When This Flight Attendant Tells You to Sit Down . . .

He Messed With the Wrong Flight Attendant
Lorin Gorman is a fourth-degree black belt in Tae Kwon Do
By MICHELLE WAYLAND and GREG BLEDSOE
Updated 5:56 AM PST, Mon, Feb 8, 2010

A San Francisco man, accused of forcing a flight to divert because he was
high on medical marijuana, picked the wrong flight attendant to freak out
on.

51-year-old Lorin Gorman of Chula Vista is a fourth-degree black belt in Tae
Kwon Do. Those skills may have averted a serious situation in the air.

US-Air flight 1447 was on its way from Philadelphia to San Francisco.Gorman
says she noticed Kinman Chan, 30, early in the flight. "He was looking back
at me, waving hi," Gorman said of the man in seat 17-C. But soon enough, the
passenger became aggressive, Gorman says. "He's banging around, screaming in
the back bathroom, he's opened all the compartments," the attendant
remembers.

According to a criminal complaint, Chan walked out of the bathroom with his
pants down."I said, 'You need to sit down now'," Gorman said.

He did not. "He went like that with his elbow," Gorman said, bracing her
wrist as she threw an elbow at shoulder height. "Well, what I did, I just
put him in an arm lock. To get his other arm, I had to jump up on the
seat . He was resisting. He was stiff. At that point, I just put him into a
choke hold."

The plane was diverted to Pittsburgh where Chan was arrested. He told police
he'd taken a double dose of his medicinal marijuana, eating two pot cookies
before the flight.

"After 911, I took special training with my grand master to learn how to
deal with small spaces and also what to look for in passengers," Gorman
said. "I'm glad I was there."

Kinman Chan was charged with disrupting a flight attendant, which can carry
a maximum penalty of up to 20 years in prison and a $250,000 fine.

In article ,
"Sancho Panza" wrote:

seat . He was resisting. He was stiff. At that point, I just put him into a
choke hold."

For you fans of Joseph Waumbaugh, she made him do the chicken. (g)

--
I get off on '57 Chevys
I get off on screamin' guitars
--Eric Clapton

Sancho Panza writes:

"... At that point, I just put him into a
choke hold."

Excessive force.

Kinman Chan was charged with disrupting a flight attendant, which can carry
a maximum penalty of up to 20 years in prison and a $250,000 fine.

There is no such crime as "disrupting a flight attendant," at least not in the
U.S.

Lately it seems that anything other than total obedience to flight attendants
is being considered a Federal crime, but that's not how the law is written or
intended.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Sancho Panza writes:

"... At that point, I just put him into a
choke hold."

Excessive force.

Kinman Chan was charged with disrupting a flight attendant, which can
carry
a maximum penalty of up to 20 years in prison and a $250,000 fine.

There is no such crime as "disrupting a flight attendant," at least not in
the
U.S.

Lately it seems that anything other than total obedience to flight
attendants
is being considered a Federal crime, but that's not how the law is written
or
intended.

On many recent flights, they have added at the takeoff safety information
that passengers are required to follow all the instructions of the crew.

In Mxsmanic
wrote:

Lately it seems that anything other than total obedience to flight
attendants is being considered a Federal crime, but that's not how the
law is written or intended.

The answer to such objections is usually "See you in court", after
you've been dragged away in chains.

--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN

On 8 Feb, 19:40, Bert Hyman wrote:
xsmanic

wrote:
Lately it seems that anything other than total obedience to flight
attendants is being considered a Federal crime, but that's not how the
law is written or intended.

The answer to such objections is usually "See you in court", after
you've been dragged away in chains.

--
Bert Hyman * * *St. Paul, MN *

you can also 'make their day' by listening to the pre-flight stuff
whilst wearing some headphones.....always a winner.....

Mxsmanic wrote:

There is no such crime as "disrupting a flight attendant," at least not in the
U.S.

Poor reporting - the correct wording is Interference with a Crew Member in the
performance of their duties. 14CFR91.11:

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_20...14cfr91.11.pdf

There being a great deal of historical and judicial precedent to define
interference as being non-compliance with a crewmember instruction.

Lately it seems that anything other than total obedience to flight attendants
is being considered a Federal crime, but that's not how the law is written or
intended.

It's not just considered - it is a Federal felony. The precedent for the law
goes back to sea captain days. Plain and simple it doesn’t matter if it is on a
plane, train or ship, it's most definitely how the law was written and intended.
And it's not just US law. Most western countries follow the same convention.
Other less enlightened countries just open the aircraft door and invite you to
complete your journey outside.

Sancho Panza writes:

On many recent flights, they have added at the takeoff safety information
that passengers are required to follow all the instructions of the crew.

Then they are misinforming passengers. If a crew member tells a black person
to get to the back of the airplane, the black person need not follow that
instruction.

The instructions must be safety-related, not just arbitrary.

Bert Hyman writes:

The answer to such objections is usually "See you in court", after
you've been dragged away in chains.

And if you win in court, you make lots of money.

If you don't protect your rights, you lose them.

Robert Neville writes:

Poor reporting - the correct wording is Interference with a Crew Member in the
performance of their duties. 14CFR91.11:

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_20...14cfr91.11.pdf

There being a great deal of historical and judicial precedent to define
interference as being non-compliance with a crewmember instruction.

The definition of "duties" is vague, however.

The crew member's instructions must be safety related, and his duties are also
safety-related. He cannot compel you to kneel on the floor and pray, for
example, as this has no legitimate basis in safety and is not part of his
duties.

It's not just considered - it is a Federal felony.

No, it is _considered_. Each case must go to court, and each case must be
decided individually.