“Terror on the tarmac”
There are risks and costs to being a John Doe. Vigilance against terrorism in an age of political correctness will open you up to lawsuits, CAIR witch hunts, public recriminations–or worse. You can stand up or submit. At PJM, Annie Jacobsen “has the harrowing tale of what happened when a Good Samaritan was transformed into a terror suspect. Required reading for Thanksgiving travelers:”
Jerry Wynn, of Jacksonville, Florida, considers himself a good American citizen. He believes the War on Terror to be real and important and he’s willing to accept certain inconveniences when he flies on commercial planes. He’s got two adorable kids whom he coaches at sports on the weekend. He thinks of their safety, and the safety of his wife, whenever any of them fly.
But what happened to Jerry Wynn on American Eagle Flight 4518 on September 21, 2007 has forced him to consider what the War on Terror means to his own, individual citizen’s rights. He wants others to know it could just as easily happen to them. And if it did, what would you do?
The rest of the story is here.
The ACLU doesn’t have the time, resources, or inclination to assist Jerry Wynn. Maybe there’s a pro-national security law firm willing to go to bat for an innocent bystander looking out for his country.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Annie Jacobsen, John Doe
Ed Driscoll
» The University Archipelago
Ed Driscoll
» First We Take Chicago, Then We Take BerlinNewsBusters.org
» Matthews on Ft. Hood Suspect Warning Signal: 'That's Not a Crime to Call al Qaeda, Is It?'Pundit & Pundette
» Westboro haters have enough to go around for everyoneTigerHawk
» Abortion and health care "reform"Weekly Standard
» The Federal Bureau of Non-Investigationprotein wisdom
» The One note song [Darleen Click]Pundit & Pundette
» Guess what? Hasan frequented strip club
This is just awful, how could they have treated this man like this?? There’s something seriously wrong when terrorists can’t be water boarded and get five star treatment in prison, but good citizens like Mr. Wynn are handled so brutally without even an apology!
“Here’s what the ACLU had to say: “We have reviewed your complaint and regret to inform you that the ACLU of Florida declines to offer you legal assistance. Due to our limited resources, we cannot take all civil liberties cases brought to our attention, and we must concentrate our resources where they are most needed.”
LOL….Translated it means…..
“Get lost, we don’t help white guys”
White male patriots need not apply
So what happened to the strange-behaving passenger? Surely the other passengers who were as alarmed by the man’s behavior as Wynn was could offer testimony?
This is a joke and a miscarriage of justice.
Y H G T B S M.
…wouldn’t have complained if they just bought him a beer and explained what happened…
Guy’s got his priorities right!
No good deed ever goes unpunished.
The American Communist Lawyers Union doesn’t help people who actually need it. They’re too busy suing schools for praying and towns for putting up Nativity scenes.
I’m with englishqueen, I want to know what the deal was with the odd passenger and what happened to him.
I would guess that the FBI won’t offer an apology because to apologize would be to admit error and open them up for a lawsuit. But I would also guess that even a kind explanation would have gone a long way with the Wynn family.
I have to wonder… If Wynn were an Arab man in the same situation, innocent and assaulted by the Feds as a terrorist, would the ACLU have the resources?
The first line of defense on a plane flight are the passengers that spot suspicious behavior. We cannot be intimidated to not stand up and be counted. This story needs to circulate until this gentleman is given an explanation and an apology by the FBI. The only mistake he made was not alerting security when he saw the man board his plane. Once the plane gets in the air there are fewer options.
I feel for him, that was a terrible experience. But I think Mr. Wynn made a big mistake in not mentioning his concerns about the guy to a flight attendant. That, in itself, would’ve let the flight crew know that he wasn’t “with” the problem passenger.
At least that would be my first thought – to discreetly let the flight crew know about something suspicious. I suppose many of us have thought such things out in case we’re ever faced with like circumstances.
Mr. Wynn seems like a very intelligent and brave patriot, I’m a little surprised he didn’t try to alert the on-board “authorities”.
ACLU declining assistance to a real patriot done wrong? Best impersonation of Iago the Parrot:
Indeed – they do owe that to this good man.
I just read the whole story and I’d like to share some advice my father gave me. He was a detective on the NYPD, and retired after 28 years on the job.
He told me in no uncertain terms that if you are ever taken into custody by law enforcement you should never say anything except “I want a lawyer”.
Don’t ever think “I’m innocent, I have nothing to hide. I’ll answer their questions honestly and they’ll let me go.” It doesn’t work that way. Once you’re in custody the police have a vested interest in proving your guilt, not in finding the truth, and everything they do or say is working towards that end. If you’re in custody the cops are not your friends and aren’t trying to help you. Period.
“I want a lawyer”. Not one word more or less than that.
Please don’t misinterpret this as a knock against law enforcement in general. They perform a vital and often thankless job. But the system they operate within is designed to work a certain way, and it’s important to understand that.
The Foul Balls & Incompetents have a long history of killing and harming citizens. Can you say “Ruby Ridge” or “Waco, Texas”? In addition, the SWAT Nazis of the DEA and BATFE have a long history of trashing small aircraft owners along the southern border when they mistakenly identify the wrong aircraft in a drug smuggling watch. There is also a long history of shooting people in their own homes during raids over supposed illegal guns that never existed. The Feds are more dangerous to the citizens than the terrorists.
Nothing surprises me any more. Saddens, but not surprises. just like pulling the plug in the bathtub, we’re whirling round and round, heading inexorably downward. And it seems like the politicians of all stripes (mainly black with white stripes along the back and tail) don’t seem to care – as long as they can make political hay out of it. In this case, it’s not politically advantageous. Therefore, nothing to see here. Move along.
I dunno. I get a strong feeling that if Wynn were of Middle Eastern, Arab, or Persian descent that people would be applauding the FBI’s actions.
What happened to Wynn was disgraceful.
But what happened to Maher Arar was so much worse.
Whether it’s a white guy or a Syrian, any policy where we detain, interrogate, and, sometimes, torture before asking questions is downright shameful and unAmerican.
Of course you think that. In your mind everyone who disagrees with you is a racist and/or facist. In fact you have nothing to base that on, and you’re a good deal more bigoted than the people you denounce.
Rant mode = ON
It’s stories like this which remind me why the FBI is called the “F***** Bunch of Incompentents“.
This sort of thing has been going on for decades and the blame can be laid to Hoover. He’s the one who basically set up a secret police force rather then an investigative force that Congress wanted.
I think the FBI is beyond reform and that it must be disbanded and the personal terminated from government employment.
Transfer their duties to the US Marshall service, ramp up training and bring in the best of the best from the FBI and other agencies.
We need more Detective Colombo’s and a lot less Inspector Clouseau’s.
Rant mode = OFF
Now if you will escuse me, I need to polish my tinfoil hat.
Nice try there, Rusty, to change the subject.
But what we are talking about here are United States citizens who have committed zero crimes.
Yup. As you sez, not because law enforcement are the bad guys but because it’s pretty easy to talk yourself into trouble without even trying.
Yeah, but we’re used to you and the feelings thing, Rusty. “My emotions tell me…” is just so much boilerplate preamble by now. Not news.
WOW! How did this happen? How could they have gotten the guys mixed up? As yes, whatever happened to El Poncho man?
What a whiner.
He didn’t get shot…he didn’t get hurt…they got to the bottom of it all…and he was released.
“The FBI considers this situation resolved” is apology enough!
We should be thanking them for being so thorough, professional, and correct!
I question this guy’s account.
That was EXACTLY what I was thinking.
And, as usual, even your attempt at moral equivalence falls woefully short.
That sounds to me like we acted in good faith based on the information supplied to us by the Canadian authorities, information we had no reason to doubt. You try to make it sound like we pull random Arabs off planes and send them to Syria for no particular reason. And, as usual, you’re wrong.
That’s a bit too over the top for me, Chuck. But if you put in a modifying “sometimes”, then you have a good point.
I’m not sure if I’m cynical enough to agree, but that is a very, very interesting point Rusty.
Hey folks we’re living in a post 9/11 world. I’d rather see an overreaction or mistake in a situation like this, than lack of action. I feel really bad for Mr. Wynn, and he sounds like a real patriot, but I’m not gonna jump up and down and condemn the actions of the government in this situation. They have to show vigilance. It’s a different era and time folks.
When I used to address Police cadets, I emphasised that one never swear at the suspect, nor shout unless one needs to be heard. In fact always be as polite as one can be under the circumstances. You can easily turn a bad situation worse. In this case we had the situation where the loud threats and swearing caused other agents to act even more belligerently. Really bad police work here.
While I applaud Mr. Wynn’s instincts to “keep an eye” on this guy, he should have alerted a flight attendant FIRST before changing seats. He instead turned the suspicion around on himself, and so the feds made a mistake. That’s pretty much it.
Had this happened to me, it sounds like an unpleasant experience but I certainly wouldn’t have gone crying to the enemy (ACLU) about it. For all the security-minded folks who frequent this blog, I ask you: would you feel safer if the opposite had happened and the feds had done nothing to Mr. Wynn or the dirty liberal hippie?
I mean, you don’t hear anything about the Canadian citizen that we render to Syria to be tortured on this site. We do hear about the white guy that gets tackled and inconvenienced.
I’m sorry, but that’s no coincidence.
But, yeah, it does change the subject a little bit. What happened to Wynn was unacceptable. It does raise the question on how unacceptable is too unacceptable when it comes to the safety of our air passengers.
After seeing a couple of these posts I think it’s best to clarify something (keeping in mind I can only speak for myself):
The problem here isn’t what happened on the tarmac. In the world today we do have to treat things differently than 10 years ago. Even Mr. Wynn said that’s not what his problem is. His beef is that in the process of detaining him the agents acted in an unprofessional manner and then failed to give any explanation for their actions afterward. Assuming his account is true he has a legitimate complaint.
The ACLU is busy trying to protect actual bad guys…they have no use for defending one of the good guys, as is Mr. Wynn.
1) He wasn’t a Canadian citizen
2) it was the Canadians who told us he wasn’t a citizen
3) We therefore deported him to the country he is a citizen of.
You really ought to try reading stuff before you link to it.
Also, in firearms training (for citizens) the instructees are likewise usually taught not to yell things like “I’ll blow your head off!” at a potential aggressor.
Exactly, James Felix, I was just going to say something similar.
I do want reasonable suspicions to be handled. We cannot take any chances. But I agree that once Wynn was deemed a non-threat, he should have been treated civilly and offered an explanation.
From wikipedia:
Must have been a slow year.
Mr. Wynn’s mistake was not informing the flight crew of his suspicions and changing his seat. Seat changing by conspirators is common ie. the “flying immams”. He brought suspicion on himself with that act.
Where the FBI went wrong was in their unprofessional behavior. Screaming at people incites fear and the fight or flight instinct. Once the suspect,Mr. Wynn, was secured and immobile, the object should have been to defuse the situation, not exacerbate it.
As for not explaining or apologizing, well, ice storms in the nether regions are more common than government bureaucrats admitting anything without a court order.
Something about the way Mr. Wynn was treated by the FBI because of the idiot flight attendant does not sit well with me at all. Most flight attendants I have met are not rocket scientist and have no concept of how an aircraft operates more or less can act as a trained observer.
I am a trained observer with 11 years experience flying for the Military my first instinct would be to incapacitate the individual with the strange behavior immediately. I believe in the old Napoleonic maxim, “if in doubt attack.” The enemy we are fighting does not take prisoners and cooperation does not guarantee survival anymore.
As far as the FBI goes they appear to be the arrogant Government agency I have limited experience working with in the past. At the least they owe Mr. Wynn an apology and explanation leading to him being identified as an accomplice to the individual that appeared to be a threat.
He became a Canadian citizen in 1991. So, 1 is wrong. 2 and 3 are correct.
Regardless, sending an innocent person to Syrian prisons to be tortured on our behalf is bad news. And it’s much worse than the Wynn case.
Very unprofessional. But then again, they can’t even prevent illegal alien Hamas supporters from joining up.
heh.
I’d just add that using Wikipedia (”the enclopedia anybody can write” – and everybody does!) as a reference should be confined to things like cookie recipes. Rusty has been burned before via it; he wasn’t aware – because it didn’t fit in with the far left Wikipedia template he depends on – that in the Matthew Shepard case the original motive was found to be robbery, not a thought-hate crime. It was only after militant homosexual groups saw a PR opportunity that the motive was changed to something Politically Correct. Was in the hard news, even CNN reported it, but Wikipedia found that little tidbit to be – ahem – “inconvenient”. Just more of the “GIGO” principle at work when it comes to such sites.
I doubt if the FBI closed their investigation on the spot. I’m sure they probably scanned a profile and background check, even after he was released. Once he was finally in the clear, a letter of explanation would probably be appropriate, but Wynn should probably try to sue, file a complaint with personnel, or just move on.
I’m a criminal defense atty, and from experience I can tell you that law enforcement can sometimes be screaming, cussing, aholes. It ain’t right, but you gotta thicken your skin, chalk it up, and move on. Wynn could always make a personnel complain to the proper internal affairs type office, if he wants to take the time.
Hindsight being 20/20, Wynn should have informed the flight attendant(I’m piggybacking here), and explained his observations, and why he changed seats. I think this is a non-story, if the point is to criticize the government for simply doing their jobs, and being rude, swearing bastards while simply vigilantly doing that job.
Jerry should have been shouting “ALLAH AKBAR”.
Instant ACLU intervention.
Alerting someone on the flight crew would def be my first thought. They are the ones in charge of the aircraft and it’s passengers.
PurplePeep,
James Felix was wrong. Arar was a Canadian citizen.
And you are wrong about the Matthew Shepherd case. The defendants tried using a “gay panic” defense but the judge threw it out. You obviously hate Wikipedia, so here’s a link with the text of the judge’s ruling.
Robbery became the motive since hate crimes are factored into capital punishment. A robbery motive would have potentially saved their life.
/end threadjack
Chuck, you’re full of it. A comment like this is irresponsible. If it comes down to an either/or situation, then I’ll take my chances with my government.
Sometimes they get it wrong. I live with that. I’ve been on the receiving end of government incompetence- and it has cost me dearly. Luckily it didn’t cost me my life.
But I would never say the government is more dangerous than the enemy we fight today.
I am surprised you were allowed to put up a comment like this in a moderated discussion.
Truly.
I have to agree with Buck on this one.
On those small commuter flights, there is one flight attendant. He or she is expected to provide whatever service they have scheduled, answer the call buttons, make sure all pre and post flight procedures are followed, and, oh yeah, he or she is the sole airline employee tasked with security in the main cabin.
The flight attendant sees one guy don a poncho and a scarf, looking for all intents and purposes like a Hamas poster boy. He then pulls a strange object out that resembles a hand grenade.
About this time, thoughts are going through the FA’s mind as to whether they will ever see their family again. In the misdst of all this, another man positions himself beside the first man. Seat changing and positioning are something they are trained to spot.
Based on the description of the landing, this was an emergency landing and they undoubtedly cleared all airspace to get this plane on the ground quickly.
Now you have law enforcement getting into position, and the report they are given is that there is a possible bomb and two men are invloved. Since a bomb can be detonated with even the slightest movement, they have a vested interest in making sure a suspect does not move. At all.
The SOP no longer calls for speaking to people in a calm manner. It gives people time to think. Shouting and pressuring a suspect from all sides keeps them disoriented and focused on the police rather than the execution of any possible plan.
I feel bad for the guy, but while they let him go he was undoubtedly still a suspect – just not one posing an immediate danger. Like Buck said, the investigation was not closed on the spot.
Just my own opinion, but something seems like it is missing to the story. Did he perhaps arm himself with some object before he changed seats? That could explain being uncomfortably de-pantsed on the tarmac. Have to say, that is a new one! Chalk one up for the moms of the world – always wear clean underwear, just in case you’re in an accident, or, now, in case the FBI drops your drawers.
And what happened to “poncho’?
I don’t get it – what is his complaint? He was treated a little roughly and rudely perhaps. In the end it is a few hours out of his life and he is free to go. Whats does he want? An apology? Money perhaps? Get over yourself … if this guy was guilty we would all be patting the FBI agents on the back. He changed seats, acted weird, and didn’t let the flight crew in on his suspicions.
Interesting to learn that even though the mistakes came from Canadian intelligence and the guy has already collected a 10 million Canadian dollar settlement, he’s now money-grubbing against the US who only acted on Canada’s wishes. Even more interesting that this is Rusty’s reaction to this story and in his blindness he can’t even see how the US is blameless in this instance.
I agree with purplepeep that this particular John Doe should have informed the flight crew of his suspicions before acting on his own. But the FBI should have at least apologized when the mistake was cleared up.
I dunno Bear. Chuck might have a point there. After all, Ron Paul said it was 19 thugs that hijacked the planes. The truthers say our government (specifically Boosh and Cheney) blew up the buildings. Our governemnt sent our young men and women to a war to be killed for Boooosh’s amusement.
So, if we are going by body count:
Booosh admin – a bazillion
Terrorists – 0
/sarc off – DUH!
I’ll have to reiterate what a few others have said here:
Mr. Wynn should have brought his concerns to the flight crew before changing seats. Doing so may have prevented the treatment he received from the FBI once he was off the plane.
However, all the yelling and repeated threats to kill him (how else can one interpret “I’ll blow your f’ing head off”). By Mr. Wynn’s account, this dangerously raised the tension in an already tense situation. As he noted: what would have happened had he sneezed when on the ground, or if he had tripped while deplaning? Mr. Wynn has stated he understands the need for checking things out in this age of terrorism. It seems to me we would never have heard this story if the FBI, once they understood Mr. Wynn wasn’t a threat, was a “we’re sorry we had to inconvenience you, but…” apology.
And, I still want to know what happened to the other guy in the poncho and mask…
Good post on #47 Jim M.. Well said. Partcularly, what must have been going through the flight attendant’s mind.
I see a lot of people here poo-pooing the FBI for their actions. Let’s clear the water a bit: The FBI did not make a mistake. The crew of the aircraft made a mistake when they identified Mr Wynn as a suspect. Or, more accurately, Mr Wynn made the mistake when he changed his seat, without letting the flight crew know what his reason was. His actions led to the flight crew mistakenly identifying him as a suspect, which led to the FBI’s actions.
For those of you with little or no experience in the subject, allow me to shed some light: In a hostage rescue scenario, with minimal intelligence, the first priority of the responders, after neutralizing all visible threats, is to clear the AO (Area of Operations). That means making sure that there are no “sleepers” there. Heaven forbid any of you are involved in such a situation, but in case you are, allow me lay out a series of events for you:
1) The bad guys get neutralized by the good guys, who will utilize whatever TTPs they need in order to accomplish their mission.
2) Much shouting ensues on the part of the good guys, directed towards the hostages. This will include instructions to keep your effin’ hands where I can effin’ see them, and move towards the effin’ door in a single file effin’ line. This is a fact. The men (and rare woman) who will conduct this sort of operation are rough individuals for whom the dreaded “f” word is a noun, pronoun, verb, adjective, adverb, and, on rare occasions, a coordinating conjunction. It’s a part of their vocabulary and if the language offends you, invest in ear plugs. You likely won’t be able to hear very well from the flashbangs and gunfire anyway, so the shouting is necessary.
3) Once you get out the effin’ door, one individual will push you towards a line of your fellow co-hostages, where at least two other men, with guns trained, will be telling you to get on your knees and keep your hands on your head. Other men will be working the line, searching you thoroughly. They want to make sure that there are no “wolf among the sheep” as it were.
Now, in addition to this, if at some point during the actions that led to you being taken hostage, you act strangely and someone, in their post action interview, identifies you as behaving as such, you will get some “extra attention”.
Those, ladies and gentlemen, are the facts. The men and women who guard our freedoms are more than willing to die in the course of their duties, but they aren’t exactly eager to do so. They want to end their shift in the same condition they started it. While I’m sure the experience was uncomfortable and disorienting for Mr Wynn, that was the point of it. He was suspected of being an accomplice, and needed to be thrown off balance to try and trip him up. That is why the FBI asked him the same question multiple times. He answered them consistently, and he was released, more or less none the worse for wear.
I know this was a huge tangent, but the point is, if you act like a suspect, and you get identified as a suspect, you will get treated like one when the Good Guys kick down the door. The blame, ultimately, rests solely on Mr. Wynn. He needs to ruck up, press check, and drive on.
I’m a retired airline pilot. 38 yrs flying,35 as Cap.
Tx Mr. Wynn. WD. My apologies that you were roughed up and treated poorly. Your correct actions are your reward. Move on and take the same actions next time. ALL of you out there. Don’t worry about adverse consequences…Maybe, maybe, just ONE of you will stop one of the a**holes.
Semper Fi, Mr. Wynn.
Wow Archon! One of the best, most informative comments I’ve ever seen on this site. I know you got my attention.
I agree with you, Archon. Those federal agents did what they needed to do. Nothing more, and nothing less. They did nothing wrong at all.
I think what Mr. Wynn was saying was that he was perfectly willing to go through all that he went through, but that when everything pointed to him being just another passenger he should have been afforded a brief explanation of what happened. I can understand that to an extent. His interrogators just kind of disappeared. Mr. Wynn was believed to be a part of some terrorist plot, and he just wants to hear some representative of his country, the country he apparently loves dearly and supports unwaveringly, to say that he isn’t a terrorist.
Good point.
I admit to knowing nothing of the inner workings of the FBI (unless the X Files was an accurate representation.) As long as the innocent Mr. Wynn was not really injured, I would rather the government be very cautious when it comes to security. If they had reason to suspect danger, then the stakes were high and they had to do what they thought was safest for the passengers on the plane and all of the people in the airport. The pants thing is a bit disturbing, but it doesn’t sound like he was tortured.
And I have to disagree with Rusty on this:
I think detention and interrogation are a great place to start if a threat is perceived. I hope discretion is used in determining what constitutes a serious threat, but I don’t think it out of line to interrogate a person behaving suspiciously on a plane.
He was released. That says the US Government no longer thinks him a terrorist.
Could Mr Wynn have been treated better at the end of his ordeal? Certainly. But keep in mind 2 things: First, that the FBI investigators were probably pretty well steeped in their investigation, and as such, common courtesy was not on their mind. Second, no one is entitled to an apology. Your feelings may get hurt, but they are not protected by the Constitution nor mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. Hurt feelings will not keep you from living your life, unless you allow them to. Words, positive or negative, only have as much power as you give them.
Yes, Mr Wynn could have been treated better. But he wasn’t, and whining to the press won’t change a thing.
The problem is that Mr. Wynn doesn’t have any organizational backing – demanding an apology.
If he was black – he’d have Rev. Al.
If he was Arab – he’d have CAIR.
If he was Jewish – he’d have the JDL.
If he was gay – he’d have….whoever they have.
But he’s an average white guy – and we don’t have an advocacy group because we’re not persecuted, right?
Interesting that we’re #2 as victims for hate-crimes in this country, though.
( No – I’m not saying this was a hate-crime )
My only point is that if this gentleman was a minority – there are those who would be clamoring for an investigation, retribution and compensation.
All this guy wants is a simple, “Sorry – we made a mistake – please understand we were only following procedure based on the information we received.”
Sure, he may have made himself look suspicious by not speaking with the flight attendant about things and his actions – but I don’t know why an apology or explanation is so hard to get.
#53 Archon,
You offer a rational, reasoned apology for the actions of the FBI/ TSA/airline personnell/police involved in this fiasco but the out of control antics of the police, or whoever was doing the bullying, suggest to me fright rather than an intimidating act.
Whatever, there is plenty of blame for everyone; Mr Wynn for not alerting the flight attendant, the flight attendant’s questionable judgement, the officers extreme behavior and no apology.
And to Archon – I agree he isn’t “Entitled” to an apology. But to promote good relations with right-minded citizens in this day and age when actions like these can be transmitted across the world via the internet or news – a little P.R. work by someone would have been a positive step.
The only reason you won’t see this story used against the government as much as it could be is the part of the story where the guy states he understands we’re at war and have to be vigilant and supports our efforts….
Otherwise, the libs would have this guy’s face on posters already.
How Conveeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeenient
I would say that an apology is hard to get because an apology implies some sense of wrong-doing. The FBI had no error in judgement.
Allow me to start by saying that I am not offering an apology. I am trying to help everyone understand that real life is not like a Chuck Norris movie where the Good Guys kick down the door, shoot the bad guys, everyone cheers, and the square jawed hero gets the girl. Real life doesn’t work like that (although I certainly wish that it did).
As far as the “bullying” “antics” that suggest “fright rather than an intimidating act”, let me ask you: Have you ever been within 5 feet of someone you believed was trying to kill you? Have you ever cleared an aircraft, a school, a warehouse, or any place, of a suspected suicide bomber? The people who conduct these sort of actions, whether local PD, FBi HRT, or military Tier One units, are trained professionals. They are not “out of control”. However, I will most certainly say that there is some bit of fright. Put yourself in their situation: You have a man on the ground, five feet away from you, who, as far as you know, may or may not be carrying some sort of explosive device. Even if you’ve done this a hundred times, you would be a fool not to be scared just a little bit. I get that “pit of my stomach” feeling everytime I roll through a door, training or real life. It’s a natural human reaction. Throw into that mix the fact that, if this was the local PD’s tactical team responding to this (seems very short notice to mob HRT), they probably hadn’t done this in real life before. Training environment, sure. Real life, with the potential to have your nether regions blwon to the hinter regions? Doubt it.
And yes, the responders were being bullys. That is one of the steps needed. You bully the suspect to keep them off balance.
Remember folks, TV lies.
This is Cap. Toes again. I want you all to stop buying into the “victim” society.
Mr. Wynn is the good guy…a brother to the Flt. 93 peeps. He’s not any kind of victim. If Mr. Wynn ever boards my flight [kind of hard, I'm retired] I’ll upgrade him every time to first class. Leave the victimization of America to the Libs. Come on up to Alaska, Mr. Wynn… I’ll take you to the Kenai and we’ll catch some really big fish. Semper Fi again, Mr. Wynn
I disagree – I’m not saying that they have to apologize for their actions – but to say, “Sorry you had to go through that – BUT…..” would have gone a long way for this guy.
Remember – he is on their side in all this – all he asks for is a little “after the fact” consideration.
I’ve never been in this harrowing of a situation – but I have held, detained and interrogated individuals who later turned out to be innocent or not involved in the situation. I always explained the circumstances and offered my sincere apology for their inconvenience. Never for my actions.
There lies the difference.
That’s my point. It’s a courtesy that gets extended. You do it on the scene because you feel the person should know why they went through what they did. It’s you being a nice, stand-up guy. But if you don’t offer an explanation, your department will not come down on you, because there is no requirement to offer an apology or explanation.
I would be willing to guarantee that the officers who effected Mr Wynn’s detention, when they found out that he wasn’t involved, felt bad. I’m sure they would have liked to offer some sort of explanation. I’m also sure they thought about doing all this long after he was gone, and they had no further contact with him.
Likewise, I’m sure the people at the FBI who have fielded Mr Wynn’s calls and e-mails were not at the scene, and don’t feel any remorse. I’m sure that they understand that the agents were doing their job, and Mr Wynn does not deserve any extra time from their already overworked, underpaid days.
Mr Wynn had the best of intentions. He also had the worst execution of his intentions. In the circles I travel in, we have a saying. “Stupid should hurt.” Mr Wynn, no matter how good intentioned, lack foresight and did something incredibly stupid. He got his pee pee smacked for it. I guarantee you that if Mr Wynn is ever in a similar situation in the past, he will think more before committing to act.
I will say that Mr Wynn seems like a genuine guy who knows that the Feds were just doing their job. I can’t hold anything against a man who just wants a beer. My issue is mainly with the writer of the article. They are using words to invoke an overly emotional response to a simple situation. Look at the responses: “that poor man, the evil government,” blah blah blah. It sickitates someone who actually knows what’s going on.
“Experience is the hardest teacher because she gives the test first, the lesson after.”
I’ve never understood why law enforcement personnel
feel the necessity to scream four letters words at
suspects, and in this case, I think they did go overboard but something else was in play. Wynn said
the FBIs guns were shaking. Was that extreme emotion or fear. Were these guys on their first case?
It sounds like a snafu from Wynn not alerting the flight crew to the FBI.
As to the ACLU perhaps they are like the NAACP who
aren’t interesting in winning cases so much as creating and showing a victim. A lot of black people
have been let down by them and I suspect that at
times the ACLU pulls the same stunts.
And another American citizen awakens from the dream of the clean, facile war on terrorism. Welcome to the real world, Mr. Wynn. Remember: don’t move, or they’ll blow your f___ing head off. For freedom.
I’m surprised that the ACLU refused to take this case. This seems to be a clear violation of his Fourth Amendment rights.
It’s simply a part of the culture. In addition, shouting and vulgarities are good at getting your attention and getting immediate compliance. Immediate compliance is what the officers are looking for.
Extreme emotion or fear? A bit of both, I’m sure. On the part of the Men With Guns, and Mr Wynn. How much of the shaking he saw was from the agents, and how much was because Mr Wynn was likely (though he doesn’t remember it) trembling like a leaf. First case? I doubt it, but if it was the local PD whose tactical team responded to this, it is likely that this is the first time they’ve responded to a “bomb on plane” call for real. Let’s face it, when you potentially have a bomb mere feet from you, you are going to be a little scared. You’re also going to do everything in your power to control the situation.
Care to expound on that?
That is an OUTSTANDING quote. I’m gonna steal it. I haven’t seen you on this site before Archon, but you are all over this issue, and nailing every point.
Steal away, I stole it in the first place. How’s that for “wealth redistribution”? I think the originator was Vernon Sanders.
And yes, I be new here. Long time reader, just registered in the last round. I tend to keep my yap shut most times, but this is something that would fall within my “lane”. Just trying to edjimacate the masses.
Me:
Archon:
Sure. They ripped his clothes off of him and went through his wallet without (a) arresting him (b) a warrant (c) probable cause.
They also questioned him for some time without reading him his Miranda rights.
I’m really surprised the ACLU didn’t take the case.
The probable cause was when the flight attendant informed the pilot, who informed authorities, that Mr Wynn was acting in a suspicious manner and they thought that he was affiliated with Poncho. This suspicion was based on Mr Wynn’s seat change, and probably on his looking about the cabin in addition to looking at Poncho. Flight attendants get training to look for this sort of thing. As I’ve said before, Mr Wynn had great intentions, but horrible execution.
Your Miranda Rights only need to be read to you after you have been arrested. Arrested, not detained. There is a difference.
Educate away Archon because I have never been held at gunpoint so my only frame of reference are tv reality shows.
Truthfully, I sort of had a picture of Barney Fife in a
blue suit and regulation haircut.
I too, love your quote, and find it very apropo for
Jerry Wynn. He reminds me of my Mother when she
saw a wrecked car in a bar ditch. She stopped to help
(she’s a nurse) and left her lights on to see what had happened (this was pre cell phones) when her
car was hit from behind by a woman who claimed
Mother’s headlights blinded her. Suit by said woman was dismissed, but taught me that no good
deed is never without some kind of consequences.
Then we agree. That’s all I was saying.
Love his chicken.
They had probable cause, most likely, from the statement of the flight attendant / crew who possibly thought he was with “Mr. Hippie”.
If they thought that – they had probable cause to detain him – and take precautionary measures to ensure he was not strapped with explosives or weapons, hence the strip search.
From the article – the only questions they asked him initially were who were the people in his pictures and how did he know “Mr. Hippie”.
When his answers were unsatisfactory to them, they mirandized him and went deeper into the interrogation.
No violations of any rights.
Archon – thou art quicker at the keyboard than I….
Personally, I think the whole point here is the FBI trying to make it look like they are doing their job….but doing it to people with no legal recourse. Maybe if they did this to the middle easterners who disrupt flights it would look like a good thing. But THEY can sue….white American patriots can’t :/ They used this guy as an example : “Hey look,, we are serious!!!” Bull!
archon said:
The men (and rare woman) who will conduct this sort of operation are rough individuals for whom the dreaded “f” word is a noun, pronoun, verb, adjective, adverb, and, on rare occasions, a coordinating conjunction.
LOL! great post A..
Good grief. A special thanks, Archon (#53) for adding excellent info.
I have more than 1.8 Million air miles and have been detained many times and strip-searched twice after international flights, once after flying a concord — wearing a business suit and carrying only a briefcase — into Charles de Gaulle some 15 years ago. I’m female, blonde, 5′2″ and about as threatening as a sponge.
Welcome to the real post-911 world in the US, folks. Europeans and Asians have had serious security at their airports for many years and have suffered a myriad of terrorist strikes. This scenario is accepted life there and unfortunately must be here, too. But one incident out of how many fliers? We lounging in front of our US computers have been very lucky so far.
Touch down at Changi, Narita, Frankfort, Heathrow a couple of times and have a rude awakening…or especially at Sheremetyevo, where you are guaranteed to be greeted by Kalashnakovs. It’s a real eye-opener that apparently most of you haven’t a clue about. And it’s been going on for years and years.
This fellow should be commended for his spirit, but I hope he learned a valuable lesson. When he changed seats without offering the slightest word of concern to attendants, that is all they saw. Coupled with the other fellow with abberant behaviour, they knew they had an undefinable situation and responded properly, as did the FBI. Probable cause.
By the way, I wonder what happened to the original roughshod wearing house shoes??? Any word on his disposition? He’s the story, in my book.
I suppose they could have been in a humorous mood and sequestered Mr. Wynn for a few years. No habeas corpus for terrorists nowadays.
Sometimes police do things out of spite and dislike of civilians. Been there. Had done to me.
Alphonse,
I would rightly be considered a racist if I said, “Sometimes (insert your race of choice here) do things out of spite and dislike of (insert your race of choice here).”
No doubt there are bad police officers out there, just like there are bad accountants, bad white people, bad truck drivers, bad black people, bad farmers, bad bankers, bad burger flippers, and bad people whose name starts with the letter “K”. You’re generalizing unfairly.
Generally speaking, our law enforcement community is made up of some of our best and brightest, and few sacrifice more than they do in regard to family, work hours, and the danger to which they expose themselves daily. Sure there are some bad apples, but don’t project it onto the entire community.
The people that subscribe to this blog are WAY too smart to fall for that ignorant tactic.
Females are dangerous, blondes make men dumb, and sponges can carry smallpox. You, ma’am, are potential timebomb waiting to go off.
Are you suggesting that habeas corpus applies to Mr Wynn’s case, or are you just trolling for the “typical” response that terrorists don’t deserve American rights?
Yes, sometimes some individual police officers act out of disdain for the general public. But I fail to see what that has to do with this story.
I suspect the ACLU is now defending the old hippie poncho houseslipper dude.
I agree with all of the above that Mr. Wynn should have alerted the flight attendant of his move to have avoided the cuffing and effing. I am grateful that he wanted to help, and everyone flying should be as willing. I know I am. In fact, I don’t think I would have been as calm as the rest as I would have tried to tackle the hippie; or hit him on the head with my heavy travel purse if he were near me—I guess I would have been cuffed and panty searched as well. Flight 93 changed air travel etiquette for everyone.
That said, I may be the only person to comment that I was glad the system worked quickly and there was no messing around. These guys meant business and I hope Mr. Hippie Houseslippers had the same treatment. He is probably using post-traumatic stress syndrome as part of his lawsuit against the airline and government. I also hope the agents would react the same with flying imam types.
^then you’ll have to take your complaint to your own source; “is a Syrian living in Canada with dual Canadian-Syrian citizenship”
What with the guy’s history of running around with pals of bin Laden you’d think he’d wanna decide one way or another. Otherwise he will continue to reap what he sows.
.
Huh? If I had referenced that “defense”, you might have a point. But instead it’s entirely moot and you’re confusing yourself there, Rusty. Police assess motives long before anything even gets to court. In fact, in investigations, motivation is almost universally the first question waiting to pop out from the hopper.
Look at the basic facts chronogically, as they actually happened:
1) two thugs kill a guy.
2) police determine the primary motive was robbery for drug money.
3) militant homosexual groups, sensing a PR/funding goldmine, demand the determination be changed.
If you can get away from far left sites like Wikipedia and search news stories re: Shepard and the primary motive, you’ll find there is no doubt or questioning of these basic facts. (But even with what’s supposed to be hard news stories one has to wade through a sea of liberal political correctness.)
No, it’s actually often unintentionally amusing; anyone can pull something outta his backside and write up an “entry” that others take as unquestioned gospel.
Of course, it does come in handy sometimes to offer up an oped site link:
Matthew Shepard – Conservapedia
- Ben Fritzen, a former police detective, said, “Matthew Shepard’s sexual preference or sexual orientation certainly wasn’t the motive in the homicide… What it came down to, really, is drugs and money.” -
Washington Times Editorial 8/10/2007
Again, you’re confusing yourself chronologically, Rusty. Read the “1 – 3″ above: robbery turned into a Orwell thought-crime only after militant homosexual groups demanded the change.
It’s really not a difficult timeline to follow or check out.
I don’t hate wikipedia but I have caught them in
several huge mistakes.
I have been searched with a man in a turban standing
right behind me. Now, lest you think that I am somehow one scary woman…I am 5′ 1/2″ tall and on
a good day weigh 105# and look typically celtic with
my red hair. Not a turban or head scarf in sight.
Thank God they didn’t.
Having commentors here like Archon, who want to edjimacate us, are truly of great value to our society. I believe he is the real deal.
If Wynn had called the ACLU to complain about a cross someplace, they’d been right there for him.
Years ago in a Joseph Wambaugh book, I dont remember which one, he referred to the FBI as Famous But Incompetent. Maybe he knew something.
There is no accountability. Remember the FBI sniper who got a medal or commendation for killing an unarmed woman holding a baby at Ruby Ridge? Wonder what kind of bonuses these sentinels of justice will get?
I know we are in a war and maybe the lawmen acted appropriately, but for Pete’s sake, when they found out they were wrong, couldnt they at least apologized to Wynn?
Are you an FBI agent? Do you know any? Have you had any personal interactions with any? If not, I’d venture to say that you know not what you speak. The FBI is a huge, nation wide entity. To make a broad and sweeping judgement about such a large group of PROFESSIONAL men and women, based solely on second and third hand information, is the height of irresponsibilty. Moreover, the agents (be they FBI or local PD) acted EXACTLY in accordance with the stated Rules of Engagment and Standard Operating Procedures. These rules are designed to maximize the safety for EVERYONE around, not to make the hippies happy.
Have you seen the FBI chain of command? If anything, there is too much accountability (and yes, there is such a thing). Supervisors are scrutinized so much that they end up weighing their decisions on whether or not it is politically correct enough to make sure their career isn’t ruined, instead of making decisions based on the rule of law, safety of their agents, and prosecution of criminals.
Again, people are failing to realize that the agents did not do anything wrong. They reacted exactly as they should have to ensure the safety and well being of EVERYONE around them. It was a case of mistaken identity, initiated by Mr Wynn himself, and perpetuated by the aircraft staff. But the responsibility rests solely on Mr Wynn.
No, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
On the other hand, over the top screaming can just as easily also make a situation worse, escalating things to the point of a bomb being detonated.
If the agents were still screaming when they were telling this fellow to sign things, that’s wrong – and perhaps even a violation of law. If professionalism doesn’t take hold at some point – especialy when a situation is obviously well in hand – there’s a clear problem.
It’s unclear in this case if the agents were over-the-top, if they were adding chaos and panic into an obviously controlled situation. If so, some re-training would be in order.
This sounds like a case where everyone, with good intent, just over-reacted to one another.
Although the agents/FBI are not required to comment or apologize, I think if they want to encourage passangers to report suspicious behavior, then a regional director should address this. Explain they’re sorry it played out as it did and use this as an example for passengers about what not to do in such cases. Make it a general public teaching/awareness moment.
If someone has a bomb, they’ve already made up their mind to detonate it. There is no “escalating” involved. Someone does not bring a bomb on aircraft and -not- plan to use it. As stated, the goal is to keep the individual disoriented and focused on something, anything, except for closing that switch.
It most certainly would be wrong, and a violation. Professionalism is key for a federal institution. However, nothing I read said that the agents were still shouting at Mr Wynn or berating him after his apprehension. They asked him repeatedly, and in a brusque manner, what his relationship to the people in his pictures was, and they asked how he knew the man on the plane. But so far as I can tell, the questioning was performed in a professional, although not exactly polite, fashion.
I’ll halfway agree. Someone high up in the food chain should address this. But the message should be: “Report suspicious activity or THIS could happen to you.” It’s been said, but I’ll say it again. Mr Wynn had great intentions, but poor execution. I think the spirit of Flight 93 is still strong in the populous. But being disorganized from the people responsible for the welfare of the aircraft is dangerous, and is a last resort. Obviously, the flight crew knew what was going on. Mr Wynn wanted to keep an eye on the guy, which is cool. But he should have gotten the attendant’s attention, said, “Hey, this guy is acting weird, and I’m here to help if you need me. Is it ok if I move over to that seat so I can help you keep an eye on him.” Deviate from that basic set of standards, and you’ll get to know the tarmac fairly well.
The problem there, Archon, is this did not occur on the plane, Mr.Wynn was stripped, handcuffed and laying on the tarmac when, according to his account:
“They’d cuffed me and I was lying there with my pants down. My shirt was up. I looked up and I saw four guys with their guns at me. I was being held at gunpoint. Their rifle butts were shaking and they were screaming, screaming, ‘Don’t move or we will blow you fu——- head off!’
I looked to my right and one guy had a pistol to my head. All the guns were shaking. They were screaming so many four letter words at me, finally I just said, ‘Please don’t shoot me on accident.’ I kept saying that. I thought, if I sneeze, they’re going to shoot me. They had me on the ground, cuffed, pants down, for I don’t know how long. Ten more minutes, twenty more minutes? The cuffs hurt. My pants were down, my socks and shoes were gone. My shirt was ripped and up off my back. The guns were on me, the rifle butts were so close to my head. My arms were pinched back, jacked-up behind me because the cuffs are super tight. They were shouting, shouting, ‘One move and I’ll blow your f——— head off!’ ”
There was no concern about a bomb at this point and if they were shaking from fear he was going to overpower them here, then re-training is definitely called for and desperately needed.
It’s unknown if they acted outside of the bounds of law and professionalism. It’s just my IMHO this warrants an internal investigation, for several reasons. “Good PR” being one.
“One of the FBI agents slid me this piece of paper. ‘These are your Miranda rights,’ he said. ‘Sign it.’ So I asked him, ‘Am I under arrest?’ He didn’t say anything. No smile, no nothing. He handed me a pen. He said, ‘we are going to move your handcuffs so you can sign. If you make any false move, it will be the last move you make.’”
First, as a fellow who’s an attorney here said above the only thing you want to do in a case like this is to talk to an attorney. (Unless it’s a birthday card to my brudder, I ain’t signing nuthin’ at that point.)
Second, the threats to shoot him were still being issued even at this point. It’s obvious they didn’t feel in control of the sitiuation even this far along, safely on their own turf.
Actually if it’s posited as a threat, I don’t really know it would be helpful.
Yup and I think if ya scroll up you’ll see I was the first to say it. This stinks all around but it seems everyone acted in good faith as much as was within them. Sometimes things just do happen.
But everyone involved should learn from it: including the Federal agencies involved. When the average person is helpless and surrounded by a dozen men all shakily waving guns in his/her face and sreaming obscenties, it really doesn’t matter if it’s a dozen FBI, a street gang or a dozen al Qaeda. Your average Joe/Jane just feels terror. The difference, of course, is we are the employers of the Federal agents and they can do more to respect that fact.
Yes, on the tarmac, but still unsearched. Mr Wynn was still a suspect, and was still unsearched. Agents were under the impression that he was an accomplice to someone they thought might have had a grenade or other explosive device. If Mr Wynn HAD been a terrorist, he would be thinking “Shoot, I just got found out. I need to detonate what I have as soon as I can.” And that was the principle agents were operating under. That was why his pants were pulled down, his shirt pulled up.
Have you done an in depth search of a suspect in a high energy environment. It can take more than a few minutes to make sure everything is kosher. Beyond that, I would be willing to bet that the responding team was probably understaffed, and had more responsibilities than just securing Mr Wynn. That would explain the amount of time that passed (which Mr Wynn admits he did not know). As far as the shaking goes, I’ve addressed it above. I’m sure there was fear, and adrenaline, on both sides. I question Mr Wynn’s account, however, when he says things like “The guns were on me, the rifle butts were so close to my head”. It’s awful hard to have your weapon trained on someone, AND have the butt next to their head. Maybe the weapons were aimed at his feet?
It was an interrigation room. A simple review of the video camera that should have been running should clear up whether or not there was unprofessional conduct. No need for a full blown investigation. If, however, there is no video (because there damned well should be), than yes, an investigation is more than in order.
While I would do the exact same thing (no lawyer, no talky), I need to point out that by not asking for a lawyer, Mr Wynn probably expedited his release. But he was Mirandized, even though he was only being detained and not arrested, and he knew what his rights were. And honestly, in this day and age, you would have to be living under a rock not to know to ask for a lawyer.
It’s not a matter of not feeling safe. It’s a matter of keeping control of the situation. Beyond that, no one said “Move and I’ll shoot you” in the room. They said “Make a move and it will be the last move you make.” That can easily mean “You do something stupid and I’ll slam your face into this table so hard you won’t think about doing it again.” Any halfway competent lawyer could argue that point.
Not a threat, but a warning. Notice the use of the word “could” instead of “will”. Something I tell my students all the time: You ain’t John Wayne and this ain’t the movies. Your plan drives the operation, your operation does not drive the plan.
Yeah, that’s kind of the point. Keep in mind that the Good Guys didn’t know that Mr Wynn was trying to do a Good Thing when they proned him out. They thought he was a terror suspect.
I won’t argue with you about who employs who. But, so long as you’re just Joe Blow citizen on the street, yes, respect should be afforded by a Federal agent. But when they think you’re a terrorist bringing a bomb on a plane, don’t expect much in the way of “please” or “thank you”.
re: #53 Archon
You are dead on! Every point you make is completely valid and true. Without disagreeing with you one iota, let me just say that the agents who brought him his things and released him could easily and absolutely SHOULD HAVE said to him, “Sorry to have roughed you up, sir. As you know we can’t be too careful.”
4 seconds.
purplepeeps, props to you for making some very interesting additional points…enjoyed your exchange with Archon.
Acheron,
Minor point, because I am not about to second guess the FBI in this situation, especially given your excellent defense of them, but the statement above is not accurate. I am grossly oversimplifying this, but Miranda rights have to be given when a suspect is subject to custodial interrogation, not when he or she is formally arrested, i.e. more or less when that person is not free to go and that person is being questioned.
Remember kids, if you are questioned by the police ask first: “Am I free to go?” If the answer is no, the ONLY words out of your mouth (as Buck said) should be “I want a lawyer.” Not “I think I want to talk to my lawyer.” Not “Maybe I should talk to a lawyer.” “I WANT A LAWYER!” Okay, you can ask for a glass of water or to use the restroom if you have to, but thats it.
Archie makes a good addition here. If he can help to make me look any brighter than I actually am, even better.
chap, it’s been many years since crim pro, but I had that thought as well. Spot on free legal advice also.
purplepeeps, you come off plenty bright all by your lonesome my man.