"I want that fucking raghead off the plane."

[SmileyRose]

I want to brag on a cop.

A family crisis this past Thursday required me to hop a flight from Atlanta to Michigan. I managed to score a seat downwind of the bathrooms (ugh), in the middle between two wide shouldered football player types who tried but failed to maintain the 17" allotted to them by Delta's sardine can plane designers. Fortunately I top out at 4'11" and 98 pounds on a fat day so we managed.

Well, we managed until a "middle eastern looking man" and the hajib wearing woman traveling with him got near where I was. The plane got really quiet and I heard the following whispered conversation from the row behind me

A male - "We should tell the stewardess they were hoping the plane won't crash."
Female - "Stop it. They'll empty the whole plane and we'll end up in the airport all night."
Male - " But I want that fucking raghead off the plane."

The female didn't immediately respond. I'd like to think she was as stunned as the rest of us who overheard it. The guy sitting next to me (or rather on me) unbuckled and walked to the back of the plane. By then the usual pre-boarding hubub started up again and I couldn't hear anything else from behind me. Next thing I know the flight attendant was asking the couple from the seats behind us to gather up their belongings, they were being moved to the front of the plane. I never saw them again and few minutes later someone else came to occupy those seats.

Well I found out after we landed the big guy smashing me the whole way was some big shot in the Atlanta PD and got the bigots kicked off the plane. Seems Delta used their standby tickets as the excuse to take them off and put them on a later flight. The gate agent in Michigan told me but by then the cop was long gone.

The bigot probably DID spend the night in the airport and I hope to God his wife don't speak to him for a month.........

You know cops take a lot of shit on the DU. But this guy did a good thing. I don't know his name but if I ever run across him again around Atlanta I'm going to shake the man's hand and buy him a beer.

[Hekate]

1. 4th Rec and a thumbs up

:applause:

[Towlie]

145. Wow, Look at all those recs! I guess we don't REALLY care about freedom of speech like we pretend.

As I'm reading the story, the guy didn't really do anything more than say something to his wife, yet a cop saw to it that he was punished for it.

And hundreds of liberals here think that's a good thing? I don't get it.

[dencol]

160. So you don't think an airline can enforce anti-discrimination policies?

If somebody breaks anti-discrimination policies, the airline has every right to refuse boarding. Some lady called one of my best agents a bitch, and she ended up driving the rest of the way home. The F-word and N-word resulted in a few denied boardings, too. Rightfully so.

[billh58]

162. "Freedom of Speech"

can be, and is, restricted in a public venue. To quote Oliver Wendall Holmes in the Schenck decision: "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic." {emphasis added}

In this case the rednecked racist advertised his intent to falsely accuse an Arab couple of saying something about the airplane crashing, and disrupting a scheduled air carrier flight. That is against Federal laws.

And finally, in a public venue no one has a reasonable expectation of privacy, especially when engaging in speech loud enough to be overheard by anyone nearby.

[The_Commonist]

167. I think it was more about the plane crashing comment.

Nobody wants to hear comments about the plane crashing when they are sitting on the fucking plane.

[billh58]

172. Exactly! n/t

[Skratchez]

180. Not to mention

the only decent exception to the 1st amendment is not to cry "fire" in a crowded theater. I can't think of a place more analogous to a crowded theater than a crowded plane. That asshat literally could have gotten innocent people killed with that kind of talk.

Years ago, pre 9/11 I'd been told that if you even say the word bomb in a casual conversation you will be kicked off a boarding flight and it doesn't matter what color you are. I didn't think that sounded fair at the time but saying "fucking raghead" should get you on a no-fly list IMHO.

[billh58]

195. The phrase by

Justice Holmes is often misquoted by omitting the word "falsely."

"Holmes wrote of falsely shouting fire, because, of course, if there were a fire in a crowded theater, one may rightly indeed shout "Fire!"; one may, depending on the law in operation, even be obliged to. Falsely shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater, i.e. shouting "Fire!" when one believes there to be no fire in order to cause panic, was interpreted not to be protected by the First Amendment"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater

In this case the rednecked butthead was making a false allegation, and therefore not protected by the First Amendment.

[TheEuclideanOne]

218. Interesting. That is so true

I never really thought about it, but that is funny. Nobody ever specifies the word "falsely" in a crowded theatre in that quote, myself included. I am not sure why I find this interesting, but I do. Thanks for the info.

[uppityperson]

165. he was going to lie and imply they were suspicious to disrupt the flight.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8857861&mesg_id=8859865

[Whisp]

179. why do some people have no friggen idea what Freedom of Speech is?

yes, it's a damn good thing that shithead was kicked off the plane - he could have caused a bit shitstorm while up a few thousand feet.
fuck him and his bigoted fat ass.

[Pithlet]

229. I bet you frequently don't get a lot of things.

Because this one isn't that hard. Really.

[Hekate]

238. Well, aren't you precious

[HEyHEY]

239. I agree. The man is a piece of shit, but this is a bit worrying.

I mean, if police can randomly do such things who says next time it won't be a guy wearing an Obama T-shirt?

[Hekate]

248. It was not random, it was a threat designed to harm an innocent couple and that would have shut down

... the whole damn flight if carried out.

Hekate

[AnArmyVeteran]

244. I challenge you when you get on the next plane to keep muttering the words "Hi Jack"

You too will be bumped and detained and then have a long time trying to explain your comments. Yes, you have 'free speech' but you also have to suffer the consequences of your free speech.

[Hekate]

247. I guess you and I both remember the Cuban hijackings from back in the day. "Hi, Jack!" was no joke

... when called out in an airport, although some low-wattage guys tried it out for fun. "But officer, I thought I saw my good buddy Jack across the room" did not amuse the FBI then or now.

Hekate

[AnArmyVeteran]

249. Exactly Hekate, you couldn't even say that in an airport.

And if you saw your good friend 'Jack' across the room you'd have to call him John. :) Saying "Hi Jack" is the same as yelling 'fire' in a theater. I'm sure if you used those same words today you would experience the same fate.

[Nailzberg]

2. Good job, Big Guy.

I'd buy that guy a Frosted Orange at Varsity if I ran into him in ATL.

[pitchforksandtorches]

135. Sympathy for the couple who got kicked off the flight

is found in the dictionary... it is between shit and syphilis!

[Rhiannon12866]

3. K&R. Incredible story!

Thanks for sharing it with us... :fistbump:

[SmileyRose]

5. His anonymity is what got me.

No telling what kind of mess was avoided at 30000 feet and it was handled so low key no one but Delta people and the cop even knew.

It was pure art. Right in front of my face and I didn't know.

[aquart]

8. What's amazing is that you ever found out.

[SmileyRose]

9. Good point!

I did have to push just a little to get the info. Hopefully I have not gotten a loose lipped gate agent in Michigan in trouble...........

[Rhiannon12866]

11. That's it exactly... It was handled artfully.

It was smooth, and pretty much nobody was the wiser. I agree that it's amazing that you ever found out. But you have the satisfaction of knowing the end of the story... which turned out well for everybody that counted. And it helps that you're a pretty good storyteller... :D :hi:

[HCE SuiGeneris]

4. Intolerance for assholery is a good thing.

Thanks for relating the story.

[babylonsister]

6. What a great story!

And oddly, someone countered my rec'd. Apparently, this didn't make someone happy, but it made me smile.

There are still some good people in this country, cop or no cop. You met one in action and I'd have bought him a beer, too.

That male passenger deserved to walk wherever he was going.

[pinboy3niner]

7. What a lovely story!

And a salute to the big cop. Not for discriminating against the bigot, but for eliminating a potential in-flight problem. It looks like he acted out of an 'abundance of caution', given the negative possibilities. :thumbsup:

[burnsei sensei]

55. That really is the point.

nt

[proteus_lives]

10. Excellent!

No one should tolerant that sort of bigotry. I'm glad the LEO did something about it.

[Douglas Carpenter]

12. kick and recommend!!

[BzaDem]

K & R.

[BzaDem]

13. K & R.

[MrScorpio]

14. Great story

What a cool cop.

[WillParkinson]

15. There is never an excuse for bigotry...

I hope his wife dumped his ass.

[ThatsMyBarack]

43. Me, too!

[Violet_Crumble]

16. Thanks for posting that. Kudos to the cop for standing up and doing something n/t

[ThomCat]

17. That is a great story.

I'd shake his hand too.

[Mopar151]

18. Well played, sir!

A Zen master at work - quietly preserving the harmony of his enviroment. And keeping his own blood pressure under control.

[daggahead]

19. Wonderful! n/t

[geckosfeet]

20. Well, that's how it should be done. If you don't want to fly with somone, go somewhere else.

[political_Dem]

21. I am very happy to hear this story. Much thanks to the Big Guy, whoever he is.

Usually on an airplane, you have to put up with all sorts of crap and prejudices from people who don't want to associate with anyone who is different. The racist ones take the cake--especially on a long flight.

The ones who are treated with prejudice on the plane have to be polite and not make waves in the post 9/11 world. No one ever wants to be on the news for creating a ruckus on a coast-to-coast flight.

But, I am glad that there was someone who took a stand to stop the subtle racism that occurs in such a small, compartmentalized space in the air. Some folks and their pettiness can make a trip rather uncomfortable for not only their row, but everyone else on the plane.

The cop in this situation deserves tremendous respect for what he did.

Now if only there are other folks out there who will take the cop's example and pay it forward.

[stlsaxman]

22. Rec count jumped from 79 to 84 just in the moment it took me to read this!

Not bad for a Sunday morning...

Good to know there are people like that gentleman sharing seats to take action when there are scum sitting behind us.


:yourock:

[Raspberry]

23. Sorry, but

private conversations should be just that _private_.

They didn't create a scene, and their own thoughts and conversations, regardless of how offensive, should neve be punished.

[Raineyb]

31. Then they shouldn't have been loud enough to be overheard.

You're actually taking up the side of the asshole bigots? Really?

[Raspberry]

32. I'm for private conversations, thoughts, attitudes,

or whatever, being free from punishment. Are you against freedom of thought?

[Hassin Bin Sober]

37. What do you have against airlines throwing assholes off THEIR property?

Read the back of your ticket some time. Airlines have rules against offensive behavior.

[Raspberry]

38. IMHO,

the COP abused his authority by reporting a PRIVATE conversation.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

42. How is it private when it is uttered in a manner to disrupt other passengers?

Cop or no cop, any passenger who reports assholish behavior like that on a plane is going to result in the asshole's removal.

Unless you think maybe cops should stand up and read Miranda rights to surrounding passengers when flying?

[Raspberry]

50. How was it disruptive?? n/t

[WolverineDG]

71. By creating a security issue, causing all the other passengers to deplane

& go through screening again, definitely delaying that flight & possibly causing them to miss their connecting flights.

That disruptive enough for you, Junior?

dg

[Raspberry]

74. From the OP:

A male - "We should tell the stewardess they were hoping the plane won't crash."

Probably everyone on the flight was hoping the plane wouldn't crash. I doubt if that alone would be enougb to disrupt the flight.

[WolverineDG]

75. Hi Breitbart!

Funny to see you on DU! To continue where your selective cutting & pasting left off:

Female - "Stop it. They'll empty the whole plane and we'll end up in the airport all night."
Male - " But I want that fucking raghead off the plane."

So obviously his statement wasn't so innocent as your selective editing would make it seem. The woman was right--they would empty the entire plane & rescreen everyone (if not shut down the whole fucking airport)--had bigoted asshole done just what he planned to do.

Thankfully, someone got up & notified the flight attendants.

dg

[Paladin]

138. Bullseye, WDG. Nicely Done. (n/t)

[WolverineDG]

189. All in a day's work

:hi:

dg

[Hekate]

246. Well spotted, WDG!

And here I thought Raspberry (thpppbbbttts!) was just another disingenuous *hole, when all along s/he was Breitbart.

Hekate

[AtheistCrusader]

115. You can't really be that obtuse, are you?

[Posteritatis]

228. You must be new here

Never underestimate the ability of people on this site to be obtuse. ;)

[SemperEadem]

116. however, as you well know,

the airlines do not consider it a joke when someone "jokes" about bombs, guns or plane malfunction being mentioned by passengers and overheard by authority figures. Anyone who thinks that they can is a fucking fool.

dude thought that because he was white and the couple was ME, that meant that he could say any goddamn thing he wanted and thought that his speech was protected, which it is not when you are on an airplane.

No matter how many justifications you try to conjure up, none will hold water.

[Vickers]

166. Wow, your reading/comprehension skills are crazy!!!

:crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy:

[SemperEadem]

112. logic fail

it is no longer a private conversation if it can be overheard by others.

If he wanted it to be private, then he should have whispered it in her ear, not broadcast it loud enough to try to co-opt others into his fukkery.

He got exactly what he deserved. He was grown enough to act an ass, let him be grown enough to take his ass whippin' for it.

He was wanting to dig a hole for the ME couple to fall into and instead, fell into it himself. That's what he gets. Absolutely no sympathy from me.

[AtheistCrusader]

113. If it was private, then no one else heard it, right?

*snort*

[Beartracks]

202. The snide guy was probably attempting to humorous.

Or at least I imagine that might have been the case. While obviously exhibiting a real bigoted attitude, he may not have been intending to actually DO anything. But it's best to deal with such a person BEFORE the plane takes off, rather than find out that he really was going to make a stink en route, because such a scene would certainly be very disruptive. Just like with the proverbial "bomb" comments -- better safe than sorry, even if you've inconvenienced an otherwise innocent, if naive, passenger.

But all this does beg the question: why is there not yet a sufficiently developed technology to for airport screeners to detect bigots???

lol


---------------------------------

[WolverineDG]

47. So, the cop should have kept it to himself had the bigoted asshole said

"Did you remember the detonator this time?"

dg

[Raspberry]

54. What if it had been a "bigoted asshole"

making a remark about an idiot wearing a Palin 2012 button? Or about a redhead? Or about someone with an "I heart Jesus" t-shirt? Would you find those remarks offensive enough to warrant them getting kicked off a flight?

For all you know, maybe they were on the way to visit a dying relative. They should not be inconvenienced, or punished, just because they make offensive remarks among themselves.

Maybe the bottom line here should be, "Don't eavesdrop."

[WolverineDG]

67. No, but calling someone a raghead & plotting to lie about

that person saying they were going to blow up the plane IS offensive & quite possibly criminal.

You don't give a shit that what they were planning to do would inconvenience all the other passengers, who would have to deplane & go through security AGAIN just because some bigoted asshole didn't want to fly on the same plane as a Muslim? Why are you on DU?

Moral of the story: there is no such thing as a "private" conversation when you're in public.

dg

[Raspberry]

72. I didn't see anything in the OP about

saying they were going to blow up the plane. Unless I missed something, it just wasn't there.

But, I ask again--if someone said they didn't want to fly with a christfascist, and intended to lie about something that person said, would you be all for that person being kicked of the plane? If not, why the double standard?

[WolverineDG]

76. You're trying to confuse the issue

You're backed into a corner & are now squirming like hell to get out. Sorry, not playing with your strawman, Breitbart.

dg

[uppityperson]

85. Obviously Delta thought it was enough to remove them.

I just luvs the strategy of blaming the cop for the asshole's trouble.

[HillbillyBob]

134. I never want to fly with christofasicts or the other kind

so I drive when I want to go somewhere. I don't much care for bigot defenders either..I guess its time to ignore pffbbt err raspberry.

[MedicalAdmin]

159. Without question - yes

It goes toward intent.

The Muslim couple, or any other hypothetical you want to substitute to ameliorate the outing of your RW talking point, had done or said nothing that would indicate potential criminal intent. However the backseat bigot had indicated an intent to both bear false witness as well as trigger an enforcement response in order to satisfy bigotry.

The cop handled it gently. The other response could have been the arrest of the bigot and his (no doubt innocent and long suffering) wife for a phalanx os criminal charges had he done as he threatened.

[Chan790]

84. Not possibly...

actually criminal. I checked. I made a phone call to a friend in DHS who works as an analyst on transit issues and airport security and I asked. It's called "implication of a terrorist threat." and will get you 5 years in prison if prosecuted...which this probably won't be...unless the jurisdiction has a more severe penalty (NYS is 20 years, 25 in CT, 10 in DC..those are the ones I know of.) It's the same law that forbids threatening or assaulting a transit worker. Next time you're on a city bus or train, look around...there is a sticker or decal informing you of all this.

[WolverineDG]

104. But apparently, quite a few DUers think "eavesdropping" is worse than a crime

or bigotry.

dg

[SemperEadem]

117. not to mention an outright lie

but maybe that's ok with the person trying to justify this mess.

[Pithlet]

232. It wasn't just offensive remarks. He was conspiring to get another innocent passenger kicked off.

Sorry. Too bad for him.

[Bette Noir]

49. Making jokes about bombs, plane crashes, hijackings, etc.,

has been cause for removal from airplanes since the late '60s. It's posted on signs all around airports. Anyone who flies knows that.

[Raspberry]

51. That is VERY different

from a private offensive remark.

[SemperEadem]

118. no, it's not

no matter how many times you try to twist it, no it's not.

If you're so right, then why don't you go do it?

[mrdmk]

161. To the people who are defending the people in their overheard remarks

For starters the fact is, the person overheard has a big mouth and is responsible for what was heard, not the people over-hearing the conversation. Another fact is the airline and the crew of the airplane have an obligation to protect the safety of all passengers and that protection is not a democratic process. A third fact is some passengers on this flight may now be upset with the passenger with the big mouth whereas others may be in agreement, now a hostile environment has been created for the rest of the flight. Because of the now hostile environment, any incitement from any of the passengers expressing any opinion of the subject could lead to a riot condition and harm a.k.a. "Imminent Lawless Action", which falls back onto the responsibility of the airline and the crew of the airplane for all passengers safety. The last fact, the offending passenger was removed from the flight without incident i.e. what was once a problem is no longer a problem.

With all of the above, having a mental problem can legally excuse a person from offending another person. Fortunately for society, being stupid is not one of them.

[jberryhill]

175. No. This person indicated a prediposition to a potential inflight conflict

Airlines can throw you off if they THINK you may cause trouble on the aircraft.

[PSzymeczek]

216. There is no expectation of privacy

on an airplane, especially if you say it loudly enough for others to hear. I really don't think the people who heard him were straining to listen.

[treestar]

58. This is a plane

They can have those thoughts and conversations anywhere in the world, but in a plane it takes on a whole new issue - you could kick them out of your house, but once the plane is in the air, there's too much inconvenience in having to stop somewhere to drop them off. And from what the guy said, he wasn't willing to fly on the same plane with a "raghead" anyway. Maybe he volunteered to get off.

[Raspberry]

60. There are lots of offensive remarks

What if someone had been making a similar remark about an idiot wearing a Palin 2012 button? Or about a redhead? Or about someone with an "I heart Jesus" t-shirt? Would you find those remarks offensive enough to warrant them getting kicked off a flight?

[treestar]

77. No, obviously there's going to be something different about

Muslims being dangerous on planes - 911 had that effect. Maybe not rational, but it did. We also don't know the guy's tone and vehemence when he said it - and an airline is going to err on the side of caution when it comes to this stuff.

How can you say anything similar about any of those people "I want that raghead off the plane" is a combo of racism and potential violence. "I want that Wasillabilly worshipping idiot off the plane" doesn't have the same reference or the same effect. "I want that Jesus-freak off the plane?" I don't know. If you say you want another passenger off the plane, then why would the airline not err on the side of caution and put you off, so you won't be on the same plane with someone you said you didn't want on the same plane with you?

[SemperEadem]

120. non sequitur

those have nothing to do with the safety of an airplane and its passengers.

Just stop. You're getting pathetic.

[Chan790]

81. You have no expectation of privacy in a crowded room. n/m

[stuart68]

107. does that relate to eavesdropping as well ?

like those commercials for those earpieces ? What if the cop could only hear it with some amplification - is that OK ?

you can see where I am headed with this...

[WolverineDG]

109. If you hear something because someone is talking so fucking loud you can't miss it,

you're not eavesdropping.

dg

[stuart68]

121. you didn't answer my question

what if it is said for everyone but the cop to hear, and the cop is across the room ?

[Chan790]

128. Well.

Eavesdropping as an invasion of privacy requires an expectation of privacy absent here. If electronic means were necessary to hear you, you might have a case but because there is no expectation of privacy in any public space...you'd still probably lose. Literally, you can't have an expectation of privacy if there are three people present or you have any reason to believe someone else not present might, even in the most-minuscule potential hear you under normal conditions.

Further, laws regarding what you can say on/in an airplane or airport are by-necessity draconian.

[stuart68]

130. so please explain

when you say you cannot expect privacy when a third part is present, how an attorney gets past this, or a priest, or a therapist, etc, etc.

So when my wife and I talk to our attorney, this is, by your definintion, not a private discussion. I think your are wrong here.

[Chan790]

136. Those are by-law protected conversations by privilege.

More so those privileges are specifically listed and codified:

*Doctor-patient privilege (is generally understood to extend to therapists and psychologists)
*Attorney-client privilege
*Priest-penitent privilege (aka. confessional privilege)

The conversation you and your wife have in front of your best friend, doesn't count. Even those privilege-protected conversations lose protection if you have them in the presence of a party not privileged to the conversation.

[stuart68]

139. I agree, but that is not what the poster said

he made a blanket statement that having a third party present means no expectation of privacy - and as you've indicated as well, this is not always the case.

[uppityperson]

146. Here

[stuart68]

149. so your point is ?

am I nit picking ?

[uppityperson]

150. !

[Name removed]

153. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[uppityperson]

155. ok

[awoke_in_2003]

212. you're a real fucking Albert Einstein. nt

[stuart68]

219. Wow, need to get past the 4th grade insults at some point...

[awoke_in_2003]

237. well, the minute your mind...

starts thinking above the 4th grade level I will elevate the discussion.

[stuart68]

251. interesting

seems like your response are single threaded. Maybe you could work on adding some value to the discussion as opposed to juvenile comments. But my guess is maybe not.

[awoke_in_2003]

260. in this case...

plenty of other people have already tried to enlighten you by "adding value", so there was no point. The fact is you will not realize that conversations said in a public place at a level that can be overheard are not private and protected conversations.

[stuart68]

261. thanks

apparently you are not even following the discussion as your point has nothng to do with the questions I've raised. But that's not to say that anyone cannot throw in an uninformed opinion.

please read my comments and questions if you play to inject a thought, it will add a lot more to the conversation than just lobbing insults that, frankly, are irrelevant.

[WolverineDG]

188. Attorney-client conversations are confidential

if the 3rd party in the room is not also a client on the same case or not employed by the attorney, then there is no expectation of privacy & the 3rd party can be compelled to divulge what the conversation was about.

dg

[stuart68]

220. that was my point.

[WolverineDG]

222. No, it wasn't

but you're not making much sense anyway.

dg

[stuart68]

224. stay with the discussion...

a poster states that a third party's presence makes it a public discussion. I said, no, as it relates to priveledged converasation (attorney, etc).

not sure where your rant came in but yes, this was the point I was making - a third party in the room does NOT make a conversation public, just because of the presence of the third party.

[WolverineDG]

235. those examples you brought up are very narrow exceptions

and completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. But keep twisting things around to make excuses for the bigot.

:eyes:

dg

[stuart68]

252. again, try and stay with the discussion

no excuses here. another poster made a comment related to public vs private discussion. I clarified, and if you can stay with me for a moment, the clarification had nothing to do with the comment on the airplane but it was directed to the other poster's comment (hence the concept of a discussion board as opposed to pontification). That's when you chimed in and seem to have completely missed the point of my comment despite numerous additional explanations.

Go ahead, accuse me of defending the biggot again... Seems to be your favorite reply.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

254. No, it's not a private discussion

When your wife and you talk with your attorney/priest/therapist, loudly, and in a crowded space, that's not private.

That's why those professionals have offices or confessionals.

[WolverineDG]

187. That makes no fucking sense at all nt

[stuart68]

221. relax - enjoy the discussion

I am making an argument here, try to stick with it.

[billh58]

176. The definition

of "eavesdropping" is the act of secretly listening to the private conversation of others without their consent.

Any speech uttered in a public venue is, by definition, public speech, and the speaker does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

[stuart68]

223. so the answer is yes then ?

you believe that a conversation in a public location can be "listened to" with some sort of enhancement like a microphone, since it was said in a public place and there is no expectation of privacy.

[billh58]

225. Law enforcement

does it all of the time in conjunction with other surveillance techniques, and it is quite legal. No search-warrant, or wiretap order, is required for anyone to listen to a public conversation (parking lot, sidewalk, restaurant, public transportation, etc., etc.). With very few exceptions, no citizen has a "reasonable" expectation of privacy while in a public venue. This has absolutely nothing to do with "freedom of speech."

"Bugging" a private room (residence, office, hotel room, etc.) and listening to or recording a private telephone conversation without a court order, on the other hand, is illegal, and constitutes "eavesdropping."

[stuart68]

226. so how do they prohibit recording of police activities

in a public place

[billh58]

233. Nice try, but

the term "interferring with a law enforcement officer" is very broad, and has been abused in some cases. If you will look at the number of videos taken of police officers during violent arrests, and confrontations with citizens (beginning with Rodney King), you can readily see that it is not illegal.

[stuart68]

253. sorry, just trying to foster a discussion here

not sure what "nice try" refers to...

several people have been arrested for filming police activity and it is apparently illegal in soemthing like 22 states, so I was attempting to get a clarification from you as ou seem to know somethign about this subject - not actually "trying" to do anythign other than that.

That fact is, it is illegal in many states, and it is unclear to me how if can be constitutional to make it illegal.

[billh58]

256. The comment

"nice try" was meant to convey that your arguments are, at least, inventive. Here is an excerpt from an article about the legality of capturing police activities on video:

"It's unlikely that most interactions with police could be considered private, as some law enforcement agencies have interpreted the state's wiretapping act, wrote Assistant Attorney General Robert McDonald. The conclusion is based on prior rulings and opinions of courts in other states."

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2010-07-30/news/bs-md-attorney-general-wiretap-20100730_1_police-officers-recording-police-law-enforcement

The laws against taking videos of police officers when they are in the process of making arrests, or even questioning citizens are mainly based on the "expectation of privacy" argument. It is my opinion that, if challenged, most of these "laws" would not hold up in a court-of-law.

That said, however, interfering with a police officer in the process of going about his/her lawful duties remains a punishable criminal offense in all jurisdictions. The definition of "interfering" can be extremely broad, and depending on the circumstances could conceivably include the use of a video device (i.e., impeding traffic while attempting to take a video of a horrific automobile accident).

[stuart68]

258. No argument, just a question.

A lot of folks here seem to have a chip on their shoulder. People need to lighten up.....

[billh58]

259. Actually, this

thread was pretty mild compared to others on DU...;-)

[Raineyb]

90. If people can hear them, they're not private anymore.

And if they can be heard they're actionable especially when the "thoughts" are schemes to falsely accuse someone in order to get them off the plane. They have every right to be fucking asshole bigots but they don't have the right to voice their thoughts on the plane and then expect no consequences.

So again I ask, you're really going to defend these people?

[Rosa Luxemburg]

92. they should keep their thoughts to themselves

[SmileyRose]

178. Free speech rights do not apply

Removing him from the plane cost him absolutely nothing, not even a little embarrassment, and saved a potential crisis in the air. All of his rights were protected. The terms of his standby ticket were (I assume) were met. He was free to not only keep his bigoted views but free to say them out loud and was not prosecuted by the government for it. I'm guessing he didn't even have suffer a little social embarrassment.

Taking the guy off is no different than taking someone off with a 3yr old who won't stay in the seat or someone who can't stop throwing up from the stomach flu long enough to even board the plane and remain seated through takeoff. Airlines make choices with every flight that minimize the risks of a crisis in the air.

And "Free Speech" rights apply to our relationship with our government, not private businesses and individuals. There is nothing in the US Constitution that REQUIRES me to sit next to ANYONE on a plane. I am free to change seats, change flights or find some other mode of transport or any of a myriad of other options based solely on what I can afford and can negotiate with the airline and my fellow passengers. Likewise, Delta is a private enterprise with plenty of options regarding who it must and must not give passage to.

[badgerpup]

147. OK, fess up.

How many people who fly or have flown HAVEN'T thought...even fleetingly...
"Gosh, I hope this plane doesn't crash."
:yoiks:

I know I have.
Only reason I don't say anything is because I'm usually by meself and it's not the kind of thing you normally confide to strangers...at least, not right off the bat. :shrug:

[billh58]

154. Missing the

point are we?

The Arab couple did NOT say anything about the plane crashing, but the rednecked racist was going to falsely report that they did. His intent was to imply that they were "suspicious" in an attempt to falsely accuse them, and to disrupt the flight.

[Raineyb]

164. I've said *I* hope the plain doesn't crash. Well I've thought it. But I've never

conspired to tell the flight attendant that someone else said that they hope the plane does or doesn't crash in some scheme to get someone off the plane. That seems to be a huge difference you're missing.

[WolverineDG]

46. No such thing as a private conversation in public nt

[Raspberry]

62. I disagree

Things I may say to my husband at a restaurant, or to my best friend, are nobody else's business. And, no one has the right to judge my private conversations as offensive enought to get me kicked out of a restaurant, or a store, or off an airplane.

[WolverineDG]

66. If you say it loud enough to be overheard

it's not a private conversation. Which is why you should always be careful about what you say when you're in public places.

dg

[Raspberry]

69. I agree that you should be careful what you say

but sometimes you can't be quiet enough if someone is determined to eavesdrop.

[WolverineDG]

70. Maybe they weren't eavesdropping in the first place

but couldn't ignore someone plotting against another passenger because the remark was made too loudly. And I've been on enough planes to know that you have to be talking pretty damn loudly during boarding in order for someone in the next row to hear you.

dg

[MedicalAdmin]

169. The rednecks commuted a ciminal act.

Conspiracy to commit fraud. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_(crime)?wasRedirected=true

They were lucky they just got bumped. And yes, anyone who dies this to anyone else deserves to get bumped at least.

[uppityperson]

86. Yes. They do. "I'm gonna f*ing paste that n*er next time he comes here" will probably

get you kicked out of a restaurant. Depending on where you are, at least a talking to.

[Chan790]

88. Well, that's just fine...

but legally you're wrong. You legally have no right of expectation of privacy in a public space.

[billh58]

106. Your feeble

defense of "privacy" has no bearing in this case. It was not the racism and bigotry part of the conversation that caused this rednecked asshole to get thrown off of the airplane -- it was the unwarranted, and potentially disruptive remark about the implied safety of the flight. This is the type of speech which falls under the "crowed theater" exception to the First Amendment.

Your analogy about talking to your husband in a restaurant does not apply here either. If you are talking loud enough to be heard by others, your conversation is no longer private. If you are overheard talking about a possible crime, you can be reported, and legally detained for further questioning. In this case, talking about possibly disrupting a scheduled air carrier flight based on false information would be a Federal crime.

Thoughts are not private when they are uttered out loud. A conversation is not private when it can be overheard by others, with the exception of illegal eavesdropping.

[SemperEadem]

123. disagree all you want... it changed nothing

if you say it loud enough for someone to hear, it being their business or not is pretty much pointless...

and people can judge for themselves whatever information that comes to them as they see fit. You don't get to dictate that to anyone.

Rights have nothing to do with it and expectations don't apply with strangers. If you don't want to be judged on what you say loudly enough for others to hear, then don't broadcast your business. Period.


However, if what you say is in direct violation of stated federal laws and you say it loud enough for someone who gives a good goddamn to hear, then your ass is going to be inconvenienced, so either suck on it, or keep your mouth shut.

[AC_Mem]

151. Back against the wall, reaching for *anything*

Rasberry - So by your reasoning if you are in a restaurant having a "private conversation" with your husband while you are discussing, say your upcoming divorce, and he says that he is going to take you home, torture you and burn your house down and he is overheard by a couple at the next table, and then proceeds to go home and do it - you would protect that conversation and not want the witnesses who overheard this threat to come forward in your defense?

Your argument is feeble and you should just admit it.

[MedicalAdmin]

171. It wasn't just offensive. It was criminal.

It's called conspiracy to commit fraud. And that's just for starters.

Go ahead. Voice any rascistthing you want. Call others "fucking ragheads" if you desire. But commit a crime in front of a cop or other responsible adult and expect a response and consequences.

[SmileyRose]

182. It's not private if it's in a restaurant a store or a plane.

those are public spaces..............

[blondeatlast]

199. You may want to check out Wolverine DG's sigline for why I believe WDG and think you are grasping at

straws.

[WolverineDG]

210. aw shucks

:blush:

:hi:

dg

[blondeatlast]

217. I'm a paralegal so I have a li'l special place in my heart for attorneys.

As in, I don't bite the hand that feeds me... :rofl:

[WolverineDG]

234. ...

:rofl:

dg

[JonLP24]

68. I think the issue is

This guy in the OP expressed desire to lie to the stewardess about the Muslim couple's behavior in hopes of getting them kicked off the plane which is a very serious issue involving making false statements. That right there is the reason I believe the cop acted.

[Raspberry]

73. You are probably right about that

but I didn't see anything like that in the OP.

So--if the guy told the stewardess that the Muslim couple had said they hoped the plane wouldn't crash, wouldn't a proper response be, "well, we all hope that."

[noamnety]

79. I'm fine with hate speech being banned on planes.

If a black guy got on and some ass started popping off about the N word, I'd fine with him being kicked off the plane.

People have a right to fly without being subjected to ethnic slurs and hate speech - it's part of creating a safe and nonthreatening environment for the passengers.

[SemperEadem]

125. why don't you go test your theory on the plane and come back

and tell us what is and isn't a proper response?

I, for one, will stick to not saying stupid, lying remarks in the hopes of satisfying a reptilian brain reaction
about someone who doesn't look like me.

[MedicalAdmin]

174. No.

I used to be an officer. The proper response would have been for the cop t file a repor with the air Marshall and the couple arrested for making false statements, conspiracy to commit fraud, etc. This is what officers are supposed to do when they observe a CRIME.

Fail.

[HEyHEY]

240. Yeah, it seems that way

Though I'm sure he got some satisfaction from getting bigots kicked off.

[backscatter712]

80. Um, they were talking in a sardine-crowded airplane loud enough for everyone around them to hear.

There's no privacy and no expectation of privacy.

[uppityperson]

83. Conversations inpublic, loud enough to be overheard, are not "_private_"

Someone saying "hey, let's go shoot that dude" or "Are you ready to rob the bank", those being "_private_" should be ignored also? Wrong. A cop overhearing a "_private_" conversation can cause trouble gets to do what this guy did.

[Odin2005]

95. If they are in a crowded airplane they are NOT "private".

If I hear someone saying something bigoted in public I call them out.

[Lorien]

97. "I want that fucking raghead off the plane" sounds like a threat

and anytime anyone makes a threat on a plane they risk losing their seat. The cop was probably concerned that the bigot would make a scene or get into an altercation with the passengers, which would be a bad situation for everyone. Best to separate them for everyone's sake.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

110. Bigots should be tarred, feathered, and ran out of town on a rail.

I don't want to do business with a company that does business with people like that.

[grace0418]

126. Thoughts are one thing. Hate speech is another. There's no such thing as a private conversation on

an airplane. He should have kept his "thoughts" to himself, but he chose to spew his bile and paid the consequence.

[KingFlorez]

137. What about the conversation was private?

If you are speaking loud enough for others to hear you, it's not really a private conversation. I don't see what you point is. These sneaky defenses of bigotry are quite ridiculous.

[rainlillie]

194. Using derogatory language is unacceptable!

The a-hole was speaking loud enough for other passengers to hear him. I for one am sick and tired of people who try to take a middle position on things, especially when it's crystal clear here who was wrong.

[DeschutesRiver]

208. So your the pilot in charge of the safety of all the passengers on board

you hear that a man is agitated enough to think of making up a story to get another couple kicked off the plane. The other couple hasn't said a bad word to anyone about anything.

This man is talking loudly enough that some of your passengers are hearing it and worried about what might happen on the flight due to this man's willingness to get his way by flat out making up whatever story he wants. If this man had wanted his conversation to truly be "private", no one would have heard what he said. It really isn't that hard to do. If this guy was heard, it is because he wanted to be heard or didn't care.

So should the pilot wait until the plane has reached cruising altitude to see how much farther the passenger will take his anger, and how scary of a whopper he will tell because he is this outraged about the mere presence of another couple on the plane? If he continues to be freaked out and angry about this, do you tell the flight attendents not to serve him drinks, or do you give him booze and hope he doesn't get more belligerent? Like, saying something so bad you have to turn the whole flight around? Flight personnel, contrary to public perception, aren't babysitters whose only job is to dispense food, fly a plane, and sweet talk unruly passengers. In this day and age, you make the choice to talk smack like this, and no pilot I know is gonna let you stay on the plane.

This is an aircraft, not a Greyhound bus or car that you can pull over to the side of the road if something gets ugly. These are the rules, the pilot was within his rights to do it, and if people don't like it, it doesn't really make much difference to a pilot. His/her call.

[HEyHEY]

241. Wow a lot of total idiots responded to you

"They weren't in private"? "Bigotry is unacceptable"?

Yes, they weren't in private and bigotry is unacceptable, but it is not illegal. I think the cop acted because he overheard the guy suggesting he'd create a disturbance on the plane. In which case he's completely right.

If you're gonna argue that bigots are kicked off airplanes, I can't back you as much as I hate bigots.

[JohnnyLib2]

24. Refreshing.

thanks

[uponit7771]

25. AMEN!!

[seabeyond]

26. see, this story kinda doesn't work for me. i am totally going opposite of everyone else, lol.

they didn't say loud enough to be disruptive. though offensive, i dont see the airline has the right to interrupt their plans in that manner and the cop has the authoritarian power to make it happen.

i think this sounds like exactly the argument one would use painting the cop in a poor picture but because he kicked assholes off the plane, we thumbs up it.

[Raspberry]

28. Yeah

I'm with you. Punishing people for private conversations is something the Nazis would have done.

[seabeyond]

30. at the least, it is the very issue we have with our police today. nt

[The_Commonist]

52. I think you've missed the point.

The cop didn't have them removed because of the "raghead" comment.
The cop had them removed because of the "plane crashing" comment.
The cop wanted to get where he was going without dying, just like everyone else.
You do not, under any circumstances, make jokes or comments about the plane crashing while you are sitting on the plane!

I think people here may be giving the cop just a wee bit too much credit for anti-bigotry.
He probably did not like the "raghead" comment, however, it was most certainly the other comment that made him spring into action.

I may be wrong...

[Patiod]

64. I don't think it was the bigotry

It was the "we should tell the stewardess they were hoping the plane won't crash" that got them kicked off.

Sounds like he was planning to disrupt the flight. Even if it's whispered, if it's overheard, law enforcement has a responsibility to be sure the flight isn't disrupted. The cop may have done the same thing if Glen Beck came on board, and DUer said "we should tell the stewardess he was hoping the plane won't crash". The speaker's bigotry doesn't matter, but his potential intent to cause trouble does.

You can't even JOKE about disrupting a flight in any way for any reason. Bigot or not.

[uppityperson]

89. Godwin's Rule!

Indeed, reporting someone for a "plane crashing" comment on a plane is JUST like what the Nazis would have done. Here's a trophy for you.

[Douglas Carpenter]

255. exactly!! Nazis never tolerated hateful and bigoted language

:eyes:

[jberryhill]

35. Almost, but

The question is not whether that one comment was made loudly enough to be disruptive. The comment indicated an intent to become disruptive by making a false statement about security of the aircraft.

For all anyone knows, what was said in back was that the man had made the statement of intent, and that any report from him should be disregarded. The FA may have then made the decision to deplane the passengers.

[seabeyond]

36. i hold with what i say. i absolutely disagree could be interpreted as intent to BECOME

disruptive. that is the very thinking that pisses me off.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

41. The "disruptive" horse had already left the barn when the asshole uttered those words ....

.... where another passenger could hear them.

My father taught me and my siblings when we were little kids that an airport or an airplane are not places to joke about hijacking, bombs and crashes. This was in the '70s well before 9/11 "changed everything". Of course, my pops was an airline employee so trips to the airport were always serious undertakings.

I doubt the policeman's position of authority had anything to do with getting these assholes tossed other than his willingness to confront and report disruptive offensive behavior. Behavior that, I guarantee, will subject anyone to removal REGARDLESS of who reports it.

[seabeyond]

44. well, there you go. i disagree with about all of your post. nt

[Hassin Bin Sober]

45. That's ok.

:) :)

[jberryhill]

196. Your interpretation is irrelevant

The flight attendants are every bit as much of the crew of that plane as the pilot, and have discretion to remove anyone they deem disruptive. Period. End of story.

You weren't there. You don't know what the situation was.

[seabeyond]

197. nor were you. and doesnt stop you from having an opinion.

listen to you.

the very attitude i am referring to

[jberryhill]

200. My opinion

is what?

I have no opinion about whether this person should have been removed. It appears that the FA had a valid reason to make that call. Period.

Your opinion is similar to many others I've seen in situations where people think they can behave as they please aboard aircraft. Your civil rights aboard
an aircraft are like those on other private property - when the owner says it is time to go, you go.

[seabeyond]

204. your opinion FA had a valid reason. my opinion, they did not

YOU dont KNOW me. making assumptions and accusations when you are clueless simply makes you and your argument stupid.

so you have decided i am one of those people that feel i can behave however i feel on a plane?

why am i not surprise you jump on this little bet the op gives with relish.

[jberryhill]

206. Good luck with your hostility issues. Bye. /nt

[seabeyond]

207. lol lol lol. i give opinion. you say not allowed. you tell me what i think. i say no

and i have hostility issue?

good luck with all that projecting.

ta ta

[WolverineDG]

48. Again, should the cop have kept it to himself had these two been whispering

about the bomb they were carrying on the plane? That's also a "private" conversation.

dg

[Gormy Cuss]

82. The story doesn't work for me either.

Start with the presumption that the man was an asshole and a bigot to boot. The quotes in the OP don't rise to the level of creating a disturbance unless he was shouting (no indication of that) and there's no indication that he engaged the other couple. His suggestion that they tell the flight attendant they were hoping the plane doesn't crash isn't a threat and if that alone was enough to get him removed from the plane we should be very afraid.

Either more transpired out of the hearing of the OP or the removal was an overreaction.

[LostinVA]

98. Exactly -- it isn't as if the man called over the flight attendant

And said that, or "joked" about the plane crashing himself.

And, why should a cop have that kind of authority just because?

Doesn't work for me, either.

[uppityperson]

111. A cp has the "authority" to report perceived threats to the airline. As do we all

Obviously the airline thought it was enough of a threat to remove him.

[Gormy Cuss]

129. Obviously and the version of events in the OP doesn't meet any reasonable standard of threat,

reasonable being the key word. Perceived racism,yes.

Simply saying the words "plane" and "crash" don't constitute a thread to anyone with a working brain.

[uppityperson]

141. I guess the airline people don't have a working brain.

have a good day

[Gormy Cuss]

211. I'm not flying so chances are good.

It's bizarre to me that people are defending the removal of this couple based on the scant information in the OP.

[uppityperson]

215. Well, it IS Du, where the slightest bit of info produces all sorts of strongly help opinions

[billh58]

170. Maybe the

words by themselves don't constitute a "threat" to you, but in today's post-9/11 anti-Arab climate, they were meant to imply a threat by the rednecked racist, and to disrupt the flight.

Simply saying the words "bomb," "hijack," and "crash" aboard a commercial airliner can be grounds for refusal to board, detention, and questioning.

[Gormy Cuss]

213. None of those words alone imply a threat pre or post 9/11

Again, if all that transpired was that brief snippet of conversation tossing them off the plane was an overreaction. Bear in mind I don't pretend to know what transpired. I'd like to think that more was said and in a way that did imply a threat or that constituted a disruption worthy of expulsion.

I'm mostly shocked that people here are going along with the action based on the limited info available. Meanwhile airport security is a complete and pathetic joke.

[billh58]

231. Actually, any

type of rude or disruptive behavior can be cause enough to be removed from a particular flight. The Captain, or the Chief Purser, usually makes the final decision about removing a passenger.

Openly talking derisively about other passengers, or the mere mention of any of the "trigger" words is more than enough justification to be removed. And, for what it's worth, this is not about "airport" security, but rather the security of a particular aircraft, its crew, and its passengers.

[seabeyond]

198. we have heard too many stories where the precieved threat was ludicrous. and we argue it

except when it meets our agenda. hence my post

[LostinVA]

96. +1

[stuart68]

105. doesn't work for me either

I fly excessive and see a LOT of disruptive OVERT behavior, well beyond a conversation between two passengers who apparently know each other. If my kids are on the plane, should they be subjected to a drunk passenger talkig loudly and dropping the f-bomb every fourth word ? They have and these folks were not ejected. Shoudl folks who pray before a flight be ejected - that is the cliched activity of a terrorist bomber. What if they are having a conversation in the boarding area, or the line into security.

I am not going to second guess the cop as there may have been a lot of other cues in this case (was the guy drunk, etc).

My guess he identified himselff to a flight attendant who then notified the captain. the captian makes the call, not FAA, and he can actually throw anyone off the flight that he wants. Ultimately, I think throwing the guy off (and his travel companion which was uncalled for) for this comment alone is not proper.

[uppityperson]

114. Praying and cussing does not="implication of a terrorist threat."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8857861&mesg_id=8858975

You missed the point. It was not the bigotted comment but saying a lie about them "hoping the plane doesn't crash", implying some sort of threat.

[stuart68]

119. you're reading a lot into the comments

I did not see where there was a direct connection about lying about them. "I don't want the plane to crash", "I want the r** off the plane". I see where you could infer the connection to a persons willingness to lie about the passenger, but that is not supported by the actual comments.

My point is if two middle-eastern people board a plane, tell each other "With God's our plan will be successful" and then begin to pray. Do you eject them ? Or maybe they are off to a big business meeting.

There is a difference between the overheard statements, and overhearing someone tell a spouse that "I'm going to tell the flight attendant that I heard them talking about a bomb"

[uppityperson]

122. The airline obviously thought enough of the comments to take them off.

[stuart68]

124. obviously

and I would not second guess the cop - that is different than debating the scenario, however.

If the guy who said it was 6'5", 300# and intoxicated, I think simply the r** comment would be enough to get him thrown off, even if there was NO insinuation of a false accusation.

[uppityperson]

140. If it were a big drunk belligerant guy, yes, he may very well be thrown off.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

142. In the above case he would not be aboard in the first place(unless intox rules have softened ) nt :P

[stuart68]

143. that's not the case in my experience (observation only!)

[Bodhi BloodWave]

163. Hmm, could be that some euro countries might have stricter rules then

While you can usually drink on the plane(assuming they sell alcohol during the trip), if you are quite obviously intoxicated when trying to board then those dealing with the boarding will usually refuse to let you on(normally they put a 8 hour stay on letting you on any planes)

[stuart68]

168. another explanation

I have been eating breakfast only to see a traveler pound down two double scotches in 10 minutes "in a hurry to get to the plane".

maybe they are still rewing while boarding.

[noamnety]

184. one can be disruptive without being excessively loud.

I would also be fine with management asking diners to leave if they started making racial slurs loud enough for others directed at a black family entering a restaurant.

Decibel level can be a contributing factor, but not the only factor in determining whether they are creating a hostile and racially charged atmosphere, and whether that's abusive or disruptive.

Also, I didn't see where it was stated that the cop used his "authoritarian power to make it happen." It's not like they were arrested. It sounds like rather than confronting them directly as an authority figure, he reported it to the company and allowed them to make the determination. They weren't arrested as far as we know. They just had their standby status revoked. I'm amused by the Nazi comparisons in this thread - cause we all know the Nazis worked just that way ... by revoking people's standby tickets if they were bigots conspiring to make false charges against minorities.

[SmileyRose]

185. It wasn't the words.

This was an obvious threat, not just words. I thought so immediately but the guy was being "moved up front" so quickly that I hardly had time to mentally process it. I assumed in the moment that it was divine intervention getting them all separated. I don't know about you but I've never really been able to explain the difference between a menacing threat and just idle words, but I always know it when I hear it.

[seabeyond]

203. the description you gave, was not a threat at all let alone an obvious one.

we preceive it differently.

i dont agree with the calling.

i see a lot of people do.

to me, with what you gave, it is beyond ridiculous they were takin off the plane

as i said, i understand i am in the minority. but i dont agree.

[BrklynLiberal]

27. Great to know that not everyone in this country is a hate filled, ignorant bigot.

I hope that in fact this is an indication that those are a very small minority....it is just too bad that they are so damn noisy.

[sendero]

29. Nice..

... yes, I do believe in taking police departments to task when they engage in unprofessional behavior. By the same token, I know that most police are just people doing a difficult job as best they can.

And then there are a few that are exceptional like this guy.

Calling someone a "raghead" is just pathetic. It's almost infantile.

[rocktivity]

33. If they were hoping the plane wouldn't crash, that's a good thing, isn't it?

Unless they were planning to make it crash themselves and didn't want any "competition..."

P.S. And if the couple were still coming down the aisle and hadn't been seated, how could the man have overheard what they said? If he'd overheard it BEFORE boarding, why didn't he say something then?

:crazy:
rocktivity

[FreedomRain]

152. hope it, but don't say it

see #144

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8857861&mesg_id=8859865

[rocktivity]

181. But if they didn't say it AT ALL

and the cop heard the man suggest lying to the flight attendant, the cop was absolutely right to have them removed from the flight.

P.S. The nicest thing a flight attendant did for me was offer to change my seat because I was sitting between two women with babies in their laps!

:headbang:
rocktivity

[pipoman]

34. I despise bigotry

and not to change the subject, but I always find it interesting here on DU how many Muslim anti-bigots are on patrol, if otoh this was a story about a Catholic priest the christian bigots could spout absolute hate and be lauded for their position.

[XanaDUer]

101. You're correct.

nt.

[IBEWVET]

39. K & R

[Jeffersons Ghost]

40. K&R

[MissDeeds]

53. Thanks so much for sharing this story

:patriot:

K&R

[crim son]

56. Cops take shit the same way priests take shit: they hold positions

that depend on the public's ability to trust and respect them. Most priests don't molest their parishoners and most cops don't abuse the general public. You get my point. Having said that, BRAVO to Mr. Atlanta cop! He did the right thing and he totally rocked.

[City Lights]

57. K&R.

:thumbsup:

[Aviation Pro]

59. Delta's plane designers

Delta does not design airplanes. Boeing, Airbus, Embraer, Bombardier and (formerly) McDonnell Douglas design airplanes. Delta selects the configuration of the cabin like selecting the options of a car.

[SmileyRose]

186. Thanks

I appreciate the knowledge. We can only hope the Delta's of the world will start demanding planes with less seats and more room in that case.

:P

[donco6]

61. Great story, thanks.

It's good to know there are still some principled people in the world.

[Donnachaidh]

63. WOW! Amazing and wonderful story!

There are good cops out there - and HUMANE cops! Kick and recommend!

[MrMickeysMom]

65. Make sure he's off duty, SmileyRose

Good post :-)

[Subdivisions]

78. I would love to have seen the reaction of the man who was

himself removed from the plane, rather than "that fucking raghead".

[grahamhgreen]

87. # cheers for the good cops! nt

[Janice325]

91. Happy to be rec #230.

Thanks for sharing.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

93. This made my day

great job!

[Dragonbreathp9d]

94. Here here!

[Odin2005]

99. YAY!

[spooky3]

100. I hope the wife was given an option to stay on the flight.

She didn't do anything wrong, from what you posted.

When I was married I did not like being viewed as responsible for my ex's behavior.

[katandmoon]

102. Did the Middle Eastern couple overhear the bigot? If they complained about it

then I don't have a problem with the whispering bigot being removed. If they didn't, then I don't get why the big cop is the hero for getting him kicked off the flight. To me that's just more proof that we live in a police state because I highly doubt an ordinary passenger on that flight would have gotten such instant action to a complaint about another passenger.

[jberryhill]

177. Muslims know better than to complain

They know darn well that if they complained, the story would be "Muslims cause disruption on plane."

[Posteritatis]

227. If they complained about it they'd probably be the ones kicked off the flight. (nt)

[mitchum]

103. I thought this was going to be a Rahm Emanuel thread

nevermind...

[stuart68]

108. he flies private - never commercial...

[Uncle Joe]

127. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, SmileyRose.:thumbsup:

[HillbillyBob]

131. Bad cops get a lot of deserved shit

I don't rag on the good ones..unfortunately I have had way to many run ins with the bad ones. Have scars and missing teeth to show for it.

[Not Me]

132. How about we just chalk it up to karma

and let it go at that.

[Gman]

133. There really are some good cops

I estimate about 10 out of 100.

[FreedomRain]

144. saying "hope it doesn't crash" is a recognized threat

People have been thrown off for saying it. The jerk dude was referencing that, while attempting to conspire to make false statements and disrupt the flight.

example here:

Exclusive: Detained Hawaiian Air passenger talks
http://www.kgw.com/news/Maui-bound-plane-turned-back-to-PDX-after-passenger-issue-80845642.html

(Not saying I agree with LEO action in the Hawaiian Air case , but OP's cop sounds like he did a justifiable thing) - R'd

[Liberal_in_LA]

148. Amazing story!

[Initech]

156. That's awesome, I really hate bigots like that. The cop did good.

[CoffeeCat]

157. Gives me faith in the human race...

...and right now I'm needing a little faith in the human race.

:)

[pleah]

158. K&R

[Orsino]

173. Salute to the Atlanta PD.

At least one of them.

[upi402]

183. Lots of great cops

Some rotten apples spoiling the hell outa the whole barrel though.

[BreweryYardRat]

190. Damn, that's good to hear.

We tend to get mostly bad cop stories here, so I'm glad you're offering a counterbalance.

[harun]

191. When are people going to learn to keep their mouth's shut while on the frickin plane?

(Rhetorical question, impulsive assholes like that cannot keep their mouths shut)

[Posteritatis]

230. I like the idea of impulsive assholes not keeping their mouths shut. More elbow room for me! (nt)

[rainlillie]

192. It really made my day to read this. Thanks for sharing it with us.

.

[Ken Burch]

193. Good Cop. VERY Good Cop!

That cop rocks!

(fattening yet tasty image warning)

[blondeatlast]

201. Thanks to the officer from the Atlanta PD! Big, big thumbsup to you, guy! nt

[yurbud]

205. great story. No one here begrudges good cops their props.

[Douglas Carpenter]

209. 400+ votes against bigotry and intollerance... perhaps there is hope after all

[handmade34]

214. rec

:thumbsup:

[FourScore]

236. Cops are like teachers...

Most are adequate...Some are TERRIBLE and can do more harm than good...

But when you meet a GREAT one, it makes your soul sing and your heart beat with hope.

This was a great one.

[Seneca]

242. Weeeeeeeeee!

[Rhiannon12866]

243. Little did you know when you posted this story... ;)

Congrats! Well deserved... :toast: :hi:

[SmileyRose]

262. I'm a little shocked.

to say the least.
It's turned out to be a really good conversation all the way around about the frustrations of flying and our freedoms.

[UndertheOcean]

245. Kick ! This Thread is epic !

[Suji to Seoul]

250. Sometimes, people do the right thing. That cop makes me proud!

I wish all cops were like that mammoth of a man that sat on you the entire plane ride.

BTW, I'm built just like the cop, minus the fat.

[uncommon]

257. That's awesome!