When This Flight Attendant Tells You to Sit Down . . .

In Mxsmanic
wrote:

Bert Hyman writes:

The answer to such objections is usually "See you in court", after
you've been dragged away in chains.

And if you win in court, you make lots of money.

There's no cash award to the "winner" of a criminal trial.

A later civil suit will be an expensive, time consuming crap shoot.

If you don't protect your rights, you lose them.

That's best done in the voting booth.

--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN

Bert Hyman writes:

There's no cash award to the "winner" of a criminal trial.

But it can be followed by a profitable civil suit.

In Mxsmanic
wrote:

Bert Hyman writes:

There's no cash award to the "winner" of a criminal trial.

But it can be followed by a profitable civil suit.

Your news client must not have displayed the next line of my post:

A later civil suit will be an expensive, time consuming crap shoot.

--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN

Bert Hyman wrote:

Your news client must not have displayed the next line of my post:

A later civil suit will be an expensive, time consuming crap shoot

The OP is a classic sea lawyer.

Bert Hyman writes:

A later civil suit will be an expensive, time consuming crap shoot.

It will not be expensive for the winner.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Robert Neville writes:

Poor reporting - the correct wording is Interference with a Crew Member
in the
performance of their duties. 14CFR91.11:

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_20...14cfr91.11.pdf

There being a great deal of historical and judicial precedent to define
interference as being non-compliance with a crewmember instruction.

The definition of "duties" is vague, however.

The crew member's instructions must be safety related, and his duties are
also
safety-related. He cannot compel you to kneel on the floor and pray, for
example, as this has no legitimate basis in safety and is not part of his
duties.

This case sure seems safety related: "soon enough, the
passenger became aggressive, Gorman says. "He's banging around, screaming in
the back bathroom, he's opened all the compartments," the attendant
remembers. According to a criminal complaint, Chan walked out of the
bathroom with his
pants down."I said, 'You need to sit down now'," Gorman said."

Sancho Panza writes:

This case sure seems safety related: "soon enough, the
passenger became aggressive, Gorman says. "He's banging around, screaming in
the back bathroom, he's opened all the compartments," the attendant
remembers. According to a criminal complaint, Chan walked out of the
bathroom with his
pants down."I said, 'You need to sit down now'," Gorman said."

In this case, perhaps, but not all cases are so clear-cut.

In message Mxsmanic
was claimed to have wrote:

Bert Hyman writes:

A later civil suit will be an expensive, time consuming crap shoot.

It will not be expensive for the winner.

Says who? Even if you win, there isn't any guarantee of getting awarded
costs, your legal fees might well exceed the eventual "win"

On Tue, 09 Feb 2010 07:39:56 +0100, Mxsmanic
wrote:

Sancho Panza writes:

On many recent flights, they have added at the takeoff safety information
that passengers are required to follow all the instructions of the crew.

Then they are misinforming passengers. If a crew member tells a black person
to get to the back of the airplane, the black person need not follow that
instruction.

The instructions must be safety-related, not just arbitrary.

It would depend on the reason for telling the black person to move.

And in this environment, that person would be better off moving and
then pursuing it after the flight ends.

On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 01:59:43 +0100, Mxsmanic
wrote:

Bert Hyman writes:

A later civil suit will be an expensive, time consuming crap shoot.

It will not be expensive for the winner.

So you agree with the idea of "Loser pays?"