Posted on 10/14/2007 10:13:04 AM PDT by BCrago66
I am haunted by the death of Carol Anne Gotbaum.
I didn't know the mother of three who died shackled to a bench in the Phoenix airport on Sept. 28, en route to an alcohol treatment center in Tucson. I don't know, beyond what I read in the newspapers, what troubles weighed on her. But I do know this: Based on my own recent flight experiences, hers was a death foretold.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
That is exactly what they did.
Here is the video - she runs, and never stops screaming. She dropped to the floor, the cops did not take her down.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6R4W683btA
Airlines have very specific rules, and you know them when you fly. The only time you get a refund on most flights is when you buy a refundable ticket.
They didn’t owe her anything. If she was hostile at the gate, there was a GOOD reason to deny her to get on the flight. She’d be a risk to everyone on that plane up in the air.
> That is exactly what they did.
Up to a point, they did. Yet somehow she ended up handcuffed and chained to a bench all by herself. That’s the part that I think should never have been allowed to happen. In hindsight, I suspect they would probably agree.
Then why does the bench have a chain on it?
I’m sure you’re right as a legal matter, but I don’t believe in the weaselly fine-print of modern contracts.
In any case we agree the incident and its outcome was entirely her own doing.
The only people responsible for her death are the family members who let her travel alone in her state of addiction and psychological distress.
OK, I have now watched the video a couple of times.
Right up until 1:12, the discussion was still at Level 1. She may well have been talking loudly, and she was certainly gesticulating, but not in a particularly hostile way. Nobody there should have felt physically threatened by her actions: she might even have been swearing like Patton, but those are only words. Her body language and her actions do not indicate a threat. At all.
She is maintaining a spatial area of at least 3.5 to 4 feet, and when anyone moves into that space, she steps back. Ergo, not a threat to anyone.
At 1:12, the guy with the shorts moves toward her (sorta like Level 2 but in reverse — that escalation is only supposed to be initiated by the offender) escalating the situation — she is maintaining her space, still not a threat. He moves right into her spatial area and makes a grab. He is joined by another guy. The two cops move in and matters deteriorate to Level 3. By 1:15 she is on the ground, and by 1:25 they are applying the cuffs.
I’ve watched it a few times and cannot see any good reason for anything that happened after 1:12.
What a shambles.
> Then why does the bench have a chain on it?
An excellent question. But an even better question would be “why SHOULD the bench have a chain on it?
I have no interest in your silly analysis. She was screaming the whole time. They had to stop her. She fell to the floor on her own.
So may we assume that since the author’s personal experience and outrage motivated her to write this hatchet piece on US Airlines, can we expect when she finds her husband has had an affair that she then will also crawl up Bill Clinton’s *ss. We all know that won’t happen.
Histrionic personality disorder? So your ex-wife is a clinically diagnosed drama queen?
Sheesh. Nothing against you, you understand, but the way to deal with drama queens (clinical or no) is never to stop slapping them.
For once, the MSM gets it spot-on, word-for-word correct, perfect in every way. The Washington Times article accurately says:
> Sergeant Hill said that the officers tried unsuccessfully to calm Ms. Gotbaum, finally handcuffing her and arresting her on charges of disorderly conduct. But that account is now disputed by Mr. Manning.
Rightly so, because it is Bollix. The guy in the shorts appears on the scene at 0:55 (is he a cop? Do they let cops wear shorts in Phoenix?) And the two police officers appear on the scene at 1:10 — fifteen seconds later. Two seconds after their arrival, the group are trying to cuff her. and by 1:25 she is on the ground. In all, an elapse time of 30 seconds precisely.
In short, the officers did not make any effort to calm her because there just wasn’t time.
> Mr. Manning said yesterday that his office had interviewed three witnesses to the confrontation.
>
> “The police approached her, according to witnesses, made no effort to speak to her, calm her or assess the situation,” he said. “Two of them immediately took her to the ground.”
That is precisely what the video shows. Don’t take my word for it, watch it for yourself.
> Mr. Manning said witnesses recounted that Ms. Gotbaum was not threatening anyone, and instead was yelling, “I am not a terrorist, I am not a criminal, I am just a sick mother, I need to get help.”
That is entirely consistent with what the video shows.
> Sergeant Hill said tersely yesterday that the account of Mr. Manning’s witnesses was “not true.”
Sgt Hill is being grossly unfair to Mr Manning, who is (by the video) a Reliable Witness. By besmirching Mr Manning in this way, Sgt Hill is bearing False Witness.
> “The officers did try to calm her down,” he said, adding that the arrest followed police procedure. “When we release the video, everyone will see.” He did not say when the video would be released.
I think disciplinary action for all police officers involved — including Sgt Hill — would be the very least that the good citizens of Phoenix AZ should demand.
And I hope the family sues for millions.
> I have no interest in your silly analysis. She was screaming the whole time. They had to stop her. She fell to the floor on her own.
Hey, you were the one who posted the video to support your viewpoint. I paid you the courtesy of reviewing the information you posted. I would be interested in your alternative explanation as to what the video actually shows, because quite frankly I do not believe it supports your viewpoint the way you think that it does.
It is grossly unfair for you to call my analysis “silly” because it is accurate. I would be interested in your views as to where my analysis is incorrect.
I don't know about you, but when a video contradicts eyewitness accounts, I tend to believe the video.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.