Brawl in the air on Scoot

[MEL_Traveller]

Which is exactly what i said.



It might not, it may be... etc. On the other hand, it might, and may not be!! Policing does cost, unfortunately. Its an overhead that our society bears for the good of society.

All I am advocating is that a proper investigation be made. Mental illness can be faked - hopefully not to a competent professional, but I'm sure it happens. I am not confident that a proper assessment could have been made that night, which is why I think the person should have been detained - in a proper facility, if you like, under supervision, - but detained pending investigation. Like I said, I don't know if a diagnosis of 'mental health issues' is a trump that stops investigation, or is a defence against it, but I still think its the latter. What do you think?



More straw man arguments, I think.

Yes, take then all to a hospital but if there is a good suspicion that they are at fault, broken the law, then take them to a hospital, under supervision for investigation when they are competent to be interviewed. In the meantime, you take statements from witnesses to find out the nature and seriousness of what might have happened. Again, illness, in my opinion, should not STOP investigation with a view to charges being laid. Do you think otherwise?

I think this needs to be viewed from a strategic position... what is the purpose of the criminal justice system? It serves as a deterrent, and also as punishment. If you aren’t going to achieve either of those things, what’s the purpose in sheer bloody mindedness to prosecute and detain someone? Some people need help.

Mental health issues are not always reasons to evade prosecution or the laying of charges. The person may have a mental health condition that wasn’t a contributing, or mitigating factor in the offence. But here the determination was made that a prosecution wasn’t going to serve the purpose of entering someone into the criminal system.

If Scoot wants to launch a civil action to recover the cost of the d’inversion they can. But there will be lots of factors at play there.

 

[drron]

The problem appears to me to be an assessment of mental problems was made on the spot.A proper assessment takes time therefore an arrest and the court orders a proper investigation.
If the problem was diagnosable at that time then the person basically is having an acute episode and needs to be taken to hospital not just let go.

 

[dajop]

Aaah the joys of the Internet. The police and any other professionals on hand make a decision based on whatever information they have at the time. The internet makes judgement based on ... what little information is available publicly. Of course “the internet” is always right.

 

[UP4014]

Yes, take then all to a hospital but if there is a good suspicion that they are at fault, broken the law, then take them to a hospital, under supervision for investigation when they are competent to be interviewed. In the meantime, you take statements from witnesses to find out the nature and seriousness of what might have happened. Again, illness, in my opinion, should not STOP investigation with a view to charges being laid. Do you think otherwise?

I certainly think you take statements on what happened, not as you say, 'might' have happened.

 

[burmans]

The internet makes judgement based on ... what little information is available publicly. Of course “the internet” is always right.

The internet makes judgement on little, no or incorrect information, speculation reigns over facts and seems to be reigning supreme here.

 

[RooFlyer]

I think this needs to be viewed from a strategic position... what is the purpose of the criminal justice system? It serves as a deterrent, and also as punishment. If you aren’t going to achieve either of those things, what’s the purpose in sheer bloody mindedness to prosecute and detain someone? Some people need help.

Ah, that's where we disagree. I think discussion of a brawl on an airplane needs to be viewed from for a position of whether there was a crime committed on the aircraft.

The purpose of the criminal justice system is, fundamentally, I think, the protection of the public at large. The public is not protected if potentially dangerous people are allowed to go 'free' ( yes, we don't know the conditions of his freedom in this case) without a proper investigation.

We don't know if, in this case, if investigation would have led to deterrent or punishment, because there was no ( thorough) investigation by the police! Because, apparently, a compliant was notmade and someone made a rather rapid assessment of the chap's mental health condition.

Prosecution and detention are two different things. Detention ( in a care facility, if needs be) can lead to investigation, and if warranted, arrest and then, if warranted, prosecution.

Honestly, if you, your property, some one close to you were attacked and maybe seriously injured, would you be happy for the police to look as though they were not going to do anything, because you were told that someone, a short time after the incident, found that the person had a 'mental health issue' and that was that? You wouldn't know if the person was free to come back again ... Is that OK? Because airline passengers in Australia are currently in that exact same position.

I don't think that's OK. If a proper investigation was made, and a judge or other independent person found no case, or mitigating circumstances, then fine, no worries. Happens all the time.

But I don't think it's a waste of time or resources for a mid air brawl to be properly investigated, and not ' sheer bloody mindedness' - forsooth.

 

[Quickstatus]

How do you understand it but not agree with it? Otherwise you’re suggesting the person should be locked up just to teach them an initial lesson or something?

What is the benefit you see of locking up the passenger in this case?

I understand where both sides are coming from. One side wants to go in and detain and the other side wants to be hands off.

Both can work, but in this case, in an aircraft with ensconced passengers, it is probs lot better to go in and get physical.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Ah, that's where we disagree. I think discussion of a brawl on an airplane needs to be viewed from for a position of whether there was a crime committed on the aircraft.

The purpose of the criminal justice system is, fundamentally, I think, the protection of the public at large. The public is not protected if potentially dangerous people are allowed to go 'free' ( yes, we don't know the conditions of his freedom in this case) without a proper investigation.

We don't know if, in this case, if investigation would have led to deterrent or punishment, because there was no ( thorough) investigation by the police! Because, apparently, a compliant was notmade and someone made a rather rapid assessment of the chap's mental health condition.

Prosecution and detention are two different things. Detention ( in a care facility, if needs be) can lead to investigation, and if warranted, arrest and then, if warranted, prosecution.

Honestly, if you, your property, some one close to you were attacked and maybe seriously injured, would you be happy for the police to look as though they were not going to do anything, because you were told that someone, a short time after the incident, found that the person had a 'mental health issue' and that was that? You wouldn't know if the person was free to come back again ... Is that OK? Because airline passengers in Australia are currently in that exact same position.

I don't think that's OK. If a proper investigation was made, and a judge or other independent person found no case, or mitigating circumstances, then fine, no worries. Happens all the time.

But I don't think it's a waste of time or resources for a mid air brawl to be properly investigated, and not ' sheer bloody mindedness' - forsooth.

And what you describe is probably how we used to do things in the past. Lock up people first, ask questions later.

But FWIW, 'best practice' these days sets out a somewhat different approach.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I understand where both sides are coming from. One side wants to go in and detain and the other side wants to be hands off.

Both can work, but in this case, in an aircraft with ensconced passengers, it is probs lot better to go in and get physical.

Physical on board. But after landing a full assessment can be made.

 

[drron]

And what you describe is probably how we used to do things in the past. Lock up people first, ask questions later.

But FWIW, 'best practice' these days sets out a somewhat different approach.

I would say usual practice not best practice today.

 

[juddles]

At the risk of dragging out yet another thread where the info dries up, and speculation reigns supreme, I still want to offer the following comments.

I have only seen one article that stated simply that the AFP was not going to charge the person, and that the person was being "taken for a mental health assessment".

I am not sure on what premise some posters are suggesting that any final decision was made "on the spot"??

What appears "clear" is that the mental health issue became apparent very quickly - why or how or what is not divulged. But if this is the case, taking such a person into simple police custody entails a huge risk for the person and the police. Mentally ill persons often have a habit of self-harm. The human mind is very inventive, and preventing a person in custody from managing to kill or seriously injure themselves is almost impossible. But despite this it is the arresting officers, or the custodians, who will suffer if a lunatic manages to hurt themselves.

If a person is charged and their defence raises the issue of mental illness, a court can order that a mental assessment is made. But that is when they are already in the "system". If such an issue becomes apparent BEFORE charging then there is no role of the court. It is a different approach where such assessment and treatment is sought prior to any formal charging decision.

I can speak from direct experience here. I have been involved in attending quite a few attempted suicides. As the attending officer I faced a dual responsibility each time - the welfare of the person, and the welfare of the rest of society. A person who I have found quite calmly slicing themselves up with a knife is not someone who I would subdue and throw in a watchhouse.

Police are very much aware that they can not make decisions on mental health status. So they must rely on the professionals. You get the person to a place where an authorized mental health expert can assess them and make the decisions that need to be made. And the opinions or decisions they make are theirs, and binding, and thus do not involve any police.

From what I perceive from some comments in this thread is that the person involved here was simply "let go". That is not how it works.

 

[Quickstatus]

I can’t find any AFP statements about the Scoot incident which suggests they didn’t take it further.

They did take action about an incident on CX173 on 17Jan last week:

 

[RooFlyer]

And what you describe is probably how we used to do things in the past. Lock up people first, ask questions later.

But FWIW, 'best practice' these days sets out a somewhat different approach.

Another straw man argument. You say 'lock up'. I've been saying 'detain, in a hospital if needs be'. The thing assiduously not being rebutted is my argument that there should have been some detailed investigation. Maybe there was, and we don't know, but there doesn't appear to have been - I'm just stating my belief that there should have been and the person detained pending an outcome.

What if the person concerned had attacked people earlier in the day? Or has a history of such? What circumstances? What do you think would happen, if, he was released (or taken into a friend's care) and then attacked someone causing real harm? Oh, well it was 'best practice' in operation, sorry for the facial alteration.

No, we don't know what has happened behind the scenes. It was probably a genuinely isolated case, him with some personal troubles. There but for the grace of God, go I.

But I loath it when there are incidents on board aircraft and the airlines don't take it any further # - that's the reason I think there was no investigation in this case, or further action (apparently). I don't think its on the police's heads, at all (as I've already said )

# And why would they not? - it would take time of the aircrew to give statements, maybe give evidence later; it would potentially tie the aircraft up; it would 'inconvenience' passengers; it would take time of company executives to manage; it would extend 'bad' publicity for the airline. No, move, on ... nothing to see here ... . Gutless. Thank goodness there is no circumstance I can think of when I'd have to go anywhere near a Scoot plane.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Another straw man argument. You say 'lock up'. I've been saying 'detain, in a hospital if needs be'. The thing assiduously not being rebutted is my argument that there should have been some detailed investigation. Maybe there was, and we don't know, but there doesn't appear to have been - I'm just stating my belief that there should have been and the person detained pending an outcome.

What if the person concerned had attacked people earlier in the day? Or has a history of such? What circumstances? What do you think would happen, if, he was released (or taken into a friend's care) and then attacked someone causing real harm? Oh, well it was 'best practice' in operation, sorry for the facial alteration.

No, we don't know what has happened behind the scenes. It was probably a genuinely isolated case, him with some personal troubles. There but for the grace of God, go I.

But I loath it when there are incidents on board aircraft and the airlines don't take it any further # - that's the reason I think there was no investigation in this case, or further action (apparently). I don't think its on the police's heads, at all (as I've already said )

# And why would they not? - it would take time of the aircrew to give statements, maybe give evidence later; it would potentially tie the aircraft up; it would 'inconvenience' passengers; it would take time of company executives to manage; it would extend 'bad' publicity for the airline. No, move, on ... nothing to see here ... . Gutless. Thank goodness there is no circumstance I can think of when I'd have to go anywhere near a Scoot plane.

Juddles has provided an excellent account of what actually happens. I can’t add anything to that.

Perhaps what we need is an understanding of the drivers behind your thinking? It doesn’t appear that you were on the flight, are cabin crew, or connected with the airline.

What is concerning you? That the passenger won’t be adequately punished, in your opinion? That you feel unsafe flying in future?

As for any previous history the passenger may have had, that can easily be determined by the police doing a check.

 

[PeteMac007]

I was on the flight down from SIN. Cabin crew aren’t big people and the male cabin supervisor was normal build. If similar crew was on the return leg, I can understand the reluctance to jump in.

Thankfully, a few big lads jumped on him.
PoPo might be reluctant to prosecute as on board a SG registered aircraft, they have no jurisdiction. TR would need to launch proceedings.

I agree with others that it sends a poor message! What the PoPo could review is how someone so drunk got onboard? Something CASA should be looking at?

I enjoyed the Scoit flight down. Kids slept the whole way. Worst partof the jouney wasthe surly boarder force woman growling at everyone! She should not be facing vistors to OZ!!!!