Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Woman sues American Airlines over masturbating passenger
Photo not provided by American Airlines
The airline denies any culpability and claims the that flight crew took appropriate action
FORT WORTH — According to this story in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, it appears a 21-year old Houston woman is suing Dallas' own American Airlines after an ugly incident that occurred on a flight from Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport.
According to the lawsuit, AA employees on the plane did nothing to protect the woman from a rather disgusting fate: another, presumably male, passenger masturbated on her while she slept, eventually ejaculating into her hair. The offending passenger was arrested once the plane landed.
The airline is claiming it acted appropriately, but the woman is claiming that employees noticed that the offender had changed his seat mid-flight in order to position himself next to the sleeping woman.
Posted by Todd M.
Email
|
Print
|
Comment
|
Tell us your story
|
-
»UT Arlington Innocence Network helps free two wrongly convicted men
-
»Two more innocent men from Dallas getting out after 12 years
-
»Dallas lawsuit could have huge implications on Collin County convictions
-
»Toyota forbidden to touch evidence in criminal fraud case, according to Dallas attorney
-
»Perot Systems, Frito Lay, Blockbuster, JC Penney, Rent-a-Center, and Texas Instruments named in patent infringement lawsuit
You can't smoke, there's no in-flight movie, all you get is a crappy bag of peanuts, and the drink cart takes forever to get up and down the aisle, the magazine sucks, what next?
Hey, how about complimentary "shower caps" for those passengers who just can't stay awake?
Seriously, hasn't anyone learned the consequences of falling asleep amongst strangers yet? Pass out at a party or in a dorm room and see what you get!
EdWeirdness Anonymous
1 year, 8 months ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal
There's a little difference between having your friends draw on you with a permanent marker because you got drunk and passed out and having a stranger, sexual predator that is, ejaculate on you. The first one is a prank. The second one is sexual assault.
I'm not backing up her lawsuit against the airline, but falling asleep on a plane doesn't mean you should expect something like that to happen to you.
Erin Rice Verified
1 year, 8 months ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal
"employees noticed that the offender had changed his seat mid-flight in order to position himself next to the sleeping woman"
Unless the guy already had his pants unzipped and was reaching inside while crossing the aisle, I wouldn't really think much of this if I was an airline attendant. Maybe he was sitting next to a fat guy, maybe someone near him farted, maybe a million different and innocent reasons for moving to an empty seat.
Pavel Lishin Verified
1 year, 8 months ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal
Ed, stop whining.
Erin, it all depends on your friends.
Pavel, stop being so reasonable and accept that someone standing up on a plane is either going to jihad or spiderman you.
Scott Doyle Verified
1 year, 8 months ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal
There's something about Mary. ;)
Drum roll, rim shot.
Lisa Lawrence Merritt Verified
1 year, 8 months ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal
My bad, Scott. I fear to think what your friends must have done to you when you fell asleep.
Erin Rice Verified
1 year, 8 months ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal
Don't forget, this man did this in public, in the close confines of a plane. Try and imagine what he might do to someone in a dark alley. It's more fun to think of this as a prank, but he is seriously disturbed.
I think the worst part is not that the employees noticed him changing seats and did nothing, but that she was not able to get their attention, even though she was crying and so upset that a person on the row in front of her had to turn to comfort her and "confirm the semem in her hair". You've been on planes. You'd have to hear a pretty big disturbance to turn around and "offer comfort" to the passenger behind you. The attendants didn't notice this - or respond to her efforts to get their attention?
Not to add to the creep factor (as if you could) but I keep wondering what he was doing after he was done - just sitting there watching the other passenger help her? Hiding in the bathroom? Looking for a new victim? Ick, so weird.
littlekinder Anonymous
1 year, 8 months ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal
What exactly were the flight attendants supposed to do had she got their immediate attention?
"I'm truly sorry this man's ejaculate made its way into your hair without us, or anybody around you, noticing. Here's a tissue. You might want to use the facilities to make sure that's the last of it - please don't touch anybody on your way."
Erin, how can you be sure none of your friends would ever masturbate to a stranger asleep on a plane?
Scott Doyle Verified
1 year, 8 months ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal
Well, Scott, Yeah, that's a start. How about "Oh I'm so sorry, come with me" and taking her back where they just stand around and gossip and letting her get herself together? Telling her, "don't worry, we are contacting the authorities right now"? Geez, it's not just about having semen in your hair. How about telling the man to immediately move back to his seat? She was sitting there, crying loud enough to have a fellow passenger turn around to offer comfort - to me that's something THEY could (should) have done.
I don't know how old you are, but this girl was only 21 and could have used some compassion. I'm 48 and would have been at least somewhat comforted by an apology and assistance.
Stupid victim, sleeping on a plane. She was probably asking for it - you know, sleeping provocatively.
littlekinder Anonymous
1 year, 8 months ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal
God, what wusses we have all become in this litigious society. Yes it is yadayadayada gross what happened. But if this is seriously damaging to this woman in real terms, and worthy of a lawsuit rather than simply being a disgusting rude crude yadayada, then God help Ft. Worth if some guy flashes her at the Water Gardens.
I was raised by a feminist activist mother (dead 35 years)and I can tell you she would have been able to handle this in a coma after suffering a stroke in a power blackout. Coming off major anesthetic following serious surgery. It would have not required American, a lawyer or a man to take care of this creep if it had been her. I have read this woman is saying she suffered 'irreparable trauma'. Do that math.
Rawlins Gilliland Verified
1 year, 8 months ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal
If it were me: just like Snakes on a Plane.
I would have beat the sh*t out of this mofo.
You think I'm kidding???
Lisa Lawrence Merritt Verified
1 year, 8 months ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal
A+ post by LLM.
Rawlins, it's obviously not about being a wuss - it's about getting paid.
littlekinder, I don't see anything evidencing they ignored the girl's cries - simply that a passenger in front of her consoled her. Perhaps someone right in front of her would be able to react sooner than an employee across the plane. Either way, that's not even discussed as a reason she's filing. Even had they comforted her, she'd still be suing b/c it's apparent she's just trying to make some cash.
From the linked <a href="http://startelegram.typepad.com/sky_talk/2008/03/woman-files-law.html">article</a>: The woman is seeking punitive damages and a jury trial.
So they're going to try and convince a jury that AA should be punished for not policing a passenger who changed seats. Does that not sound absurd to anybody else? And I wonder how $200k is the magic number...
Seems she's filing a year after the fact, btw. FWST article was posted on March 14, 2008 and says the flight was on March 19...also says:
<i>In a statement to a Houston television station <b>last year</b>, a spokesman said the company regretted the incident, but the flight crew took appropriate action.</i>
Scott Doyle Verified
1 year, 8 months ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal
Just got off (<em>ah</em>) an AA plane this morning and I will vouch that there was no more sperm aboard than is usually expected.
Chad Jones Verified
1 year, 8 months ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal
Scott, I think you missed my meaning from the earlier post (sorry I did not see your reply until a day after the fact). If one of my friends were to do what this man did, then that would make my friend a sexual predator (and probably not my friend anymore). If said friend did that, it would be more than just some prank he/she pulls at a party, such as my example of drawing on someone with marker. I was attempting to point out that there is a difference between the situation that EdWeirdness described and what happened regarding this article.
And lest anyone think this means I support the lawsuit against the airline, I do not. Seeking damages from the pervetrator, on the other hand, I believe is reasonable.
Erin Rice Verified
1 year, 8 months ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal
On the contrary, I'm pretty sure Ed was insinuating those people are relative strangers...not people you know and trust.
Either way, I entirely understood what you were saying. My point was that this guy likely had friends/coworkers/family who wouldn't suspect him of doing something like this. Or maybe he's the creepy guy who always has his hands in his pockets when ladies are around...
It's an off-the-wall incident - how the hell would you really know that someone you're close to is capable of something like this until it happens?
For all we know he was just doing his thing and caught unforeseen hang-time. Entirely unlikely, put not impossible. Is it really that shocking someone would do this? I certainly don't condone him touching himself in public, but I wouldn't go so far to consider the guy a sexual predator if the money shot was unintentional.
While proofing this I can tell I might be digging myself an early grave here - just trying to be objective!
Scott Doyle Verified
1 year, 8 months ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal
I agree with everyone sorta but not completely.
I cannot see how this imbecile qualifies as a ‘sexual predator’ in any sense I find usual. Deviant, sure. But I do believe
1) He should be in big trouble with the law.
2) That he owes the young woman an apology and/or 'explanation'.
But I cannot see beyond that why punitive dollar damages are in order other than his humongous legal bills.
I certainly understand that this woman was violated, insulted, humiliated and frightened by this man's behavior. I'm just thinking that his act, although reprehensible in public and involving a stranger, falls more into line with fetish than predator.
I have a sneaky feeling this guy will be registered for life (there is no way out once in) as a sexual predator, so before he ever gets to a court of law, he's destroyed. So that takes care of the punitive legal. But the idea that she wants money makes her case, to me, less forceful than if she pressed charges and simply testified effectively in the court case in order to nail the bastard.
We cannot have it both ways, and expect me,…. as a man raised to spotlight the chauvinist myth that women were fragile whereas men are tough…to wish she pressed her case without seeking money. If she wants money, it will be said that she was 'damaged'. Whereas my upbringing was that we choose or not to be 'damaged' by the actions of others, unless it is physically harmful or endemic domestic violence rather than one shot (no pun intended) deal vulgarity.
That said, I have great sympathy her having her personal space and sanctity violated in such a bizarre manner. The guy may need help and her compassion might well be worth giving. She’ll get more by taking the high road than by taking the cash.
Rawlins Gilliland Verified
1 year, 8 months ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal
This is going to be a bit long, and I'm sorry. But this is driving me crazy. There are two discussions going on here. One regards the merit of the case. The other is more about whether this girl has a right to be very upset.
Yes, Rawlins, it is a myth that women are more or less fragile than men, because it is a myth that all women are alike! Without knowing anything about this girl and her background, it is unkind to say that she can "choose" whether to be "damaged" by what happened.
Some war veterans come home happy. Some come home with PTSD. Some come home and commit suicide. Not everyone is affected by things in the same way. It would be a great world indeed if you could really, truly choose how you respond internally to something, but listen, that is a GOAL, not a current reality.
Feminism seeks to establish a society in which everyone's rights are respected equally, not in which women are expected to develop a "stiff upper lip" and toughen up. Yes, I get it, Rawlins' mom was tough. But people are different. If this had happened to any of the men posting here, I am assuming (maybe incorrectly...just assuming) that your response would be that you "would have kicked his ass". Well, Ok! I think that's a perfectly appropriate response, frankly. But maybe a 21 year old girl doesn't have the same build/experience/mindset that you do. Feminism seeks to narrow that gap, not just tell her to become more "male". No matter how tough your mama was, Rawlins, you just cannot apply that across the board. For example, a girl who has been sexually molested in the past might not be able to deal with this "in a coma, after a stroke, during a power blackout".
I don't know if the case has merit or not. I don't have enough details. I guess I focused too much on the end of the article:
*"The woman began to cry and tried to get the attention of a flight attendant, but was unsuccessful, the suit states. Finally a passenger in the row in front of the woman comforted her and verified the semen in her hair, the suit states."*
Pavel is right, there is no way an employee could know that anything would happen just by observing someone changing seats. And that does seem to be the focus of the suit. Doesn't hold much water with me. But I was fixated on the fact that she couldn't get anyone's attention - for 20 minutes!! That strikes me as very strange. However, that is not the basis for the case - so, that is my bad.
But I am sad to see so little empathy. This man is "not a sexual predator in any sense that" you find usual? Good grief, voyeurs and flashers are considered sexual predators. This goes way beyond that. Obviously the police thought so, since they arrested him, as opposed to saying "oh, that's just the creepy guy that goes around his office with his hands in his pants, don't worry, it's nothing more than a fetish". Would it have made any difference to you if the victim were 80? 8? At what point do we decide, "oh, that was ok for that to happen to YOU - but not this other person"?
One last weird question. The article states *"When the woman opened her eyes, she saw that an unknown man had moved into the seat next to her and was staring at her as he masturbated, the suit states.
The woman turned toward the window in embarrassment and in an act of nervousness began to run her fingers through her hair where she noticed “a substantial amount of an extremely sticky substance in her hair,” the suit states."*
Not to get even more gross (if possible), does this mean he ejaculated into her hair PREVIOUSLY, while she slept - or RIGHT THEN, when she turned away? The wording is unclear but my take from it was that he was on the second go round (sorry to sound so... ick). I'd just love to know how this plays into Scott's "unforseen hangtime"!!! I'm still wondering what he was aiming for if he had accurately assessed his "hangtime"!
At UT in the 80's an entire fraternity was shut down after a group of pledges gang raped a MALE student that happened to be passing by at night. It was horrible, and the student left school. But there was a consensus among students on campus that it was a good thing that if it had to happen, it happened to a guy and not a girl... or you can bet that frat would have been able to make it go away.
No, women are NOT necessarily weaker or more fragile. Just more easily ignored.
littlekinder Anonymous
1 year, 8 months ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal
littlekinder, I'm sure it was intentional - just goofing off with what-if's. Hence entirely unlikely, but not impossible.
Seems nobody knew he was doing it, which means he wasn't flaunting it to the world. Without the ejaculate on her, I wouldn't think this guy's a predator of any sort - but I can see how you'd think so since he went that far.
Scott Doyle Verified
1 year, 8 months ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal
Wouldn't you feel he was a predator if you woke up with his ejaculate in YOUR hair? I feel sure that this fits a legal definition for, if not sexual predator, then at least sex offender. Most sexual offenses are extremely secret - the exact opposite of flaunting it to the world.
To be honest, suit or no suit, I feel sorry for her. Who knows, maybe family members are pushing her into this, too... parents who want to strike back somehow... she just seems young to be going through something like this. I know there are worse things. But that doesn't make this good, either.
I admire you for taking the time to read my incredibly long post! Don't know why this has me so worked up. I have a teenage daughter - maybe that's it. Ok, no plane rides for her.
littlekinder Anonymous
1 year, 8 months ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal
I have to admit I'm not sure what I would have done in this situation, but I do wonder, had it been a man who got squirted on, how would he have felt ? and what would he have done, right there "in the moment" ?
Tracy Yost Verified
1 year, 8 months ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal
Pretty sure any self-respecting man would have to be restrained from killing the guy, regardless of whether he actually could.
Scott Doyle Verified
1 year, 8 months ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal
I wouldn't try to kill the guy, but I would make sure that he had plenty of time to consider his wrongdoing while most of the bones in his legs and armed knitted.
Pavel Lishin Verified
1 year, 8 months ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal
So the consensus is that the girl had quite a right to be upset? And that perhaps this man IS a sexual predator? Hence the thoughts of killing and breaking bones?
I'm NOT saying she should sue the airline. But I found it very upsetting for anyone to say she could "choose" whether or not this upset or damaged her. Especially since she probably did not have the option of killing him or breaking his bones. I'm sure some 21 year old girls could... but not most. Like I said, I have a teenage daughter, so this hits close to home.
I appreciate your candor. I'm so glad you didn't say "oh, I'd just get over it and on with things." And yes, I think it would bother most guys later, too. Even if just to make them angry all over again. Should they "choose" to let it go? Who could? With all due respect to Rawlins, and I mean that sincerely, I think even if his strong mother whooped the guy's ass, it would hard even for her to walk away without some emotional reactions that lasted a while.
Rawlins, I do mean all this with complete respect. It sounds like your mom was one in a million. But we do have to care about the other 999,999, too, right?
littlekinder Anonymous
1 year, 8 months ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal
There's a difference between being attacked and being disrespected, which is why I don't think predator is a good label. It's degrading but he didn't rape her or force her to do anything physical (which is the connotation predator has, at least in my mind). 'Offender' seems appropriate.
It's an important distinction imo.
Scott Doyle Verified
1 year, 8 months ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal
Ejaculate in the hair of a woman specifically sought out is physical. It would be interesting to find the legal definition of these terms - but you know, to-may-to, to-mah-to - it's still something that got him arrested.
However, intentionally seeking out a woman (changing seats) with the intent of using her for sexual satisfaction against her will, including physically violating her person seems predatory to me. He didn't just cross the aisle and think wow, hot chick, better whip it out.... he went to that seat for a reason.
littlekinder Anonymous
1 year, 8 months ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal
The world is sick. This guy is sick! Talk about anti-social behavior.
Any man that would pull out his...you know, and start 'goin to town' in such a captive-public place, disregarding all others around him, is a dangerous predator in my book.
I'm guessing there was no actual physical contact, but for what he was doing, it wasn't necessary. Although it might have only been in his sick little head, he essentially had sex with this woman, without her consent. She was then forced to deal with the result.
Picture this guy accosting you (man or woman) in a public place, and you wind up with his mess all over you. If it's not something you wanted him to do to you, and you had no choice, then you've just been attacked. How's that feel?
Now picture this young woman being your sister, daughter, or wife. I don't think the airline is in any way responsible, but she should sue the hell out of the guy. And I think a lengthy beating with a tire iron is also in order.
Some sick behavior, even in this sick society, cannot be tolerated.
Rick Yost Verified
1 year, 8 months ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal
IJS labeling the guy as a predator relates him with rapists. Too far, imo.
Scott Doyle Verified
1 year, 8 months ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal
Let's just tattoo "Poor Impulse Control" on his forehead and be done with it.
Pavel Lishin Verified
1 year, 8 months ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal
Make that tatoo "sick fk" and I'm all for it!
Rick Yost Verified
1 year, 8 months ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal
Scott- You and your buddy Pavel obviously think this guy didn't do anything you wouldn't have done in the same situation. I was raised a bit better.
Rick Yost Verified
1 year, 8 months ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal
Rick, you obviously have little objectivity and are a terrible judge of character.
Scott Doyle Verified
1 year, 8 months ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal
"Judge of character!?" Are you serious? So how often do you pull your 'objectivity' out in public and go at it?
Rick Yost Verified
1 year, 8 months ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal
Thanks for proving the point. I'm not getting baited into a flame-war, btw, so I'm spent unless someone brings something constructive to the table.
Scott Doyle Verified
1 year, 8 months ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal
It is not normal to ejaculate in another person's hair without their consent. This is a person who completely disregarded the humanity of the sleeping woman. Similarly, men who sexually assault women are disregarding their right to be self-directed humans. What's so terrible about having to get consent before coming on someone?
I think the offense would be public lewdness, in Texas punishable by up to a year in jail. If she were four years younger, it'd be Indecency with a Child, a third degree felony.
Copia Anonymous
1 year, 8 months ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal
What gives, Rick? What did I say in my comments that showed support for the guy?
All I said was that a passenger changing seats is not probable cause to tazer his genitals, and that I would not commit murder if someone got DNA in my hair.
I know that it's so easy to confuse Scott and myself, but keep in mind that despite rumors we are actually two distinct biological and memetic entities.
Pavel Lishin Verified
1 year, 8 months ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal
"If she were four years younger, it'd be Indecency with a Child, a third degree felony."
Dang, he was <b>SO CLOSE</b>.
Pavel Lishin Verified
1 year, 8 months ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal
Never mind. I don't want to know!
I'm not trying to burn this guy at the stake. This kind of vulgar and prepubescent behavior just goes against everything I learned (as a child) about decorum, common-courtesy, and just plain lewd, and rude behavior.
If you can't simply control yourself, or you have to sneak up on a stranger while their not looking to get your thrills, you're not much of a man.
Sorry, I'm very much old school.
Rick Yost Verified
1 year, 8 months ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal
Pavel- Forgive me if I mistook your "Poor Impulse Control" remark as you saying it was not a big deal. I think it is.
I meant no disrespect my friend.
Rick Yost Verified
1 year, 8 months ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal
I tried to do some research on the different terms "sexual offender" and "sexual predator" - unbelievably I could not find Texas' legal definition. But what I did find is that many states and organizations use the terms interchangeably, with the particular sentences handed down based on specific crimes and statutes.
That said, I still don't understand why some folks here want to be SURE we don't "falsely" label this man a "predator", rather than an "offender". Why? Why? Why?
The law is the law and he will be punished according to the existing laws on the books. Everyone should quit nitpicking over the jargon, since even you guys that are disputing the language stated openly that if he did it to YOU, we'd be talking death or broken bones. Wait? What? For only a "creepy guy", a "deviant", someone "disrespecting you" with a "fetish"? After all, as Scott said, it was "degrading but he didn't rape her or force her to do anything physical (which is the connotation predator has, at least in my mind). 'Offender' seems appropriate."
Fine. I just hope that what seem ""appropriate" semantics when applied to a 21 year old girl are the SAME words you'd use if you were in that situation. Death and broken bones, indeed.
littlekinder Anonymous
1 year, 8 months ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal
Okay, simple matter of miscommunication, then. The concept itself is a reference to a novel - basically, the premise is that there are some criminals that the various sovereign bodies don't want to bother to lock up and have to keep fed and clothed, so they just tattoo a warning on their forehead and set them loose again.
I think that tattoo would actually be a pretty severe punishment, sort of akin to having "SEXUAL PREDATOR" or "CHILD MOLESTER" signs prominently displayed on your car or house.
WeeKid, semantics matter. I assume you're of legal age; how would you feel if everyone consistently referred to you as "girl" instead of "woman"?
Pavel Lishin Verified
1 year, 8 months ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal
pred·a·tor (prěd'ə-tər, -tôr') Pronunciation Key n.
1. An organism that lives by preying on other organisms. 2. One that victimizes, plunders, or destroys, especially for one's own gain.
of·fend /əˈfɛnd/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[uh-fend] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –verb (used with object) 1. to irritate, annoy, or anger; cause resentful displeasure in: Even the hint of prejudice offends me. 2. to affect (the sense, taste, etc.) disagreeably. 3. to violate or transgress (a criminal, religious, or moral law). 4. to hurt or cause pain to.
hmmm, I think both definitions apply.
clear sense tho in this discussion, that males might feel this "offense" would be more "offensive" to another male, than to this poor girl.
Tracy Yost Verified
1 year, 8 months ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal
My attempt at humor apparently was misguided (better shoot lower pardnuh they's riding shetlands).
I sincerely don't think the airline is culpable. Perhaps they weren't as comforting or solicitous as the victim might have wanted, but they did take the appropriate measures when the situation was called to their attention. Given our increasingly litigious society, good samaraitans often find themselves in court battles as the result of their good intentions. Cases like this make it hard to define what the limits or boundaries are for flight attendents.
Indeed, how many attendents would be required to provide absolute probity, security, and now seemingly chastity, on the average flight? What about the role that airport merchants play (bars and beer stands) in some of the creepy antics passengers engage in? It must have been some flight if it took twenty minutes for the attendent to respond after the passenger hit the "call button" on the overhead console (the accepted means of notifying an attendent that attention is required, afterward you can resort to weeping). She did hit the call button (one would assume)?
EdWeirdness Anonymous
1 year, 8 months ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal
Hey Pavel - yell at Tracy! She called her a girl too!
No, seriously, you are right, she is definitely a woman in the legal sense. I am guilty of being older than dirt - 48 - and I do see things from the wrong end of the telescope, I'm sure. Having a teenage daughter doesn't help me see 21 as "all grown up" either, but that's not my call.
However, I will say at 21 I still felt much more like a girl than a "woman" - and did so happily until some killjoy eventually called me Ma'am. Loser.
You are the only person ever to correctly comment on my screen name - most folks think it is about being kind. Not sure about the "Wee" - is that a secret semantic reference to urine? I'm offen... creeped out!
Tracy, I was looking for the actual legal definition whereby crimes would be charged. I don't care what he is called, I'm just sad that this has turned into a big discussion about what we CAN'T call him. Since no one has brought out the differences in how that affects crimes/sentences, it's all just opinion and I'm sorry anyone feels they need to make sure we don't "overdo it" with a harsh name. How about we settle on "%@#&%*#" and call it even?
littlekinder Anonymous
1 year, 8 months ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal
Yeah, Ed, I asked about the call button, too. And the 20 minutes. Dunno what kind of ruckus was made - the article can pretty much be spun any way you want.
Who knows how it all went? I don't really support the lawsuit, unless they are trying to prove that the attendants ignored her in some specific, deliberate way. Maybe that's what the trial is all about. Or maybe just money, as many have claimed. But I DON'T think the airline is responsible for keeping tabs on who gets up and moves around - that seems virtually impossible.
Lots of comments and no work getting done - it sure is Friday! Let's all go to Happy Hour - starting around, oh 2-ish?
littlekinder Anonymous
1 year, 8 months ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal
Pearl opens at 4pm and there WILL be happy hour. My little girl is 22 years old. (Calling a 21 year old girl a "girl" is probably not nearly as bad as calling a 21 year old guy a "boy". At least, to a boy.)
I don't think this girl should be suing the airline, but, they probably have more money than the offender. I mean, predator.
Tracy Yost Verified
1 year, 8 months ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal
Now this thread is moving in the right direction!
littlekinder Anonymous
1 year, 8 months ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal
LK, idc whether there's a hard-line legal distinction. The guy's being persecuted with 40+ comments on this site alone. How someone is perceived by society isn't necessarily determined by what happens in a courtroom. Semantics matter.
Tracy, of course both definitions could apply - but to what degree? Offender is typically used for one occurrence, predator implies he can't be stopped. Offender could range widely in severity, whereas predator is typically used for more severe situations. And yes, I'd expect it to be more offensive to another male than a female. Regardless of gender, a violent reaction is understandable imo.
Ed, I recognized the attempt at humor; seems you were intertwining the whining (omg wat). And I can't access the linked article from work (no idea why), but I don't recall there ever being mention that it took 20 minutes for someone to respond...thought she woke up 20 mins before touchdown? iirc, that 20 mins was LK's conjecture - either way, that's not even a complaint in the suit from what I can tell.
Rick, I entirely agree with <a href="http://www.pegasusnews.com/news/2008/mar/19/woman-sues-american-airlines-over-masturbating-pas/#c23720">this comment</a> of yours. I'm not defending the guy's actions and I'm certainly not supporting them...simply trying to keep references to him from getting out of hand. If y'all want to put a price on his balls so he never has the chance to splooge on anyone else, go nuts (no pun intended) - simply offering that he shouldn't be talked about like he rapes and mangles people.
To both Yosts: $5 cover and ~$5 a beer kills me on the inside, otherwise we'd probably hit up Pearl a lot more often! Maybe I'll rock a cigar next time I'm in so Rick will <i>really</i> despise me!
Scott Doyle Verified
1 year, 8 months ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal
Thanks to all of you, this page is now the #49 Google result among all pages on the Interwebs for "masturbating."
Give yourselves a hand.
Mike Orren Staff
1 year, 8 months ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal
"And yes, I'd expect it to be more offensive to another male than a female." You are mistaken.
(shameless plug follows) You know we have lots of beers under $5, and all domestic longnecks are $3 from 4-8pm. Also, if you're really on the cheap, Pearl beer is $2 all the time. The cover charge you will have to negotiate with Rick ;-)
Tracy Yost Verified
1 year, 8 months ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal
littlekinder: I think you totally missed the point of what I said. I was saying that there is a different between the words "predator" and "offender", just like there's a difference between "girl" and "woman". As far as wee, ask your local spudhead.
Tracy: is your youngin' hot, and will she be at the Pearl? Feel free to disregard the second question if the answer to the first one is "no". And rest assured, I will be a perfect gentleman, offense-wise.
"I don't think this girl should be suing the airline, but, they probably have more money than the offender. I mean, predator."
So? Scott has more money than me (I think), if the two of us are out drinking and I harm you in some way, are you going to sue him?
Pavel Lishin Verified
1 year, 8 months ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal
yes.
no.
no, we have other ways of dealing with troublemakers. ;-)
Tracy Yost Verified
1 year, 8 months ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal
Hey Tracy, how's it going? How'd you find your way to this thread? :)
Michael Schaefer Verified
1 year, 8 months ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal
And we're #2 and #8 for "masturbating" on Google News.
2 being not the story itself but an <a href="http://www.pegasusnews.com/events/2008/mar/27/92625/">event</a> at the Bath House Cultural Center, with Senior Doyle's masturbating comment somehow sucking said event along with it into the Google grinder.
<img src="http://media.pegasusnews.com/img/photos/2008/03/28/masturbatingpegasus.jpg">
Pride.
Chad Jones Verified
1 year, 8 months ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal
So did you guys hear about that woman who sues American Airlines over masturbating passenger?
xdavidwattsx Anonymous
1 year, 8 months ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal
Chad, greatness doesn't have to be explained. Would be epic if offending passenger is really a lady, btw.
Pavel, you sneaky bastard!
Scott Doyle Verified
1 year, 8 months ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal
good question Michael.... :-)
Tracy Yost Verified
1 year, 8 months ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal
Pavel, of course I got your point. Hence the joke about "wee".
Scott, I just don't think semantics would really influence your perception of this guy if it was YOUR sticky hair. You feel he's being "persecuted" on this site? Yikes.
The reason we have legal definitions is obvious from this discussion - everyone's semantics DIFFER.
I don't understand the absolute devotion to "protecting" this man from quirks of language. What terrible thing is going to happen to him as a result of what we call him? WE aren't the law, and ultimately, THAT will determine everything - from punishment to job interviews and address registration. We can be as tough or as lax with him as we choose within our opinions. As for me, I'm going with tough.
I still can't believe you actually said he was being persecuted. That poor man.
20 minutes: not conjecture, just what the article said, and mentioned as part of the suit:
"The woman slept most of the flight, but awoke about 20 minutes before landing when the pilot announced the plane was on descent into Los Angeles. When the woman opened her eyes, she saw that an unknown man had moved into the seat next to her and was staring at her as he masturbated, the suit states.
"The woman turned toward the window in embarrassment and in an act of nervousness began to run her fingers through her hair where she noticed “a substantial amount of an extremely sticky substance in her hair,” the suit states.
The woman began to cry and tried to get the attention of a flight attendant, but was unsuccessful, the suit states."
Sorry if I misinterpreted the timeframe - sounded like within a 20 minute time period the woman opened her eyes, turned away, touched her hair and began to cry. How long did that take? Then she tried to get the attention of a flight attendant. Hmm. Well, maybe she cried for 19 minutes first.
I think I'm done with this thread. Well, at least I did my part for Pegasus with Google. I'm so tired of this discussion I think I would pay the $200,000 myself to see it go away.
littlekinder Anonymous
1 year, 7 months ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal
Since you're hell-bent on looking at this purely from a legal perspective, <a href="http://media.myfoxhouston.com/news/2008-03-17/aalawsuit/slides/1.html">here's the filed suit</a>.
It literally says AA breached their duty to Centava Dozier (the young woman) by "failing to move about the plane to ensure passenger safety and <b>failing to police</b> the passengers to ensure that passengers do not harm one another".
All of this after Dozier had to lean forward and explain what happened to a guy one row in front of her before he'd help her, per the <a href="http://media.myfoxhouston.com/news/2008-03-17/aalawsuit/slides/3.html">Statement of Facts</a>. If nobody around her knew it was going on, how exactly is any AA employee supposed to?
I'd like to point out this occurred on March 19, 2006. 2 years is a long time for someone who's been preyed upon (geeeez) to seek restitution from the deep pockets of an airline. I imagine they had to squeeze it in before the statute of limitations came into play.
LK, not ignoring you, I'm simply through with it. Made a point I felt needed to be made. Also, I'm positive she got the attention of AA staff before the plane was grounded since they had cops standing by. Not to mention, that would have been the first complaint any attorney makes.
Scott Doyle Verified
1 year, 7 months ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal
Scott, I don't think we have ever been talking about the same thing! If you re-read my posts you will see I never supported the lawsuit. I never felt AA did anything illegal. I could not say whether they were truly insensitive, either, since I didn't really have the full facts. I said that more than once. I agree with you about the suit.
Legality came up because I was curious as to the legal definitions of "sexual offender" and "sexual predator". I was trying to figure out why (if) they mattered, and why they mattered SO MUCH to some of you. I just couldn't believe anyone was worried that we might use too harsh a term regarding this man. I guess I kept on posting because there were so many contradictions - "predator" too strong a term, yet saying men "would have to be restrained from killing him"...
I was also bothered initially at the posts that indicated she had no right to be so upset, that if she were a tough feminist she would be able to handle it, no problem. We seemed to be in a bizarre opposite world where we were cavalier about the victim but sensitive to the perpetrator. Someone literally said he needed her compassion.
To sum up, I guess maybe I've been off topic the whole time. To me it was all about what people were saying HERE, what I saw as an apparent lack of empathy. I guess the lawsuit was the issue to most people, I was probably on a tangent, for which I apologize. I did not mean to get the discussion sidetracked. I just wanted to understand you guys - especially why you wanted him protected from a certain label, yet at the same time had such violent reactions to the thought of his actions affecting you.
I swore to myself I wouldn't post again, but I wanted to make sure you could see where we agreed and disagreed. I thought I was clear in all my posts, but apparently not. I don't care about lawsuits, AA, FAA regulations, or even insensitive attendants, at this point. I think you are right about all that. I was just trying to reconcile a reluctance to "label" this man with a willingness to harm him.
Honestly, I'm not hell-bent on anything.
littlekinder Anonymous
1 year, 7 months ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal