Airline Staff set to Tazer unruly passengers

[Rookie50]

http://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2016/12 ... mohsin.cnn

Can't imagine the implications of allowing poorly trained cabin crew access to police grade weapons.

Sure we will see this in. N America before long.

Let the popcorn show begin.

[SuperchargedRS]

Police grade weapons, it's a silly idea, but let's not over hype it, it's a taser.

That said of some stew tried to taze my chick, it would be bad news bears for all involved, ofcourse I'm not some ghetto fabulous type who would cause a scene anyways.

[Rookie50]

, ofcourse I'm not some ghetto fabulous type who would cause a scene anyways.

That means sit down, shut up, be the correct skin colour and voting preference.

Wait till Delta gets these devices.

In Big Brother Ministry of Truth airlines like them, getting kicked off or banned could result from:

1) complaining for any reason
2) tweeting about flight delays
3) wearing the wrong clothing like a head scarf.
4) being the wrong skin colour or speaking the wrong language.

Now you can get tazered, too. No controls. No accountability. Unbelievable. Perfectly lawful. People have died from these devices, many many people. Now they will given to....Flight Attendants? Scary.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/invest ... sed-risks/

Can imagine the response from the Captains out there. We need these to control the barbarian horde.

Questions then Captains: If one of your cabin crew used this device, and the person died as a result, are you willing to be liable? Would you be comfortable with your crew -- you may never have met before that flight -- in the back having these weapons? All I want to know. Airlines can do what they want and regulators allow. Fine.

I'm just wondering who's accountable if it goes wrong. Cause no surpise to me if these things show up on aircraft here.

[SuperchargedRS]

Ba ha ha, you linked to a wapo article, as if it was "news"

Anywho, the race thing is great marketing, no one (well minus the <2% who are actually racists, as in the dictionary definition, not the liberal; someone doesn't agree with my left wing view point on ANYTHING) gives a hoot about what color your skin is, but you will be judged on your actions, and sadly poor folks aren't raised right for the most part, so you end up with people acting a damn fool.

[Rockie]

and sadly poor folks aren't raised right for the most part, so you end up with people acting a damn fool.

I hate to break it to you but wealth has nothing to do with class or how well a person's been raised. I could point out some obvious examples of classless, poorly raised wealthy a**holes, but let's not go down that road with this thread.

[rxl]

and sadly poor folks aren't raised right for the most part, so you end up with people acting a damn fool.

I hate to break it to you but wealth has nothing to do with class or how well a person's been raised. I could point out some obvious examples of classless, poorly raised wealthy a**holes, but let's not go down that road with this thread.

OK then, I'll say it. As a prime example, President Elect Donald J. Trump.

[Aviatard]

I could point out some obvious examples of classless, poorly raised wealthy a**holes,

No don't.... aw dang. Too late.

[Rockie]

He's one obviously but there are lots of other examples I'm thinking of as well. Conversely I'm sure we all know people of modest or poor means with plenty of class and whose parents raised them right.

WRT weapons on an airplane - bad idea unless they're in the possession of a highly trained in-flight security officer. By that I do not mean armed pilots which has to be the stupidest idea ever. It's bad enough the cabin crew has to occasionally use the restraint kit which pretty much guarantees people will get hurt.

[B208]

and sadly poor folks aren't raised right for the most part, so you end up with people acting a damn fool.

I hate to break it to you but wealth has nothing to do with class or how well a person's been raised. I could point out some obvious examples of classless, poorly raised wealthy a**holes, but let's not go down that road with this thread.

Hey Rockie, why don't you go hang out in a trailer park, or East L.A. For a few weeks then come back and tell us that wealth and "troublemaker" status are completely divorced.

As for flight crews with tazers; Not a bad idea, provided proper training is given.

[Rockie]

What about it? The big difference between rich people and poor people wrt to criminal behaviour is the ability to hide it, lawyers and who gets targeted more by the authorities. That's it.

[Rookie50]

WRT weapons on an airplane - bad idea unless they're in the possession of a highly trained in-flight security officer. By that I do not mean armed pilots which has to be the stupidest idea ever. It's bad enough the cabin crew has to occasionally use the restraint kit which pretty much guarantees people will get hurt.

I doubt your answer is the consensus.

[B208]

What about it? The big difference between rich people and poor people wrt to criminal behaviour is the ability to hide it, lawyers and who gets targeted more by the authorities. That's it.

Yeah, I saw a guy in a three piece suit walking down Bay Street yesterday with a Glock, (holding it side ways), said he was ,"gonna bust a cap in tha' cracker's ass". Cops looked right at him and said, "Right on brother.". Happens all the time.

[Rockie]

Over 350 million hand guns in the US and you think they all belong to gangsters? You also have an extremely limited view of what crime is. 3 piece suits rob you blind every minute of every day in countless imaginative ways without penalty and you aren't even aware of it. In fact people like you welcome it because you're programmed to by rejecting any regulations designed to protect you as socialist corruption. The definition of gullible dupes.

You can expect that activity to explosively expand in the US now that Wall Street is literally running the country.

[B208]

Over 350 million hand guns in the US and you think they all belong to gangsters?

Nope, I expect most of them belong to people like me; Avid target shooters who haven't killed anyone. You have a very narrow and biased view of the world if you think all gun owners are criminals; But then again that is to be expected from a well programmed progressive.

You also have an extremely limited view of what crime is. 3 piece suits rob you blind every minute of every day in countless imaginative ways without penalty and you aren't even aware of it.

Again, the expected response from a well programmed progressive. Turning a profit is a crime. Any money not given to or received from the government is a crime.

[Mach1]

Can't imagine the implications of allowing poorly trained cabin crew access to police grade weapons.

Best laugh I have had all week.

Police grade weapons. Given how this weapon is often used, or should I say abused, even the police shouldn't have it... because their own training and rules on this weapon are substandard. I could supply a lot of examples of misuse, but you can Google that for yourself.

That said, I think a nonlethal option in the hands of the police is actually a good thing. The training around it needs to be better, and I think it's improving.

People are getting stranger and stranger on airplanes. There is an amazing amount of theft from the overhead bins as people rummage through your bags and take what's not theirs. Often, they don't even rummage, they just take the whole bag. Ever wonder why some people are in such a hurry to grab the carry on and run off the plane? Then there's the drunks, the entitled and the mentally unstable.... not to mention the ones who might be on non-prescribed pharmaceuticals. Flight crews face a lot more challenges in the air than ever before, and these people are not paid to get beat up and abused because someone is angry. So, as long as there is training and rules around the deployment of such a device, I can support it.

That said of some stew tried to taze my chick, it would be bad news bears for all involved, ofcourse I'm not some ghetto fabulous type who would cause a scene anyways.

Speaking of attitude issues... nice respect for the flight crew there buddy. Some Stew? And why would "some stew" be inclined to taze your "chick?" Why would a flight crew member do such a thing? I'm pretty sure it's not because of a respectful exchange of ideas or expression of concern. I am curious what, exactly, you would do that would prove to be such bad news? Would you begin a physical confrontation on an aircraft with a crew member? How do you feel that would end for you? Or do you mean you would use legal channels to address the issue?

sadly poor folks aren't raised right for the most part, so you end up with people acting a damn fool.

That is one of the most disrespectful things I have ever seen written here. I take it you must come from some level of wealth that places you far above the masses? Historically, the rich used to run over the poor in their carriages and just keep going because the poor were considered no more human than a rodent or a piece of disposable garbage... I guess the world looked pretty nice from inside those carriages. Being so civilized and enlightened must be a terrible burden carried by the chosen ones who were born to the proper families.

Over 350 million hand guns in the US and you think they all belong to gangsters? You also have an extremely limited view of what crime is. 3 piece suits rob you blind every minute of every day in countless imaginative ways without penalty and you aren't even aware of it. In fact people like you welcome it because you're programmed to by rejecting any regulations designed to protect you as socialist corruption. The definition of gullible dupes.

You can expect that activity to explosively expand in the US now that Wall Street is literally running the country.

You have stated an absolute fact. One average white collar crime removes more money from the pockets of society than all the street crime committed in one year. But, you need very educated policemen to investigate these crimes... and it takes time... and resources... and they are difficult to prosecute because the people you are attempting to investigate tend to be connected to the people who write the laws... that and they can afford great lawyers. So, these crimes are rarely prosecuted because the low hanging fruit is so much easier to pick.

[Rookie50]

Can't imagine the implications of allowing poorly trained cabin crew access to police grade weapons.

So, as long as there is training and rules around the deployment of such a device, I can support it.

OK, (any) Captain. (Generically stated -- I don't know if you are or not one)

I accept this -- but as I asked earlier:

Are you willing to accept the responsibility, up to criminal prosecution, if usage of this device goes bad on your aircraft, and someone dies?

Your aircraft. You're ultimately responsible for what happens, as far as I'm concerned, regardless of whether it was you or a crew member. Allowing weapons on board in your crew's hands is a serious decision.

[Rockie]

Are you willing to accept the responsibility, up to criminal prosecution, if usage of this device goes bad on your aircraft, and someone dies?

I thought this was a prank article? But related to your question, anytime somebody is subdued or restrained on an aircraft it is done under the authority and responsibility of the Captain. So the short answer to your question is "yes", but since it's being done to protect the other passengers, crew and aircraft from harm the likelihood of consequences against the PIC are extremely remote

Again, the expected response from a well programmed progressive. Turning a profit is a crime. Any money not given to or received from the government is a crime.

See what I mean?

[B208]

Again, the expected response from a well programmed progressive. Turning a profit is a crime. Any money not given to or received from the government is a crime.

See what I mean?

Yep, I see exactly what you mean. The fact that you lump all capitalist activity together as a crime, and that you are incapable of distinguishing between the actions of a CEO and a street thug means that you are essentially a marxist; both cultural and economic.

[Mach1]

Your aircraft. You're in command. You're ultimately responsible for what happens, as far as I'm concerned, regardless of whether it was you or a crew member. Allowing weapons on board in your crew's hands is a serious decision -- the usage of which may have serious consequences for all concerned.

I'm not quite certain where you are getting your grasp of the law. Lets examine the law if it works the way you are suggesting.

The Chief of police would go to jail if one of his officers shot someone while on duty but it turned out that the shooting was not defensible... because, the Chief of police allowed his officer to carry a weapon. To further your analogy, we would actually work our way clear up to the Queen of England going to prison because, ultimately, it is an act of parliament that is sanctioned by Her Majesty that allows the carriage of weapons by military, police and security forces.

Your point just has no merit that I can see. To me, the true concern is someone other than the crew accessing a weapon on board the aircraft. That is a concern that would need to be addressed.

[geodoc]

Can't imagine the implications of allowing poorly trained cabin crew access to police grade weapons.

So, as long as there is training and rules around the deployment of such a device, I can support it.

OK, (any) Captain. (Generically stated -- I don't know if you are or not one)

I accept this -- but as I asked earlier:

Are you willing to accept the responsibility, up to criminal prosecution, if usage of this device goes bad on your aircraft, and someone dies?

Your aircraft. You're ultimately responsible for what happens, as far as I'm concerned, regardless of whether it was you or a crew member. Allowing weapons on board in your crew's hands is a serious decision.

You've got the bit firmly between your teeth on a PIC's "ultimate responsibility' when it comes to dealing with unruly passengers. You might ponder it a little more deeply after reading some of the reliant data governing this. Here are a few to start.

http://tinyurl.com/hyfbg38

http://www.iata.org/whatwedo/safety/Doc ... dition.pdf

http://www.raes-hfg.com/reports/12oct99 ... 9-kane.pdf

[CpnCrunch]

Yep, I see exactly what you mean. The fact that you lump all capitalist activity together as a crime, and that you are incapable of distinguishing between the actions of a CEO and a street thug means that you are essentially a marxist; both cultural and economic.

I think your reading comprehension needs some work.

[Rookie50]

Your aircraft. You're in command. You're ultimately responsible for what happens, as far as I'm concerned, regardless of whether it was you or a crew member. Allowing weapons on board in your crew's hands is a serious decision -- the usage of which may have serious consequences for all concerned.

I'm not quite certain where you are getting your grasp of the law. Lets examine the law if it works the way you are suggesting.

The Chief of police would go to jail if one of his officers shot someone while on duty but it turned out that the shooting was not defensible... because, the Chief of police allowed his officer to carry a weapon.d.

I believe there are certain instances where a prosecution of a supervising officer or chief, is warranted for consideration. Some of the police shootings in the US, an in depth read reveals the chief set a particular tone that resulted in an indefensible incident.

Prosecution of a chief would set an strict example to weed out the gun happy Cowboys out there, and this has happened. Chiefs have been investigated for the actions of their officers.

[Rookie50]

So, as long as there is training and rules around the deployment of such a device, I can support it.

OK, (any) Captain. (Generically stated -- I don't know if you are or not one)

I accept this -- but as I asked earlier:

Are you willing to accept the responsibility, up to criminal prosecution, if usage of this device goes bad on your aircraft, and someone dies?

Your aircraft. You're ultimately responsible for what happens, as far as I'm concerned, regardless of whether it was you or a crew member. Allowing weapons on board in your crew's hands is a serious decision.

You've got the bit firmly between your teeth on a PIC's "ultimate responsibility' when it comes to dealing with unruly passengers. You might ponder it a little more deeply after reading some of the reliant data governing this. Here are a few to start.

http://tinyurl.com/hyfbg38

http://www.iata.org/whatwedo/safety/Doc ... dition.pdf

http://www.raes-hfg.com/reports/12oct99 ... 9-kane.pdf

I'll look -- but when it comes to FA's handling weapons? I sure do expect that the PIC is responsible. This isn't a set of restraints. Dozens and dozens have been fatally injured through poor training / misapplication of these weapons.

I'm simply curious if a captain allowing these in the hands of their crew, would accept responsibility for this possibility, and resulting investigation.

And if not, and your airline mandated these devices on board -- one has, so not a stretch -- what would you do?

If I was an airline captain, I'd be thinking about these things, before my airline springs this on me.

I agree unruly passengers are a problem, and I edited my prior comment, I am sympathetic to this. Much as passengers blame the airline for overcrowding induced stress, that's not something flight crew caused. I would not want to work in today's airline industry as I've observed it on many flights.

[B208]

Yep, I see exactly what you mean. The fact that you lump all capitalist activity together as a crime, and that you are incapable of distinguishing between the actions of a CEO and a street thug means that you are essentially a marxist; both cultural and economic.

I think your reading comprehension needs some work.

Sod off.

[CpnCrunch]

Yep, I see exactly what you mean. The fact that you lump all capitalist activity together as a crime, and that you are incapable of distinguishing between the actions of a CEO and a street thug means that you are essentially a marxist; both cultural and economic.

I think your reading comprehension needs some work.

Sod off.

At risk of stating the obvious (at least, obvious to everyone except you), Rockie wasn't equating capitalism with crime. He was just saying that not all crime is perpetrated by poor people.

In my own personal experience, the vast majority of crime and bad behaviour that I come across personally is from wealthy people who are trying to screw other people. I don't meet street thugs because I don't live in (or frequent) shitty areas.

Anyway, I hope you don't sod off. You and Mr SuperRS provide most of avcanada's entertainment value these days.