Mid-flight sexual play lands US couple afoul of anti-terrorism law

The News International ^ | Nov 14, 2006 | anonymous

[lwg8tr]

I was on a flight from Ft. Lauderdale to Pittsburgh 6 months ago. Flight was packed to the rafters. The wife and I were in the last row of seats and next to us was a metro sexual looking guy and his skanky GF. Well you could tell they where hell-bent on paying their Mile High dues. They start drinking and drinking. Making out and heavy petting begin. My wife having the aisle seat elbows me in the ribs and tells me to look over, the blanket in the Mr's lap is rising and falling. Hmmm. We giggle and the flight attendant in the back galley sees it also. Well the Paris Hilton wannabe gets up to go to the lavatory and the brain donor BF gets up 20 seconds later. The 40ish flight attendant looks at him and says "Don't even think about it, you can hold it Sir. There are kids on the plane". Well idiot starts to argue, Paris comes out to see what the commotion was about. Well to make a long story DHS agent comes on the plane in Pittsburgh and escorts both Paris and Clay Aiken off

[HitmanLV]

That's why they are in legal trouble. He threatened a flight attendant with 'serious consequences,' now he faces 'serious consequences.' Still, this whole affair seems overstated.

[highball]

I support AMENDING it to where it does not run afoul of the constitution. I also think an amendment should be added to it to make sure that the Patriot Act cannot be used for Mickey Mouse bullsh*t things such as using the Patriot Act to go after sellers of knock-off Rubik's Cubes.

Agreed. The Patriot Act, as used, is not Constitutional. It's a power grab shielded in the noblest of causes.

The Act trivializes the dangers we face by lumping them in with routine police matters and worse. It invites abuse.

[wideawake]

By threatening the crewmember, obviously.

How is someone supposed to do their job (i.e. making sure the passenger cabin is secure and passengers are safe) while being harangued and threatened?

Should a crewmember really expect to be threatened as if it were part of their normal duties?

[longtermmemmory]

unfortunatly the law has not "motion to dismiss because the person in charge was a butthead."

How many people run afoul of the law just because they did not massage the ego of some badge holder?

[longtermmemmory]

flight attendants need love too!

[LIConFem]

All too many. And a question still remains about the nature of the "threat" that was made. My comments assumed the flight attendant had actually been threatened.

[longtermmemmory]

and that is why you travel first class. More leg room...

(or is that head room?)

[TKDietz]

"My guess is that the punishment will fit the crime."

You're the optimistic sort, aren't you? Prosecutors will always agree to do the right thing and the punishment will end up fitting the crime? I wish it really was like that in the real world. Give this same case, or cases with the exact same set of facts, criminal history, etc., to twenty different prosecutors and you'd see results all over the place. One might agree to plead it down to a misdemeanor and just fine the guy. Another might insist on a felony conviction but allow for a suspended sentence. Another might want a felony conviction and for the guy to do a little time, and another might want to hammer him hard just for the heck of it, or because he woke up on the wrong side of the bed that morning.

[monday]

"Well, but threatening people has always been illegal. It didn't become illegal because of the Patriot Act."

Honestly, was the flight attendant afraid? I quote: "Persing snapped back threatening the flight attendant with "serious consequences" if he did not leave them alone."

Would you be 'frightened' at that, or, much more likely in my opinion, 'angry'? Remember, for a threat to be against the law, the victim has to be fearful of imminent physical attack.

If airlines don't want people making out on their flights, they should lobby congress to pass a law against it, then if people break the law, they can be arrested for THAT upon landing.

This wasn't a terrorist threat. It was a whiny wanna be dictator who got angry that these people didn't snap to attention when he told them to stop doing something that isn't against the law, or even against any airlines policies that I am aware of.

[2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten]

Well I totally agree with your points - actually that was sort of my point. Part of the shock value of the article was the "could face 20 years in jail blah blah blah". I agree there are a range of possible outcomes but realistically the "20 years in jail" outcome is not a very likely one.

I agree miscarriage of justices can and does occur but this guy has already lawyered up and my hunch is that this guy doesn't end up busting rocks at Leavenworth or Marion or wherever.

I also have a sneaking suspicion that the real goal is to get these peoples' names in the press - on the theory that public ridicule (maybe along with a medium-sized fine and time away from work) is really what they need.

Of course I could be wrong and he might end up sharing a jail cell with someone who wants his head on their lap - who knows LOL!

[monday]

"I guess the lesson here is do not threaten a flight attendant."

Some of you seem to be having a hard time understanding what a threat is. He said there will be 'serious consequences' IF the flight attendant didn't leave him alone.

First of all, the flight attendant only had to leave him alone to be out of danger. Since what they were doing was no danger to anyone on the plane, and not illegal, the flight attendant could have simply left them alone. For a threat to be against the law, the victim has to fear an eminent physical attack. The flight attendant didn't fear eminent attack because he left them alone until they landed.

Secondly, saying there will be 'serious consequences' is not at all the same as saying "I will beat you up". 'Serious consequences' very likely meant what his lawyer said he meant, that he would talk to the flight attendants superior when they had landed. Threatening to inform a superior about an employees behavior is not against any law.

[monday]

"The passenger claims that he told the crewmember he would report him to a supervisor."

Nope. He says that is what he meant by "serious consequences".

The crewmember has a different recollection - that the passenger threatened that the crewmember would suffer "serious consequences."

If the crew member thought that "serious consequences" meant he would beat him up, that is the crew members problem, but it isn't what he said, and it would be a strange way of putting it.

" That his employee wouldn't let the passenger engage in sex acts in a public area?"

Kissing and snuggling are sex acts? What planet are you from? Making out in public might be distasteful for some, but it's hardly obscene and it isn't against the law.

[wideawake]

To normal people, if a person says to you - angrily - "if you continue doing your job, there will be serious consequences" it's considered a threat. Period.

First of all, the flight attendant only had to leave him alone to be out of danger.

A passenger on someone else's property by invitation does not have the right or the authority to set conditions under which the property owner's employees are allowed to maintain their personal safety.

The crewmember has the authority to decide what behavior is or is not appropriate on his employer's property.

For a threat to be against the law, the victim has to fear an eminent physical attack.

I assume you mean imminent, and no, that is not the only circumstance.

The crewmember was doing his job - i.e. stopping this sicko from performing sex acts in public.

His actions were wise, because if he hadn't told this lunatic to desist, there could have been further consequences - like an altercation between passengers.

I for one would not stand for this behavior in general and, as a parent, were I accompanied by my children the pervert would desist or I would physically intervene.

Why a crewmember enforcing a property owner's guidelines on his own property is controversial - especially when it concerns a matter of basic human decency and manners - is beyond me.

[wideawake]

Kissing and snuggling are sex acts?

His head was between her legs.

Perhaps Bill Clinton would call that "not sexual".

I wouldn't.

[A. Pole]

A couple's ill-concealed sexual play aboard a Southwest Airlines flight from Los Angeles got them charged with violating the Patriot Act, intended for terrorist acts, and could land them in jail for 20 years.

We feel safer now.

[A. Pole]

The Patriot Act does not deal exclusively with terrorism.

It applies to everything?

[Yossarian]

"Persing's lawyer William Peregoy said his client was not feeling well when he placed his head on his companion's lap"

Yeah, right.

Oh, I believe it - she probably had something stuck in her throat....

(Thank you, I'll be here all week! Try the veal - it's great!)

[Leftism is Mentally Deranged]

It's a threat. They need to pay the penalty. However, there is no way it will go to 20 years. They will get off with a slap and a promise not to do it again.

[ichabod1]

ttiwwp