Originally posted by uzlessFirst of all, g-mo is originally Brasilian and meant Brazillian law by "our laws."
YOUR laws?
Seems once the plane is out of US airspace, your laws don't apply anymore.
Regardless, why are air marshalls stopping people from getting a drink? Is this really what the air marshall's role is designed to do? Seems they should let the flight crew do their job and only interfer if the flight is hijacked.....
Second, if the flight crew asks the air marshals to intervene based on a security threat, you really think they should refuse to do so because they don't deem it a serious enough threat?
Originally posted by sh76Once again sh76 is the voice of reason; I agree with you, but as you might have noticed I was offended by zeeble's proposal, wouldn't you say it was fueled by prejudice?
[quote]During the flight, a female passenger who appeared to be intoxicated tried to serve herself drinks by going to the plane's galley, one source said. The plane's crew asked air marshals to intervene, and two marshals approached the woman, who began struggling with them.
Two sources said the woman bit one of the air marshals, and she was handcuffed and p ...[text shortened]... tries need to get together and lay out the rules and procedures for this sort of situation.
Originally posted by generalissimoThank you very much for the compliment.
Once again sh76 is the voice of reason; I agree with you, but as you might have noticed I was offended by zeeble's proposal, wouldn't you say it was fueled by prejudice?
As for Z's proposal, I have a tough time even believing it was serious. "Stop all flights between the US and Brazil"?? Please.
I think Z's line was more for shock value; and I guess, so far as it goes, it worked. As Palynka once pointed out in a much ballyhooed post (I think the Palynka critique of Z actually brought FMF to climax), Z tends to do that sort of thing- say something outrageous and then kind of tiptoe off, leaving everyone else to claw at each other in the poisonous atmosphere he so carefully planted.
Not that there's anything wrong with that, Z. 😛
1 edit
Originally posted by sh76if the marshall is dealing with some woman that wants a drink, then they are not paying attention to the real threat of hijackers.
Second, if the flight crew asks the air marshals to intervene based on a security threat, you really think they should refuse to do so because they don't deem it a serious enough threat?
they need to pay attention to what their job is..enforcing the rules of the bar is not one of them and is likely the grounds that the Braziian gov't was pointing out.
There's a reason why the secret service doesn't pull over speeders on the highway. they have more important things to do.
Just because they flight attendants tried to take advantage of the fact the marshal was on the flight just means the flight attendants were being lazy. Tell the lady to sit down, and if she doesn't then you follow standard procedure and LAND THE PLANE and have her arrested.
Zero reason to invoke the anti-hijaker air marshal.
Originally posted by sh76That seems like a serious "if". The proper procedure if they wanted to contest the charges was to face them in a court of law, not surreptitiously flee the country in violation of a court order. Or do you consider the Brazilian legal system incapable of fairly resolving such routine matters?
[quote]During the flight, a female passenger who appeared to be intoxicated tried to serve herself drinks by going to the plane's galley, one source said. The plane's crew asked air marshals to intervene, and two marshals approached the woman, who began struggling with them.
Two sources said the woman bit one of the air marshals, and she was handcuffed and p ...[text shortened]... tries need to get together and lay out the rules and procedures for this sort of situation.
Originally posted by sh76Someone trying to pour themselves drinks is a "security threat"????????🙄
First of all, g-mo is originally Brasilian and meant Brazillian law by "our laws."
Second, if the flight crew asks the air marshals to intervene based on a security threat, you really think they should refuse to do so because they don't deem it a serious enough threat?
Originally posted by no1marauderMore ivory tower wisdom from the person who brought you "the Iranian hiker should go back to Iran to face charges of espionage."
That seems like a serious "if". The proper procedure if they wanted to contest the charges was to face them in a court of law, not surreptitiously flee the country in violation of a court order. Or do you consider the Brazilian legal system incapable of fairly resolving such routine matters?
Do you seriously think the better decision for the marshals would have been to hang around to face charges?
Let's see. Hmm....
1) Flee and go home; face no charges; or
2) Stick around, maybe be in prison for a few days pending release, be forced to stay in the country perhaps for months and risk (even if slight) being sentenced to prison for doing your job
If they were your clients, what would you advise?
Originally posted by sh76Be serious; the air marshals aren't there to enforce every direction given by the flight crew. A "security threat", my ass.
Someone refusing to follow directions of the flight crew during a flight is inherently a security threat, yes.
Biting the arm of an air marshal is a security threat, yes.
🙄🙄
And stop moving the goalposts, your claim was: if the flight crew asks the air marshals to intervene based on a security threat
The alleged biting happened well after they were asked to intervene based on the horrific "security threat" of someone trying to make their own drink.
Originally posted by sh76If I was a lawyer practicing in Brazil, I'd advise them to follow the law. I have never, NEVER advised a client to disobey a court order; perhaps you are unaware, but that would be a serious breach of disciplinary rules and legal ethics.
More ivory tower wisdom from the person who brought you "the Iranian hiker should go back to Iran to face charges of espionage."
Do you seriously think the better decision for the marshals would have been to hang around to face charges?
Let's see. Hmm....
1) Flee and go home; face no charges; or
2) Stick around, maybe be in prison for a few days pe ...[text shortened]... sentenced to prison for doing your job
If they were your clients, what would you advise?
I remember you railing about some country not wanting to extradite an accused back to the US, yet you seem to have no problem with US citizens flaunting the legal systems of other countries and getting away with it. And surely you are not equating the Brazilian legal system with Iran's?
Originally posted by sh76you think FMF gummed up his/her keyboard? he/she's awfully quiet.
Thank you very much for the compliment.
As for Z's proposal, I have a tough time even believing it was serious. "Stop all flights between the US and Brazil"?? Please.
I think Z's line was more for shock value; and I guess, so far as it goes, it worked. As Palynka once pointed out in a much ballyhooed post (I think the Palynka critique of Z actually broug ...[text shortened]... ous atmosphere he so carefully planted.
Not that there's anything wrong with that, Z. 😛
Originally posted by sh76to no1m, "biting the arm of an air marshal" is a good excuse to plan a lawsuit against the almost-inevitable response.
Someone refusing to follow directions of the flight crew during a flight is inherently a security threat, yes.
Biting the arm of an air marshal is a security threat, yes.
🙄🙄