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
Why is it ok for a female to show her cleavage and not for a man to show his ass…..well, that is rhetorical….because a lot of men become asses when they see the slightest glimmer of a woman breast…..
“So great. You’ve outed yourself as a dimwit that is either too stupid to realize you have made a mistake or too arrogant to apologize or both.”
Anon,
I’ve read every post on this thread and I don’t see that tomdarch slandered or slurred anyone, therefore I don’t see that he had to apologize for anything. When you pointed out my factual errors I immediately apologized, unequivocally.
“tomdarch’s” analogy was neither a slur, nor a slander. It was to me a proper example of “reduction ad absurdem,” carrying this assertion of power out to its’ most ridiculous lengths to point out some of the possible flaws in application it allows for. It was obvious that tomdarch did not mean this as a real world example of what could happen on a plane, yet given the numerous cases of LEO’s abusing their power for sex, over abuse of this type of power is conceivable and as many here have asserted appears to us in this case.
You on the other hand did slander and slur tomdarch in the above quote. I hesitated to write this because you may construe it as my trying to pay you back for outing my errors. I think my body of work here belies that and believe you were quite correct in exposing me, therefore I hold no rancor. I do believe though that the quote above from you, was uncalled for, given what it was responding to.
One thing about that underwear; it is certainly slide-friendly. Well aside from the “slide rash” he would get, but that is his problem, not the flight crew or other passengers. However, the high heels would have to go in case the plane were evacuated. Thanks, Bdaman, for helping me make my point. It is not WHO wears it, or how skimpy it is, it is whether it is SAFE or not.
There are limits, such as exposing one’s junk to the flying public–which includes children, but we do have indecent exposure laws to take care of those eventualities.
I may be late and if someone discussed this or posted it sorry for redundancy.
Man flies US Airways in women’s underwear (Photo)
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/crime/detail?entry_id=91446#ixzz1Q1HravbG
“(*) baggy pants riding below the butt does not come from a low rider or a latino culture. It comes from a prison culture.”
Anon,
Alright. Rub it in why dontcha? 😀
“I really am interested in a discussion of how “society” and “the law” benefits and has the right to direct what people wear.”
Anon,
On an American Societal level this seems to me to be a difficult discussion. My opinion is that our society it relentlessly prudish and hypocritical regarding sexuality and that prudery actually has a poisonous effect. So as to the question of public nudity, I have no problem with it. Indeed, prior to my marriage I went many times to nude beaches on both coasts and also one summer frequented a resort that allowed nudity poolside every weekend. My experience is such that I think the nudity I experienced actually serve to de-sexualize, rather than what common wisdom would hold true.
I must say that as the father of Daughters, neither of them has ever seen me in a state of undress and that includes underwear. Given the level of prudishness rampant in our culture, it would have been creepy on my part to have let my daughters see me that way. Also my 8 years in Children’s Protective Services, caused me to be cautious in my fatherly interactions. To my regret I was less physically affectionate with them than I would have liked, but when you help put incestuous pedophiles in jail, the experiences tends to color your own child rearing behavior.
However, though sexuality and nudity do flow from this question, it also hides what to me is the more salient issue. Mores of dress have historically been used to delineate social status structure and also play into the prejudices of a given society, or social group within it. What we refer to today as the “World of Fashion” is in reality a means of sorting out the class structure. The elite are almost always the most up-to-date fashionwise. They are followed by the “Parevenu’s,” the middle classes and the lower classes. In all societies this has historically been true and was an easy outward manifestation of ones class and status.
The Hippie movement and the extreme backlash towards it, irrespective of politics, was so threatening because it eradicated class distinction by attire. This disorients societies that rely on dress as a social monitor. This young man’s attire, in whatever way you characterize it, was offensive to airline personnel and therefore he needed to be reprimanded and so was. That’s what bothers me about this incident, but I recognize the right of the airlane to have an enforce a dress code. In this case, in the absence of a clear dress code, I think they completely overreated.
Tomdarch I see that you either did not read or retain what was in my previous posts and those of others. I’ll break this down to its simplist elements without going into racial US histroy which I know far better than you.
The fact is that the captain came back and requested to speak to the kid off the airplane in the relative privacy of the jetway. He refused a lawful order. As I stated earlier, I had a similar incident with a young white male who I asked to come off the plane for a secondary screening. He had done NOTHING at all as far as he knew to warrant this. He complied, was searched, and got back on board. I do not have to have any reason to make that request. He had a legal requirement to follow me and be searched. Now, if he had been black, I am sure YOU would say it was because he was black. THAT would be a lie and a slander. Thus your contention in this case is as baseless and stupid as well. You are in effect saying that since blacks are still subject to some prejudice, that ALL requests for compliance with orders are motivated by racial bias.
Had the kid used common sense and courtesy, and decency, he would have been let back on board, and nothing more would have been heard about it. You further show yourself to be a bigot by asserting that since most of the pilots of my age are military vets, we treat all people as subordinates in the miltary. Then you go further and state that since there are some bigots in the piloting profession, that this must have played a part in the captain’s request as well, without knowing anything about that captain. You simply assume that to be the case because of his supposed background and race. The is the SAME kind of reasoning or lack of it that gives rise to bigotry and I find that very offensive in a person of any race or profession. All the more so when it is directed at me and my fellow captains.
As to the rights and powers of the captain. In matters pertaining to the operation of the aircraft, he is the absolute authoriy. just because you have a seat asssignment printed on the ticket does NOT mean that you must have that seat. There are many aircraft in which pax placement is critical and you may be ordered to move. You do NOT have the option to insist on your “rights” to the seat.. In the case of the disabled pax who was denied a seat by the captain, that was his right to act in that manner. Since I am also a chief pilot now, I can say that if I were his chief, he would have to explain to me what his reasons were. At first blush, it would appear he was in the wrong as per company policy. He put himself on very thin ice by refusing to even look and talk to the person. That was not only unprofessional, but also discourteous. In all likelihood, he would get some time off for acting as he did. I can recall another instance where a captain refused to allow Frank Lorenzo on board his aircraft and kicked him off. That was his right as well. Had I been his chief, I would have backed him up to the hilt on that one.
In short, you do not have any right, legal or moral, to refuse any lawful order from a crewmmeber. That is not optional, nor was the kid standing up for his “rights”.
Since I grew up during the McCarthy era, and lived in a police state in the southern part of the US, I personally know what a police state is like. What we have today is FAR better than any time in my life compared to those days. The only difference is that we cannot do as I did when I took my first flight in my life and walk on board the plane with no checks or security.
As to my status, you also missed the point that I am a client of Prof. Turley which is the reason I checked out this blog. With a modicum of intellect, you could check out my credentials.
“tomdarch”, whatever the hell kind of bug that is,
You wrote:
“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…) ”
Which is a slur and outlandish.
And now you write ” I do not agree that I made any slurs or slanders, I can not apologize to you.”
So great. You’ve outed yourself as a dimwit that is either too stupid to realize you have made a mistake or too arrogant to apologize or both.
Otteray Scribe – Of course, there are rules and regulations on the books covering such things, but I say “post hoc” here because:
1) there is no sign that anyone stated anything about “safety” in regards to his pants prior to his arrest. Quite to the contrary, all the discussion was about his underwear-clad buttocks possibly being exposed. Nowhere in the video can you make out the crew saying, “your baggy pants are dangerous.” If a danger being presented by the pants was the core issue, then the crew should have been saying from the outset, “either you change into different pants, or we won’t let you on the plane.” Is there any indication that this was said at any point?
2) there are many other forms of “dangerous” clothes that appear to go un-challenged when people board planes. Not to say that no one ever challenges problematic clothing – I’m sure you couldn’t board a plane in a huge Vegas show-girl head dress or partially restrained in bondage gear, but there’s clearly a very low bar as a real-world standard of care in operation across the industry.
(Again, I will add the problem of airlines serving alcohol on the plane and allowing passengers to take sedatives. Of course, they aren’t allowed to serve people to the point of drunkenness, but in reality, it happens. Come to think of it, I REALLY don’t want drunk/zonked out people getting in my way in a cabin fire… Also, wouldn’t a shuffling, elderly person pose just as much or more risk in the aisle as an athlete bound up in saggy pants?)
It appears to me that the safety issue was brought up after his arrest to justify the original conflict, not that it was the original basis for the incident.
Mr. Erb,
Because I do not agree that I made any slurs or slanders, I can not apologize to you. I won’t be disrespectful by being disingenuous. You may believe I’m wrong, you may have solid evidence to prove that. I welcome being dissuaded from my suspicions. If you interpreted what I said to be a claim that ALL commercial airline pilots had these biases, that would be an incorrect interpretation of what I said. Given your background and experience, I would be surprised if you never heard fellow pilots make derogatory comments about non-“white” people or the competence of women. Those biases exist, they exist for more than a tiny minority, and those biases can and do influence how people act.
I “claim” to be an architect. (Who knows online? Maybe I am actually a Syrian lesbian.) I would not be “offended” or consider it to be a “slur” or “slanderous” if someone made the following statement:
“This situation, similar situations and the comments from Tom seem to point towards a cultural problem among architects. They tend to be “white”, male, and from upper-middle class backgrounds. The self-select to be architects because it seems to be an enjoyable, less demanding occupation. They don’t take their work as seriously as some other professions, such as commercial airline pilots. Because of their backgrounds and the self-selection process they don’t care about cost or schedule or profits. They don’t know much about actual building construction, and only care about how buildings look! Because of the well-off backgrounds many come from, they happily insist on expensive aesthetic or “green” requirements and don’t understand the limitations of people in situations of poverty.’
I wouldn’t be “offended” and even incorrect components of such a statement aren’t “slurs”. Some of those are true statements about the cultural biases of some architects – enough that the profession should and has addressed them. We all have cultural biases, and while not all architects have cultural biases that cause them to undervalue the understanding of the “nitty gritty” of building construction, some do not. Both of my grandfathers were building contractors, so while they were alive, I got to see things from their perspective. As a result, I see some of these “cultural bias issues” in my fellow architects.
(Actually I just read a thread in an engineering forum, where a bunch of engineers (including non-structural) were complaining about how architects don’t know anything about structural engineering. The original poster was complaining that the architect doing his house remodel had specified too large a beam, not too small. “Architects can’t do the calculations to design beams!” Ironically, I had completed a set of beam calcs that were sitting in front of me which would disprove that statement. That said, all US architects have done those calculations at one point to get licensed, but many can’t do them today. So, were those statements “slurs”? Was I offended? No, they had some merit, but were somewhat off the mark. Of course, as the discussion went on, the engineers put their heads together and figured out that the architect was about right…)
The history of medicine over the last century is full of examples where the cultural biases of doctors, coming out of a limited cultural background, impaired their ability to treat patients. (Once you get past the circumcision arguments, a Google search of cultural bias in medicine will turn up many instances. When the profession was overwhelmingly “white” (and in an era of more overt racism) doctors did a lousy job of treating “black” patients. When the profession was largely male, they often did a poor job of treating women in general and illnesses that only/primarily effect women.) Over and over again, this profession of powerful individuals, who are used to deference, loudly objected to these observations. “How dare you, sir! Why I never!” Given the profession’s basis in science and proof, over time these biases were exposed as groundless, and treatment was improved. Identify the bias, experiment to test for the effect, either you can prove improvement in outcome or you can’t.
Most other professions don’t have such opportunities for concrete, quantitative testing to expose our biases.
Mr. Erb wrote:
“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.”
The illegal invasion of Iraq really drove this point home for me. Members of the military place an extraordinary trust in the civilian commander in chief, and many die as a result of following those sometimes mistaken orders. I’m sure that there were serious legal questions asked within the US military about the invasion, and there were clearly concerns about the planning – as seen in the forthright testimony of Gen. Shinseki to the Senate about troop levels. Nonetheless, the overwhelming majority of the US military did their best to execute the orders they were given.
That said, there is a huge gulf between people who have embraced the military culture of accepting orders, and those who have not. Even within the military, not everyone goes along with that premise. An Air-Force reservist co-worker told me about one of his chem/bio weapons training classes: This was pre-2001, so many others there had joined for the college benefits, not because they fully grasped what it meant to enlist. When the instructor explained that when the time limit of their hazard suits was approaching, the lowest ranking person in a group would have to take their hood off to see what would happen. (I’m over simplifying.) After the class, many of the people in the group were flabbergasted. “Nuh uh. No way I’d do that!” They hadn’t “embraced” the idea of taking orders, particularly in extraordinary circumstances, or when it appears to be unwarranted. People who do have the military background, and may be empowered by law to issue orders, need to understand that the rest of the world doesn’t buy into that system, and they need to act accordingly.
This system of obeying orders can be premised either on force, or a reasonable degree of trust that orders will generally be issued in a reasonable, responsible manner. As Mr. Erb said, “…you still have the essential freedoms, which I fully exercised when I was opposed to the Vietnam war.” Mr. Erb was able to maintain a level of trust in the hierarchy that was issuing him orders, and as such, he continued to obey those orders.
One problem in the situation we are discussing here, is that many Americans have been given good reason not to trust the system that is issuing orders. We can’t say for sure with the guy who was arrested here, but a lot of “black” Americans know from experience that there’s one set of rules for middle-class “white” Americans, and a different, often random and arbitrary set of rules applied to them. A lot of people in his situation, after being hassled for a silly, racially-charged issue like “baggy pants”, would interpret the situation as “Here we go again!” When some guy in a paramilitary uniform (police-like) says, “Just step off the plane, so we can discuss this,” why trust him? Lots of Americans have been lied to by guys in blue paramilitary uniforms, so why would this situation be any different? Like most of us, he probably had no idea that there’s a federal law that is interpreted to mean that passengers must obey even arbitrary or apparently baseless instructions. Why SHOULD this guy trust the system, and agree to abide by an “obey orders” approach?
Mr. Erb – I think you understand that this is reality for too many Americans. My original point is: how many of your colleagues can see it that way? An overwhelming majority, or as you hint at – is it only a small minority of “radicals”?
Re-watching the video, this guy calmly stood his ground. (He did mock the situation at one point by over-using “sir” – good to see he had some sense of humor.) His pants may have sagged at some point, but he was wearing underwear – as he said, he hadn’t committed any crime. Imagine this situation with a “white” businessman having a genuine “wardrobe malfunction” – his pants sag down, he’s wearing underwear, he waits to get to his seat and then pulls up and secures his pants, and sits down. No harm, no foul. He would make the same argument and similarly stand up for his rights – no crime, I’ve fixed my pants, I paid for my ticket, I am not making a scene, let’s get going. How was this guy any different?
Given that the original situation was resolved (his pants were up, no underwear-clad buttocks were exposed), and the passenger was seated and calm as seen in the video, why did the captain ask him to get up at all? The consensus here is that he was technically ejected/arrested for not getting up. But given what we see in the video, why was he ever “ordered” to get up?
I have to say that “declining an order to get up and step off the plane” sounds a great deal like “resisting arrest” – one of the triumvirate of charges (along with “assaulting an officer” and “disturbing the peace”) that are used by police when making arbitrary, illegal arrests.
I’m sorry to further sound like a 70’s cliche, but at one moment in the video, we see a “black” man calmly standing his ground and standing up for his rights, the next thing we know for sure, he’s under arrest, apparently under the orders of the flight’s captain. It’s very, very difficult to each step of this incident without racial bias playing a role.
tomdarch,
Thank you. In no manner whatsoever do I ever want to stifle comments within this blawg, especially when the commenter is fair-minded, which is what I have thought of you based upon your previous letters.
I look forward to your reply to Captain Erb.
Clarification to avoid confusion. Those quotes are not from Part 91. They are from an airline handbook for flight crews. Part 91 mandates that such rules of operation be in place by all operators. No rulebook; no certification as a carrier. If no certification the aircraft cannot even be pushed back from the gate.
Tomdarch sez: “I don’t buy the (apparently post hoc) claim that the initial objections to “baggy pants” were justified by safety.”
********************************************
Not post-hoc:
Part 91 of the Federal Aviation Administration Regulations are the general operating and flight rules. All commercial aircraft operations come under the control of Part 91.
No seat can be labeled as a ‘safe’ one in an aircraft. ……the ability of the travelers to maintain their temper and exit from the aircraft fast is crucial for survival. Airlines operating large capacity passenger aircraft are required to maintain strict safety regulations.
….In case of emergency slides, being conversant with the location of exits, following the orders of the flight and cabin crew and wearing slide friendly clothes is necessary. High heeled shoes must be removed…..
Again, not post hoc.
Thank you Mike.
I really am interested in a discussion of how “society” and “the law” benefits and has the right to direct what people wear.
Should it be illegal for women to walk around in public topless? Should it be illegal for anyone to be nude anywhere they want? Should any random business be able to demand people wear shirts or not pajamas? Should a “deregulated” common carrier like US Airways have that same right?
Would Rafflaw allow some non-sick guy wearing pajamas into his daughter’s wedding, even if he had an invite? Into his grandfather’s funeral? If a guy came dressed in his jammies to an interview that Raffie was hiring for, would Raffie interview him and not let his clothes be prejudicial? And if that guy repeatedly showed up to work, in his pajamas, would Rafflaw be perfectly okay with that?
I don’t know.
I do think US Airways should have the right to kick out both pajama wearers and saggers. I see no reason to celebrate either prison or tween culture.(*) I think most people (including me) are too gutless to enforce it, but if US Air wants to, more power to them.
(*) baggy pants riding below the butt does not come from a low rider or a latino culture. It comes from a prison culture.
Some easy stuff first:
Former Federal LEO
1, June 20, 2011 at 8:37 pm
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 understand a “bad taste” objection to my hypothetical. My point was to intentionally present an obviously problematic analogy. The argument being made here is that the baggy pants weren’t the fundamental legal problem, but rather than the individual didn’t immediately comply with the instruction to exit the plane. It seems reasonable to me that the person with the “problematic” pants didn’t see a reason for him to be ordered off the plane, and probably found it objectionable that he was being pestered about his pants in the first place. Does the law allow a pilot on a commercial plane to order passengers to do essentially anything he/she wants? If a passenger finds the initial request to be unfounded or objectionable, does that give the passenger any right to object to further, directly related “instructions”?
My choice of absurd analogy was also intended as a parallel to the incident in question and to provoke an emotional response. My inference was that most (all?) people reading this blog would find a demand for a woman to undress in public to be viscerally offensive. It looks like my inference was correct. Because I place this “baggy pants” dispute in context with several other specific “baggy pants” incidents, and personal experience with what I believe to be essentially “racial” incidents, I find this airplane/”baggy pants” situation to be viscerally objectionable.
I knew I was pushing things when I made these statements, and I’ll ratchet back in the future. Being “online” since the days when everyone was .edu, dealing with wackos on alt.religion.scientology in the early ’90s, and being involved with an online community that includes proto-Tea Partiers and more-or-less overt racists, my posting WAS pretty toned-down comparatively. I’ll try to keep things further dialed down in the future.
———————-
Otteray Scribe
1, June 21, 2011 at 2:37 pm
tomdarch, I made no such argument regarding high heels, etc. Now that you bring it up, however, I think those are not safe for walking on the sidewalk, let alone an airplane. However, a woman can kick off her shoes in case of emergency. It has happened before, a number of times.
——————————–
Sorry – I wasn’t directing that at any of your comments. Nonetheless, a)if this guy’s pants were so baggy that they were falling off, then he could have dropped them in an emergency, and b)plenty of people would decline to “slip off” and abandon very expensive items in an emergency situation. There are plenty of situations in which people have lost limbs or died by deciding to hang on to personal property or clothing in an emergency. My point being: I don’t buy the (apparently post hoc) claim that the initial objections to “baggy pants” were justified by safety.
Anon,
I admit when I’m wrong and I was wrong in this case. I don’t agree fully with some of the other points you made, but do not want to take away from my being abashed at my error. I’m not a soft racist, however, I should get my facts straight when I make statements. I didn’t in this case and so I apologize to you, unequivocably.
“I don’t care if he was wearing pajamas because women and young men wear them all the time in public and I have seen worse outfits on planes.”
Rafflaw, I understand this sentiment, but I tend to believe it’s a shallow opinion, formed not from first principles, but formed mostly from who you are biased to favor.
But I do encourage you, and ask you, to help enlighten me, by answering the question I posed above:
“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?”
What boundaries would you ever place on clothing?
Is it okay for me to attend (someone else’s) courtcase wearing just my thong? Ride my bike in my thong? Go to the fanciest restaurant in town with my furry friends while I wear just a thong? Attend a funeral, wedding, in my thong? Attend an elementary school function in my thong?
What limits are you willing to place on clothing and why?
I still agree that this episode is an example of racism and too much authority in the wrong hands. I don’t care if he was wearing pajamas because women and young men wear them all the time in public and I have seen worse outfits on planes.
In the other, more bizarre, example I posted, they did the exact same thing and got the exact same result.
“But this time, the pilot refused to take off,” she said. “So, I said that we wouldn’t get off the plane until they figured it out.”
And so the cops were called.
I understand the issues people have with government authority, and with faceless bureaucracies.
But I think there’s an enormous difference between stupid rules and gropes from TSA, and the actual orders from the pilot and crew of a vehicle moving at 500 mph at 30,000 feet.
I think the Frontier’s pilot made a far bigger mistake in that, according to the mother, he apparently didn’t bother to check on the situation himself.
“Kathleen Morris said she felt it was insensitive that the pilot never came out to talk with her son or examine how he was restrained in his seat.”
“Coyness isn’t becoming. I assume you know that the baggy, low riding pants come out of the Hip Hop music movement and is identified with black people. Perhaps you also think “driving while black (and nowadays Latino)is also mythology.”
Um, That wasn’t what the guy was wearing, not even by his own admission. Listen to the recording. Close your eyes if you need to so that YOU will be blind to see race.
He wasn’t sagging or bagging. He wasn’t wearing sweatpants, he says himself that he was wearing pajamas. His pajamas fell down around his knees.
If you look up the thread, I even asked people, where they would place barriers on what people wear. I think it’s an interesting question because it goes to freedom of expression on the one hand, and yet, we do have “decency” laws on the other hand.
I also wonder if by seeing race everywhere, and by assuming he was wearing low riding baggy pants, even as he says he is wearing pajamas, you are falling into the trap of the soft bigotry of low expectations.
This is a college student, and a coddled athlete. He can figure out to wear something other than pajamas out in public, and he can also figure out how to treat pilots and employees with the respect they as well as he deserves.
So what actually happened is this young college athlete takes a trip wearing pajamas that don’t fit him, and refuses to cooperate with the stewards and captain and is tossed off the flight.
And you, not knowing any of these people, not knowing the history and context of what a pilot’s responsibilities are, or how those are implemented, blithely, ignorantly, liberally, proclaim it all to be racism.
tomdarch, I made no such argument regarding high heels, etc. Now that you bring it up, however, I think those are not safe for walking on the sidewalk, let alone an airplane. However, a woman can kick off her shoes in case of emergency. It has happened before, a number of times. With regard to other fashion items, some should not be allowed out in public, let alone on airplanes. I do not know where the line should be drawn. Anything that causes a flight delay can easily be interpreted as interfering with the duties of the crew under the rubric of the statute.