clrd4t8koff wrote:

That might be true, but it sounds linke most airline employees just don't want passengers having their info to report their bad behavior as opposed to being afraid someone might create a counterfeit badge.

My issue isn't being reported—I'll gladly give my first name and employee number or agent sine upon request. My issue is if I'm doing my job properly and some irate passenger uses my information to harass or defame me.

I once had a coworker stalked on social media after a customer/passenger wasn't able to check in for their flight because they were 20 minutes past the cutoff time. Shortly thereafter we switched to first names only.

Whenever I see someone trying to take a picture of my badge, I put it under my jacket. Whenever someone's trying to take a picture of me, I put on my best customer service smile. Good luck leading an Internet witch hunt against someone who looks like they were just plucked from an airline ad...

Sancho99504 wrote:

What the heck happened to this site? Are we really going to nitpick over passenger, customer, client, guest...etc, while being a complete dick about it? This free crap has really degraded this site and I now completely understand why some people I know, left. Sad really.

Exactly. Sadly this is the 'standard' on many sites. It's like being in a child's playground 'fight'. I've given up. It's just not worth it. I now just skim over topics and have a good laugh. At least it's good for one thing

This site is going downhill fast with snide comments like Facebook.

Go back to paying membership please!

clrd4t8koff wrote:

usflyer msp wrote:

clrd4t8koff wrote:

Just trying to understand - if the passenger was taking a picture of your ID were you afraid they'd have your information to report you? I don't understand what the fear is.

That is how counterfeit ID's are created, take a picture of real one and then create a fake from it. Taking pictures of airport badges and Airline ID's are big no-no at the airport....

That might be true, but it sounds linke most airline employees just don't want passengers having their info to report their bad behavior as opposed to being afraid someone might create a counterfeit badge.

Also - hasn't it already been mentioned that people have the right to take photos in airports outside of controlled areas like security screening and customs areas. Sounds like check in counters are safe to snap photos.

Can you please advise what "bad behavior" the pilot was displaying that this customer needed his badge to report ? I'm missing it.

Also, it would seem taking pictures of a SIDA badge and a company badge are two different things and can be interpreted very different. The SIDA/AOA badge is Government property, an employee badge is company property. I'm not sure the anyone has the right to take pictures of government property on an private individual. For LEO's, government officials, they are public servants and are allowed to be photographed. This pilot was a private citizen wearing Government property that has security sensitive information. Beyond all that, you posit that what the passenger/customer/client/guest did was perfectly legal, but just because something is legal doesn't always mean you should do it. Inside legality, a good bit of common sense goes a long way.

It reminds me of the people you see on Youtube videos "pushing the envelope" at the airport, on the airplane and to LEO's. Just because its legal to "make waves" why do it?

77H

I worked AA gates from '68 to '72 - then went to the ticket counter for another 2.5 years.
Did have Kurt Goudy swing at my at gate K-2, when he missed the last flight to BOS.
He had been in the airline "lounge" and got totattly drunk.

Also, got pulled-over-the baggage Check-In counter, by a photog-guy, who
was upset he has to pay $ 234. Good thing, the ORD police were right there
and hauled him off to ORD jali. Yes, there is a "jail' in the basement of ORD

Guy needs a few nights to rethink his thoughts. Can't believe that anyone could defend the passenger. His actions were totally uncalled for. The pilot had more control then I, and most people I knew, would have.

MIflyer12 wrote:

FlyUSAir wrote:

Pilot needs to be fired. No excuse for assault but you don't slap someone's phone out of someone's hands. The aircraft is private property and the employees can stop any unwanted photography they want but an airport (usually) is limited-public property meaning if you have business there, you have every right in the world to take all the pictures you want of anything and everyone (minus the usual areas like TSA screens, bathrooms, off limit areas etc).

It took 17 posts but somebody finally got around to relevant U.S. law. One can have no expectation of privacy (denying photos, for example) in a public place - places like public toilets excepted. The passenger can't shove the pilot but the pilot can't knock the phone out of the passenger's hand, either.

I don't know what the airport policy is but there are ways to restrict photograpy. Art galleries (which are pseudo public) have no photography policies and signs. They can't assault somebody to enforce it but they can do reasonable things and strongly request a person delete a photo.

Looks like the pilot didn't know what the passenger had shoved in his direction.. Was a phone but could easily have been a knife so his putting his hand up in the way is a natural defence.. Not his fault that the perp dropped it.. Assault by the passenger, pure and simple.. What is strange is that the passenger seems to just randomly carry out his action and there seems to have been very little or no interaction between them before.

flyingcat wrote:

While I don't support any shoving there is one thing that cops and authority figure always forget. There is no expectation of privacy in a public setting, you cannot order someone to delete photos taken of you. I don't agree with the man's method, shoving a camera in someones face is idiotic but there are numerous cases to back this up.

FlyUSAir wrote:

Pilot needs to be fired. No excuse for assault but you don't slap someone's phone out of someone's hands.

That the pilot can't force him to delete the photos is irrelevant. It doesn't appear to have even come up.

The airline won't fire the pilot because I'm sure they have no interest in punishing him for being a victim of harassment.

While you normally can't slap somebody's cell phone out of their hand, having watched the video, it clearly was not a normal situation. The passenger following the pilot the way he did and behaving as described is harassment, and if it can be established that the pilot at any time before then told the passenger to stop following him, the burden of proving the passenger intended to intimidate him is fulfilled. Keep in mind it is not necessary he be told this. Telling him only establishes he is aware of the intimidating effect of his actions, and thus, by choosing to continue, he is knowingly committing harassment. I'm not going to bother looking up Missouri law, but there's a fair amount of similarity in criminal laws between states, and I know where to find my own:

"Attempts to contact or follow the person after being given actual notice that the person does not want to be contacted or followed constitutes prima facie evidence that the stalker intends to intimidate or harass the person
....
It is not a defense to the crime of stalking under this section that the stalker was not given actual notice that the person did not want the stalker to contact or follow the person."

In that context (or in almost any other context, for that matter), sticking anything abruptly in his face, cell phone or otherwise, is a reasonable cause for further alarm, and knocking the hand away, phone or otherwise, is a perfectly reasonable response in proportion to the level of alarm.

If you want to take a picture of somebody, do it from arm's length. They don't have a right to stop you from taking a photo, but you don't have a right to intimidate them to get exactly the photo you want.

Sancho99504 wrote:

Washington law is very clear. Regardless of constitutional legality, it is on the books and has been for at least 20 years. I do believe it falls under voyeurism and is a misdemeanor.

You are mistaken if you're arguing it requires permission to take photos in public. The voyeurism law deals with exactly what it sounds like it should. It does not apply in places where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy (to clarify, that still means it prohibits, while in public, trying to see what is not public, such as up a skirt).
http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.44.115

SWALUV wrote:

Can't believe that anyone could defend the passenger. His actions were totally uncalled for. The pilot had more control then I, and most people I knew, would have.

I don't know if it was self-control or sheer intimidation. In the limited discussions I've had with people who have been or have helped out friends who have been assaulted (including a much higher percentage of the women you know than you probably realize), many of them describe themselves as basically shutting down because they don't know what to do.

Regardless, when the passenger was following the pilot, leaving as he did was the proper course of action. The pilot did not have to leave. He had a right to be there. But it was clearly prudent nonetheless.

Once the passenger grabbed him, he had every reason to believe he was going to be harmed (in fact, grabbing somebody like that and placing them in fear of pain, if not actual pain, is legally considered harm).

When the passenger advanced at him a second time, I tend to think that for his own safety the most prudent reaction would have been to hit the guy as hard as he could. The passenger had proven from the start that retreat was not an option (even had the law required he continue trying to retreat) and that he was willing to hurt him. He gave *no* indication he was going to do anything less again, if not more. In all seriousness, when the passenger tensed up to deliver that second shove, I thought he was going to punch the pilot, even though I'd already read transcript.

C767P wrote:

You need to run this scenario where ANYONE approaches you like this fool did to that pilot and see how YOU react.

I would probably do nothing since he wasn't breaking any laws to the best of my knowledge. Or I'd call the police if I felt threatened. It's an airport, surely there's a law enforcement person within easy reach.

C767P wrote:

"Pilot needs to be fired" is EVERYTHING that is wrong with the world in 2017. We are all doomed.

Please
The moment you attack someone you pretty much lose all your credit, IMO.

airbazar wrote:

C767P wrote:

You need to run this scenario where ANYONE approaches you like this fool did to that pilot and see how YOU react.

I would probably do nothing since he wasn't breaking any laws to the best of my knowledge. Or I'd call the police if I felt threatened. It's an airport, surely there's a law enforcement person within easy reach

That is stupid. The pilot has no obligation to wait around for the police to arrive to defend himself. As far as I know, stalking and harassment are crimes...

Flying in general has become such a high strung affair that primordial fight or flight instincts are getting triggered. If a person expects to get to the airport expecting to be stripped, groped and beaten black and blue at the whims of airline and federal employees with egos more fragile than Kim Jong Un, what do you expect. It would help if the airports worked on more calmer light and soundscapes rather than have "we are at threatcon whatever, your death is imminent" type of messages.

Adipocere wrote:

Flying in general has become such a high strung affair that primordial fight or flight instincts are getting triggered.

If you find yourself wanting to act like seen in this video, or where your fight or flight instinct is getting triggered because somebody is taking too long to get out of the aisle, you may honestly want to consider discussing that with a professional.

Somehow, I never seem to have the terrible experiences other people I know manage to encounter regularly. That's not to say things don't go wrong when I travel. I found, for example, spending a night after a missed connection without my luggage in a chilly airport several climate zones away from where I was when I dressed in shorts for the day, frankly rather miserable, yet accepting the reality of the situation and being as polite as possible to the people I wanted to want to help me. It's almost as if my treatment of others affects how they treat me.

If a person expects to get to the airport expecting to be stripped, groped and beaten black and blue at the whims of airline and federal employees with egos more fragile than Kim Jong Un, what do you expect. It would help if the airports worked on more calmer light and soundscapes rather than have "we are at threatcon whatever, your death is imminent" type of messages.

The depth of the TSA searches is a matter of federal law, not airline policy. The solution to that is to stop voting for Congressmen who do not represent your views, not to take it out on the employees. If an employee violates the policies, do report them. If an airline violates its policies, file a complaint with the relevant agency or even initiate a legal action if you think it warranted.

You should not expect to be beaten black and blue. You should expect if for some reason that happens, even if you committed actions that precipitated it, then your attacker will be prosecuted, but you should not deliberately antagonize people on the assumption that because their actions are legally constrained they won't do anything, regardless of how you behave. Don't invite trouble when there are better ways to deal with the situation.

clrd4t8koff wrote:

I'm not trying to be argumentative here, but outside of the aircraft where is one going to get fined taking a picture of a pilot? Heck I'm seeing media reports now of the incident with photos of the pilot and passenger fighting. Is that individual who took the photos and videos going to be fined?

The videos shown in the OP link were taken by airport security cameras, not by individuals. This was mentioned in the linked news article, and is also evident by the camera angle indicating the cameras were at well-above human height.

Some of the commenters on here obviously didn't watch the video. First of all the news report refers to the guy as "passenger" so no problem repeating that here, but I'll refer to him as a downright thug since that is what he actually is. The thug simply stalked the pilot and then assaulted him much like a child in grammar school would have done in the 4th grade. End of story.

Let us start off that he guy in the video, not the pilot, was a jerk. Whatever the disagreement about whatever could have been the guy was a jerk. the pilot, as not the captain of the plane, but just another passenger, should not have hit the phone out of the guys hand, but how much of a jerk you can take, I know you should just take it, if somebody takes a photo of you, but I think it was not the taking of a picture, but this in your face.. I can not really fault the pilot for anything and hope the guy attacking the pilot gets a serious reminder about causing a civil disturbance..

Law, no law, however any law may be written....If you stick a camera in front of my face and attempt to take a photo without my permission, not only am i knocking your camera out of your hands I will also make a concerted effort to relocate your nose and as many teeth as possible to another position on your face. I'll then wait for the appropriate authorities and accept whatever consequences come from that reaction.
This public society that we are forced to deal with today is a disgrace. No manners no decency, no standards of acceptable conduct anywhere. Anyone that works facing the public these days has to put on an imaginary fire suit to protect themselves from the daily abuse dished out in this industry. For some of us (the sadists) its fun. It can be quite entertaining to see which buttons provoke and which buttons sooth in any given situation. For many of lesser constitutions though it can be quite unbearable. I don't know what it is that makes people think that they can shit all over an airline or airport worker but it seems to be in the water just about everywhere.

Sancho99504 wrote:

flyingcat wrote:

While I don't support any shoving there is one thing that cops and authority figure always forget. There is no expectation of privacy in a public setting, you cannot order someone to delete photos taken of you. I don't agree with the man's method, shoving a camera in someones face is idiotic but there are numerous cases to back this up.

Can they arrest you sure, but it never holds up in court. But the minute you get physical you have lost legal backing.

in the state of Washington, it is against state law to photograph, video or voice recorder anyone without their permission. I do believe there are exceptions, but the wording is very broad.

Several state and local police officers in my state used the wiretapping law on the books to prosecute people who recorded video (with audio) of officers during traffic stops.

In this case, I would say that the pilot's actions regarding the phone thrust at him would easily be covered by self defense statutes in most states. Frankly, the passenger is lucky that he didn't happen to pick someone with a shorter fuse, a lot of guys that I've flown with would not have handled it so well.

iamlucky13 wrote:

Sancho99504 wrote:

Washington law is very clear. Regardless of constitutional legality, it is on the books and has been for at least 20 years. I do believe it falls under voyeurism and is a misdemeanor.

You are mistaken if you're arguing it requires permission to take photos in public. The voyeurism law deals with exactly what it sounds like it should. It does not apply in places where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy (to clarify, that still means it prohibits, while in public, trying to see what is not public, such as up a skirt).
http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.44.115

(ii) A place where one may reasonably expect to be safe from casual or hostile intrusion or surveillance;
(d) "Surveillance" means secret observation of the activities of another person for the purpose of spying upon and invading the privacy of the person;

All laws and regulations are subject to interpretation. This can be interpreted 20 different ways by 20 different people.

silentbob wrote:

Sancho99504 wrote:

Several state and local police officers in my state used the wiretapping law on the books to prosecute people who recorded video (with audio) of officers during traffic stops.

Is that supposed to be a good thing?

Tugg

Several state and local police officers in my state used the wiretapping law on the books to prosecute people who recorded video (with audio) of officers during traffic stops.

And, on appeal they're thrown out on First Amendment grounds, assuming the trial judge is ignorant enough to even allow such a case to proceed to trial. The Supreme Court has already ruled upon issues such as these, as other posters have pointed out, and will doubtless continue to do so as cell phone video and personal dash cams become more common. The fact that there is such a law does not mean that it is constitutional. Many laws are unconstitutional, hence the reason we possess an appellate system. Very roughly, you can film police in public as long as you do not interfere with their duties. If you do interfere with their duties than you are subject to arrest for said interference, but not for filming them, per se.

Back on point, did the passenger have the right to photograph the pilot's ID? No. As others have said, there are limits to what can be photographed in semipublic locations like airports. Items dealing with security are generally no nos, for obvious reasons. The passenger was in the wrong and I hope he does some jail time for assault and battery.

Aptivaboy wrote:

Several state and local police officers in my state used the wiretapping law on the books to prosecute people who recorded video (with audio) of officers during traffic stops.

And, on appeal they're thrown out on First Amendment grounds, assuming the trial judge is ignorant enough to even allow such a case to proceed to trial. The Supreme Court has already ruled upon issues such as these, as other posters have pointed out, and will doubtless continue to do so as cell phone video and personal dash cams become more common. The fact that there is such a law does not mean that it is constitutional. Many laws are unconstitutional, hence the reason we possess an appellate system. Very roughly, you can film police in public as long as you do not interfere with their duties. If you do interfere with their duties than you are subject to arrest for said interference, but not for filming them, per se.

Back on point, did the passenger have the right to photograph the pilot's ID? No. As others have said, there are limits to what can be photographed in semipublic locations like airports. Items dealing with security are generally no nos, for obvious reasons. The passenger was in the wrong and I hope he does some jail time for assault and battery.

I was unable to find a single case where the conviction was overturned.

Flaps wrote:

Law, no law, however any law may be written....If you stick a camera in front of my face and attempt to take a photo without my permission, not only am i knocking your camera out of your hands I will also make a concerted effort to relocate your nose and as many teeth as possible to another position on your face. I'll then wait for the appropriate authorities and accept whatever consequences come from that reaction.
This public society that we are forced to deal with today is a disgrace. No manners no decency, no standards of acceptable conduct anywhere. Anyone that works facing the public these days has to put on an imaginary fire suit to protect themselves from the daily abuse dished out in this industry. For some of us (the sadists) its fun. It can be quite entertaining to see which buttons provoke and which buttons sooth in any given situation. For many of lesser constitutions though it can be quite unbearable. I don't know what it is that makes people think that they can shit all over an airline or airport worker but it seems to be in the water just about everywhere.

I think you are the real disgrace, the law is the law. Your feelings don't trump that, don't like it, stay at home.

silentbob wrote:

Aptivaboy wrote:

Several state and local police officers in my state used the wiretapping law on the books to prosecute people who recorded video (with audio) of officers during traffic stops.

And, on appeal they're thrown out on First Amendment grounds,...

I was unable to find a single case where the conviction was overturned.

Fields vs. City of Philadelphia is still in appeals.

Robinson v Fetterman resulted in the officers who made the false arrest having to pay a punitive fine to the victim.

Some states argue that 2-party consent applies in public, but the precedence on that is mixed. Others argue that documenting is only protected as speech if you have a specific "speech" or criticism you are recording for the sake of. Complete rubbish. Arbitrarily limiting information, including visual evidence, strikes directly against the core intent of the 1st amendment.

An Illinois law of that form, which defined filming police in public as a "wiretap" (ha!) was overturned by the state supreme court.

Sancho99504 wrote:

(ii) A place where one may reasonably expect to be safe from casual or hostile intrusion or surveillance;
(d) "Surveillance" means secret observation of the activities of another person for the purpose of spying upon and invading the privacy of the person;

All laws and regulations are subject to interpretation. This can be interpreted 20 different ways by 20 different people.

Aside from the fact that by being in a "public" place you are by definition not safe for casual surveillance, you should read the full RCW and note the context of those excerpts and the logical structure of that RCW to properly understand them.

Read the full RCW. The meaning is much more clear in full context and when following the structure of the subsections.

If a police officer EVER successfully argues that a bystander filming an arrest did so for sexual arousal without clear and convincing evidence the bystander actually was sexually aroused, I will eat my hat.

I was unable to find a single case where the conviction was overturned.

Robinson v. Fetterman, 378 F.Supp.2d 534, 541 (E.D. Pa. 2005)
Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2011)
Kelly v. Borough of Carlisle, 622 F.3d 248 (3rd Cir. 2010).
ACLU v. Alvarez is also extremely instructive, dealing with a very restrictive Illinois law. People v. Melongo and People v., Clark were also implicated as a result of a state appellate decision in the Alvarez case and also make clear that in Illinois, at least, there exists an absolute right to film and record the police while in public.

Just to name a very small few... And, the biggie, where the Supremes denied certiori upholding the lower federal district court's finding: http://www.courtroomstrategy.com/2012/1 ... ng-police/

There are others, but in each case the federal appeals courts at various levels upheld the right to photograph police in the carrying out of their duties. Some decisions are more restrictive than others like Kelly, some broader but they all generally comport with the standard that I set above. They also all involve First and Fourth Amendment violations when the police have attempted to halt filming and/or confiscate the tapes. Some cases also involve Fifth Amendment issues when the filmer is arrested for filming. Either the case is overturned, or the state is politely informed by the appeals court that their interpretation of the law is in error and the charges are quickly and mysteriously dropped.

The elephant in the room is in the nature of the technology. It's so new that the law is having trouble keeping up with it's use and implications. Some decisions give the police a qualified immunity for past acts on the theory that they didn't know any better - those are my words, but it's essentially the case. Since the technology and it's uses are so new, the courts sometimes say that the police are immune from prosecution for falsely arresting a filmer. However, as more cases back up the docket and the district courts and the Supremes weigh in on this matters more and more, this qualified immunity will be temporary, at best. Law enforcement simply needs to understand that they are subject to being recorded when out in public at all times, and that there are simply too many cell phones, dash cams, and security feeds for them not to be.