Thefabulousfink
Member
No doubt, the actions of the two passengers were inapropriate (this isn't Europe where people can performe "bedroom activities" on the street), but this is hardly a felony or a matter of national security.
Mile High PATRIOTS
- Thread starter tellner
- Start date
- Status
Anyone ever get the feeling that the PATRIOT Act was passed by a bunch of traitors? Maybe that is a harsh term, but seriously, the folks on the hill don't seem to think much of their oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States.
Marshall
Member
History Prof,
Do you routinely make it a practice of trying to shape your students political thoughts to your own views instead of teaching History?
Oh yea, the Mile High guy made a big mistake, especially in this day and age on an airplane! Pretty stupid indeed, but a felony charge?
Dravur
Member
After reading this much more closely...
They aren't in trouble for the kissing and the snuggling.... the dude threatened the flight attendant. Now, whereas kissin and snuggling might get you a slap and tickle, well, threatening a flight attendant is something the Gov frowns upon. Is it worth zapping them with a homeland security violation? prolly not. this will likely be dropped to a misdemeanor assault by the time it gets anywhere,
They aren't in trouble for the kissing and the snuggling.... the dude threatened the flight attendant. Now, whereas kissin and snuggling might get you a slap and tickle, well, threatening a flight attendant is something the Gov frowns upon. Is it worth zapping them with a homeland security violation? prolly not. this will likely be dropped to a misdemeanor assault by the time it gets anywhere,
HonorsDaddy
Member
I do have to seriously question...
...the mentality of those who think that this man's behavior rates felony treatment.
So fine - he was rude, but for pete's sake, when did rudeness become a crime?
If he and his ladyfriend were doing this in the middle of Times Square, they'd have gotten a grant from some government agency or another for their work in performance art.
Give it a rest. Kick em off the plane and maybe flag them as "customer non-grata" and let it go.
...the mentality of those who think that this man's behavior rates felony treatment.
So fine - he was rude, but for pete's sake, when did rudeness become a crime?
If he and his ladyfriend were doing this in the middle of Times Square, they'd have gotten a grant from some government agency or another for their work in performance art.
Give it a rest. Kick em off the plane and maybe flag them as "customer non-grata" and let it go.
Federal laws are written with penalties "up to so many years" with the exeption of some laws with mandatory sentencing. This guy is not going to get 20 years for this. Even if he is stupid and refuses to plea to a misdemeanor there is such an animal as Federal Sentencing Guidelines. These take all factors of the offense the guys role, what was actually done, etc and that's what determines what the guy is sentenced to.
As far as this being used by your neighbor to say you threatened him, unintentionally exposing a legal CW, or something of that nature it is just not going to happen. The US Attorney's office has more than enough business chasing real criminals. There are stories about trumped up charges and over zealous prosecutors but in reality these are few and far between.
The comment about threatening the "peanuts and drink server" is interesting. What should the criteria be for threatening someone. Let's say it's okay to threaten carpenters because they only bang nails. Okay to threaten truck drivers because they only drive trucks. See my point. Threatening anyone should be a crime. Even a male flight attendant.
Flight attendants are in some ways the first line of defense when the aircarft is in the air. They are the only people who can observe all the passengers behavior whne the airplane is off the ground. Even the sky marshalls can't do this unless they walked up and down the aisle.
As far as the woman being charged there are reasons fot this. A few years before 9/11 there was a young lady caught carrying a boom box onto an aircraft in the United Kingdom. Although she was unaware the boom box contained an explosive device her terrorist boyfriend gave her that was armed to go off when the aircraft was in the air. Should she be charged? Maybe they should have just taken her bomb away and let her go on her way.
There are a lot of stupid over reaction to 9/11 and I'll agree. Since 9/11 higher standards of conduct are required by everyone who flies commercially are some of these standards are stupid. Like the TSA agent I saw at Denver Airport beaming over what you would think was Osama Bin Laden stuffed in a carry on bag. It was only a corkscrew in a wine gift set given to her by her son.
As far as this being used by your neighbor to say you threatened him, unintentionally exposing a legal CW, or something of that nature it is just not going to happen. The US Attorney's office has more than enough business chasing real criminals. There are stories about trumped up charges and over zealous prosecutors but in reality these are few and far between.
The comment about threatening the "peanuts and drink server" is interesting. What should the criteria be for threatening someone. Let's say it's okay to threaten carpenters because they only bang nails. Okay to threaten truck drivers because they only drive trucks. See my point. Threatening anyone should be a crime. Even a male flight attendant.
Flight attendants are in some ways the first line of defense when the aircarft is in the air. They are the only people who can observe all the passengers behavior whne the airplane is off the ground. Even the sky marshalls can't do this unless they walked up and down the aisle.
As far as the woman being charged there are reasons fot this. A few years before 9/11 there was a young lady caught carrying a boom box onto an aircraft in the United Kingdom. Although she was unaware the boom box contained an explosive device her terrorist boyfriend gave her that was armed to go off when the aircraft was in the air. Should she be charged? Maybe they should have just taken her bomb away and let her go on her way.
There are a lot of stupid over reaction to 9/11 and I'll agree. Since 9/11 higher standards of conduct are required by everyone who flies commercially are some of these standards are stupid. Like the TSA agent I saw at Denver Airport beaming over what you would think was Osama Bin Laden stuffed in a carry on bag. It was only a corkscrew in a wine gift set given to her by her son.
This guy wasn't just rude, he threatened a flight attendant. Say what you want, but "I'm going to give you one warning to get out of my face" implies a threat of force. That's could be assault, at least in TN. (the threat added to the means to carry out that threat, and belief in the threat by the attacked).
Now, engaging in these acts on a plane "could" be considered public indecency. Not really a big deal. The FA comes up and tells the couple to stop. The guy makes a threat. The laws are overprotective of FAs, especially post 9/11. It's one thing to tell the FA to go away, it's another to imply a threat of assault, especially when the FA is in the right.
All that being said, if I were the one prosecuting AND I wanted to go full out on the couple....
Both charged with public indecency/lewd acts/whatever
Male charged with assault.
That's the max I could see. None of this "homeland security/anti-terrorist" crap. That's just silly.
Now, engaging in these acts on a plane "could" be considered public indecency. Not really a big deal. The FA comes up and tells the couple to stop. The guy makes a threat. The laws are overprotective of FAs, especially post 9/11. It's one thing to tell the FA to go away, it's another to imply a threat of assault, especially when the FA is in the right.
All that being said, if I were the one prosecuting AND I wanted to go full out on the couple....
Both charged with public indecency/lewd acts/whatever
Male charged with assault.
That's the max I could see. None of this "homeland security/anti-terrorist" crap. That's just silly.
CannonFodder
Member
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2005
- Messages
- 218
"Anyone ever get the feeling that the PATRIOT Act was passed by a bunch of traitors? Maybe that is a harsh term, but seriously, the folks on the hill don't seem to think much of their oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States."
No, it was passed by a lot of cowardly politicians who were too afraid of the backlash that would have ensued and being branded as a 'terrorist' lover.'
The Patriot Act is the perfect example of why a scared populace is a horrible thing.
Now, I think I'll go watch V for Vendetta again.
No, it was passed by a lot of cowardly politicians who were too afraid of the backlash that would have ensued and being branded as a 'terrorist' lover.'
The Patriot Act is the perfect example of why a scared populace is a horrible thing.
Now, I think I'll go watch V for Vendetta again.
If a law can be abused, it will be abused. All the pro Bush folks should consider what Hillary and the Boyz will do with the new, expanded government powers.
Hell, if getting frisky in public can make you a felon, you lose your guns.
1000s upon 1000s of laws just waiting to be broken.
Think about it...
Biker
Hell, if getting frisky in public can make you a felon, you lose your guns.
1000s upon 1000s of laws just waiting to be broken.
Think about it...
Biker
JohnBT
Member
"I basically tell my students that Geo. Bush is our Heinrich Bruning in that Bruning governed with emergency powers that Hitler inherited."
I hope they ignore you. You're a history prof?
"Brüning's plan could have made some difference to Weimar but it was never put into practice. The landed class was still powerful in Germany and many labelled the plan as ‘agrarian bolshevism’. The major problem was that the plan had no support from Hindenburg. The president was himself a major land-owner in Prussia and here was his chancellor wanting to break-up these very estates that Hindenburg owned. It is also probable that Hindenburg was somewhat senile at this time and that people played on his fear of communism and used the phrase ‘agrarian bolshevism’ deliberately as they knew it would provoke a response from the ageing president.
Hindenburg dismissed Brüning in May 1932. Such an abrupt dismissal was fully legal under the constitution. He was replaced by Franz von Papen.
Brüning remained an outspoken critic of Hitler and Nazism and in 1934 he fled to Holland and made his way to America. Here, he lectured at Harvard but returned to Germany in 1947 where he lectured at Cologne University."
I hope they ignore you. You're a history prof?
"Brüning's plan could have made some difference to Weimar but it was never put into practice. The landed class was still powerful in Germany and many labelled the plan as ‘agrarian bolshevism’. The major problem was that the plan had no support from Hindenburg. The president was himself a major land-owner in Prussia and here was his chancellor wanting to break-up these very estates that Hindenburg owned. It is also probable that Hindenburg was somewhat senile at this time and that people played on his fear of communism and used the phrase ‘agrarian bolshevism’ deliberately as they knew it would provoke a response from the ageing president.
Hindenburg dismissed Brüning in May 1932. Such an abrupt dismissal was fully legal under the constitution. He was replaced by Franz von Papen.
Brüning remained an outspoken critic of Hitler and Nazism and in 1934 he fled to Holland and made his way to America. Here, he lectured at Harvard but returned to Germany in 1947 where he lectured at Cologne University."
History Prof
Member
I think you fellas are missing my point. I'm not criticizing either Bush or Bruning, nor am I comparing/contrasting their governments.
What I do in my classes is point out that Hitler did NOT create a dictatorship. The emergency powers that gave him power were in place BEFORE he got there (under Bruning). Am I wrong about this? Please instruct if you think I'm wrong.
The comparison is that in the US, since 1933 (not just since 2001) we've been on that same slippery slope. Every president we've had since FDR has been more powerful than the last, and since 2001, we've had similar "emergency" issues with extended powers beyond any that any prior president has had. Thus, I ask my students to think about "What would a would-be Hitler do with those powers if elected in 2008?" THAT is the comparison I make between Bruning/Bush. Nothing more. And no, I do not try to indoctrinate anyone. I leave that to the liberal profs. I try to get my students to think critically. Or am I not allowed to ask questions that would help my students think critically? Hey, if they're thinking critically, maybe they do ignore me. Geez, you fellas sure jump to conclusions based on one sentence.....
What I do in my classes is point out that Hitler did NOT create a dictatorship. The emergency powers that gave him power were in place BEFORE he got there (under Bruning). Am I wrong about this? Please instruct if you think I'm wrong.
The comparison is that in the US, since 1933 (not just since 2001) we've been on that same slippery slope. Every president we've had since FDR has been more powerful than the last, and since 2001, we've had similar "emergency" issues with extended powers beyond any that any prior president has had. Thus, I ask my students to think about "What would a would-be Hitler do with those powers if elected in 2008?" THAT is the comparison I make between Bruning/Bush. Nothing more. And no, I do not try to indoctrinate anyone. I leave that to the liberal profs. I try to get my students to think critically. Or am I not allowed to ask questions that would help my students think critically? Hey, if they're thinking critically, maybe they do ignore me. Geez, you fellas sure jump to conclusions based on one sentence.....
History Prof
Member
My point here was that some people kept calling the flight attendant "she."
On the one hand, flight attendents have the authority to give orders that must be obeyed while in the air. Interfering with a flight attendent's normal duties is a Serious Offense, especially if the interference somehow leads toward unsafe operation of the aircraft. That said, if the F.A. tells a passenger to quit performing a particular behavior, that F.A. must be obeyed, or the passenger can face charges.
On the other hand, though, my take is that the passenger said something like "Leave us alone, or you'll face serious consequences..." In my mind, that's hardly a threat of violence or terrorist behavior. Not having been there, or talked to any witnesses, my opinion is still that of a molehill being made into a mountain.
On the other hand, though, my take is that the passenger said something like "Leave us alone, or you'll face serious consequences..." In my mind, that's hardly a threat of violence or terrorist behavior. Not having been there, or talked to any witnesses, my opinion is still that of a molehill being made into a mountain.
Marshall
Member
History Prof,
Thank you for your explaination.
Thank you for your explaination.
Silent-Snail
Member
That sounds kinda like this last round of elections. Does this mean that those who run campaign ads are terrorists as a result of attempting "to intimidate or coerce a civilian population" into voting for a specific person?
JohnBT
Member
"The emergency powers that gave him power were in place BEFORE he got there (under Bruning). Am I wrong about this? Please instruct if you think I'm wrong."
My point is, why blame Bruning or even mention him?
Bruning was in power from '30 to '32, right? The Constitution, with the emergency powers provision, was adopted in 1919. That's where the mistake was made.
John
_______________________________________________
www.thecorner.org/hist/total/n-german.htm
The Constitution of the Republic
On July 31, 1919, a democratic constitution was adopted by the National Assembly of the Weimar Republic. It bore the democratic features of the British, American, and French constitutions, but the autocratic traits of the German political tradition were also preserved.
The Structure of the Constitution
The head of the state was the President. He was to be elected by direct vote of the people for a term of seven years, after which he was eligible for re-election. In ordinary circumstances, he did not take up administrative duties (but in times of emergency he was given special emergency powers to suspend the Constitution, to dissolve the Reichstag and to issue decrees). Actual executive power was vested in a ministry headed by a Chancellor, appointed by the President and responsible to the Reichstag. The ministry could not hold office without majority support in the Reichstag.
My point is, why blame Bruning or even mention him?
Bruning was in power from '30 to '32, right? The Constitution, with the emergency powers provision, was adopted in 1919. That's where the mistake was made.
John
_______________________________________________
www.thecorner.org/hist/total/n-german.htm
The Constitution of the Republic
On July 31, 1919, a democratic constitution was adopted by the National Assembly of the Weimar Republic. It bore the democratic features of the British, American, and French constitutions, but the autocratic traits of the German political tradition were also preserved.
The Structure of the Constitution
The head of the state was the President. He was to be elected by direct vote of the people for a term of seven years, after which he was eligible for re-election. In ordinary circumstances, he did not take up administrative duties (but in times of emergency he was given special emergency powers to suspend the Constitution, to dissolve the Reichstag and to issue decrees). Actual executive power was vested in a ministry headed by a Chancellor, appointed by the President and responsible to the Reichstag. The ministry could not hold office without majority support in the Reichstag.
- Status
