US Airways Pilot Orders Evacuation Of Plane and Arrest Of Man Wearing Baggy Pants

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

191 thoughts on “US Airways Pilot Orders Evacuation Of Plane and Arrest Of Man Wearing Baggy Pants”

  1. “the old man was just as crusty as he was when younger, but he was still gentle and compassionate”

    OS,

    You could see that in his eyes from films of his work, or his lecturing. However, the ability of “disciples” (most especially many who go into psychotherapy-I know I’ve trained some) to distort his message in light of their own unresolved problems, is great..

    “As I grow older, I too find I am less tolerant of those who waste my time or blow smoke.”

    Me too. As Fritz put it they are “poisonous” personalities that drain your energy. By the way in the same vein I’m also a fan of Berne, especially since in reading his book I realized that my compassionate nature often cast me into the victim’s role in the: “Yes….But” game. I always thought that many sought my advice for my wisdom, who knew I was merely a patsy to be proven to be unable to help someone, who took pleasure in my failure and resultant frustration..

  2. “…I’ve seen too many instances of people admitted in severe distress into Psych Wards, given a provisional diagnosis and then having that diagnosis stick for a lifetime, even if it was incorrect….”

    *********************************************

    Mike, all I can add to that, is to note Dave Rosenhan is a friend of mine. I have known him for more than thirty years. ’nuff said. We are on the same page.

    And BTW, it is worse now that insurance companies use data mining and share the data on patients between themselves. HIPAA be damned, because it is “financial” data.

  3. “Another thought. The concept of “neurosis” is now considered antiquated and inaccurate as far as psychological problems are concerned. It really started out as a psychoanalytic construct, later working its way into the nomenclature as a diagnosis.”

    OS,

    I actually agree with current wisdom regarding neurosis. It is a construct coming out of Freud/Psychoanalysis. These days, unbound by the constraints of practice, I use neurosis to denote relatively mild disorders that cover a broad range and usually more obstructive than debilitating to an individual than AXIS II disorders. By the same token I’ve come to use
    crazy as a way of denoting AXIS I types. The DSM,(so its DSM-IV-TR now) as you are well aware is a means of allowing MH professionals and others to communicate in shorthand information about a particular individual. Not only does it have its flaws, it is after all a political (within the realm of psychology) document cobbled together by committee. Its application is dependent upon the perceptions of the particular professional.

    I’ve seen too many instances of people admitted in severe distress into Psych Wards, given a provisional diagnosis and then having that diagnosis stick for a lifetime, even if it was incorrect. Not only are many patients burdened with a mis-diagnosis originally based on stressed behavior that has passed, but the patient themselves utilize it as a form of behavioral excuse: i.e. Well I’m Borderline….what did you expect me to do? In their mind it gives them an out from accepting their own responsibility for their mis-behavior.

    “you know as well as I do that feeling the “victim” is a common sign of neurosis, in the absence of actual evidence of same.”

    As I used neurosis in this manner, it was to convey that there was a wide variety of possibilities as to why this kid acted this way and labeling him with a criminal like personality seems extreme absent other substantiating evidence and/or personal contact. Reading the same info as you, I can think of many possible reasons for his behavior. One of them may well have been the nature of how he was talked to all the way through the process leading up to his arrest. You and I have been around for a long time, both of us being smart and experienced, know when faced with authority holding all of the cards hostility is definitely not the way to go.

    Personally, however, nothing in my life has angered me more than when
    I perceived I was being treated officiously and disdainfully. I do question authority. Luckily for me, my father who was quite a “tough guy” taught me by example how to deal with implacable authority, such as a speeding stop.
    Learning that lesson early managed to keep me from making serious mistakes as I grew to manhood. Most people don’t have that benefit and it is indeed infuriating to “choke down” ones anger at perceived victimization
    and behave with outward complacency. In this instance you and I do not disagree on whether the authority to order him existed, but on each of our different perceptions as to the need for authority to act. That’s fine I doubt any regular here agrees on everything with everyone else and if we did why bother coming here.

    Back to therapy for a minute. If I was to return to practice today it I would use a mixture of Gestalt and Cognitive Behavioral Therapy. I’ve read CBT materials and seen it work wonders with some of the most difficult cases,
    while running housing facilities and case management for dually diagnosed patients taken out of psych wards. Alas, I must admit I love being retired and able to spend most of my time pursuing my pleasures, regular work no longer calls to me.
    .

  4. Mike, in his later years, the old man was just as crusty as he was when younger, but he was still gentle and compassionate. He drew the line when you were phony or tried to pretend to be something you were not. He could see through that in a heartbeat and did not hesitate to confront. As I grow older, I too find I am less tolerant of those who waste my time or blow smoke. I am not rude, but am as direct as a laser pointer when dealing with one of the BS artists I encounter.

  5. “Probably due to indoctrination by that Fritz fellow.”

    OS,

    As much as I love Fritz and am grateful for what his teachings have done for me, I realized early on in my readings of him, that some could use them in a way that would be analogous to Rand. I’m certain Fritz would’ve abjured this but prophets of any stripe usually find that some of their future acolytes heard the word, but didn’t get the message. My training institute was run by Marilyn
    Rosannes Berrett, trained by Fritz in his Miami days and her version was a “gentle” Gestalt Therapy.

    In my own practice I learned to be as honest as Fritz in my reflection to the patient, but to do so in a more compassionat, but always honest manner.

  6. Another thought. The concept of “neurosis” is now considered antiquated and inaccurate as far as psychological problems are concerned. It really started out as a psychoanalytic construct, later working its way into the nomenclature as a diagnosis. If you look in the index of the DSM-IV-TR, you will not find ‘neurosis’ or ‘neurotic’ listed. I do not buy that a person who sees themselves as a victim is neurotic. It can be deliberately manipulative, part of a personality disorder, or due to lack of insight.

  7. Mike, I base my observations on the fallout and the reaction to the arrest.

    You and I both have seen the victim card played to the hilt by all kinds of people from all walks of life. I don’t do whining very well. Probably due to indoctrination by that Fritz fellow.

  8. “Then claims victimhood. The game of “Victimstance” was identified by Dr. Stanton Samenow as one of the key elements identifying the so-called ‘criminal personality.”

    OS,

    Do you really want to malign this kid to that extent? you know as well as I do that feeling the “victim” is a common sign of neurosis, in the absence of actual evidence of same. As I mentioned previously, you and I will have to disagree on this, because I do see him as a victim, which if true would be a reasonable cause for his feeling victimized. You are ascribing, to my mind, far to much of this kid’s unknown thought and behavioral processes to this incident, without evidentiary support. This is mere speculation. Now much of what I’ve written is also speculation, butI’ve clearly “caveat-ed” it as such.

  9. “1. “show me your tits” will never be construed by anyone as a legitimate order.”

    Anon,

    I think neither of us construed it as such. Don’t you get the meaning of “reductio ad absurdum?”

  10. For someone reportedly on his way to a funeral, it is almost as if he was playing a game of, “How far can I push these people before I am arrested.”

    Then claims victimhood. The game of “Victimstance” was identified by Dr. Stanton Samenow as one of the key elements identifying the so-called ‘criminal personality.’

  11. It was I was trying to bring a little humor to the thread.

    You summed it up nicely with this and nothing more needed to be said.

    “He is told to do something by a person in charge and refuses to accommodate that person. The instruction is repeated later by another person in charge and he disses that person as well. The Captain is summoned and asks the athlete to come outside for a private chat, and he too is dissed by the fellow.”

  12. Bdaman, you piqued my curiosity, so went back and found Pete’s cryptic comment. I have no idea if he was offended. I took his comment as snark. Maybe he will see this and respond.

  13. O.S. I searched the entire thread and only saw one comment that was from Pete. Was he offended? 🙂

  14. Mike, Capt. Erb, et al….
    What I see going on here is folks talking past each other and getting upset and cranky. Let’s take a look at what is going on here, because I have seen at least a half dozen logical fallacies in the dialogue above.

    First of all, let’s quit it with the false equivalencies. The homophobic, racist, misogynist idiot with the stuck mike key had nothing to do with the baggy pants issue. Both ATC and the airline front office will deal with the fallout from that PR nightmare appropriately. There are people like that in every field of endeavor, including lawyers, architects, pilots, social workers and LEOs. Don’t tar with a broad brush.

    Racism has nothing to do with either the baggy pants or the cross dresser. When all the chaff is blown away, we are left with the image of an immature young athlete with feelings of entitlement. He is told to do something by a person in charge and refuses to accommodate that person. The instruction is repeated later by another person in charge and he disses that person as well. The Captain is summoned and asks the athlete to come outside for a private chat, and he too is dissed by the fellow.

    Speaking of people with feelings of entitlement, Captain Erb mentioned that Frank Lorenzo was once tossed off a flight. From my personal perspective, it would have been more satisfying if the ejection had happened above ten thousand feet AGL, but that is just me.

    Most of the folks here make their living by having excellent communication skills. Let us show some and dial back the hyperbole. And as for making assumptions, everyone knows how the word “assume” breaks down.

    Captain Erb explained his view of the matter from the perspective of not only a pilot, but as Chief Pilot for his airline. Most of you know that I am a long-time aviator and my view is from a combination of behavioral sciences and the aviation industry. I am one of the people who may end up being an expert witness in aviation-related litigation. Mike S. is a behavioral expert, and one of the most compassionate people on this site. His view is from that standpoint, but as a layman when it comes to aviation. Others come from all walks of life, but all too few here had ever even heard of the FARs before this, let alone read them.

    How about we agree that our perspectives are different. And for Pete’s sake, how about trying to understand not everyone sees the world through the same lens. And all ad hominem attacks do is piss others off in a most non-productive way.

  15. tomdarch and Mike,

    1. “show me your tits” will never be construed by anyone as a legitimate order. Much as you make up contexts that lead to a pilot saying show me your tits, it will never be construed as a legitimate order by anyone. Better examples please.

    2. when the pilot acts in such a way that I no longer trust the pilot, I WANT OFF THE PLANE

    3. disobeying an order, in flight, is one thing, staging a seat boycott on the ground is clearly going to get you nowhere, you have absolutely no right to that seat, the winning strategy is to be kicked off and to sue and/or negotiate.

    4. carry a cellphone with qik on it, and learn to broadcast live your interactions and tweet them #tsawatch, #usairwatch, #showmeyourtits

  16. Mr Erb, I suspect that we agree on much more than we disagree on. Trying to discuss these difficult issues in this way is obviously challenging. You think I am oblivious to what you are trying to say, I think you are misconstruing what I am actually saying, and so on – that’s pretty much inherent to on-line forum postings. I would gladly take a few hours to sit down with you – I think we would not fully agree with each other, but we would be better able to understand each others’ actual points of view. Big-picture, we’re not far off even if we see this particular situation differently.

    —————————————-

    Mike Spindell
    1, June 23, 2011 at 10:15 am
    “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.
    ——————————
    [Groan] [facepalm]

    I AM sorry that I wasn’t more careful to avoid shooting this discussion off on pointless tangents.

    Mr. Erb indirectly confirms that in my absurd scenario, the female passenger, in fact, MUST accompany the abusive pilot into the lav:
    “As to the rights and powers of the captain. In matters pertaining to the operation of the aircraft, he is the absolute authoriy. [comments about seat assignment removed] . In the case of the disabled pax who was denied a seat by the captain, that was his right to act in that manner.”

    Exactly: “absolute authority.” There might be means for addressing wrongdoing or abuse of power after the fact, but in the moment, “absolute authority” demanding absolute, immediate obedience. And that is an approach which is very unfamiliar to people who have not been in the military – which was my point about “orders and obedience” versus what we civilians are used to. People who have submitted themselves to such a regime (or “culture”) need to adjust when dealing with people who have not ever done so. Everyone please feel free to misconstrue and over-interpret these statements, also.

    My absurd scenario was based on the pilot issuing a problematic “request” which could cause the passenger to not trust the pilot, and object to the original demand. The pilot then issues a different, but obviously related, demand, putting the passenger in a difficult position and creating the opportunity to “punish” the passenger for not complying – akin to many false arrest scenarios.

    I wish I could have summarized what I was saying sooner – I hope this is more clear.

  17. “Your are grossly ignorant in that you assume that the captain on this flight was NOT black.”

    Arthur,

    Have I not dealt with you in a civil manner? Why is it necessary for you to gratuitously insult me? As for ignorance it is you who keeps misinterpreting my words and my assumptions. Can you not comprehend the nature of an argument, even if it is one that you disagree with? Damn it man, can’t you read. Show me where I’ve said ALL pilots are anything but highly skilled, competent people. I’ve taken pains to express that I am talking about a very small minority of pilots, that is equal in percentage no doubt to norms in other professions.

    Now if you want a plausible scenario of how a Black pilot could have done this follow and please try to read carefully reigning in what seems to be your intemperate side: Whoever was upset with the young man’s appearance, prior to and after he boarded the plane, rather than directly refusing his boarding, allowed it and then went to the Captain to intervene. The Captain may have felt that he was bound to intervene to support the others and then went to the young man, who in truth never should have been allowed to be seated and invoked his perrogerotives. black or White he was forced to back up the others, in his mind at least.

    “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.”

    I assumed nothing, oh wise holder of technical knowledge beyond the laymen’s capability of understanding. I’m well aware of the nature of aircraft radio transmission, ever seen a movie, or used a CB radio? You beg the question. I mentioned that incident only to show, that some pilots albeit a small percentage are jerks. Do you think that is an unfair inference? Again though you misread, or misrepresent me.

    “I have allowed some drunk pax on board because I did not think that they were causing any problem.”

    Now here’s where the bullshit used to cover this pilot’s ass gets exposed. Do you really believe that a guy in pajamas is a worse threat on board a plane than a drunk? You’re into my area of expertise now, Arthur, since as someone who is an expert in addiction, I can say for a fact that with someone who is clearly drunk, their ability to suddenly flip out is legend and your ability as a laymen to assess that propensity is limited. By the way for your little insight I would have supported your refusal to allow a drunk on board, because under the terms of the arguments that were established by your side here, that does represent a danger.

    “Asking to simply speak to a pax is NOT an abuse of power! If that is your view, then we can hang up trying to enforce any laws at all.”

    You get off on dehumanizing passengers by calling them “pax” simply because the fact is if they die, you die also. however, by that dehumanization you do show how easy it might be for someone in your position to disregard their rights, after all their only “pax.” More impportantly though, Arthur you’re not a LEO, you’re there to fly the plane safely, not enforce laws. That you have to enforce rules on occasion is not your primary duty, yet you write almost as if it is. Perhaps this gives some insight into your personal beliefs.

    “I also understand that because there are miscreants in all areas of life does NOT mean that ALL use of power is wrong and badly motivated. That is not a jump that I can make with any logic or reason. You seem to use your prejudice to do just that.”

    Arthur, I have actually had people put in jail through my investigations in Child Abuse and Neglect. I have used power to do so and did it gladly. you again imagine what I’m saying rather than showing any reading comprehension to understand it. As far as being in highly dangerous situations and having to make quick decisions to save lives, been their, done that many times over. How dare you call me prejudiced based on your misreading my words. Arthur, in truth you have written quite intemperately throughout, but have been given the benefit of the doubt here time and again. no more from me. I don’t like people who misinterpret me and then use their misinterpretation to gratuitously attack me. It makes me want to throw their own words back at them to return the favor, but without stooping to their level.

    “In the case that actually happened to me where I had to ask a pax off the plane for NO REASON that was obvious to him, YOU would give him the right to object and refuse my order.”

    So you’ve personally been involved in incidents with some similarity. Perhaps then you are projecting on to that pilot, your feelings from you own experiences and projecting on to me, what your critics might have said regarding your actions. I have clearly stated that the pilot had the legal right to give the order and have acknowledged time and again that it was not that right that I objected to.

    I alluded above to the fact I’ve been in dangerous situations, but what I neglected to add was that in most of them I used skill to ameliorate the problem. My objections to the pilot and others in this is that they should have not made such a big deal about this particular instance and blown it far out of proportion. That is the judgment I question, not their authority, nor the proper use of that authority.

    “Once again, you seem to be unable to understand such simple differences”

    This again is your gratuitous projection on to me of your own actions towards me on this thread. Perhaps you have the self awareness to reexamine my words and then look again at your false premises and accusations. Then perhaps we could return to civility of discussion.

  18. As someone who professes to be quite left of center I would think you would understand this.

    I also understand that because there are miscreants in all areas of life does NOT mean that ALL use of power is wrong and badly motivated. That is not a jump that I can make with any logic or reason. You seem to use your prejudice to do just that.

    In the case that actually happened to me where I had to ask a pax off the plane for NO REASON that was obvious to him, YOU would give him the right to object and refuse my order. That was NOT an abuse of authority, and had I not done that request, I would have suffered sanctions as a result. The so called blue wall of silince is hardly analogous since THAT is a violation of the law. It is called obstruction of justice. I am one of those who hates that as much as anybody else. THEY are covering up criminal behavior of their fellows which makes it entirely different. Once again, you seem to be unable to understand such simple differences or refuse to see them. Asking to speak to a pax privately on the jetway is hardly an abuse of power, any more than a manager of a restaurant asking to speak to me privately is an abuse. Let get real.

  19. even though the abusers had the right to do so.

    So it a cop sees you violating the law, and arrests you because he has that right, it is an abuse of power! Asking a pax to come off the plane to privately discuss something is hardly an abuse of power. I have allowed some drunk pax on board because I did not think that they were causing any problem. I could have kicked them off, and you would think that since they were not causing a problem that would also be an abuse too.

    Asking to simply speak to a pax is NOT an abuse of power! If that is your view, then we can hang up trying to enforce any laws at all.

Comments are closed.