Jonathan Burton, 19, crazed airline passenger
LandonEx
SALT LAKE CITY (AP) -- A 19-year-old passenger on a Southwest Airlines
flight tried to break into the cockpit, then died of an apparent heart attack
after being taken into custody, an airline spokesman said Saturday.
The man, on a flight from Las Vegas to Salt Lake City, was pulled off the
plane by airport security when the plane landed in Utah Friday night,
Southwest spokesman Ed Stewart said.
Officers at the Salt Lake City International Airport identified the man as
Jonathan Burton of Las Vegas and said he had suffered a heart attack.
"The plane was about 20 minutes from landing and that's when this
gentleman did go into a rage and tried apparently to break into the cockpit
doors,'' Stewart said Saturday.
"Up until 20 minutes before the flight landed, everything was fine,'' Stewart
said. "For all we know, he could have had a seizure or something.''
Stewart said crew members tried to restrain the man, but it took half a dozen
passengers in the cabin to help hold him down.
Airport duty manager Dennis Andersen said the man went into cardiac
arrest after being pulled off the plane by airport security. He said no other
information was immediately available, except that the case had been
handed over to the FBI.
No one else on board the plane, carrying 121 passengers and five crew
members, was reported injured.
AP-NY / 08-12-00 23:19 EDT
=L=
Mack Twamley
"David Carson" <da...@neosoft.com> wrote in message > The increase in cabin
pressure that goes with a plane's descent can be
> pretty uncomfortable, but hey, someone offer that guy a stick of chewing
> gum.
>
> David Carson
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
Then again, since it was Southwest, he may have gone berserk from the
peanuts or the flight attendants' corny jokes....
Brad Ferguson
<mack...@inland.net> wrote:
CNN scored again with this one. The Headline News reader did the story
(with the usual meaningless graphic in the background), told about the
passenger going berserk and running around the cabin and trying to kick
in the door to the cockpit. This took about twenty or twenty-five
seconds. Almost as an afterthought, the reader mentioned that the guy
died, and that an investigation was under way.
This is called "burying the lede," and it's something you might expect
from an untalented novice. People getting TV bucks ought to be better
than that. I'm tempted to start a CNN Deathwatch thread.
Brad Ferguson
<D867284EE65B2FEB.546ECDF9...@lp.airnews.net>,
David Carson <da...@neosoft.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Aug 2000 18:04:22 -0400, Brad Ferguson <thir...@frXOXed.net>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <8n9dv7$qa5$1...@delphi.ridgenet.net>, Mack Twamley
> ><mack...@inland.net> wrote:
> >
> >> "David Carson" <da...@neosoft.com> wrote in message > The increase in
> >> cabin
> >> pressure that goes with a plane's descent can be
> >> > pretty uncomfortable, but hey, someone offer that guy a stick of
> >> > chewing
> >> > gum.
> >> >
> >> > David Carson
> >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
> >> Then again, since it was Southwest, he may have gone berserk from the
> >> peanuts or the flight attendants' corny jokes....
> >
> >
> >CNN scored again with this one. The Headline News reader did the story
> >(with the usual meaningless graphic in the background), told about the
> >passenger going berserk and running around the cabin and trying to kick
> >in the door to the cockpit. This took about twenty or twenty-five
> >seconds. Almost as an afterthought, the reader mentioned that the guy
> >died, and that an investigation was under way.
>
> Wouldn't it be a "dog bites man" vs. "man bites dog" situation? People
> don't go berserk on passenger jets that often, but, in the words of
> Orenthal, people die every day.
It just sounds really, really dumb when you do a story about a guy
going berserk on an airplane and add at the end that oh, by the way, he
died.
My own guess is that he went berserk after watching CNN Airport News
and its ninety-eighth featurette about how they're now making chocolate
Easter bunnies in what used to be East German automobile factories.
Dave/Kristin Hall
: >seconds. Almost as an afterthought, the reader mentioned that the guy
: >died, and that an investigation was under way.
: Wouldn't it be a "dog bites man" vs. "man bites dog" situation? People
: don't go berserk on passenger jets that often, but, in the words of
: Orenthal, people die every day.
On the other hand, how often do you hear about 19 year olds dying of cardiac
arrest?
--
David Hall
Propulsion Geek At Large
Matthew Kruk
Usually cocaine overdose cases.
MadCow57
arrest?<<
>>Usually cocaine overdose cases.<< -- Matthew Kruk
Yep. A friend of mine who is an undertaker says he never tells the grieving
relatives about the paraphernalia found near the body.
Lady Taker
>On the other hand, how often do you hear about 19 year olds dying of cardiac
>arrest?
I thought I once read that fatal CIs were not that uncommon in young adults.
But, that point aside, I suspected drugs when I heard of the behavior
immediately preceding the death.
Volfie -> have drugs been ruled out?
LandonEx
are still "up to three weeks away"...
------------------
Tuesday, August 15, 2000
MOTHER: NO REASON FOR AIR-RAGE DEATH
After her son mysteriously died following his in-flight rampage on a Southwest
Airlines jet, Janet Burton wants answers.
"I have no idea what happened," Burton said Monday from her home in Las Vegas.
"I put my son on a flight [to Salt Lake City on] Friday night, and the next
thing I heard is that he was dead."
FBI agents contacted Burton after her son, 19-year-old Jonathan Burton, died of
still-unknown causes after being handcuffed by airport security immediately
after the plane landed at Salt Lake City International Airport.
Jonathan Burton's violent outburst in the air left passengers shaken -- and in
some cases bruised.
Results from the autopsy on Burton's body will not be made available for up to
three weeks, as investigators await toxicology reports, said Bill Matthews, FBI
spokesman. The teen-ager had planned to visit a relative in Salt Lake City.
Janet Burton said her son had no illnesses or other disorders that might have
caused him to become violent, and as far as she knows, he was not under the
influence of drugs.
"Whatever was going on with Jon physically and mentally, it did not have to
happen like it did. He should not have had to die," Burton said.
Jonathan Burton died minutes after being taken into custody following the 11:12
p.m. landing of Flight 1763. The FBI is investigating the death and the
on-board scuffle, and the voice-data recorder from the cockpit has been sent to
FBI headquarters in Washington, D.C., for analysis.
A Southwest spokesman said Burton went berserk inside the cabin of the 737
jetliner about 20 minutes prior to landing. Burton allegedly tried to break
through the cockpit door as the jet traveled from Las Vegas, and at one point
he had to be restrained by up to eight passengers.
"The passengers and the flight crew did exactly what they were supposed to do,"
said Ed Stewart, spokesman for Southwest Airlines. The pilot and first officer
remained locked within the cockpit throughout the incident, Stewart said.
"Flight attendants have the authority to recruit help from passengers . . .
Their job is maintaining safety."
Burton's outburst occurred as federal officials report a dramatic increase in
air-rage incidents nationwide. Statistics from the Federal Aviation
Administration showed 292 incidents of "unruly passengers," up from 138 in
1995. The FAA can recommend fines of up to $25,000 for airline passengers that
"assault, threaten, intimidate or interfere with a crew member."
At Delta Air Lines, flight attendants are trained with "Verbal Judo," a
communication style developed by an ex-police officer that is designed to
deflect potential problems before they escalate.
"Physical abuse by passengers is very rare," said Alesia Watson, a Delta
spokeswoman. "What is really on the rise is verbal abuse of flight crews."
# # #
Tuesday, August 15, 2000
Kevin Cantera / The Salt Lake Tribune
=L=
Lady Taker
>Their job is maintaining safety."
>
Does that mean they have the right to *insist* someone helps them?
Volfie -> what happens if they ask someone for help and they refuse?
Brad Ferguson
<vol...@aol.comBV12> wrote:
> >"Flight attendants have the authority to recruit help from passengers . . .
> >Their job is maintaining safety."
> >
>
> Does that mean they have the right to *insist* someone helps them?
My understanding is that any physically capable passenger can be
deputized, and that those who refuse can be charged. I don't know if
this has ever happened.
The captain of the aircraft also has the authority to have a passenger
shot, if it's necessary to maintain order. I don't know where they
keep the guns, though.
Brad Ferguson
> > My understanding is that any physically capable passenger can be
> > deputized, and that those who refuse can be charged. I don't know if
> > this has ever happened.
>
> I find this hard to believe. I know of no such situation where a
> citizen can be forcefully "deputized" like that (their property,
> such as an automobile for police use is another issue);
Sheriffs in many U.S. jurisdictions have the power to form and deputize
posses.
> and it's
> even much less likely where the term "citizen" becomes ambiguous on
> an airplane.
Citizenship is not necessarily of the essence. International
agreements may determine what is permissible. In the U.S., the captain
of the aircraft is empowered to do whatever he has to do to keep order
aboard. Deputizing passengers to restrain an unruly passenger would be
a reasonable use of the captain's power.
The passengers in this case were all volunteers, but I can see a
situation where the captain could order several of them to guard and
restrain the suspect.
> It used to be illegal to forcefully or deviously
> "impress" people into the army or the navy, which was a common
> practice centuries ago.
The draft ended in the U.S. in the 1970s, and I see no meaningful
difference between it and those earlier practices. The draft is still
not illegal.
> Whether passengers volunteer or not is
> another issue. On the contrary, the law suggests the opposite:
> that citizens should not be endangered in criminal pursuit.
> Anyway, even if such a law existed it would be virtually
> unenforceable I suspect. As for the other issue,
>
> > The captain of the aircraft also has the authority to have a
> > passenger shot, if it's necessary to maintain order.
>
> that's obviously much more credible, since it's true on the ground
> too. In fact, ANYBODY can shoot anyone to protect himself or
> property, so it's even more likely this is true in the air, where
> hundreds of lives are at stake.
This is not correct. It is illegal in many U.S. jurisdictions to shoot
someone merely to defend personal property.
ful...@yahoo.com
> deputized, and that those who refuse can be charged. I don't know if
> this has ever happened.
I find this hard to believe. I know of no such situation where a citizen can be
forcefully "deputized" like that (their property, such as an automobile for police
use is another issue); and it's even much less likely where the term "citizen"
becomes ambiguous on an airplane. It used to be illegal to forcefully or deviously
"impress" people into the army or the navy, which was a common practice centuries
ago. Whether passengers volunteer or not is another issue. On the contrary, the
ful...@yahoo.com
> In article <399AC13A...@yahoo.com>, <ful...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > My understanding is that any physically capable passenger can be
> > > deputized, and that those who refuse can be charged. I don't know if
> > > this has ever happened.
> >
> > I find this hard to believe. I know of no such situation where a
> > citizen can be forcefully "deputized" like that (their property,
> > such as an automobile for police use is another issue);
>
> Sheriffs in many U.S. jurisdictions have the power to form and deputize
> posses.
Here we may be getting into semantics. Deputization is well known and is part
of Western cinematic folklore. But in all these cases they deputized citizens
are both willing and able. There's a difference that sort of deputization and
deputizing those who are either and/or unwilling and unable! Obviously, we're
dealing theoretically here, since it's very hard to imagine a passenger, say,
unwilling to sit on an incumbent ruffian with no loss of life or limb to
himself or herself. That would constitute gratuitous indifference. Whether
that would be a criminal offense or not is another issue, mostly theoretical.
But what in the case of reasonable risk to a passenger, say tackling a ruffian
swinging punches or gesticulating with a knife? I seriously doubt if any court
in the world would expect a passenger to be unwillingly deputized in such a
position. But I'm not going to argue any specific law, nor has anyone actually
quoted a specific law that I can argue against. I'm just arguing "common law"
and common sense. Admittedly these are not always the same (a mother mildly
spanking a child with a couple of swats might, today, find herself arrested as
a felon!).
>
>
> > and it's
> > even much less likely where the term "citizen" becomes ambiguous on
> > an airplane.
>
> Citizenship is not necessarily of the essence. International
> agreements may determine what is permissible.
But here you're talking about such a legally confusing area that, again, even
if such a law was written somewhere, its enforcement would be virtually
impossible. This is not like an international law against hi-jacking, which is
relatively straightforward: Everyone knows what hijacking is; few people have
sympathy for it, etc. Few people know what their obligations are in an airline
crisis, most people would overwhelmingly sympathize with a citizen who was
reluctant to risk life and limb to overpower a ruffian. I repeat: once the
ruffian is under the control, or reasonably under control, that would be
different and constitute gratutious indifference. If a stewardess comes up to
me and notices a heavy flashlight in my hand and asks to borrow it so the
pilot can knock a ruffian on the head & I refused, that would be gratuitous.
> In the U.S., the captain
> of the aircraft is empowered to do whatever he has to do to keep order
> aboard. Deputizing passengers to restrain an unruly passenger would be
> a reasonable use of the captain's power.
Again, we're talking two different issues here: willing deputization and
unwilling, esp. if unable based on reasonable risk to oneself. The point of
the law, if such a law exists, would be to make sure the passenger is NOT
liable to future damages if undue force occurs. Then the passenger can argue
that she was deputized and the responsibility rests with the airliner.
>
>
> The passengers in this case were all volunteers, but I can see a
> situation where the captain could order several of them to guard and
> restrain the suspect.
Again, see above. Many people would be both willing and able to be deputized;
many would not (a pregnant woman, a child, a physical coward). So
"deputization" suggests being both willing and able, not unwilling and/or
unable. NOBODY can be forced to risk his or her life or injury, unless that
person is conscripted in the military, belongs to a police force, etc. I am
willing to concede that personal belongings might be taken away unwillingly,
such as a belt, if necessary, to tie somebody in an emergency, assuming that
article would be so rare in the first place (the person would later be
compensated of course). Police certainly have the right, I suppose, to use a
citizen's private telephone, for example, although that right would be almost
certainly theoretical in most cases, since police would almost certainly have
reasonable tools to make their own calls.
>
>
> > It used to be illegal to forcefully or deviously
> > "impress" people into the army or the navy, which was a common
> > practice centuries ago.
>
> The draft ended in the U.S. in the 1970s, and I see no meaningful
> difference between it and those earlier practices. The draft is still
> not illegal.
Laws constitute a "reasonable difference." I think you're recklessly throwing
words around in this post. Forceful impressment, such as happend often
centuries ago was certainly a common practice (Americans might be impressed by
the British navy), but this was hardly considered legal by international law.
The draft was voted in by a democratic nation. How can you compare the two?
You migtht compare them in the realm of philosophy, but not in the realm of
law.
>
>
> > Whether passengers volunteer or not is
> > another issue. On the contrary, the law suggests the opposite:
> > that citizens should not be endangered in criminal pursuit.
> > Anyway, even if such a law existed it would be virtually
> > unenforceable I suspect. As for the other issue,
> >
> > > The captain of the aircraft also has the authority to have a
> > > passenger shot, if it's necessary to maintain order.
> >
> > that's obviously much more credible, since it's true on the ground
> > too. In fact, ANYBODY can shoot anyone to protect himself or
> > property, so it's even more likely this is true in the air, where
> > hundreds of lives are at stake.
>
> This is not correct. It is illegal in many U.S. jurisdictions to shoot
> someone merely to defend personal property.
Nobody is denying that gratutous shooting while one's property is being
expropriated is not necessarily defensible, legally or morally. That goes
without saying. If, say, my VCR is being carried away and there is no
immediate harm to myself, that's different than, say, someone breaking my
window forcing me to shoot wildly at the figure. I know of NO region in the US
where one would be held accountable for this. However, if I follow someone
outside who has my VCR and shoot him five times in the back, that's entirely
different. That's gratuitous murder, with no serious risk to my own life. Try
to use words carefully, please.
ful...@yahoo.com
Interestingly, I just noticed this news item from Yahoo, with all the issues well
covered. That, of course, does not prove that ALL US states have the same legal
norms, but it's unlikely that there would be significance differences among them.
LENOIR, N.C. (APBnews.com) -- Authorities say that a homeowner who
shot two suspected burglars to death appears to have acted in self-defense.
Caldwell County District Attorney David Flaherty said today that no charges
would likely be filed against Keith Nadeau, 44, for killing John Wesley Dula
Jr., 36, and Danny Koonce Jr.,
34. But he emphasized that no final decision has been made.
"Until we get the complete investigation done, we're not going to make that
call," Koonce said.
Two burglaries in one day
Nadeau and his wife, Linda, told investigators that they returned to their
home near Collettsville Sunday
afternoon and found a window broken and a television set and VCR missing,
said Capt. Danny Barlow of the
Caldwell County Sheriff's Department.
Several hours later, as they returned from a neighbor's house, they saw a red
Geo pull into their driveway. Two
men then got out and entered the house and came out with a microwave and
another VCR.
Nadeau said he was in the driveway when the car came up, and he hid in the
bushes, Barlow said. His wife told
investigators that she was walking up the driveway with a flashlight that she
shined on the car.
Nadeau then fired through an open car window, killing both men, Barlow said.
Was safety at stake?
Investigators have evidence that Koonce and Dula committed the first
break-in, Barlow said, but the missing
items have not been recovered.
Flaherty said the issue is whether Nadeau had reason to fear for his own
safety in the confrontation.
Brad Ferguson
The point remains that sheriffs can form posses. You say, without
evidence, that "in all these cases the deputized citizens are both
willing and able," and you apparently have drawn this opinion from
movies you've seen.
But it doesn't matter at all. The fact is that the captain is
empowered to do what he needs to do to presrve order aboard his
aircraft. If he needs to draft deputies to preserve order, he can and
will and should do it.
I said "meaningful difference," and I still don't see one.
Conscription is conscription is conscription. Tarting it up with laws
and bureaucracy may somehow make it more politically palatable, but the
nature of the thing isn't any different.
> I think you're recklessly throwing words around in this post.
I don't. However, I do think that accusing someone of "recklessly
throwing words around" indicates that the accuser has no argument to
make.
> Forceful impressment, such as happend often centuries ago was
> certainly a common practice (Americans might be impressed by the
> British navy), but this was hardly considered legal by
> international law. The draft was voted in by a democratic nation.
> How can you compare the two? You migtht compare them in the realm
> of philosophy, but not in the realm of law.
American sailors of British origin were impressed by the British navy,
on the grounds that they remained British. You have provided nothing
to suggest whether it was legal or not under international law; it was
certainly legal under British Admiralty law. Impressment was a point
of bitter dispute between the U.S. and Britain, and it was not settled
in court, but by the Peace of Ghent.
> > > Whether passengers volunteer or not is another issue. On the
> > > contrary, the law suggests the opposite: that citizens should
> > > not be endangered in criminal pursuit. Anyway, even if such a
> > > law existed it would be virtually unenforceable I suspect. As
> > > for the other issue,
> > >
> > > > The captain of the aircraft also has the authority to have
> > > > a passenger shot, if it's necessary to maintain order.
> > >
> > > that's obviously much more credible, since it's true on the
> > > ground too. In fact, ANYBODY can shoot anyone to protect
> > > himself or property, so it's even more likely this is true in
> > > the air, where hundreds of lives are at stake.
> >
> > This is not correct. It is illegal in many U.S. jurisdictions to
> > shoot someone merely to defend personal property.
>
> Nobody is denying that gratutous shooting while one's property is
> being expropriated is not necessarily defensible, legally or
> morally. That goes without saying.
Please read your own post. You said, without qualification, that "in
fact, ANYBODY can shoot anyone to protect himself or property, so it's
even more likely this is true in the air, where hundreds of lives are
at stake." Now you say that "nobody is denying that gratutous shooting
while one's property is being expropriated is not necessarily
defensible, legally or morally," and that this "goes without saying."
Well, no, it doesn't.
> If, say, my VCR is being carried away and there is no immediate
> harm to myself, that's different than, say, someone breaking my
> window forcing me to shoot wildly at the figure. I know of NO
> region in the US where one would be held accountable for this.
Try the state of New Jersey, which requires you to escape from your
home under the circumstances you describe, if it is at all possible to
do so. I suspect there are other jurisdictions, state and local, which
require the same, but I can't cite them.
> However, if I follow someone outside who has my VCR and shoot him
five times in the back, that's entirely different. That's gratuitous
murder, with no serious risk to my own life. Try to use words
carefully, please.
That's good advice. You should take it.