DON'T Watch the Sky Marshals, Or Else
D.F. Manno
<http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/23/opinion/23HERB.html>
> Dr. Bob Rajcoomar, a U.S. citizen and former military physician from Lake
> Worth, Fla., found himself handcuffed and taken into custody last month
> in one of the many episodes of hysteria to erupt on board airliners in
> the U.S. since the Sept. 11 attacks.
>
> Dr. Rajcoomar was seated in first class on a Delta Airlines flight from
> Atlanta to Philadelphia on Aug. 31 when a passenger in the coach section
> began behaving erratically. The passenger, Steven Feuer, had nothing to
> do with Dr. Rajcoomar.
>
> Two U.S. air marshals got up from their seats in first class and moved
> back to coach to confront Mr. Feuer, who was described by witnesses as a
> slight man who seemed disoriented. What ensued was terrifying. When Mr.
> Feuer refused to remain in his seat, the marshals reacted as if they were
> trying out for the lead roles in Hollywood's latest action extravaganza.
>
> They handcuffed Mr. Feuer, hustled him into first class and restrained
> him in a seat next to Dr. Rajcoomar. The 180 or so passengers were now
> quite jittery. Dr. Rajcoomar asked to have his seat changed and a flight
> attendant obliged, finding him another seat in first class. The incident,
> already scary, could ã and should ã have ended there. But the marshals
> were not ready to let things quiet down.
>
> One of the marshals pulled a gun and brandished it at the passengers. The
> marshals loudly demanded that all passengers remain in their seats, and
> remain still. They barked a series of orders. No one should stand for any
> reason. Arms and legs should not extend into the aisles. No one should
> try to visit the restroom. The message could not have been clearer:
> anyone who disobeyed the marshals was in danger of being shot.
>
> The passengers were petrified, with most believing that there were
> terrorists on the plane....
>
> There were no terrorists on board. There was no threat of any kind. When
> the plane landed about half an hour later, Mr. Feuer was taken into
> custody. And then, shockingly, so was Dr. Rajcoomar. The air marshals
> grabbed the doctor from behind, handcuffed him and, for no good reason
> that anyone has been able to give, hauled him to an airport police
> station where he was thrown into a filthy cell.
>
> This was airline security gone berserk. No one ever suggested that Dr.
> Rajcoomar, a straight-arrow retired Army major, had done anything wrong.
>
> Dr. Rajcoomar, who is of Indian descent, said he believes he was taken
> into custody solely because of his brown skin. He was held for three
> frightening hours and then released without being charged. Mr. Feuer was
> also released....
>
> The Transportation Security Administration has declined to discuss the
> incident in detail. A spokesman offered the absurd explanation that Dr.
> Rajcoomar was detained because he had watched the unfolding incident "too
> closely."
So apparently it was not a good thing that the passengers on Flight 93
watched things "too closely."
--
D.F. Manno
domm...@netscape.net
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." (Benjamin Franklin)
Max C. Webster III
<<lots o' snippage here>>
>From Monday's N.Y. Times:
><http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/23/opinion/23HERB.html>
>
>> . . . in one of the many episodes of hysteria to erupt on board airliners in
>> the U.S. since the Sept. 11 attacks . . .
>>
>> . . .What ensued was terrifying . . .
>>
>> . . . the marshals reacted as if they were
>> trying out for the lead roles in Hollywood's latest action extravaganza . .
.
>>
>> The 180 or so passengers were now
>> quite jittery . . .
>>
>> . . . The incident,
>> already scary, could ‹ and should ‹ have ended there. But the marshals
>> were not ready to let things quiet down . . .
>>
>> . . .One of the marshals pulled a gun and brandished it at the passengers .
. .
>>
>> . . . They barked a series of orders . . .
>>
>> . . . anyone who disobeyed the marshals was in danger of being shot . . .
>>
>> . . . The passengers were petrified . . .
>>
>> . . . There was no threat of any kind . . .
>>
>> . . . The air marshals grabbed the doctor . . . and, for no good reason
>> . . . he was thrown into a filthy cell.
>>
>> . . . This was airline security gone berserk . . .
>>
>> . . . A spokesman offered [an] absurd explanation . . .
>>
>So apparently it was not a good thing that the passengers on Flight 93
>watched things "too closely."
First things first, if this story is true, these sky marshalls need be fired
and have their asses seriously kicked (the order of these events is
unimportant).
However, what struck me about this editorial was the poor writing for something
in the NY Times. This is the type of sensationalism I would expect from a
column in The Post. It is so over the top that I can't give it any creedence
on its face.
- Max -
=======
Jack, relax. Get busy with the faqs.
Lalbert1
maxx...@aol.com.mil.gov (Max C. Webster III) writes:
>First things first, if this story is true, these sky marshalls need be fired
>and have their asses seriously kicked (the order of these events is
>unimportant).
>
>However, what struck me about this editorial was the poor writing for
>something
>in the NY Times. This is the type of sensationalism I would expect from a
>column in The Post. It is so over the top that I can't give it any creedence
>on its face.
It's not an editorial, it's an article. Article writers, even for the N.Y.
Times, are just as likely to be second-rate at their work as are sky marshalls.
And I will bet you a dollar to a donut that the marshalls will not be fired. I
will bet you five dollars to two donuts that we will never hear anything more
about the disposition of the incident.
Les
Gary S. Callison
I will take that bet. I would like Boston Kreme doughnuts, please.
The good doctor is suing, and I suspect that there's all kinds of civil
rights types who are interested in how this plays out. Unless someone
hands him a huge out-of-court settlement, I bet we'll hear about this
again.
--
Huey
Lalbert1
(Gary S. Callison) writes:
It's a bet I would like to lose, dollars or donuts.
Les
Kevin O'Neill
Oooh, gimmie some of that five to two action. If I were him I would
sue like hell, make all kindsa fuss.
Does Krispy Kreme have some kind of coupon system? I'd think mailing
them would degrade the quality a mite.
Kevin
Lalbert1
(Kevin O'Neill) writes:
I was giving you the better payoff. My bet is *my* five dollars to *your* two
donuts. If you are so certain that you will win then you will not have to
concern yourself about how to ship donuts.
I will bet you $1 to a donut that you misunderstood how the bet works.
Les
Kevin O'Neill
Of course, I get the money. I just liked the idea of mailing someone
two donuts.
>I will bet you $1 to a donut that you misunderstood how the bet works.
But... are you betting under the original rules, as you intended, or
under the rules as you thought I misunderstood them, or are you
changing the rules to the rules you thought I wanted, or am I
misunderstanding you in thinking that you are doing so, and thus
should in fact be researching shipping donuts still? Or not?
Kevin
seems clear to me
Lalbert1
(Kevin O'Neill) writes:
Absolutely (maybe).
Les
Jason Quick
>Lalbert wrote:
> >I will bet you $1 to a donut that you misunderstood how the bet works.
>
> But... are you betting under the original rules, as you intended, or
> under the rules as you thought I misunderstood them, or are you
> changing the rules to the rules you thought I wanted, or am I
> misunderstanding you in thinking that you are doing so, and thus
> should in fact be researching shipping donuts still? Or not?
Oh, fuck me to tears. Only on AFCA could two people argue on the terms of
a non-existent bet. : )
Jason
Charles A Lieberman
<dommanno-BFFDB6...@news2.localnet.com>
>> The Transportation Security Administration has declined to discuss the
>> incident in detail. A spokesman offered the absurd explanation that Dr.
>> Rajcoomar was detained because he had watched the unfolding incident "too
>> closely."
They put the guy in the seat next to his and then took him into custody
for, um, being next to the seat?
--
Charles A. Lieberman | Taylor, you can't love a man with no head!
Brooklyn, New York, USA |
http://calieber.tripod.com/ cali...@bigfoot.com
Gary S. Callison
: "Kevin O'Neill" <K_S_O...@yahoo.com> wrote :
Nonexistant these nuts. I'm gonna watch the news, and when Doctor
Not-A-Terrorist's civil rights case comes up, I WANT MY TWO DONUTS.
--
Huey
Lalbert1
(Gary S. Callison) writes:
You shall have them.
As I told you earlier, I will be very happy to lose this bet. In the meantime,
although this seems like grist for the 11:00 PM news mill, I haven't heard a
word about the event on any news program (radio or TV).
Les
Estron
> Oh, fuck me to tears.
No, thanks.
> Only on AFCA could two people argue on the terms of
> a non-existent bet. : )
Oh, if it involved emoticons, Bans on Various Things, and other so-
called "rules" of the newsgroup, you could find something similar on
alt.folklore.urban.
--
All opinions expressed are only that.
Pax vobiscum.
est...@tfs.net
Kansas City, Missouri
SoCalMike
"Estron" <est...@tfs.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.17fd8d1c2...@news.birch.net...
> Previously on alt.fan.cecil-adams, Jason Quick wrote:
>
> > Oh, fuck me to tears.
>
> No, thanks.
>
> > Only on AFCA could two people argue on the terms of
> > a non-existent bet. : )
>
> Oh, if it involved emoticons, Bans on Various Things, and other so-
> called "rules" of the newsgroup, you could find something similar on
> alt.folklore.urban.
which is why we rock, and they suck so hard.
Richard
The guys in it (more than 5,000 now) are almost all ex-Uniformed Customs
agents. I guess Customs treated 'em poorly and they all left for greener
pastures and a $10,000 pay raise.
Unfortunately, the Air Marshal program, being new, is not as well organized
as they would wish, so they're all working more than they were promised
(which SUCKS if you are required to travel and weren't planning on it).
On the other hand, the guys (they're almost all male, I think) are pretty
good guys. But they're cops first and foremost, used to rolling around in
the dirt with the bad guys every once in a while. They're aldrenaline
junkies and like to be near the "action" or they wouldn't have been cops in
the first place.
Now take a bunch of testosterone-filled men, who enjoy running and catching
fleeing "illegals", or wrestling and handcuffing a drunk wife beater (for
those ex-state cops that are also a part of the program) and tell them to
sit quietly in an airline cabin for 10 hours per day, six days per week.
They are not suited for that. In general, nothing ever happens in an
airplane cabin, that's why it makes the news when something does go down.
The same thing was happening with the National Guard who were present in
airports for a while. Initially it worked, but as the soldiers got bored,
they started picking fights and abusing their uniform (they had no formal
power, but they did carry guns). They were aggressive men, trained for
fighting and they were standing around airport terminals with nothing to do.
Not a good combination. Many got in trouble for being heavy-handed.
So, the Sky Marshal program is a great idea, but the execution will have to
be ironed out.
On the other hand, I'm on the side of the Sky Marshals on the Delta flight.
Their job is to guard the cockpit against entry and they are specifically
trained how to do it. If that training involves making everyone sit down
and having a drawn gun at the cockpit door, well, then that is what they do.
I hope they're not fired.
-Richard
Gary S. Callison
: The same thing was happening with the National Guard who were present in
: airports for a while. Initially it worked, but as the soldiers got bored,
: they started picking fights and abusing their uniform (they had no formal
: power, but they did carry guns). They were aggressive men, trained for
: fighting and they were standing around airport terminals with nothing to do.
: Not a good combination. Many got in trouble for being heavy-handed.
No, they're MPs, trained to stand around with guns and look menacing.
"Standing around with nothing to do" is a large part of the MP mission. Go
to an army post, what's the first thing you see? An MP, standing at the
gate, doing nothing.
I'm fairly certain there's all sorts of other bad overgeneralizations and
logical inconsistancies in your post, but this is the one that made me
laugh out loud...
--
Huey
Carl Fink
> On the other hand, I'm on the side of the Sky Marshals on the Delta flight.
> Their job is to guard the cockpit against entry and they are specifically
> trained how to do it. If that training involves making everyone sit down
> and having a drawn gun at the cockpit door, well, then that is what they do.
Sure, and their training includes not identifying themselves as
marshals? Detaining random[1] Army veterans for looking at them?
[1]I hope it was random, I fear it was racist.
--
Carl Fink ca...@fink.to
I-Con's Science and Technology Programming
<http://www.iconsf.org/>
RM Mentock
> [1]I hope it was random, I fear it was racist.
Well, the guy was sitting next to the perp
--
RM Mentock
Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistant one -- A.E.
RM Mentock
I mean, after they moved him there, right?
D.F. Manno
wrote:
> Now take a bunch of testosterone-filled men, who enjoy running and catching
> fleeing "illegals", or wrestling and handcuffing a drunk wife beater (for
> those ex-state cops that are also a part of the program) and tell them to
> sit quietly in an airline cabin for 10 hours per day, six days per week.
>
> They are not suited for that.
Then why did they take the job? They didn't know that it would consist
of long stretches of boredom punctuated by rare moments of potential
danger?
<snip>
> The same thing was happening with the National Guard who were present in
> airports for a while. Initially it worked, but as the soldiers got bored,
> they started picking fights and abusing their uniform (they had no formal
> power, but they did carry guns). They were aggressive men, trained for
> fighting
You don't know much about the National Guard, do you? They're not
full-time soldiers, they're everyday citizens from all walks of life.
They're not Rambos. I know because my father was a Guardsman for 29
years.
They're trained for a number of things other than fighting (e.g., urban
riot duty, disaster relief, etc.). Many of the functions they serve when
called to active duty are support, not combat-related.
<snip>
> On the other hand, I'm on the side of the Sky Marshals on the Delta flight.
> Their job is to guard the cockpit against entry and they are specifically
> trained how to do it. If that training involves making everyone sit down
> and having a drawn gun at the cockpit door, well, then that is what they
> do.
1) You don't think it was over the top to hold a gun on passengers who
had nothing to do with the disturbance, and who by all accounts were
doing nothing to interfere with the marshals?
2) You completely ignored the case of the doctor who according to the
feds was arrested for watching the incident "too closely." The marshals
on the Delta flight decided that a passenger who was paying what they
thought was too much attention to what they were doing deserved to be
arrested. (Maybe the marshals knew they were doing something wrong and
decided to try to intimidate the witness with an arrest.) And a
spokesperson at the TSA defended that decision.
Either that or they busted the guy because of his brown skin. (He's of
Indian descent.)
If that's the training the marshals are receiving, the training needs to
be rethought.
> I hope they're not fired.
I don't know if what the marshals did was a firing offense, but they
should definitely be disciplined.
Richard
incident where the soldier was simply walking around ordering people to do
things. His body language told me he was itching for a fight.
How sure are you about your "MP" assumption? I remember seeing very few
Military Police at the airports. Most of them I believe were active-duty
reserists and others that were called up.
Perhaps I'm wrong...Military Police wear black insignia that specify "MP",
don't they? And carry sidearms? The guys I saw causing trouble were not
armed with sidearms but M-16s (which I hope were not loaded) and had no MP
insignia.
I stand by my notion that making a soldier stand around and do nothing
related to his job (army post MPs are at least guarding an army post, not
just standing around at an airport with no law-enforcement duties) will lead
to trouble. And it did.
It was kinda Vietnam-like in it's execution...the president sent 'em in with
no clear rules, job descriptions or powers.
-Richard
"Gary S. Callison" <hu...@interaccess.com> wrote in message
news:TFgl9.20$121....@dca1-nnrp2.news.algx.net...
Richard
> Then why did they take the job? They didn't know that it would consist
> of long stretches of boredom punctuated by rare moments of potential
> danger?
I dunno. It looks like the biggest nightmare of a job of which I could
conceive.
Actually, a lot of the reasons had to do with how poorly they were treated
by their old agency (mainly Customs) and the promises made about the working
hours that were a lot more reasonable than they ended up with. I can't
remember specifics, but I think they were promised five-on and three or four
off or five on and two off with every third week at home for training.
Whatever it was, the execution turned out to be a lot of six-week days with
one day off at home.
>
> They're trained for a number of things other than fighting (e.g., urban
> riot duty, disaster relief, etc.). Many of the functions they serve when
> called to active duty are support, not combat-related.
Nope. I don't know anything about the National Guard, other than a small
minority of them are royal assholes when given guns and nothing to do but
hang around at airports. I thought I was giving them the benefit of the
doubt by attributing the assholeness to them being asked to do something
that didn't suit their temperment.
-Richard
Gary S. Callison
: I don't know anything about the National Guard...
That was apparent from your post, yes.
--
Huey
Sean Houtman
All of our rules are unwritten, read all of them in our recent unwritten rules
thread.
Sean
--
Visit my photolog page; http://members.aol.com/grommit383/myhomepage
Last updated 08-04-02 with 15 pictures of the Aztec Ruins.
Address mungled. To email, please spite my face.
ctc...@hotmail.com
>
> No, they're MPs, trained to stand around with guns and look menacing.
When did the MPs stop wearing their armbands?
Are (were) their guns even loaded?
>
> I'm fairly certain there's all sorts of other bad overgeneralizations and
> logical inconsistancies in your post, but this is the one that made me
> laugh out loud...
Well, OK then.
Xho
--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service
John Hatpin
>Whatever it was, the execution turned out to be a lot of six-week days with
>one day off at home.
Those are long hours, yes. When do they find the time to sleep during
a six-week day?
--
John Hatpin
ctc...@hotmail.com
> So, the Sky Marshal program is a great idea, but the execution will have
> to be ironed out.
Maybe they should iron out the TSA agents, too. Now it's less convenient
to fly from small airports than large ones, as the small airports have
roving hoards of bored TSA agents with nothing better to do than harass the
passengers.
> On the other hand, I'm on the side of the Sky Marshals on the Delta
> flight. Their job is to guard the cockpit against entry and they are
> specifically trained how to do it.
By taking someone who was acting weird but not trying to enter the cockpit,
and moving them from where he was to a place closer to the cockpit?
And then taking someone completely unrelated into custody for 3 hours after
the plane had already landed?
> If that training involves making
> everyone sit down and having a drawn gun at the cockpit door, well, then
> that is what they do.
By terrorizing a plane full of civilians, the SkyMarshalls became
terrorists.
Carl Fink
> I mean, after they moved him there, right?
Yeah, the moved the deranged guy (NOT a hijacker) from coach to first
class next to Dr. Rajcoomar. He got permission from a flight
attendant to move and did so. So he got detained.
SoCalMike
"Sean Houtman" <seanh...@aol.comnose> wrote in message
news:20020928161718...@mb-fi.aol.com...
> From: "SoCalMike" mikein562...@hotmail.com
>
> >
> >"Estron" <est...@tfs.net> wrote in message
> >news:MPG.17fd8d1c2...@news.birch.net...
> >> Previously on alt.fan.cecil-adams, Jason Quick wrote:
> >>
> >> > Oh, fuck me to tears.
> >>
> >> No, thanks.
> >>
> >> > Only on AFCA could two people argue on the terms of
> >> > a non-existent bet. : )
> >>
> >> Oh, if it involved emoticons, Bans on Various Things, and other so-
> >> called "rules" of the newsgroup, you could find something similar on
> >> alt.folklore.urban.
> >
> >which is why we rock, and they suck so hard.
> >
>
> All of our rules are unwritten, read all of them in our recent unwritten
rules
> thread.
and we dont have stick up our asses. then again, we arent shopping a cheesy
teevee show around either.
Richard
> Maybe they should iron out the TSA agents, too. Now it's less convenient
> to fly from small airports than large ones, as the small airports have
> roving hoards of bored TSA agents with nothing better to do than harass
the
> passengers.
They're getting better by the day, believe it or not. They started off
operating without any set of rules at all. Now the rules are slowly taking
form. It will be a year or two before there is any accountability though,
which is a really bad thing. Right now they have carte blanche which is a
bad thing in any govenment agency.
>
>
> By taking someone who was acting weird but not trying to enter the
cockpit,
> and moving them from where he was to a place closer to the cockpit?
Pure speculation from my part, but my assumption is that the Marshals are
supposed to be together. One has to guard the door. If they need to detain
someone, that prisoner would have to be near the guy who's guarding him,
who's near the guy who is guarding the cockpit. It actually makes sense.
> And then taking someone completely unrelated into custody for 3 hours
after
> the plane had already landed?
He asked the flight attendant for "permission to move", which was the story
told here. At the time the Sky Marshals take over a cabin, under no
circumstances are flight attendants even involved in any decision making
process with in-flight security situations.
A plane is now considered a "weapon of mass destruction". If armed agents
take measures to protect it...well I liken it to some pissy bystander
getting involved in a drug bust or armed stand-off. If the agents take
control, they have control. If you're a pissy doctor who is used to
ordering nurses around and you don't like the way the agents are performing,
the time to make a fuss is probably not during the security action, but
afterwards. Since I don't know the details, that's as much speculation as
I'll make. The operative phrase here was, "He asked the flight attendant
permission to move seats." Did the Sky Marshals order the cabin to remain
seated? I would bet a one-hundred dollar bill that they did.
I believe that under their engagement rules, once they have taken control,
everyone stays seated and anyone standing up after the order is to be shot.
I am not kidding about this. They tell the cabin to remain seated and are
to assume that anyone who moves is a threat to be taken out. It's fucking
serious business, does everyone have memories shorter than one year?
I read about this in the newspaper BTW, I'm not giving out any non-public
info.
> By terrorizing a plane full of civilians, the SkyMarshalls became
> terrorists.
Oh please. And the Marshals knew for certain that the loon they detained
wasn't a fake to get them to blow cover? Think this through, folks.
-Richard
D.F. Manno
wrote:
> Right now they have carte blanche which is a
> bad thing in any govenment agency.
You got that right. Unfortunately, you undercut your own words by
defending below what the marshals did with their carte blanche.
<snip>
> He asked the flight attendant for "permission to move", which was the
> story told here. At the time the Sky Marshals take over a cabin, under no
> circumstances are flight attendants even involved in any decision making
> process with in-flight security situations.
1) Is this more speculation on your part, or do you have a cite to back
up this assertion?
2) How was the passenger supposed to know that the flight attendants had
no authority to let him change seats? Is the security protocol now read
to passengers along with the emergency instructions?
> A plane is now considered a "weapon of mass destruction". If armed
> agents take measures to protect it...well I liken it to some pissy
> bystander getting involved in a drug bust or armed stand-off. If the
> agents take control, they have control. If you're a pissy doctor who
> is used to ordering nurses around and you don't like the way the
> agents are performing, the time to make a fuss is probably not during
> the security action, but afterwards. Since I don't know the details,
> that's as much speculation as I'll make.
Well, at least you admit you don't have a clue as to what you're talking
about. You don't know how the doctor was acting. Somebody who was being
treated by the marshals as though he might be a terrorist was plopped
down in a seat next to the doctor. He understandably did not want to sit
next to the man and asked to be moved.
> The operative phrase here
> was, "He asked the flight attendant permission to move seats." Did
> the Sky Marshals order the cabin to remain seated? I would bet a
> one-hundred dollar bill that they did.
No, the operative phrase here is "too closely." The doctor wasn't
arrested because he changed seats. He was arrested because, in the words
of a TSA spokesperson, he watched the incident "too closely."
> I believe that under their engagement rules, once they have taken
> control, everyone stays seated and anyone standing up after the order
> is to be shot. I am not kidding about this. They tell the cabin to
> remain seated and are to assume that anyone who moves is a threat to
> be taken out.
"I believe"? You're just a fountain of unreliable information.
Everything you're saying is either speculation or belief.
Do you have any cites to back up this belief, or are you just blowing
smoke?
> It's fucking serious business, does everyone have
> memories shorter than one year?
Sept. 11 is not a magic wand that you can wave over a situation
and--Presto!--even the most egregious behavior by the government or its
agents is justified in the name of "homeland security."
We still have rights, no matter how zealously John Ashcroft's Justice
Department is working to trash them. One of them is the right not to be
treated like a criminal in the absence of any evidence of wrongdoing.
The doctor did nothing wrong; yet he was arrested anyway.
StarChaser Tyger
>
>"I believe"? You're just a fountain of unreliable information.
>Everything you're saying is either speculation or belief.
Yeah, that NEVER happens around here...
Pot, kettle. Kettle, pot.
--
Visit the Furry Artist InFURmation Page! Contact information, which artists
do and don't want their work posted. http://web.tampabay.rr.com/starchsr/
Address no longer munged for the inconvienence of spammers.
(Yes, this really is me.)
D.F. Manno
Tyger <starc...@mindless.com> wrote:
> We get signal. What you say? It's "D.F. Manno" <domm...@netscape.net> !
>
> >"I believe"? You're just a fountain of unreliable information.
> >Everything you're saying is either speculation or belief.
>
> Yeah, that NEVER happens around here...
>
> Pot, kettle. Kettle, pot.
And you should know.
StarChaser Tyger
>In article <j2eepusdv1kqfd59s...@4ax.com>, StarChaser
>Tyger <starc...@mindless.com> wrote:
>
>> We get signal. What you say? It's "D.F. Manno" <domm...@netscape.net> !
>>
>> >"I believe"? You're just a fountain of unreliable information.
>> >Everything you're saying is either speculation or belief.
>>
>> Yeah, that NEVER happens around here...
>>
>> Pot, kettle. Kettle, pot.
>
>And you should know.
Yup. I tried to have a rational discussion with you.
Lalbert1
<domm...@netscape.net> writes:
>In article <j2eepusdv1kqfd59s...@4ax.com>, StarChaser
>Tyger <starc...@mindless.com> wrote:
>
>> We get signal. What you say? It's "D.F. Manno" <domm...@netscape.net> !
>> >"I believe"? You're just a fountain of unreliable information.
>> >Everything you're saying is either speculation or belief.
>> Yeah, that NEVER happens around here...
>>
>> Pot, kettle. Kettle, pot.
>And you should know.
I will bet two dollars to three donuts that the pot KO's the kettle in the
third round.
Les
Carl Fink
Manno wrote:
> We still have rights, no matter how zealously John Ashcroft's Justice
> Department is working to trash them. One of them is the right not to be
> treated like a criminal in the absence of any evidence of wrongdoing.
> The doctor did nothing wrong; yet he was arrested anyway.
I agree with the sentiment, but Dr. Rajcoomar was not arrested, only
detained for 3 hours and released. It's different.
ctc...@hotmail.com
>
> Oh please. And the Marshals knew for certain that the loon they
> detained wasn't a fake to get them to blow cover? Think this through,
> folks.
So what are we going to do after a couple people stand up in a plane waving
weapon around, screaming "We're SkyMarshalls, and we'll shoot anyone who
stands up." and then fly the plane into the Sear's Tower?
Think it through.
Blinky the Shark
> "Richard" <invalid...@notme.com> wrote:
>>
>> Oh please. And the Marshals knew for certain that the loon they
>> detained wasn't a fake to get them to blow cover? Think this through,
>> folks.
>
> So what are we going to do after a couple people stand up in a plane waving
> weapon around, screaming "We're SkyMarshalls, and we'll shoot anyone who
> stands up." and then fly the plane into the Sear's Tower?
We should probably find a way to break the news to Sear. Looks like
it's his tower.
Anyway, the answer is to only hire doctors to be sky marshals. It'll be
costly, but at least they're "respectable".
--
Blinky
D.F. Manno
> In article <dommanno-28E3B1...@news2.localnet.com>, D.F.
> Manno wrote:
>
> > We still have rights, no matter how zealously John Ashcroft's Justice
> > Department is working to trash them. One of them is the right not to be
> > treated like a criminal in the absence of any evidence of wrongdoing.
> > The doctor did nothing wrong; yet he was arrested anyway.
>
> I agree with the sentiment, but Dr. Rajcoomar was not arrested, only
> detained for 3 hours and released. It's different.
I was incorrect in saying he was arrested. But they did cuff him and put
him in a cell.
Richard
What I gave you was what I have read, but know to be public. I have not
told you any non-public information, nor will I.
When the Air Marshals secure a plane, you may not move.
Why you think someone who's bona fides were not verified until after the
fact was certainly not a threat is beyond me.
You do not know who is a terrorist and who isn't. In fact, if you are
involved in a hijacking, every single passenger, including crewmembers will
be treated as suspects.
You want cops to save us from terrorists but not bother doctors. Fine, if
you can let us all know your fool-proof way of knowing the difference. Did
I mention it must be fool-proof?
If there was a bank robbery on your corner, do you have the right to walk
past police lines while it's going on? Thought not. What's the difference?
Richard
> I agree with the sentiment, but Dr. Rajcoomar was not arrested, only
> detained for 3 hours and released. It's different.
Correct. Who he was and why he was there were verified. The marshals have
no way of doing that during a security action.
Richard
Can't cite.
<ctc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:20020929175015.834$a...@newsreader.com...
Richard
offering a better answer.
You criticize the Marshals for detaining a good doctor. What should they
have done? Assumed the doctor was good?
From the news stories I read, the good doctor was a pain in the ass and
complained loud and often about how heavy-handed the sky marshals were. But
if you break down the incident, the marshals took over the plane (as they
have legal right to do), secured a possible security risk and guarded the
cockpit door until the aircraft made a safe landing.
Sometime in all of this, the good doctor got fed up. He moved seats after
being instructed to remain where he was. He did not get shot (although they
would have been within their rights to shoot him) but he did get detained.
Again, everyone wants security, no one likes the way security is being
handled yet nobody is making any better suggestions.
You don't think it's appropriate for 80 year-old grandmothers to be
searched? Ok, let's never search them. Now how do you think the next
weapons are going to get on board, if the terrorists know that 80 year-old
women are never searched?
You don't think that a good doctor should be ordered around by an armed
agent, since he is a good doctor and all? Well, how about Lindh, or the
wonderful Tim McVeigh? How in the holy fuck do you know who is a good guy
and who is a bad guy during a security situation?
Seriously--fill us all in on how we know a "good doctor" vs. a "bad
terrorist"?
They way the Marshals do it is to tell everyone to remain seated and to blow
the heads off of anyone who doesn't.
Well, not always, as this case indicates. Perhaps you're not giving them
enough credit.
What's your solution?
-Richard
Carl Fink
> From the news stories I read, the good doctor was a pain in the ass and
> complained loud and often about how heavy-handed the sky marshals were.
Cite? The five stories I've read don't mention this, and the
Transportation Security people did NOT give this as a reason for his
detention.
> Sometime in all of this, the good doctor got fed up. He moved seats after
> being instructed to remain where he was.
Again, this is not in any story I've seen on the incident. He asked
a flight attendant for permission to move, then moved. There's
nothing in there about ignoring Sky Marshal instructions.
(If I took a prisoner, I would certainly NOT restrain him next to a
passenger. I would move the passenger myself before ordering him to
remain in his new seat.)
> Again, everyone wants security, no one likes the way security is being
> handled yet nobody is making any better suggestions.
Don't pick on people whose only crime is being noticed by marshals?
Lots42
>They way the Marshals do it is to tell everyone to remain seated and to blow
>the heads off of anyone who doesn't.
>
>Well, not always, as this case indicates.
How do we know they are marshalls and not crazy lunatics with cracker-jack
badges?
I thought we were supposed to rush and beat the holy living hell out of anyone
who stands up in a plane and waves a weapon.
John Hatpin
>From the news stories I read, the good doctor was a pain in the ass and
>complained loud and often about how heavy-handed the sky marshals were.
Cite?
--
John Hatpin
Richard
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/caribbean/search/sfl-herb23sepsep25,0
,4601649.story?coll=sfla-news-caribbean
"When Feuer refused to remain in his seat, the marshals reacted as if they
were trying out for the lead roles in Hollywood's latest action
extravaganza.
They handcuffed Feuer, hustled him into first class and restrained him in a
seat next to Rajcoomar. "
xxx
Please note "refused to stay in his seat".
Richard
"If people would have stayed in their seats and heeded those warnings, that
would not have happened," said agency spokesman Robert Johnson.
"John Hatpin" <ag...@brooREMOVEMEkview.karoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:b0bhpus3q8jt2b8al...@4ax.com...
D.F. Manno
wrote:
Please note the sentence a few lines before that one: "The passenger,
Steven Feuer, had nothing to do with Rajcoomar." We're not talking about
Feuer, we're talking about Rajcoomar (the doctor). The article also says
"No one ever suggested that Rajcoomar, a straight-arrow retired Army
major, had done anything wrong."
The article you cite is the same one I cited to start this thread. You
still haven't provided any citations to back up your claim that "From
the news stories I read, the good doctor was a pain in the ass and
complained loud and often about how heavy-handed the sky marshals were."
What news stories?
Likewise, you still haven't provided any reason why the doctor was wrong
for having changed seats. He asked the flight attendant for permission
to move. How was he supposed to know that that the attendant didn't have
the authority to grant that permission?
John Hatpin
No, I was asking for a cite about Rajcoomar. That's who you were
talking about, not Feuer. To remind you, here's the full sentence you
wrote:
>From the news stories I read, the good doctor was a pain in the ass and
>complained loud and often about how heavy-handed the sky marshals were.
Now, provide a cite that says that Rajcoomar was being a pain in the
ass, complaining loud and often. Until you do, I'll think you just
made that bit up to suit your version of events.
--
John Hatpin
Richard
Neither the loon, nor the good doctor did as told. The good doctor (which
has not been mentioned) had dark skin and an Arabic appearance. He was
Indian.
Again, "The Sky Marshals take control, you don't move."
What, exactly is the difficulty in your understanding? Do you wish to
argue, "The Sky Marshals take control, you do what you want", or "The Sky
Marshals take control, but they shouldn't have", or "The Sky Marshals take
control of only the really bad guys and let the rest do what they want"?
Seriously, what is the argument? We have Sky Marshals now, if there is a
security situation, they take control and land the plane. This makes sense
to me. Does it not make sense to you?
Again, I posit the bank robbery question: if you were in the middle of an
armed stand-off during a bank robbery, would you refuse the armed officials
orders? If so, why? If you did and they detained but did not arrest you,
would you feel wronged? Why?
Here's the quote:
"Rajcoomar asked to have his seat changed and a flight attendant obliged,
finding him another seat in first class. The incident, already scary,
could -- and should -- have ended there. But the marshals were not ready to
let things quiet down.
One of the marshals pulled a gun and brandished it at the passengers. The
marshals loudly demanded that all passengers remain in their seats, and
remain still. They barked a series of orders. No one should stand for any
reason. Arms and legs should not extend into the aisles. No one should try
to visit the restroom. The message could not have been clearer: Anyone who
disobeyed the marshals was in danger of being shot."
The AFCA Kid
>The Sky Marshals take control, you don't move.
hut hut hut
Dutch "Choppers, I need choppers!" Courage
--
"Impeach duh-be-yuh"
John Hatpin
Richard, can you find anything at all in that quote that backs up your
claim that "the good doctor was a pain in the ass and complained loud
and often about how heavy-handed the sky marshals were"? Or did you
really just make that up?
--
John Hatpin
Gary S. Callison
: Neither the loon, nor the good doctor did as told. The good doctor
: (which has not been mentioned) had dark skin and an Arabic appearance.
: He was Indian.
He was?
The good doctor _is_ an American, retired US Army major, of indian
descent. Or is 'dark skin and an Arabic appearance' a crime now?
--
Huey
Richard
> Richard, can you find anything at all in that quote that backs up your
> claim that "the good doctor was a pain in the ass and complained loud
> and often about how heavy-handed the sky marshals were"? Or did you
> really just make that up?
I read about this extensively and watched it on television. Not all
newspaper stories are archived so I only found the two that I showed you.
He was interviewed after the fact on television, which is where he continued
his complaints from the airplane. A judge got invoved as well, he didn't
like being ordered around on the plane and was irritated (but he followed
instructions during the security action).
So I rest my case. If you believe he sat meekly and out of the blue was
targeted by Sky Marshals for abuse, then I'll let you have that argument,
since I don't have a videotape of the incident and I base my opinion on the
television news stories afterword. Since "convergence" has not yet hit, I
can't replay the tv news for you.
The passengers on the flight thought the Sky Marshals were too heavy-handed,
per the Florida article. I believe that the Marshals were following
protocol. I believe that the average American does not like armed men with
guns drawn ordering them around. On the other hand, this is the system we
have, and other than complaints I haven't heard any suggestions as to what
they should do differently. Do you believe we shouldn't have Sky Marshals?
Do you believe their protocol is wrong? If so, what would you change?
To Huey, no, dark skin does not a crime make. But the idea that the Sky
Marshals shouldn't have bothered the good doctor because he obviously
wasn't a terrorist isn't borne out by the facts. He got up. Protocol says
to shoot him. They didn't shoot him, but they did treat him as a potential
threat.
-Richard
John Hatpin
>So I rest my case. If you believe he sat meekly and out of the blue was
>targeted by Sky Marshals for abuse, then I'll let you have that argument,
>since I don't have a videotape of the incident and I base my opinion on the
>television news stories afterword. Since "convergence" has not yet hit, I
>can't replay the tv news for you.
Fair enough. This conflicts with what I'd heard, but that's news
reporting for you. I wasn't trying to make a point, just hoping to
learn more about this particular aspect of the incident.
--
John Hatpin
Gary S. Callison
: I believe that the average American does not like armed men with guns
: drawn ordering them around. On the other hand, this is the system we
...and the terriers have already won.
--
Huey
Richard
What is your proposed solution? There are some pretty stark choices and the
one we've chosen is to have armed guys take control of civilian airliners.
Wanna know the scary part? Whenever they scramble those fighters to
"escort" an airliner (you know this already) they are really there to shoot
it down.
So Sky Marshals or shoot down? Our rights as Americans to not be bullied by
cops with guns or terrrorist actions?
What is your solution?
"Gary S. Callison" <hu...@interaccess.com> wrote in message
news:54jm9.25$Dw2....@dca1-nnrp2.news.algx.net...
Carl Fink
> I read about this extensively and watched it on television. Not all
> newspaper stories are archived so I only found the two that I showed you.
> He was interviewed after the fact on television, which is where he continued
> his complaints from the airplane. A judge got invoved as well, he didn't
> like being ordered around on the plane and was irritated (but he followed
> instructions during the security action).
So, you have absolutely no evidence that he did anything wrong?
Gary S. Callison
: What is your proposed solution? There are some pretty stark choices
: and the one we've chosen is to have armed guys take control of civilian
: airliners.
Why not? I mean, hell, it worked for the terrorists...
Look: ask anybody who has ever been in a flight crew. Ask anybody who has
flown a lot. Check Google. There have _always_ been unruly airline
passengers. Flying? SUCKS. And every now and then, someone will get upset,
or anxious, or assinine, or just plain freak out. Flight crews don't
particularly like this, but it's something they've dealt with in the past.
There's also a federal law against 'interfering with a flight crew'. So,
to a certain extent, a system already exists that can deal with the random
nutbag on a plane WITHOUT holding the rest of the plane full of
law-abiding americans (who have done nothing wrong) at gunpoint.
Now, if the Air Marshalls are being trained to think that every random
nutbag on a plane is a terrorist and act accordingly, then in the
overwhelming majority of cases, holding the rest of the plane at gunpoint
is only slightly less overkill than shooting the damn thing down. Instead
of getting all Secret Service paranoid, how about a good ol' New York City
cop? Somebody starts to get out of hand, big fat ol' irish or italian cop
saunters down the aisle and says "Sir, you needs to be sittin' down, or
I'll have to bust you upside the haid."
: Wanna know the scary part? Whenever they scramble those fighters to
: "escort" an airliner (you know this already) they are really there to
: shoot it down.
And, in every case except five in US airspace so far, that'd have been a
mistake. Sending fighters to shoot down a commercial airliner that has an
unruly passenger is silly. So's holding a plane full of law-abiding people
at gunpoint.
: So Sky Marshals or shoot down?
Fallacy. There are more than two answers.
: Our rights as Americans to not be bullied by cops with guns or
: terrrorist actions?
Uh, hello? Be bullied by cops or be bullied by terrorists? I know the
cliche has been driven into the ground, but dude: if the actions of the
police become indistinguishable from the actions of the terrorists,
the __________ have _______ ___.
Not to mention the point that was made by someone else upthread:
Much was made of the fact that the reason why 9/11 worked is that flight
crews were trained to just 'go along with' the hijackers, figuring that
they'd just want to go to Cuba, and nobody move and nobody gets hurt.
Then, flight 93, the people realize that this old paradigm, she no work no
more, and fight to take back the plane. So now, everybody thinks, "Okay,
someone seizes control of the plane, we fight back".
So Osama Bin Forgotten now recruits 'american-looking' people, gets 'em
fake plastic Sky Marshall badges, prepos some guns on the plane, and
*poof* 9/11 Mk II takes place with Sky Marshalls seizing the planes and
crashing 'em into the Sears Tower, the LA Coliseum, and Langley.
Sky marshall pulls a gun on you, do you say "Can I check your ID?", or do
you realize that he could be a terrorist and write a note to the big dude
across the aisle that says "I'm gonna throw my Evian at his head and go
for the gun, you take him out at the knees" ? When the police seem like
terrorists, how do you tell the difference? 'Dark-skinned and obviously
Arab' ? That poor confused sonofabitch from California doesn't look real
Arab with a shave and some clean clothes, y'know...
: What is your solution?
Don't freak out and wave your gun around every time somebody gets pissed
that the bar cart ran out of gin, the Bears lost, or the wife is sleeping
around, just because y'all happen to be on a plane together.
Picture this: Stewardess spills hot coffee in a big scary-lookin 'dark
skinned, Arab-looking' guy's lap. He leaps up and shouts something in
some middle eastern langauge you don't know. He bumps into the
stewardess, and she falls down.
Now you've got a big scary-looking Arab dude, screaming and obviously
angry, standing over the stewardess in the aisle of your airplane. Do you
shoot him, or have the plane shot down?
All I'm asking here is for you, AND the sky marshalls, to do one simple
thing: THINK before you act.
--
Huey
Richard
>
> So, you have absolutely no evidence that he did anything wrong?
Yes, he moved about the cabin after it was "secured" by the Marshals. Can't
do that.
Richard
> Look: ask anybody who has ever been in a flight crew. Ask anybody who has
> flown a lot. Check Google. There have _always_ been unruly airline
> passengers. Flying? SUCKS. And every now and then, someone will get upset,
> or anxious, or assinine, or just plain freak out. Flight crews don't
> particularly like this, but it's something they've dealt with in the past.
> There's also a federal law against 'interfering with a flight crew'. So,
> to a certain extent, a system already exists that can deal with the random
> nutbag on a plane WITHOUT holding the rest of the plane full of
> law-abiding americans (who have done nothing wrong) at gunpoint.
True. This goes back to my point about who is selected as an Air Marshal.
These guys are cops and are used to rolling around in the dirt every once in
a while. To agree with you, I would not be surprised if after three or four
months of ten-hour days of nothing happening, they spoil for a fight. I do
not disagree with you here.
I do however, feel that once they have taken control of the cabin that the
passengers remain seated and respect their authority until the situation is
taken care of. Should the Marshals have taken over? Probably not. That
can be dealt with later, and wasn't the original argument of the article
posted. Should the good doctor have moved seats after Sky Marshals secured
the cabin? No fucking way. Did the Sky Marshals do anything wrong by
detaining him? Nope.
Again should the Sky Marshals have secured the cabin? I dunno. Prolly not.
But once they did, there is a protocol and that protocol was pretty well
spelled out in the news stories. Sit down. Do not get up. Do not use the
bathroom. If you do, you will be shot.
That's the protocol, for good or for bad. If you are on the "for bad" side
(I am not) I request that you forward your better suggestion. I don't see
any other manner of dealing with in-flight security issues.
>
> Now, if the Air Marshalls are being trained to think that every random
> nutbag on a plane is a terrorist and act accordingly, then in the
> overwhelming majority of cases, holding the rest of the plane at gunpoint
> is only slightly less overkill than shooting the damn thing down.
They're not, I can't speak to this further.
> And, in every case except five in US airspace so far, that'd have been a
> mistake. Sending fighters to shoot down a commercial airliner that has an
> unruly passenger is silly.
What's the difference between an "unruly passenger" and a terrorist? Same
question I asked another poster. In flight, you do not know who the good
guys are v. the bad guys. Is it a disturbance caused to break the Marshal's
cover? Is it a disturbance to distract passengers from a takeover? Who
knows? If you have a foolproof way of knowing who is a "nutbag" and who is
a Saudi hijacker, fill us all in.
>So's holding a plane full of law-abiding people
> at gunpoint.
Who was "law-abiding"? The good doctor? Maybe, but that was not indicated
by his actions. By the nutbag? He was certainly not law-abiding.
Again, it sounds like they secured the immediate threat (nutbag) and then
secured the airplane after people (the good doctor) did not follow their
instructions. What was your solution again? There was no NY cop on board
to slap him upside the head. You have two Sky Marshals, a nutbag and people
not following instructions. What's their solution if you could whisper in
their ear?
We know now that the good doctor was all-around apple pie. They did not
know that.
>
> : So Sky Marshals or shoot down?
>
> Fallacy. There are more than two answers.
Not in dealing with a terrorist threat, which is what my question was in
regards to. If you disagree with having armed goons on planes, do you like
the alternative, which is a missile up the engine, or do you have a solution
previously unoffered? We don't know who is the terrorist in flight. We
don't.
>
> : Our rights as Americans to not be bullied by cops with guns or
> : terrrorist actions?
>
> Uh, hello? Be bullied by cops or be bullied by terrorists? I know the
> cliche has been driven into the ground, but dude: if the actions of the
> police become indistinguishable from the actions of the terrorists,
> the __________ have _______ ___.
But the terrorists killed people and the cops detained two possible threats.
I see a chasm of difference.
>
> So Osama Bin Forgotten now recruits 'american-looking' people, gets 'em
> fake plastic Sky Marshall badges, prepos some guns on the plane, and
> *poof* 9/11 Mk II takes place with Sky Marshalls seizing the planes and
> crashing 'em into the Sears Tower, the LA Coliseum, and Langley.
Can't happen, can't speak to it.
>
> Sky marshall pulls a gun on you, do you say "Can I check your ID?", or do
> you realize that he could be a terrorist and write a note to the big dude
> across the aisle that says "I'm gonna throw my Evian at his head and go
> for the gun, you take him out at the knees" ? When the police seem like
> terrorists, how do you tell the difference? 'Dark-skinned and obviously
> Arab' ? That poor confused sonofabitch from California doesn't look real
> Arab with a shave and some clean clothes, y'know...
If anyone on a plane announces they are a Sky Marshal, you have to believe
them and I can't speak to this further.
>
> Don't freak out and wave your gun around every time somebody gets pissed
> that the bar cart ran out of gin, the Bears lost, or the wife is sleeping
> around, just because y'all happen to be on a plane together.
True. You are correct. But if they do secure the cabin, does the good
doctor get to get up and move about or not?
>
> Picture this: Stewardess spills hot coffee in a big scary-lookin 'dark
> skinned, Arab-looking' guy's lap. He leaps up and shouts something in
> some middle eastern langauge you don't know. He bumps into the
> stewardess, and she falls down.
>
> Now you've got a big scary-looking Arab dude, screaming and obviously
> angry, standing over the stewardess in the aisle of your airplane. Do you
> shoot him, or have the plane shot down?
>
> All I'm asking here is for you, AND the sky marshalls, to do one simple
> thing: THINK before you act.
No argument.
John Hatpin
And, from what you're saying, he didn't have permission, but moved
anyway? And you can't find any news reports at all that back this
claim up, despite it being a pretty damned high-profile story?
And he was a "pain in the ass", and "complained loud and often" during
the flight? And news reports omit those facts, too. despite their
pertinence?
Occam's razor says they simply detained him because of the colour of
his skin. I think the onus falls on you to disprove that before
anyone with half a mind will accept your claims as probable.
Once you introduce the new idea that he moved seats *against orders*,
the "I saw it on TV" cite fails to impress. Over to you, bud.
--
John Hatpin
Max C. Webster III
>Occam's razor says they simply detained him because of the colour of
>his skin.
A bordering-on-propaganda, very one-sided news article suggests that, not
Occam's razor.
- Max -
========
One should not increase, beyond what is
necessary, the number of entities required
to explain anything . . . including
assumptions of racism.
Max's corollary to Occam's Razor.
Richard
Remember, "He asked a flight attendant permission to move seats"?
That's not disputed.
Modus Operandi for Sky Marshals: don't move, don't get up, don't approach.
He 1) moved and 2) got up.
I rest my case, I believe you are wrong about why they detained him. In my
view, my answer makes more sense, since skin color alone does not have
anything to do with "changing seats".
If you wish to argue that one can, in fact, change seats when an airplane is
under Sky Marshal control, I posit that you are wrong.
If you wish to argue that his skin color aggravated the changing of the
seats problem, I don't know and can't attest either way.
I know two simple facts: 1) when the Sky Marshals take control there is a
protocol and 2) the doctor moved, which is in violation of the protocol.
In my view, you can only argue the 1) the Sky Marshals did not take control,
or 2) the doctor did not move, or 3) the protocol which I discussed is not
true.
I do not believe you can make a valid argument for any of those three bullet
points.
The fact that a flight attendant gave him permission, although unfortunate,
does not change the facts, it just makes it clear that she erred in granting
permission that was not hers to grant. We'll probably see a memo shortly.
To answer your question, about him not doing anything wrong, well, he
violated the secure cabin protocol.
Lots42
>Do you believe we shouldn't have Sky Marshals?
>Do you believe their protocol is wrong? If so, what would you change?
I'm glad you asked.
If the people waving the guns around are genuine law enforcement officers, the
captain of the plane should get on the intercom and say so. If they are not,
the captain should waggle the plane and encourage everyone to kill the loons
with the guns.
Al Yellon
news:20021001175623...@mb-mr.aol.com...
With what, exactly?
--
"If you're not part of the future, then get out of the way." -- John
Mellencamp
Leo G Simonetta
<invalid...@notme.com> wrote:
> To answer your question, about him not doing anything wrong, well, he
> violated the secure cabin protocol.
First - You would think the stewardesses would know that they
were not supposed to let a passenger change seats when the Air
Marshalls take over.
Second - If the stewardesses told him he could change his seat
the Air Marshalls beef should have been with the stewardesses NOT
the doctor.
--
Leo G. Simonetta
lsimo...@newsguy.com
Max C. Webster III
>>>Do you believe we shouldn't have Sky Marshals?
>>>Do you believe their protocol is wrong? If so, what would you change?
>>
>> I'm glad you asked.
>>
>> If the people waving the guns around are genuine law enforcement officers,
>the
>> captain of the plane should get on the intercom and say so. If they are
>not,
>> the captain should waggle the plane and encourage everyone to kill the
>loons
>> with the guns.
>
>With what, exactly?
Not that I've spent a lot of time thinking about this . . .
The power cord/power supply on my ancient laptop would make a pretty good
weapon, as would a pillowcase (some flights have pillows) full of 12 oz. soda
cans. The first six people wouldn't accomplish much beyond stopping bullets,
but those that came after would turn them into hamburger.
- Max -
=======
Take away our nail files, and we'll find something . . .
groo
>
> Al Yellon done said:
> >
> >With what, exactly?
>
> Not that I've spent a lot of time thinking about this . . .
>
> The power cord/power supply on my ancient laptop would make a pretty good
> weapon, as would a pillowcase (some flights have pillows) full of 12 oz. soda
> cans. The first six people wouldn't accomplish much beyond stopping bullets,
> but those that came after would turn them into hamburger.
>
You're a lot more inventive than me, Max. I figured those guns in their
hands would make pretty good weapons. All you have to do is get them
away from them. Like you say, the first few to try would have some
issues, but since 9/11 I don't think you'd lack a lot of other
volunteers to back them up.
- groo
Gary S. Callison
: The power cord/power supply on my ancient laptop would make a pretty
: good weapon, as would a pillowcase (some flights have pillows) full of
: 12 oz. soda cans.
Don't forget the fire extinguisher. Makes a fine club, or thrown weapon.
Somebody hucks a fire extinguisher at the back of your head, you're
probably going to stop and think about that for a second, and in that
second, the dude next to you can probably grab the hand with the gun.
Grab the wrist, spin it so the elbow is up, and then whack down on that
elbow real hard. Don't forget to not let go of the hand with the gun.
: The first six people wouldn't accomplish much beyond stopping bullets,
For values of 'six' that are possibly equal to as many as 'seventeen in
the magazine, one in the chamber', depending on the gun.
: but those that came after would turn them into hamburger.
Yeah, I'm thinking that person #18 & #19 probably have a vested interest
in beating the guy's brains in at that point.
--
Huey
Al Yellon
> : The first six people wouldn't accomplish much beyond stopping bullets,
>
> For values of 'six' that are possibly equal to as many as 'seventeen in
> the magazine, one in the chamber', depending on the gun.
>
> : but those that came after would turn them into hamburger.
>
> Yeah, I'm thinking that person #18 & #19 probably have a vested interest
> in beating the guy's brains in at that point.
This all presumes that none of the first six bullets would have punctured a
hole in the fuselage, thereby sucking all the air pressure out of the cabin.
Carl Fink
> Can't argue this anymore with you, since I'll just be repeating myself.
>
> Remember, "He asked a flight attendant permission to move seats"?
>
> That's not disputed.
>
> Modus Operandi for Sky Marshals: don't move, don't get up, don't approach.
Put up some sort of evidence that Dr. Rajcoomar was told not to move.
You probably can't. I doubt that he was, considering that other
passengers DIDN'T EVEN KNOW THE ARMED GUY WAS A SKY MARSHAL.
Show one shred of evidence that the SM's said "Don't anyone move from
your seat!" before Lt. Colonel Rajcoomar did so.
Remember, even the Transportation Security rep didn't claim this.
They said he was detained for watching "too closely", not for moving
after the cabin was secured.
IOW, you're inventing this whole issue.
Lots42
>> If the people waving the guns around are genuine law enforcement officers,
>the
>> captain of the plane should get on the intercom and say so. If they are
>not,
>> the captain should waggle the plane and encourage everyone to kill the
>loons
>> with the guns.
>
>With what, exactly?
Well, a fire exstinguisher was used pretty handily in the shoe bomber case,
though the nut didn't die.
Lots42
>This all presumes that none of the first six bullets would have punctured a
>hole in the fuselage, thereby sucking all the air pressure out of the cabin.
>
There are bullets that cause inury but wouldn't go through a cabin wall.
And frankly, a hole in the wall and loss of cabin pressure is preferable to a
skyscraper with a jet in it.
And wasn't there this one plane that had most of the roof removed but ended up
landing with most of the people inside not dead?
Bob Ward
<aye...@REMOVEcolgateTHISalumni.org> wrote:
>-:"Gary S. Callison" <hu...@interaccess.com> wrote in message
>-:news:RFqm9.127$Dw2....@dca1-nnrp2.news.algx.net...
>-:> : The first six people wouldn't accomplish much beyond stopping bullets,
>-:>
>-:> For values of 'six' that are possibly equal to as many as 'seventeen in
>-:> the magazine, one in the chamber', depending on the gun.
>-:>
>-:> : but those that came after would turn them into hamburger.
>-:>
>-:> Yeah, I'm thinking that person #18 & #19 probably have a vested interest
>-:> in beating the guy's brains in at that point.
>-:
>-:This all presumes that none of the first six bullets would have punctured a
>-:hole in the fuselage, thereby sucking all the air pressure out of the cabin.
Which, in turn, presumes that a handgun projectile would be capable of
causing explosive decompression...
--
The time for action is past! NOW is the time for the senseless bickering
Robert Goodman
news:3d99b0e4$1_6@news1...
> Do you believe we shouldn't have Sky Marshals?
> Do you believe their protocol is wrong? If so, what would you change?
Always fighting the last war. Forget the whole thing. Something like
Sept. 11 of last year is never going to happen again. Skip the
marshals, lighten up, as long as no Arabs are aboard. There doesn't
seem to be any comparable trouble from non-Arabs, just a few nuts with
things like shoe bombs.
And if something like that DOES happen again, claim it was an accident.
Insurance isn't going to pay off for terror anyway. When terrorists
realize they're not getting attention, they'll stop. Terror is
something people are better off not knowing about.
Robert
Robert Goodman
How can the captain know from there?
Robert Goodman
news:20021001185442...@mb-fi.aol.com...
> >> If the people waving the guns around are genuine law enforcement
officers,
> >the
> >> captain of the plane should get on the intercom and say so. If they
are
> >not,
> >> the captain should waggle the plane and encourage everyone to kill
the
> >loons
> >> with the guns.
> >
> >With what, exactly?
>
> Not that I've spent a lot of time thinking about this . . .
>
> The power cord/power supply on my ancient laptop would make a pretty
good
> weapon, as would a pillowcase (some flights have pillows) full of 12
oz. soda
> cans. The first six people wouldn't accomplish much beyond stopping
bullets,
> but those that came after would turn them into hamburger.
Good idea. Grab the people in front of you and throw them at the gun
toters. Hurl babies first, then progress to heavier & heavier bodies.
At some point you'll have a good pile of meat to work with. Meanwhile
duck the person who's trying to throw you. Keep a low stance,
preferably a crouch; gives you leverage to lift others while not being
easily lifted yourself.
Robert
Richard
"
> Yes, but you have so far failed to support any of your arguements with
> anything more authoritative than "Because I said so". This logical
> foundation works fine with children and the feeble-minded, but AFCA's
> standard of proof is generally just a weeedle bit more rigourous.
Ok, then you don't get proof. You do get what passes for an "expert
opinion" in this. As with any self-proclaimed expert, you are welcome to
dismiss my views, expecially the ones I can't cite.
> That's a mighty fine positing you got there, but where is this written?
That's the problem, where it's written you don't get to see it. I seriously
doubt any of this is currently published in a public forum.
> Is
> this "I have the gun, so I get to make the rules" on the part of the Sky
> Marshall?
Pretty much. Can't defend it right now, but if you look at it as armed
agents must have some protocol, then the protocol I have described (and is
also described partly by the complaining passengers in the article) is not
unreasonable, in my view (and apparently the TSA's).
>Because I don't particularly want to do the Hokey Pokey every
> time some old donut-sucking cop feels like waving his 9mm at me.
That's not my argument. My whole argument is that your view ("no Hokey
Pokey") is opposite what would be expected of you. If armed agents take
control of your airplane, I suggest you do as they say, just like I would
suggest you do as a cop says when there is a law-enforcement situation
involving drawn guns.
>Is the
> Official Sky Marshall Scout Handbook on the web anywheres? Maybe in the
> Federal Register, or somewhere on the FAA site? Can you support any of the
> 'because I said so' statements you've been making?
Nope, that's all I got. But my story is credible, if disagreeable.
Remember, I didn't make the rules. The only defense I'm offering is that
there are rules and they are not non-sensical.
> Sounds to me like he did. Asked permission, even. Can't blame him- I don't
> particularly want to spend an airline flight sitting next to a nutcase,
> shackled or otherwise, as anyone who has ever flown next to me will
> probably attest to.
I'm not blaming the doctor, I'm just trying to explain how situation A
turned into situation B. Conjecture on my part, but I bet the Colonel
doesn't want to play Hokey Pokey any more than you do. Or any assertive man
would. But if you get assertive in a guns-drawn Sky Marshal situation, you
will end up on the short end of the stick. Just like if you get assertive
in any other guns-drawn law enforcement situation.
Remember, he wasn't arrested, he was detained. It sounds to me like he was
within his legal rights to do what he did, but his legal rights didn't match
up very well with security protocols. Where's the answer? I don't know.
Airline security is a tangled mess of opposing goals and if there's an easy
answer out there I haven't heard it yet.
>
> So when's this 'protocol' going to be in the flight safety briefing?
> 'cause I'm thinking it's pretty damn important to flight safety.
I don't disagree. It's not there yet. It sure sounds important to me too.
> Huey "NEWS FLASH: Two dead, sixteen injured as airliner decompresses when
> Sky Marshall's weapon discharges during struggle with passengers. 'We
> thought he was a terrorist' says would-be patriot 'so I threw my Evian
> at his head, kicked him in the kneecap, and grabbed the gun..." Callison
Not to pick nits, but you know a bullet hole (or ten) won't decompress a
cabin.
In terms of your second point, you are again, not incorrect. At least two
public Sky Marshal security incidents involved serious confusion to the
passenger(s) as to whether the Sky Marshals were good guys or bad terrorist
guys. There are procedures in effect that disallow any confusion among
people who aren't passengers however.
Whether you wish to take my word for it or not is not in my control, but my
advice is if you are ever on an airplane where Sky Marshals take control,
you should do as they instruct or plan on being shot or restrained. Nothing
new about this, I imagine it fits the same protocol followed by any armed
federal agent action, whether it be FBI, DEA, Customs or Secret Service.
Richard
> This all presumes that none of the first six bullets would have punctured
a
> hole in the fuselage, thereby sucking all the air pressure out of the
cabin.
Not an issue. The fuselage is full of holes. Even the lavatory sink often
is vented directly. Lot's o' pressure, unless the hole is bigger than about
a foot.
Lots42
>> If the people waving the guns around are genuine law enforcement
>officers, the
>> captain of the plane should get on the intercom and say so. If they
>are not,
>> the captain should waggle the plane and encourage everyone to kill the
>loons
>> with the guns.
>
>How can the captain know from there?
>
If the captain doesn't know that sky marshalls are aboard, then something is
very fucked up.
And if not, then the marshalls should be able to give id numbers through the
P.A. system and the pilots can check it out with ground control.
Sean Houtman
>I know two simple facts: 1) when the Sky Marshals take control there is a
>protocol and 2) the doctor moved, which is in violation of the protocol.
>
>In my view, you can only argue the 1) the Sky Marshals did not take control,
>or 2) the doctor did not move, or 3) the protocol which I discussed is not
>true.
Are you saying that "protocol" has the force of law? If so, please cite the US
code that establishes that.
Sean
--
Visit my photolog page; http://members.aol.com/grommit383/myhomepage
Last updated 08-04-02 with 15 pictures of the Aztec Ruins.
Address mungled. To email, please spite my face.
Gary S. Callison
: From: "Richard" invalid...@notme.com
: > I know two simple facts: 1) when the Sky Marshals take control there
: > is a protocol and 2) the doctor moved, which is in violation of the
: > protocol.
: > In my view, you can only argue the 1) the Sky Marshals did not take
: > control, or 2) the doctor did not move, or 3) the protocol which I
: > discussed is not true.
: Are you saying that "protocol" has the force of law? If so, please cite
: the US code that establishes that.
Yes, #3 is the sticking point.
Prior to 9/11: Someone takes over your plane, you do what they say, and
try to pick up some Cuban cigars when the plane eventually lands.
Post- Flight 93: Someone takes over your plane, you take one for the team
if necessary, but you take back the plane or see to it that it crashes,
and before it hits the Sears Tower.
Post- Colonel (? I thought he was a Major?) Whatever-his-name-was: Someone
takes over your plane, you do what they say?
I'm not getting it. And as somebody who flies more often than the average
bear, I'd really like to see this clarified. I want to read it in an FAA
memo, or in the CFR, or somewhere else authoritative. I'd like it to be
part of the safety briefing. I'd like to know that the dude I'm throwing
the fire extinguisher at is actually a terrorist, and not a cop. At this
point, I'm not certain how you'd know the difference.
--
Huey
Blinky the Shark
> Good idea. Grab the people in front of you and throw them at the gun
> toters. Hurl babies first, then progress to heavier & heavier bodies.
> At some point you'll have a good pile of meat to work with. Meanwhile
You'll *really* be stylin' when you get to that guy that had to buy one
seat for each buttock.
--
Blinky
Blinky the Shark
> I'm not getting it. And as somebody who flies more often than the average
> bear, I'd really like to see this clarified. I want to read it in an FAA
> memo, or in the CFR, or somewhere else authoritative. I'd like it to be
> part of the safety briefing. I'd like to know that the dude I'm throwing
> the fire extinguisher at is actually a terrorist, and not a cop. At this
> point, I'm not certain how you'd know the difference.
See if there's a doctor on the flight. He'll know the difference.
--
Blinky
Blinky the Shark
>>From: "Robert Goodman" rob...@bestweb.net
>
>>> If the people waving the guns around are genuine law enforcement
>>officers, the
>>> captain of the plane should get on the intercom and say so. If they
>>are not,
>>> the captain should waggle the plane and encourage everyone to kill the
>>loons
>>> with the guns.
>>
>>How can the captain know from there?
>>
>
> If the captain doesn't know that sky marshalls are aboard, then something is
> very fucked up.
"This is your captain speaking. I just heard gunshots, back there, and
I am required by law to instruct you to obey if a good guy has the gun
but fight back if a bad guy has the gun. It's 68 degrees in Chicago,
with partly cloudy skies and light breezes from the southwest..."
--
Blinky
N Jill Marsh
<invalid...@notme.com>wrote:
>Ok, then you don't get proof. You do get what passes for an "expert
>opinion" in this. As with any self-proclaimed expert, you are welcome to
>dismiss my views, expecially the ones I can't cite.
I don't need a cite, because it's true!
>That's the problem, where it's written you don't get to see it. I seriously
>doubt any of this is currently published in a public forum.
It's a sekrit!
>Pretty much. Can't defend it right now, but if you look at it as armed
>agents must have some protocol, then the protocol I have described (and is
>also described partly by the complaining passengers in the article) is not
>unreasonable, in my view (and apparently the TSA's).
But I'm psychic!
>That's not my argument. My whole argument is that your view ("no Hokey
>Pokey") is opposite what would be expected of you. If armed agents take
>control of your airplane, I suggest you do as they say, just like I would
>suggest you do as a cop says when there is a law-enforcement situation
>involving drawn guns.
Everyone should think like me, because I'm right!
>Nope, that's all I got. But my story is credible, if disagreeable.
>Remember, I didn't make the rules. The only defense I'm offering is that
>there are rules and they are not non-sensical.
I'm floundering here, but still make sense to myself!
I could keep going, but I'm bored. Sheesh Richard, listen to
yourself. Admit you're being a doorknob and apologize gracefully and
move on. Yes you've made an argument, but you've nothing to back it
up, and it's been pulled to pieces; apply some critical thinking to
your own behaviour and salvage the shreds of your credibility by
acting with some dignity.
nj"I'd say he was wildstar, but he hasn't started insulting peeps
yet"m
"Leafing through a Rolling Stone, in a
waiting room all alone, and you
never felt so old,
reading Reader's Poll"
ra...@westnet.poe.com
> From: "Richard" invalid...@notme.com
>>I know two simple facts: 1) when the Sky Marshals take control there is a
>>protocol and 2) the doctor moved, which is in violation of the protocol.
>>
>>In my view, you can only argue the 1) the Sky Marshals did not take control,
>>or 2) the doctor did not move, or 3) the protocol which I discussed is not
>>true.
> Are you saying that "protocol" has the force of law? If so, please cite the US
> code that establishes that.
I'm fairly sure that hindering the operations of the federal agent going
about his duties is something that the courts would take a dim view of.
John
--
Remove the dead poet to e-mail, tho CC'd posts are unwelcome.
Ask me about joining the NRA.
ra...@westnet.poe.com
>> If the people waving the guns around are genuine law enforcement officers,
>> the captain of the plane should get on the intercom and say so. If they
>> are not, the captain should waggle the plane and encourage everyone to
>> kill the loons with the guns.
> With what, exactly?
Well, start with that skinny guy, he can suck up some of the bullets as
you push foreward....
Of course, none of that lets you know that the Captian isn't in on it.
Richard
>
> I don't need a cite, because it's true!
>
> It's a sekrit!
This part defines and requires the protection of "Sensitive Security
Information," which is sensitive but unclassified information related to
transportation security that is provided to entities in the transportation
sector on a need-to-know basis in order to carry out their security
obligations.
> But I'm psychic!
No, just experienced in this area. Just like Huey is experienced in all
things technical. Do you ask him to cite chapter and verse when he offers a
networking solution? If you don't think he has credibility, don't try his
suggestions. I believe him and put credence to his views. In this case,
you may either believe my credibility or not. There are no documents to
cite. Well, maybe there are. Just a sec...nope. All I got is at the end
of this message.
>
> >That's not my argument. My whole argument is that your view ("no Hokey
> >Pokey") is opposite what would be expected of you. If armed agents take
> >control of your airplane, I suggest you do as they say, just like I would
> >suggest you do as a cop says when there is a law-enforcement situation
> >involving drawn guns.
>
> Everyone should think like me, because I'm right!
I don't understand this comment, but I'm sure it was offered in a
constructive manner.
>
> >Nope, that's all I got. But my story is credible, if disagreeable.
> >Remember, I didn't make the rules. The only defense I'm offering is that
> >there are rules and they are not non-sensical.
>
> I'm floundering here, but still make sense to myself!
Floudering how? That 1) there aren't rules and 2) if there are rules they
are non-sensical?
>
> I could keep going, but I'm bored. Sheesh Richard, listen to
> yourself. Admit you're being a doorknob and apologize gracefully and
> move on.
What exactly am I wrong about? Reasoned arguments by other posters who
don't like the way things are, can actually actually change them by arguing
with me about lack of cites? Not true. To repeat ad nauseum,
1) Sky Marshals have the authority to secure a cabin
2) If they do it, you must do as instructed
3) If you do not do as instructed, you will be shot or restrained.
>Yes you've made an argument, but you've nothing to back it
> up, and it's been pulled to pieces; apply some critical thinking to
> your own behaviour and salvage the shreds of your credibility by
> acting with some dignity.
This is all that exists publically:
§ 1544.223 Transportation of Federal Air Marshals.
(a) A Federal Air Marshal on duty status may have a weapon accessible while
aboard an aircraft for which screening is required.
(b) Each aircraft operator must carry Federal Air Marshals, in the number
and manner specified by TSA, on each scheduled passenger operation, and
public charter passenger operation designated by TSA.
(c) Each Federal Air Marshal must be carried on a first priority basis and
without charge while on duty, including positioning and repositioning
flights. When a Federal Air Marshal is assigned to a scheduled flight that
is canceled for any reason, the aircraft operator must carry that Federal
Air Marshal without charge on another flight as designated by TSA.
(d) Each aircraft operator must assign the specific seat requested by a
Federal Air Marshal who is on duty status. If another LEO is assigned to
that seat or requests that seat, the aircraft operator must inform the
Federal Air Marshal. The Federal Air Marshal will coordinate seat
assignments with the other LEO.
(e) The Federal Air Marshal identifies himself or herself to the aircraft
operator by presenting credentials that include a clear, full-face picture,
the signature of the Federal Air Marshal, and the signature of the FAA
Administrator. A badge, shield, or similar device may not be used or
accepted as the sole means of identification.
(f) The requirements of § 1544.219(a) do not apply for a Federal Air
Marshal on duty status.
(g) Each aircraft operator must restrict any information concerning the
presence, seating, names, and purpose of Federal Air Marshals at any station
or on any flight to those persons with an operational need to know.
(h) Law enforcement officers authorized to carry a weapon during a flight
will be contacted directly by a Federal Air Marshal who is on that same
flight.
Richard
on"
While one marshal huddled over the detainee, the other stood by the cockpit
door with his gun trained on the cabin, passengers said.
Administration officials said the response was done by the book. Marshal
training uses role-playing, exercises with teammates, short-range weapons
instruction and communications lessons, spokeswoman Heather Rosenker said.
The training mandates that if communication fails, marshals can "do what
they believe is the right thing to do to get control of the airplane,"
Rosenker said.
But the fact that the man wasn't charged showed the response was an
overreaction and that the marshals pulled their guns too quickly, Gutheinz
said.
Transportation Security Administration spokesman Robert Johnson said
marshals are taught to issue warnings to passengers first. The two marshals
on Flight 442 first warned the 183 people on board to sit down and keep
their seat belts on, Johnson said.
When certain passengers didn't obey, the marshals followed a "hierarchy of
warnings" and ultimately had to draw a gun, he said.
http://216.239.51.100/search?q=cache:9Tca-mRxlZ4C:www.newsday.com/news/natio
nworld/wire/sns-ap-air-marshal-training0904sep03.story%3Fcoll%3Dsns-ap-natio
nworld-headlines,+federal+air+marshal+program&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
Richard
CHARLOTTE, N.C. -- Authorities say a man on a flight headed to Charlotte has
been charged with impersonating a federal air marshal.
David Vassallo of Glenmoore, Pa., was arrested at Philadelphia International
Airport. District attorney's office spokeswoman Cathie Abookire says he is
charged with a misdemeanor charge of impersonating a law enforcement
officer.
Vassallo boarded a U.S. Airways flight to Charlotte about 10:30 a.m.
yesterday. Police say he told two men in first class he was a federal
marshal.
The men were air marshals. When they asked him for identification, he said
he was a postal inspector assigned to work as an air marshal.
He left the plane when they went to talk to the pilot and would found in a
men's room in the airport.
http://216.239.53.100/search?q=cache:AxTEKE4qXD8C:www.wral.com/news/1636664/
detail.html+federal+air+marshal+program&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
Richard
orders to stay seated with their seat belts on"
During the Labor Day weekend, the program faced more criticism after a
marshal trained his gun on passengers aboard a Delta Air Lines flight for 30
minutes Saturday.
Responding to the concerns of crewmembers aboard Delta Flight 442, two armed
marshals detained a man who was allegedly rummaging through the luggage of
other passengers. One marshal then held his gun on passengers in the cabin
after some ignored orders to stay seated with their seat belts on, according
to a statement Monday by the TSA. A TSA spokesman said the marshal acted
appropriately.
But James Lineberger, a Philadelphia common pleas judge who was sitting
diagonally from the detained man, said he thought the marshal held his
semiautomatic weapon on passengers for too long. The flight was headed from
Atlanta to Philadelphia with 183 people on board. Lineberger said he plans
to file a complaint with the TSA today. He said about 30 passengers plan to
complain.
Other passengers, however, said they thought the marshals handled the
situation calmly and professionally. The man the marshals detained was
released, and the U.S. attorney's office decided not to press charges, FBI
spokeswoman Jerri Williams said.
http://www.apfa.org/public/articles/News-Events/SEEK_MARSHAL.HTML
Lalbert1
<njm...@storm.ca> writes:
>Sheesh Richard, listen to
>yourself. Admit you're being a doorknob and apologize gracefully and
>move on.
You always manage to get directly to the heart of the matter.
Les
Lalbert1
<bob....@verizon.net> writes:
According to my sources, depressurizing a jet by firing a bullet through a
window is not a fatal mistake. But there are miles of wires in jets and the
prospect of an errant shot starting a fire or killing a pilot is a greater
concern.
Les
Al Yellon
And he didn't have a gun either, which was my point.
Crashj
<>
> Oh, fuck me to tears. Only on AFCA could two people argue on the terms of
> a non-existent bet. : )
You apparently do not spend much time in rec.ski.alpine or alt.air.disaster
Crashj 'betcha I do' Johnson
Al Yellon
True:
http://www.airdisaster.com/cgi_bin/view_details.cgi?date=04281988&airline=Al
oha+Airlines
Only one person of 95 died, a flight attendant sucked out of the plane.