Women arrested at airport found dead - police claim no taser or pepper spray was used.

[shance]

Choked on handcuffs???

Are they laughing at the public when they write this stuff?


Woman arrested at airport found dead
Passenger angered by missed flight may have choked on handcuffs
The Associated Press
Updated: 9:13 p.m. PT Sept 29, 2007

PHOENIX - A woman late to her plane became irate, was put in handcuffs and was later found dead in a holding cell, police said.

Authorities were investigating Saturday if the woman choked herself while trying to get free from the handcuffs.

Carol Ann Gotbaum, 45, of New York, was arrested Friday at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport after a conflict with gate crews who refused to allow her to board a plane, said Sgt. Andy Hill, a Phoenix police spokesman.

The airline said the plane was already preparing to depart. She was rebooked on the next flight, but “she became extremely irate, apparently running up and down the gate area,” US Airways spokesman Derek Hanna said Saturday.

Officers handcuffed her and took her to the holding room, where she kept screaming, authorities said. Hill said officers checked on her when she stopped screaming and found her unresponsive.

Hill said it appears Gotbaum may have tried to get out of her handcuffs, became tangled in the process and the cuffs ended up around her neck. A cause of death will be determined by the Maricopa County Medical Examiner.

“She was very agitated and irate and angry,” Hill said. “These are the things that led to the disorderly conduct arrest.”

Authorities said neither a Taser nor pepper spray was used on the woman.

© 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21054442/

[scarletwoman]

1. Well, at least she didn't commit suicide by shooting herself in the back of the head. (nt)

[renie408]

2. She strangled herself with her own handcuffs?

How in the hell would you do that? How long are handcuffs, anyway?

[bahrbearian]

3. The New ones built from Piano Wire can be up to 2 feet. long

:sarcasm:

[panader0]

5. I've been handcuffed a few times

and I believe that it would be impossible to strangle yourself with cuffs.

[LostinVA]

40. The chain is VERY SHORT, to prevent mobility

Unless these airport cops use those special sex cuffs with a longer chain.

[krispos42]

67. About two links of chain betweent the cuffs...

Assuming there are chains at all.

These are made by Smith & Wesson...







Unless she whad leg irons on her wrists, I don't see how this could happen.

Even if she was cuffed behind her back, how would she get the cuffs up to her neck? Dislocating both shoulders and rotating her arms upwards!?!?!?

[Bluebear]

4. 'and the cuffs ended up around her neck'

:wtf:

[Warren Stupidity]

6. Allende shot himself in the back repeatedly.

Stranger things have happened.

[Buzz Clik]

15. And George Jackson was shot in the back in a prison by a guard...

... who was aware that he was "hiding a gun in his Afro."

Hey, shit happens. Right?

[HCE SuiGeneris]

33. Laughing and crying at the same time.

Well put.

[Coyote_Bandit]

7. What the hell?

So now it is illegal to get angry in public? And to run in an airport?

I've run through an airport before. Last time it happened I had less than ten minutes to change terminals and go from one end of the airport to the other to board my connecting flight. Happened after the plane had sat on the tarmac for about an hour without allowing passengers to disembark. No apparent reason for that. You bet I'd have been pissed if I had missed that connecting flight. Guess I'm lucky I wasn't arrested. I might be dead now too.

Yet another reason to avoid air travel.

[Kelly Rupert]

10. Actually, yes, it is illegal to run around screaming,

because you're angry you got bumped. The police are indeed allowed to detain you for that.

[Buzz Clik]

16. ... and they can detain you for no reason at all.

They can dump all your belongings on the floor, take off most of your clothes, toss you off of flights, prevent you from checking in, frisk your toddler, frisk your grandma, take your stuff that is "on the list" of stuff you don't take on planes, threaten you for saying anything at all.

I know I feel safer.

[Kelly Rupert]

17. It seems you're lumping the TSA, police, and airlines into one "they."

[Buzz Clik]

20. All of their current authority is derived from the same legislation.

Yeah, it's one big They.

[Kelly Rupert]

24. Airlines think most of the TSA rules are bullshit.

They don't appreciate getting even angrier, more harried passengers; it's bad for business. It's not like they're all working together, plotting against their customer base.

The TSA are a bunch of low-wage part-timers given a pointless job by pandering politicians. The airlines are comprised of employees who want to see each day go through in as smooth a fashion as possible; conflict of any sort gives most of them headaches. The police are police. All three have a common dislike for people who throw loud, angry fits, but other than that, they're not "in it together."

[Buzz Clik]

29. Fair enough. We'll leave the airlines out ... for the most part. Some exceptions.

[TheFriendlyAnarchist]

38. When I was 12, they had me in my undershirt with no socks and no belt.

I swear to God if they ever tried to strip search me I would give them the browneye.

[Coyote_Bandit]

21. What's the crime?

Hurrying to catch a flight because the f*cking plane sat on the tarmac for an hour making it nearly impossible to catch the only connecting flight of the day? Or being angry because of circumstances completely beyond one's own control?

The woman was late - and was unable to board her flight even though it had apparently not yet departed. Why was she late? It is a question that needs to be asked. Was she trying to make a connecting flight like I was? Had she just disembarked from a plane that had sat on the tarmac for over an hour after landing? The article doesn't say. And, yes, it is relevant.

I guaran-damn-tee you that had I been arrested I would have filed suit against a whole bunch of folks. Cops, airline, flight personnel and pilots, airport personnel, air traffic controllers, and even the travel agent that booked the damn flight. It is a breach of contract to sell a service you sre unable or unwilling to fulfill.

Being in a hurry isn't a crime and doesn't give rise to liability unless one injures another. Being angry does not constitute criminal intent. Being rude and offensive isn't a crime either. And there is no indication that the woman threatened violence against anyone.

Are we going to start arresting folks for passing gas too?

[Kelly Rupert]

22. Disorderly conduct.

She was not arrested because she was running to her flight. She was arrested because after she was told she couldn't board she started running around screaming, which will get you detained, yes. That is disorderly conduct.

Getting bumped from a flight is not a breach of contract. It is covered in the long list of legalese the airlines provide with purchase of a ticket. Every year airlines get sued several times for being bumped or refused boarding; each time the courts just reject it out of hand, in the same way they would if you tried to sue them for the Kennedy assassination or for showing a movie you had already seen.

Being in a hurry isn't a crime, no--but the offending conduct occurred after she had already arrived at the gate and been told that the doors had closed, and was offered a seat on the next flight. And no matter how angry you are, running around screaming like a child is disorderly conduct, and will get you a time-out and a fine.

[Coyote_Bandit]

30. "Disorderly Conduct"

Sounds a lot like the vagrancy statutes that have been struck down repeatedly as being unconstitutionally vague. What exactly is "disorderly" and who decides what it means? It isn't clear and that is a problem. Or at least to legal scholars it is. Farting could just as easily constitute disorderly conduct - it is after all disruptive, offensive and rude. Never mind the fact that any arrest can be challenged if the law on which the arrest is based is inconsistently enforced.

And, oh yes, there is an issue about breach of contract. It is becoming increasingly common for the frickin plane to sit ont on the tarmac for an hour after landing without allowing passengers to disembark - and causing them to miss connecting flights. Why? Most often the issue isn't weather or security. Problem is our airports don't have the capacity to service scheduled flights in a timely manner. That makes selling those tickets fraudulent and failing to honor the service contracted for a breach of contract.

Suppose I owned a luxury hotel in a resort area and decided to turn it into a time share. I have 100 units but physical access is available to accommodate only 80 units at given time. I know that statistically (1) not everyone will use their time share during any given time period (assume 20% don't use that time share during any single time period) and (2) folks keep varying hours and even when booked not all units are likely to be simultaneously occupied (assume 20% are absent from their unit at any given time). So what do I do? I sell 120 time share units. That is exactly what is happening with air travel. Airlines intentionally overbook flights. Airports intentionally schedule more arrivals and departures during peak travel times than the airport is physically capable of handling. Yeah it's fraud. Ask televangelist Jim Bakker. Overselling time share units is the reason he spent several years in prison. But it is okay for the airlines/airports to do the same f*cking thing. Why? Because Uncle Sam says so.

The legal theory of contract rests on the premise that the two contracting parties are engaging in an arms length transaction and theoretically each has equal bargaining power. When that is not true, in legal theory, the stronger party has an obligation not to exploit or take advantage of the weaker party. Just because somebody has some fine print doesn't mean it is enforceable. And liability cannot be released before it is incurred. Go study the common law.

Of course, anyone that thinks the legal system has anything to do with justice is completely ignorant. Unfortunately, that is nothing new. Justice is not blind. Never has been. The protections of the legal system are largely inaccessible to the poor and working class because they do not have the resources to protect their interests.

[renie408]

32. This is another thing like the Andrew Meyers thing.

Look, I feel sure that woman didn't choke herself with her own handcuffs. Not unless what she was late for was her job at the Cirque de Soleil where she works as a contortionist. But that doesn't ameliorate her behavior.

What do YOU suppose should be done about people who run screaming up and down a concourse? Or who refuse to leave a microphone and stand there and scream when asked to step down? Ignore them? And if we start ignoring it, how much more common is it going to become? Cause, hey, I have a foul temper. If it is going to be OK to throw fits in public and disrupt everyone's day, the next time somebody gets in the Express Lane with more than twelve items...IT'S ON!!!

There has to be some order in society for things to work. If you are trying to say that the airlines screwing up her flight excuses her behavior, where do YOU draw the line? It is OK to create a scene and behave uncontrollably if....what? Somebody cuts you off in traffic making you late for work? Somebody cuts in front of you in line? What if you are just in a hurry and want to jump to the front of the line...is that OK?

People can't just do whatever they feel like because some people feel like doing some pretty crazy shit.

[Coyote_Bandit]

43. You are suggesting that it is ok

for some "authority" to determine what is an is not acceptable behavior.

I am suggesting that any law that prohibits behavior ought to be specific enough for me to know what is and is not prohibited. There needs to be an objective standard. If you want to say that it is not acceptable to run in an airport then fine. Nobody can run to catch a plane. Kids can't run. Folks can't run to meet and greet loved ones. If you want to say that it is not acceptable to scream in an airport then that should include all forms for loud vocalization whether they be happy or angry. If you don't like the fact that somebody just cursed a blue streak because they were angry then that smacks of censorship.

[renie408]

50. Yes, all running in airports must cease immediately and people are only

allowed to utter the words I deem acceptable. Naturally, that is the only conclusion that any intelligent person would draw from my post.

It is obvious that running around an airport gate area screaming angrily is totally acceptable. Now that you have explained that to me, I am simply amazed that anyone even noticed, much less complained. In fact, I think we should all behave that way when our day doesn't go our way. Just think how much easier your commutes are going to be now!!

And now that I think of it, what is the problem with road rage anyway? And hate speech. Those are such vague terms and really, if you infringe on road rage and hate speech, that's censorship, right? Hell...why do we NEED laws at all? They are just some authority determining what is acceptable and what is not. Screw that. I am for no rules at all!

You can spin like a dreidel, but that doesn't change the fact that there are generally accepted standards of behavior. If you are honestly trying to tell me that running around in an hysterical rage screaming is the same as running to catch a plane, I can make no other assumption than that you are mentally deficient.

As for cursing a blue streak, I don't give a flying donkey FUCK what words people use. If they use them at the pitch of their voice while in a rage and running around hysterically, they need to be restrained.

[renie408]

31. I'll make you a deal. You can have the right to run around screaming and acting like an ass in

public if the rest of us can have the right to beat the shit out of you for it.

Why do people think it is OK to disturb everyone around them, make scenes and generally behave in a disorderly fashion because things are not going their way, or they want to ask a question or they are pissed off? So, like I said. That's my deal. For you anarchists, the rest of us will give up arresting you for acting like shitheads if we can jump you and beat the amoral shit out of you when you do it.

Just give me a head's up so I can start carrying a baseball bat with me to the grocery store.

[Coyote_Bandit]

36. My point is

that "disorderly conduct" is not a clearly defined term. I don't have a clue what the f*ck it prohibits. Truth is it is probably interpreted differently from one situation to another.

If I sit on a tarmac after my plane has landed for an hour and have to run from one terminal to another to try to catch the only connecting flight for the entire day and miss the plane I am going to be pissed off. Especially when I know the only reason I was not allowed to disembark was because the airport had scheduled more flights for that time period than they could physically accommodate and there were no gates available to disembark. In that situation I have a right to pissed off. But, hey, don't let the failures of our air travel infrastructure dirty your beautiful little mind.

Here is an abstract that quantitatively defines the problem at La Guardia:
http://catsr.ite.gmu.edu/pubs/TU_Delft_Trans_Policy_Failuire_Paper_June_20_2007.pdf

[renie408]

39. When you get pissed off do you lose control and run around screaming?

I will tell you what I tell my children, "There is nothing wrong with emotions. It's what you do with them that counts." Being angry does not give you the right to do anything you want.

If it did, after having read "But, hey, don't let the failures of our air travel infrastructure dirty your beautiful little mind." and found it to be completely obnoxious, I would feel justified in saying, "You are an immature prick who doesn't have the mental capacity or emotional control of a two year old." But since we shouldn't just do whatever we feel like, I am not going to say that.

[Coyote_Bandit]

45. The question isn't whether

the woman acted as a mature adult. The question is whether she broke the law. "Disorderly conduct" is not clearly defined. I don't know what the hell it prohibits. The Supreme COurt at least used to agree with my opinion:

"Conduct that annoys some people does not annoy others. Thus, the ordinance is vague, not in the sense that it requires a person to conform his conduct to an imprecise but comprehensible normative standard, but rather in the sense that no standard of conduct is specified at all. As a result, 'men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning.' Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391." Coates v. City of Cincinnati, 402 U.S. 611.

[renie408]

49. Ok, so they need to clearly define that running around and screaming is

included in disorderly conduct.

[Coyote_Bandit]

55. Only if

all running around and screamng is considered and treated as disorderly conduct. Otherwise the law remains subjective.

[renie408]

56. That is ridiculous and you have to know it. I can't believe that you are that stupid.

There is such a thing as situational appropriateness. It is situationally appropriate to run and scream if you are being chased by a bear. It is not situationally appropriate to run and scream around a grocery store or around an airport because you are angry. It is understandable when a child runs and screams. It is not understandable when an adult woman does it because she is pissed off. No, not all running and screaming should be treated as disorderly conduct. If you are too socially retarded to understand that running and screaming is not an appropriate expression of anger in an airport, there really isn't a whole lot left to be said.

Justifying ALL behavior isn't progressive. It is stupid. Like it or not, there have to be SOME guidelines and yes...RULES for behavior. Yes, there is such a thing as disorderly conduct. Pretend all you want that there isn't, but there is. It isn't smart to stick to an argument past the point of common sense.

[Coyote_Bandit]

62. So running and screaming is only disorderly conduct if

you (or saome arbitrary authority figure) find it annoying? Or if the person engaging in such behavior is on a terrorist watch list? Or a member of a minority? Or expressing their anger? Who decides when or where it is acceptable and when it isn't?

I would suggest that it is also disorderly conduct when a military wife goes running and screaming thorugh the airport to meet her husband returning from his latest tour of duty. Another adult woman with a different motive exhibiting the same running and screaming behavior. Yet society finds this acceptable and tolerates it while we condemn expressions of anger. That suggests the real issue is one of censoring the expression of certain emotions we find uncomfortable rather than regulating public conduct.

[Pavulon]

65. No It is what they charge you with

after you have made a concerted effort to be an ass. You don't get arrested for cursing or normal loud moron behavior. You do get arrested for going the extra mile, like screaming and running around the counter. Refusing to leave the front of the line, threatning someone, etc.

It has nothing to do with censorship and everything to do with crowded venue. Airports are not the bar, you can't just freak out and expect nothing. This is a global thing, not a US custom.

If she wants a venue she can pay for a stage, not make me audience to her stupid rant or outburst.

[renie408]

76. I am dead serious when I say that your attempts to rationalize and justify her behavior

are far more disturbing to me than the actual behavior itself. How many people do you think were in that airport and pissed off that day? Let's just be conservative and say...a thousand people got pissed off. Do you think that society (or the airport) could function if a thousand people a day ran screaming around the concourse because things weren't going their way? Or even if it were only a hundred people a day. Or one an hour.

The happy army wife doesn't KEEP running around and screaming. She runs excitedly to her husband...and stops. If she continued to run screaming around the concourse and refused to stop...then yeah, they should remove and detain her. And maybe medicate her because she obviously has some problems. It isn't about MY comfort level. It is about what works in a global population of six billion people and what doesn't.

Again, your determination to argue that it is acceptable for EVERYONE to behave as they see fit, no matter how disruptive, is a lot more disturbing than anything this woman could have done. Polite behavior isn't caving in to authoritarianism. It is what allows society to function.

WAIT! The other day the woman at the Target return desk was being a real cow. She was making things hard for me and really pissing me off. According to you, it would have been OK for me to run screaming around the return counter area and no one should have had me detained or removed by security (believe me, I wanted to). Is that what you are saying?

[Coyote_Bandit]

98. You know what?

The woman could have been charged with a number of other offenses, among them:
(1) interference with air flight or navigation including take off and landing;
(2) improper transportation of a hazardous item or material;
(3) interference with flight crew members or flight attendants;
(4) conveying false information or threats;
(5) unlawful entry into an airport area;
(6) destruction or damage to an airport
(7) failure to comply with directives of air security personnel;
(7) violence at an airport; or
(8) presenting false documents.

These are all offenses that are separately chargeable. They are well defined in the US Code and carry more severe penalties than a misdemeanor charge of simple disorderly conduct. Don't you think this woman would have been charged with one of these crimes if there were any witnesses or evidence to support the charge? Curious. None of those charges were made. None of those allegations were reported. Instead she was charged with "disorderly conduct" whatever the hell that means. Google it. There is a long history of such statutes being used in a discriminatory fashion. And there is a long history of such statutes being declared unconstitutional because they are so vague that nobody really knows what conduct is prohibited or permitted.

I have not argued that it is acceptable for folks to run around and do just whatever they see fit to do. If that is what you think then you have attributed your own interpretation to my words and need to re-read my comments. Instead of restating the same thing over and over and over I will leave you to do just that. Also, please note that criticizing the application of an unconstitutionally vague law is something very different from defending the woman's behavior. Distinctions are important.

The issue isn't what is mature and socially acceptable behavior (something which incidentally may vary depending on one's cultural background - something that is relevant in a diverse society) but rather what is LEGALLY permissible. In a free society the legal standard is that behavior is assumed to be legally permissible unless proscribed by statute or common law.

You make a mistake when you use the rules of polite social behavior or the rules of moral behavior as guidelines to determine what is and is not legally permitted behavior. I find it frightening that citizens are unable or unwilling to make these distinctions.

[northzax]

44. sure, you have a right to be pissed off

but the people who work there, and other passengers, have an equal right to not have you be verbally abusive to them.

seriously, I flew the other week, and heard someone call a gate agent a "fucking cunt" because the flight was late. can I come to your office and call you a fucking cunt in front of your colleagues and customers? come to my office and do that, and you will be beaten, I promise you that (of course, I work in a bar).

[LisaL]

53. Tapping your feet in the restroom can be disorderly conduct too.

What's your point?

[LisaL]

52. Ever heard of disorderly conduct?

[Coyote_Bandit]

57. Yeah and

I've read lots of court cases where disorderly conduct statutes have been declared unconstitutional. Why? Because either (1) they are so poorly written that they are considered constitutionally vague or (2) because they are inconsistently enforced which often gives rise to charges of discrimination.

A simple Google search will tell you that there have been numerous successful challenges to disorderly conduct statutes because the laws were so poorly written that folks did not know what conduct exactly was prohibited.

The question isn't so much whether something is annoying or immature but whether a person should reasonably have known that the conduct was prohibited by law.

[renie408]

59. I swear, I am not trying to just fight with you

I just think a reasonable person can figure out that running around and screaming in rage and generally acting like a freak is going to get you in trouble in a place like an airport. I think her first clue would have been when the cops showed up. I would give anything to know if she was asked to calm down or not. I cannot imagine that she wasn't.

If someone is creating a disturbance that disrupts the airports ability to function smoothly (which this may well have done), the airport police are right to detain and remove them. KILL THEM is another story.

[Coyote_Bandit]

63. Same here

I just know that disorderly conduct laws have a long history of being abused by law enforcement simply because they are so subjective and inconsistently enforced.

I too would really like to know more details of what exactly transpired.

[pretzel4gore]

8. pathetic. now strong minded city women are killed as if they Iraqi

btw yesterday there were reports she was tasered(?)

[MNDemNY]

9. She had it coming. She was very loud.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.







:sarcasm:

[mudesi]

11. There is no such thing as police brutality....

There is no such thing as police brutality....
There is no such thing as police brutality....
There is no such thing as police brutality....
There is no such thing as police brutality....

Repeat repeat repeat....

[MNDemNY]

13. Oh, yea? What then do YOU call a stale donut?

[kurth]

23. Officer caught on tape threatening to invent charges to arrest motorist for parking after hours

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/19/1961.asp

[KittyWampus]

12. what about a choke hold? "Authorities said neither a Taser nor pepper spray was used on the woman"

edit- and by choke hold, I mean a legal choke hold.

[MNDemNY]

14. The did not deny the use of large gourds, either.

[KittyWampus]

42. I meant to type LETHAL choke hold.

[otherlander]

18. They hate us for our freedoms.

[DemGa]

19. All police/citizen interactons should be videotaped

from start to finish: no exceptions.

[Kelly Rupert]

25. I'd be in favor of it.

Minimize both police brutality and unfounded allegations of such.

[uppityperson]

26. I'd go for that

[SayWhatYo]

27. I like that idea...

It would solve a lot of the problems of over agressive police, and also the automatic assumption that the police were in the wrong.

[renie408]

34. I absolutely agree. Then maybe we would know if she were a 'strong minded city woman' or

a raging nut job. It amazes me how much people can extrapolate from a brief story. I see 'she was running up and down the concourse screaming' and get an image of a disruptive loon. Other people are getting images of a strong woman, I don't know, doing what strong women do??

[BlooInBloo]

48. Yup. Since cops won't turn in their criminal bretheren, none of them can be trusted.

[renie408]

51. The thing is, it would also act to DEFEND cops as well as damn them.

What if, for argument's sake, in this case the woman really did manage to kill herself somehow? Nobody is going to believe that. If there was video taped evidence that nothing untoward was done to her, we wouldn't all be having this conversation right now.

[BlooInBloo]

54. Nominally, sure. There's a reason why cops resist being recorded, though.

[renie408]

58. Oh, yeah, I am sure that it would cause them more problems (from their POV) than it would solve n/t

[ecstatic]

77. all cars should come equipped with indestructible video cameras nt

[shance]

81. Good point DemGa.

n/t

[otohara]

28. Daughter-in-law of New York City Advocate

The daughter-in-law of city Public Advocate Betsy Gotbaum died Friday after she was handcuffed by cops and put in a holding cell at an Arizona airport, authorities said yesterday.

Phoenix police said Carol Anne Gotbaum, 45, may have strangled herself while struggling to free herself from the cuffs.

She was arrested at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport after getting into a confrontation with gate crews who refused to allow her to board a plane to Tucson, said Sgt. Andy Hill, a Phoenix police spokesman.

"We are extraordinarily upset," Betsy Gotbaum told the Daily News last night.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2007/09/29/2007-09-29_betsy_gotbaums_daughterinlaw_dies_in_pho.html

[renie408]

35. Whether she deserved to be detained or not, this whole thing smells to high heaven

It is even more incomprehensible to me how you could strangle yourself with your handcuffs if your arms were cuffed BEHIND you. Wouldn't you dislocate your shoulder before you could do that?

I think somebody has the right idea with the chokehold thing.

[JMDEM]

37. This one is weird beyond belief...

Strangling yourself with handcuffs???

Something's definitely not right here.

[JMDEM]

41. One time I got sort of hassled...

I was a bit late -- they were boarding the flight. This security guard -- I don't want to go into specifics, but she was ... a wannabe cop? You know the attitude... Just itching to throw her weight around.

She saw that I was worried about getting on that plane. So she slowed way down... Somehow my instincts said to not show any irritation whatsoever or I'd miss that flight or worse. So I just stood there counting to 100 several times, trying not to show any negative expression. I swear that guard was having a good time...

Well, I got on the plane -- last person on, with the door slamming me in the butt so to speak. Close one...

[warren pease]

46. Used to be all I had to worry about was acrophobia...

There's something about hanging seven miles in the air in an aluminum tube with no protection but a seatbelt and a seat cushion that doubles as a flotation device that makes me absolutely crazy. When I had a corporate job, I logged nearly 75,000 air miles one year and for every single one of them I was either drinking heavily, passed out, xanaxed into oblivion or scared shitless.

Now, in addition to acrophobia, acquiring the proper meds and surviving the Southwest cattle call, I've got to worry about passing for a BushBot for the TSA ratfuckers, whether I'm on the no-fly list, how revelatory a striptease I'll be expected to do this time, and whether one of those new TSA mind-readers who determine if my scowl is a threat to national security happens to be on duty that day. Remember that roust they pulled a while back at a couple of Indianapolis bus stops? Here's an old thread about it.

And you've got to love the concept: "It's called Visual Intermodal Prevention Response. We have plainclothes inspectors, blue-gloved uniformed security officers who are checking baggage, the behavior detection officers, and federal air marshals, which are the law enforcement arm of TSA." The acronym is VIPR, in case we fail to get the point.

The behavior detection officers: A band of unruly but security-cleared blue-gloved clairvoyants with x-ray vision and mind-reading skills able to spot the most subtle facial tics and use them to identify subversive tendencies and possible terrorist sympathies.

So now I'm truly fucked; I've got to down to the Bay Area for one day next week. I'll be on drugs and in no mood to get felt up by some blue-gloved reactionary clairvoyant snitch. And if I get uppity about it, much less cite the Fourth Amendment, they'll handcuff me, whisk me off to some windowless room and wait as long as necessary for me to figure out how to garrote myself with the six-inch chain linking the cuffs, which will secure my wrists and arms firmly behind my back, and manage all this without dislocating my elbows or shoulders. Should take awhile, but I'm told they're patient people.

Bring on the bullet trains, the TGVs, the ICE trains -- anything but this shit. Maybe I'll discreetly "borrow" a crop-duster. Maybe I'll hitch hike. Friendly fucking skies, indeed.


wp

[BlooInBloo]

47. Like anyone in their right mind would believe what a cop says.

[renie408]

60. You know that's not fair. How many cops are there in this country?

You know as well as I do that there are plenty of them that are good people doing a good job. Yeah, there are bad cops. But it isn't fair to castigate ALL cops because SOME cops are shits.

[BlooInBloo]

61. Any cop who doesn't turn in a criminal cop is also a criminal...

... Which accounts for the vast majority of them.

[Pavulon]

64. Jesus, Everything is not a conspiracy. Stupid kills

Common sense is dying, it needs CPR. Short of an ignored medic alert tag or misconduct, this person is responsible for their actions.

By no means do I wish that person dead, it is a shame for her family.

however,

Airports are not McDonald's, they are not the club. If you act like an ass you will be arrested.

Arrested means handcuffs. If you are plenty stupid it means gunpoint..

It is not an American right to be an asshole to the TSA or ticket agent. It is not their fault it sucks to fly and you (and I) cant afford a gulfstream.

I hit the 250k mile mark for several years and these people come up every now and again. Screaming, cursing, and acting like they are the only person an airline has ever fucked over. The agents never say what everyone is thinking, sit down and shut the FUCK up.

If she had not chosen to be a moron she would not have been in cuffs.

[Warren Stupidity]

66. The problem is that the cause of death cannot possibly be

'sitting in detention while handcuffed'. Something is missing from the story.

[Pavulon]

68. Rest of facts are required

here for sure. I can't see the police just murdering someone for fun. I have seen some pretty bad behavior in airports, you have to try pretty hard to get arrested.

Cursing an agent or yelling then walking off does not even tip the scale.

[Warren Stupidity]

70. A quick google reveals that there are other cases

involving strangulation and handcuffs, but the strangulation occurred during the effort to restrain the person, and having strangled the individual, the police (or security guards) proceeded to handcuff them and leave them in a strangled state. You are the one now making a huge leap: "police just murdering someone for fun" - no more likely a badly applied restrain hold caused a death by strangulation, somebody paniced, and the victim was left sitting dead on a bench in handcuffs.

[Pavulon]

71. An autopsy

will show the medical facts. Your assumption is that misconduct is involved. Mine is that misconduct is the exception, not the rule.

The victim, following the most probable outcome, managed to kill herself.

[Solon]

72. How?

That's the problem, unless, in their stupidity, the cops clamped leg irons on her wrists, with their long chains, it would be, for all practical purposes, physically impossible to choke herself to death with handcuffs. The mobility required just isn't there. The only way I can think of is if she became suicidal, and managed to move her arms to the front of her body and then proceeded to choke herself with her own hands. Even then, its difficult to kill yourself in that manner, as blood/oxygen levels decrease from the choke, she would have lost strength, and so, before it becomes fatal, she will pass out, and wake up later with one hell of a stiff neck.

The fact of the matter is that the death is suspicious, to put it mildly, I wouldn't be surprised if it were an "accidental" death, involving a cop or two, that seems more probable.

[Pavulon]

84. Not enough info

to speculate. No Scientific data, yet. Autopsy will give that data.

[Warren Stupidity]

74. Your assumption was not that at all.

" I can't see the police just murdering someone for fun" assumes that killing this woman required a deliberate act. I too doubt that they killed her for fun, but I am reasonably sure that they killed her. As you say, an autopsy will show the cause of death. It is unlikely to be 'strangulation by sitting on a bench in handcuffs', it could be some internal malfunction - heart attack, stroke, etc except we have the other bit of data that she strangled. Either she strangled herself or the police strangled her. I vote for the police strangled her by accident while restraining her and either didn't notice she was dead or near dead, or did notice and decided to pretend they didn't notice. I doubt an autopsy will settle that issue.

[renie408]

86. I dunno. I have been trying to figure out how you strangle yourself

with handcuffs all day. In one article, they mentioned that she was cuffed BEHIND her back. How in the living hell do you get the cuffs around your neck when your hands are behind your back? Without, as my husband mentioned, dislocating both your shoulders?

I think somebody said that the police may have accidently killed her with a choke hold and then panicked. That makes sense to me. Or maybe she had a heart attack or something. Or if she had been wearing something that she managed to get around her neck in her efforts to get out of the handcuffs. But I just can't see how she did it WITH the handcuffs.

[Warren Stupidity]

88. If she had a heart attack she would not have strangled.

I could believe heart attack or stroke, except the other piece of data is that this unfortunate woman strangled to death. That rules out heart attack or stroke. Back to square one: you can't strangle yourself while handcuffed.

[renie408]

90. Yeah, you are right. It got mentioned a few posts up...

but can they tell with an autopsy WHAT strangled her? A chokehold wouldn't leave the same kind of evidence that the handcuffs, would it?

[TheUniverse]

69. Correct this requires a huge investigation.

Something doesn't sound right here, and I am not buying the "official" story. But I will withhold judgement until the facts come out.

[renie408]

79. I actually think if you act like that at McDonald's they will have you arrested.

You pretty much can't run around screaming because you are pissed off anywhere but in the privacy of your own home.

That is what we have kindergarten for. To teach you that sort of thing.

[Warren Stupidity]

82. ok. Good point. Now about strangling oneself while in handcuffs:

can't be done. At least not by a normally jointed human being. So something else happened here and somebody is not telling the truth and dead people don't tell tales. That would leave the police.

[renie408]

83. THIS part I agree with 100%.

Its just that in my head, the abuse that occurred after being arrested is separate from the behavior that got you arrested. I mean, being abused in custody does not excuse what you did to get arrested. There are people who are arrested for little or no reason and that is wrong. And being killed while in custody is BAD.

I don't think her behavior excuses her possible death at the hands of the police. I just don't think her possible death at the hands of the police excuses her behavior.

[Pavulon]

85. First time for everything...(nt)

[BrklynLiberal]

73. VERY strange story...It will be interesting to see all the details when the truth comes out.

She had two small children according to the report I heard.

[tblue37]

75. Before I go to read the article, I m going to make a

prediction: I am guessing she ws a minority, probably either black or Hispanic, or that she looked like she was a minority.

[Crabby Appleton]

78. She's not.

[ecstatic]

80. Traditionally it would have been. Now everyone is a target

The whole "first they came for them... now us..." thing.

[Pavulon]

87. The whole dont act like an ass

in an airport and then pitch a physical fit thing, is my bet. You guys are all about the whole "police state" thing. Common sense is easier and sits better with me.

[Warren Stupidity]

89. indeed, the well behaved have nothing to fear.

And the corallary is: if you have a problem with this sort of stuff, you must not be well behaved. The rationalizations for accepting brutality and tyranny are plentiful, the courage to oppose is very scarce.

[Pavulon]

91. Again easy..

the airport is not the stage for the moronic to act out their temper tantrums. I flew 250k miles a year for several years. People just think they can yell and scream, spit flying, at the agents. I have never seen a full blown fit in person, but seen some on tv that warrant an arrest.

Rules have a purpose.

At this point there is NO evidence of misconduct. What for some evidence before you jump to that position.

Oppose in the street with a sign, oppose with a pen, the airport is not a great venue.

[renie408]

92. In this case, I don't think this was a personal responsiblity issue

I know some people might look at this and think, "If you don't want to get abused (accidently or not) in police custody, don't act like an idget." It ran through my head, to be honest (I am not proud of it). But you should have the expectation of safety in police custody, no matter how much of an ass you are. From the accounts I have read, I don't think they were wrong to remove and detain her. But killing her is a whole 'nother ball of wax.

[Pavulon]

97. Conclusion based on fact,

is not possible with the information available to you. There is no way to come to any real accurate conclusion.

[tblue37]

93. I don't doubt she was behaving badly and deserved to be detained.

But I feel pretty certain that she was accidentally killed by the cops while they were overzealous in restraining her.

My point was that usually the cops are a lot more intensely brutal with minorities than with whites, so I was guessing that she was not white.

I think the person who responded with the "first they came for" remark is right on. I think the current atmosphere in this country is such that cops and other security types are very thuggish in how they interact with people, no matter what race they are. But, as in the case of the black man who was pulled over and tasered for going 5 miles over the speed limit, the odds are still better that a minority will be abused, and in this case that a mirnority would be accidentally killed by rough handling than a well-dressed white woman would be. This woman was highly educated and well-connected. Such people are usually not as likely as minority members to be subjected to the full force of police violence.

I also wonder whether her insistent bad behavior might have been caused by who she was. She was well educated, well off, and well connected. She also was not from this country originally (she was from South Africa). She might have been used to getting her way by making a fuss whenever she was hindered.

I am now afraid of cops. I am a 57-year-old white woman, and in the past I would never have thought of being afraid of cops. But now they really do seem to rough people up at the drop of a hat. I have cardiac arrhythmia. If I were tasered for some reason, I would probably go into cardiac arrest.

Why might I be tasered? Well, I am so severely hearing impaired that even with my hearing aids in, I can't always tell when I am being spoken to, and I usually don't wear my aids when I am out and about. There are a number of cases on record where cops have brutalized--including tasering--elderly women for being unresponsive to commands. One man was tasered while slumped over his car in a diabetic coma, because he didn't get out when the cop ordered him to. He died of cardiac arrest.

If some cop ever orders me to do something and I don't immediately respond because of my deafness, he might well taser me. They tase for the most bizarre reasons, and without regard for whom they are tasering. And if that were ever to happen, I am pretty sure it would kill me.

To serve and protect my ass.

[renie408]

94. You nailed what I was thinking, but was too chicken to mention.

I thought the same thing when I found out that her mother in law was...whatever she was. Also when I heard she was a 45 year old woman originally from South Africa. I know it is probably wrong, but I immediately wondered something along the lines that you initially did...were the gate agents minorities.

My husband and I were debating earlier how long it is going to be before they are going to take tasers away from cops. They are so quick to use their tasers because they can stand back and use the taser and they think it isn't going to 'hurt' anything and it gets them their way. Back when it was either shoot somebody or figure it out...they tried harder to figure it out. It is just too easy to pull out a taser.

[Pavulon]

96. It was the baton..

before the taser there was a physical fight involving the baton. Broken bones were the result. As were head injuries. Not saying either should be used without reason. However the "figure it out" involved a brawl.

[Pavulon]

95. I feel lots of things, however

I substitute facts for my feelings wherever possible. This can be resolved with medical fact, given time. If you are looking for something to fear, you can find it in many places. I have flown to many countries, never had a problem with police here, or there.

[LiberalHeart]

99. She's white. Saw her photo on Drudge.

[shance]

100. I agree. What you say is true. However women are being assaulted by men in policing positions

at an alarming rate these days.

The abuse is being perpetrated by primarily white males in between ages 25 to 45 in authority positions who are engaging in the abuse against women, who in turn are unable to defend themselves.


Here's a picture of Carol.