United Air forcibly removes passenger on overbooked flight

[BugI02]

Might be a stratagem to avoid being DB'd

it's not like people don't lie to get what they want

 

[Sylvain]

all we need is a name to check if he's a doctor. Have they released a name?

All the articles I read said he "claimed" he was a doctor.No name anywhere.

Not even sure he's a US physician if he's a doctor.

 

[Hoosierkav]

Last time an airline asked for proof of physician status, they got lambasted.

I get that a physician who doesn't show up for work can cause all sorts of downstream effects, similar to the ripples of a cancelled flight, but, if the firefighter doesn't show up for work, the ladder truck runs short-staffed. If the Lilly researcher doesn't get to work, he'll miss the FDA deadline for the next wonder symptom-fighter. If the single parent doesn't get home, the sitter can't stay and the kids are out of luck. In other words, that the passenger is reportedly a physician, means nothing and is being leveraged to create sympathy.

 

[Fizzerpilot]

Like the two passengers on each flight who order wheelchairs, because they get to board first... then when you get to the destination, they all walk to baggage claim. Meanwhile, those wheelchair attendants aren't helping those who need them.

Humans are always putting thier needs above others... it's a good thing we have taxes and welfare, so that we can forcibly be made generous

 

[Fargo]

49 U.S. Code § 46504 - Interference with flight crew members and attendants


Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
US Code
Notes
Authorities (CFR)
prev | next
An individual on an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States who, by assaulting or intimidating a flight crew member or flight attendant of the aircraft, interferes with the performance of the duties of the member or attendant or lessens the ability of the member or attendant to perform those duties, or attempts or conspires to do such an act, shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both. However, if a dangerous weapon is used in assaulting or intimidating the member or attendant, the individual shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life.
(Pub. L. 103–272, § 1(e), July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 1244; Pub. L. 107–56, title VIII, § 811(i), Oct. 26, 2001, 115 Stat. 382.)


This is a listing of three separate cases; assaulting or intimidating, interference with duties, or conspiring to interfere

You are mis-reading that statute. It isn't three separate cases. It is a person who is assaults or intimidates a crewmember and the act of assault or intimidation causes interference or lessening of the ability.

 

[Fizzerpilot]

You are mis-reading that statute. It isn't three separate cases. It is a person who is assaults or intimidates a crewmember and the act of assault or intimidation causes interference or lessening of the ability.

Like refusing to wear a seatbelt. Refusing to place a child in a car seat. Refusing to comply with instructions. Now, just to be clear, flight attendants don't remove passengers when overbooked. CSR and GSO handle all of that.

 

[BugI02]

You are mis-reading that statute. It isn't three separate cases. It is a person who is assaults or intimidates a crewmember and the act of assault or intimidation causes interference or lessening of the ability.

From:https://www.justice.gov/usam/crimin...ight-crew-members-or-flight-attendants-49-usc

1411. Interference With Flight Crew Members Or Flight Attendants -- 49 U.S.C. 46504


One who assaults, threatens, or intimidates a flight crew member or attendant while aboard an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States, and thereby interferes with the performance of that crew member's duties or lessens the ability of that crew member to perform his/her duties is punishable under this subsection. See United States v. Meeker, 527 F.2d 12 (9th Cir. 1975). A violation of 49 U.S.C. § 46504 is a general intent crime; it does not require any specific intent to intimidate or to interfere with the flight crew member or attendant. See United States v. Grossman, 131 F.3d 1449, 1451-52 (11th Cir. 1997); United States v. Compton, 5 F.3d 358, 360 (9th Cir. 1993); United States v. Hicks, 980 F.2d 963 (5th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 941, 507 U.S. 998 (1993); United States v. Meeker, supra, 527 F.2d at 14. While attempted aircraft piracy and interference with flight crew can both be charged in the same indictment, if convicted on both charges, the defendant should be sentenced only under the attempted aircraft piracy conviction because, absent highly unusual circumstances, the interference with flight crew charge is the lesser included offense. See United States v. Compton, supra, 5 F.3d at 360; see also United States v. Calloway, 116 F.3d 1129 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 118 S.Ct. 324 (1997); United States v. Figueroa, 666 F.2d 1375, 1380 (11th Cir. 1982).

Perhaps this will clarify. Does it still look like a person has to do all three, or just any one from the list. Or not And

 

[Fargo]

Like refusing to wear a seatbelt. Refusing to place a child in a car seat. Refusing to comply with instructions. Now, just to be clear, flight attendants don't remove passengers when overbooked. CSR and GSO handle all of that.

No, none of those are covered by the statute quoted. They may be covered by another statute, but the statute quoted above is a max 20 year sentence felony requiring assault or intimidation.

 

[BugI02]

Like refusing to wear a seatbelt. Refusing to place a child in a car seat. Refusing to comply with instructions. Now, just to be clear, flight attendants don't remove passengers when overbooked. CSR and GSO handle all of that.

Or like refusing to shut down a portable electronic device when instructed to do so

 

[Fizzerpilot]

All you have to do is intimidate...

If you refuse to follow an instruction, talk back, that's intimidation.

The punishment is UP TO 20 years... to cover all of those situations. Simple intimidation can get you a night in jail, on Christmas Eve, in St Louis... all because we dont carry 7Up as a beverage. That was a funny night.

 

[BugI02]

This didn't seem to go viral

http://wreg.com/2016/12/12/authorities-woman-dragged-off-plane-after-refusing-to-leave/

 

[Fizzerpilot]

Well, to be fair, she wasn't Chinese, or a doctor with appointments...

 

[Fargo]

From:https://www.justice.gov/usam/crimin...ight-crew-members-or-flight-attendants-49-usc



Perhaps this will clarify. Does it still look like a person has to do all three, or just any one from the list. Or not And

No, that doesn't clarify anything. I don't think you understand the difference between general and specific intent. Let's go back and look at your original post.

This is a listing of three separate cases; assaulting or intimidating, interference with duties, or conspiring to interfere

Let's ignore the conspiracy catch all that almost all federal statutes have as it isn't really an independent act but rather taking a concerted substantial step toward the commission of the underlying act.

Now go up and read your blue bolded portion in your last post and see what word comes between "assaulting or intimidating" and "interference or lessening." It's a great big "AND thereby".

 

[Fargo]

All you have to do is intimidate...

If you refuse to follow an instruction, talk back, that's intimidation.

The punishment is UP TO 20 years... to cover all of those situations. Simple intimidation can get you a night in jail, on Christmas Eve, in St Louis... all because we dont carry 7Up as a beverage. That was a funny night.

Maybe you should go to law school before you try to define intimidation as not following instructions.

I just pulled the annotated statute and under the section of evidence sufficient there is one bomb threat, one threat to kill all Americans, and one threat to disable the navigation system.

Look up Eid v Alaska Airlines 621 f3d 858. Here is the headnote for fun:

49 USCS § 46504 is violated only if interference with flight crew members and attendants is accomplished by assaulting or intimidating flight crew member or flight attendant; viewing plaintiff passengers' version of facts, they did absolutely nothing that anyone could reasonably have believed was criminal--none of passengers made threats or got physical with flight attendants--and captain of airplane had no ground to believe that § 46504 was violated, even accepting everything flight attendants told him; jury could have concluded that captain acted unreasonably in diverting plane, forcing plaintiffs to disembark, turning them over to authorities and then refusing to let them re-board flight after police had cleared them. Eid v Alaska Airlines, Inc. (2010, CA9 Nev) 621 F3d 858.

 

[Fizzerpilot]

Hypothetical situation: So let's say Starbucks sells you a coffee, and then tell you they are out after you have paid, but offer you your money back and additional compensation...and tell you they will have another store bring over more of what you ordered within 90 minutes, yet you refuse to leave the store without coffee, throw a tantrum and run around the store like a crazy person...police are called to remove you and you still refuse to leave so they have to remove you with force. How is this Starbucks fault? They tried to make things right and you decided to be a child. The police dragged you out, not Starbucks staff. #Perspective

 

[Fargo]

Here's another one for fun.

Holding in applicable judicial precedent interpreting 49 USCS § 46501(2) cannot be expanded to mean that interference with flight crew member occurs every time flight crew member becomes concerned or apprehensive about individual's behavior and conduct aboard flight. United States v Cafiero (2003, DC Mass) 292 F Supp 2d 242.

 

[Fargo]

Hypothetical situation: So let's say Starbucks sells you a coffee, and then tell you they are out after you have paid, but offer you your money back and additional compensation...and tell you they will have another store bring over more of what you ordered within 90 minutes, yet you refuse to leave the store without coffee, throw a tantrum and run around the store like a crazy person...police are called to remove you and you still refuse to leave so they have to remove you with force. How is this Starbucks fault? They tried to make things right and you decided to be a child. The police dragged you out, not Starbucks staff. #Perspective

Yeah, cause a caffeine headache and being stranded in a strange city while people at home are relying on you are totally the same.

Contract law has this funny thing about reasonably forseeable damages for a reason.

 

[cobber]

Fizzerpilot, do tell us the airline you fly for so I can be sure your flight crew will always get the seat I otherwise would have purchased. And you have a bright future in PR, by the way.

 

[BugI02]

First, I freely acknowledge that I have my butt in the wind trying to interpret case law and quote same to an actual lawyer, but I did find this. Does this speak to the concerns you had about specific vs general intent?


From: http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/131/1449/514305/

49 U.S.C. § 46504. No specific intent element is apparent on the face of the statute. However, Grossman argues that the government was required to prove both that he intended to intimidate a flight attendant and that he intended to interfere with her performance of her duties.4


Section 46504 was enacted in 1994, before the conduct in this case occurred, and it replaced 49 U.S.C. § 1472(j), which prohibited assaulting, intimidating, or threatening any crew member or flight attendant "so as to interfere with the performance by such member or attendant of his duties or lessen the ability of such member or attendant to perform his duties." This court reviews de novo a district court's interpretation of a statute. United States v. Grigsby, 111 F.3d 806, 816 (11th Cir. 1997).


There are no appellate court decisions addressing the intent issue as it relates specifically to the language of § 46504, but in their briefs the parties seemed to agree that the issue has not changed since § 46504 replaced § 1472(j). There is no indication of any congressional intent to change the meaning of the statutory language as it relates to this issue. In any event, the two circuits that have addressed specific intent arguments relating to § 1472(j) both held that it was a general intent crime. See United States v. Meeker, 527 F.2d 12, 14 (9th Cir. 1975); United States v. Compton, 5 F.3d 358, 360 (9th Cir. 1993); United States v. Hicks, 980 F.2d 963, 974 (5th Cir. 1992).


The Ninth Circuit in Meeker reasoned that, if Congress had intended to legislate a specific intent crime, the statute would have said "with the intent to" interfere rather than "so as to" interfere. 527 F.2d at 14. The Meeker court also explained that construing the statute as not requiring specific intent was in harmony with the compelling statutory purpose of safeguarding flight personnel against acts interfering with the performance of their duties. Id. According to Meeker, Congress wanted to prohibit the interference, not the intent to interfere. Id.


The Fifth Circuit essentially followed this same reasoning in Hicks, 980 F.2d at 974, where it held that there was no requirement that the defendant acted with specific intent to interfere.


Based on the plain language of the statute and the decisions of our sister circuits, we hold that § 46504 does not require any showing of specific intent; instead, it defines a general intent crime.

 

[Fizzerpilot]

Fizzerpilot, do tell us the airline you fly for so I can be sure your flight crew will always get the seat I otherwise would have purchased. And you have a bright future in PR, by the way.

I think we have firmly established that myself and my crew will always have a seat on a full flight. But thanks for the offer