Shouldn't the airline be ultimately responsible (at least in the case of the Imams)? They should assume the responsibility if they act on passenger's concerns.
you don't seem to understand the law or the issues here. Just because you believe its in good faith doesn't mean that everyone thinks its good faith. The issue isn't 'should' its 'can'. If there is any possibility that you hold responsibility, regardless of the subjective nature of the defendant, then they CAN be sued. Because how do we know you acted on good faith and not on a personal bias? Can i call the police and say you have drugs in your home and if I say i did it on good faith, I shouldn't be excused? The problem here is that you are presuming facts that people are acting in good faith before anyone really knows beyond a reasonable doubt.
This is so cute. It tears you up inside so much when people express their honest opinions about the man you love that you have to lash out in an angry response. Poor basso. It’s like when a 5 year old responds, “No, I’m not a poopy head, you’re a poopy head”. You should understand that when people say dubbyah is the worst president ever they actually mean it and really believe that among the 43 Presidents in the history of the USA that the decider is actually and qualitatively the worst of the bunch. They aren’t just calling him a “poopy head” for the sake of insulting him. So don't take it personally.
do people get sued regularly for making false accusations, and if so, how are those cases determined. what's the legal standards for determining if it was malicious are in "good faith"
Certainly true - did the Imams sue the individuals themselves? I know they sued the airline, but did they go after the people? And if so, on what grounds?
Using the Imam case as an example: The people who reported what they thought was suspicious did not kick the Imams off the plane. They simply informed airline personnel of their concerns and at that point, the airline should legally have to assume responsibility. If the airline feels the need to remove them, then the airline should have to suffer the consequences if they did so in error, not the people who passed along their concerns to airline personnel.
They did sue the "John Does". I don't know where the case currently stands or what the legal grounds are.
I guess my bigger question is whether this is really necessary? Is anyone NOT going to report suspicious behavior without this protection (that 90% of people won't know/think about anyway)? Has there been a bunch of lawsuits of this kind that need to be curbed? It just seems like more unnecessary but politically popular legislation.
you forgot to thank wikipedia for that. But if the plaintiffs bring the suit in fraud and there was true good faith on the defendants, then the plaintiffs are probably going to pay (I thank law school for that). But what you are suggesting here is that people should lose the right to sue others if they get accused of something, regardless if that accusation was fraudulent or made in good faith. And what does the law give in return? Are you going to say that if someone suspects a terrorist on their plane that they won't say anything because they won't get sued? You say they would prefer not to get sued than to risk dying? What is more likely to happen: The law is passed and people abuse it to kick other people off planes if they don't like them. Those people kicked off miss their flights, have to pay for a new ticket and get treated like criminals. OR The law doesn't pass and there might be some pissed off people who get kicked off unjustifiably, and they file suit against those because of that. But those who would have abused the law decide to stay quiet. What doesn't change is the number of terrorists that get caught, it stays the same in both situations. The only difference is that one situation restricts freedom and opens up avenue for abuse. The other one gives a very small number of people action if there is a possibility of bias. The question of "should be sued or shouldn't be sued" is not one that the legal system is meant to answer.
Too bad Congress didn't pass this bill. Next time some parents don't discipline their obnoxious kids behind me, I could have just reported them for suspicious behavior.
if that's the case, then in the early part of procedure, the judge would remove the parties that didn't cause the harm from the case. That wouldn't cost that much and it wouldn't take up that much time. It would be far less time and money than the costs that the Imams had to suffer from.
First, I assume the Imam's lawsuit isn't "fraudulant". They certainly seem to have some case against the airline, so they appear to be acting in good faith as well. Personally, if I see anything that appears to be truly suspicious, I will not hesitate to inform the proper personnel, but I obviously can't speak for everyone. Here is how it could work: 1. I report what I believe is suspicious behavior. 2. The airline acts upon that info and eventually removes the passenger(s) that I reported. 3. Ultimately, it was all a big misunderstanding. 4. The passenger(s) sue the airline due to the crummy way they handled the situation, but leave me out of it. 5. The case goes to trial. 6. I am called as a witness (or at least give a deposition) 7. As an aside, after my testimony, the judge determines I acted in good faith, therefore, I am now immune. If it is determined that I acted fraudulantly or with some sort of personal agenda (be it prejudice, racism, or whatever) then they may choose to sue me at a later date.
that's pretty much how it works right now except you would be joined in the lawsuit and then removed on summary judgment if you acted reasonably. The new law would change the part where you were a racist and allow you to be free regardless of intent. You aren't a little concerned at that being abused? And why planes and not everything else?
"While at the gate, according to police reports and witnesses, the six made anti-American comments and provocatively chanted "Allah, Allah, Allah." On the plane, they asked for seat-belt extenders with heavy metal buckles, even though none was obviously in need of them, and then dropped them at their feet. Last time we checked, there was no tenet of Islam that required them to leave their assigned seats shortly before takeoff, a violation of federal rules, and occupy the exit and entry rows of a jet aircraft, a pattern associated with the 9/11 attacks. All six moved — two to front-row first class, two in the middle on an exit row and two in the rear of the cabin."
It's in the original article posted - I had never heard that part of the story before, though. It seems like the lawsuit will fail on the merits pretty quickly if that's the case.
Yes, sorry... I meant beyond the editorial in IBD. I do remember reading that they were actually seated in different parts of the plane and that they got up and talked with each other before the takeoff, but I find it hard to believe that two people of any race, creed, religion, etc. could just move into First Class. I also hadn't heard about the seat belt extenders.
this is from an email sent by a passenger on board the flight: http://card.wordpress.com/2006/12/02/e-mail-from-pauline-a-passenger-on-imam-flight/ [rquoter]The most suspicious thing, which has not yet been mentioned on the news, and needs to come out publicly, is the fact that the man in the first class front row asked for and was given a seat belt extender as did one of the men in the rear of the plane. This can be confirmed by the male steward serving first class on the flight. The strange and totally unexplainable thing about this request by them was the fact that neither of these men was fat enough to even need an extender strap for their seatbelt in the first place and the crew noticed that they not even put it on but placed them on the floor by their feet. Why ask for them and not use them, especially if you don’t even need one? I was a witness to the seat belt extender on the floor in first class, as the steward asked me to hand him so he could show it to the FBI and the Police. It was a totally detachable strap about 18 in length that could easily be used as a noose around a flight attendant or passenger’s neck to create a hostage situation on the plane. With one in the back of the plane and another in the front and their people positioned in between they were perfectly positioned to take control of the entire plane with out any weapons. The captain, crew, police and FBI all obviously also felt this was a real possibility when combined with the note passed to them by an obviously shaken man who had heard some of their conversation. Put all of this together along with the fact that the ticket agent at the gate was not comfortable and a couple of other passenger observations it added up to a situation of possible danger.[/rquoter]
Was this established as fact during the investigation? Or is it just this guy's memory? Also, what about the moving around the airplane? Anything on that? Your original article says "According to police reports and eyewitnesses," but I wonder if the actual police investigation confirmed these things? Here's an article...
