Mid-flight sexual play lands US couple afoul of anti-terrorism law

[deadparrot]

WASHINGTON (AFP) - A couple's ill-concealed sexual play aboard a Southwest Airlines flight from Los Angeles got them charged with violating the Patriot Act, intended for terrorist acts, and could land them in jail for 20 years.

According to their indictment, Carl Persing and Dawn Sewell were allegedly snuggling and kissing inappropriately, "making other passengers uncomfortable," when a flight attendant asked them to stop.

"Persing was observed nuzzling or kissing Sewell on the neck, and ... with his face pressed against Sewell's vaginal area. During these actions, Sewell was observed smiling," reads the indictment filed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

On a second warning from the flight attendant, Persing snapped back threatening the flight attendant with "serious consequences" if he did not leave them alone.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061114/ts_alt_afp/ussexcrimeoffbeat_061114235323

[lapfog_1]

1. The airline people have been out of control for 5 years now

Some judge with balls (figuratively) needs to throw this out of court and rule the Patriot Act unconstitutional.

[BlueCollar]

14. airline people out of control?

You're kidding right? Sounds to me as if you haven't flown recently...anybody can get on an airplane these days...

[lapfog_1]

18. Have you read the stories about how they treat

passengers that complain? Or how they escalate every minor incident (like this inappropriate behavior) into a "terrorist" incident?

And you are right, I don't fly much these days... because for SOME reason, every time I flew after 9/11, I am taken out of line, hand searched, my belongings spread all over a table, and I'm made to wait in a special area while they check on things... and when I asked them "why me" (is it something in my bags or what?), the story has always come back that "Sorry, sir, you were picked at random..." Bullshit. It happens every time I fly. Every time. My name is on some watch list or something.

I want my country back.

[BlueCollar]

41. your issue is with TSA

not the airline you choose to fly

[fob]

15. You may be right. This is what the unpatriot act needs, a test case

that involves two US CITIZENS who just wanted to "snuggle". I guess the PDA is on the terra-ist watch list?

First they came for the 'terra-ists'
then they came for the 'snugga-lists'

[lapfog_1]

19. Smiling while partners head is between your legs is apparently

a terrorist act of the worst kind. Explosions are sure to follow.

[Anakin Skywalker]

27. Did You Mean to Use An Innuendo?

"Explosions"? Damn straight! As in ORGASMIC EXPLOSIONS!

Hah hah! *Yes, I am juvenile*

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Sequoia]

57. I know him. Gave him a mint julip on my wide porch in the wicker rocker.

[sugapablo]

46. The "snuggling/smiling" wasn't the issue...the article title is misleading.

It was the threat of "serious consequences" the man made after being told to knock it off that's at issue here. What a DUMBASS move given today's climate.

Besides, the two of them should've headed back to the restroom like normal people. ;)

[Sequoia]

56. Gack...you made me choke on my chocolate milk.

"Snugga-lists". Added to Webster's Dictionary.

[Bucky]

2. Patriotic Act? No. But maybe they can get them on air piracy laws?

Unless they were teachers, I don't see how this makes them terrorists.

On the other hand snapping angrily at the flight attendant is probably a pretty big mood killer.

[Bucky]

4. Oh wait! I get it now. Telling the attendant there'd be "serious consequences" is the terrorism.

So when you tell your kids there's serious consequences for missing their curfew, that's like terrorism.

[Canuckistanian]

29. I would take that to mean legal action, not violence

Unless it was said with a physically threatening demeanour, I think the air crew overreacted.

[olddad56]

65. "serious conseqences" could be terrorsim...

She could have had a bomb in her vagina and he could have detonated it with a remote control. Well, they could have, and if they did, that would most certainly have been an act of terorism. You just never know these days. They could have been sexy suicide bombers. Well, they could have been.

[NorthernSpy]

3. I heard the MHC is a bin Laden front group...

:dunce:

[bamacrat]

5. Couldn't they have done this in the planes bathroom like everyone else.

This isnt a threat to national security. But, decency laws may apply

[lapfog_1]

21. I'm guilty!!!

Now let tell about the time that my girlfriend met me at the airport with a long fake fur coat on and nothing, uh, underneath... and, well,

Err, what, this isn't Penthouse Letters???

[Sequoia]

60. Okay, how many of you here have bathroom sex on airplanes?

Considering one person can barley fit in anyway. I've been on planes and everyone wasn't going to the bathroom to have sex.

[truthisfreedom]

6. "vaginal area." also known as a lap, when someone is seated.

ridiculous.

[skipos]

34. A bit OT, but where does your lap go when you stand up?

I never understood that. :shrug:

[Old and In the Way]

7. Why do I feel I'm living inside a Monty Python movie?

Unbelievable.

[colorado_ufo]

8. This was ridiculous, however

since the "Jerk Act" hasn't been passed yet, they decided to label him a tera-ist! Which is really stupid, since it could not hold up in court.

The sex stuff was harmless but obnoxious, but the real problem was his putting forth a vaguely stated threat. What did this guy consider serious? Slapping his girl friend or the attendant? Defecating in the aisle (as another Jerk once did)? Taking off his pants and exposing himself to other passengers? Damaging other passengers' belongings?

If you were a flight attendant, would you like to be spoken to this way? Do you have any responsibility to the other passengers, particularly those with children? How should he or she have handled this Jerk?

BTW, the woman he was with has abysmal taste in men. He was probably too cheap to get them a nice hotel. And God help her if the airline food was dinner.

[colonel odis]

9. maybe it should be pursued so the patriot act can be held up as a piece of

insidious shit.

if this couple is prosecuted and this man jailed for snapping at an airline attendant, the resounding roar of laughter from the country will further take the wind out of the bush administration's sails.

[Egnever]

10. Sewell was observed smiling

:rofl:

[oblivious]

20. That alone is worth ten years in the slammer.

Can you imagine how upsetting that must have been to the other passengers?

Unacceptable behavior.

[peacebird]

26. PDAs are now acts of terrorism?!? good grief -

[Sapphocrat]

11. I can just picture it.

"Put down that weapon! ... No, THAT weapon!"

Patriot Act. How deranged. Annoying Assholes Act, yes; Patriot Act, no.

("During these actions, Sewell was observed smiling"... Would it make a difference if she'd been grimacing?)

[peacebird]

he kissed her and the laid his head in her lap, this is sexual HOW?

One presumes that had there been skin on skin action when his head was in has lap it would have been duly reported..... As it is - he says he was feeling ill and laid his head down.

[peacebird]

12. he kissed her and the laid his head in her lap, this is sexual HOW?

One presumes that had there been skin on skin action when his head was in has lap it would have been duly reported..... As it is - he says he was feeling ill and laid his head down.

[PassingFair]

13. Repeat that about 20 times......n/t

[Crim_n al]

58. This has nothing to do with sex. This is obvious terrorism.

The couple's actions were a coded message announcing their desire to join the terrorist organisation that every airline fears more than Al Qaeda, Australian football players or even the dreaded NMA*.

We have all heard of this frightful society, and the havoc they are coming to wreak on air-travel everywhere. They have been guilty of more explosions on aeroplanes than any other group in history.
They are the dreaded "Mile High Club" and the only way to prevent them blowing each other up on aeroplanes is to apply large amounts of ice to their most extreme members. How ever hard it is, we must take these people on and never let up until they surrender in exhaustion.

Don't be afraid. There is now a simple way to detect such terrorists on planes. Just put your face in their lap and see if they smile.

*Nursing Mothers Association

[KansDem]

16. Perhaps we need to pass the "Pet-triot Act"

...to put a stop to these in-air shenanigans!

[area51]

49. LOL.

:spank:

[ozone_man]

17. That is so silly.

Like who hasn't had an experience like that on a sparsely populated 747 at night. That's normal right? At least if you're under 30 or so. I guess we're all love terrorists at some level. ;)

[lapfog_1]

22. We're on the jihad of love and can't turn back...

We're doin the jihad of love in my pink cadillac

(apologies to Aretha)

Terrorists of Love... I'm going to try that one out on my girlfriend. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[ozone_man]

35. Yes, the jihad of love.

That the world should have such serious problems as too much love. ;-)

[LisaM]

23. Threatening flight attendants is NOT okay

He told her he was giving her a warning. I'm sorry, but flight attendants have plenty of responsibilities, and being threatened mid-air is completely unacceptable. Maybe it's not terrorism, but threatening someone who is just doing her job is totally over the top.

[BlueCollar]

42. Bravo,,,n/t

[Zynx]

24. Threatening airline crew = thuggish and stupid. Go to jail.

[JudyM]

25. Yeah, but 20 years? And clearly there was no gun or knife, just bluster. n/t

[Anakin Skywalker]

28. He's NOT going to get 20 years! News writers just like to use the "potential maximum penalty" thing.

[JudyM]

31. Of course, but it illustrates that it's the wrong law to apply. Like animal rights activists are

now prosecutable as terrorists. It's ridiculous.

[Anakin Skywalker]

33. I don't disagree. I think it's silly too.

[lapfog_1]

32. Mandatory minimums.

That he may have to face a trial is insane.

That a jury may find him guilty (which, technically, he probably IS) is insane.

That there is very likely a mandatory minimum FEDERAL sentence is insane (and you do know that the Feds there isn't any time off for good behavior in the federal criminal justice system).

[bumponalog]

30. Is 'I'm going to tell on you' now considered a terroristic threat?

The guy says by "consequences" he meant he was going to tell the flight attendant's superiors. I could buy that, barring any convincing evidence that he actually had more sinister intent. Did he say anything more specific than "consequences?" Obviously, quite a lot can be read into that word, but then again that word should be able to be employed in daily use without someone misinterpreting it as a terroristic threat. What made the word "consequences" a terroristic threat in this particular case, according to the flight attendant? The location? Is "consequences" now a word that cannot be spoken on a plane, like "bomb" or "hijack," and is there an actual codified list of forbidden words somewhere? Unless there's a LOT stronger evidence out there than the flight attendant's say-so, this case should go down the legal turlet real quick.

[anotherdrew]

61. well, turns out he was right

they were not left alone, and now there are serious consequences

how prophetic really

[Exiled in America]

59. Oh please.

[anotherdrew]

62. the attendand should have backed the hell off - that was no 'threat' either

what he said was not a threat of any violent nature. I'm all for jailing 'air-ragers' but this is not that. rather, it is ABUSE OF AUTHORITY

those attendant are there to _SERVE_ you the CUSTOMER, they are not little god-damned wannabe police.

this couple did NOTHING wrong and if you can't see that, I feel sorry for you, you're already almost fully converted into a modern American slave.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

36. Guy says he threatened to report the flight attendant to his supervisors on landing.

Lock him up and throw away the key! MKJ

[colorado_ufo]

48. Not on subject, but

the picture of McCain reminded me of just how "presidential" he is! If he decides to formally announce a run for the White House, that photo should be plastered everywhere. It just exudes strength and character.

[Drum]

37. Oh brother...

that's IT? And they're threats to national security?

Fer cryin' out loud. Airline and airport people are off the hook anymore. Uniforms have come to turn people into beasts nowadays...they seem to take such joy in ordering others around.

Hmmm, there's a word for this...what is it...? :eyes:

[crikkett]

51. the word, in some circles, is bitchy

and the patriot act has given them a magic wand to swish around.

[AIJ Alom]

38. And in his defense, the guy with his head in girlfriend's lap

said in another article that he suffers from a disease that makes him irritable.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/11/15/sex.plane.ap/index.html

A man arrested for allegedly engaging in "overt sexual activity" with his girlfriend on an airliner was lying with his head on her lap because he wasn't feeling well, his attorney said.

She said Persing suffers from a chronic disease requiring medication that makes him drowsy, dizzy and irritable. She would not identify the disease to protect her client's privacy.






I've done the same thing and no one's complained.

[xchrom]

39. gasp -- the axis of Snugglers!

[Dr Batsen D Belfry]

40. New Video: Airlines Gone Wild

Sorry to say, but had this been a sexual act, then they could have simply called ahead to the airport and had the couple arrested for public indencency when they landed. To make it a terrorist act is nuts. Excuse the pun.

DBDB

[Eurobabe]

44. Is that a gun in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?

(Apologies to Mae West.)

[librechik]

45. Can't take him anywhere!

just like my hubby!

:eyes:


:rofl:

[AnneD]

47. Long ...

on law, short on common sense. Why do the call it common sense anyway, doesn't seem to be to common anymore.

[praeclarus]

50. ok, nevermind the guy, ...

... who should have known better than to utter those
words but what did the woman do that could land her
in jail for 20 years?

[Vinca]

52. Maybe she's considered an accomplice because she's

in possession of said vagina.:rofl:

[Crim_n al]

53. Will that then be an exhibit of the court?

I imagine it will need careful examination by the jury.

Under the sir-cum-stances it should at least be confiscated as an implement of terrorism.

[FlaGranny]

54. Funny.

NOT. Jerks, those two. Exhibitionistic jerks.

Lest you think I'm a prude, I've been known to enjoy a "smoker" or two and I don't object to breastfeeding in public and nude beaches are cool too. Damned if I know why people want to exhibit their sexual escapades to people who aren't interested, though.

Edit: The article does not say "head in lap." It says "face in vaginal area." Something entirely different.

[Sequoia]

55. Right next to the breast-feeding baby.

[anotherdrew]

63. anyone find any followup, what's happening to these people? n/t

[Veronica.Franco]

64. Frigid flight attendant with a rabid Radio Shack Manager mentality ...

LOL ... obviously ... for crissakes leave people alone ... I've seen couples fight and nobody says a word ... parents discipline their children inappropriately ... and lazy airline atttendants ON SOUTHWEST, oh yeah, I mean YOU Nadine, who flap their jaws from Pittsburgh to San Jose when passengers could have enjoyed catching a nap ... a sweet nuzzling couple would be a pleasant change of events compared to Nadine, Southwest's MOST obnoxious, nosy, lazy, flight attendant ...

Did you know that you have to write Southwest a letter to complain? ... They have NO email address for customer complaints ... only snail mail ... Write them and complain about their blatent irresponsible interference with these passengers ...

What is this, UTAH? .. sheesh ...

[DemBones DemBones]

66. SInce none of us were on the plane, we only know what the news report said,

which, if you read the entire article, included that the couple's activities "were making other passengers uncomfortable." That suggests this was going on in broad daylight -- not at night, not under a blanket.

The airline has a responsibility to all their passengers and the flight attendant had to ask this couple twice to stop whatever they were doing. The guy was very foolish to threaten the flight attendant who asked them to stop their "ill-concealed sexual play." Everyone knows that in airports today you can't joke about bombs on planes, etc. If you fly, you basically cede your rights to the airline and security personnel.

The strangest thing to me is that this couple are both in their forties. You expect people who've lived that long to have better sense. :shrug: