Captain goes berserk on Jet Blue

[Evan]

Originally Posted by TeeVee

so, were the 9-11 hijackers sane?

Yes. They were not insane. They were motivated by their devout religious beliefs, which had taught them that murdering infidels was a morally correct thing to do. This pilot was apparently motivated (among other things) by his devout religious belief that Las Vegas was a sinful place.

Larger question: is religion itself a form of institutionalized insanity?

No, no... let's not go there. Wrong forum.

[Fear_of_Flying]

TeeVee, I take it you've been following what we do know of this case. For example, this article from Bloomberg (excerpt):

U.S. District Judge Mary Lou Robinson in Amarillo, Texas, yesterday granted the government’s request for the evaluation of Clayton Frederick Osbon, 49, at a federal medical facility, according to a court filing. Prosecutors said an exam is required to determine if Osbon was “legally insane” at the time of his offense.
“The examination should determine whether Osbon is presently suffering from a mental disease or defect rendering him mentally incompetent to the extent that he is unable to understand the nature and consequences of the proceedings against him,” Robinson wrote in her order.
Osbon’s examiner should determine whether he was “unable to appreciate the nature and quality of the wrongfulness of his acts,” according to the order. The judge said Osbon’s lawyer, E. Dean Roper in Amarillo, and prosecutors may provide any medical reports and “documentary information” to the examiner...
It’s rare for prosecutors, and not a defense attorney, to initiate the mental examination, though the circumstances of Osbon’s case are unusual, said McGregor Scott, a former federal prosecutor and partner at Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe in Sacramento, California.
Prosecutors “don’t want to launch down the road of a full blown prosecution, spending resources and court time if at the end of that process he’s not guilty by reason of insanity,” Scott said in a phone interview. In Osbon’s case it’s a “practical move made on the front-end when confronted with the reality of the situation.”

Now tell me, how much do you have to read into that to realize what's going on here? This is not someone who's faking it. This is both sides coming together to get this back on the right track. Like I said, we may eventually get to the same place (no criminal charges; Osbon receives the help he needs) but it's been done in a backwards way. A criminal prosecution did not need to be held over the family's head at this point in time.

By the way, if you're going to keep throwing the arguments around that none of us is an expert and we don't have all the facts, then none of us should really be discussing anything on this forum, so you should probably make up your mind about that one way or the other.

[TeeVee]

actually, i've been following the court docket and reading the docs actually filed in the case and what they call "minutes." i would upload them, but this forum has a ridiculous 19kb limit on pdf files yet nearly a 2mb limit on pics....hmmmm

if you read what bloomberg's paid "expert" said, it's about money. we also have no clue at all what kind of conversations went on between the govt and defense. so the fact that the govt pulled the trigger first means nothing to me.

you are hung up on this being about holding something over osborn and his family. do you really think that us attorneys have nothing better to do with their time? do you have any clue as to their case load and the number of hours they put in every week?

lastly, it's not about experts. i am not an expert on anything. it is, however, about making sense and being able to support your position with something other than "i feel." it's also about speaking from experience. i suspect that you fly very little, since you refuse to answer my question about how often you fly. as such, your opinion on locking pax up on the tarmac for 10 hours, means very little since the likelihood of it happening to you is miniscule. it's easy to armchair quarterback stuff like this and say oh well, the pax will get over it and no one died, so... it's very different when it's your ass locked up for ten hours without food, water, or the most basic--a toilet.

so i see you as little more than someone just throwing an apparently uneducated and inexperienced opinion out there and expecting your opinion to count for something. if you just want to say how you feel then fine. if however you want to prove that someone screwed up or violated osborn's constitutional rights, then you're gonna have to bring something more to the table.

[TeeVee]

Originally Posted by Evan

Yes. They were not insane. They were motivated by their devout religious beliefs, which had taught them that murdering infidels was a morally correct thing to do. This pilot was apparently motivated (among other things) by his devout religious belief that Las Vegas was a sinful place.

Larger question: is religion itself a form of institutionalized insanity?

No, no... let's not go there. Wrong forum.

i'm not ready to admit that osborn was anything at this point. sure he talked about religious things and gave a "sermon." but i've heard religious nonsense from plenty of mentally ill people while i was a paramedic and although i never followed up to find out if any of them were just zealots, most, if not all, had psychiatric histories. despite this, they sometimes sounded like religious zealots.

[Gabriel]

I think we are missing the point here.

There are various interpretations but, while not exact, in a few words, for legal purposes, "sane" means that one understood the criminality of one's acts (you also need to be "sane" later to help in your defense, but let's skip that part).

I have no doubt that the 9/11 terrorist clearly understood that they were hijacking a plane and that they were going to kill people, and they know that the victims would not like it (for the "tell right from wrong" interpretations) and that is was illegal in the US. They were acting rationally. After all they had months or years to carefully plan and found a course of action to reach their objectives and then precisely execute it. They were legally sane and subject to criminal process, except that they didn't meet the "be able to help in their defense" part (that's why dead people is not prosecuted).

On the other hand, I seriously suspect that this pilot was not acting rationally and didn't understand what he was doing. The main reasons for that are (unless he is a very good actor):
- He didn't had a plan. In fact he seemed his behaviour seemed increasingly affected along the flight.
- He wasn't rationally aware of what he was doing. He didn't understand the implications of his acts. Hell, even the FO and FAs only tell some isolated words or sentences of what he was saying and said that he was babbling and making no sense.
- He seemed worried by a danger that didn't exist ("they are going to take us down"). That is, he was imagining things or hallucinating, signs of mental disability.

Even if both were made under a religious fanaticism background, there are clear differences between the acts of the 9/11 terrorists and this captain.

I don't know how these things work (who has the responsibilities and the powers), but if it was my call and I could I would have wanted him "detained" (for lack of a better word) in conditions that are at the same time safe in case he is actually a criminal and healthy and comfortable is case the guy is mentally ill. For example, in a psychiatric hospital with a police guard.

[TeeVee]

and therein lies the problem. i don't know a heck of a lot about this and what i do know is mostly from my years as a medic.

if a person is a "danger to himself or others" the law allows for him to be restrained and transported to an appropriate facility for evaluation and treatment. most often the individual was restrained with handcuffs by the police. and although he would not be free to go, he was not "under arrest." what's the difference? not a heck of a lot.

in florida, as in every other state, there is a law that allows a person to be committed involuntarily. we call it the baker act. it is not something that can be done on the spot and requires a hearing before a judge. and although i never worked as a medic in florida, i would bet the system for restraining and holding a person that is a danger to himself and others is the same as it was in NYC.

back in the days when i was a medic, if and this is a BIG IF, we were dispatched to JFK or LGA for an "emotionally disturbed person" and that happened to be osborn, most likely he would have been handcuffed and we would have transported him to the closest hospital with a psych dept. that was a different world back then and i'm sure much has changed. hell, shit changed after the 1993 bombing of the WTC!

i'm not sure how long, but cops were required to stay with the individual for some time, and they never liked it so rookies would get stuck all the time. i guess at some point if the person were admitted AFTER a psychiatrist made a determination that he was, shall we say, "off enough" to warrant admission, the police would be relieved of duty. i'm totally guessing here, but at some point a legal proceeding would be required to keep a person locked up in a psych ward against their will, no matter how nutso they were.

back to Gabriel's point, forgetting for a moment that osborn was charged criminally, you do realize that he has been held in a medical facility the entire time, and i'm sure has been evaluated and treated as necessary.

[Jingogunner]

Not sure if legal issues are the main helpful focus here. We live in a society where acts of terror are becoming routine. Globally, terror has long been frequent and routine. It would be much more helpful if we could understand how the effects of routine flying stress are impacted by the relentless knowledge that a terror event is possible at any time. The Captain was clearly, from the available reporting text, concerned with this issue; although we don't know what other issues were driving him we can reasonably suspect there might have been one or two including routine pressures and anxieties that many routinely live with. There have been a number of similar incidents with aircrew or cabin staff behaving unusually or dangerously over the past few years, have there not? I'm not sure prosecuting or threatening to prosecute them helps us in the slightest to solve this problem. I think the problem could be solved and solved fairly quickly if the FAA and aviation management had the will and focus. I also think it likely that lessons will be learned painfully slowly because of their fear-driven resistance to understanding how humans work and it will probably take a few unnecessary deaths and some considerable suffering before events force them to acknowledge something of the truth and implement recognise-and-prevent procedures.

[Fear_of_Flying]

Interesting blog here http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mic...b_1446456.html about the ongoing problem of sleep deprivation in the airline industry. The Jet Blue pilot may have been experiencing the effects of fatigue, depression, and possibly sleep aid medication when he flew off the handle, according to the report.

[TeeVee]

it would appear that the good captain was indicted by a federal grand jury. whatever it is they presented to the grand jury members, they obviously thought there was something to charge him with besides being insane.

p.s. hey mods, why the ridiculously small limit on pdf uploads? maybe bump it up a bit...just sayin

[TeeVee]

speaking of Jet Blue Meltdowns...

looks as though Osborn is well enough to stand trial. The shrink found him competent and not suffering from any mental defects.

[Gabriel]

(TeeVee, correct me if I'm wrong)

Before anyone complains, this has nothing to do with his mental state at the time of the event. He is now found fit to stand trial, and in the trial, in his defense, he can show evidence of any disabling mental condition he was suffering during the event, and hence that he is not guilty, which ultimately will have to be decided by the jury.

At the same time, I guess that if he had such evidence, the prosecutor would have dropped the charges (prosecutors tend to drop the charges when they think they'll loose in a trial).

As a side note, does anyone knows Osborn's current condition regarding his detention?

[Fear_of_Flying]

Originally Posted by Gabriel

(TeeVee, correct me if I'm wrong)

Before anyone complains, this has nothing to do with his mental state at the time of the event. He is now found fit to stand trial, and in the trial, in his defense, he can show evidence of any disabling mental condition he was suffering during the event, and hence that he is not guilty, which ultimately will have to be decided by the jury.

At the same time, I guess that if he had such evidence, the prosecutor would have dropped the charges (prosecutors tend to drop the charges when they think they'll loose in a trial).

As a side note, does anyone knows Osborn's current condition regarding his detention?

I believe you are correct, he still intends to use the insanity defense. Osbon remains in custody. His feet were shackled during the hearing. And I haven't changed my mind on this one. What exactly does anyone think this guy's motives were, if it was something other than a mental collapse?

[TeeVee]

Originally Posted by Gabriel

(TeeVee, correct me if I'm wrong)

Before anyone complains, this has nothing to do with his mental state at the time of the event. He is now found fit to stand trial, and in the trial, in his defense, he can show evidence of any disabling mental condition he was suffering during the event, and hence that he is not guilty, which ultimately will have to be decided by the jury.

At the same time, I guess that if he had such evidence, the prosecutor would have dropped the charges (prosecutors tend to drop the charges when they think they'll loose in a trial).

As a side note, does anyone knows Osborn's current condition regarding his detention?

with the usual caveat that i'm not a criminal attorney, i'm pretty certain your assumption is correct. there is the defense of temporary insanity. i'm also pretty certain that it fails more often than it succeeds. if i were on a jury i doubt very much i would buy it. there is a huge difference between "insanity" and just losing it. that's not to say that i don't feel sorry for someone that blows their cool and does some stupid shit ( i did it twice when i was a paramedic) and gets in trouble over it. but that is a far cry from not knowing the difference between right and wrong and not knowing the consequences of your actions.

[Gabriel]

Originally Posted by Fear_of_Flying

What exactly does anyone think this guy's motives were, if it was something other than a mental collapse?

I think that's one of the popular myths regarding criminal law.

"you need a corpse, an homicide weapon and a motive"

AFAIK, you need none of the above (though they surely will help the prosecutor).

Example: Several witnesses see you leaving a bar with the victim, arguing and shouting, and both getting on your car. The victim is reported missing that night. Traces of blood of the victim are found in your car. A hear of the victim is found in your coat (the one that you were using that day). A garment of the victim is found next to a bridge. Other witnesses report having seen your car parked next to that bridge. The victim never appears again. The victim has a good family and a good job, also has hobbies and friends, and nobody believes that he/she would just disappear or kill him/herself. There are no other persons known that would want to hurt the victim or who had the opportunity to do it that day.

Man, unless you have a VERY convincing way to explain the blood, the hair, and the witnesses testimonies, or you are able to show a convincing alternate explanation for the victim's fate, you are in big shit, even if the corpse is never found, it can never be established how you killed him/her, and nobody has a clue about why you'd want to do it, because the jury will not have a reasonable doubt that you did it.

[Fear_of_Flying]

Originally Posted by Gabriel

I think that's one of the popular myths regarding criminal law.

"you need a corpse, an homicide weapon and a motive"

AFAIK, you need none of the above (though they surely will help the prosecutor).

Example: Several witnesses see you leaving a bar with the victim, arguing and shouting, and both getting on your car. The victim is reported missing that night. Traces of blood of the victim are found in your car. A hear of the victim is found in your coat (the one that you were using that day). A garment of the victim is found next to a bridge. Other witnesses report having seen your car parked next to that bridge. The victim never appears again. The victim has a good family and a good job, also has hobbies and friends, and nobody believes that he/she would just disappear or kill him/herself. There are no other persons known that would want to hurt the victim or who had the opportunity to do it that day.

Man, unless you have a VERY convincing way to explain the blood, the hair, and the witnesses testimonies, or you are able to show a convincing alternate explanation for the victim's fate, you are in big shit, even if the corpse is never found, it can never be established how you killed him/her, and nobody has a clue about why you'd want to do it, because the jury will not have a reasonable doubt that you did it.

Regardless of how weak or strong the prosecution's evidence is, the case has to make sense to the jury, as they are expected to draw a rational conclusion. In your example, there is a motive - the victim and accused were arguing, along with plenty of other evidence. I don't think it would be an easy case to prosecute since alternative explanations could easily be be brought up creating reasonable doubt (she started acting crazy, we got in a fight, I dropped her off by the side of the road, I don't know what happened to her after that), but it might be possible.

With the Jet Blue pilot, what rational explanation is the prosecution going to provide for the pilot's actions? He went to the back of the plane and rambled nonsensically about religion and terrorists because...? You have to convey your explanation to the jury in a real way that makes sense to them.

For whatever reason, this pilot was not in control of his faculties, was not rational, and truly was not considering the consequences of his actions, and I don't see how you can get around that.

P.S. Would you mind responding to Northwester on the other thread?

[Gabriel]

Originally Posted by Fear_of_Flying

Regardless of how weak or strong the prosecution's evidence is, the case has to make sense to the jury, as they are expected to draw a rational conclusion. In your example, there is a motive - the victim and accused were arguing, along with plenty of other evidence. I don't think it would be an easy case to prosecute since alternative explanations could easily be be brought up creating reasonable doubt (she started acting crazy, we got in a fight, I dropped her off by the side of the road, I don't know what happened to her after that), but it might be possible.

With the Jet Blue pilot, what rational explanation is the prosecution going to provide for the pilot's actions? He went to the back of the plane and rambled nonsensically about religion and terrorists because...? You have to convey your explanation to the jury in a real way that makes sense to them.

For whatever reason, this pilot was not in control of his faculties, was not rational, and truly was not considering the consequences of his actions, and I don't see how you can get around that.

I see the differences between my example and this pilot, and I also agree that there will be at least a reasonable doubt that he didn't know or couldn't control what he was doing. My post about corpse, weapon and motive was an (unnecessary and fairly off-topic) side note.

P.S. Would you mind responding to Northwester on the other thread?

Yes, I would mind. I'm tired of him. Please send me a PM if YOU want to discuss something with me.

[guamainiac]

The prosecutor is bound by "precedent" and it is not an option in cases of public safety to ignore sending a case to the grand jury. I realize that this forum is not "average" but few understand the obligations of what will or not be presented. The GJ delivered a "true bill", which only means that there was merit to the case being presented.

Look at the case in Florida just a few days ago where a father discovered a man molesting his 5 year old daughter! Immediate shock and outrage by the media that the man was taken into custody and may have been sent before the grand jury. "Stupid" knee jerk reaction but with a guy beat near death good investigations take time and of course dad was taken into custody. What if the officers took him on his word and were wrong and just sent home?

Something happened to this fellow (the pilot) and he probably lacked criminal intent. Via a medical malady, drug abuse or whatever, I doubt he had intent. In the universe of "what if's", many things are possible of cours; during the process of discovery who knows what will surface? He may never see the sidewalk again even if he was not found guilty.

What was the fate of the Fed Ex tag along who snuck an axe along and then attacked the duty crew? Sorry, I just forget but it may provide a clue as to how the system ticks and tocks.

How many folks even understand the line between "100% proof" and reasonable doubt? Defense lawyers need not respond .... but hey it's a living right?

And legal pot is hot issue in many states? Divorce yourself from this as a morality issue if you will, but do you want even a corner garage mechanic messing with your brakes?

There is only so much we can do and regulate or "screen". Medical or scientific advances, electronic data (saving tapes to 911), have changed the world in a very short time. In some ways for the better and some possibly for the worse. Heck, ask Brian since (I assume), he has been in the public sector at some point and what hits you is that what for you may not be a violation (criminal or administrative/civil), but some are held to a higher standard, that line in that line in the sand can be wiggly as hell.

[TeeVee]

Originally Posted by Gabriel

I think that's one of the popular myths regarding criminal law.

"you need a corpse, an homicide weapon and a motive"

AFAIK, you need none of the above (though they surely will help the prosecutor).

Example: Several witnesses see you leaving a bar with the victim, arguing and shouting, and both getting on your car. The victim is reported missing that night. Traces of blood of the victim are found in your car. A hear of the victim is found in your coat (the one that you were using that day). A garment of the victim is found next to a bridge. Other witnesses report having seen your car parked next to that bridge. The victim never appears again. The victim has a good family and a good job, also has hobbies and friends, and nobody believes that he/she would just disappear or kill him/herself. There are no other persons known that would want to hurt the victim or who had the opportunity to do it that day.

Man, unless you have a VERY convincing way to explain the blood, the hair, and the witnesses testimonies, or you are able to show a convincing alternate explanation for the victim's fate, you are in big shit, even if the corpse is never found, it can never be established how you killed him/her, and nobody has a clue about why you'd want to do it, because the jury will not have a reasonable doubt that you did it.

but what the hell. yes, it is true that one can be convicted without the corpus delicti--the dead body. however, it's outrageously improbable.

unfortunately for osborn, if he can't get a plea deal, he may just be screwed more than having his career over.

as for intent, not all crimes need intent, or more accurately, intent is often inferred from the circumstances. further, there is always the whole depraved indifference, reckless stuff...

[Evan]

We've all seem the video. Osborn was clearly out of his mind, for whatever reason. Anyone who cannot see that now is clearly out of their mind.

Is there an 'innocent by reason that the entire idea of prosecution is insane' defense?

[guamainiac]

Evan, there will probably be a deal between the prosecutor and defense prior to the trial. I will hazard a guess that he will be confined in a med/psych facility for a number of years instead of a conventional prison.

Look at the US system and even John Hinkley now lives with his parents in Virginia under supervision and monitoring. Hell the man tried to shoot the the President .... "Dutch Regan" ... and he is out. Brady was damned near brain dead, an SS agent was wounded along with RR.

Why? Our system is so messed up with crime on the rise and the available space for confinement along with "private sector" dollars that now compete with conventional sworn officers. Add "immigration" to the mix and it is a madhouse.