NBC news stupidity

"Orval Fairbairn" wrote:
I hope that the judge throws the book at them!

I think it's implied they were not arrested. What law did they
violate?

If media goes undercover to a used car dealer to show how buyers can
get screwed, you'd probably agree with that. If they go undercover to
an FBO under circumstances which were obviously suspicious, what's the
difference? The targeted auto dealer may be known to be sleazy, but
if the FBO had agreed to the charter, what adjective do they deserve?

Fred F.

I think it's implied they were not arrested. What law did they
violate?

"Hauled off in handcuffs" normally implies an arrest.

And in post-terrorist America, there will easily be *some* law that can be
stretched to fit.

If media goes undercover to a used car dealer to show how buyers can
get screwed, you'd probably agree with that. If they go undercover to
an FBO under circumstances which were obviously suspicious, what's the
difference?

Because they were in effect a false alarm in a time of public danger.

On 13 Aug 2004 03:50:21 GMT, (G EddieA95) wrote:

I think it's implied they were not arrested. What law did they
violate?

"Hauled off in handcuffs" normally implies an arrest.

And in post-terrorist America, there will easily be *some* law that can be
stretched to fit.

If media goes undercover to a used car dealer to show how buyers can
get screwed, you'd probably agree with that. If they go undercover to
an FBO under circumstances which were obviously suspicious, what's the
difference?

Because they were in effect a false alarm in a time of public danger.

If they had the weapons it was as real as it gets. Treat them as
such.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

G EddieA95 wrote:

I think it's implied they were not arrested. What law did they
violate?


"Hauled off in handcuffs" normally implies an arrest.

And in post-terrorist America, there will easily be *some* law that can be
stretched to fit.


If media goes undercover to a used car dealer to show how buyers can
get screwed, you'd probably agree with that. If they go undercover to
an FBO under circumstances which were obviously suspicious, what's the
difference?


Because they were in effect a false alarm in a time of public danger.

Even if they can't be charged criminally, they at least should bill NBC
for the law enforcement costs incurred. And the FBO should sue them for
the mental anguish caused to their employees. It had to be just a
little nerve wracking trying to stall people that you believed to be
armed terrorists.


Matt

From: "TaxSrv"
Date: 8/12/2004 9:48 PM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:

"Orval Fairbairn" wrote:
I hope that the judge throws the book at them!

I think it's implied they were not arrested. What law did they
violate?

If media goes undercover to a used car dealer to show how buyers can
get screwed, you'd probably agree with that. If they go undercover to
an FBO under circumstances which were obviously suspicious, what's the
difference? The targeted auto dealer may be known to be sleazy, but
if the FBO had agreed to the charter, what adjective do they deserve?

Fred F.

If it is illegal to smuggle weapons onto a charter it is also illegal to
attempt to do so.

How far were they prepared to go? If they had displayed the weapons in flight
to prove they could do it it would be just as criminal, in my opinion, as
telling a stewardess in flight you have a bomb even if you didn't.

Your analogy to the crooked car dealer was unfortunate in that one could easily
infer you were saying the charter service was also crooked.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

"B2431" wrote:
...
How far were they prepared to go? If they had displayed the weapons
in flight
to prove they could do it it would be just as criminal, in my
opinion, as
telling a stewardess in flight you have a bomb even if you didn't.

The are federal criminal laws which apply to air carrier and what is a
weapon, and they apply to media doing undercover stunts. I know of no
criminal law which says you cannot have a utility knife on board a
charter aircraft.

This flight could even have been Part 91. Is it now OK for some
do-gooder to observe a passenger of ours who looks Middle Eastern and
has an apparent large knife and odd stuff to put in the aircraft, and
call the police? Because he appears to the citizen not to be known to
you.

If you say OK, they'll come out and ask a few questions and everything
will be cool. But what if they surround you and your friend with
drawn weapons?

I'm not defending what NBC did, nor a big fan of the ACLU, and the FBO
acted laudably. But unless there's a criminal law violated here, this
incident shouldn't sound all that good to us pilots.

Fred F.

TaxSrv wrote:

"B2431" wrote:

...
How far were they prepared to go? If they had displayed the weapons

in flight

to prove they could do it it would be just as criminal, in my

opinion, as

telling a stewardess in flight you have a bomb even if you didn't.


The are federal criminal laws which apply to air carrier and what is a
weapon, and they apply to media doing undercover stunts. I know of no
criminal law which says you cannot have a utility knife on board a
charter aircraft.

This flight could even have been Part 91. Is it now OK for some
do-gooder to observe a passenger of ours who looks Middle Eastern and
has an apparent large knife and odd stuff to put in the aircraft, and
call the police? Because he appears to the citizen not to be known to
you.

It has always been OK to report suspicious behavior.


If you say OK, they'll come out and ask a few questions and everything
will be cool. But what if they surround you and your friend with
drawn weapons?

Well, I'm not a rocket scientist, but I'd suggest that you make no quick
moves towards your pockets and that you do EXACTLY what they tell you to
do. Is this really that hard to figure out?


I'm not defending what NBC did, nor a big fan of the ACLU, and the FBO
acted laudably. But unless there's a criminal law violated here, this
incident shouldn't sound all that good to us pilots.

Well, it sounds fantastic to this pilot.


Matt

"TaxSrv" wrote in message
...
"Orval Fairbairn" wrote:
I hope that the judge throws the book at them!

I think it's implied they were not arrested. What law did they
violate?

If media goes undercover to a used car dealer to show how buyers can
get screwed, you'd probably agree with that. If they go undercover to
an FBO under circumstances which were obviously suspicious, what's the
difference? The targeted auto dealer may be known to be sleazy, but
if the FBO had agreed to the charter, what adjective do they deserve?

Why would I believe anything that NBC has to say about a car dealer? These
are the guys who tried to prove that Chevy trucks were dangerous by using
fireworks to cause the gas tanks to explode.

In article , C J Campbell says...

Why would I believe anything that NBC has to say about a car dealer? These
are the guys who tried to prove that Chevy trucks were dangerous by using
fireworks to cause the gas tanks to explode.

or shoot watermelons with a hand gun with hollow points to show it explode
because the AK with FMJ ammo didn't do anything but produce a puncture hole.
Credibility they got the same credibility as zoom ,jaun and ANN .I don't believe
any of them :-)

See ya

Chuck (gun control is hitting what your aiming at) S

"TaxSrv" wrote in message ...

If media goes undercover to a used car dealer to show how buyers can
get screwed, you'd probably agree with that. If they go undercover to
an FBO under circumstances which were obviously suspicious, what's the
difference? The targeted auto dealer may be known to be sleazy, but
if the FBO had agreed to the charter, what adjective do they deserve?

Fred F.

Didn't the FBO agree to the charter, which is after all one of their sources
of revenue, until they became suspicious of the passengers? Didn't the FBO
continue with the facad to hold the suspects there until the Police/FBI
arrived? What possible parallel can you draw between the FBO and a crooked
car dealer?

If the media engages in a legal activity, e.g. a customer with a hidden
camera to show a crooked car dealership, that is one thing. When then
engage in an illegal activity, e.g. armed terrorist suspects attempting
to bypass airport security, that is another. Illegal is illegal no matter
what the motive. When you factor in the news media's ratings quest, their
Geobel-esk "the truth is what WE make it", and apparent desire to paint GA
as no good and the root of all Al Caida evil, it is outright criminal. They
should receive the same harsh treatement that the college student recieved
who smuggled boxcutters on a plane to demonstrate lapse airport security.

Gary P.