Ken at Popehat thinks the Los Angeles Times, and Keith Olbermann, have gotten this recent story rather badly wrong. P.S. Much further discussion at Scott Greenfield’s.
Ken at Popehat thinks the Los Angeles Times, and Keith Olbermann, have gotten this recent story rather badly wrong. P.S. Much further discussion at Scott Greenfield’s.
5 Comments
Was Mommy a Terrorist, or LA Times Full of It?…
This story from the Los Angeles Times was enough to stir ire in the coldest reaches of Dick Cheney’s heart. Tamera Jo Freeman was on a Frontier Airlines flight to Denver in 2007 when her two children began to quarrel over the window shade and then spi…
I wonder why Ken at Popehat thinks that being drunk and using “abusive language” is worthy of a felony charge? Is that really enough to get locked up in a federal prison? Because that is all that happened. Some passenger was (allegedly) drunk on an airplane, the flight attendant freaked out, and said that she felt intimidated. I hope that no one arrests Ken that next time he utters a swear word while upset.
I wonder why Ken at Popehat thinks that being drunk and using “abusive language” is worthy of a felony charge?
I don’t think that he is making a judgement on whether the charge of a felony is warranted or not. I see the thrust of his post as being that the LA Times used the banner headline of “In-flight confrontations can lead to charges defined as terrorism” as being misleading and false.
From the post:
“This is the heart of the article’s legal illiteracy and/or willful scaremongering. People like Freeman are being prosecuted “under the PATRIOT Act” in only the most remote sense — they are being prosecuted under a statute that existed well before the PATRIOT Act, under elements established well before the PATRIOT Act, facing a sentencing guideline range not altered by the PATRIOT Act. “ (emphasis mine)
Because that is all that happened.
I’m sorry, but according the witness statements, that is not all that happened. The woman was abusive to her children, was drunk, threw a drink at the feet of the flight attendant, refused to remain in her seat, followed the flight attendant while demanding another drink, appeared so hostile that the flight attendant felt threatened and adopted a defensive stance and lastly prevented the flight attendant from performing her duties.
He makes the case that the woman was charged for what was illegal activity before the Patriot Act was enacted. The Times was making the claim that the woman was convicted only because of the Patriot Act.
Aside from the striking of her kids, the f-you-bomb, the tossing of the drink, and other things, it comes through pretty clearly that the flight attendant had to dedicate a substantial amount of time to monitoring and dealing with the defendant. I’m thinking that the “FA’s” ability to be effective at providing for the general safety of the other passengers was significantly, if not severly inhibited by the def. In fact, it reads as though the def. was presenting danger to 1) herself, 2) the flight crew and 3) other passengers (including her own childer).
Interference with a Crew Member in the performance of their duties is a Federal felony. Plain and simple. It doesn’t matter if it is on a plane, train or ship. This law has been around far longer than the Patriot Act, over 100 years longer. Conductors on passenger trains used to be armed so that they could both protect the cargo and keep order on the trains. The same with the Purser on both ships and planes. I can’t remember the name of the book, but a history of the Pan Am Clipper mentioned that more than one passenger was shot, when they tried to interfere with the operation of the plane.
This is just another Liberal reporter (is there any other type) trying push their political agenda.