Sign in / up

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 …

COMMENTS

House rules Send corrections
This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

  1. JDX Gold badge
    Grenade

    Hmm

    Nice to know the masses are in favour of a grown man assaulting A CHILD for acting like A CHILD. That's what CHILDREN do.

    Grabbing the phone and turning it off would be more appropriate, not some attempt to give him a dead arm as you lose your self-control.

    Also... if the phone was in airline mode, what on earth is the problem? Why do I have to turn off an MP3 player or eBook reader for landing, even one which has no networking abilities whatsoever? My watch might have WiFi, but they never ask me to turn it off.

    0 3
    1. Sil_W
      Reply Icon
      Thumb Down

      "Why do I have to..."

      "Nice to know the masses are in favour of a grown man assaulting A CHILD for acting like A CHILD. That's what CHILDREN do."

      What CHILDREN do is act like CHILDREN. What PARENTS should do is *control* their CHILDREN. I see no mention of the parents supervising this CHILD.

      Why're we capitalising CHILD, incidentally?

      "Grabbing the phone and turning it off would be more appropriate, not some attempt to give him a dead arm as you lose your self-control."

      I agree completely. Assault probably wasn't the proportional response here - other commenters have already suggested that letting the crew handle it might have been more appropriate. Nevertheless, this doesn't excuse the selfishness and irresponsibility of the child.

      "Why do I have to turn off an MP3 player or eBook reader for landing, even one which has no networking abilities whatsoever?"

      Because the law requires you to obey the lawful instructions of the crew of the aircraft. It's not your place, as a passenger, to decide whether the law makes sense to you, or whether you feel you should be subject to it. Argue the toss over a parking ticket, by all means. Complain that you should be allowed to chuck litter in the street if you think you should have the right. Either way, you're safely on the ground, and the police officer or parking warden gets paid however much of a song and dance you put on for them. But when you're in that plane, when you're surrounded by lots of other eggs in that one fragile technological basket, then you do as you're damn well told.

      0 0
  2. Chris 211

    Why do you turn your toys off for take off and landing.

    Its nothing to do with aircraft interference. The most dangerous part of flying is landing and take off. Paying attention and being alert to the situation and complying to crew instructions is what is needed if it all goes horribly wrong. If you survive a crash the second most likely reason to die is to be unable to undo your lap belt (and so burning or breathing smoke). In a panic people who haven't listened revert to trying to undo it like a car and start searching down the side of the seat.

    So;

    kid - Should have been beaten to knock some sense in the little shit.

    Mandleson - Should have been strangled at birth.

    Old man - Rewarded.

    4 0
  3. Lawrence Dudley

    Safety during landing

    The turn your devices off on takeoff/approach stuff is actually designed to make you focus on your surroundings, be more aware of what's going on and have a general sense of where abouts the nearest exit is.

    Let's put it this way: If you're wearing headphones, you might not hear the "we're going to crash and we need everyone to evacuate as quickly as possible". It's something that makes perfect sense really if you think about it.

    I hate kids, so I think it's probably fair play that the guy gave him a little slap. Probably deserved it.

    4 0
  4. Anonymous Coward
    Grenade

    Instead of hitting him ...

    I would have spilled some drinks to his iToy "by accident". That ought to do it.

    For Mandelson, I would have made sure the drink is boiling hot.

    1 0
  5. system11
    Unhappy

    They're punishing the wrong person

    Kid got what he deserved, laws are frequently stupid.

    2 0
  6. Lars Silver badge
    Flame

    I feel great sympathy

    I feel great sympathy for Russell Miller, It is quite possible that the poor man had to listen to this

    teenager's music during the whole flight. I could kill for less.

    It is quite astonishing how any music becomes unbearable when the source is somebody's earphones.

    2 0
  7. zen1
    Thumb Up

    defense fund?

    I think we need to start a defense fund for the old dude.

    3 0
  8. Anonymous Coward
    Megaphone

    The arm??

    Endangering lives AND using an Apple product?? The FACE, you punch them in the FACE!!!!!

    4 0
    1. Arctic fox
      Reply Icon
      Happy

      @Ian Emery. You are quite right of course.

      However let us be fair and punish according to the gravity of the respective offenses. Two dozen at the mainmast for endangering other passengers lives. For the truly heinous offense however of using an Apple product I fear that there can be no mercy. The yardarm awaits.

      0 0
  9. Paul Hovnanian Silver badge

    Playing cop

    Far too many people are doing it. Its the job of the crew to enforce the rules, not the passengers.

    What happens when the next passenger over decides to take matters into his own hands over the assault on the teenager? And then a passenger witnesses that act ..... when does it stop?

    If you want your next flight to resemble a barroom brawl in the wild west, leave me out of it.

    1 2
  10. Urh
    Paris Hilton

    If I were the elderly chap...

    ...I would've channeled Stephen Fry's Duke of Wellington in Blackadder the Third, "Nonsense! THAT would've been a hard hit."

    Paris because everybody wants to hit her (literally, not figuratively).

    1 0
  11. iMess
    Flame

    @Joshua

    You sir, are an idiot. Who cares if there is a reason or fact, Federal Law states you have follow instructions of the Air Crew. Don't like it? Find another way to travel.

    Its not difficult to understand.

    3 0
  12. Juan Inamillion
    Flame

    Disproportionate response

    " Police said he faces a jail sentence."

    FFS.

    The snot-nosed little twunt should have been restrained in the seat for disobeying explicit instructions. Never mind whether cell phones or other devices can or cannot affect the plane's systems, the fact is you are REQUIRED to turn them off on take off or landing.

    That is all.

    3 0
  13. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Interesting

    It's interesting to note that many people don't believe that using modern electronic gadgets during critical phases of a flight can cause the loss of control of an aircraft but apparently still comply with this directive because rules are rules.

    It is interesting because many people, probably the same ones, don't believe that driving a modern car at excessive speed can cause the loss of control of a motor vehicle but apparently don't comply with these directives even though laws are laws.

    I call hypocrite on all of you, alternatively next time I see someone speeding I'll punch them out and expect you all to back me up.

    1 3
    1. Svantevid
      Reply Icon

      @Chris W

      "next time I see someone speeding I'll punch them out and expect you all to back me up."

      ---

      Errrm... no. To punch them out, you'll have to catch up with them. Meaning you'll have to drive *faster* than them. In which case, they can punch you out, and I'll back them up.

      Regarding the kid... if he decides to stand up against The Man, he can bloody well do it when he's not endangering the lives of other passengers by zoning out during the landing.

      1 0
    2. Sil_W
      Reply Icon

      Rules

      You make a valid point, particularly in light of the tendency of Reg commenters to be fiercely anti-authoritarian whenever they think a law is unjust or overbearing. That said, I still believe that rules should be obeyed because we humans tend to live in large, dense groups and it's important that we should have defined codes of behaviour. That way we all know what to expect of each other. I do believe that speed limits are sometimes a little lower than they need to be, but it's still important to obey them because that way every other driver on the road has an easier time predicting what others will do.

      As it is, the only safe prediction to make on Britain's roads these days is that everyone else is an arrogant idiot who's actually out to kill you. And that's hardly healthy.

      0 0
  14. Milkfloat

    The reason devices are to be turned off

    is because, you are endangering yourself and others in the event of an emergency. if you are listening to music, playing games etc, you are unable to comply with cabin crew instructions.

    2 0
  15. The Fuzzy Wotnot
    FAIL

    Load of bollocks!

    This kid disobeyed the rules of the airline, therefore he should be prosecuted first! Then take the old boy to court next for losing his temper and decking someone, even if the kid was a first-class arsehole.

    The old-boy who hit him should have had a little more self control, you can't go around lumping everyone who gets on your tits, the hospitals near me would be full if that were the case. However, simply ignoring the fact this kid decided to be an arsehole is wrong. If I decide to do the same thing and ignore the airlines rules, it will only get sorted when someone else attempts to deck me?

    Prison is unlikely for simple "crime" like this, most likely 200 hours of digging weeds in school yards and old folks homes!

    1 0
  16. Alex Masters
    Alert

    Who - me?

    The issue is people who don't understand why certain rules exist using their own judgement as to whether they should apply to them or not, based on their own selfish needs and wants.

    Mobile phones can interfere with communications and with aircraft navigation systems - it has been proven that mobiles can cause changes to the indicated heading. Needless to say this could be very hazardous.

    The best reason for not using your mp3 player is to ensure that you maintain situational awareness and are ready to react to instructions in an emergency.

    1 0
  17. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Bad parenting

    Both the kid and his parents should have been slapped and reprimanded. The entitled generation is very confused. If travelers are not willing to follow the rules, stay home. Nobody should have to deal with A-Holes who have no respect for the rules.

    1 0
  18. JaitcH
    Stop

    They have the answer in mainland China

    I was on a Chinese carrier recently and there were several instructions in English and Chinese that all 'electronics' should be switched off.

    The Chinese are worst than most at using cell's everywhere.

    The cabin crew simply walked down the aisles starting at the front of economy literally seizing cell phones that were in use from the hands of the offending passengers. They didn't collect too many as other passengers saw what was happening and quickly put their phones away.

    After landing further announcements were made advising all passengers who 'lost their hand phones' should wait in their seats and could pick them up when others had disembarked.

    In China No! means No!

    3 0
  19. kain preacher

    @prison

    "Are they serious? A jail sentence? Honestly, the US is just a mad country.

    Don't tell me, if he does get a custodial sentence it will only be 25 years -- 'so you can think on what you did to that young dude.'

    Honestly. And they call themselves civilised!

    "

    Explain to me how he could get 25 years when the max he can get is six months in jail and $1000 fine. Who is to say the prosecutor will follow through.

    0 0
  20. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Looking at it from an old guy's point of view

    I've flown a lot. I'm a retired pilot. And one of the last things I'd want is having my escape route blocked by some insolent little shit who can't hear the flight crew's instructions and can't move because his phone flew out of his hand during impact, leaving him with a yard of electrical cable around his neck.

    3 0
  21. Anonymous Coward
    Thumb Down

    See, its like this ...

    All mobiles adjust their output according to how far they think they are from the nearest cell.

    Normally, in a high signal area the output is around 50-200 milliwatts. If there is a poor signal (or none) they can quite capably pump out up to around 5 watts or RF. That's a potential hazard to avionics (also the reason your mobile goes flat in a subterranean pub with no signal). Its colloquially called "hunting".

    3-5 watts of RF at microwave frequencies is quite a lot of power and can easily generate eddy currents and sparking in metal work nearby. It can also swamp even shielded components with surges of ultra high-frequency currents via wiring through inductance (although most modern planes use fiber-optic cables to send data around).

    These regulations ARE there for a good reason. I'd have punched the little fucker as well except it wouldn't have been his arm I'd have been aiming for.

    1 0
  22. Anonymous Coward
    Unhappy

    Ageist creeps

    1. I suppose all of you who are so rude/dismissive of Miller will not reach his age, you are certainly too dim and rude to deserve to; I look forward to reading about your end in the Darwin awards. Perhaps you need to bring your knowledge of people, age and manners up to date. Then again, perhaps you are just 15 yourselves and think that anyone over 30 has got one foot in the grave. That could explain why, as any adolescent, you think your opinion of risk outweighs all else.

    2. A 15 year old is generally too immature to understand many things rationally or logically.

    3. A 15 year old can be a large, heavy creature capable of being physically rather difficult to handle. Some of you seem to imagine all 15 year olds are harmless, small children. American 15 year olds can be gigantic.

    4. A bruise on his arm? Even a firm grasp can leave a mark. I do not condone assault. Why did he not call a steward/stewardess? However, he got cross or thought he could get the silly blighter's attention more quickly and here we are.

    5. Even an American can not believe seriously that prison, nor even a substantial fine, is reasonable for a minor, possibly first time assault. In a normal country, a caution from the police would suffice, if they were even involved. Worst case, a caution from a magistrate. But then we are talking of a country that sentences people to 150 years in prison.

    0 0
  23. Mahou Saru

    Wow electronic devices so dangerous...

    All those terrorists trying to sneak bombs onto a plane got it all wrong, all they need to do is turn on their phones...

    0 0
  24. WindyChat_com
    Pirate

    "Maybe I overreacted. What’s done is done,”

    What a god

    0 1
  25. Thorfkin

    @US Law In Contradiction

    @US Law In Contradiction

    It may appear to be in contradiction but it is actually not. The law states that if you attack someone, you can be charged with assault. The law does not say that you will be prosecuted, only that you can be prosecuted. In cases where an individual's life is in immediate danger, the judge will usually make an exception in regards to prosecution. If someone tries to kill you, and you shoot and kill them in defense, you are still guilty of aggravated assault and manslaughter. You CAN be sent to prison for defending your own life. However the system will usually choose not to prosecute you under the grounds that your life was in immediate danger and that your response was justified. This information is emphasized in most concealed weapons courses. The officer who taught mine was very specific on this matter. If you choose to defend your own life, you have to be absolutely sure you have no other choice in the matter. And that's really the issue here as far as the law is concerned. Can you walk away? Well if a lunatic is chasing after you with an axe then. . .

    Look at the old man's situation. Did he really have to strike the kid to get him to shut off his phone? Was his life in immediate danger? He could probably argue before the judge that he was convinced it was but the judge probably won't accept that as justification. He chose to commit assault and it is unlikely that the judge will consider his actions to be justified. Couldn't the old man have simply pointed the kid out to a flight attendant?

    When that would-be terrorist was trying to light his shoe on fire the matter was different. It was obvious to the surrounding passengers that something untoward was afoot (Sorry for the bad pun BTW). The terrorist's actions put their lives in immediate danger and being stuck in a plane there was no possibility of escape. Their actions were justified. The old man's weren't.

    Not that I like the situation. I personally think the kid deserved a good walloping and if it were my choice I'd let the gent who hit him walk free. I do hope the airline decides to prosecute the kid's parents for his violation of federal law. Maybe just enough to get the parents to properly discipline their child.

    0 0
  26. T J
    WTF?

    People are snitches

    Why on EARTH did the other passengers dob him in?? What is the world coming too when an idiot teen, ENDANGERING A PLANE, can't get a thick ear???

    0 0
  27. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Why hit the boy...

    ... when it would have hurt him so much more to grab his "U-Suck" and fling it down the isle.

    Now the brat is probably awarded repairs and the honest but impulsive citizen goes in.

    Dumb, dumb...

    0 0
  28. Azrael
    Unhappy

    You guys really don't see the problem with hitting other people?

    Wait, what?

    OK, I'm all for being respectful to the flight crew, and obeying instructions. But so many people are congratulating the guy that threw a punch? Mr Miller became angry - how did he respond? Did he ask the kid to stop? Did he point out that the flight attendants had told him not to? Did he call a flight attendant, and point out the kid was still using the phone? All valid options. Or did he swing his fists.

    The fact that the guy is old, and was hitting a presumably-stronger-than-him teenager has nothing to do with it. The fact that the teenager was disobeying instructions has nothing to do with it. If I'm travelling on an airplane, I do NOT have the right to punch another traveller, even if I feel justifiably angry. Even if they aren't obeying the instructions. If the kid needs a punch, there should be an air marshal on the plane that the flight attendants can call over.

    0 0
  29. Anteaus
    FAIL

    Law supporting crime, as usual..

    "Listen-up guys, you know that dare the gang leader gave me, to refuse to turn off my iPod when the plane landed, well, I not only did it, and got away with it, but I a guy who tried to stop me got put IN JAIL! And, it's all over the papers! HAHAHAHAHAH!!!

    With that one, I'm now the gang leader's second. OH yeah Baby, I IS DA MAN!!!

    Grab your spraycans guys, It's time for a spot of territory-marking. Meanwhile, Stinker and Pusface, you two go to the off-licence and steal tonight's booze"

    0 0
  30. Swiss
    Grenade

    WHY?..

    .. is it the rule breakers always get away with it and the citizen trying to enforce the rules gets the punishment!

    Apparently in the UK it is illegal to beat the crap out of anyone breaking into your house to steal your hard earned property or worse, if you do you get sent to jail and the crim gets a hefty compensation pay out.

    OK the circumstances here are a little different, but he broke the rules, the pensioner "may" have over reacted but was provoked. Give him a medal, don't punish him.

    If the steward had done thier job properly or the parent(s) had done theirs, there wouldn't have been an issue.

    Me, I would have slammed the little shits head into the seat in front of him until his ears bled, but then sometimes I tend to over react too.

    Too all you others that have posted well reasoned and well made points about spoilt kids, shouldn't do this that and the other, well done, try sitting next to one on an eight hour flight ;-)

    0 0
    1. Sil_W
      Reply Icon
      Stop

      Accountability

      "...the citizen trying to enforce the rules gets the punishment!"

      Because while we have a citizen-based police force, the unsworn citizen is unaccountable and therefore has limited authority to "enforce the rules". If s/he chooses to try, especially through violence, then s/he must be prepared to go to court and justify the action. The court will decide whether the 'enforcement' was warranted and proportional.

      "Apparently in the UK it is illegal to beat the crap out of anyone breaking into your house to steal your hard earned property or worse"

      Taken literally, this is true - but only because you've used the term "beat the crap out of".

      Otherwise, the notion that it's somehow illegal to defend yourself in Britain is absolute Daily Mail fearmongering nonsense designed to make people feel besieged even in their homes. No-one ever seems to bother questioning where this daft idea comes from, they just yammer it around the place with the authority of a pub lawyer.

      If you find someone breaking into your house in the UK you are permitted by law to take whatever action is necessary to prevent harm to yourself; you are also entitled to take action to defend your property. You may choose to effect an arrest. However - this is the caveat - any use of force by you against an intruder will, again, have to be justified before a court. As long as your response was proportional - which is to say you used sufficient force to defend yourself, prevent the offence or detain the offender and *no more* - then you're very likely to walk free. The expectation of proportionality is not unreasonable in a supposedly civilised country.

      Bear in mind as well that changes in emphasis in recent years mean that courts are obliged to recognise a homeowner's state of mind when confronted by an offender, meaning that if the homeowner reacts out of fear, then excessive force may be overlooked - but don't rely on this as an excuse to "beat the crap" out of someone and expect to get away with it.

      (By the way, you're not *advised* to try to detain the offender - but this is more for your safety than because of his 'human rights', or somesuch. Technically if you take action to detain the offender you've gone beyond self-defence by definition, so there are potential legal issues here, and you're more likely to be pulled up on a technicality. You'd also likely lose any 'state of mind' justification, because if you're trying to arrest the burglar you're clearly not that scared of him.)

      "if you do you get sent to jail and the crim gets a hefty compensation pay out."

      Not normally. If you use disproportionate force to deter or apprehend an offender then yes, of course you may get sent to jail - but don't we demand the police be held to the same standards? Aren't we quick to bellow about police brutality if it's considered they use more force than was strictly necessary? How many anti-police rants have there been on El Reg on this very subject? The same law governs us all, doesn't it?

      As for compensation, unless it's ordered otherwise a burglar has as much right as anyone else to try to sue if he thinks it'll get anywhere - but I'm struggling to find any cases in Britain where such a claim has succeeded. Yet you give the impression it happens a lot. Can you cite such a case?

      0 0
  31. Dave 15

    Amazes me...

    The government (here and in the USA) claim they need to spy on people, lock them up without trial, stop them opening bank accounts, paying money from one account to the other, spy on their internet, search them randomly in the street and arrest them to 'keep people safe from a terrorist attack' which 'might' hurt a few people....

    A pensioner taps (maybe a little forcefully) and ignorant teenage idiot who ignores safety advice that 'might' (and actually I don't believe it would - but thats not the point) cause a plane to get the landing wrong and kill a few hundred passengers and he is arrested and charged, probably jailed for assault and battery (as if he had wandered down the street and chucked a punch at the first person that took his fancy)....

    Doesn't anyone see how damned stupid this is?

    0 0
  32. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Self Defence..

    We really need some clear guidance to people in the UK, so we know what to do in an event of a crime, where we are allowed to arrest someone (i.e. what is considered an arrestable offence?).

    Personally if someone broke into my home, or was endangering me or my family on purpose, I would use any means necessary to stop them, erring on the side of caution!

    0 0

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like