Australian Philip Kirsch grounded after 9/11 bomb prank

[tuapekastar]

So I think an over reaction by whoever. They should ahve just handed him over to the police and been doen with it.

Having said all that the guy got everything he deserved and he probably deserved more as well. What are really stupid, purile joke. If you're going to make a joke at least try to be funny.

No overreaction at all IMHO. I think the aircraft crew (captain, particularly) has a real responsibility for the safety of all pax, not to mention themselves.

I do agree the guy was stupid in the extreme, got off reasonably lightly in the end (though I'm not by any means suggesting he should have been strung up), and hopefully has learned his lesson, and everyone (us included) can move on.

 

[oz_mark]

I would expect that the airline has a reasonably well defined procedure for dealing with such an event, and it would be more than likely that the captain was following procedure.

Making a call on whether something is genuine or a prank is tough, and erring on the side of caution is a wise thing. Having worked in places that have given some basic training on how to deal with bomb threats, and having been in buildings that have had bomb threats (that have been evacuated sometimes and not others), I am not overly surprised by the captains reaction.

In addition, it was brought to the crews attention by a passenger, so there is obviously some response required.

As for the view of leniency, the calculations of penalties do take into account things like early guilty pleas and expressions or remorse, so that should also be kept in mind.

 

[markis10]

Dont think entry to the US will be an option from now on regardless of the result in the courts!

 

[anat0l]

Dont think entry to the US will be an option from now on regardless of the result in the courts!

I wouldn't say that.

Unless his misdemeanour is recorded somewhere else, he had no conviction from this and started with a clean criminal record anyway. There would appear to be no reason to bar him from entering the US without real hard evidence of being a threat of sorts.

The only thing is he is on at least one airline's blacklist. That is all.

 

[oz_mark]

I wouldn't say that.

Unless his misdemeanour is recorded somewhere else, he had no conviction from this and started with a clean criminal record anyway. There would appear to be no reason to bar him from entering the US without real hard evidence of being a threat of sorts.

The only thing is he is on at least one airline's blacklist. That is all.

You don't think the US authorities know about this?

 

[markis10]

I wouldn't say that.

Unless his misdemeanour is recorded somewhere else, he had no conviction from this and started with a clean criminal record anyway.

He was arrested for a felony and I would imagine that might cause issues, the lack of a recording of a conviction may not come into play on that basis, and perhaps they could always pull the terrorism card. I have a feeling the tolerance by the US to such activities would be zero, as for a recording on a database, I am sure the embassy gets the papers.......they certainly were across the Thai conviction for the bar mat thief!

 

[samh004]

I don't see what benefit it would be to the US to deny him entry in the future. He's not worth it.

 

[anat0l]

You don't think the US authorities know about this?

Maybe, or maybe not. He did end up on TV.

He was arrested for a felony and I would imagine that might cause issues, the lack of a recording of a conviction may not come into play on that basis, and perhaps they could always pull the terrorism card. I have a feeling the tolerance by the US to such activities would be zero, as for a recording on a database, I am sure the embassy gets the papers.......they certainly were across the Thai conviction for the bar mat thief!

But the Thai thing was a conviction, i.e. noted on a record which goes with you everywhere. This guy didn't get a conviction. It's like getting a speeding fine - you pay it and move on. I don't recall the last time a mere non-convicting speeding fine ever stopped you from entering the US.

In any case, the US can pull out whatever cards they like and do as they see fit. I just imagine they need solid evidence to reject him, though I guess I can't imagine him trying to seek legal redress if he was refused entry to the US. He could do the whole PR thing and make a big song and dance about it all (akin to the guy whose guitar was damaged by UA).

I don't see what benefit it would be to the US to deny him entry in the future. He's not worth it.

There is no benefit. The US could or would do it because they can. Let's not give this character more credit than he's worth by making him a political centrepiece.

 

[oz_mark]

But the Thai thing was a conviction, i.e. noted on a record which goes with you everywhere. This guy didn't get a conviction. It's like getting a speeding fine - you pay it and move on. I don't recall the last time a mere non-convicting speeding fine ever stopped you from entering the US.

I have never been arrested for speeding, or held in custody overnight for speeding, or fronted up to court for speeding. These factors all make this case different.

 

[markis10]

But the Thai thing was a conviction, i.e. noted on a record which goes with you everywhere. This guy didn't get a conviction. It's like getting a speeding fine - you pay it and move on. I don't recall the last time a mere non-convicting speeding fine ever stopped you from entering the US.

In any case, the US can pull out whatever cards they like and do as they see fit. I just imagine they need solid evidence to reject him, though I guess I can't imagine him trying to seek legal redress if he was refused entry to the US. He could do the whole PR thing and make a big song and dance about it all (akin to the guy whose guitar was damaged by UA).

The US said no to the Thai case because she was convicted of a felony, not a minor offence such as a speeding fine (which is not a criminal offence regardless in Australia). You only need to be arrested for a felony for the US to say no, from what has been said in other threads on this board for similar subjects, if the US says no thanks to someone stealing a bar mat do you really think they will welcome someone who has admitted making jokes about bombs onboard a US bound flight!

Regardless, he is clearly now required to apply to a Visa and leave it in the hands of the US as to whether entry is allowed. If he had some outstanding traffic offences in the US it is a different story:

"In general, minor motoring offenses outside the U.S. that were disposed of by paying a ticket by mail have no bearing on admission to the United States. Travelers with minor traffic offenses that did not result in their arrest and/or conviction for the offense may travel visa free, provided they are otherwise qualified.
If a traffic offense occurred while you were in the United States, and you have an outstanding fine against you, or if you did not attend your court hearing, it is possible there may be a warrant out for your arrest and you will experience significant problems when applying for admission at the U.S. port of entry.

I dont like his chances regardless of his traffic history, the implications of his "joke" may take a lot of work to get over!

 

[oz_mark]

Maybe, or maybe not. He did end up on TV.

He would also have been on the APIS manifests, and perhaps they notice if he didn't actually show up!

 

[anat0l]

On the other hand to all this, if he merely transits in the US, i.e. does not go through immigration control, do you still need to apply for a visa/permit etc? (Whatever that online thing is that you have to tell the US before you fly there. Not even sure what information you need to supply for that said form/notification.)

 

[markis10]

I dont believe its possible to transit the US without clearing immigration:

Transit

Travelers who meet all other criteria for visa free travel under the Visa Waiver Program are eligible to transit through the United States

 

[anat0l]

I dont believe its possible to transit the US without clearing immigration:

Transit

Travelers who meet all other criteria for visa free travel under the Visa Waiver Program are eligible to transit through the United States

I'm pleading ignorance here because I haven't gone to LOTFAP since 1995 and I was only 10 years old at that time. At that time, 9/11 etc. didn't exist, and my folks took care of all our visas. (I remember getting a full page stamp in our passports at the time before entering the US).

For example if you fly BNE-LAX-SCL (contrived and silly example) with LAX-SCL being your onward international connection, you wouldn't need to clear immigration in LAX and then get back to airside for your LAX-SCL flight?

Once again, I do not know the procedures, so fire away.

If you did have to pass through immigration even to achieve the above and/or if they do a background check a la immigration control style when you submit that form before you enter the US (if you have to fill in such a form for a transit like above), then yes there is probably a risk that this clown will not be granted entry (but for a transit to an onward international flight, are you going to stop someone entering the country from exiting the country?)

 

[markis10]

US Customs require ALL passengers to clear Immigration etc on the first arrival into the country regardless of their final destination, none of this going through security and hopping on the next flight stuff!

 

[anat0l]

US Customs require ALL passengers to clear Immigration etc on the first arrival into the country regardless of their final destination, none of this going through security and hopping on the next flight stuff!

Thanks for that - that's worth remembering.

 

[medhead]

No overreaction at all IMHO. I think the aircraft crew (captain, particularly) has a real responsibility for the safety of all pax, not to mention themselves.

Ok, maybe not an overreaction. And totally agree that they have to consider safety and follow their procedure. And I certainly don't want to defend the guy. But in this case it seems that the procedures lack that process to determine there is a threat. The guy said I have a bomb, that in itself is not threat. To be a threat there would have to be some mention of using the bomb.

In real life I had a bomb once, I also had a gun. Would it have been a threat to make a statement at that time of the these facts. In general no, depending on context. Anyway, I'm getting well of track into the esoteric. But lets just say that my theorising doesn't mean I think any other action should have been taken.

The US said no to the Thai case because she was convicted of a felony, not a minor offence such as a speeding fine (which is not a criminal offence regardless in Australia). You only need to be arrested for a felony for the US to say no, from what has been said in other threads on this board for similar subjects, if the US says no thanks to someone stealing a bar mat do you really think they will welcome someone who has admitted making jokes about bombs onboard a US bound flight!

I'll preface my comments by saying that I know nothing about US Visas. But you did prompt me to inform myself. The Electronic System for travel authorisation (which may not be totally relevant) only asks about being arrested or convicted for crimes related to Moral Turpitude or controlled substances or totaling more than 5 years inprisonment. I don't think that the crime committed here would be related to moral turpitude or controlled substances.

 

[markis10]

I'll preface my comments by saying that I know nothing about US Visas. But you did prompt me to inform myself. The Electronic System for travel authorisation (which may not be totally relevant) only asks about being arrested or convicted for crimes related to Moral Turpitude or controlled substances or totaling more than 5 years inprisonment. I don't think that the crime committed here would be related to moral turpitude or controlled substances.

To quote the US Embassy in the UK:

Travelers with minor traffic offenses and those with Arrests and/or Convictions

Travelers who have been arrested, even if the arrest did not result in a criminal conviction, and those with criminal records, (the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act does not apply to U.S. visa law), are required to apply for visas. If they attempt to travel without a visa, they may be refused entry into the United States. Please follow this link for further information.

 

[medhead]

To quote the US Embassy in the UK:

Travelers with minor traffic offenses and those with Arrests and/or Convictions

Travelers who have been arrested, even if the arrest did not result in a criminal conviction, and those with criminal records, (the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act does not apply to U.S. visa law), are required to apply for visas. If they attempt to travel without a visa, they may be refused entry into the United States. Please follow this link for further information.

Thanks for the link. This is interesting. This is getting OT, but as the Electronic thingy seems to be related to the visa waiver program,that might suggest that the test of VWP is only moral turpitude and drugs. Whereas getting a visa is any arrest or conviction. Since the VWP by name suggests no visa, I wonder if that is a loophole. Anyway, something for me to investigate.

I'm fine anyway, as I wasn't arrested and they didn't record a conviction when I did front the bench.

 

[drron]

First-does anyone else think that in the picture of him fronting the court,remorse seems the lst word to describe his appearance.
Secondly do VA have the same signs at the gate that DJ has-We take jokes seriously etc.If so did the idiot see it?