mulieri

The details are sketchy, the article (from Reuters) is below. I wonder if there is more to the story?


PHILADELPHIA (Reuters)- A California woman was in jail on Thursday after being charged with making threats at the Philadelphia International Airport after a flight from England, including references to the September 11, 2001 attacks.

Prosecutors in suburban Delaware County, where part of the airport is located, said Hannah Marie Shiner of Rosemont, California, was being held on $250,000 bail after an incident in the airport's "A" terminal after her flight landed here.

According to a probable cause affidavit released by prosecutors, Shiner's flight landed shortly after 3 p.m. on Wednesday, and she became "loud, profane and threatening to passengers and crew members."

The affidavit said Shiner, 59, was chanting "blow up the government" and that she made several references to the September 11 attacks and said she supported late al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in attacking the Pentagon.

DeafBlonde

This was obviously a "Red Team" test for the BDOs. Do you think they passed??

clrankin

There has to be more to the story.

Why would someone go around chanting "blow up the government" in public? That sounds like a trumped up charge created by a creative LEO.

And the rest of what she was saying... Well, unless it was being stated as "I want to <blah> <blah> <blah>" or "I will <blah> <blah> <blah>" it merely sounds like she was exercising her First Amendment rights. Perhaps they were exercised in bad taste, but that's the funny thing about the First Amendment: there's no "unless in bad taste" clause put in there.

But then again, you'll always run into the ninnies who want to worry about what could happen, no matter how small the odds are on it happening. I recall a story posted here a while back about someone who was kicked off a plane because they were watching a 9/11 video on their iPod or something.

Pesky Monkey

It's all so that they can get her to take a plea bargain for our favorite catch-all of disorderly conduct.

cb1111

Y'all can remove your tin foil hats. No government conspiracy here. The threats were made aboard the aircraft and she was arrested upon landing.

mikeef

Methinks Hannah Marie Shiner either A) isn't right in the head or, B) had a few too many of her favorite beverage.

Mike

cb1111

From what I understand, alcoholic beverages were not involved but A) may well apply.

barbell

You appear to have some "insider" knowledge. Care to share?

mikeef

Then I will replace the former "B)" with, "She's just an idiot."

Mike

cb1111

In this case, I think A) was more on point but your new B) also applies.

clrankin

I still stand by my statement of "creative LEO". There are some that are honest and tell the truth, but those are few and far in between.

Unless this woman was saying something that could honestly be construed as a credible threat, I'd be inclined to say that her comments are covered under free speech. (Of course, I'm not a lawyer. )

If I were on a jury, I'd want to see a videotape or hear an audio tape of her exact words, tone of voice, and inflection. Since this happened on a plane, though, there likely isn't such a recording... So all we have to rely on are statements from FAs, and statements from scared passengers. Not exactly the most reliable things to convict upon, since I'm sure all those folks will be schooled, err, told what to say, err, "prepped" by the prosecutor.

RichardKenner

The end of CNN story reads "but according to the DA's office, psychiatric evaluations were ordered by the magisterial district judge".

cb1111

It is so easy to jump to conclusions when you don't know any of the facts. I wasn't there, so I don't know exactly what was said either, but I know much more that the article and it didn't seem to be an overreaction to arrest her.

Most people that are detained for saying something stupid are either released, cited or arrested and released. She wasn't released.

N830MH

Right. She have to stay in the jails for a while. Her behavior is not tolerable during the flight. She could be banned flying on the commercial airplanes for the life. She have go to physiological evaluation for 72 hours. She need to get her treatment. She cannot be control her behavior during in-flight.

clrankin

(Bolding mine)

Given this set of circumstances, I'd have to agree with you - there's something more to this. While abuse of authority does seem to run rampant in a lot of police departments and certainly does with TSA, I doubt that many government organizations would risk a large lawsuit and the ensuing bad publicity by holding someone without any justification.

While I still feel that most of what she said probably is protected by the First Amendment (if it's just stupid stuff like "Hey, wasn't 9/11 great" or "Down with the government"), there may have also been something more to it.

If this goes to a trial, though, I do think the final verdict is far from being a done deal from either side. If I were a juror I wouldn't want to rely upon witness statements from passengers or FAs -- those folks are far too easily scared and sensitive to be objective reporters of fact. (Think back to people who were disturbed by someone sitting on a plane who was watching a 9/11 video before takeoff.) I'd either completely or nearly completely discount the content of testimony from those sources in this case.

Ideally I'd want a recording of some sort - someone's cell phone video, an audio recording from someone's cell phone, etc. Or, at an absolute minimum, I'd consider testimony from the pilot or co-pilot to be somewhat accurate, as those people are the ones who generally remain the most calm and level-headed in emergencies on aircraft.

Once the total content of this woman's speech is revealed, I think this could make an interesting case to push the limits of our First Amendment rights on aircraft. Hopefully it expands them a bit more, as I feel it's a bit ridiculous to force people to walk on eggshells around topics of terrorism and 9/11 at the airport and on aircraft "just because" some people scare easily or are "uncomfortable" with the subject. (It may not be popular speech there, but it still may be protected. And if it's both protected and unpopular, that's an even stronger reason to have a court ruling in favor of pushing the limit.)

Just to be clear, I don't support crazy people doing or saying stupid things that aren't protected speech items on aircraft. My dog in this fight isn't freeing her - it's ensuring that First Amendment rights are enforced to the maximum allowable extent. If they are and she's shown to have gone beyond it - then punish her appropriately.