There is a rather bizarre case involving a 20-year-old man, Deshon Marman, who entered a plane wearing baggy pants and failed to pull up his pants fast enough for a US Airways pilot who had him arrested at San Francisco International Airport.
Marman is described as a football star at University of New Mexico who was traveling to a friend’s funeral.
He reportedly said that he first refused a demand to pull up his pants upon entering the plane because his hands were full but did ultimately pull up his pants when he reached his seat.
If so, it was not fast enough for the pilot who ordered the plane evacuated and performed a “citizen arrest.”
He was charged with trespassing, battery and resisting arrest.
Notably, there is no published dress code for US Airways and it is not clear how any arrest could be made for baggy pants. This has been a long controversy over efforts to criminalize baggy pants. The trespass charge would appear based on the theory that the pilot wanted him to leave and he did not leave fast enough. There is no explanation of the battery charge. He could not have been a threat since we have seen how baggy pants frustrate crime.
Police admit that he was not threatening anyone. Spokesman Sgt. Michael Rodriguez stated “[h]e was not threatening anybody directly, but being on board an aircraft and being disruptive to the aircraft crew interferes with their duties and that could be a safety factor.”
Police are now also holding Marman on an outstanding warrant on possession of marijuana.
I personally find this style perfectly moronic, but I fail to see the grounds for such an arrest unless the person is being charged with public exposure.
Source: NBC
FFLEO, BIL’s right, they’re music is worth buying. That name is kind of skeevy but it’s appropriate for the vernacular of the period that they sing about. It reminds me of after-hours clubs or speakeasy’s, places my mother talked about from the 30’s and 40’s. Places with no air-conditioning, but the music was hot and still made you want to dance…
Anon, it’s not about having a dress code, the airline is perfectly free to have a non-discriminatory dress code as long as it’s made known, in all fairness when you buy the ticket. It’s about imposing rules made up on the spot and calling the threat of a federal crime based on a catch-all, nebulous statute, down on somebody who says “WTF?”, no, I took care of it and don’t want to discuss it further.
I’ve been many places with dress codes and have no problem with that, just post them where I would enter (for restaurants etc.) or make them known when I buy a ticket or make a reservation. “No shirt, no shoes, no service. 🙂
Lottakatz,
Thanks for that video. Man, I really dig that kinda’ music.
Uh, I wonder what kinda cherry poppin’ they talkin’ ’bout…
I am frankly amazed that a goodly number of people on this thread are happy to hand over so much power to some boarding agent. Now said agents of the airlines will not only be able to demand that you leave your hair gel or mothers milk or toy hammer behind but tell you how to dress in the absence of a dress code. And have that demand backed up relentlessly and unilaterally. As soon as people are conditioned by the security theatre as practiced by the airlines and FAA (and Homeland Security and the host of acronym’s that can pile on) it will spread. It always does. Always.
How about the right to be left alone or the responsibility to mind ones own business absent some real threat or real discomfort? What about the right to not be subject to the whims of any minor apparatchik that feels like misusing his/her power to just plain hassle somebody? The bad guy isn’t this kid, it’s that we as a society have handed extraordinary power over to the least of corporate/government functionaries and see nothing wrong with their whimsical at best (malicious at worst) exercise of it.
This isn’t reason, or the appropriate application of the law or justice, this is just the ratcheting-up of the techniques and tactics of a police state. The aim is the blind, unquestioning of demands no matter how petty and the inflation of any refusal or question thereof (no matter how courteous) into a Federal, jail-time crime.
Yea, everything changed with 9-11, what changed was that the the old foes of democracy saw an opening and took it without opposition. The big protections are gone, a fait accompli, now we are seeing the trickle down of totalitarianism, we are all just someone’s whim away from being criminals.
OS,
Believe it or not, I once interviewed with the company that makes Utili-kilts in Seattle for a sales rep position.
Anyway, I think the issue I was hinting at is the dividing line between an order that’s within a captains authority to make and one that isn’t.
Blouise,
I haven’t flown since Dec. of 2005, and I plan to keep it that way.
And what Mike S. and rafflaw said…
A friend of mine used to be a flight attendant with United. We once laughed about a guy who boarded one of her flights wearing only a Speedo swimsuit and cowboy boots. People on the flight were amused, but there was no uproar…
I think that this was a situation that needn’t have escalated. I agree with what Lottakatz said so well:
“This isn’t about pants, it’s about power and not asking ‘how high’ when told to jump. That’s what power wants to hear and anything else in simply unacceptable.”
I guess I’m old, but just because tweens, teens, and cougars go to the mall in pajamas doesn’t mean I think there should be no dress codes anywhere.
So have at it.
I understand making a slippery slope argument is one of the last refuges of the desperate, but for those of you saying sagging should be fine, and pajamas should be fine, what boundaries would you place on clothing ever?
Is topless okay? Why not?
What about those who just want to wear shorts and sandals (my favorite attire).
What rights does a private carrier have to create and enforce a dress code, and what are your own minimal boundaries that you would enforce on others in public?
Mike S.,
I agree with you that this case is an example of an abuse of authority
and why should he leave the plane when he paid for his ticket and was not doing anything wrong?
I’d guess – as plenty of else in life – context is everything.
You wanna push the counter-culture envelope on the ground? Not a problem.
But when those planes hit the New York towers, all of a sudden things changed big-time in the world of jet travel. Fact of life. The pendulum swings.
So until some non-thinking, self-absorbed twit can buy his own plane, he’s singling himself out for being tossed out of somebody’ else’s flying house.
Or, as my very wise, self-educated Dad used to say, “You don’t like apples bouncing off your head? Don’t shake the damn tree.”
Forget spending money on college. All this fellow needs is 30 days on a working farm.
BIL, Got it and most of it is good driving music. I’ve got various selections on some discs I made for the car. It’s a testament to the Turleyblawg that so much esoteric (or esoterically titled anyway) music is appropriate to punctuate the threads. It may not all rise to Nal’s “glorious stereo” sound, unfortunately, but it works with the commentary.
If you enjoyed that song by the Cherry Poppin’ Daddies, I suggest the entire disc it comes from, “Zoot Suit Riot”.
Those boys can kick it.
Take the train …
Mike Spindell:
“If I wear a chartreuse Zoot Suit, does anyone have the right to tell me I can’t fly?”
——–
If you manage to escape the fashion martinets and get on the plane come sit by me- I’ll be the slutty-looking free spirit in the mini-skirt, see-through blouse and platform shoes, just like I wore back in the day. 🙂
They probably wouldn’t let you on the plane though, not in California. They were the symbol of rebellion among young Mexican, Italian and African American men and have their name attached to a L.A. race riot instigated by Sailors and Marines against latino’s.
From Wikipedia under “Zoot Suit”:
“Characteristics: A zoot suit has high-waisted, wide-legged, tight-cuffed pegged trousers, and a long coat with wide lapels and wide padded shoulders. Often zoot suiters wear a felt hat with a long feather and pointy, French-style shoes. A young Malcolm X described the zoot suit as: “a killer-diller coat with a drape shape, reet pleats and shoulders padded like a lunatic’s cell”.[4] Zoot suits usually featured a watch chain dangling from the belt to the knee or below, then back to a side pocket.
The amount of material and tailoring required made them luxury items, so much so that the U.S. War Production Board said that they wasted materials that should be devoted to the World War II war effort.[5] This extravagance during wartime was a factor in the Zoot Suit Riots.[6] Wearing the oversized suit was a declaration of freedom and self-determination, even rebelliousness.[6]”
See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoot_Suit_Riots
Gyges, I don’t think anyone wants to see your li’l teapot. I know I don’t.
But some of the stories told by the guy who wears his sport kilt are hilarious. Lots of red faces, none of which were his, because he is not only shameless, he has a great sense of humor. Now if they wanted to see his teapot, I am sure he would be glad to give you a vista view of the Pride of Scotland.
Excuse me “…shave my beard, strip naked, and do….”
OS,
So can the crew require me to shave my strip naked and do I’m a little tea pot in front of the rest of the passengers? I only ask, because if not, then there conversation changes from “You have to do whatever the crew tells you,” into “You have to do whatever the crew tells you within X parameters. Is pulling up pants in X?”
Lottakatz I finally read the real reason for his being arrested. It was NOT for having his pants too low or refusing to pull them up. He was asked to step outside the plane to discuss the situation and he refused that order. After 9/11 I had a young man who another pax had concerns about his carry on bags. I called the TSA and went back and asked the person to come outside and bring his carry on bags. He complied, the TSA did a secondary screening on him and checked his bags, and he reboarded after I explained the situation to him and apologized . I also told the F/As to give him free drinks as compensation for the trouble.
If this young man had complied with the captains ORDER, he probably would have been let back on and nothing further would have happened. Instead, he decided that HIS words and desires overrode that of the captain. It is absolutely clear that the captain and aircrew were completely correct in their actions. I have to laugh that he wants to take Southwest to get back. He does not know that Southwest has and will KILL those who do not follow instructions! At Southwest their rule is that the crew is ALWAYS RIGHT! One violent young man was killed by a combination of crew and pax on a flight. GOOD LUCK!
Mike, see my several comments above regarding the safety issue of low hanging trousers on an airplane. Not to mention the sensibilities of the little old ladies who may not want to see the fellow’s junk. I know a guy who wears a sport kilt when flying, not only for comfort, but because it maximizes his mobility in an emergency.
The point was that this guy disobeyed a lawful instruction from ground crew, which escalated because he ignored the instruction. Once an order is given, no matter what, it must be followed. Explanations may or may not follow later.
P.S.: That sport kilt has caused some interesting moments in the enhanced pat-downs, since he goes Regimental. 😀
One of the things that has made me angry for my entire life has been the misuse of authority. My normal tendency for many years was
to reply to it with anger, sarcasm and at times non-compliance. I was, however, always smart enough to understand when I was outgunned
metaphorically and physically. Seething I would control myself and comply and that’s why I have never gotten into bad trouble.
Now although I have trouble with misuse of authority, I’m also aware that authority is very necessary in many situations, or we would have anarchy and chaos. Those defending the Captain have provided ample support of his authority in this situation. However, I’ve seen nothing to the effect that there are either specific regulations against low slung pants, or that they represent a danger that needs to be controlled.
While authority must be respected in potentially dangerous situations, can anyone tell me what was either dangerous or illegal about this young man’s attire?