8 ms·

Detained is his drama fathers word. There’s no evidence he was forced or dragged somewhere. They wanted to question him, probably in a private area. He wasn’t

Detained is his drama fathers word. There’s no evidence he was forced or dragged somewhere. They wanted to question him, probably in a private area. He wasn’t getting on any of their flights w/o answering so he went along with it.

photonerd 3y ago
> They wanted to question him, probably in a private area. That’s literally detaining him, so I am not sure what you’re objecting to here.
- boring_twenties 3y ago
  Literally not. If he complied voluntarily whilst having the option to leave, that's the exact opposite of detaining him.
  - cjbgkagh 3y ago
    He doesn’t have to comply, he could have simply walked to his destination instead of flying
  - axus 3y ago
    The article isn't clear if he complied voluntarily. Was breaking their handhold and dashing out of the airport into a taxi-cab his other option?
    - boring_twenties 3y ago
      IANAL but I think unless you are arrested, a handhold in and of itself would be illegal?
  - jerf 3y ago
    "Voluntarily" may be doing a lot of heavy lifting in that sentence. People are often not fully aware of what they can and can not refuse to do. Airports have gotten a lot more complicated on that front in the last 20 years.
  - Tronno 3y ago
    Depending on the age of the child, they may not be able to legally consent to whatever happened, especially if coercion was involved. I suggest giving the victim some leeway here, given that so many airlines have a track record of passenger abuse.
  - mock-possum 3y ago
    He’s a teenager squaring up with security guards - there’s a power imbalance there that bears consideration imo
  - sonicshadow 3y ago
    Do you think there's a situation in an airport, of all places, where you refusing to comply with a security guard's orders goes well for you? I comply with everything an airport official says because a) I'm brown and b) I'm at the airport to go on a flight, not argue with some power-tripping douche.
    - boring_twenties 3y ago
      I think an airport is probably one of the least worst places: a very public place with lots of witnesses and cameras, plus its own relatively relaxed police force. If you have a flight to catch, of course, the calculus changes but once that becomes a lost cause, all bets are off.
      - sonicshadow 3y ago
        So more cameras to catch you slipping up once or thinking you have the "right" to do something, when in reality you don't because it's an airport. If I miss my flight I'm more motivated to catch the next one, not test my available civil liberties in front of poorly-paid ex-military. Best case you end up detained (in the real sense) for a long time and potentially acquitted in court, months later and having incurred plenty of mental trauma. Worst case you just go to jail. Sounds like a lose-lose
  - public_defender 3y ago
    https://xkcd.com/538/ https://xkcd.com/538/ Ha. Ha. Suddenly everyone's an expert in what constitutes detention. There's actually a big difference between "literally not detaining" someone and not detaining someone. I think the detention naysayers in this thread have failed to consider that the people who practice this type of behavior are experts. Frequently the whole business of these interrogators is to make sure that someone is "not literally" detained, but that they are in fact detained, in the sense that they do not feel free to leave. In this way, the interrogator has not committed a crime or malfeasance by falsely detaining a person, but they isolate them and make them feel as though they need to answer questions. The worst part is that there is almost no clear coaching for how a person is supposed to get through this type of situation. With the police, we can give clear advice: (1) ask "am I being detained or am I free to leave?" (2) Refuse to engage in conversation; (3) Ask for a lawyer. But these aren't police. They will tell you that you are not being detained. They have a few hundred dollars of your money and maybe a bunch of your clothes, and they just need you to answer a few questions before you get on the plane. What are you going to say? "I refuse to answer questions without a lawyer"? "I refuse to remain in this tiny office answering questions"? Ok. Great. You're banned, and maybe turned over to TSA for a real custodial interrogation for acting so suspiciously at an airport. Anyway, all this to say that your word games with "literally" this and that are not clever because this is actually much worse than a real custodial interrogation because the rights and obligations are much less clear and that lack of clarity accrues to the corporation's advantage.
    - sonicshadow 3y ago
      Thank you, I was waiting for someone to clarify the word "detain". You're right this is more nefarious than an official police detention
    - boring_twenties 3y ago
      If they are airline employees and not cops I'm not aware of any way they can detain you, short of a citizen's arrest which usually requires them to have observed you committing a felony? In this case I would just declare that I'm leaving and if any resistance, demand the real cops be called or call them yourself. Same if they refuse to return your cash and/or luggage.
- bobbean 3y ago
  It's literally not. That's the definition of an interview
  - photonerd 3y ago
    They forced him to officially stay in a place & be questioned or he was going to be removed & deprived of something he legally purchased. That’s detainment by coercion at least.
boeingUH60 3y ago
I agree with you on this. The issue is that people want to get outraged at any little thing nowadays out of self-righteousness.
- jackmott42 3y ago
  [flagged]
- mitchdoogle 3y ago
  Intimidating and scaring people before they have done anything is worthy of outrage. That should not be acceptable at airports anywhere. And that's before you even consider that what the kid was trying to do was not unethical, so receiving any punishment whatsoever is outrageous.
jackmott42 3y ago
[flagged]
sonicshadow 3y ago
Alright the first paragraph: > A teen traveling solo for the first time from Gainesville, Florida to Charlotte was taken to a security room by American Airlines. There he was interrogated – and forced to buy a new ticket – according to the boy’s father. What is your definition of "detained"?
- awb 3y ago
  Private companies have no legal right to detain anyone. They probably intimidated him into coming with them and he agreed / complied.
- LeafItAlone 3y ago
  detained: to hold or keep in or as if in custody > according to the boy’s father Who wasn’t present. The airline may have asked nicely and the son complied and never tried or asked to leave. That’s not being detained. We will probably only know the details if this goes to court and it comes out or if video of the interaction is released.
  - sonicshadow 3y ago
    I guess the burden of proof lies with the person writing the story, so if you want to believe it's all wrong then go ahead.
    - LeafItAlone 3y ago
      This entire article is based off the word of the father who has supposedly been flying with Skiplagged for over five years and somehow didn’t know that the airlines didn’t look favorably on it. That makes me just a little suspicious, since the time I heard of it my first question was “is this allowed”.
  - dylan604 3y ago
    If the boy is an underage teen, then it would also be illegal to interrogate him without the presence of a guardian. If I am going about my business, but you request that I stop what I'm doing to follow you to have a chat, you are detaining me. period. you pussyfooting around this like it's not is just disingenuous at best
mitchdoogle 3y ago
It seems to me like the kid thought he didn't have a choice but to go with them. That would be forcing him. If it was typical security/police talk, it probably went something like, "You need to come with us. We need to ask you a few questions". I'd guess most teenagers would be too intimidated and scared to do anything else. If they didn't specifically inform him that he didn't have to go with them or answer their questions, then it sounds like he was detained

photonerd 3y ago

> They wanted to question him, probably in a private area. That’s literally detaining him, so I am not sure what you’re objecting to here.

boring_twenties 3y ago
Literally not. If he complied voluntarily whilst having the option to leave, that's the exact opposite of detaining him.
- cjbgkagh 3y ago
  He doesn’t have to comply, he could have simply walked to his destination instead of flying
- axus 3y ago
  The article isn't clear if he complied voluntarily. Was breaking their handhold and dashing out of the airport into a taxi-cab his other option?
  - boring_twenties 3y ago
    IANAL but I think unless you are arrested, a handhold in and of itself would be illegal?
- jerf 3y ago
  "Voluntarily" may be doing a lot of heavy lifting in that sentence. People are often not fully aware of what they can and can not refuse to do. Airports have gotten a lot more complicated on that front in the last 20 years.
- Tronno 3y ago
  Depending on the age of the child, they may not be able to legally consent to whatever happened, especially if coercion was involved. I suggest giving the victim some leeway here, given that so many airlines have a track record of passenger abuse.
- mock-possum 3y ago
  He’s a teenager squaring up with security guards - there’s a power imbalance there that bears consideration imo
- sonicshadow 3y ago
  Do you think there's a situation in an airport, of all places, where you refusing to comply with a security guard's orders goes well for you? I comply with everything an airport official says because a) I'm brown and b) I'm at the airport to go on a flight, not argue with some power-tripping douche.
  - boring_twenties 3y ago
    I think an airport is probably one of the least worst places: a very public place with lots of witnesses and cameras, plus its own relatively relaxed police force. If you have a flight to catch, of course, the calculus changes but once that becomes a lost cause, all bets are off.
    - sonicshadow 3y ago
      So more cameras to catch you slipping up once or thinking you have the "right" to do something, when in reality you don't because it's an airport. If I miss my flight I'm more motivated to catch the next one, not test my available civil liberties in front of poorly-paid ex-military. Best case you end up detained (in the real sense) for a long time and potentially acquitted in court, months later and having incurred plenty of mental trauma. Worst case you just go to jail. Sounds like a lose-lose
- public_defender 3y ago
  https://xkcd.com/538/ https://xkcd.com/538/ Ha. Ha. Suddenly everyone's an expert in what constitutes detention. There's actually a big difference between "literally not detaining" someone and not detaining someone. I think the detention naysayers in this thread have failed to consider that the people who practice this type of behavior are experts. Frequently the whole business of these interrogators is to make sure that someone is "not literally" detained, but that they are in fact detained, in the sense that they do not feel free to leave. In this way, the interrogator has not committed a crime or malfeasance by falsely detaining a person, but they isolate them and make them feel as though they need to answer questions. The worst part is that there is almost no clear coaching for how a person is supposed to get through this type of situation. With the police, we can give clear advice: (1) ask "am I being detained or am I free to leave?" (2) Refuse to engage in conversation; (3) Ask for a lawyer. But these aren't police. They will tell you that you are not being detained. They have a few hundred dollars of your money and maybe a bunch of your clothes, and they just need you to answer a few questions before you get on the plane. What are you going to say? "I refuse to answer questions without a lawyer"? "I refuse to remain in this tiny office answering questions"? Ok. Great. You're banned, and maybe turned over to TSA for a real custodial interrogation for acting so suspiciously at an airport. Anyway, all this to say that your word games with "literally" this and that are not clever because this is actually much worse than a real custodial interrogation because the rights and obligations are much less clear and that lack of clarity accrues to the corporation's advantage.
  - sonicshadow 3y ago
    Thank you, I was waiting for someone to clarify the word "detain". You're right this is more nefarious than an official police detention
  - boring_twenties 3y ago
    If they are airline employees and not cops I'm not aware of any way they can detain you, short of a citizen's arrest which usually requires them to have observed you committing a felony? In this case I would just declare that I'm leaving and if any resistance, demand the real cops be called or call them yourself. Same if they refuse to return your cash and/or luggage.
bobbean 3y ago
It's literally not. That's the definition of an interview
- photonerd 3y ago
  They forced him to officially stay in a place & be questioned or he was going to be removed & deprived of something he legally purchased. That’s detainment by coercion at least.

boeingUH60 3y ago

I agree with you on this. The issue is that people want to get outraged at any little thing nowadays out of self-righteousness.

jackmott42 3y ago
[flagged]
mitchdoogle 3y ago
Intimidating and scaring people before they have done anything is worthy of outrage. That should not be acceptable at airports anywhere. And that's before you even consider that what the kid was trying to do was not unethical, so receiving any punishment whatsoever is outrageous.

jackmott42 3y ago

[flagged]

sonicshadow 3y ago

Alright the first paragraph: > A teen traveling solo for the first time from Gainesville, Florida to Charlotte was taken to a security room by American Airlines. There he was interrogated – and forced to buy a new ticket – according to the boy’s father. What is your definition of "detained"?

awb 3y ago
Private companies have no legal right to detain anyone. They probably intimidated him into coming with them and he agreed / complied.
LeafItAlone 3y ago
detained: to hold or keep in or as if in custody > according to the boy’s father Who wasn’t present. The airline may have asked nicely and the son complied and never tried or asked to leave. That’s not being detained. We will probably only know the details if this goes to court and it comes out or if video of the interaction is released.
- sonicshadow 3y ago
  I guess the burden of proof lies with the person writing the story, so if you want to believe it's all wrong then go ahead.
  - LeafItAlone 3y ago
    This entire article is based off the word of the father who has supposedly been flying with Skiplagged for over five years and somehow didn’t know that the airlines didn’t look favorably on it. That makes me just a little suspicious, since the time I heard of it my first question was “is this allowed”.
- dylan604 3y ago
  If the boy is an underage teen, then it would also be illegal to interrogate him without the presence of a guardian. If I am going about my business, but you request that I stop what I'm doing to follow you to have a chat, you are detaining me. period. you pussyfooting around this like it's not is just disingenuous at best

mitchdoogle 3y ago

It seems to me like the kid thought he didn't have a choice but to go with them. That would be forcing him. If it was typical security/police talk, it probably went something like, "You need to come with us. We need to ask you a few questions". I'd guess most teenagers would be too intimidated and scared to do anything else. If they didn't specifically inform him that he didn't have to go with them or answer their questions, then it sounds like he was detained