Mile-high club for terrorists?

[KBCraig]

If only it had been Virgin Airways.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/11/14/061114235323.5hvb8xln.html

Mid-flight sexual play lands US couple afoul of anti-terrorism law
Nov 14 6:53 PM US/Eastern

A couple's ill-concealed sexual play aboard a Southwest Airlines flight from Los Angeles got them charged with violating the Patriot Act, intended for terrorist acts, and could land them in jail for 20 years.

According to their indictment, Carl Persing and Dawn Sewell were allegedly snuggling and kissing inappropriately, "making other passengers uncomfortable," when a flight attendant asked them to stop.

"Persing was observed nuzzling or kissing Sewell on the neck, and ... with his face pressed against Sewell's vaginal area. During these actions, Sewell was observed smiling," reads the indictment filed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

On a second warning from the flight attendant, Persing snapped back threatening the flight attendant with "serious consequences" if he did not leave them alone.

The comment was enough to have the couple, both in their early 40s, arrested when the plane reached its destination in Raleigh, North Carolina, and charged with obstructing a flight attendant and with criminal association.

They have been placed under legal surveillance until their trial on February 5. If found guilty, they both could be sent to jail for up to 20 years.

Persing's lawyer William Peregoy said his client was not feeling well when he placed his head on his companion's lap, and that he only threatened the flight attendant with reporting him to his superiors on landing.

[Quantrill]

"Persing was observed nuzzling or kissing Sewell on the neck, and ... with his face pressed against Sewell's vaginal area. During these actions, Sewell was observed smiling,"

[Dreepa]

They have been placed under legal surveillance until their trial on February 5.

[Pat K]

Terrorist cunnilingus?

[KBCraig]

Terrorist cunnilingus?

Those cunning terrorists.

[Braddogg]

According to their indictment, Carl Persing and Dawn Sewell were allegedly snuggling and kissing inappropriately, "making other passengers uncomfortable," when a flight attendant asked them to stop.

[. . .]

On a second warning from the flight attendant, Persing snapped back threatening the flight attendant with "serious consequences" if he did not leave them alone.

Does anyone else think that Carl Persing isn't a person we should be defending?  He made other customers on the plane feel uncomfortable, the flight attendant asked him to stop, and then he threatened her with what was probably meant to be violence.  It was that threat, not the snuggling, that got him in trouble.  Remove the reference to the PATRIOT Act and is there anything wrong with what's going on?  Sure, 20 years is probably a long time, but we need to remember that he threatened her and everyone on the plane with violence.

[KBCraig]

According to their indictment, Carl Persing and Dawn Sewell were allegedly snuggling and kissing inappropriately, "making other passengers uncomfortable," when a flight attendant asked them to stop.

[. . .]

On a second warning from the flight attendant, Persing snapped back threatening the flight attendant with "serious consequences" if he did not leave them alone.

Does anyone else think that Carl Persing isn't a person we should be defending?

If he was engaging in sex in view of other passengers during a flight, and threatening staff and others, then of course his would be a poor case to defend.

But remember, this is a news report. Please don't assume that the facts have been presented.

He made other customers on the plane feel uncomfortable, the flight attendant asked him to stop, and then he threatened her with what was probably meant to be violence.  It was that threat, not the snuggling, that got him in trouble.

Allegedly. There have been so many instances of TSA, flight crew, fellow passengers, etc., feeling "uncomfortable", and turning that feeling into a "threat", that I won't bother listing them.

Remove the reference to the PATRIOT Act and is there anything wrong with what's going on?  Sure, 20 years is probably a long time, but we need to remember that he threatened her and everyone on the plane with violence.

He claims he threatened to report the flight attendant to the supervisor. No violence. The worst that is alleged in the article is "serious consequences", and only towards the flight attendant, not fellow passengers.

Kevin

[Ear]

He claims he threatened to report the flight attendant to the supervisor. No violence. The worst that is alleged in the article is "serious consequences", and only towards the flight attendant, not fellow passengers.

That's how I understood it as well... he threatened the flight attendant with "serious consequences", which is not a threat of violence.  If that's the case, he has no responsibility for others on the plane being on tenterhooks over 9/11.  At worst, he's a bit of a jerk... and twenty years in the stripey hole does seem somewhat excessive for the 'crime' of jerkitudinousness.  If he and his lady friend were engaging in lewd and lascivious behavior in public, that's already a crime on its own, and we don't need to charge them with terrorism in the sky in order to punish it.

We have to remember that other people do have the right to offend us with their words and behavior, within certain limits.  Christian fundamentalists often forget this fact, and try to claim that they have a right to live in a world where people do not offend them by being openly gay (for instance).

[Braddogg]

If the facts are as the flight attendant presented them, then the guy deserves a punishment.  If he said " leave me alone or there will be serious consequences," I would take that as a threat of violence.  Of course I assumed that the news report is true; otherwise, we're just making up facts.  May as well say that Persing thought he was talking to the miniature unicorn dancing on top of the flight attendant's head.  It is possible that the flight attendant is lying, and that the attendant intentionally and unnecessarily escalated the situation.  It's also possible that maybe, just maybe, Persing is lying, and he's got a good reason to do that -- he's facing 20 years in prison; I'd probably lie too!  Or maybe there was an honest miscommunication.

We have to remember that other people do have the right to offend us with their words and behavior, within certain limits.  Christian fundamentalists often forget this fact, and try to claim that they have a right to live in a world where people do not offend them by being openly gay (for instance).

Eh?  Was this directed at me?  And what does homosexuality have to do with this topic?  Are you saying that this is a distinctly Christian issue, that an atheist wouldn't be perterbed if he turned to his left and saw the guy next to him going down on a woman?  I think there is a definite difference between two guys holding hands walking down the street and a straight couple going at it in their airplane seats.

[Ear]

If the facts are as the flight attendant presented them, then the guy deserves a punishment.  If he said " leave me alone or there will be serious consequences," I would take that as a threat of violence.

But it ISN'T a threat of violence.  It's a threat of "serious consequences".  You don't have the magic ability to turn that into a crime simply by your choice to take it as a threat of violence.  Now, if he brandished a weapon (or waved a fist in your face) while threatening "serious consequences", the brandishing would be a threat of violence... but the words still are not.

Eh?  Was this directed at me?  And what does homosexuality have to do with this topic?  Are you saying that this is a distinctly Christian issue, that an atheist wouldn't be perterbed if he turned to his left and saw the guy next to him going down on a woman?  I think there is a definite difference between two guys holding hands walking down the street and a straight couple going at it in their airplane seats.

No, it wasn't directed at you.  It was just an example.

[KBCraig]

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/11/15/D8LDIJ400.html

Lawyer Disputes Claims of Sex on Plane
Nov 15 9:51 AM US/Eastern

A man arrested for allegedly engaging in "overt sexual activity" with his girlfriend on an airliner was lying with his head on her lap because he wasn't feeling well, his attorney said.

That gesture was misinterpreted by a flight attendant, who humiliated and harassed the couple, said attorney Deb Newton, who represents Carl Persing.

Persing and Dawn Sewell, both of Lakewood, Calif., face federal charges of interfering with flight crew members, allegedly by disobeying a flight attendant's request that they stop their public displays of affection.

They were arrested on Sept. 15 when they arrived at Raleigh-Durham International Airport on a Southwest Airlines flight from Los Angeles.

"The one witness I've talked to and the defendant dispute almost everything in the government's affidavit as to what happened on that airplane," Newton said.

She said Persing suffers from a chronic disease requiring medication that makes him drowsy, dizzy and irritable. She would not identify the disease to protect her client's privacy.

Newton said she will ask that the charges be dismissed.

Sewell's lawyer did not immediately return a call seeking comment.

[Braddogg]

::shrugs::  I still say that "serious consequences," if that's all the guy said, is a thinly veiled threat of violence.  And if the government affidavit is a lie, then sure, toss the case.  If it's not a lie, then I stand by my statements.

[citizen_142002]

It doesn't sound like a threat to me. Plus, when has a threat of violence been an act of violence. I've never seen much reason to have laws about verbal assault, unless there is a clear and present credibility to the threat. If someone has a gun and the say "I'm going to shoot you in the head", that's one thing.
If someone says "get away from me or I'll slug you." Well then get away from 'em, or your just antagonizing a fight.

I don't condone acts of violence, but frankly minor scuffles and mutually provoked fist fights aren't serious offenses at all. Saying that 20 years seems at tad extreme is an understatement. If he did threaten a flight attendent with a slug in the face, he should probabley do 20 hours of community service, not 20 years.
Think about the last 20 years of you life, all that you've done and all the places you've been, now really imagine spending all that time behind bars. 20 years sounds like a good sentence for attempted murder, not a possible vague threat directed at a flight attendant.

A lot of people here seem to think that once someone violates the strictest observance of the ZAP, you should treat them like a monster. Even a crime of violence should be treated proportionately.