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.

  • 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.