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
Listen to this link below of a commercial Pilot ranting over the air in a homophobic, misogynistic manner, despite the effort of an Air Traffic controller to shut him up.
Someone like that, in authority, is only inches away from asking to see some woman’s
bosom.
Your ignorance and lack of logic is showing. SO because my mother and I have been mugged by blacks, that means that I should be suspcious of ALL blacks and view them as a threat when I see them because blacks also make up a majority of the prison population. THAT is the kind of argument you are making about pilots and their motives.
Your are grossly ignorant in that you assume that the captain on this flight was NOT black. There are plenty of black pilots and some of them are my friends. The chances today are even, that the captain is NOT ex-military too. Most of us vets have been kicked out. So you simply display YOUR ignorance and KNOW that the captain is white and THEN you KNOW he is a racist and a vet to boot! I wish I had your powers, and omniscience! Talk about a power complex!
As for the stupid pilot at Southwest, you assume AGAIN that he picked up the mic and was blithley spewing forth intentionally over the radio. What happened was that he got his clearance on that freq, his mile button got stuck and he was talking to his crewmate in the cockpit and did not realize that his mike was hot and transmitting, which is why he could not hear the warnings. For those who are technically challenged, you CANNOT HEAR another transmission while you are transmitting. It is NOT like your cell phone. It was also quite easy to figure out who it was since all they had to do was go back to the last plane that got its clearance. That strip is sitting right in front of the controller, so he KNOWS for sure who it is and he just called Soutwest ops and told them to get the guy off the air. Reminds me of the pilot who on freq waiting a long time for takeoff said, “I am BORED” The controller got on and said. “WHO SAID THAT?” The guy got back on and said, ” I said I am bored, NOT stupid” In this case, the guy WAS stupid.
“Mike, when a passenger refuses to comply with a simple instruction, he becomes in instant pedestrian. It is the law.”
OS,
Apples to oranges. I’m not contesting that it is the law, nor am I contesting that the pilot had the authority. I’m questioning the judgment used in this particular case and believe it was an abuse of power, even though the abusers had the right to do so. If I’m part of a traffic stop and get out of the car against the officer’s orders, these days I going to get “tased.” The officer will not suffer for it and I will have no recourse. However, I’ve been driving for 50 years and last got a ticket in 1977, until the speeding ticket I got three years ago. Back in 1977 if you got stopped and didn’t quickly get out of your car to come see the officer remaining in his car, you were considered to be disrespectful. Had I followed that in my recent traffic stop experience it would be the reverse, it’s a good thing I watch TV since then, perhaps now, a taser would have killed me. My argument is not about having authority, but abusing the authority one has. My belief was that this was an abuse of authority, that because it can’t be punished, does not diminish its wrongness. You’re aguing on a different issue.
Mike, when a passenger refuses to comply with a simple instruction, he becomes in instant pedestrian. It is the law.
OS,
Also I brought that idiot pilot into it, not to make it part of this discussion per se, but to point out to Anon that tomdarch’s supposed slur, wasn’t realy a slur and Anon’s slurs were actually
slurs and slander.
OS,
We’ll just have to disagree that this was about safety. While you no doubt have much more experience, I’ve flown as a passenger too often since 9/11 and have had to deal with the rigors of boarding. Since, until my heart transplant, I had a pacemaker installed, I always had to go through patdowns, where this old fart was treated as if I met someone’s terrorist watchlist. If this young man was indeed a real problem he would never have been allowed to take his seat. The only way I see it is they didn’t like his attitude and decided to teach him a lesson, roping the pilot into it and the pilot bought in.
Mike, what the idiot pilot did when he did not realize the mike button was on is inexcusable. Does not matter if he is a pilot, police officer or garbage collector. Inexcusable, and you can be assured the Chief Pilot and folks in the front office of Southwestern will be on his case like flies on manure.
As far as the incident being discussed, here are links to two comments I made a few minutes ago on another related thread. Links instead of copy and paste.
http://jonathanturley.org/2011/06/23/this-is-ok-but-not-saggy-pants/#comment-241679
http://jonathanturley.org/2011/06/23/this-is-ok-but-not-saggy-pants/#comment-241695
“A valid reductio ad absurdum takes the argument to its LOGICAL extreme. The claim that “show me your tits” would be a logical extreme is itself absurd. It is: illogical. Taking an argument to an illogical extreme demonstrates nothing.”
Anon,
Listen to this link below of a commercial Pilot ranting over the air in a homophobic, misogynistic manner, despite the effort of an Air Traffic controller to shut him up.
Someone like that, in authority, is only inches away from asking to see some woman’s
bosom. The argument is then extreme but clearly within the bounds of logic. Also to when you spoke of “slurring and slandering” and then using that as a platform to call
tomdarch a nitwit, you were on shaky grounds, because this is evidence that like anyone else, pilots can be both prejudiced and ignorant.
So tomdarch is a nitwit and it is perfectly alright to be condescending towards Rafflaw?
I think not and in your actions with both you’ve managed to lower the civility of this thread. However, your apologies which won’t be forthcoming are really not needed. Your verbiage supplies the needed evidence of your own civility.
http://www.click2houston.com/video/28313494/index.html
“People who hold power like to exercise that power when challenged. Human nature.”
(Bdaman)
“People also like to disobey laws too. Those who are charged with enforcing them are not therefore power drunk. Nor are those who have responsibility for the lives of others power drunk when they need to excercise that power to do their job”
(Arthur)
As Bdaman wrote and Arthur seems to agree, people with power like (enjoy) wielding that power. Now of course one is foolish to act against the orders of an “Authority,”
because in most situations they hold the power. As to people enforcing laws not being power drunk, we have at least five stories a month here that show the opposite.
Arthur as a pilot I can understand why you would be so quick to want to stand up for a fellow pilot. That may be noble, but in the end is as destructive to the profession as when police invoke the “code of silence.” As someone who professes to be quite left of center I would think you would understand this. Pajama’s presented no danger to anyone, except to their fashion senses and this incident was clearly about abuse of power.
First of all I said like to and didn’t say always do.
“People also like to disobey laws too.”
And when you disobey a law you are challenging authority. If caught, that authority then exercises the power vested in them or turns a blind eye. The pilot in question made a decision to confront the individual for what ever reason and as they say the rest is history.
People who hold power like to exercise that power when challenged. Human nature.
People also like to disobey laws too. Those who are charged with enforcing them are not therefore power drunk. Nor are those who have responsibility for the lives of others power drunk when they need to excercise that power to do their job. Only children and immature adults cannot understand that
Once again, just because there is abuse of power does NOT mean that such power is ALWAYS wrong..
That was a helluva link and I think does show the points tomdarch, LK, Raff, myself and others have made is reinforced by it. To differentiate it from this case by saying this case was really about following orders, is to beg the question to distortion.
Mike when someone of authority gives a command that command must be followed.
How many episodes of cops do you need to watch to see how a police officer goes from calm to tasering someone for not complying to orders to understand this. Regardless what the pilots motives were by not complying gave the pilot an out. Had the individual cooperated in everyway and was still not allowed to fly in might be a different case. People who hold power like to exercise that power when challenged. Human nature.
Mike, been keepin my eye on the Southern Bahamas today. On the other thread we talked about the reliability on models. None of the major models were showing this but a few less recognized have been hinting at development here. As a South Floridian you may want to keep an eye on this.
http://911surfreport.com/forecast.php
“If any public venue has a limit or wants a reasonable limit on what people using its services can wear, they only have to list their limitations prior to the person’s purchase of the services or products.”
They did:
“Are over the age of five (5) and barefoot, or otherwise inappropriately clothed, unless
required for medical reasons;”
Your response to that — “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.”
” It is not for me to decide what an airline allows someone to wear,”
You say this but you don’t mean it.
When US Air did post their limits, when the pilot did make that determination, you, not at the scene, from one article only, went full THAT’s RACIST.
So I guess US Air is free to make their decision so long as it is YOUR decision. Otherwise, US Air and the pilot is clearly racist.
P.S. “it is condescending”
Mike,
The problem is not just the reductio”n” as the absurd”e”m.
A valid reductio ad absurdum takes the argument to its LOGICAL extreme. The claim that “show me your tits” would be a logical extreme is itself absurd. It is: illogical. Taking an argument to an illogical extreme demonstrates nothing.
Obama is a half-breed tin-plated overbearing swaggering kenyan commie dictator with delusions of godhood. His administration is a sagging old rust-bucket designed like a garbage scow. Half the planet knows it – that’s why they are learning to speak Chinese. I should rephrase that. I didn’t mean to say the administration should be hauling garbage. I meant to say that it should be hauled away as garbage.
I may be wrong.
anon,
I apologize for taking so long to respond to your question/comments. First of all, your claim that my comments indicate a shallow opinion that was not based on first principles(paraphrase) is not only wrong, it is condenscending. I don’t have problem if you tell me you think I am wrong, but your incorrect label is rude.
I will answer your questions as to what limits I would place on clothing. Your question does mix public and private venues, but I will limit my response to public venues since the matter at hand was a public venue. If any public venue has a limit or wants a reasonable limit on what people using its services can wear, they only have to list their limitations prior to the person’s purchase of the services or products. It is not for me to decide what an airline allows someone to wear, but they do need to be consistent and reasonable. If safety is an issue, show us how baggy pajamas are a safety issue. If I was interviewing someone, I have the ability or authority to tell the person that I will not interview them unless they correct their attire. They are not paying money for me to interview them and within lawful bounds, I can require my employees to maintain a dress code. As I stated earlier, my biggest problem with this situation is allowing the pilot unbridled authority to decide, in his or her own mind, what is and what isn’t “safe” to wear on the plane.
Finally, with all due respect, if you are going to direct questions to me, at least use the correct moniker of Rafflaw, not Raffie. Thanks.
“Bdaman, that’s a helluva link. US Air, like Frontier, (and the public) needs a whole lot better education and training on this.”
Bdaman,
That was a helluva link and I think does show the points tomdarch, LK, Raff, myself and others have made is reinforced by it. To differentiate it from this case by saying this case was really about following orders, is to beg the question to distortion.
Please note, for some damn reason I keep adding a damn n to “reductio.”
“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 ”
I think the above is a slur.”
Anon,
Had he not added I may be wrong it would be a slur, as it was it was just an opinion, which he modifies by stating it could be wrong.
You called him a “nitwit” and that is a slur, without amelioration.
Secondly, it was exactly “reduction ad absurdem” and to me quite on point. does that make me a nitwit? As a matter of fact using some of the reasoning used here by those defending the action, yourself included, one might say that he had suspicions she was concealing weapons in her bosom and thus acting for the safety of the passengers.
As far as pilots go, commercial and otherwise, I highly respect them and their skills. However, just as with all humans, some of them will definitely have personality issues and others might be less than par skillwise. While I think it an admirable profession and/avocation, it should not be immune from critique, even with a broad based brush. Athur for instance given the background he detailed appears to be someone who I would admire greatly.
So far this has been one of the most satisfying threads in many months due to its civility and lack of trolls. Given that, while you and he may fundamentally disagree, I don’t think that your calling tomdarch a “nitwit” etc. has raised the tone of discussion,
it has lowered its’ civility.
Bdaman, that’s a helluva link. US Air, like Frontier, (and the public) needs a whole lot better education and training on this.
The entire industry IMO is F’ed up. Especially T.S.A
Your Welcome O.S.
Mike, check out bdaman’s link.
Regardless, tomdarch’s reduction ad absurdum was absurd, and was not an example of taking an argument to its logical extreme.
Arthur Randolph Erb writes, ” The whole point of that move was to see if he would follow *legitimate* orders”
tomdarch writes: “CAPTAIN: “Show me your t**s!””
That is clearly not a legitimate order and no one would ever construe it as such. And so his argument is not reductio ad absurdum, just a purposeful misconstruing.
He then takes his argument and runs with it to cast aspersions against a) airline pilots, b) white people in general, c) the military, d) people from rural areas.
According to “tomdarch”, all of those groups are most likely to be racist, and unappreciative of or non-understanding of democracy preferring orders and obedience even in civilian life.
“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 ”
I think the above is a slur.
Bdaman, that’s a helluva link. US Air, like Frontier, (and the public) needs a whole lot better education and training on this. It would probably be best for US Air and their customers if they had their act together and treated people with consistency, otherwise, they leave themselves open to charges of discrimination.
However, US Air still makes the claim that the problem was one of not clothing, but not following the legitimate orders of the pilot and crew.
To reiterate:
Frontier Airlines: go be paralyzed somewhere else.
Southwest Airlines: Sluts can walk. Fatties can roll unless they pay double. Everyone else is free to move about the country.
US Air: Arbeit macht flei