look, I try to pride myself on being a reasonable individual and I do try to think things through so if I say something I probably have a reason for saying it. Now reasonable people can still disagree and I might not be able to convince everyone of my point of view, but I’m always willing to engage someone in a conversation who actually gives me points to address. This is why it is easier for me to chat with someone like you than someone like crid for example… before long he stops bringing up points and its all just character assignation attempts, but I digress.

“With regard to specific oaths. Yes, I did swear an oath of service during my initial enlistment, and each subsequent re-enlistment. But not a single one of those oaths were to NOT GAG SOME MURDEROUS ASSHOLE.”

Of course you wouldn’t swear an oath to something that specific. The oaths officials take tend to be somewhat general and have to deal with things like honor, character, integrity and supporting the constitution. I am glad I was right in my suspicion that military personal swear some sort of oath, I was honestly shocked before when you said before that you hadn’t, but I guess you were talking about a specific oath as opposed to the more general one.

“On the contrary, spitters, biters, and those saying or yelling things that may inflame or inform other prisoners are ROUTINELY GAGGED AS A MATTER OF COURSE. There are procedures and equipment specifically for that purpose. Just because NYPD officers aren't allowed to do so as a matter of POLICY does not make it ILLEGAL.”

Okay, now we are getting somewhere. My objection to the gag in this very specific instance has much more to do with the way it was implemented than the generalized notion of gagging. You mention that you have specific procedures and equipment for doing just that. Would you please describe those procedures and equipment so I can better understand them in detail. My suspicion is that the sorts of policies endorsed by the military are substantively different than the kind of thing we see in this photo. Furthermore, I’d like to go back to one point you made earlier so that we can get onto the same page. When you said this:

“The great care taken with Bad Guys (BG) is to limit liability.”
What I would like for you to realize is that the only reason there is any liability is precisely because of the legal obligation that exists to safeguard the health and well being of prisoners who are in your custody.

In a legal sense, liability and obligations go hand in hand. You can only be held liable for failing to do something if you were legally obligated to do it in the first place. See what I mean?

So while I understand that your motivation was to “limit liability”… if the obligation didn’t exist you couldn’t have been held liable for improperly treating the prisoners in your custody.

“National laws apply in an airplane when the airplane is over that nation's airspace, and thus within its territorial boundries. Once you fly into another nation's airspace, shit changes and you are now under the jurisdiction of the nation over which you are flying. Just try acting the fool when flying in Saudi airspace and see if U.S. laws will save you.”

Look, I fully comprehend that laws regarding flights that are in transit can get rather complicated. So let’s try and simplify a few things here. In this specific case we have a flight going from Iceland to the United States. The plane in question is owned and operated by icelandair. What this means is that from the moment the doors on the plane shut and it is considered to be “in flight” to the moment it touches down, either Icelandic law applies or United States law applies. Which specific one it is doesn’t really matter too much for the purposes of this discussion because the legalities of these two nations are not diametrically opposed. This would be a very different discussion if we were talking about an airline from a country with an extremely different set of laws. So let’s not overly complicate things by hypothesizing what would occur if this was a flight from a country where it was legal to perform things like honor killings.

The point is that no matter which legal structure you pick between Iceland or the US we are in essentially the same boat.

“If you are in a plane, train, boat, or automobile within the sovereign territory (airspace, waterways, or land) of Burma you are subject to Burmese law, and the U.S. Constitution and laws can't do a damned thing to protect or save you.”

I get all that… but this wasn’t a flight involving Burma. The laws that apply are either Icelandic law or US law. Those are your only two options for the purposes of this specific discussion about this particular guy.

If we were talking about a nation with decidedly more radical laws I would have conceded that point to you… but we aren’t talking about Burma here.

“So what nation's jurisdiction applies in the case we are discussing? Iceland's? Nope. The U.S.? Nope. In international airspace, just like at sea, the captain of the vessel IS THE LAW.”

You are 100% wrong on this. I mean completely and utterly wrong. The captain is decidedly not the law. The captain is the authority who enforces the law that applies on the plane. Just like a police officer is the authority who enforces the law that applies on the ground. The laws that apply in this case are either Icelandic law or US law. The pilot is not the emperor of the plane. I can easily prove this because there is a previous case where the passengers tied up the captain of the plane because he was deemed to be no longer fit to fly. If the captain “IS THE LAW” then all of those people would have been subject to arrest, but they weren’t because the captain doesn’t get to do anything he likes either.

It’s actually surprising to me how many people think that captains of vessels are issued limitless dictatorial authority over the passengers. They aren’t… and again, once they are back on land they can be held to account for any decisions they made.

“The captain would have been fully justified in ordering the MURDEROUS shitstain shot dead, or stabbed in the neck with a spork. Not that he would be justified in ordering the same for anyone else, or on a whim. But in international airspace or seas, the captain of the vessel has a LOT more authority than you realize.”

Again… 100% wrong. The captain of an airplane that is under US or Icelandic law (as this one was) does not have the authority to execute anyone.

Contrary to your position, they actually have MUCH less authority than you realize.

Here is the citation about the crazy pilot who was tied up by the crew:

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2012/03/28/jetblue-captain-screams-were-all-going-down-video/

If you are correct, what happened to all of his authority?... and why weren't any of the passengers arrested for violating the law of their emperor?

Oh, that poor poor dear!

Poor

Gudmundur Karl Arthorsson, 46

...with his name splashed all over the papers!

People might wonder how his neighbors will respond. His neighbors in… umm…

Arthorsson, a civil engineer in Trinidad and Tobago

…ah, Trinidad and Tobago, how they must be responding to this news!

How do Gudmundur Karl Arthorsson's neighbors in Trinidad and Tobago feel about the way he threatened hundreds of lives in a drunken rage?

We may never know, unless we watch closely... So close he could almost choke!

> they actually have MUCH less authority
> than you realize.

You're 12, right?

Gee. Apparently I *can* use fiction to address the real world.

What do we do now, Obi-Won? You're my only hope!

The case you reference regarding a crew relieving their pilot of duty does not, in my opinion, butress your position very well.

A captain's, and by extension the crew's, primary obligation and duty is to the safety of the vessel and all those onboard. When the crew relieved and subdued that captain it was because he had become a danger to the vessel and all oboard as a result of his mental break with realty. Not only were the crew justified in restraining captain crazypants, but they had a duty to do so.

My use of the phrase that the captain is the law was for effect. It may not be semantically correct, but the practical meaning of it remains. No law made by man is limitless in it's power and authority.

"The captain of an airplane that is under US or Icelandic law (as this one was) does not have the authority to execute anyone." This is incorrect. In order to safeguard the safety of the vessel and the lives of everyone aboard at 30k in the air, the captain does have the authority to authorize, direct, and even implement force to nullify a threat in the form of a BG up to and including deadly force. We even, in theory if not actual practice, put air marshalls in planes ready to kill mofos if necessary.

Liability is not synonymous with obligation. This is a sad fact of our litigious society. McDonald's has no obligation to not serve hot coffe in the drive-thru, however they were liable in the legal sense that they were ordered to pay millions to some fool merely because McDonalds was rich, and SOMEONE had to pay because this twat spilled hot coffee in her lap. Shit happening, does not make shit an obligation.

Organizations, private and "public", across America take steps to limit their liability not because they are doing something wrong or are obligated in some fashion, but because they are in fear of the costs of litigation and bad PR. Even if a company or agency was fully in the right, they can still lose a case in the legal crapshoot of a system we currently suffer under. They would be found liable, not wrong, just liable to the tune of several millions of dollars. All because SOMEONE has to pay.

My use of Burma as an example is done to highlight that the jurisdiction of whose laws are applicable in this case are a bit nebulous. Just because Iceland may have a law against restraining MURDEROUS BGs, does not necessarily mean that those were the laws that were in effect on that plane, at that time. I don't have the qualifications or inclination to go further into the legal weeds on that score, so I will just have to defer to someone else who has ACTUAL information and facts on this point.

The passengers on board that flight were acting as good samaritans. They were not government or corporate agents, and are thus held to a different, and lower, standard of care with regard to the subdual and restraint of a MURDEROUS BG. I would point you to the many good samaritan laws that shield civillians from liability for injury in exigent circumstances.

In order for your contention that these people acted wrongly in such a manner that they would be criminally or financially accountable to this MURDEROUS fuckwad, you would have to determine that they failed to uphold some sort of legal and binding obligation.

So my challenge still remains... please name one law of any country, or one international treaty that these people were even remotely under some obligation to. And then demonstrate how these people violated that law or treaty and should thus be held "accountable".

The fact that these people have not been charged with anything should give you a clue to follow down the rabbit hole of legal hairsplitting.

Azenogoth Says:
“The case you reference regarding a crew relieving their pilot of duty does not, in my opinion, butress your position very well.
A captain's, and by extension the crew's, primary obligation and duty is to the safety of the vessel and all those onboard. When the crew relieved and subdued that captain it was because he had become a danger to the vessel and all oboard as a result of his mental break with realty. Not only were the crew justified in restraining captain crazypants, but they had a duty to do so.”

Of course it supports my position. It supports my position precisely because your claim was that “the captain of the vessel IS THE LAW” and I was rejecting that claim.

Please note how much more nuanced your position has become. No longer is the captain “THE LAW”… now you are talking about the duties and obligations of those in authority… sounds a lot like the arguments I’ve been making now doesn’t it?

And that’s really the point. The pilot has authority on a plane, but it is limited authority. When the pilot exceeds those limits their power can be immediately stripped by the other members of the plane. This means that the captain is decidedly not “THE LAW”.

Neither the captain, nor the crew, nor the other passengers are “THE LAW” on a plane or anywhere else within our society (i.e. we do not like in the world of judge dredd). This is what people mean by the rule of law… we have a codified set of laws and those laws are what rule us… even when we are at ten thousand feet flying over the ocean.

Now here is where people can sometimes get confused as I asked this several times before and didn’t manage to get a satisfactory answer. Authority is derived from the will of the people… this is why when someone takes authority in any situation they are answerable to the rest of us in the court of law, the rest of society gets to determine if the authority was used appropriately. If we deem it wasn’t used correctly the person or people in question are held to account.

The reason this concept is confusing to people is that they often mix up the words authority and ability. People are able to do all sorts of things they do not have the authority to do. That is actually a decent definition for what constitutes a criminal… a criminal is someone who does something they do not have the socially sanctioned authority to do. Just because you have the ability to drive down the street at 100 mph and run through red lights doesn’t mean you have the authority to do so. This is why if you do it you can get arrested and hauled off to jail… but a police officer who is doing the exact same thing in pursuit of you doesn’t get arrested. Ability and authority are NOT the same thing.

The founding fathers understood that power was derived from the will of the people… how is it that so many people have forgotten this?

I am glad thought that you are starting to talk about authority along with things like obligation and duty… because as I said before, they go hand in hand.

“Liability is not synonymous with obligation.”

I never said it was synonymous. What I did say was that they go hand in hand… there is a difference.

What I mean by this is that if you are obligated to do something by law and you fail to do so, you can be held liable for that failure in court. This doesn’t imply that the words are synonymous, it is simply a recognition of how the terms are related to eachother.

“McDonald's has no obligation to not serve hot coffe in the drive-thru”

I’d address this part except the double negative makes your statement confusing… what you are saying is the structural equivilant of “MCDonald’s has an obligation to serve hot coffee in the drive-thru”… which I am pretty sure isn’t what you actually mean.

What McDonalds is obligated to do (like any other business) is to meet certain standards set by the local and federal government that constrain their business practices. For example, restaurants are obligated to serve food that isn’t tainted with copious amounts of rodent fecal matter… if they fail to do this they can be shut down by the health department and held financially liable to any patrons who were made sick as a result of their failure to run a clean eating establishment.

This isn’t really all that difficult… but you’re always jumping to really extreme examples to try and make your point, this should tell you that your argument is fairly weak. If your argument was strong you wouldn’t have to jump to the far end of the spectrum with every example you give.

This is why you insist on talking about places like Burma when considering a flight between the US and Iceland. This is why you talk about a scalding coffee case when considering things like legal liability when we are discussing the proper treatment of prisoners.

Guess what, there are prisoners who are beaten to death by guards and those officers are sumarilt arrested and put on trial… I guess one could also call that a “sad fact of our litigious society” because it is sad when officials abuse their authority and kill the people in their custody. See… I can play this game too where I jump to extreme examples that have little to do with this specific circumstance to try and make a point.

I’ve been attempting to discuss the relevant facts here… going to extreme examples to try and make a point gets us nowhere. It should tell you something that all of those arguing against my fairly moderate position have to resort to exaggeration to feel like they are making any headway, because they know that dealing with facts more closely related to this situation doesn’t help.

On that point I want to bring up something else that you may or may not have considered. When you say this:

“In order for your contention that these people acted wrongly in such a manner that they would be criminally or financially accountable to this MURDEROUS fuckwad, you would have to determine that they failed to uphold some sort of legal and binding obligation.”

You keep describing the guy in question as “MURDEROUS” (all caps I assume to emphazise the point that he was hell bent on killing everyone). However, this too is an exaggeration because if instead of being a “MURDEROUS fuckwad” he was simply a drunk asshole you don’t get to be as morally outraged and your position becomes even frailer than it already is. What I’m going to ask you to do for a moment is put yourself in the shoes of someone on that plane. So you are on the plane and suddenly out of nowhere one of the passengers becomes a “MURDEROUS fuckwad”… I mean the guy is actually going around with the credible intent of killing people. You and others manage to subdue him and tie him up much to relief of everyone on board… you are a hero, right?

So now lets flash forward 4 hours and the plane lands… you and everyone else are relieved that you managed to get through the flight with your lives because it was such a close call with the “MURDEROUS fuckwad” you helped to apprehend. So what happens now once the ground authorities show up?

You’d make a statement, right?... You’d file a report, right?... You would do everything in your power to ensure that this “MURDEROUS fuckwad” never saw the light of day again, that he was locked up for threatening all of those peoples lives. You would even volunteer to be a witness for the prosecution if that “Murderous fuckwad” was put on trial, right? I mean that is what a normal person would do when dealing with someone who they classified with a term like “MURDEROUS”.

But that isn’t what happened is it?... Not one person on that plane filed a police report about his criminal activities, not one person even filed a complaint with the authorities, not one other person had to be taken to the hospital for injuries sustained during his so-called “MURDEROUS” outburst. The only person who was taken to the hospital was the “MURDEROUS fuckwad” to be treated for alcohol poisoning… and when that was done the guy was released.

He was released because no charges were pressed again him… not by even one of the hundreds of passengers that all of you utterly insist were terrorized by this one 46 year old pudgy drunk guy.

Want to know what I think happened?... The guy got drunk, he was an asshole, he started to get out of line and hence needed to be restrained. This whole “MURDEROUS fuckwad” tale you are trying to spin is just an exaggeration because it makes for a better argument than describing him as a dunk asshole… the same kind of drunk asshole we see in bars every week.

Want to know why he was gagged?... Not because he was some plague ridden projectile spitter as others here have suggested. As one passenger described it, he was gagged to “shut his big mouth”. In other words, he was gagged because even once he was strapped down he could still annoy the other passengers by ranting and raving. Too damn bad, you don’t get to gag people just because you find them annoying or obnoxious. No one was in any credible danger once he was tied up… the gag went too far and was implemented for the wrong reasons.

Your whole "MURDEROUS fuckwad" line of reasoning doesn't hold water when not a single person on that flight was willing to come forward and press charges on the guy once they were on the ground and he was in police custody.

"His behavior was considered to be unruly and threatening," an Icelandair representative said in a statement. "To ensure the safety of those on board, he was restrained by passengers and crew and was monitored for his own safety for the duration of the flight. Upon arrival at JFK, the flight was met by authorities who arrested the male"

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/01/08/airline-passenger-duct-taped-to-seat-gagged-after-allegedly-screaming-the-plane-was-going-to-crash/

That ought to erase any shred of doubt about whether the passengers did the right thing.

Martin,

What is in contention here isn't about the passengers doing "the right thing". What is in contention is the concept of “best practices”… which means doing “the right thing” in the best way possible.

This is why I think there has been so much push back, because people have a visceral emotional reaction to when people point out that even when you do the right thing it is possible to do it in a better way.

We review professionals in this manner all the time in order to improve future performance. For example, people in law enforcement are constantly reevaluating their procedures to improve upon them. They don’t simply say “we did the right thing” and then get all pissed off whenever someone offers a suggestion for how they can do things better in the future.

This is why the law enforcement procedures of today are not identical to the ones used 100 years ago... because people looked at the events and critically analyzed how things could be improved.

Yes, captains, crews, and airlines are poring over this incident and thinking about the best way to respond if this happened on one of their flights. Nonetheless, the Icelandair captain was fully aware of what happened on his plane and how the passengers responded, and he had no qualms about it. Neither do I.

Orion is the blowhardiest, least-savvy commenter we've ever had. This is not a meager citation.

Who are you? Why are you afraid to answer the simplest questions about yourself?

Are you a paraplegic living in Mother's basement?

> We review professionals in this manner
> all the time in order to

"We" who? Who the fuck are you? Did you ever take part in anything with other people? A school classroom, anything?

You're written 12,339 words in here, none of them authoritative or convincing.

Your Dad was a violent drinker, right?

SHORT ANSWER, OK?

Put it in ONE SENTENCE, like a courageous guy.

Orion,

You should change your alias to Energizer Bunny, because your circular argument just keeps going...and going...and going...

I'm going to tap out at this point as it is no longer entertaining.

The pedantic hairsplitting on word choice is best left to a thesis paper or legal brief, not an internet blog discussion.

So let me try this one last time and then I'm out. I'll go reeeeeaaaaaalllll slow this time.

The crew and passengers were morally, ethically, and legally justified in their actions aboard that flight.

They broke no laws.

Unless and until you can point to a law that was broken by the passengers or crew, your contention and your cries for "accountability" are no more than hot air.

Good luck, and good day. See you on the next thread that amuses me.

> They broke no laws.

And even if they had, no jury would convict, because they did the right thing.

Props to Az... Serious endurance skills.

Because everyone knows there is no difference between having to restrain an unruly passenger and fight and kill hardened, trained terrorists bent on killing.

It's the Exact. Same. Thing.

Right?

Too sarcastic to be understood. Do you have feelings about this incident?

Not the incident but the OP conclusion. That equates the purpose of a FAM = controlling unruly pax. That is not the case.

Anyone thinking that subduing someone is the same as fighting for your life could not be more mistaken.

Re:pilot jurisdiction on a plane-

The pilot is the in-air security coordinator. They have no ability to enforce the law. They could not, for instance, tell FAMs to arrest someone or let them go. The FAMS, if present, are the law enforcement officers in charge. They have whats called special aircraft jurisdiction. Pilots do have the ability to take action that will ensure the safety of the aircraft, and that could be up to and including physical force if warranted, although within legal parameters, like all uses of force.

> Anyone thinking that subduing someone is the
> same as fighting for your life could not be
> more mistaken.

If a rampaging drunkard disrupts my flight, I'll assume lives are at risk and proceed accordingly.

Azenogoth Says:

“your circular argument just keeps going...and going...and going”

A circular argument is not the same as a long argument. In what way is my argument circular (here is a clue to why my argument isn’t circular… because my conclusion is not also a premise of my argument)?

The only reason my argument is long is because you said so many things that were factually incorrect or based upon fallacious logic… and in each case I took the time to demonstrate exactly where the problem was. I didn’t simply say “wrong!!!!” and then ignore my responsibility to substantiate the claim.

“The crew and passengers were morally, ethically, and legally justified in their actions aboard that flight.
They broke no laws.”

There is an inherent problem with the claim you make here and that problem is that you also said this:

“The captain would have been fully justified in ordering the MURDEROUS shitstain shot dead, or stabbed in the neck with a spork.”

See the problem here? Your judgment on the morality, legality and ethics of this incident cannot possibly be trusted because you exist under the erroneous belief that a pilot has the authority to order the execution of a subdued passenger.

I can only surmise that if you consider that to have been perfectly legal, moral, and ethical… you would also argue that even in the limit of execution that “they broke no laws”.

As a result I can only conclude that your sense of what constitutes a legal action and what constitutes an illegal action is too warped here to trust your unsupported contention that “They broke no laws”. When you outright declare that a pilot is legally permitted to order the execution of a subdued passenger on a flight you lose all credibility.

Take good care and hopefully on the next issue that interests you we'll be on the same side of the fence.

Crid-

What force options do you think are available to you dealing with a drunk?

Perhaps the best lesson of this thread, the one which the childlike wordmonger Orion fails to learn, is the everyday people will work with what's at hand. I'm totes cool with that. As WFB put it, the real genius of America is with the man on the street.

I concur with Amy in many respects: The professionals — on the air, in the terminal and in wretched government offices throughout our nation's transportation infrastructure — will bury us in chatter about bogus expertise and their 'essential' contribution... We have seen this on this very blog, in other contexts. (And who wouldn't, if they were paid a government wage with government bennies?)

But I think that shit will be over soon. This is my prayer.

Crid,

That is funny, because that isn’t the same lesson I learned in this thread. What I learned is that there are people in the world who are so utterly detached from reality (or willing to ignore reality) that they are able to completely exaggerate the threat level of a situation to justify their position.

Please keep in mind that the actual officials described the guy as “unruly”… not as “rampaging”…. not as “murderous”… and not as “terrorizing”.

These are all the words you and the other people fear mongering in this thread have been using about this situation. The actual reality of the situation has been entirely swept under the rug in preference of a fantasy you’ve created where this 46 year old pudgy drunk man somehow had the entire plane paralyzed with fear and as a result any and all use of force was justified to safeguard the lives of all those people.

That when it was all said and done the guy in question wasn’t actually charged with a crime doesn’t even phase you or seem odd considering the narrative you’ve concocted. I know I’d be outraged if I thought the police released a “rampaging drunk” who “terrorized” a plane with “murderous” intent… but nope, that part doesn’t even warrant consideration for you. That alone suggests you don’t even really buy into your own hype. Why don’t we take a closer look at the situation, shall we?

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/01/08/airline-passenger-duct-taped-to-seat-gagged-after-allegedly-screaming-the-plane-was-going-to-crash/

That is video footage of your “rampaging”, “murderous”, and “terrorizing” individual… you know… the guy strapped helplessly to a chair as a nearby passenger jokingly suggests that he has turrets.

Doesn’t he seem positively terrifying as he moans and whimpers and everyone completely ignores his existence (what was that about his condition being monitored again)?

That is the part of this narrative that is missing… the guy was essentially a joke to the other passengers… people are sitting in seats adjacent to his and laughing about his situation. That is not the behavior of people who have been “terrorized” by a “murderous” psychopath. That is the behavior of people who are amused by the fact that an unruly drunk has been strapped to a chair. People weren’t afraid of the guy once he was tied up… which has actually been a central part of your argument.

So sure Crid… call me “childlike” as you cower under your bed covers from the monsters in your closet that you’ve imagined into existence. It shouldn’t be this hard for you to recognize the simple truth that an unruly drunk isn’t the same thing as a murderous rampaging psycho.

I’d rather be a wordmonger than a fear monger any day of the week.

I also notice that you’ve neglected to answer Skypig’s extremely relevant question which is actually pretty telling.

> they are able to completely exaggerate
> the threat level of a situation

Have you ever been threatened?

QUICK ANSWER.

One word = Best

Full sentence = Forgivable

More = Don't bother

Quick question Orion, if a terrorist group intentionally looses a plauge, and "officials" call it a tragic accident - what happened?

Likewise if a man assaults a woman and tries to choke the life out of her an officials not present simply call the man 'unruly' does that mean he didnt try to kill someone?

Lujlp Asks:

"if a terrorist group intentionally looses a plauge, and "officials" call it a tragic accident - what happened?"

I am able to look at the facts and assess the situation.

That you keep having to make up insane comparisons is truly pathetic and should tell you how very weak your position is.

There is nothing remotely similar about an unruly obnoxious drunk and people who use weapons of mass destruction.

That you can't tell the difference and have made this your point of reference for this situation suggests you aren't capable of thinking rationally about this scenario. You have fear mongered yourself into irrationality.

When a situation involving a tubby unruly drunk results in you making analogies involving terrorists loosing a biological plague you've lost the plot.

"Likewise if a man assaults a woman and tries to choke the life out of her an officials not present simply call the man 'unruly' does that mean he didnt try to kill someone?"

That the airline described him as "unruly"... that no one in the video appeared to be the least bit traumatized... that not one person came forward to press charges... that he was brought to the hospital by police to be treated for alcohol poisoning and then released from their custody to go his merry way.

All of those details point to him being an unruly obnoxious drunk and not the murderous psychopath you need him to be to justify your silly position.

If he really was the murderous psychopath you make him out to be, no one would have remained in a seat adjacent to his, even after he was strapped down. No one would have been making a video and laughing about how he might be mentally impaired (most people don't make fun of murderers when they are within striking distance). The woman who was having the life "choked out of her" would have pressed charges with the authorities.

Just stop already with all of the insane theory crafting. The facts tell a different story than the one you are making up.

So you've never been in danger.

Good to know that about you!

Thanks for stoppin' by.

Crid,

It must be nice to live in your warped little world where things like facts and evidence are unnecessary for you to form an opinion.

You would have fit in quite well in Salem during the 1690's.

Chicks dig me, though. It's a social attunement thang... they know they're SAFE... Despite the tingling excitement.

I'm unclear how can anyone possibly feel safe around you when you go through life magnifying the danger of things that don't really pose a significant or credible threat.

A child who is afraid of the dark doesn't draw comfort from the fact that their parent uses a night light to keep the monsters away... that only reinforces their fear.

People feel safe around others who aren't being paranoid and who accurately assess risks and hazards.

Kiss a girl and get back to me.

Oh come on now Crid, surely you're not really this petty and immature. It's time to stop with the school yard antics and act like a grown up.

I'll take the high road here and simply say that I sincerely hope you have been as fortunate as I have in the long term relationship department.

Seriously though, I haven't encountered juvenile arguments like this since I was in junior high. Here is a clue you should keep in mind... those tactics only work when someone feels insecure about something.

Sleep well Cridster... and don't worry, there aren't any monsters under your bed or in your closet for you to be afraid of.

> act like a grown up.

Tell us about adulthood. Describe ANY grown-up experience, with strangers, in any context. A class room with competitive students. Anything. Women. Mean people. A job. Cops. Government people. Busboys... ANYTHING. Not what you've read about about, or what you think the world ought to be, but give us some reason to thing you aren't a quad in the basement.

Crid,

One thing I can definitively tell you about being an adult is that adults don’t demand personal life stories from other people over the internet. Adults recognize that people will share what they are comfortable sharing and don’t push for any more than what someone is willing to offer. Only completely socially awkward people or stalkers push as hard as you do for personal information when you’ve never met someone. The rest of us respect each other’s right to share as we see fit.

One thing I’ve noticed about you is that for all your demands to know about my personal life, such as my relationship with my parents, my educational experiences, my romantic life, etc... you have yet to offer even one credible nugget of information about yourself.

For you this discussion is a one way street where you believe I owe you explanations about my life as you feed me puerile bullshit like this:

“Chicks dig me”

I mean really… is this kind of stupidity intended to provide some deep insight into who you are as a person? Because from perspective that is the kind of talk used by people who live in a basement and troll internet threads. It’s all just a smoke screen to try and obfuscate the reality that you adamantly refuse to offer anything remotely approximating a genuine human interaction as you continue to make demands for the details of other peoples lives.

So while you may declare that I'm not "savvy", I actually see through your particular brand of BS.

The thing you need to realize is that you only get out of a conversation what you are willing to put in. That means that if you are curious about another persons life the best and most reliable way to learn about them is to first tell them about yourself.

However that isn’t how you operate… you just continually stamp your feet and demand that others answer your questions. Sorry, but I’m not on your quiz show and I don't owe you any information about myself.

I do wish you well though and I honestly hope you are not quite as lonely as you seem.

> most reliable way to learn about them is to
> first tell them about yourself.

Here's a hunnert thowzin.

> adults don’t demand personal life stories from
> other people over the internet.

Personal? Just give us a reason to think your perspective on this —which I regard as destructively naive— is based on more than living a short life, indoors, and on the dole.

Crid,

Thanks for the useless link… exactly how does this former thread:

http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/11/28/how_can_a_woman.html

demonstrate that you haven’t lived a short indoor life on the dole?

In that top link all you do is say “Meanwhile, in China...” and “Late with this”, with each comment linking to something you saw or read on the internet.

Do you remember what you are demanding of me?... Let me remind you:

“Not what you've read about about, or what you think the world ought to be, but give us some reason to thing you aren't a quad in the basement.”

All you ever tend to do here is link to things you have found on the internet or act like a pompous blowhard… and no, I’m not going to dig through every thread you’ve ever been involved in to try and find some gem that is buried amidst the piles of garbage posts you’ve put here over the years that have essentially no substance to them at all.

You’re going to have to do a lot better than that if you want me to take your request seriously.

Just so you can realize what a prick you are continuing to be… you want for me to answer your questions… so you give me a research project to justify doing what you want. It’s funny that someone who feels that entitled to another person’s time would have the gall to accuse anyone of being on the dole. You’re behavior is no different than begging to borrow someone’s car and then insisting that they fill up the tank for you before you take it out.

I want to hear all about what you do for a living and how any of it qualifies you to assess life threatening situations.

So you've never been on a plane, and you've never restrained a drunk.

Crid,

Exactly what I thought... all smoke, no fire.

You have unlimited demands about the details of my life experience but adamantly refuse to offer even one credible piece of information about yourself.

I'm sorry, but I'm not particularly interested in one sided arrangements.

If I were to take a guess I'd wager that you spend your time at work constantly behind a desk where the biggest danger you're ever exposed to is a paper cut... that's why you project your own lack of knowledge and experience on this subject onto anyone who disagrees with your ill informed opinion. Now I could be wrong of course, but since you feel quite at home theory crafting about my experience I figured I'd take a shot with a some conjecture of my own.

"Unlimited demands"?

Crid,

What about your occupation qualifies you as an expert in assessing the risks of life threatening situations?

It's really not that difficult to answer, is it?

If we go by the logic you've been using, your refusal to answer implies that you have no qualifications at all in that area.

Now I'm not saying that your logic is valid... but at the very least we are going to apply it consistently which means you get to be in on the fun too now. You know, the fun where I ask you a question... you don't answer... and then I just assert what the answer is based upon my own imagination.

I'm just trying to abide by the golden rule here, since this is how you treat me it must mean that is how you wish to be treated.

Anything... Have you ever been to a fast-food restaurant? ANY experience of the world?

You don't get something for nothing Crid. Only when you are able to share of your own life experience do you even have a reasonable expectation for others to share with you. Until then you are shit out of luck.

Snookums, in each of the last four decades, I've restrained a drinker and flown in an airliner.

You're too clever to admit to having walked outdoors… Because blog commentary is a treacherous realm of deception and entrapment!

…Or because you're a shut-in with no experience of life.

We are nonetheless grateful to have your insights so thoroughly documented. As the lady says on the extend-y sidewalk just outside the hatch: 'Bye now!

I've dealt with unruly drunks before and been on flights as well, so now where exactly does this get us? Does this "astonishing" revelation change any of the arguments that have been made in this discussion? I assert that it doesn't change the arguments at all. If you think that this nugget of irrelevant information changes the validity of any argument made so far then you do not actually understand how arguments work. The validity of an argument is never about who is making the argument and is instead always about the argument itself.

"You're too clever to admit to having walked outdoors"

Normal people don't expect others to have to admit to something so common place. Must I also admit to breathing, eating, and sleeping?... and if I fail to admit to these things does it suddenly imply that I neither need air, food, or sleep to survive?

Just to point out how warped your reasoning skills are, in this very thread you have suggested that I was raised by both a drunk mother and a drunk father... and NOW you assert that you have *more* experience with people who drink than I do (quite the reversal don't you think?). A normal person would be incapable of making both of these statements at the same time... but not you, because things like facts and logic don't matter to you when you formulate your opinions. If indeed I was raised by a pair of drunks (and you actually believed your previous statement) a reasonable person would have to conclude that they knew less about the behavior of drunks than I did. Simultaneously, if you believe you know more about drunks than I do, you couldn't possibly believe that I was surrounded by drunk people for the entirety of my childhood.

The problem in any conversation I'll have with you is that I am constrained by things like logic, reason, facts, evidence, and consistency... but you won't let any of those things get in the way of a good rant.

This video by one of my favorite comedians actually seems to apply to you:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=uDYba0m6ztE#t=118s

In particular... just because you don't know the answer to something doesn't mean you get to fill in the gap of knowledge with the fairy tale that most appeals to you.

I do note that you haven't described the details of your flights or your encounters with drunks... your claim isn't even all that impressive because anyone who has ever been to a fraternity party has a reasonable chance of having "restrained" a drinker before. Nor have you listed any professional qualifications that would make you a credible expert when it comes to dealing with life threatening situations.

That you believe being a passenger on an airplane somehow qualifies you as an expert on anything is really kind of amusing. That is like saying that being a passenger in a car qualifies you to have an expert opinion on the hazards of driving formula one racer. I'm sorry, but being a passenger on an airplane doesn't actually qualify you for anything except maybe frequent flier miles.

You have a very nasty habit of jumping from a state of complete and utter ignorance about an issue to declaring bold and unsupported conclusions.

I'm simply trying to explain to you that facts and evidence are what matter here and not any of the other BS you are clinging to.

I suspect that the reason you think having been on a flight qualifies you for anything is that you have no other real qualifications. I mean seriously... can you imagine going on a job interview where the employer asks "What experience do you have with risk and threat assessment?"... and your answer is "Well there was this one time that I was a passenger on a flight to Las Vegas." If you had any *real* expertise you wouldn't be focusing on such trivial things.

Oops... that last statement was mine... I intended to address it to Crid and placed that in the "name" field by accident.

My apologies.