B J Foster wrote:
> 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.
And you'd clearly have a defence of necessity, or some statutory
equivalent. That is, the law allows you to do it.
Sylvia.
