Feeds

back to article In-flight fight for stubborn iPhone-loving teen

A teenager who refused to turn off his iPhone during the landing of a plane got a punch from a fellow passenger for his trouble. Police in Boise, Idaho, the flight's desination, arrested the alleged assailant, 68-year-old Russell Miller. Miller reportedly became angry when the 15-year-old, who was listening to music and playing …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

g e
Silver badge

Kid was a terrorist

As you're supposed to turn your gadgets off for 'the safety of the plane, crew & passengers', presumably, the kid was obviously a terrorist.

Pensioner's lawyer should argue he was a simple patriot trying to thwart a terror attack, kid should be stuck in Gitmo and thrashed hourly.

52
3
Flame

@g e - It amounted to an attack on his person - 'twas simply self defence.

Moreover, putting his and other passengers lives at risk by disobeying the cabin crew AND having to sit near the sibilant noise emanating from those devices without having anywhere to escape from, has to amount to an attack on his person, thus he was simply acting in self defence.

Personally, when I hear such stories words like "the stocks", "rotten tomatoes", "all day Saturday", and "no IPhone for a month" immediately spring to mind.

Spoiled brats.

13
1
Linux

titletitletitletitletitletitle

I assume this is all sarcasm given that phones pose no risk to anybody anywhere. If you can really down an aircraft with an iPhone why aren't they just plain banned?

That said I regularly get the urge to punch iJoy users on the tube so I can see where the guy is comming from...

0
0
Silver badge
Joke

If you can really down an aircraft with an iPhone.....

i believe theres an app for that

2
1
Silver badge
Paris Hilton

Pity poor Barbara...

"I don't think it's ever appropriate to touch another person physically," said Barbara of Boise.

What, EVER?

Obviously a virgin.

9
1
Silver badge

And what about the refusenik?

So what is happening to the lab who refused to obey the rules? Are they prosecuting him?

I once had the misfortune to fly to Geneva next to Peter Mandleson while he was an EU commissioner. When the stewardess came round asking us to turn off electronic gadgets and remove our head phones, he just ignored her. She came back and asked him again, he grudgingly removed his headphones, only to put them back in the moment her back was turned. A short while later she tried again. Same response, ear phones out, ear phones back in.

I didn't realised I was supposed to hit him!

67
0
Flame

How did you not know

I would have thought not punching the bag of corruption that is Mandelson was crime against humanity

8
0
Coat

RE:And what about the refusenik?

It was PETER MANDELSON! Of course you were supposed to hit him!

8
0
Thumb Up

Dude, it's was Mandleson...

You were supposed to choke the every loving shit out of him with he headphone cord. It'd have been a mercy killing. For us, not him obviously. :-)

6
0
Anonymous Coward

Mandleson

Well yes, you were OBVIOUSLY supposed to punch him, (unfortunately being on a plane, you would have had to refrain from giving him a good kicking once he was down tho).

4
0
FAIL

You've let us down, and you've let yourself down.

It was PETER MANDLESON, you're supposed to hit him anyway. Jeez.

4
0
Flame

@Dazed and Confused

You were supposed to hit him. But not just for the headphone incident. I know if I had the misfortune to sit next to Mandelson I would have a really hard time not just punching him for existing. And screwing up the country. And being hideously corrupt. And all his other numerous failings.

3
0
Silver badge

Baseball bats

I knew there was a reason for stopping you taking one on a flight, you might be 'fortunate' enough to sit next to a sleazy spin-doctor and find a use for it!

0
0
Joke

I might be wrong..

...but I believe the default condition with Peter Mandelson, is to hit him.

2
0
Bronze badge

You should have just hit him

Just for being Mandelson.

2
0
FAIL

Surely...

...the correct response to being within 3ft of Mandy is to hit him. A double fail in my - often not very - humble opinion. :-D

1
0
Rob
Bronze badge
Thumb Up

If you had hit him...

... I would have studied law, passed my bar exam and got you off the charges, the least I could do for you providing a public service.

1
0
Pirate

The Dark Lord!

Report him (annon of course) to the TSA. That will get him on the 'No Fly List'.

He's lucky that it wasn't an American Carrier. The Air Marshall would have had him on the floor and in cuffs in a flash Lord M or no Lord M.

1
0
Silver badge
Thumb Up

He's Peter Mandelson-

Of course you are supposed to hit him.

1
0

Offence?

Isn't it a Federal offence to refuse reasonable requests from the cabin crew such as switching off electronic devices?

0
0
WTF?

You what?

How on Earth can you not realise you were meant to hit Peter Mandelson? He was breathing and within an arm's length!

1
0
FAIL

I'm sorry

You were in a position to drop the ultimate shit from a great height and you didn't take it!

Shame on you!

0
0

Be fair....

Mandy was working hard..... memorizing the lines that the music industry had given him to learn

0
0
Anonymous Coward

preventing criminal acts

Don't they charge these clowns with a trillion $ fine and criminal charges? .... so he was just preventing a crime from happing.

0
0
Go

"I didn't realised I was supposed to hit him!"

It's Peter Mandleson FFS, who needs an excuse.

Anyway, surely he's used to being punched at random.

0
0
Silver badge

In flight entertainment

I'm picturing an act similar to one in an action movie. Lead actor leans forward pretending to tie shoe lace or something and springs back elbowing passenger in the face. The joy that would bring.

2
0

Typical

Its the do-gooder that gets the punishment. A quiet word from the police, "Mr you went a bit far" then the police should have charged the kid with endangering an aircraft, a rather serious offence.

9
0

Twats all round, then?

Not really seeing a victim here.

1
1
Megaphone

"Maybe I overreacted"

No. Sounds like you gave him the proper beating he deserves.

Okay we all know this "turn off your phone" stuff is (probably) bunk but come on. Can you not sit quietly for 10 minutes while they land the plane? It's not exactly a difficult request, if you had any imagination at all you would be able to keep yourself quietly amused without gadgets. But no, it seems people today have a pathological hatred of thinking for themselves.

If you're going to stand up for yourself, resist the naked body scanners and the grope downs, don't resist the stewardess, you fucker!

8
0
Silver badge

What's more

He only smacked him in the arm. I was thinking irate passenger, US flight, had to have popped him in the chops. Bet the little shit whinged like buggery.

2
0
Silver badge
Thumb Up

Guffaw

As much as i doubt that modern electronics devices cause disruption to a modern planes electronics systems, rules ARE rules and the little gobshite got exactley what he deserved.

The better (in retrospect) course of action would have been to punch the device itself. Criminal damage tends to carry a lesser bollocking than tonking someone.

Good on the old geezer. 'Bout time the "yoof of today" learned a few basic manners.

I assume it has a pause button????

13
0
Silver badge
Coffee/keyboard

Not just electronic interference

Assuming said NED is sitting in the aisle seat, wearing headphones (with volume presumbaly set at teen level) would prevent him from hearing any emergency announcments (such as EVACUATE). He would therefore be endangering the lives of those sitting window side from him.

4
0
Jobs Horns

It is Steve Jobs' Fault...

...for creating a product so compelling that the kid couldn't put it down.

0
0
Silver badge
Flame

Why does my hand start to itch when I read about.........

...............a FIFTEEN year old with a fucking iPhone (how has some nauseating little teeny got his revolting mitts on a high-end smart phone?) and the fact that he ignored the cabin crew's instructions? Why am I really sorry that our pensioner did not give him a real smack where it would do most good? Furthermore why do I want to give that NASTY little toe-rag's parents a bloody good kicking?

Excuse me, I think I had better lie down for a while - in a darkened room with a wet towel on my forehead.

12
1
Stop

age?

Age really has nothing to do with it....a 15 year old will probably make use of more of its features than the average business exec...

We got our 14 year old daughter a Judas phone 3gs this year, on a 2 year contract for a little more than we were paying for top ups for her LG viewerty PAYG phone...

Why?

Well, for one we can afford it, we work hard and like to pass that wealth on to our child. Second, she had achieved excellent results in her school work the year before so we felt that she deserves a reward for that. As she wanted an Judas phone she could have one!

What’s wrong with that lesson? Work hard, never late, work well above the national average at school and you get the nicer things in life without resorting to bashing grannies for pension books.

The government should spend a little more money on rewarding the kids that do well and behave themselves than on funding schemes for the feral yoof.... as they don’t, we do, and after all she is our responsibility.

I would have to say as well, when we fly to our holiday destination, as soon as the call comes around to switch phones etc off, she will not need to be told twice. Another reason why we feel justified in spending our money on expensive gadgets, she does as she is told!

You come across as a very jealous person that a young kid has stuff that you would like to own but have failed to place yourself in a economic position to afford it... Maybe the kid did need a poke...

The bloke would have been in less trouble if he had knocked the fondle slab out of his hands and broke it. The key is to make it look like an accident!

3
6
FAIL

Totally agree

If the end result is the little shit getting patted on the head for getting a mild slap on the arm and a (presumably) morally upright person getting a jail sentence...........

where does that leave the passengers who stopped Richard Reid (the shoe bomber) from setting fire to his shoelaces?

Presumably in the slammer with him?

2
0
Jobs Halo

I guess I'm going to hell then?

My 8 year old son has an iPhone, but it is an old 3G that was first handed down to my wife when I got a 3GS and then down to The Boy when I upgraded to the 4 (and the 3GS was handed down to SWMBO)

He plays games on it and I use it to tell him it's time to come home for tea when he's round the corner playing with his pals instead of standing at the front door whistling.

He is neither spoilt or revolting or a toe rag. I have peace of mind that I can let him spread his wings a few more yards away from the house and keep in touch with him and satisfaction that an old phone has an extended life and he is learning the value of objects by taking good care of it.

Do I qualify for a good kicking?

0
0
Anonymous Coward

No danger at all.

Unless the phone was transmitting:

A: on a frequency reserved for A/G or A/A communications; or

B: Strongly enough to cause jamming or induce eddy currents in communications or control systems;

It is no more dangerous than a pacemaker.

I don't think iPhones are physically capable of transmitting on the 120+/- MHz band, and they certainly aren't capable of being used as handheld EMP generators.

Any device that was designed to interfere with landing would also be designed to appear off, so this rule can only apply to the (impossible) case of accidental interference.

1
7
Bronze badge
FAIL

RE: No danger at all.

"the (impossible) case of accidental interference."

Although the phone may not transmit on the right frequency to interfere with the signal, phones are (as we all know) capable of interfering with many things. Put your phone even remotely near a speaker and you'll hear it. Now imagine that same noise coming through the same system you're getting landing information from, only instead of one phone there are several hundred.

"Flight 237 please taxi to BIP BIPPETTY BIP BIP"

"This is flight 237 please say again "

"Flight 237 please BIP BIPPETTY BIP BIP BIP"

"This is flight 237, I'll just guess because some kid has his iPhone on"

There are many ways to interfere with communication, and stopping the signal getting through is just one of them. Also, the reason you're not allowed headphones in during takeoff/landing is to ensure you can hear the important stuff the flight attendants and crew are saying which may save your own life as well as others. This has nothing to do with interference.

"please note that on this plane we have moved the O2 masks and lifejackets, their new location is..." or "to open the plane door in an emergency..."

"It is no more dangerous than a pacemaker."

AFAIK there are no pacemakers capable of transmitting over 1km so this is just nonsense. At best a pacemaker might interfere with the person in the next seat, but even then someone would have to tell it to start talking whereas a phone will sit there and chatter all day, increasing the power if the signal starts to drop for instance when it's further from a tower (In the air?)

7
0
FAIL

you're missing the point

I don't think anyone is worried about the transmitting bit, though I am frequently gobsmacked by alleged adults who cannot control their crackberry/mobile addiction long enough to taxi to the gate (although I know many places let you use your phone as soon as the plane clears the runway).

The point here is that if something goes wrong on landing, the little tyke won't be able to hear cabin crew instructions and may do something stupid, dangerous or both.

I don't condone beating the little shite, but the parents have clearly overlooked something in the upbringing here (and yes, I am a parent too).

3
0
Anonymous Coward

Its Not The Phone Transmitting

Its about not listening to it so you can get situational awareness and listen to the cabin crew's commands should it all go pear shaped on landing.

Of course, the only reason we should insist on this is so he can move out of the way so more deserving passengers can get out!

2
0
Anonymous Coward

re: No danger at all.

You miss the point. It's a safety regulation, obeying safety regulations, and taking instruction from flight crew, is a condition of taking the flight - people don't get to decide if they can be bothered to comply.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

You mean ...

"I don't think iPhones are physically capable of transmitting on the 120+/- MHz band, and they certainly aren't capable of being used as handheld EMP generators."

YOU MEAN -- there isn't an app for that?

GASP!

1
1

Transmitting...

Wouldn't that depend on how the little shi^H^H^H tyke was holding it?

0
0
Silver badge
Grenade

I am, by the way, strongly tempted to launch a website............

...........for the purposes of collecting funds to have a medal struck for our elderly friend

14
0
Thumb Up

i would donate

if you did actually set up such a site then I would be willing to donate some of my time and money in to help in this endeavour... not just for this one particular bloke, but to hand out honours to other individuals who stand up to the feral yoof and get shafted for their efforts....

0
0
WTF?

Be concerned, go to jail

Now that's some logic. A great illustration of why western "civilization" will come to an end rather soonish though. I am 31 and I feel old as hell reading this.

10
1

growup

This old guy deserves a medal,the baby boy needs his bum wiped.What would happen if we all did our own thing when travelling.This old guy did the steward's job.I thought eletronic devises could mess up the planes eletronics.This old guy should be appauded and the smart "A" given some down time.Many of the kids today don't listen because they think they know it all until they fall on their "A s".The old guy gets my vote. 56young from Australia.

10
1
Silver badge
Thumb Up

@56young: I could not agree more mate!

I note that some clearly feel that the kid's "freedom" was being imposed on or that they disagree with the rules about electronic equipment on planes. Well my view on this is that at the age of fifteen you cannot be held _fully_ accountable under the law for your actions. Unless our young "freedom lover" is willing to accept adult responsibility under the law for his actions OR his parents are willing to accept that responsibility (including accepting jail time themselves if he commits an offense that would be mean jail if an adult committed it) then he is NOT entitled to do as he likes. He is not in a position to take the view that the rules about electronic equipment are bollocks AND accept the legal consequences thereafter - he is a child. In fact he appears to be spectacularly spoil t child (high end smart phone at fifteen my arse!).

1
0
Anonymous Coward

How did he miss his face with the punch ?

My teenage nephew has a "high end smart phone". He bought it second hand with money he'd earned himself through hard graft. His parents wouldn't have bought it for him so he went out and earned the money himself. The assumptions being made about him beng spoilt due to owning the phone are therefore baseless.

However, the fact that he ignored the instructions of the cabin crew mean he deserved everything he got. The old guy should've left a mark on his face, not his arm for that one. When I fly I ALWAYS sit on the aisle to ensure that I don't get blocked in by idiots like that in the event of an emergency.

0
0

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.