But he stood up and announced that he was in the process of using his metal pipe to disable flight instruments. Given everything you said, it's especially appropriate to detain him. I'm less concerned when an out of shape accountant says "I'm going to kill you with my bare hands" than when an MMA expert says "I'm going to kill you with my bare hands."
But if that pesticide has no biological mechanism of interacting with humans, being scared of it is stupid.
I run Linux, hence, I'm not particularly scared of windows viruses.
...what? First, I'm not talking about logic, I'm talking about the rules of search and seizure of evidence in the US criminal justice system. Second, your "logic" fails to account for the qualitative difference between body parts and inanimate objects. And finally, no, what makes something seizable as evidence is the reasonable suspicion that it was used in the commission of a crime.
If you did have a "rape tool," like say a coil of rope, no, it cannot just be seized from you at random "just because maybe you could use it for rapin'." However, if you announce to the world in a public place that you were in the process of using the rope for rape, then, yeah, it should be examined to see if it was used in the commission of rape. "Flyin' back from raping with my trusty rapin' rope." *You* created a reasonable suspicion that you were engaged in rape, and the evidence of such a crime was in plain view of police officers who are lawfully present. If you don't want it seized, don't talk about how you're using it for rape.
If you don't want your laptop seized as evidence you were using it to poke around in aircraft control systems you have no authorization to be in, don't tweet about how you're poking around in aircraft control systems you have no authorization to be in.
But it's the exact kind of tool with which one would carry out the threat he made. And TFS said they seized his "storage devices" also. I would not be shocked if they took his phone, and for the same reasons. Actually I'd be shocked if they didn't.
Your analogy is even more torturous. You said "acquaintance." But he didn't say this quietly to someone who knows him. He broadcast it on twitter. To anyone who happened to be reading.
And if someone on my plane did start talking about making weapons and stabbing people, I would absolutely report that person to the flight crew. That is weird. That is weird, suspicious, dangerous behavior.
This was the guy's tweet:
“Find myself on a 737/800, lets see Box-IFE-ICE-SATCOM, ? Shall we start playing with EICAS messages? “PASS OXYGEN ON” Anyone ?
Your sample dialog about the tray makes it sounds like a concern that someone else might do something bad. But this guy was using first person pronouns. Not that "someone else could do something bad" but "shall I do something bad?"
So let's rephrase that for your tray analogy, where your seat mate (that you don't know) leans over and says to you (or even to a friend, but you clearly overhear), "Find myself on this plane...let's see, a tray I can craft into a knife? Shall we start stabbing people? "Bleeding out" anyone?"
Yes, I'd report that. Weird as shit.
Sounds like a Terroristic threat to me.
No, you may not excuse threats against passenger aircraft, whether by bomb or by hack, with a smiley emoticon. When you make such threats, your bomb or hacking tool may be seized by law enforcement.
On what planet is employment not a zero-sum game?
There is one job opening for Office Jockey. Both Dave and Sally apply for the job. Please spin the narrative wherein they both get the job, making it not a zero-sum game.
Either Dave gets the job, or Sally gets the job. They do not both get the job. Since Sally's had lots of extra computer training at the special "girls only" comp sci program she attended in high school, Sally gets the job. What does Dave do now?
Well I guess he can find a different job. The appreciation of poetry he picked up at the special language arts school to which he was assigned doesn't help him much in his next interview for a desk job, whereat he's competing with Jane, who was also at Sally's school.
Frustrated and unable to find an inside job, Dave answers the want ad to be the sanitation worker who picks up the trash behind Sally's and Jane's office buildings. But hey, now he can write a sonnet about waste management.
But they don't need a warrant to seize the laptop. It's in plain sight of officers in a place they're authorized to be (the airplane). If he had been musing about smashing the plane up with a crowbar, they wouldn't need a warrant to seize the crowbar when he's still carrying it on the plane, either. Now, if they hadn't got him on the plane, and he had instead gone home, and they wanted to search his home for the laptop then, yes, they'd need a warrant.
Warrants are not required for searches. All that's required is reasonableness, and a warrant is one method of showing that you have demonstrated reasonableness. But, for instance, an officer does not need a warrant to search a place when he is in hot pursuit of a criminal. If the cop is pursuing the bank robber from the bank and sees him enter a home, he does not have to wait for a warrant to enter the home. The search is automatically reasonable, because hot pursuit.
You wouldn't find what he did the least bit threatening? Somebody on the plane you're on musing aloud about how he could disable parts of the flight systems?
I wonder if the FBI agents "mused" about how they could just "shoot him in the head." Just musing, of course. Not like they're actually going to do it. Just, ya, know, they could...
And I bet if they had, you'd be right here talking about how RIDICULOUS and TERRIBLE and UNPROFESSIONAL it would be for them to have done so! That's life and death stuff right there! And how would he know if they really would or not?
But they were just kidding, so it'd be fine, right?
You need more than hands to stab someone. You also need a knife.
If you stood up in the aircraft cabin and announced that you had a knife and "could stab flight crew," yes, your knife would be confiscated.
Similarly, if you announce that you "could start messing with flight controls and indicators" in a cabin of an airplane, with your laptop, yes, your laptop should be confiscated.
I don't think they need a warrant at all to seize his laptop. Warrants attest to the "reasonableness" of a search. The 4th amendment protects from "unreasonable search and seizure."
Officers can seize any evidence of a crime that is in plain sight when they are somewhere they are authorized to be.
The officers were fully within their authority to board the plane, and probably did so with the permission and appreciation of the plane's owner and the pilot. There, in plain sight, is the laptop of the person who announced to the world that he was considering tampering with the flight computers. Why would they need a warrant to seize the tool with which he said he might do so?
Replace "tweet" with "stand up and announce" and "laptop" with "metal pipe" and the story becomes "Man stands up in aircraft cabin and announces he 'could disable flight instruments' with metal pipe." Not that he necessarily was going to. Just that he could...and he's got to the tool to do so right here...kinda maybe thinking about it...
How would it be "unreasonable" to seize the man's metal pipe on the spot? No warrant required.
No, moron, perhaps he wants to go to the shiny new school with the new facilities and the focus on STEM because he's interested in STEM, instead of going to the language arts school because he's not interested in language arts.
Then again, he probably should do something else anyway. STEM is a sucker's game. What you want to be is the administrator whipping the STEM mules to produce.
All the janitorial staff in my office are men. Pretty sure men clean toilets, too.
The point of these social experiments seems to get more and more women into the desk and office jobs. That leaves only the grubby, dirty, outside jobs for men. And nobody gives a shit about that.
And no, I'm not crying to hold on to some men's only club. On my floor here my technical team is 4 men and 3 women, and our boss is a woman (as are the 2 superiors of hers to whom I report), and ~48/50 of the non-technical desk workers in the cubes outside my office window are women. Which is fine, I love my job and my workplace. So it's not like I'm "scared of teh girls takin' over!" They already have and I'm perfectly okay with that.
But the "it's so awful, get all the training for girls and ignore boys!" hysteria seems pointless. Girls already dominate the educational system. They will dominate the future workforce. A boy growing up now who didn't have all these special programs will have a tough time competing with the girls who were prepped and trained for this their entire lives, so what else is he going to do? Maybe he'll luck out like my boss's husband. He stays home and takes care of the kids while she works. Lucky bastard.
If my son needs sanitary products and cannot get them, yes, he's disadvantaged.
I doubt that the STEM program at the mixed school my son would have to go to if I lived in this district will be on par with the shiny new facilities at the new school that specializes in STEM (for girls). Separate...but I doubt equal.
I have a son and a daughter. It seems as if the world is rolling out a welcome mat for my daughter. And I appreciate that! I want her to have every opportunity! But at the same time it seems like the world is telling my son to pound sand and fend for himself. He's not 3 yet so it's far too early to tell, but maybe he'll luck out and it'll turn out he's gay or trans. Otherwise...straight white male. Kid is fucked.
Women want all the good jobs...let them have them. My (technical field) boss is a woman, and her husband stays home and takes care of the kids. Lucky bastard.
To be fair, VB is not awful since
That said, it's kind of ridiculous. So, you're savvy enough to chain LINQ queries and parse lambda expressions, but...curly braces?! What devilry is this?! I SO CONFUSE!!!1!!
If you have a procedure with 10 parameters, you probably missed some.
