Article

2006-10-01 Britain

Humiliation at 33,000 feet: Top British architect tells of terror 'arrest'

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by john 2006-10-01 15:42|| || Front Page|| [11133 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 I smell fish.

Posted by Parabellum 2006-10-01 16:05|| 2006-10-01 16:05|| Front Page Top

#2 Was there a gremlin on the wing?

Posted by anonymous5089 2006-10-01 16:40|| 2006-10-01 16:40|| Front Page Top

#3 I fly AA almost exclusively. I find it inconceivable that the crew could not have stopped this. As a standard practice, police officers should ID themselves to the crew members as dicretely as possible, and should only take actions when there is a clear threat or when directed by the crew. Every AA crew member knows this. Air Marshalls have authority to act autonomously but police officers do not. Sue the airline. They failed to protect the passenger by immediately demanding that the 'police officer' go back to his seat, and having the officer arrested upon landing.

Posted by mcsegeek1 2006-10-01 16:55|| 2006-10-01 16:55|| Front Page Top

#4 "I was violated!"
"hey are you getting this all down?"
"make sure you spell my name correctly...and get my website addy. You have the name and phone of my PR agent, don't you?"

Posted by Frank G 2006-10-01 17:07|| 2006-10-01 17:07|| Front Page Top

#5 C'mon Frank. How would you like to be placed in a head lock while kicking back in your seat? I'm just as much against the 'victimhood' mentality and the litigious nature of our society as the next guy, but right is right, and wrong is wrong.

Posted by mcsegeek1 2006-10-01 17:12|| 2006-10-01 17:12|| Front Page Top

#6 may 22nd? Publicity whore. We have his side - let's hear the other

Posted by Frank G 2006-10-01 17:20|| 2006-10-01 17:20|| Front Page Top

#7 For security reasons alone, the plane's crew (and therefore the airline) had a significant duty to record all information surrounding this incident, including the supposed "police officer's" identity and the names of any witnesses. Such information is needed by the TSA to assess valid incidents and should be also made available to any passenger who is unfairly assaulted. By not gathering such data, American Airlines has left themselves wide open for a major lawsuit.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2006-10-01 17:21|| 2006-10-01 17:21|| Front Page Top

#8 "furious that the airline failed to protect him from the gung-ho actions of an over-zealous passenger"
It seems to me that Mr. Stein's beef is with Michael Wilk. He should have insisted that NYPD press charges for assault. In fact, it's not too late. I'm with Frank: four months later and all the name dropping smells like a publicity whore.

Posted by Darrell 2006-10-01 17:49|| 2006-10-01 17:49|| Front Page Top

#9 Nope, I'm with Mr. Stein on this one. The police officer had a duty to follow the rules of engagement, as it were. It's not his job to jump on someone just because they look a little suspicious. Hell, there's one person on every large plane that might look 'suspicious' to someone else.

Someone starts to act crazy? Put a match to a shoe? Grab a flight attendant? No problem, beat his head in, and I'll help hold the SOB.

But I have iPod earphones in my ears the whole time I'm on a plane, and I sure hope that doesn't make me 'suspicious'.

Posted by Steve White">Steve White 2006-10-01 19:37|| 2006-10-01 19:37|| Front Page Top

#10 Ack! If he grabs an attendant... If he goes to the john to soon after takeoff and there's wires coming outta his pantslegs trailing along behind him... If he tries to smoke his shoe... If he cuts someone's throat... If he charges the cockpit... If he hollers Allan's Snackbar! Sheesharoonies, so many rules. My brain hurts.
/vinnybarbarino

P.S. Duh, Wilk... If you do the chokehold right, you don't hafta worry about twerps testifying against you.
/LAPD

Posted by .com 2006-10-01 19:46|| 2006-10-01 19:46|| Front Page Top

#11 SW - we have,what, one side here? Just kicking bvack, reading a book and ginger ale, the "father of three" was assaulted by a fictitious cop. Spare me

Posted by Frank G 2006-10-01 19:48|| 2006-10-01 19:48|| Front Page Top

#12 If he had been the Bottom British Architect...

Posted by .com 2006-10-01 19:52|| 2006-10-01 19:52|| Front Page Top

#13 There is something missing in this story. Also I don't know that an AA stewardess could prevent me from garrotting a fellow passenger. I think we will eventually see a change in the appearance of stewardesses as their job becomes more akin to NHL linesmen. I would be OK with arming them with tasers - more people would certainly listen to their safety briefing.

I don't care whether AA gets sued over this one - they really didn't do anthing outstandinglu positive or negative during the incident, but anytime stories emerge that make America look like a hard target we win. I want there to be significant element of uncertainty about the success of an any terrorist attack planned on America. If the odds are better for an attack of a country that doesn't have a cowboy legacy, we are safer. Afterall we don't have to be faster than the bear.

Posted by Super Hose 2006-10-01 21:52|| 2006-10-01 21:52|| Front Page Top

#14 While I certainly agree that this doesn't sound like the entire story, some four months late and all that, the airline still had a legal obligation to gather all information related to this incident. Failure to do so makes them culpable because their inaction unfairly limited the victim's avenues of proper legal recourse thereby nominating themselves as the liable party.

Consider the case of a property owner who witnesses a hired subcontractor injure a passerby while performing requested work on the premises. If that property owner fails to gather the appropriate information and permits the subcontractor to leave without having gathered that pertinent data, guess who stands liable in court?

The airline is the property owner, the "police officer" is the sub-contractor (passenger) and the passerby is this other passenger. I see zero fallback or mitigating circumstances for the airline to cite. All that matters is that the victim is in no way filing a false claim.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2006-10-01 22:38|| 2006-10-01 22:38|| Front Page Top

#15 My Israeli (amongst other nationalities -- a long story) father always said the Jewish appearance stereotype is really Italian or Arab. The tale proves it, although as told it sounds like the other gentleman both overreacted and lied about his profession to cow our hero into not fighting. Were Mr. Stein a real terrorist, that wouldn't be a bad tactic.

Posted by trailing wife 2006-10-01 23:47|| 2006-10-01 23:47|| Front Page Top

#16 The terrific delay in the publication of this story is the biggest factor causing suspicion. Normally this would be news on the first few pages of a major newspaper, the same or the next day it happened. Very fishy.

Posted by Slaviger Angomong7708 2006-10-01 23:57|| 2006-10-01 23:57|| Front Page Top

18:55 6
19:21 6
04:15 Criger Slolung9742
07:34 hutchrun
07:28 hutchrun
06:47 hutchrun
23:57 Slaviger Angomong7708
23:57 Zenster
23:55 RD
23:55 RWV
23:51 RWV
23:50 JosephMendiola
23:48 JosephMendiola
23:47 trailing wife
23:34 JosephMendiola
23:28 JosephMendiola
23:13 Super Hose
23:10 .com
23:09 RD
23:08 Super Hose
23:06 JosephMendiola
23:03 .com
22:58 Zenster
22:58 Super Hose