Friday, December 7, 2012

Do you agree that a flight should be diverted due to alleged groping of a female passenger

Do you agree that a flight should be diverted due to alleged groping of a female passenger?
Should the flight have continued its course and police contacted before landing instead of diverting the entire flight? Michael Lamar Holland, 46, appeared before a magistrate on Monday on a charge of abusive sexual contact, according to Ted Hresko, special agent in charge of the Pittsburgh air marshals' office. A witness saw Holland stroking the woman's hair while she was trying the sleep, according to an affidavit filed with the court. Moments later, Holland fondled the woman who repeatedly objected and tried to get away from him, the affidavit said. I think the air marshals could have seated the guy next to them and the flight could have continued on. "The next thing you know, he's groping her," Hresko said. "The flight attendants asked our (air marshals) to get involved." Air Marshal were on board (see above)
Law & Ethics - 19 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
That story was one of the dumbest to come along in a long time...
2 :
It should've continued on it's course and the police could've talked to him upon landing.
3 :
if they do not resolve the issue onboard, then they will need to be diverted i believe. but if its resolved by the stewardess then theres no need to divert
4 :
Flight should have continued to its destination. Police should have been waiting to apprehend the alleged offender at the destination.
5 :
So did he stroke her hair or fondle her? fondling her bits should have resulted in police being called to the planes destination, stroking her hair is nothing.
6 :
If there was no way to restrain the attacker, the plane should land quickly like it did. The pilot was right and the attacker is going to jail.
7 :
I agree with the flight being diverted... Such immoral behavior really should be weeded out and be taken seriously... In my opinion harsh and quick interventions should be done to imbue the fear to the perpetrator...
8 :
Ugh, that's terrible and creepy. I think if there's no good place to hold the offender, which I'm sure there isn't, then land the plane and drop him off. But then again, it would suck to be delayed by something like that.
9 :
better safe than sorry,,,,,,he could of brought the plane down,,
10 :
They should have landed at the closest airport and the man removed/arrested. Is the female passenger supposed to have to sit and get molested by a stranger so you can make your gate on time? So what would you do when he followed you to the bathroom and raped you. You have no way of knowing if he is going to take it to the next level. I'm sure if you were the lady stuck on an airplane with this guy molesting you - you would not want to continue the flight being sexually assaulted just so the strangers on the plane can make it on time. The bad guy here is not the airline or the lady - but the pervert who felt like he should be allowed to molest a stranger.
11 :
I think that passanger should have been moved to another location in the plane, sitting right next to the air marshal. But the plane should not have diverted somewhere else. The flight should had continued on it's way and then the guy should have been handed over to police. Only if the man became violent in any way, than they did the right thing. I think he should also be charged with something else for causing the flight to be diverted.
12 :
Well, if it were me trying to get the guy to leave me alone, I would hate to think I had to endure the entire flight like that. I am not familiar with this news story, but if the plane landed in order to deal with this problem, then yes, that was the right thing to do. Even if it weren't me being groped, I would hate to think some other person was having to deal with that for the entire flight. **EDIT** Lots of things "coulda" and maybe "shoulda" been done. But they weren't. Men didn't get up and subdue the groper. Apparently there were no air marshalls on board (or none that were aware of the groping situation), therefore, it was right that the flight was diverted. Sorry for everyone else's inconvenience, but a crime was being committed.
13 :
While its a disgusting thing to do, i would imagine the men on the flight couldve overpowered him and held him captive in one of the rest rooms. But i agree, if they were unable to restrain him during flight land and arrest the perv.
14 :
Considering the place was destined for Seattle I think it was appropriate for the plane to divert and have the offender removed. As a passenger I would have been irritated at the delay, but understand the need for airplane security. Too many bad things could have happened on a 5 hour flight to the pacific northwest. The air marshal on the plane (sorry scruffycat, your info was wrong in your answer) has no idea of the mental or criminal history of the offender. If the guy had gone nuts somewhere over Chicago and hurt the air marshal or other passengers, people would be screaming "Why didn't they divert the plane and get rid of the guy?" As a liability issue they did the right thing. I feel sorry for everyone on board.
15 :
You bet, based on what I have read they should have diverted and pull the guy off and I hope she pressed charges. To often the person molested will not stand up and follow through and press charges. I understand the flight originated in Washington, DC and it stopped in Pittsburgh, about one hour flight time, so if he was that aggressive in one hour how much more aggressive in the next three. If their were Marshall's on that flight they should have moved the guy however it is the Capt. decision to take charge of any situation while in the air. My hat is off to the Capt. who make a good call.
16 :
They could have been a decoy. I think I would rather be safe than sorry. Delay my plane!
17 :
Were there air marshals? If so, they're supposed to protect from terrorists and not pervs.
18 :
all depends all Air Space Regulations and Safety of the Passengers. Air Marshall assumed the accused person had different intention. Since Sept 11 - The Authorities imposed many laws that would have prevented or detected early threat and safety of the passengers, that includes divert,delay of the flights..etc unfortunately!
19 :
At first I somewhat agreed w. you and if the flight was somewhat empty maybe they could have waited. But of course liability would be a big issue for the airline. Other passengers could say they felt concern for their personal safety. The woman who was groped could have said she was as well. Or if the guy went to court and was found not guilty because there is reasonable doubt (he was talking to her) then he could sue the airline and go after the government. If it was 6:00 when they left Dulles and they landed in PA the flight had not been in the air that long so sleeping or trying to when coffee and such is being given out is unlikely. She was "trying" makes something iffy. What were they chatting about? Maybe she was fine with the hair stroking but flipped when he grabbed something else. Not defending him but court is court and you never know..... witness or not. The Air Marshall would not be able to attend to any other problems while he is watching this guy. Plus it does make sense that if terrorists wanted to out the Air Marshall some minor distubance would be the way to do it. So in thinking about it I think they did the right thing.

Search News