Woman Escorted Off US Airways Flight For Snapping Photo...

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by Nspekta

 

Devils advocate argument so read before going off on me -

While people have no expectation of privacy in puiblic, the inside of an aircraft is not a "public" area. This is evident by the authority the Captian has when in control of his aircraft. The aircraft is private property that is open to the public for use through purchasing a ticket.

If the lady who snapped the photos wanted to complain, thats her right, but the airline worker did not break any laws be asking the picture be deleted or by having the lady removed off the aircraft.

So if someone were to be escorted out of the plane for having an ugly mug it would be legal? That's exactly the same situation as here.

People seem to have an issue when it comes to understanding thier rights and how they work while on private property. Any person can walk into a mall and start snapping photos. Is it illegal? Nope. However, because the mall property is private that is open to the public, an individual does not have any absolute rights while on that property.

If mall security confronts a person who is snapping photos in the mall, they can ask the person to stop without any reasons (its private property). They can request the photos be deleted, and that request can technically be denied until any potential court action calls the photos into question, and I dont see it going that far). The person who took the pictures can be told to leave, and if they refuse they can be removed from property and potentially cited for tresspassing.

For LEO you seem to get alot of stuff blatanty wrong. A mall security has zero authority to ask someone to stop photographing. Only the mall owner can do that. Same as with privately owned private property. If I'm on your property taking photographs the neighbour cannot come to me and tell me to stop. Also they have zero authority to ask to delete the photographs. They also have zero authority to ask to see the photographs.

An airplane is the same setup, and aside from the pilot example I pointed out, its required under law to complay with all flight personell requests. Failure to do so can result in being charged with interfering with a flight crew (obviously there will be some specific criteria, but I point this out as an example).

"This is the airplane captain speaking. We're just about ready to take off. While we're taxing I lawfully order the fine ladies in row 4 to take their tops of and jiggle those big boobies."
Yeah right. There is limits what they can do and ask and escorting a person out claiming that she is a "security risk" without any valid reason is not one of them. Just like the part I made up.

The employees nametag was obviously visible not once, but twice to the lady who took the 2 pictures. She could have just as easily as wrote the name down. She also could have easily filed a complaint based off a description and the flight number since flight crews are small.

Why bother when you can just push a button and vóila?

As far aws being removed from the plane, in this case they provided a reason, however, since its private property no reason is required for a company employee to ask / tell a person to leave.

"You're butt ugly. We don't wan't ugly people on the plane. Get out." Same example. There is reasonable limits to what they can excercise their authority. Mainly they cannot violate peoples rights. Claiming someone to be a "security risk" without any valid reason doesn't cut it.

reply to post by PsykoOps


Yes, I know for a fact it is that bad. In fact, I am a private pilot, and I can go just about anywhere I want with a little bit of pilot knowledge and a smile. In fact, I have often talked with my FBI friends about how worthless the TSA procedures are, because anyone halfway familiar with airports knows at least a dozen ways to completely avoid the TSA. I haven't posted on that issue in several months, but you can search out my previous posts if you are curious. I can guarantee a few things, #1... 2 oz of several common chemicals is still plenty to disrupt or even bring down a plane, and #2 ... if someone like the guys on 9/11 really wanted to bring down a plane, they would not board in an International airport, and they would not go through TSA. They would find any number of more common ways to end up on the secure side of the airport.

reply to post by getreadyalready


You are absolutely correct. Anyone who seriously wanted to access an aircraft for nefarious reasons can do so whether the TSA is present or not. If all else fails, someone's brother's cousin's uncle will be HAPPY to give the friendly foreigner a guided tour of the baggage handling area!

Originally posted by Montana
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

I'm glad you read the article, thank you.

So now we can talk about the one picture (not two) that was taken in the airport (not on the plane) which is a public building (PIA is owned and operated entirely by the City of Philadelphia).

I agree that a passenger may be removed from an airplane by employees of the operating airline for cause.
However, if that cause is "I'm upset because I was being an abusive pig while on the job and now I am going to be held accountable for it" than said employee needs to be 'counseled' that that is not a 'security risk'.

Somewhat agree.. I do agree the employee should be dealt with based on the article... What I keep coming back to though is we are only getting one side of the story, which happens to be coing from a disgruntled party who was removed from the plane.

I would like to see what the airline says, if anything. I am curious what was occuring with the people and the employee tht got the attention of the female who was removed in the first place.

As far as public vs. private property, as I said laws can still be enforced, both local and federal.

I didnt see anything where she was added to a no fly list. Did I miss that?

Originally posted by PsykoOps
So if someone were to be escorted out of the plane for having an ugly mug it would be legal? That's exactly the same situation as here.

If I am reading your comment correctly, yes. Private companies dont need to have any reasons to refuse service to anyone.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
For LEO you seem to get alot of stuff blatanty wrong. A mall security has zero authority to ask someone to stop photographing. Only the mall owner can do that. Same as with privately owned private property. If I'm on your property taking photographs the neighbour cannot come to me and tell me to stop. Also they have zero authority to ask to delete the photographs. They also have zero authority to ask to see the photographs.

As I stated, and am correct, a Mall security officer can tell any person to stop taking photos, whether its posted or not based solely on the fact its private property. If a person is within a store, thats a different story because the space is leased.

What you fail to understand, or maybe you just dont know, is the property owner can extend his authority to anyone of his employees, including security, who can act, as well as sign criminal coimplaints, on the owners behalf.

If I ask my neighbor to take care of my house while I am way, then yes, absolutely, my neighbor can come and tell you to stop and force you to leave.

Respectfully, before you tell me im wrong, would you do some basic research.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
"This is the airplane captain speaking. We're just about ready to take off. While we're taxing I lawfully order the fine ladies in row 4 to take their tops of and jiggle those big boobies."
Yeah right. There is limits what they can do and ask and escorting a person out claiming that she is a "security risk" without any valid reason is not one of them. Just like the part I made up.

And I see you like to give stupid and completely worthless examples in an effort to give the appearance to others that you think you know what your talking about and dont. You do this is the cop hate threads as well, and like my advice just above this, I offer it here.

Do some research before opening your mouth and looking stupid. As the Captain of the aircraft he can tell people to sit down, move seats, turn off electronic devices, and can have people who are drunk or acting out restrained if need be to protect those people on his plane.

Telling the first class cabin females to take their tops of is about as lawful as a cop telling a person to strip naked and run down the street.

I really wish you guys would get with the program and put some thought and intelligence into your posts instead of just opening your mouth and posting whatever falls out.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Why bother when you can just push a button and vóila?

Apparently that didnt work out all that well now did it? Why agitate a person over an event you werent involved in who can tell you to leave the plane and go elsewhere?

Originally posted by PsykoOps
"You're butt ugly. We don't wan't ugly people on the plane. Get out." Same example. There is reasonable limits to what they can excercise their authority. Mainly they cannot violate peoples rights. Claiming someone to be a "security risk" without any valid reason doesn't cut it.

Actually in this case telling someone to leave because they are a security risk does cut it. Its incumbent of the employee to articulate her reasoning to her bosses, not the lady she told to leave the plane. As I stated, a private business does not need any reasons to refuse service to anyone.

As far as your argument about how far that goes, Ill grant you that as businesses are sued daly for percieve and actual discrimination. In those cases, the courts will rule and creare case law for either that company, city, county state or federal circuit.

However, potential court litigation still does not negate the fact an emplopyee can refuse tservice to anyone they choose without reason. If the person who is refused feels they have been discriminated against, then its up to them to prove it coccured in civil court.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
If I am reading your comment correctly, yes. Private companies dont need to have any reasons to refuse service to anyone.

Well this kinda falls into the same area then when you escort someone out of plane for being a muslim. Or black, or jew etc. Why do they then sell the tickets and waste the time of the people and let them board the plane in the first place?

As I stated, and am correct, a Mall security officer can tell any person to stop taking photos, whether its posted or not based solely on the fact its private property. If a person is within a store, thats a different story because the space is leased.
*snip*

Apparently I wasn't clear enough. What I meant is that mall security doesn't have the authority to decide the issue. It has to come from the owner. And yes if the owner chooses to do that then mall security can act as their "mouth piece".

And I see you like to give stupid and completely worthless examples in an effort to give the appearance to others that you think you know what your talking about and dont. You do this is the cop hate threads as well, and like my advice just above this, I offer it here.
*snip*

At least I put that one clearly. Yes it is the most stupid and idiotic thing that I wrote and I did that on purpose. Considering that labeling someone "security risk" out of spite is exactly as lawful as what I posted.

Apparently that didnt work out all that well now did it? Why agitate a person over an event you werent involved in who can tell you to leave the plane and go elsewhere?

How was she supposed to know that the woman was a retarted idiot? She is not psychic you know. Also you live in stone age if you think using a cell phone to take notes is agitating. She should've used a rock to carve her hieroglyps onto?

Actually in this case telling someone to leave because they are a security risk does cut it. Its incumbent of the employee to articulate her reasoning to her bosses, not the lady she told to leave the plane. As I stated, a private business does not need any reasons to refuse service to anyone.

Yeah the first sentence would be true if she had actually done something that would qualify as a security risk. If you do it because you're an a-hole with a bad day doesn't cut it. We'll see what happens to her job and if there is any litigation because of this.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Well this kinda falls into the same area then when you escort someone out of plane for being a muslim. Or black, or jew etc. Why do they then sell the tickets and waste the time of the people and let them board the plane in the first place?

Its going to depend on the reason. If they are removed solely because they are muslim, then its a form of discrimination. If they ar removed for causing a disturbance or fail to follow the crew members, then they can be removed.

The short of it is the courts would decide if the person faced discrimination or if the company acted appropriately and acted on something other than discrimination.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Apparently I wasn't clear enough. What I meant is that mall security doesn't have the authority to decide the issue. It has to come from the owner. And yes if the owner chooses to do that then mall security can act as their "mouth piece".

No you were clear, and my answer stands. Private Security has the exact same authority as if they were the property owners, unless the property owner specifies otherwise or policies are in place that spell out the authority of security. It is coming from the owner directly, via security.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
At least I put that one clearly. Yes it is the most stupid and idiotic thing that I wrote and I did that on purpose. Considering that labeling someone "security risk" out of spite is exactly as lawful as what I posted.

Then lets stick to the issue at hand. If using a comparison, keep it in the same ballpark. Coming up with an unrealistic example does nothing but confuse other people who are not as versed as you are. Like I said, we are only getting one side of the story. I am curious what the affected lady might be leaving out.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
How was she supposed to know that the woman was a retarted idiot? She is not psychic you know. Also you live in stone age if you think using a cell phone to take notes is agitating. She should've used a rock to carve her hieroglyps onto?

Of course not, but at the same time why should she involve herself into a situation she knew nothing about other that observing a back and forth? Why involve yourself by taking a photo rather than being discrete and just remeber and then writing down the name?

If her goal was to complain about the employees actions, it would have been more effective coming from an uninvolved 3rd party.Now, the complaint is coming from a person who is no longer a 3rd party. The airline could easily just dimiss the complaint based on the ladies actions since its now a her word vs. her word.

Like I have said in the past about media. Its one thing to report the the story. It becomes something else when they become part of the story, where objectivity goes away, skewing the result.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Yeah the first sentence would be true if she had actually done something that would qualify as a security risk. If you do it because you're an a-hole with a bad day doesn't cut it. We'll see what happens to her job and if there is any litigation because of this.

Determining who is a security risk for the airline is the function of the employees. For the employee, its a matter of their opinion based on their training and the policies of the company. You are correct in questioning the security risk label, but how do we know thats the exact words used? As I said, we are just getting one side of the story.

Being an A-hole having a bad day as an employee is a problem for sure. Being an A-hole and having a bad day as a customer is just as bad.

I am also curious to see how this turns out.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
The short of it is the courts would decide if the person faced discrimination or if the company acted appropriately and acted on something other than discrimination.

So in the end it depends wheter the person who is discriminated wants to pursue legal action?

No you were clear, and my answer stands. Private Security has the exact same authority as if they were the property owners, unless the property owner specifies otherwise or policies are in place that spell out the authority of security. It is coming from the owner directly, via security.

Unless you provide a source for this I'm not gonna believe that. Security workers are nothing like the property owner and cannot make policies on the spot. The policy has to be in place before it can be enforced.

Then lets stick to the issue at hand. If using a comparison, keep it in the same ballpark. Coming up with an unrealistic example does nothing but confuse other people who are not as versed as you are. Like I said, we are only getting one side of the story. I am curious what the affected lady might be leaving out.

Well I went to the extreme example to make it absolutely clear. Didn't mean confuse anyone. Also saying that she has left something out seems bit stretching it. She was labeled security risk, escorted out and then escorted right into another plane. So we know for sure that she didn't do anything that would constitute a threat to safety.

If her goal was to complain about the employees actions, it would have been more effective coming from an uninvolved 3rd party.Now, the complaint is coming from a person who is no longer a 3rd party. The airline could easily just dimiss the complaint based on the ladies actions since its now a her word vs. her word.

Her intention was to file a complaint. I doubt she was intenting to get involved. If you snap someones pictures that doesn't really constitute something like that. Unless of course you go and shove the camera on someones face and curse them and that would be getting involved. Considering that she wasn't the person who was offended first by the employee it's probably not just her word against the employees.

Determining who is a security risk for the airline is the function of the employees. For the employee, its a matter of their opinion based on their training and the policies of the company. You are correct in questioning the security risk label, but how do we know thats the exact words used? As I said, we are just getting one side of the story.
I am also curious to see how this turns out.

Yeah problem with this is that it is open to abuse. Anyone can come up with suspicious stuff someone might have done. Considering that what she did was legal and even allowed at airports then that somehow being twisted into a security issue would be grounds for lawsuit imho. That of course depends on the lady wheter or not she wants to go through that.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
So in the end it depends wheter the person who is discriminated wants to pursue legal action?

Being the affected party is the only group who would have standing yes. The person who felt they were discriminated against must file the complaint / law suit.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Unless you provide a source for this I'm not gonna believe that. Security workers are nothing like the property owner and cannot make policies on the spot. The policy has to be in place before it can be enforced.

Check your tresspassing laws and see how they work. Whether you beleive me or not is of no concern to me. If you think im wrong, go put it to the test yourself and see what happens.

The "Policy" is the security that has been hired. The owner of the property can empower any person to act on his/her behalf when it comes to removing people from private property. If security tells you to leave, and you refuse, you are tresspassing and as such can be detaned, or forcibly removed from property.

As I said, feel free to test that out on your own for your answer.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Well I went to the extreme example to make it absolutely clear. Didn't mean confuse anyone. Also saying that she has left something out seems bit stretching it. She was labeled security risk, escorted out and then escorted right into another plane. So we know for sure that she didn't do anything that would constitute a threat to safety.

The extreme examples causes people to latch onto that argument and do their own spins off of it. Just check some of the cop / government threads. One perosn gives an example thats do far in left field its not even funny, and we end up with 30 pages of people coming up with even more ridiculous examples, while they ignore the corrections.

As far as she goes, its the same argument I make in other threads. One side of the story is represented by the media, while the side thats targeted doesnt release any info until an investigation is conducted. As of now, we just have the ladys story who was removed, and really nothing else.

As an example she says she was confronted and complied. She said she explained to the plane what was going on. What it doesnt say is how exactly the conersation between the lady and the employee went. Its a quick once over and only represents her side of the story.

It seems, and no offense is intended towards you so please dont take it that way, that any story that deals with the government, law enforcement, or entities under government regulation the inclination is to just beleive what the article says, resulting in the 100 meter rush to judgment.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Her intention was to file a complaint. I doubt she was intenting to get involved. If you snap someones pictures that doesn't really constitute something like that. Unless of course you go and shove the camera on someones face and curse them and that would be getting involved. Considering that she wasn't the person who was offended first by the employee it's probably not just her word against the employees.

Well she did intend to get involved when she said she didnt like the way the employee was dealing with other people and wanted to file a complaint. My point was is she has no idea what the complaint was over, or the specifics of that complaint.

Think about it.. The lady affected is talking to the media and brought up the way the employee was treating other travelers. One would think if she was going to file a complaint, that she would have told the media exactly what prompted her involvement in the first place, including a description of the behavior towards the other travelers and what the encounter was over.

She didnt do that, and instead gave a vague description of what occured intially, and then gave detailed info about herself and her encounter.

why? especially when the fisrt half is the direct cause of her incident?

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Yeah problem with this is that it is open to abuse. Anyone can come up with suspicious stuff someone might have done. Considering that what she did was legal and even allowed at airports then that somehow being twisted into a security issue would be grounds for lawsuit imho. That of course depends on the lady wheter or not she wants to go through that.

What you view as abuse, is viewed by private businesses as the right to refuse service to whomever they choose. The airline, specifically the employee, said she was a security risk, and again thats coming from the lady who was tossed off the plane.

We dont know what happened to the people she said the airline employee was rude to. Maybe its possible those travelers were booted off the plane as well for behavior or some other reason, and by extension this lady could possibly have been grouped into their category by her actions.

Like I said, we dont have the entire story.