Inflight---panic attack man rushes cockpit

[SKY HIGH]

http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/2011/10/passenger_on_us_airways_flight.html

All of a sudden the head flight attended had other flight attendants station themselves at all exit doors and by then, the man had no shirt on, was waving his hands in the air and screaming "He's got a gun. Who's gonna shoot me me?" Martinez said.

"Stop him!" yelled the head flight attendant as the man bolted toward the cockpit and the two Jersey City officers, along with two passengers, tackled him at the front of the plane and held him down, Taino told Martinez.

 

[ChockJockey]

Great work for all involved, very professional.

 

[SparrowHawk]

Great work for all involved, very professional.

Kiudo's to the flight crew, Jersey City Police for taking appropriate action to subdue an obviously troubled man.

I feel more than a bit sorry for the man who lost his self control for whatever reason. Clearly he was for the moment a very troubled individual. He was wrong and should be punished. However it he needs help then he should get it. If need be as part of his sentence.

For about a year I had a roommate who was a tortured soul. On meds? FINE, off them? A danger to herself and others. Last time I saw her she was one her way to the Pysch ward as I called the police when she threatened suicide. I want to see this guy punished and helped if he needs it. There does have to be consequences for his action regardless of how deeply disturbed

 

[nycbusdriver]

Why did the flight attendants run for the doors? Is that a procedure?

 

[ChockJockey]

I want to see this guy punished and helped if he needs it. There does have to be consequences for his action regardless of how deeply disturbed

Contradictory statements. If he was acting out of malice, foolishness, or was high on an illegal substance then punishment is appropriate. They're called "panic attacks" for a reason, and that reason is because they're not premeditated, scheduled, and certainly not pleasant. Did he pose a real threat to the flight, custopax and crew? Certainly. Does someone deserve punishment for unwillingly falling into psychosis? No. The days when the mentally ill were subjected to punishment came right after the days when they were considered possessed by demons or spirits, and there is a reason all those days have passed.

 

[SparrowHawk]

Contradictory statements. If he was acting out of malice, foolishness, or was high on an illegal substance then punishment is appropriate. They're called "panic attacks" for a reason, and that reason is because they're not premeditated, scheduled, and certainly not pleasant. Did he pose a real threat to the flight, custopax and crew? Certainly. Does someone deserve punishment for unwillingly falling into psychosis? No. The days when the mentally ill were subjected to punishment came right after the days when they were considered possessed by demons or spirits, and there is a reason all those days have passed.

I happen to be of the school of "Guilty but mentally Ill" as opposed to the "not guilty by reason of insanity or mental defect" when it comes to these types of things.
As an example let's say this person was as sane as could be prior, no criminal history, no drug abuse, no history of mental illness in family. A regular boy scout who one day for whatever reason he "Loses it" and he goes over the edge on a flight with the exact end result in the real story.

Also let's say the maximum penalty is 10 years in Federal Prison. 1st Offense sentencing guidelines would be 2 to 5 years.

Under my scenario he's found "Guilty but Mentally Ill", his punishment might go like this: 30 Days in jail, 5 years parole with the condition he undergo court supervised counseling. If he stops he does the full criminal sentence as if he weren't mentally ill.

My point is a crime was committed and there needs to be some minimal accountability for the actual crime itself. The balance of the effort should be to get this person back to being a contributing member of society.

 

[ChockJockey]

I happen to be of the school of "Guilty but mentally Ill" as opposed to the "not guilty by reason of insanity or mental defect" when it comes to these types of things.

That's meaningless, every single individual and case is different. This is why we have trials and lawyers that call on evidence and professional witnesses to determine guilt/responsibility and sentencing/treatment on a case by case basis. "Guilty but mentally ill" and "not guilty by reason of mental incompetence" could either be appropriate, depending on the facts of the case, which you don't have but feel comfortable pontificating about anyhow.

As an example let's say this person was as sane as could be prior, no criminal history, no drug abuse, no history of mental illness in family. A regular boy scout who one day for whatever reason he "Loses it" and he goes over the edge on a flight with the exact end result in the real story.

Also let's say the maximum penalty is 10 years in Federal Prison. 1st Offense sentencing guidelines would be 2 to 5 years.

Under my scenario he's found "Guilty but Mentally Ill", his punishment might go like this: 30 Days in jail, 5 years parole with the condition he undergo court supervised counseling. If he stops he does the full criminal sentence as if he weren't mentally ill.

Your scenario is groundless because it's based on assumptions entirely unrelated to the case at hand. To make a cogent argument you would need access to facts we do not have. I'm sensing you have a profoundly shallow conceptualization of mental illness, the many types of it, how they're treated, and how they manifest from individual to individual. How do you justify the expenditure and further mental damage of incarcerating someone who quite possibly has no recollection of what happened? In any case, I think your opinion is illustrative of why you're employed in neither the mental health nor criminal justice industries.

My point is a crime was committed and there needs to be some minimal accountability for the actual crime itself. The balance of the effort should be to get this person back to being a contributing member of society.

Your point rests on the assumption that the "perpetrator" was of sound mind and chose to break the law, which here is clearly not the case. Let's say a person is driving along the road. This person has no history of brain disorder of any kind. Quite suddenly and unexpectedly he has a seizure, loses muscular control, veers off the road and hits a pedestrian, badly injuring him/her. Under your logic, which you presume to apply in a blanket manner, the driver has committed a crime and needs to serve jail time, because "minimal accountability" is somehow more important than actual justice. And that is dumb.

 

[SparrowHawk]

Dumb to you perhaps. Some of but not all of my viewpoint comes from a conversation I had with the President of the American Association of Forensic Psychiatrists. I had rented them a bunch of equipment and we were waiting on the truck to arrive so I could get stuff set up and his staff trained. He was pretty much reviled in the ABE area due to a case where he testified for the defense and the guy was acquitted as a result.

Since neither of us had nothing else to do we started to BS about the insanity defense. He was the one who suggested a "Middle Ground" between walking out the jailhouse door a disturbed but free man versus the death penalty or life in jail. One of the things I learned is the only 3% of insanity defenses are successful, meaning that we let some real whack jobs back out to roam the streets often deeply disturbed, with no treatment and no oversight. Remember Jeffrey Dahmer did NOT meet the criteria to be Legally insane.

His point was there should be some kind of "middle ground" and frankly I agree. I gave the example to illustrate what I meant. No reason to be ignorant and insulting. I thought the good Doctor made a valid point.

 

[Iclubbabyseals]

http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/2011/10/passenger_on_us_airways_flight.html

All of a sudden the head flight attended had other flight attendants station themselves at all exit doors and by then, the man had no shirt on, was waving his hands in the air and screaming "He's got a gun. Who's gonna shoot me me?" Martinez said.

"Stop him!" yelled the head flight attendant as the man bolted toward the cockpit and the two Jersey City officers, along with two passengers, tackled him at the front of the plane and held him down, Taino told Martinez.

Embarrassing for all.

They are inflight and the FAs head for the exits??? Why?

No shirt on. Where was his gun? By then I would be smelling a rat.

Guy can "bolt" for a cockpit all he wants, even with the pre-911 system, he would not have broken through.

What the heck is wrong with us, as americans? Are we stupid freaks? Running around lighting our hair on fire simply validates bin Laden.

Sheez. Do I really have to work with idiots?

 

[ChockJockey]

His point was there should be some kind of "middle ground" and frankly I agree. I gave the example to illustrate what I meant. No reason to be ignorant and insulting.

Ignorance, especially when proudly held, is inherently insulting. I can only imagine the vast amounts of experience and education you somehow absorbed via osmosis (a process you often place stock in) by "talking to a doctor once", but I'm going to go out on a limb here and say this is a subject I have a lot more experience in than yourself. I have no idea what "middle ground" means, but it seems to me to indicate a gross oversimplification of a very complex issue.

There's a big difference between having a panic attack at 35,000 feet and raping and eating the corpses of dead prostitutes. Most of the "whack jobs" that come out of the corrections system aren't mentally ill at all, just criminals, and many get early release because the U.S., which has the highest incarcerated population in the world, still can't house them all. I have to laugh at the irony of small-government libertarians decrying a lack of government treatment and oversight. In my state the legislature has slashed the education and mental health budget, and the consequences are slowly accumulating on the streets. The only good thing about the schizophrenic homeless is that they can't afford air fare, even on US Airways.

It's okay though, I figure you're down because you lost an important friend recently. My regards...

 

[SparrowHawk]

Ignorance, especially when proudly held, is inherently insulting. I can only imagine the vast amounts of experience and education you somehow absorbed via osmosis (a process you often place stock in) by "talking to a doctor once", but I'm going to go out on a limb here and say this is a subject I have a lot more experience in than yourself. I have no idea what "middle ground" means, but it seems to me to indicate a gross oversimplification of a very complex issue.

There's a big difference between having a panic attack at 35,000 feet and raping and eating the corpses of dead prostitutes. Most of the "whack jobs" that come out of the corrections system aren't mentally ill at all, just criminals, and many get early release because the U.S., which has the highest incarcerated population in the world, still can't house them all. I have to laugh at the irony of small-government libertarians decrying a lack of government treatment and oversight. In my state the legislature has slashed the education and mental health budget, and the consequences are slowly accumulating on the streets. The only good thing about the schizophrenic homeless is that they can't afford air fare, even on US Airways.

It's okay though, I figure you're down because you lost an important friend recently. My regards...

He raised an interesting point that I think deserves consideration. That's all I'm saying. The dude changed my mind in a half hour conversation. I'm going to do a searh and see if I can give you the link to the case I mentioned. It was in a word fascinating and then to meet the actual psychiatrist who got him acquitted was a thrill. hang on

This is a good account that's a short read. Fatzinger Case

A short bio of the man I met and spoke with.

Dr. Robert Sadoff

Dr. Robert Sadoff, a practicing forensic psychiatrist, is a clinical professor of psychiatry and director of the Center for Studies in Social-Legal Psychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania. He is past president of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, as well as the American Board of Forensic Psychiatry. An award-winning professional in psychiatry, forensic psychiatry, and legal medicine, Dr. Sadoff is a sought-after international speaker, who has also authored six books on forensic psychiatry and over 100 articles. (09/09)

 

[Dont call me Shirley]

Embarrassing for all.

They are inflight and the FAs head for the exits??? Why?


Sheez. Do I really have to work with idiots?

Please tell me that the F/As knew that it is physically impossible to open an exit in flight. (Unless you are Superman). Please. Okay, i know that the industry has changed a great deal since Bernoulli's principle was covered in new hire training, but I would really hate to think that the F/As thought the disturbed man could open an exit.

 

[Toothy Grin]

Please tell me that the F/As knew that it is physically impossible to open an exit in flight. (Unless you are Superman). Please. Okay, i know that the industry has changed a great deal since Bernoulli's principle was covered in new hire training, but I would really hate to think that the F/As thought the disturbed man could open an exit.

You are obviously NOT an active flight attendant and if you are your post above is embarassing. STOP sleeping through recurrent. The lead fa handled the situation perfectly for so many reasons which I would love to tell you, but would be violating certain proceedures.

WOW! Your post is just amazing.

 

[Toothy Grin]

Embarrassing for all.

They are inflight and the FAs head for the exits??? Why?

No shirt on. Where was his gun? By then I would be smelling a rat.

Guy can "bolt" for a cockpit all he wants, even with the pre-911 system, he would not have broken through.

What the heck is wrong with us, as americans? Are we stupid freaks? Running around lighting our hair on fire simply validates bin Laden.

Sheez. Do I really have to work with idiots?

No. You have yourself to contend with and that will be more than enough for many life times to come.

 

[nic4us]

Sheez. Do I really have to work with idiots?

Don't know....do you work in the usapa HQ or on the BPR? If so, I would say yes, and so do they.