Was she truly arrested for refusing to get off her cell phone, or was she arrested for refusing to leave the plane aggravated for attacking the police officers?

If she was truly arrested merely for refusing to get off her cell phone, on the one hand, that seems to be an extreme reaction. On the other hand, I also feel like dems the rules and if she doesn't like it, she shouldn't fly. She is not special or privileged. The rules apply to everyone, not everyone else.

I have a hard time feeling sorry for her. The rules that are in place mean the plane can't take off until she ends her call and turns off her phone (or pretends to turn off her phone). As a result, she is holding up the entire plane and fucking with the airport's schedule over her phone call. Jerk.

I have a hard time feeling sorry for her.

I'm not even trying to feel sorry for her. She doesn't deserve it.

But she's got Diversity and Ladyparts on her side, so she'll come out of this a winner.

Absolutely zero sympathy.

She got what she deserved.

The real question here is, not whether she was a jerk, or whether she 'resisted arrest', the real question is what was she being arrested for in the first place? That is what determines who is 'right' and who is 'wrong' (as it's not illegal to be a jerk, and it's not specifically against the law ('per se') merely to violate an airline's rules).

If you read the full story, you find that what happened was, the crew asked her to stop talking on the phone, she refused to stop .. after the plane returned to the gate, the crew informed her they wanted her off the plane. It would still have been wrong to try arrest her at that very moment point for merely being on the plane. But here is the moment of first transgression - she then refused to get off the plane. At this point she is then effectively 'trespassing'. This is like if someone is in your car and you don't want them in your car anymore, you do have a right to tell them to leave, BUT you DON'T have a right to try forcibly arrest them UNLESS they then refuse your instruction to leave.

So long story short, the airline crew then did have a right (even if for an ultimately silly reason) to (as they did) call the deputies to try escort her off the plane, she was violating the airline's right by refusing to leave the plane, they did have a right to try arrest her when she refused to peacefully be escorted from the plane, and it was not justifiable to try resist the arrest.

"I'm college educated."

lol

One the one hand Lobster is correct in his analysis

On the other Im sick and tired of completely arbitrary "rules" that simply exist and provide no benefit what so ever

luj, if you're talking about the no-cell-phone-during-taxi-and-takeoff, there IS a benefit, one that has been the point all along:

Planes make a hell of a bang when they do hit something, and none of the passengers is in a familiar environment. The purpose of the digital device ban is to make the cattle pay some damned attention to what is going on, so their sorry asses don't get trapped in smoking, then flaming, then exploding wreckage.

But FSM forbid that someone be forced to put THEIR PRECIOUS down, much less turn her off.

No Rad, while that may be the benefit that is not how the ban is sold.

The ban is sold as the idea that battery operated devices will cause planes to fall out of the sky. Which is a lie.

"The ban is sold as the idea that battery operated devices will cause planes to fall out of the sky. Which is a lie."

I have been interested in this since Aviation Week and Space Technology reported that digitally-controlled aircraft had crashed due to max rudder commands twenty-or-so years ago.

So what?

It's still important to make the oblivious pay attention when their lives could be at stake.

So what?

The reason people ignore the rule is they know the reason for the rule is an obvious lie.

You want people to follow a rule give a real explaination no matter how unflattering it may be

This video clip is auto playing when I visit the main goddess blog page.

"You want people to follow a rule give a real explaination no matter how unflattering it may be"

No. You give the explanation which more people will obey.

Right now, people drive and text because they think they do not have to pay attention - they are smart enough, and they will argue with you. Displacing the effect to a thing - the idea that the phone interferes with the plane - is much more palatable to the typically selfish passenger.