What's new

Imans strike back

What if we use the legal concept of "I was afraid for my life"

It doesn't matter if my life was in danger I just have to convince a jury that I feared for my life and shot you because I'm "Afraid for my life".

If the flight crew has reason to believe they were in jeopardy based on their "Feelings" it would seem to me that the flight crew was certainly within their rights and authority to act as they did.

Whether any of us agree with the flight crew is immaterial, only the flight crew knows what they felt and I'm really not into second guessing them.

You throw words around like bigotry & Racism and assuming that the entire flight, both crew & customers were both Bigots and racists is also immaterial if they were genuinely in fear for their life.

Bob
I totally agree with your post. People forget it was not what these men LOOKED like, but their suspicious BEHAVIOR that was more than just praying.
If we as f/a's and pilots are not allowed to go with our instincts, we will soon see another 9/11. Talk about embolding the enemy.
 
Here is the Complaint. Link

Inside the Complaint is the prayer for relief, and it sounds in tort. I don't see where any jury is going to find any fact pattern that will allow it to find a preponderence of the evidence that they were wrongfully harmed under the totality of the evidence of what occurred. It ain't gonna happen.

Here is the Prayer For Relief. (The emotes came from the copied text, not added by me.)



PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court:
(a) Declare that the actions of Defendants described above constituted discrimination on the basis of race, religion, color, ethnicity, alienage, ancestry, and/or national origin in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d, the Fourteenth Amendment under the U.S. Constitution, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 49 U.S.C. § 41705, the Constitution of the State of Minnesota and the Minnesota Human Rights Act;
(B) Enter a permanent injunction directing Defendants to take all affirmative steps
necessary to remedy the effects of the illegal, discriminatory conduct described herein and to prevent similar occurrences in the future pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the Minnesota Human Rights Act, § 363A.29;
Award Plaintiffs compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial to
compensate them for being deprived of their right to travel as passengers in air transportation regardless of their perceived race, color, national origin, religion, ethnicity, and/or ancestry, including damages for fear, mental pain, inconvenience, humiliation, embarrassment, emotional distress, financial injury, including lost business profits as provided under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 49 U.S.C. § 41705, and the Minnesota Human Rights Act, § 363A.29;
(d) Award Plaintiffs punitive or exemplary damages against Defendants under the
provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 1981, 42 U.S.C. §2000d, 49 U.S.C. § 41705, Minn. Stat. § 13.08 subd. 1, and Minnesota Human Rights Act, § 363A.29;
(e) Award Plaintiffs prejudgment interest as provided under Minn. Stat. § 549.09, subd. 1(a);
37
(f) Award Plaintiffs reasonable attorneys’ fees and the costs incurred in this action pursuant to but not limited to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and Minn. Stat. § 363A.33 subd. 7;
(g) Award Plaintiffs compensatory and punitive damages against Defendants under the common law tort claims of defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, negligence, failure to train, supervise and discipline, conspiracy, false arrest, and invasion of privacy as provided under Minn. Stat. § 549.20; and
(h) Award Plaintiffs such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
 
To all pilots and flight attendants........

When in doubt get them out, period. You are the final say onboard the aircraft.
 
Here is the Complaint.
Thanks for posting the link.

I disagree that their complaint about being removed from the aircraft is primarily tort-based, though. As I thought, they are primarily alleging statutory civil rights claims, although paragraph (e) is thrown in for good measure.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top