Posted on 11/19/2001 11:43:39 AM PST by 11th Earl of Mar
Edited on 09/03/2002 4:49:34 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
ATLANTA -- A man who dashed through a security checkpoint at the nation's busiest airport, forcing officials to halt flights and evacuate passengers, will not face federal charges, prosecutors said Monday.
Michael Lasseter did not violate any federal laws because he did not board an airplane, and because the screening station guards are not federal agents, said Patrick Crosby, a spokesman for the U.S. attorney's office.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsday.com ...
Very true. I think the speed limit is a guideline but you're really supposed to go with the flow of the traffic and road conditions. If everyone is going 75 and the speed limit is 60, it's not really safe to go 60, but if it's raining and everyone's going 25, you can't go 60 just because the sign says you can.
Just like red lights, if you are out on some deserted road at 3 am or in an area of carjackings, it's stupid to sit at a red light when there's no traffic.
Well, that's quite a tangent, but a case certainly COULD be made: Gas rationing, price controls, continuing to tie the hands of our armed forces... :)
It could come to the point where some tall child or person with early stages of Alzheimers will be confused in an airport and be shot dead for no good reason.
Yes, that's your job. You are paid to know. He's a customer who's bought a service. Hardly comparable...but that's another issue.
You see, people like you are really annoying to discuss things with. You are a pilot, so you know the regulations. Rather than simply say "Gee, Rodney, regulation 123 says this, so they really did act approprately" you instead tried to insult me.
If everyone behaved as you do, this would not be a fun place. When people are talking about things relating to the construction industry, I don't say "Oh, I see you are not to keen on section 34-a of the building code, are you?"
No, I say "Well, gee the law says this.."
People who are experts on the stock market(my old profession) don't say "well, you're not to keen on section 56-4f of the securities and exchange act of 1934, are you?" they would say "well, the law says this..."
So, either post the damn code as a source of information, so that if we are wrong we can be corrected, or shut up. We know you are a pilot, god bless you, but you do not need to keep impressing us with your knowledge of the federal code.
Do you recall what the pilots were doing when one of the aircraft was taken over? In the back of the plane, unarmed, dealing with unruly passengers who were killing a stewardess. In addition to that, a firearm would be a great benefit to dealing with someone who is trying to get past that armored door. It's one thing to trash it unopposed, and another to do so while dealing with a threat. Another caveat: Don't most of the big planes have co-pilots?
Yes that's a good idea. The busiest airport in the US can't quickly apprehend a person running through their security. Lucky for everyone this guy was innocent, but if he had been carrying a bomb or some anthrax or boxcutters, he could have gotten very far, even booked a flight and very possibly got on a plane.
Just like red lights, if you are out on some deserted road at 3 am or in an area of carjackings, it's stupid to sit at a red light when there's no traffic.
With the last, you show that you understand.
As to the first, it's considered recklessness. You are ACTUALLY endangering people directly. It's not just because you aren't following the rules.
I can't tell yet, but it looks like 100's of pages. I guess I have a lot of reading to do before my next flight.
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_01/14cfr108_01.html
ALL transport-class (airline) airplanes big or small MUST have two pilots. It's the law. Some also require other mandatory flight crewmembers, usually flight engineers. Almost all F/Es are pilots.
Most business jets also require two pilots.
d.o.l.
Criminal Number 18F
You really assume that everyone else knows CFR part 14 section 107 FAR 108? And if not we are not highly educated enough for you? I'll bet you don't have very many friends, you are a very unlikeable person. Are you capable of conversing people without insulting them because they don't know your precious regulations?
Hey, Mr. Know-it-all. So what subsection of FAR 108 is the relavent sentence? I think you are not posting it because you are bluffing and you don't know. Let's see. You have two minutes.
We complain about security being too lax, and now we complain when they (not YOU) do their jobs.
now, now. You are wrong. I assumed a higher level of education than that. When you click on the FAR's from the FAA website, it redirects you to another site. Some repository.
Nice try. You want us all to know CFR 14 section 107 FAR 108. FAR 108 is a lot of info. Which piece is relavant to this discussion? Surely you actually wanted us to know and weren't just quoting regulations to impress us.
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.