Page 1 of 3

Has Gob Posted This One Yet?

Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2011 7:31 pm
by Joe Guy
(I'd like to read everyone's opinion on this issue)

Reasoning for SFO sagging-pants arrest debated

Justin Berton, Chronicle Staff Writer

Friday, June 17, 2011

SAN FRANCISCO -- As prosecutors mulled whether to file charges against a college football player who allegedly refused to pull up his sagging pants at San Francisco International Airport, the outside world seized the incident to debate broader questions about respect, fashion policies and racial stereotyping.

Deshon Marman, 20, a defensive player for the University of New Mexico and graduate of Lincoln High in San Francisco, was arrested and removed from US Airways flight 488 Wednesday after police said he ignored an airline employee's request to pull up sweatpants that exposed his underwear below the buttocks.

He was jailed for a day in San Mateo County on suspicion of trespassing, battery and resisting arrest before being released on $11,000 bail Thursday. Sheriff's deputies said there was also an outstanding warrant for Marman from Santa Clara County on a marijuana possession charge.

San Francisco police, who took Marman off the plane, said he had refused the pilot's orders and had taken 15 minutes to leave. His family disputed that, saying Marman had pulled up his pants after boarding the plane and thought the problem had been solved after a visit from the pilot.

Instead, the pilot made a citizen's arrest and passengers were forced to deplane, causing an hour and half delay before the jet took off for Phoenix and Albuquerque.
Looked like a thug?

Ranon Ross, who coached Marman on youth teams and is president of the Brown Bombers, a football league in the Bayview, noted that Marman is African American and wears his hair in dreadlocks. He figures the airline employee who told him to hitch up his pants pegged him for a thug.

"How did the request come across?" Ross said. "Was he ordered to do it? Was he asked? Was he threatened? He had a legal right to be there. Knowing Deshon, he probably took issue at how someone came at him, and it escalated from there."

Ross added that Marman held a 3.0 grade point average through high school and City College of San Francisco and that his older brother, John Marman, received an academic and athletic scholarship to West Point.

"Sometimes, when we talk about kids who come out of the Bayview and are trying to make their way out, we're talking about kids who don't have a lot of hope and there's a lot of despair," Ross said. "Deshon Marman is not one of those kids."
Fashion statement

Marman was returning to New Mexico one day after attending the funeral of his best friend and former high school football standout, David Henderson, who was shot May 26 on Kirkwood Avenue and died 11 days later.

Paris Carthen, 47, who coached Marman and Henderson during their Pop Warner years, said sagging pants are a youth fashion statement that wouldn't have caused a fuss at the airport if the right young man had been wearing them.

"If he was a rich and famous rapper wearing his pants that way, the employee probably would have run to him and asked for his autograph," Carthen said. "But because he's not famous, they make assumptions."

Andrew Christie, a spokesman for US Airways, said employees had the discretion to decide whether boarding passengers are wearing clothes that ensure "the safety and the comfort" of other passengers.

It may have been Marman's clothing that set things off, but Christie emphasized that it was his behavior that got him arrested.

"It's an important distinction to note that (Marman) was not removed from the plane due to what he was wearing," Christie said. "It was for the fact that he was not following crew member's instructions."
Different looks

The issue of whether Marman should have been asked to pull up his pants in the first place was the greater concern for others.

Jake Tommerup, 57, of Phoenix, who was aboard flight 488, said he had been annoyed by the hour-and-a-half delay. But he also said he was stunned by US Airways' reaction to what, in Tommerup's mind, amounted to little more than a questionable fashion choice.

"When I get on a plane and see a 13-year-old girl with her whale tail" - exposed G-string underwear - "and fat old white guys with plumber's crack sitting down, and middle-aged ladies in halter tops and tons of cleavage - if you're not going to kick those people off the plane or ask them to cover up, then let's admit the hypocrisy."

source

Re: Has Gob Posted This One Yet?

Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2011 9:09 pm
by Andrew D
"The 'safety and comfort' of other passengers"?

What's that about?

A new "safety and comfort" policy from US Airways -- "we keep the niggers away from you"?

Re: Has Gob Posted This One Yet?

Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2011 10:41 pm
by Gob
And where does good taste enter into this?

I don't want to see some big hairy black/white/ginger arse when I'm flying.

Re: Has Gob Posted This One Yet?

Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2011 11:01 pm
by Andrew D
But should "I don't want to see ..." be a principle on which we base restrictions on behavior? Many people do not want to see an open pit where a nose should be. Should we prohibit the disfigured from boarding airplanes?

I am not suggesting that your answer to that question would be "yes". I would be shocked if it were.

The point is that if we start allowing people's preferences (or sensibilities or however one wishes to put it) to dictate what is permissible behavior, we abandon the realm of principle altogether. We end up with rules which exist simply because the number of people in favor of them exceeds the number of people opposed to them.

One can say, of course, that that is democracy. And at least literally speaking, it is.

But literally speaking, in a democracy, no one has any rights. People are allowed to do whatever the majority say they can do, but they have no right to do those things; the majority could change its collective mind ten minutes from now.

So although one could call such an arrangement a democracy, political theorists have for centuries used for it a term far more apt: the tyranny of the majority.

Re: Has Gob Posted This One Yet?

Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2011 11:08 pm
by Gob
Andrew D wrote:But should "I don't want to see ..." be a principle on which we base restrictions on behavior?
Good call, and I would argue where a service provider has some choice, and duty to their customers, then the right to define worthy dress should rest with them.

Re: Has Gob Posted This One Yet?

Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2011 11:12 pm
by Gob
another example;
A London school's ban of the cornrows hairstyle resulted in "unlawful, indirect racial discrimination", the High Court has ruled.

Mr Justice Collins said the ban by St Gregory's Catholic Science College in Harrow was not unlawful in itself, but should have taken into account individual pupils' family traditions.

A 13-year-old boy, "SG", was refused a place because of the hairstyle.

The school said it was "naturally disappointed" and may try to appeal.

"St Gregory's is proud of its rich cultural and ethnic diversity and is run on the belief that everyone at the school is equal and made in the image of God," it said in a statement.


SG's African-Caribbean family claimed the style was of importance to his cultural identity.

Analysis by Dominic Casciani, BBC News home affairs correspondent

This judgement is an important development. It echoes some of the defining moments in British race relations, such as Sikh bus conductors' 1970s battle to wear turbans.

The issue at the heart of the ruling is not explicit religious or racial rights - but the broader and more subjective question of what is culturally conventional.

The boy said he was left asking what was "wrong" with the only hairstyle he had ever known, something he regarded as part of his core identity and family traditions.

So although the school never intended to discriminate, the High Court said it did so indirectly.

Schools want their pupils to regard each other as equals, rather than as distinct groups, living parallel - but separate - lives.

But St Gregory's attempts to confront that multicultural challenge, by minimising differences in appearance, inadvertently rubbed up against the law: they wanted to ensure equality - but one pupil lost out as a result.
He was refused entry to St Gregory's as an 11-year-old on his first day in 2009 because he had the cornrows style - with hair braided, close along the scalp.

He was forced to attend another school. He does not wish to return to St Gregory's despite the outcome of the case.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-13803106

Re: Has Gob Posted This One Yet?

Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2011 11:42 pm
by Andrew D
Gob wrote:
Andrew D wrote:But should "I don't want to see ..." be a principle on which we base restrictions on behavior?
Good call, and I would argue where a service provider has some choice, and duty to their customers, then the right to define worthy dress should rest with them.
Well, maybe US Airways made clear before the guy purchased his ticket exactly what its dress code was. Maybe US Airways offered him an immediate and total refund of what he had paid. Maybe US Airways has a leg to stand on.

Re: Has Gob Posted This One Yet?

Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2011 11:44 pm
by Gob
I'd be happy with that, if an airways stated on their ticket purchase site that passengers were expected to dress in a certain way (within reason) I could either choose to conform, or go elsewhere.

Re: Has Gob Posted This One Yet?

Posted: Sat Jun 18, 2011 10:48 am
by Lord Jim
San Francisco police, who took Marman off the plane, said he had refused the pilot's orders and had taken 15 minutes to leave. His family disputed that, saying Marman had pulled up his pants after boarding the plane and thought the problem had been solved after a visit from the pilot.

Instead, the pilot made a citizen's arrest and passengers were forced to deplane, causing an hour and half delay before the jet took off for Phoenix and Albuquerque.
It seems there are a number of facts in dispute here; (though personally I would tend towards the pilot's account since he wouldn't seem to have a whole lot of reason to create an incident like this) presumably there should be enough witnesses involved in the whole sequence of events to get a reasonably accurate picture of what transpired.

I also wonder if the police tested Mr. Marman for drugs and alcohol in his system after he was arrested. Excessive alcohol consumption frequently turns out to be the root cause of belligerent airline passenger behavior in situations like this.

Re: Has Gob Posted This One Yet?

Posted: Sat Jun 18, 2011 5:06 pm
by loCAtek
Cool I just so happen to have an online boarding pass, which reads;

Southwest Airlines Notice of Incorporated Terms
Air transportation by Southwest Airlines is subject to Southwest Airlines' Passenger Contract of Carriage, the terms of which are incorporated by reference. Incorporated terms include but are not limited to: (1) Limits on liability for loss, damage to, or delayed delivery of passenger baggage, including fragile, perishable, and certain other irreplaceable and/or high value goods or contents, as specified in the Contract of Carriage. Baggage liability for covered items (except disability assistive devices) is limited to $3,300.00 per fare paying Customer. (2) Claims restrictions, including timeperiods in which Customers must file a claim or bring an action against Southwest. (3) Our rights to change terms of the Contract. (4) Rules on reservations, checkin times, refusal to carry, and smoking. (5) Our rights and limits of liability for delay or failure to perform service, including schedule changes, substitution of alternate air carriers or aircraft, and rerouting. (6) Overbooking: If we deny you boarding due to an oversale and you have obtained your boarding pass and are present and available for boarding in the departure gate area at least ten minutes before scheduled departure, with few exceptions, we compensate you.

You may inspect Southwest's Contract of Carriage and Customer Service Commitment at any Southwest ticket counter or online at southwest.com, or obtain a copy by sending a request to: Southwest Airlines, V.P. Customer Relations, PO Box 36647, Dallas, TX 75235-1647.
Opening the link to Contract of Carriage;
6. Acceptance of Passengers

a. Refusal to Transport

General. Carrier may, in its sole discretion, refuse to transport, or may remove from an aircraft at any point, any Passenger in any of the circumstances listed below. The fare of any Passenger denied transportation or removed from Carrier’s aircraft en route under the provisions of this Article will be refunded in accordance with Article 9 of this Contract of Carriage. The sole recourse of any Passenger refused transportation or removed en route will be the recovery of the refund value of the unused portion of his Ticket. Under no circumstances shall Carrier be liable to any Passenger for any type of special, incidental, or consequential damages.


...

(4) Interference with Flight Crew. Passengers who interfere or attempt to interfere with any member of the flight crew in carrying out its duties.

...

(8) Comfort and Safety. Carrier may refuse to transport, or remove from the aircraft at any point, any Passenger in any of the circumstances listed below as may be necessary for the comfort or safety of such Passenger or other Passengers and crew members:
(i) Persons whose conduct is or has been known to be disorderly, abusive, offensive, threatening, intimidating, violent, or whose clothing is lewd, obscene, or patently offensive.

We cam safely assume that US Airways has a similar contract.

Re: Has Gob Posted This One Yet?

Posted: Sat Jun 18, 2011 5:18 pm
by Andrew D
... or whose clothing is lewd, obscene, or patently offensive ....
This guy's clothing allegedly "exposed his underwear below the buttocks". (Emphasis added.)

It did not, as far as we can tell, expose any of his naked flesh. (Beyond what is entirely ordinary; short pants expose one's kneecaps, but I hope that I am safe in presuming that we all agree that exposed kneecaps are not a sufficient ground for refusing to allow someone to ride in an airplane.)

This was not "some big hairy black/white/ginger arse". This was not anyone's arse at all.

This was someone's undergarment.

That's the "lewd, obscene, or patently offensive" garb that got him arrested?

Re: Has Gob Posted This One Yet?

Posted: Sat Jun 18, 2011 6:11 pm
by rubato
Would this be any different if his fly was open? As long as only his underwear showed? Say he was wearing black pants and red underwear which would draw even more attention to it? Would it be more objectionable if his underwear had flames on it? How about if there was an audio speaker 'down there' that periodically said things like: "free at last, free at last thank god almighty I'm free at last"? How about if it recited Pushkin?



Aleksandr Pushkin
"I am in Chains..."
1824
"
I am in chains, O maiden-rose,
And yet, not shameful of these guards;
A nightingale, thus, – in dense laurels –
A feathered king of the woods’ bards,
A proud and charming rose over,
In a sweet bondage – lives for long
And softly sings for her a song
Under a sensual night’s cover."

I could go on, LEDs, flexible display screens, shiny mylar christmas wrapping, sequins, nothing crude mind you.

yrs,
rubato

Re: Has Gob Posted This One Yet?

Posted: Sat Jun 18, 2011 11:27 pm
by Gob
Video on this page.

My stand on this is that airways have the right to define what they consider acceptable wear on their aircraft, and the right to enforce that.

We can argue all day for the right to walk naked onto a plane with a visible erection and a butt plug, but that is not how the world works.

Re: Has Gob Posted This One Yet?

Posted: Sun Jun 19, 2011 12:09 am
by rubato
Boooooring

Re: Has Gob Posted This One Yet?

Posted: Sun Jun 19, 2011 12:45 am
by loCAtek
I seem to recall a similar thread on this board that found 'nightwear', similar to underwear, inapproproate public attire.

viewtopic.php?f=11&t=2838&p=37747&hilit ... ear#p37747

Re: Has Gob Posted This One Yet?

Posted: Sun Jun 19, 2011 2:21 am
by Andrew D
Notice that the guy was sitting in his seat.

Who was being confronted with the sight -- oh the horror! -- of his underwear?

No one.

Notice how politely he addressed the thugs confronting him. "Sir," "sir," "sir" all the way through.

Watch the video.

Try to figure out why he was even being confronted in the first place.

Do you see anyone naked? Or with a visible erection? Or with a butt plug?

I don't.

I see a guy sitting in his seat on an airplane minding his own business being confronted by a couple of thugs who think that they are God's ordained fashion police.

That kind of work is not my area, but I hope that this blossoms into a nice, fat, juicy lawsuit.

Re: Has Gob Posted This One Yet?

Posted: Sun Jun 19, 2011 2:26 am
by Gob
I agree Andrew.

Re: Has Gob Posted This One Yet?

Posted: Sun Jun 19, 2011 2:32 am
by loCAtek
While you both ignore the publicly posted contract...

Re: Has Gob Posted This One Yet?

Posted: Sun Jun 19, 2011 2:42 am
by Sean
Don't pout...

You shouldn't be surprised if people skip over your posts.

Re: Has Gob Posted This One Yet?

Posted: Sun Jun 19, 2011 2:47 am
by Gob
You know what, I'm going to be honest and admit that she has a point, (if only she could do the same when confronted with the multiple disapproval of her "points")

If the airway has;
(i) Persons whose conduct is or has been known to be disorderly, abusive, offensive, threatening, intimidating, violent, or whose clothing is lewd, obscene, or patently offensive.
as a clause of travel, then they can exercise their rights as it is a contract of service.

Did they exercise this in a way that shows good judgement? I think not.

Will they be taken to task for it? I hope so.

Can we extrapolate further from this? Only in cases with marked similarity.