Two Federal Air Marshals escape Brazil after in-flight assault charge

[thewinchester]

Considering the recent chatter regarding air marshals, this is a tale of two of them falling foul of a judge and his inebriated SWMBO on a flight to Brazil.

Two Federal Air Marshals escape Brazil after in-flight assault charge
by Scott Carmichael on Oct 24th 2010 at 12:00PM


During a recent flight from Houston to Rio de Janeiro, two U.S. Federal Air Marshals were requested to assist the crew with an unruly passenger. According to crew reports, an intoxicated female passenger tried to start serving herself more alcohol from the galley.

The air marshals approached the lady, and she struggled with them. At one point, she bit a marshal, so she was handcuffed and placed under arrest.

Upon arrival at Rio de Janerio airport, the duo attempted to turn the woman over to local authorities, but they themselves ended up being arrested for assault. As it turns out, the woman they had arrested is the wife of a prominent Brazilian judge.

Their passports were confiscated, and the two were not permitted to leave the country. At this point, they could have waited for the diplomats behind the scenes to fix the situation, but they opted to flee the county on alternative travel documents.

 

[UP4014]

Ah good, always handy to carry those alternative travel docs.

 

[rwatts]

Ah good, always handy to carry those alternative travel docs.

...or have a ready source from the local representative of your government ?

 

[UP4014]

You'd think even in Brazil, the police would have asked some questions about what happened before making an arrest.

Oh well. To bad so sad and now the world knows about an intoxicated wife making a mess of herself and husband tried to meddle. I bet he didn't plan on that. DYKWIA

 

[Happy Trails]

I'm just happy that we've managed to spell marshals correctly this time.

 

[NYCguy]

You'd think even in Brazil, the police would have asked some questions about what happened before making an arrest.

In Brazil? Nah, not when the spouse of a "prominent" judge is involved. She's obviously accustomed to acting impunity no matter how appalling her behaviour, as demonstrated by this tawdry incident.

It will be interesting to see how this pans out - the USA might stir the pot and prohibit her from flying on US carriers and entering the country. That could be quite amusing!

 

[Egg]

How do you know they didn't ask questions of the marshals before arresting them?

I find it curious that posters (not to mention the article's author himself) simply presume that she was in the wrong and the marshals' actions were justified, even though the journo didn't speak to any witnesses nor does it seem that he sought a comment from the authorities as to why the marshals' documents were confiscated.

We don't know what her version of events is. Whatever it was, perhaps it was corroborated by other passengers and perhaps that's why these marshals were detained.

You know, security personnel have been known to abuse their authority in the past; police have been known to misbehave; soldiers have been guilty of abhorrent conduct. But air marshals are pure as the driven snow? They didn't seem to have too many qualms about breaking the laws of Brazil to flee the scene of their alleged crime.

Maybe she was in the wrong - but i don't know that she was, and neither do you and neither does Scott Carmichael, frankly.

And if the air marshal's primary function is to prevent middle-aged ladies from helping themselves to the bar, then maybe they should stop hogging the premium cabin seats as some have been suggesting.

 

[NYCguy]

How do you know they didn't ask questions of the marshals before arresting them?

I find it curious that posters (not to mention the article's author himself) simply presume that she was in the wrong and the marshals' actions were justified, even though the journo didn't speak to any witnesses nor does it seem that he sought a comment from the authorities as to why the marshals' documents were confiscated.

We don't know what her version of events is. Whatever it was, perhaps it was corroborated by other passengers and perhaps that's why these marshals were detained.

You know, security personnel have been known to abuse their authority in the past; police have been known to misbehave; soldiers have been guilty of abhorrent conduct. But air marshals are pure as the driven snow? They didn't seem to have too many qualms about breaking the laws of Brazil to flee the scene of their alleged crime.

Maybe she was in the wrong - but i don't know that she was, and neither do you and neither does Scott Carmichael, frankly.

And if the air marshal's primary function is to prevent middle-aged ladies from helping themselves to the bar, then maybe they should stop hogging the premium cabin seats as some have been suggesting.

Yeah, yeah, whatever. The point is that the Marshals were performing their duty and were, therefore, protected under an international treaty. And if they have nothing better to do on the flight than stop some pissed idiot raiding the booze in the galley, then more power to them.

 

[Sprucegoose]

In Brazil? Nah, not when the spouse of a "prominent" judge is involved. She's obviously accustomed to acting impunity no matter how appalling her behaviour, as demonstrated by this tawdry incident.

It will be interesting to see how this pans out - the USA might stir the pot and prohibit her from flying on US carriers and entering the country. That could be quite amusing!

Yes quite typical of that lot. Lawlessness comes at a price as they continue to struggle with simple democratic concepts......

 

[odysseus]

We don't know what her version of events is.

Maybe she was in the wrong - but i don't know that she was, and neither do you and neither does Scott Carmichael, frankly.

They were asked by crew. And they also thought it sufficient to intervene. Frankly there's a lot more credibility in total there than some 'what if' scenario you raise.

Incidentally, we don't know their version of events either.

 

[Egg]

Incidentally, we don't know their version of events either.

Whose? The marshals? Yeah, we don't know cos they high-tailed it out of there rather than seeking to justify their actions, and to exercise their supposed protection under law!! Much easier to run away.

The point is that I don't think there is any credibility to the story whatever cos it's hearsay upon hearsay - there's not a single quote in the whole article. We don't actually know anyone's version!

Yes quite typical of that lot. Lawlessness comes at a price as they continue to struggle with simple democratic concepts......

Are you talking about the USA or Brazil? They both fit the bill.

But of course you're right, the Brazilians must be wrong because all Brazilians are corrupt. Never would it occur in the in the developed world that people of influence are given special treatment - but as it's Brazil, that can be the only explanation. That's not just racist, it's seriously naive. Hopefully air marshals don't share such a superior attitude or they might well overreact when confronted with a thirsty South American.

My point is not that she was clearly in the right - i dont know. But i do know there ain't enough information in that article to pass judgment on her or the authorities. And as i doubt very much that "assaulting tipsy middle aged ladies" falls within the definition of an air marshal's duty, perhaps the Brazilians considered that they were not entitled to the protection of law. We'll never know cos they sure didn't hang around long enough to argue the toss.

But as jumping to conclusions seems to be the order of the day, then i'm with the feisty Brazilian.

 

[samh004]

I'm just happy that we've managed to spell marshals correctly this time.

So you mean they aren’t from mars?

It will be interesting to see how this pans out - the USA might stir the pot and prohibit her from flying on US carriers and entering the country. That could be quite amusing!

I wondered about that too, briefly

Yeah, yeah, whatever. The point is that the Marshals were performing their duty and were, therefore, protected under an international treaty. And if they have nothing better to do on the flight than stop some pissed idiot raiding the booze in the galley, then more power to them.

That raises a good point, are they immune and given diplomatic status when flying out of their country? If so, the question would be why the police thought that confiscating their documents was right, regardless of what they did or didn’t do, and regardless of the fact they fled, if they were protected in the first place and the police ignored that I think there will be some big discussions going on in the background about whether the US should give Brazilian officials the same sort of hospitality I’m sure

I hope to hear more of the case, though don’t doubt it’ll all be swept under the rug. Interesting story nonetheless.

 

[harvyk]

But of course you're right, the Brazilians must be wrong because all Brazilians are corrupt. Never would it occur in the in the developed world that people of influence are given special treatment

You've just said that people of influence in the developed world are often given special treatment, and abuse their power. So why couldn't this be a case of someone in a privileged position abusing their power \ influence?

Considering that once on board, the crew (usually under the advice of the pilot) may restrain you for virtually any reason (although it's usually safety related), and in this case there where air marshals on-board, therefore they are the logical ones to do the restraining, I can hardly see how it warrants more than a "what happened" discussion with local authorities on landing.

By taking the air marshals travel documents away indicates to me that the local authorities where planning on doing more than simply investigating what happened, and thus the air marshals where right to hightail it out of there, as once a person of influence stands up and starts speaking, their word is probably going to be taken as gospel.

 

[medhead]

You've just said that people of influence in the developed world are often given special treatment, and abuse their power. So why couldn't this be a case of someone in a privileged position abusing their power \ influence?

Considering that once on board, the crew (usually under the advice of the pilot) may restrain you for virtually any reason (although it's usually safety related), and in this case there where air marshals on-board, therefore they are the logical ones to do the restraining, I can hardly see how it warrants more than a "what happened" discussion with local authorities on landing.

By taking the air marshals travel documents away indicates to me that the local authorities where planning on doing more than simply investigating what happened, and thus the air marshals where right to hightail it out of there, as once a person of influence stands up and starts speaking, their word is probably going to be taken as gospel.

Or the air marshals overstepped their authority and hence were not covered by the international treaty and that is why they were detained. This seems equally plausible to me as the USA has a problem with simple democratic ideas like operating within the bounds of your authority. If that is the case it would seem they also have a problem with simple democratic ideas like sovereign authority and international treaties.

The situation also raises the question of appropriate application of force. Should air marshals be dealing with drunks? I don't think so. It doesn't take much imagination (yes I lack imagination) to picture a situation whereby nefarious characters have a designated drunk on the flight who is used to identify any air marshals.

Not that I think the drunk lady was right or anything. It just seems to me that the situation might be more complex.

 

[dk4]

Or the air marshals overstepped their authority ...Should air marshals be dealing with drunks?

Part of a FAs job is to deal with these situations. As I understand it, they have been trained and therefore have the requisite skills (in addition to onboard tools) to enable them to do so.

This whole story reeks: AFAIK, FAMs should not involve themselves in any situation that is not a direct physical threat to the aircraft. They have very limited terms of engagement, and some boozed DYKWIA causing problems onboard, is quite clearly not one of them.

The major issue with the report*; is that it has identified that FAMs are possibly carrying additional forged identity documents. (Obviously useful during a hijacking, where the perpetrators are singling our people by nationality - enabling the FAMs to be segregated with the benign-passenger group. Probably information the FAMs should not have allowed to enter the public domain, by using these documents to flee the country illegally!)

* assuming that there is any accuracy to it at all.

 

[oz_mark]

Or the air marshals overstepped their authority and hence were not covered by the international treaty and that is why they were detained. This seems equally plausible to me as the USA has a problem with simple democratic ideas like operating within the bounds of your authority. If that is the case it would seem they also have a problem with simple democratic ideas like sovereign authority and international treaties.

The situation also raises the question of appropriate application of force. Should air marshals be dealing with drunks? I don't think so. It doesn't take much imagination (yes I lack imagination) to picture a situation whereby nefarious characters have a designated drunk on the flight who is used to identify any air marshals.

By virtue of the treaties on these matters, the commander of an aircraft is entitled to request the assistance of any passenger on an aircraft to assist in the maintenance of good order and discipline.

 

[medhead]

By virtue of the treaties on these matters, the commander of an aircraft is entitled to request the assistance of any passenger on an aircraft to assist in the maintenance of good order and discipline.

Which would not be related to any treaties concerning FAMs? So the FAMs where not acting within their role but by virtue of the captain's responsibilities.

 

[oz_mark]

Which would not be related to any treaties concerning FAMs? So the FAMs where not acting within their role but by virtue of the captain's responsibilities.

That was my reading:

two U.S. Federal Air Marshals were requested to assist the crew with an unruly passenger

 

[odysseus]

That was my reading:

Indeed. And what would be the response if they hadn't helped out when requested... 'Oh, these superior government types who are too concerned with their role instead of helping people out when needed. And they were even asked! What good are they? get rid of them...'

 

[Egg]

Indeed. And what would be the response if they hadn't helped out when requested... 'Oh, these superior government types who are too concerned with their role instead of helping people out when needed. And they were even asked! What good are they? get rid of them...'

I'm really not sure how this clarifies issues. You are still assuming that their intervention was not over-zealous, that their handcuffing of her was a reasonable response, and that the fact that the Brazilian authorities took a different view of the situation stemmed wholly and solely from their corruption. Rather a big leap of faith in my book. You can't fill all the gaps in this story by simply saying, "Oh yes, but the crew asked them to intervene," so they must have acted appropriately when they did.

Only one criminal offence is clear beyond doubt in this story - and that is the offence committed by the marshals in absconding. Why commit a crime to leave the scene when you supposedly have the protection of law and the US govt behind you? As to whether the woman committed a crime, that much is in dispute - and I don't have all that much faith in the word of marshals who by their own admission committed a crime in preference to having their actions scrutinised. Why overlook that? Because the word of an air marshal is more reliable than that of a Brazilian? Or because it's safe to assume that they'd never get a fair hearing amongst such lawless barbarians?

I'm not sure where all this blind faith in air marshals comes from...

Air Marshals: Undercover and Under Arrest - ProPublica

Shawn Nguyen bragged that he could sneak anything past airport security using his top-secret clearance as a federal air marshal. And for months, he smuggled cocaine and drug money onto flights across the country, boasting to an FBI informant that he was “the man with the golden badge.”

Michael McGowan used his position as an air marshal to lure a young boy to his hotel room, where he showed him child cough, took pictures of him naked and sexually abused him.

And when Brian “Cooter” Phelps wanted his ex-wife to disappear, he called a fellow air marshal and tried to hire a hit man nicknamed “the Crucifixer.”

Since 9/11, more than three dozen federal air marshals have been charged with crimes, and hundreds more have been accused of misconduct, an investigation by ProPublica has found. Cases range from drunken driving and domestic violence to aiding a human trafficking ring and trying to smuggle explosives from Afghanistan.

GOP congressman wants to disband Air Marshals

In fact, more air marshals have been arrested than the number of people arrested by air marshals.

Impossible to think any marshal could ever be in the wrong!