United flight attendant arrested for carrying gun on flight

Randy Hudson wrote:

> In article <qsadnWXC5oDuXI3bnZ2dnUVZ_rKvnZ2d@comcast . com >,
> FerdinandAkin <FerdinandAkin@comcast . net > wrote:
>
>
>>It would not be necessary to use Federal Express to ship the gun back to herself. She
>>could put the gun in checked baggage and fly home.
>
>
> Does she have checked lugagge?
>

No, blue.

Randy Hudson wrote:
> In article <qsadnWXC5oDuXI3bnZ2dnUVZ_rKvnZ2d@comcast . com >,
> FerdinandAkin <FerdinandAkin@comcast . net > wrote:
>
>
>>It would not be necessary to use Federal Express to ship the gun back to herself. She
>>could put the gun in checked baggage and fly home.
>
>
> Does she have checked lugagge?
>

Flight attendants can have checked luggage if they wish.

FerdinandAkin wrote:

> Randy Hudson wrote:
>
>> In article <qsadnWXC5oDuXI3bnZ2dnUVZ_rKvnZ2d@comcast . com >,
>> FerdinandAkin <FerdinandAkin@comcast . net > wrote:
>>
>>
>>> It would not be necessary to use Federal Express to ship the gun back
>>> to herself. She
>>> could put the gun in checked baggage and fly home.
>>
>>
>>
>> Does she have checked lugagge?
>>
>
> Flight attendants can have checked luggage if they wish.

Usually they have black luggage, not checked.

> But yeah, in this case, I think the woman should have kept her mouth shut,
> gone to the hotel, and fed-ex'd the thing back to herself in pieces, in at
> least 2 seperate envelopes.

I thought she should call out sick and then take a bus or maybe train home.
But I like your idea better. Less risk involved. -Dave

In article <ogb013tl40qnviate4550eb100blhhv8au@4ax . com >,
Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@gmail . com > wrote:

> Benj writes:
>
> > Oh, I see. It's OK to commit a felony if you don't get caught!
>
> More like: If you commit a felony by accident, it's best not to admit to it.
>
> Oddly enough, this correlates very well with legal advice from attorneys that
> I've read in a number of books. The reality is that honesty is _not_ the best
> policy.
>
> > Nope, I think it's pretty sensible. Any person, United employee or
> > not, who tries to have the means of self-defense at hand is obviously
> > a criminal at best and perhaps even a terrorist. "Bearing arms"
> > clearly only applies to the army and government employees not to
> > airline personnel even if they have a uniform.
>
> Nobody on an aircraft needs a gun.

Four planeloads full of people about six years ago would disagree with
you. If they could.

BTR1701 writes:

> Four planeloads full of people about six years ago would disagree with
> you. If they could.

They were caught by surprise. Guns don't help in that case, whereas if the
element of surprise is lost (or switches to the opposite side), a gun isn't
really necessary. A bit like martial arts.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic wrote:

> BTR1701 writes:
>
>
>>Four planeloads full of people about six years ago would disagree with
>>you. If they could.
>
>
> They were caught by surprise. Guns don't help in that case,

Why would guns not have helped? The terrorists were armed with razor
blades.

Mike Hunt writes:

> Why would guns not have helped? The terrorists were armed with razor
> blades.

If they are holding the razor blades to a hostage's throat, a gun won't help
much. If they've already killed the pilots, a gun can only kill the only
other people with any flying ability. There are many scenarios. Guns are not
the solution to every problem.

I daresay, however, that El Al-style profiling and interrogation (particularly
the latter) would have stopped these terrorists at the gate. While El Al
methods are labor-intensive in many cases and thus impractical for larger
airlines (El Al has only a handful of planes and flights), the quick and
"deep" interrogations could be used by any airline.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

In article <i5j1131g8v6deefbj0atibm6bhpjoheh3q@4ax . com >,
Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@gmail . com > wrote:

> Mike Hunt writes:
>
> > Why would guns not have helped? The terrorists were armed with razor
> > blades.
>
> If they are holding the razor blades to a hostage's throat, a gun won't help
> much. If they've already killed the pilots, a gun can only kill the only
> other people with any flying ability.

People with no flying experience can and have been talked down to safe
landings. And even if it didn't work, at least the planes wouldn't have
been flown into any buildings.

> There are many scenarios. Guns are not
> the solution to every problem.

No, but they'd have been a big help with this one.

BTR1701 writes:

> People with no flying experience can and have been talked down to safe
> landings.

I agree ... although those are fightin' words in rec.aviation.*.

> No, but they'd have been a big help with this one.

We'll never know that for sure. If the terrorists had not had the element of
surprise, they never would have succeeded, either, even with razor blades and
even if nobody had a gun.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@gmail . com > wrote in
news:7eh2139ce70kmgju43n97oogr5vtvj5sqd@4ax . com :

> BTR1701 writes:
>
>> People with no flying experience can and have been talked down to
>> safe landings.

Not in an airliner. Small single engine AC, yes.

> I agree ... although those are fightin' words in rec.aviation.*.
>
>> No, but they'd have been a big help with this one.
>
> We'll never know that for sure. If the terrorists had not had the
> element of surprise, they never would have succeeded, either, even
> with razor blades and even if nobody had a gun.

They succeeded because the hijacking paradym at the time was for the
hijackers to fly somewhere, land and demand ransom or actions for the
lives of the passengers. It was not to use the AC as a missile to
destroy buildings.

RD

In article <Xns99067CE0AEE24Sandman@216.196.97.136>,
"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast . net > wrote:

> Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@gmail . com > wrote in
> news:7eh2139ce70kmgju43n97oogr5vtvj5sqd@4ax . com :
>
> > BTR1701 writes:
> >
> >> People with no flying experience can and have been talked down to
> >> safe landings.
>
> Not in an airliner. Small single engine AC, yes.

Nevertheless, it would be worth a try and even if the aircraft was lost
in the attempt, at least it would be the only thing lost-- not a
skyscraper also.

BTR1701 <btr1702@ix . net com . com > wrote in news:btr1702-
96669E.17542202042007@news.giganews . com :

> In article <Xns99067CE0AEE24Sandman@216.196.97.136>,
> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast . net > wrote:
>
>> Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@gmail . com > wrote in
>> news:7eh2139ce70kmgju43n97oogr5vtvj5sqd@4ax . com :
>>
>> > BTR1701 writes:
>> >
>> >> People with no flying experience can and have been talked down to
>> >> safe landings.
>>
>> Not in an airliner. Small single engine AC, yes.
>
> Nevertheless, it would be worth a try and even if the aircraft was lost
> in the attempt, at least it would be the only thing lost-- not a
> skyscraper also.

Hopefully. I agree.

RD

In article <7eh2139ce70kmgju43n97oogr5vtvj5sqd@4ax . com >,
Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@gmail . com > wrote:

> BTR1701 writes:
>
> > People with no flying experience can and have been talked down to safe
> > landings.
>
> I agree ... although those are fightin' words in rec.aviation.*.
>
> > No, but they'd have been a big help with this one.
>
> We'll never know that for sure.

Perhaps not but I'm reasonably confident of it. The plane that went down
in Shanksville had a GS-1811 federal agent on board (I think he was EPA
or DOI, I can't remember) but he was unarmed because he was on a
personal trip, not official business. Had he been flying armed, he could
easily have shot the two terrorists outside cockpit when the passengers
decided to retake the plane, then blown the lock off the cockpit door.
The gun would have made the process of retaking the plane significantly
easier and quicker and would have stood a good chance of getting them
into the cockpit in time to keep the final terrorists from driving the
plane into the ground.

In article <btr1702-0377FA.17521502042007@news.giganews . com >,
btr1702@ix . net com . com says...
> In article <7eh2139ce70kmgju43n97oogr5vtvj5sqd@4ax . com >,
> Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@gmail . com > wrote:
>
> > BTR1701 writes:
> >
> > > People with no flying experience can and have been talked down to safe
> > > landings.
> >
> > I agree ... although those are fightin' words in rec.aviation.*.
> >
> > > No, but they'd have been a big help with this one.
> >
> > We'll never know that for sure.
>
> Perhaps not but I'm reasonably confident of it. The plane that went down
> in Shanksville had a GS-1811 federal agent on board (I think he was EPA
> or DOI, I can't remember) but he was unarmed because he was on a
> personal trip, not official business. Had he been flying armed, he could
> easily have shot the two terrorists outside cockpit when the passengers
> decided to retake the plane, then blown the lock off the cockpit door.
> The gun would have made the process of retaking the plane significantly
> easier and quicker and would have stood a good chance of getting them
> into the cockpit in time to keep the final terrorists from driving the
> plane into the ground.


Correct me (with cites) if I'm wrong... But my understanding of
that situation was that the passengers DID incapacitate the
two passenger-area terrorists, and DID get into to cockpit. And
that the struggle in the cockpit was caught on the voice
recorder. And then resulted in loss of control of the plane.

I seem to recall that at least one of the cell phone
conversations from passengers included an understanding that they
would die, anyway. And that the goal was to crash the plane
before it reached the terrorists' destination (generally thought
to be Washington.)


--
Get Credit Where Credit Is Due
* w w w .cardreport . com /
Credit Tools, Reference, and Forum