Flying The Gestapo Skies: Woman arrested for refusing to deleteunflattering video on airplane.

mrtravel wrote
Rod Speed wrote
mrtravel wrote
SMS wrote
JR Weiss wrote

Nope. The FAA merely says that the individual airline must
"determine" that devices "will not cause interference with the
navigation or communication system of the aircraft" before they
can be operated in flight. No test whatsoever is required --
only an administrative determination.

This is true. It's the excuse airlines use to prohibit cell phone
use, when the real reason has nothing to do with interference with
the plane's navigation systems. No tests are required or performed.

Cell phone use, while airborne, is banned by the FCC.

No it isnt and many private pilots use them all the time.

I drive over the speed limit most of the time. That doesn't make it legal.

Its legal anyway.

However, I do not know if the FCC rule applies to low flying private aircraft,

It aint the low flying that matters and plenty of private aircraft fly as high as heavy commercial aircraft anyway.

which wasn't being discussed.

Wrong again.

Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
"Jim Davis" wrote:


Police will often handcuff someone until stories can be verified. One or two
cops, five suspects, they'll handcuff them all until they find out what's
happening. Just because they handcuff you, doesn't mean you're under
arrest.


Actually it does. You don't have to go to jail to be arrested.
Technically, any time one is impeded or restrained by the cops, they are
under arrest. It is just that the cop that did the arrest can also end
it at their discretion.
Small point, but many legal points are.


Wrong, again.
Police can detain you, without arresting you.
You can have arrest without handcuffs.
You can have handcuffs without arrest.

Rod Speed wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote:


Technically, any time one is impeded or restrained by the cops, they are under arrest.


Wrong, most obviously when they pull you over for speeding
etc and you're free to leave once they write out the ticket etc.


That is a very good example.

In article , mrtravel wrote:

Rod Speed wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote:


Technically, any time one is impeded or restrained by the cops, they are
under arrest.


Wrong, most obviously when they pull you over for speeding
etc and you're free to leave once they write out the ticket etc.


That is a very good example.

As I said, try to leave w/o signing the ticket. Heck try to leave
before the ticket is written.
The Supremes would also tend to disagree: "whenever a police
officer accosts an individual and restrains his freedom to walk away, he
has 'seized' that person." Terry V Ohio which was about a person just
walking down the street, it was extended later to other things including
car stops.

"mrtravel" wrote...

I drive over the speed limit most of the time. That doesn't make it legal.
However, I do not know if the FCC rule applies to low flying private aircraft,
which wasn't being discussed.

AFAIK, it does. I know of no general exemption (i.e., other than emergency
use).

Kurt Ullman wrote
mrtravel wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Kurt Ullman wrote

Technically, any time one is impeded or restrained by the cops, they are under arrest.

Wrong, most obviously when they pull you over for speeding
etc and you're free to leave once they write out the ticket etc.

That is a very good example.

As I said, try to leave w/o signing the ticket.

Irrelevant to what was being discussed, whether you have been ARRESTED.

Heck try to leave before the ticket is written.

Irrelevant to what was being discussed, whether you have been ARRESTED.

The Supremes would also tend to disagree:

Nope.

"whenever a police officer accosts an individual and restrains
his freedom to walk away, he has 'seized' that person."

Not the same thing as being ARRESTED.

Terry V Ohio which was about a person just walking down the
street, it was extended later to other things including car stops.

Irrelevant to what was being discussed, whether you have been ARRESTED.

Kurt Ullman writes:

The Supremes would also tend to disagree: "whenever a police
officer accosts an individual and restrains his freedom to walk away, he
has 'seized' that person."

Amazing the things that come out of Motown.

Mxsmanic wrote:

Kurt Ullman writes:


The Supremes would also tend to disagree: "whenever a police
officer accosts an individual and restrains his freedom to walk away, he
has 'seized' that person."


Amazing the things that come out of Motown.

Well, if these aren't as popular.

On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 23:21:17 -0700, mrtravel wrote:

David Johnston wrote:
On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 02:39:38 -0700, mrtravel wrote:


James Of Tucson wrote:


On Aug 17, 12:24 pm, Mxsmanic wrote:


Jim Davis writes:


Without a doubt. Keeping it is her right, but there may be problems if she
shows it publicly.

Or maybe not. The real danger, though, is that she'd show in in a courtroom,
and the airline can't do anything about that.


My first thought was that there might be a civil suit or even a
criminal case involving one or both of the subjects of the video, in
which case the video is *evidence* and ordering the destruction of
evidence is often itself a serious crime.

How about

1. She was told by the FA to stop taping
2. She refused to obey that instruction


Do you have any actual reason to think that happened?

Not any more reason than a reason to believe the events occured as the
"grandmother" reported them.

I see. So a total absence of any evidence is equal in weight in your
mind to the existence of some evidence.