Officials: Passenger Who Made Threat Shot

Yahoo! News ^ | 12/7/05 | JOHN PAIN

[bvw]

{The wife] is certainly capable of informing the airline that her husband, as a passenger under their care, may act irrationally because of his disuse ... There is a responsibility here as I see it.

Okay, I can take that statement one more squarely; thanks for restateing it.

As a general princible of what should be, I agree. As a princible of what needs to be on airline travel, I agree with you. Two separate issues, two separate argments. There SHOULD develop such a higher social standard of behaviour in caring for the potentially dangerous due to manias, dementiatas or cerain other patterns of disorderly behavior when the so-afflicted person travels or ventures in public areas where there is already a high potential terrorism risk.

And based on this case and also the post-311 case in London as another example of the deadly results of disorderly behaviour, we NEED to have, so it seems, for air, subway, or bus travel law or regulation requiring such pre-reporting by those whose life's role has happened to come to include the care of, or the responsiblity for, or just the accompanying of the so-afflicted.

But such a high standard does not now exist afaik, and would not come about without considerable risks to Liberty.

In this case the wife can not have legal fault for following current social practise and social habit, imo.

And to speak for the wife's case -- as I intended my mention of the mania of the intellectually dominating and charismatic Martin Luther to illustrate -- it is difficult to impossible for a caregiver of such a potent manic to have the personal forethought, the personal energy and even the personal risk-taking ability (for the maniac will discover being "ratted-on") to give such notice. For a potent manic, like a Luther in his high-manic swings, has the easy ability to emotionally and intellectually overwhelm the caregiver.

And even if able to marshall some reserve to whom does the caregiver give notice to? And how to do so in way that allows the travel still to be made? For without prior public policy established the carrier -- in this case airline -- almost certainly would refuse to carry.

Without established social policies in such care; without established policies in law as to the expectation of such notice (a law which would be fiendishly hard to write in a way that lassos the really dangerous without ropeing many harmless persons and generally hampering Liberty); without established private company standard policy of public conveyance that deals with the matter; absent all these things the poor wife was without any practical ability to inform anyone of the danger!

[bcsco]

I understand your general position but have to disagree with the final statement "absent all these things the poor wife was without any practical ability to inform anyone of the danger!".

This couple entered the plane from the gate area. The man had to have been off his medications for some time prior to this incident; such reactions do NOT develop within the time frame of a single failure to take a dose (this has been confirmed in other posts on this topic and I see no reason to discount the opinion). It's likely he had been off his medication for days. I see no reason why the wife could not have notified airport/carrier personnel at the gate of a potential problem. Yes, this likely would have prevented them from entering this flight but, so what? Perhaps such a refusal would have given the man second thought about traveling without medication maintenance. It also would have delayed their travel by some days should he go back on his maintenance schedule (if they continued to insist on flying), however they were only going from Miami to Orlando where news reports state the couple resided so why couldn't they have found alternative transportation?

I'm sorry but I see no reason why the wife couldn't seek another solution than to acquiesce to getting on that flight. She may not be liable under the law, but she is certainly liable morally to some degree. No one will ever convince me otherwise.

[bvw]

My answer to your last is actually in my post to which you replied -- in with many other considerations so it is understandably missed or discounted. I repost that part again:

"And to speak for the wife's case -- as I intended my mention of the mania of the intellectually dominating and charismatic Martin Luther to illustrate -- it is difficult to impossible for a caregiver of such a potent manic to have the personal forethought, the personal energy and even the personal risk-taking ability (for the maniac will discover being "ratted-on") to give such notice. For a potent manic, like a Luther in his high-manic swings, has the easy ability to emotionally and intellectually overwhelm the caregiver."

Think also Rasputin, and what was called in the late 1800's/early 1900's "animal magnetism". A concept we moderns recall as the cartoonish-cute "charisma".

As a concept "animal magnetism" includes the affable or cute charisma but yet extends into a far darker realm -- the ability of the highly charismatic to hold those close to him/her in complete mental and emotional sway.