AA Pilot beaten by removed passengers.
07-29-2011, 06:32 AM
#41
Banned
Joined APC: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,857
I ve flown with a few guys that hope for this very thing, just to go at it while rubbing the back of their glocks, totally the wrong job. I just dont get it.
Go back to the gate. Call for airport police on your way, call your GSC and gate agent.
Dont open the cockpit door until Law enforcement is present. Let them deal with the scum.
Go back to the gate. Call for airport police on your way, call your GSC and gate agent.
Dont open the cockpit door until Law enforcement is present. Let them deal with the scum.
07-29-2011, 07:29 AM
#42
Banned
Joined APC: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,480
That's how I would handle it. Sounds like "John Wayne" decided he was going to assert his "Captain's authority" and got his ass kicked for it. Good thing the passengers saved him.
07-29-2011, 08:02 AM
#43
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: FAA 'Flight Check'
Posts: 13,839
Our legal system can be a little effed up at times, that's all I'm trying to say here. If the attackers are being restrained/held down and the pilot/FA continued an assault on either individual, especially with a deadly weapon, then the pilot/FA could find themselves with a assault charges and/or a lawsuit against them.
However, if it's one on one the gloves come off and any attack on either one of these scumbags can be defined as self-defense in my opinion.
However, if it's one on one the gloves come off and any attack on either one of these scumbags can be defined as self-defense in my opinion.
USMCFLYR
Edit - clarification. Note the use of the word "reasonably" over and over.
That is the great gray area of the law. It will be your jury of *peers* to decide that fact.
A person is justified in using force in self-defense if that person reasonably believed that use of force was necessary to protect himself/herself from imminent danger of bodily harm. Self-defense is a defense although the danger to personal security may not have been real, if a reasonable person, in the circumstances and from the viewpoint of the defendant, would reasonably have believed that he/she was in imminent danger of bodily harm. The amount of force used may not exceed the amount of force a reasonable person, in the circumstances and from the viewpoint of the defendant, would have used to prevent the bodily harm.
Above is the general standard. If you use deadly force instead of just force then the standard below applies.
A person is justified in using deadly force in self-defense if that person reasonably believed that use of deadly force was necessary to protect himself/herself from imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. Self-defense is a defense although the danger to life or personal security may not have been real, if a reasonable person, in the circumstances and from the viewpoint of the defendant, would reasonably have believed that he/she was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm.
The legal definition of Imminent danger is: Danger that is pressing, urgent, or immediate.
The legal definition of Deadly Force is - Force intended or likely to cause death or great bodily injury.
The legal definition of Bodily Harm is - Any touching of a person against his/her will with physical force, in an intentional, hostile, and aggressive manner.
Self-defense is permitted a person solely because of necessity. Self-defense is not available to a person who (was the aggressor)/(provoked another with the intent to cause the altercation)/(voluntarily entered into mutual combat), no matter how great the danger to personal security became during the altercation unless the right of self-defense is reestablished.
A person who (was the original aggressor)/(provoked another with intent to cause the altercation)/(voluntarily entered into mutual combat) may regain the right to self-defense if that person withdrew or attempted to withdraw from the altercation and communicated his/her desire to withdraw to the other participant(s) in the altercation. If, thereafter, the other participant(s) continued the altercation, the other participant(s) became the aggressor(s) and the person who (was the original aggressor)/(provoked another with the intent to cause the altercation)/(voluntarily entered into mutual combat) is entitled to the defense of self-defense.
A person who (was not the aggressor)/(did not provoke another with intent to cause an altercation)/(did not voluntarily enter into mutual combat) has no duty to retreat, but may stand firm and use the right of self-defense.
Above is the general standard. If you use deadly force instead of just force then the standard below applies.
A person is justified in using deadly force in self-defense if that person reasonably believed that use of deadly force was necessary to protect himself/herself from imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. Self-defense is a defense although the danger to life or personal security may not have been real, if a reasonable person, in the circumstances and from the viewpoint of the defendant, would reasonably have believed that he/she was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm.
The legal definition of Imminent danger is: Danger that is pressing, urgent, or immediate.
The legal definition of Deadly Force is - Force intended or likely to cause death or great bodily injury.
The legal definition of Bodily Harm is - Any touching of a person against his/her will with physical force, in an intentional, hostile, and aggressive manner.
Self-defense is permitted a person solely because of necessity. Self-defense is not available to a person who (was the aggressor)/(provoked another with the intent to cause the altercation)/(voluntarily entered into mutual combat), no matter how great the danger to personal security became during the altercation unless the right of self-defense is reestablished.
A person who (was the original aggressor)/(provoked another with intent to cause the altercation)/(voluntarily entered into mutual combat) may regain the right to self-defense if that person withdrew or attempted to withdraw from the altercation and communicated his/her desire to withdraw to the other participant(s) in the altercation. If, thereafter, the other participant(s) continued the altercation, the other participant(s) became the aggressor(s) and the person who (was the original aggressor)/(provoked another with the intent to cause the altercation)/(voluntarily entered into mutual combat) is entitled to the defense of self-defense.
A person who (was not the aggressor)/(did not provoke another with intent to cause an altercation)/(did not voluntarily enter into mutual combat) has no duty to retreat, but may stand firm and use the right of self-defense.
Last edited by USMCFLYR; 07-29-2011 at 08:56 AM.
07-29-2011, 09:07 AM
#44
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Sleeping in the black swan’s nest.
Posts: 5,726
I hear pilots talk tough all the time. It's a guy thing I guess. Guys think they are born knowing how to fight and whoop up on other guys but in reality untrained fighters wind looking just like this when they do go to blows.
‪Funny Gay fight‬‏ - YouTube
If you are serious about wanting to know how to defend yourself with your hands go take some Krav Maga or Brazilian Jiujitsu. You'll soon realize that you weren't nearly as ninja/Norris as you thought you were, even if you've been taking traditional martial arts for years.
‪Funny Gay fight‬‏ - YouTube
If you are serious about wanting to know how to defend yourself with your hands go take some Krav Maga or Brazilian Jiujitsu. You'll soon realize that you weren't nearly as ninja/Norris as you thought you were, even if you've been taking traditional martial arts for years.
07-29-2011, 02:23 PM
#45
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: B777 Left
Posts: 736
You'd be amazed how many people originally signed up for the FFDO program because they thought they would get a concealed carry license and would automatically strap on the James Bond shoulder holster.
That's how I would handle it. Sounds like "John Wayne" decided he was going to assert his "Captain's authority" and got his ass kicked for it. Good thing the passengers saved him.
That's how I would handle it. Sounds like "John Wayne" decided he was going to assert his "Captain's authority" and got his ass kicked for it. Good thing the passengers saved him.
07-29-2011, 04:13 PM
#46
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 40,410
Personally, I think the name of the game is self-defense. If the pilot or F/A decided to use a weapon to inflict injury or harm to the attacker, then the line between defense and offense may become blurred in the eyes of the court. Now as to what constitutes a weapon, that can be defined in many ways, but once either defender or attacker decides to use a weapon during a confrontation the stakes rise as do the consequences.
My question is if the pilot/FA who was attacked in this case decided to punch or kick the assailants in this case would they be within their legal right and protected by both the company and the law?
I would think so, but I defer to anyone with a better understanding of the law in this case.
My question is if the pilot/FA who was attacked in this case decided to punch or kick the assailants in this case would they be within their legal right and protected by both the company and the law?
I would think so, but I defer to anyone with a better understanding of the law in this case.
2. A pilot being assaulted within the footprint of an operable airliner probably should assume that this is "game on" with all that entails.
07-29-2011, 05:36 PM
#47
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2007
Position: B-7ER JFK
Posts: 931
Waaaay to many dorky wannabe lawyer comments on this thread. Are you guys really such wuzzies? Smack me or any of my crew on my plane and you're done, I don't give a hoot who you are or what happens later.
07-29-2011, 06:37 PM
#49
Banned
Joined APC: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,480
Fish, you and I disagree about most things. But gotta tell you, we are on the exact same page on this event. This is not about Dean Martin or Charlton Heston in the first two Airport movies coming back and soothing the nervous passengers. These days it's Greyhound bus and the masses. One never knows what is lurking in the back.
Stay in the cockpit and let the LEOs handle the miscreants. They're trained to take care of criminals like these guys. You're not.
07-29-2011, 06:50 PM
#50
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Position: blueJet
Posts: 4,536
First we need to determine if the pilot left the flight deck looking for a fight, or if he went back in the course of his duties to look after his crew and pasengers.
That said, it's all about the NRA - Necessary, Reasonable, Appropriate.
This will mean different things to 12 different people.
Could one person in 12 be convinced that, approaching the 10th anniversary of 9/11...
An airline pilot is informed about suspicious passenger(s), returns to the gate, and in the process of removing the suspicious party, he receives threats on his life. Moments later the aircraft is rushed and he is physically attacked. Would a reasonable airline pilot think his life is in danger?
An airline pilot is being physically attacked at or near the flight deck and has no path of retreat. He has received what I shall call "airline specific security training" which includes certain responses to certain situations. Would the average airline pilot find it necesssary to fight back?
An airline pilot perceives that he is being attacked on or near the flight deck and his life is at risk. He probably also feels responsible for the lives of those aboard the plane. Would it be appropriate to respond with physical force, up to and including deadly physical force?
If the prosecution can convince all 12 jurors beyond a reasonable doubt that the answer to these questions is NO then the pilot could be looking at doing some time.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
