5 ms·

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.

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.