Am you legally justified in killing a passenger who refuses toturn off their cell phone?

"SaPeIsMa" wrote in
:


"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
SaPeIsMa writes:

You're strapped into a metal cylinder with the doors closed
Where exactly do you imagine you can do a "feasible retreat" ?

It doesn't matter. The criterion of immediate fear or death or bodily
harm is
not satisfied.

I don't know about you, but being strapped into a metal tube that can
crash and burn, and over which you have ABSOLUTELY NO CONTROl, is not
exactly free of the fear of immediate death and or bodily harm by any
count Why do you think that white-knuckle syndrome os so prevalent
during takeoffs and landings ?

:-)




For when the AC goes around those corners?

--
It's impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument.

William G McAdoo


Sleep well, tonight.....

RD (The Sandman)

"David Dyer-Bennet" wrote in message
...
"SaPeIsMa" writes:

"David Dyer-Bennet" wrote in message
...
"SaPeIsMa" writes:

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
SaPeIsMa writes:

You're strapped into a metal cylinder with the doors closed
Where exactly do you imagine you can do a "feasible retreat" ?

It doesn't matter. The criterion of immediate fear or death or
bodily harm is
not satisfied.

I don't know about you, but being strapped into a metal tube that can
crash and burn, and over which you have ABSOLUTELY NO CONTROl, is not
exactly free of the fear of immediate death and or bodily harm by any
count
Why do you think that white-knuckle syndrome os so prevalent during
takeoffs and landings ?

:-)

Not reasonable in the legal sense, though; the actual odds of crashing
and burning are trivial.


People who are afraid are not necessarily rational or "reasonable" about
it.

But the legal right to use deadly force IS conditioned on your fear
being both immediate and "reasonable", which is where this discussion
began.


Funny,
But there's nothing in the Minnesota statutes about "reasonable"
You just have to be in "imminent fear"
And that is not "reasonable fear"


I've heard other people talk about this "no control" issue, but I just
fail to get it. I don't *want* to be in control of the airplane; I'm
not the trained pilot.

What you may want or not want has nothing to do with it.
You need to put yourself in the shoes of the person in fear.
Your view counts for nothing in their universe.

Wrong; I might be on the jury.


IN which case, you just demonstrated prejudice and should be disqualified

RD Sandman writes:

It could (in theory) and over the years passengers have had it drummed
into them that electronic devices could screw up cockpit instrumentation.

Not by airline crews, although it is a persistent urban legend (one that is
occasionally repeated to cabin crews in their training, in fact).

Correct.....they have said that it may cause false readings on cockpit
instrumentation.

I haven't even heard them say that, but I suppose it might be said
occasionally.

SaPeIsMa writes:

But there's nothing in the Minnesota statutes about "reasonable"
You just have to be in "imminent fear"
And that is not "reasonable fear"

Rationality is implicit. The law would be useless if irrational behavior were
assumed or permitted. Just because "reasonable" doesn't occur in the text
doesn't mean that "unreasonable" is acceptable. The latter would allow for any
retaliation to be excused in any situation, which obviously is useless.

On Jan 23, 11:30*pm, "SaPeIsMa" wrote:
"Shall not be infringed" wrote in ...









On Jan 22, 2:08 am, "max headroom" wrote:
"Shall not be infringed" wrote in
...

But... what if they're actually calling the phone connected to a bad
thing in their check bag?
That happens so often that it is probably on the very edge of
everyone's
mind as they start that take off roll down the runway.

[snip]

I'm just looking fore reason's for Charles to legally shoot the
passenger on the phone.
--------------------------------------

Some people just need killing.

Obnoxious, loud-mouth cell phone users on airplanes come to mind....

What about obnoxious, loud-mouthed cell phone users in restaurants?

Or do you think that's too harsh?

Chicken bones shoved sideways down their throat is far more appropriate

Ah! The Liz Taylor technique.

"SaPeIsMa" wrote in message
...

"David Dyer-Bennet" wrote in message
...
"SaPeIsMa" writes:

"David Dyer-Bennet" wrote in message
...
"SaPeIsMa" writes:

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
SaPeIsMa writes:

You're strapped into a metal cylinder with the doors closed
Where exactly do you imagine you can do a "feasible retreat" ?

It doesn't matter. The criterion of immediate fear or death or
bodily harm is
not satisfied.

I don't know about you, but being strapped into a metal tube that can
crash and burn, and over which you have ABSOLUTELY NO CONTROl, is not
exactly free of the fear of immediate death and or bodily harm by any
count
Why do you think that white-knuckle syndrome os so prevalent during
takeoffs and landings ?

:-)

Not reasonable in the legal sense, though; the actual odds of crashing
and burning are trivial.


People who are afraid are not necessarily rational or "reasonable" about
it.

But the legal right to use deadly force IS conditioned on your fear
being both immediate and "reasonable", which is where this discussion
began.


Funny,
But there's nothing in the Minnesota statutes about "reasonable"
You just have to be in "imminent fear"
And that is not "reasonable fear"

609.065 JUSTIFIABLE TAKING OF LIFE.

The intentional taking of the life of another is not authorized by section
609.06, except when necessary in resisting or preventing an offense which
the actor REASONABLY believes exposes the actor or another to great bodily
harm or death, or preventing the commission of a felony in the actor's place
of abode.
(emphasis added)

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=609.065

Next.

On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 13:39:03 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet
wrote:



People who are afraid are not necessarily rational or "reasonable" about it.

But the legal right to use deadly force IS conditioned on your fear
being both immediate and "reasonable", which is where this discussion
began.

Fear? Can you provide cites to the "fear" of which you blither?

Gunner

One could not be a successful Leftwinger without realizing that,
in contrast to the popular conception supported by newspapers
and mothers of Leftwingers, a goodly number of Leftwingers are
not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid.
Gunner Asch

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

RD Sandman writes:

It could (in theory) and over the years passengers have had it
drummed into them that electronic devices could screw up cockpit
instrumentation.

Not by airline crews,

Yes, it has been.

although it is a persistent urban legend (one
that is occasionally repeated to cabin crews in their training, in
fact).

This is true.

Correct.....they have said that it may cause false readings on
cockpit instrumentation.

I haven't even heard them say that, but I suppose it might be said
occasionally.




--
It's impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument.

William G McAdoo


Sleep well, tonight.....

RD (The Sandman)

On Jan 25, 1:44*pm, RD Sandman
wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote :

RD Sandman writes:

It could (in theory) and over the years passengers have had it
drummed into them that electronic devices could screw up cockpit
instrumentation.

Not by airline crews,

Yes, it has been.

*although it is a persistent urban legend (one

that is occasionally repeated to cabin crews in their training, in
fact).

This is true.

Electromagnetic compatibility.

On Jan 24, 11:34*pm, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 13:39:03 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet
wrote:



People who are afraid are not necessarily rational or "reasonable" about it.

But the legal right to use deadly force IS conditioned on your fear
being both immediate and "reasonable", which is where this discussion
began.

Fear? *Can *you provide cites to the "fear" of which you blither?

Fear is like pain. There is no way to measure it. You either say you
have it or you say you don't.