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
Otteray Scribe: ” Some not only went off half-cocked, some were in a cocked hat. ”
—-
Well, one of those folks from your point of view should be me and if it’s not then I’m doing a darn poor job of posting.
See my above posting. Obviously the gulf between viewpoint is so great that we will just have to agree to disagree even if I’m correct and can’t get any converts. 🙂 Yes, I’m just being a b***h at ya’ now for the humor of it. We agree on a lot of things but the gulf is just too wide this time buddy, (“Buddy”, as in buddy, no subtext there.) It’s been a fun debate though.
Arthur : “The captain wanted to see if there was a problem with following instructions, so he asked the kid to come outside to discuss the problem. The whole point of that move was to see if he would follow legitimate orders, which is why it could NOT be done in his seat. Had he complied, the captain would have taken him off to the side in the jetway, told him the rules and procedures that he was expected to follow.”
————-
Secret test for absolute compliance? LOL. Yes, I’m thinking that’s funny in a way that is not complimentary for the airline industry. How about truth in advertising? Why aren’t there gigantic, GIGANTIC, signs covering every spare inch of airport wall space that say: “We demand absolute and total compliance with every order or request from anyone, anywhere in this airport and especially in the plane. If you don’t comply we have the legal authority to remove you and put your ass in jail AND WE WILL.
Print that in 14point type on every ticket and make it a giant flashing banner on every Internet site that sells tickets and make it mandatory for every travel and ticket agent to state that to their flying customers.
Seriously. We just need to agree to disagree.
tomdarch,
Your comments and that extremely poor attempt at an analogous scenario seem very inappropriate for this blawg. What you wrote is out of character from what I have seen from your previous postings. Please reconsider what you stated. Thanks.
I have to agree with Capt. Erb here. I thought the same thing when I read tomdarch’s comment, as well as some of the comments that had gone before. Some not only went off half-cocked, some were in a cocked hat.
Be careful about jumping to conclusions when you do not know all the facts. That is something I learned decades ago when I got into forensics. The worst thing you can do is decide a case before you have gathered all available facts. Some here have continued to argue all kinds of things, including racism and militarism, when there is no evidence at all to support those notions. Trolls pull stuff out their nether parts. We are better than that. I hope. Good on ya’ Captain. Keep on keeping the shiny side up and the greasy side down.
Mike Spindell,
Every time you speak of your “road trip” I think of this song and I have posted it previously. Do you remember the tune?
The Dewdrop Inn
Tucked my hair under my hat
Some feller with green teeth
Kue Klux Klan
Friend of them long-haired hippie-type pinko fags..
While it is true that most airline captains of my age are military trained and vets of Vietnam as well as being white, I am outraged at the slur and slanders made by tomdarch. I did join the Air Force willingly in 1965 and am a Vietnam era vet. I also was a leader in the anti-Vietnam war movement in my area when I got out, and before that was active in the civil rights movement. In fact, when I joined the Air Force I had to really read the Attorney Generals list to see if I had been in any of the proscribed organizations. I was also fortunate enough to personally hear Dr. King give his I have a dream speech when he came to Hartford, CT.
In my four years in the Air Force, I found that the overwhelming numbers of the military are passionately devoted to our Constitution and civilian supremacy. To paint them as military robots or martinets is outrageous and requires an apology if you wish to preserve a sense of decency here. The military DOES function in a democratic society, and while it has more rules and restricts civil liberties more than civil life, you still have the essential freedoms, which I fully exercised when I was opposed to the Vietnam war.. My commanders did not appreciate my views, but as long as I followed military rules and regs, I had no problem. I was not selected for re-eniistment to be sure, but that hardly bothered me in any case. Given the case of Maj. Hasan and his murderous rampage and his previously stated views, I would say the US military was far too lenient in that regards.
I am well to the left of most people on this blog and most pilots too, though I have run into some radicals as captains who are of similar views to mine. Yet I still support what the captain did and he was entirely reasonable at all times in his conduct and actions. So you slander me without knowing a single thing about me and do the same thing you decry about whites profiling minorities. You also slander ALL captains and aircrew as well with your assertions by calling them racists.
Group think is NOT confined to the right wing, but is as bad on the left too.
BIL, 🙂
“pace to a” above sb ‘place to hide a”.
Mike, your spelling errors are not a problem for me, I’ve got my own problems with spelling and my spell checker.
My spell-checker, a google thing, has started doing something strange and annoying. When I go to spell check it shows not only the original in the comment window but a second copy- I then have to correct BOTH. If I miss a word in either copy the original misspelling stays. Anyone else having that problem? I have to use that google spell checker because my explorer spell checker will not work at all with wordpress now. Started about a month ago.
LK,
I forget which comedian said this, but to paraphrase, “The reason people in the ’60s and ’70s were having so much sex is they would do anything to get out of those horrible clothes.”
LK,: “That’s just why I chose that, although it was probably obscure to some, remember I am past my middle 60′s. I of course believe what went on here had similar undertones.” {Zoot Suit reference}
—
I figured you did, your scholarship (including much popular culture) is great and often matched by you subtlety. I hoped after I replied to that post that, like a rude comedian, I didn’t step on your ‘punchline’ to be delivered in a subsequent posting. I thought your comment brilliant on many levels and I see this current incident in that context.
______________________
“However, back in my hippie days I mostly wore Mexican Wedding Shirts, with a V neck that almost reached my navel, Bells with metal star studs down the side of each leg, no undersware, sandals or Fry Boots. My hair, I had it on top then, was shoulder length and my beard was full, but trimmed so I wouln’t look like a Hasid. In short I looked like the cross between a biker and a gay guy”
—
I bet you were a fabulous sight to see, LOL, as were many of us. I knew more than one person that had huge, HUGE Afro’s and Jewfro’s, so long and dense that they could hide j’s in them. LOL, they were always ‘holding’ something up there. An African-American friend explained that it was the safest pace to a little something ( a j or a couple of tabs) because if you got stopped by a white cop they would never put their hands in a black persons hair, they thought it was ‘nasty’. Swear-to-god. True or not, it was a bit of cultural education that stuck with me. Good times 🙂
“Can you imagine what would have happened if the Captain were a Roman or Viking ship’s commander?”
OS,
On a Viking ship the Captain wouldn’t have given a damn what the crewmembers wore, as long as they could fight. On a Roman Ship, I suppose legionaires were expected to dress in a certain way, but the oarsmen were naked or almost any way. Again though, I’m not questioning the Captain’s authority, I’m questioning his judgement and what he perceives to be disobedience. That I wouldn’t wear my pants like that is certain, but whom am I to judge another persons dress? By the same token who is anyone else to question peoples clothing? The questioning of clothing choices is all about power and class. Always was and always will be. I refer you to the sumptuary laws in the middle ages, or the laws governing Jewish garb for at least a thousand years in Europe.
It’s not tomdarch, it’s ‘”tomdarch”, if he is who he claims to be.’
tomdarch, you left out the money quote on the list of violations: “…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…”
Courts have ruled on the interpretation of those several phrases. I not only am familiar with that section of the US Code, but have looked up the cases as well. There are a lot of assumptions going on with few facts. The reason the kid was arrested was NOT for wearing low pants. He was arrested for refusing to come with the Captain out onto the jetway for a discussion. It is a test. If there is a question of a passenger being disruptive in any way, the Captain will invite that person to come to one side and have a discussion of the rules. Failure to comply triggers a response that is set out by Federal regulations controlling passenger aircraft. In anticipation of potential trouble, all passengers must be deplaned and sent to a waiting area. The authorities will then come and take the offender away. Captain Erb is correct in his explanations. That is the way things work. If you do not like it, then your option is to not fly. Thing is, do this one too many times and you will find yourself on the no-fly list.
This started as an issue of low hanging pants and the flight crew told him several times to pull up his pants. That is a safety issue and also is found on the back of your ticket where it tells you that if there is not a medical reason, appropriate dress is expected. Baggy pants are a safety hazard if you have to evacuate an airplane full of people in sixty seconds or less. When the Captain came back to talk to him he told the Captain “It has been taken care of” and refused to comply when told to come outside. THAT got the plane evacuated and the guy arrested. As far as the Captain knew, he had somebody on drugs, drunk or a psychiatric problem. He was required to evacuate the plane for everyone’s safety. All that constitutes interference with the flight crew in the performance of their duties.
1) Am I the only person here who bothered to look up 49 USC Sec. 46504, or am I not qualified to interpret it?
http://trac.syr.edu/laws/49/49USC46504.html
“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.”
It doesn’t say “ignores” or “refuses to comply with a request or order,” it uses the words, “assaults” or “intimidates.”
2) According to the argument “Arthur Randolph Erb” is making, in the following scenario on a plane:
CAPTAIN: “Show me your t**s!”
FEMALE PASSENGER “Excuse me?”
CAPTAIN “Take off your top! I want to see your breasts!”
FEMALE PASSENGER “What? No!”
CAPTAIN “Oh! You are refusing my order? I will speak with you about this in the bathroom! Get in there right now!”
At this point, the passenger must comply with his order, regardless of the fact that pilot has no grounds for the initial demand. (Never mind the fact that she has neither “intimidated” nor “assaulted” any member of the crew…) The claim being that the authority isn’t over the initial, problematic demand, but rather about the passenger’s refusal to follow subsequent demands. Right?
3) This situation, similar situations and the comments from Mr. Erb (assuming he is what he says he is) seem to point towards a cultural problem among airline pilots. I may be wrong, but I have the sense that many of them are “white”, from other-than-urban (or, more specifically, “cosmopolitan”) cultural backgrounds, and may have enthusiastically joined the military, and thus embrace a culture of “orders and obedience,” rather than the civil/democratic system that the rest of us work under in the US. This would seem to explain why people with certain clothing and/or hair styles, such as the Imams going to a conference on anti-Muslim discrimination, have been thrown off planes by pilots. Similarly, Mr. Erb’s re-working of this situation into “it isn’t his clothing style, it’s the fact that he objected to the crew’s objections to his clothing style – see no racism!” seems to fit a pattern of what Bill O’Reily would call “traditional” approaches to people and situations.
Mike, I was responding to the pearl-clutching over this case about a “civilian” having a passenger arrested on terra firma. My point was that this is not new, and in the bad old days, more could have happened to an offender than being led off in handcuffs. I did not mean it as an analogy, but that the authority of a Captain of a vessel is hardly new and began a long time before 9-11. Can you imagine what would have happened if the Captain were a Roman or Viking ship’s commander? Don’t even want to think about it.
OS,
I love ya and agree on much with you, but this is a seriously bad analogy:
“It occurs to me that if this were the 18th Century, the kid would have risked being keelhauled or hung from the yardarm.”
The issue is not the authority to act, it is the propriety and misuse of authority of this particular act. Because to add to your analogy then, I guess the Captain would have the authority to have a person fellate him, as I’m sure many ship’s Captain did in the 18th Century.
FFLEO,
You’ve caught me in my twisted color sense:
“That is why Avocados must be outlawed.”
My crime is that I love guacamole.
As I’ve said before, I really should remember to proofread. Too many errors to correct, so I beg your indulgence.
“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.”
LK,
That’s just why I chose that, although it was probably obscure to some, remember I am past my middle 60’s. I of course believe what went on here had similar undertones. Also the answers supporting the Captains authority, I think miss the point, as you’ve pointed out, no one disagrees with his authority to maintain safety, just his choice of how to use it.
As a certified old fart many of todays styles bemuse me and I don’t like them. I personally hate tattoos and don’t thing dreads attractive.
However, back in my hippie days I mostly wore Mexican Wedding Shirts, with a V neck that almost reached my navel, Bells with metal star studs down the side of each leg, no undersware, sandals or Fry Boots. My hair, I had it on top then, was shoulder length and my beard was full, but trimmed so I wouln’t look like a Hasid. In short I looked like the cross between a biker and a gay guy.
What I found interesting then though, is I went on six long cross-country car trips (true to my Jack Kerouac reading youth)and never had problems/comments anywhere with my looks, or with police stopping me. I can remember having dinner one night in an upscale restaurant in Salt Lake City, with few stares and everyone treating me fine. Was it because I was white, had manners and was well spoken, or was it that people were more tolerant. The only police stop I had then was 3:00 in N.Dak., because I was doing 95 on a straight open road. I had just smoked a joint 15 minutes before and must have stank from it. I was scared inside, but the highway Patrolman a polite older man just told me to slow it down and gave me a speeding ticket for $15, that he said I could mail in.
Now back then, no doubt, if I was black or latino, the results might have been different. However, in our post 9/11 America, used as an excuse for many authoritarians to let their egos hold sway, we see this needles exercize in exertion of power all to often.
Since I was not there, it is difficult for me to say what my actions would have been, so with that disclaimer, I will try and answer lotta’s question. From the time the kid boarded, there was an indication that there was a problem with him following instructions. It was of a minor nature, so nothing was done immediately and to clarify the situation, the captain was called. We have a number of security levels and procedures that I cannot divulge, thus the call for the captain.
The captain wanted to see if there was a problem with following instructions, so he asked the kid to come outside to discuss the problem. The whole point of that move was to see if he would follow legitimate orders, which is why it could NOT be done in his seat. Had he complied, the captain would have taken him off to the side in the jetway, told him the rules and procedures that he was expected to follow. Then he would have been let back to his seat with his pants up, and no futher action would have been taken. When he refused the lawful order to follow the captain and come off the plane, THAT triggered the security protocols which is why the other pax were evacuated. In the case I had to deal with in having a suspicious carry on and pax, had that person refused, I would have had to also evacuate the plane as well for obvious reasons..
As for your contention that a kid cannot be expected to have the same judgement as an adult, while that may be true vis a vis science, it does no good for us in society, unless we wish to deny young folks under 25 all of their rights. It is even LESS excuseable for a football player since he has to do what the coach tells him to do WITHOUT question. I can just imagine the response of his coach if he was told to come off the field and refused! He would not only be off the team, but out of his college and without a scholarship. He may well be facing that now too.
If I were that captain, given the publicity and the questions raised, I would go to the US attorney for SF and demand that Federal charges be brought as well. If that had been Southwest Airlines, the company would NOT have refunded his money, and they would also sue him for the delays and the cost of that. That is why I love Southwest since they back up their employees.