Summary

Passengers on an American Airlines flight from Milwaukee to Dallas-Fort Worth restrained a Canadian man with duct tape after he allegedly attempted to open a cabin door mid-flight, claiming he was the “captain” and needed to exit.

The man became aggressive, injuring a flight attendant as he rushed toward the door.

Several passengers, including Doug McCright and Charlie Boris, subdued him, using duct tape to secure his hands and ankles.

Authorities detained the man upon landing, and the incident remains under investigation.

  • Apytele@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    98
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 month ago

    The passenger was seen lying on his stomach with his hands behind his back bound as well as his ankles with duct tape, the report said.

    So for future reference, especially for those of you who do such things recreationally, facedown restraint is very risky from a respiratory standpoint, especially with the limbs back in the hogtie position, that is how the cops kill people (I would say accidentally except they have enough education on the topic to preclude that). But ultimately I’m mostly just glad they kept him from opening the plane. That’s the obvious first priority there. Damn.

    • TheRealKuni@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      49
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      But ultimately I’m mostly just glad they kept him from opening the plane. That’s the obvious first priority there. Damn.

      It’s physically impossible to open a door on an airplane during most stages of the flight. The door first needs to move inward before opening, and the pressure differential is absurd. The handle would break long before you’d open the door. The only time it’s really possible is near the ground as you’re coming in to land or taking off (which did happen recently).

      • ByteOnBikes@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        24
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        I’m going to trust that you’re correct.

        But I’m still going to duct tape the psychopath for everyone’s safety, including the psychopath.

        • Apytele@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 month ago

          You would ideally keep their hands restrained in front of them but if they’re too dextrous to allow that you want to at least keep them on their side. That said, not a level of understanding I typically expect from laypeople (vs, for instance, trained police officers).

      • JPAKx4@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        32
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        Boeing aircraft have this safety feature where it fucking immediately falls off so you can always get out if you are the Captain and need to escape from the bad duct tape wielders.

      • Takumidesh@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        That’s not true on every plane.

        Typically for doors that don’t open inward first, they have interlocks.

        For example, the over wing doors on a 737ng don’t open inward, they are actually spring loaded on a hinge and swing directly outward, there is a locking pawl that engages and disengages automatically under specific circumstances, requiring the squat switches on the landing gear to be engaged and the throttles to be in an idle position.

    • Carvex@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      60
      ·
      1 month ago

      Opening the door during flight is attempted murder of everyone on board, fuck him. I hope it was hard to breathe the whole time and they put him in a nice padded cell for a while.

      • RampantParanoia2365@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        1 month ago

        I mean, it’s an attempt, but it’s in no way possible to actually do. That’s thousands of pounds of pressure on that door. I’d bet on the handle breaking off before the door opens mid-flight.

      • orclev@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        116
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 month ago

        Considering he was claiming to be the captain and trying to get off the plane it seems highly likely he was having some kind of mental breakdown. He needs proper medical care and a psychological evaluation, not summary execution. Yes he was a danger to himself and others, but that doesn’t mean he’s guilty of attempted murder. A padded room might be appropriate depending on the psych evaluation, but wishing suffering on him without knowing the full situation is too much.

      • FundMECFSResearch@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        43
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 month ago

        They probably were going through some kind of mania or hallucination episode.

        Don’t always assume the worst in people, “eye for an eye” has never worked.

          • RustyEarthfire@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 month ago

            This saying is a pet peeve of mine, because it’s so contrary to the actual meaning of “eye for an eye”, which is a prohibition against escalation. Like in this case the guy injured someone’s neck and wrist, so the maximum punishment would be injuring his neck and wrist, not killing him. That’s not to say “eye for an eye” is an ideal justice system, just that it is opposed to wanton revenge and violence.

              • Ridgetop18@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 month ago

                Uh, no? “An eye for an eye.” is old school ancient.

                It was however a limiting statement. When Hammurabi made “an eye for an eye” into law, it meant you couldn’t just go kill a man’s entire family over losing an eye and call it justified.

                • Cethin@lemmy.zip
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  1 month ago

                  Where the counter comes from doesn’t preclude this, but is an evolution of it. If the law says your family takes their eye in revenge for them taking yours, then they take revenge for what you did, etc. It creates a potential for a cycle of vengeance. It’s better than nothing probably, but it also has serious flaws.