Sylvia Else wrote:
> TomTom wrote:
>>> TomTom wrote:
>>>
>>>> Another poor example. Since 9/11, it is now clear that passengers
>>>> in a high-jacked plane have only three choices about how they will
>>>> die. They can be shot down, which is the least desirable, because
>>>> the passengers are then only chickens waiting to be slaughtered.
>>>> They can do nothing, and allow the high-jackers to crash the plane
>>>> for terrorist purposes, which is not good, and makes the passengers
>>>> accomplices by inertia. They can act to ensure that the
>>>> high-jackers' plans go wrong. That still means they all die, but it
>>>> makes an excellent point to wanna-be high-jackers.
>>>>
>>>> It's a poor example, because everyone on the plane is dead.
>>>
>>> Well, in the one known instance where passengers attempted to regain
>>> control of the aircraft, everyone is dead. We don't know how
>>> successful the strategy would be on average. Maybe the people on the
>>> aircraft heading for the Whitehouse were merely unlucky not to
>>> succeed.
>>
>> Maybe. My point is that, since we know about 9/11, what option will
>> you choose?
>> Do nothing, and risk being shot down or crashed by the high-jackers,
>> or try to do something, regardless of your survival?
>
> Clearly the latter, although I rather think that post 9/11 hijackers
> would have a much greater difficulty reaching a point where they are in
> control of an aircraft (even leaving aside the strengthened cockpit doors).
>
> But I'm entirely unclear as to its relevance to a decision to use a
> mobile phone.
>
> BJ's point may have been that he'd have to form his own view about the
> reasonableness of his action. As indeed he would. But later when the
> police, DPP, or courts, get to to look at what he did, they'll be
> deciding whether his view was correct.
My point was simply that the judge, the DPP and the Jury are not with
you in the situation where you need to make reasonable snap-decisions.
I don't know how 'TomTom' concluded that everyone on the plane would be
dead. Seems to me that a lot of extrapolation is going on.
Using a mobile phone in this situation, to seek advice, to summon help
or whatever is a reasonable thing to do as the threat from the hijackers
is far greater than any effect on navigation systems. That this point
was missed only serves to reinforce the point.
>
> One of Phil's favourite expressions seems apposite: red-herring.
>
> Sylvia.
>
