Twitter trolling, should it be punishable?

[Yawn]

twitter trolls have been sent to jail

14 year old dutch girl been arrested for trolling american airlines

is it TOO MUCH?

[rnix]

If it is someone trolling a person then it should be punishable.
But american airlines? Thats a piss take

[MKR&*42]

Was she actually imprisoned or just taken to police station and held there cause like if you're imprisoned for trolling it's a tad far...

[Kyle]

depends how you define trolling and how far the individual actually goes.

[scottish]

No, if they're making threats directed at places then they should be punished similarly like they would if they went into an airport and said it.

[Futz]

What she did wasn't really trolling

It was a direct threat towards an airline

If something was to happen on that day and the airline did not investigate it, all hell would break loose

So yeah, she should get punished

[FlyingJesus]

"Trolling" isn't a crime but she could well have broken actual laws. I'm pretty sure she wouldn't be arrested just for being annoying

oh yeah like that ^

[karter]

yes jail all the trolls i'm sick of the memes and the fedoras

[GommeInc]

Trolling isn't a crime but sending threats technically counts as harassment and can go as far as assault when death threats are made. What the 14 year old girl did was break anti-terror laws rather than actually troll. Trolling is usually done to annoy or upset people. Pretending to be a member of Al Qaeda messaging an airliner hinting towards a terrorist activity was only going to be met with problems - what else was she expecting?

[Yawn]

its just banter

[Matt]

I'm sure if she's 14, they will just make sure she's no threat and wasn't serious and then let her go after giving her a stern telling off? Are Facebook trolls punished? If Twitter trolls should be punished it's only fair that Facebook trolls get punished for offensive/threatening/abusive remarks too. I think it depends on the severity of the comment too tbh. Didn't that famous person commit suicide recently because of Twitter comments. I know the police do investigate Twitter comments quite a lot and there's been ones over here aimed at AFL players and the police have prosecuted them.

[Becca]

there's nothing wrong with trolling like other people but she did a stupid thing like wow who would even tweet that
what a loser

[Kardan]

There's a difference between trolling and threatening to blow up an airport.

[-:Undertaker:-]

There's a difference between trolling and threatening to blow up an airport.

But then there's also common sense - would somebody wanting to blow up an airport, aged 14, post it on Twitter?

[Kardan]

But then there's also common sense - would somebody wanting to blow up an airport, aged 14, post it on Twitter?

How do you know it's a 14 year old girl immediately without investigating?

[-:Undertaker:-]

How do you know it's a 14 year old girl immediately without investigating?

So a terrorist is going to pose as a 14 year old girl on Twitter before carrying out an attack?

Talk about paranoia, no wonder it's so easy for the government to take away our civil liberties nowadays. Like candy from a baby.

[Kardan]

And what would happen if authorities went 'Nah, it's only someone having a laugh' and then an attack did happen?

In this day and age I don't blame authorities for taking threats seriously. Better to be safe than sorry.

[-:Undertaker:-]

And what would happen if authorities went 'Nah, it's only someone having a laugh' and then an attack did happen?

In this day and age I don't blame authorities for taking threats seriously. Better to be safe than sorry.

With that argument you could ask why doesn't the state just strip us all down at the airport, conduct a rectal examination on everybody and install CCTV in every single house in the country because something COULD MIGHT WOULD happen. Better safe than sorry, right?

It's time to get real on security. Going after a 14 year old on Twitter is utterly ridiculous and an overreaction of epic proportions.

The state can't keep you safe anyway - it was the state which banned guns on planes which allowed 9/11 to happen after all.

[Kardan]

With that argument you could ask why doesn't the state just strip us all down at the airport, conduct a rectal examination on everybody and install CCTV in every single house in the country because something COULD MIGHT WOULD happen. Better safe than sorry, right?

It's time to get real on security. Going after a 14 year old on Twitter is utterly ridiculous and an overreaction of epic proportions.

The state can't keep you safe anyway - it was the state which banned guns on planes which allowed 9/11 to happen after all.

Are you proposing that 9/11 wouldn't have happened if guns were allowed on planes? The fact that one guy with a gun would have to take down 5 terrorists without missing once is pretty darn unlikely. Then for that to happen on all 4 planes?

[-:Undertaker:-]

Are you proposing that 9/11 wouldn't have happened if guns were allowed on planes? The fact that one guy with a gun would have to take down 5 terrorists without missing once is pretty darn unlikely. Then for that to happen on all 4 planes?

9/11 wouldn't have happened or would have been less likely to have happened had the pilots firstly been armed and trained OR had some passengers also been armed. Or just cabin crew for that matter. Absolutely. It's better to go down with a fight than to sit there like a dummy.

And can I ask with the security thing and terrorism, do you support racial/religious profiling in the name of safety then?

[Zak]

Depends on what it is - the 14 year old deserved it (after what I just read on GommeInc's post).

For most things though no.

[Kardan]

9/11 wouldn't have happened or would have been less likely to have happened had the pilots firstly been armed and trained OR had some passengers also been armed. Or just cabin crew for that matter. Absolutely. It's better to go down with a fight than to sit there like a dummy.

And can I ask with the security thing and terrorism, do you support racial/religious profiling in the name of safety then?

Well, Flight 93 ended up with a fight, and they all still died. And considering the pilots were killed as soon as the cockpit was entered, the only people left that could fly the plane were the terrorists. Do I think the 2 pilots would be able to shoot dead 5 terrorists without being injured and without causing any damage to the cockpit instruments? No. My view is the people on those 4 flights didn't have much hope at all.

And no, I don't support racial or religious profiling - but there's a difference between someone threatening to blow up an airport, and a Muslim wanting to catch a flight.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Well, Flight 93 ended up with a fight, and they all still died. And considering the pilots were killed as soon as the cockpit was entered, the only people left that could fly the plane were the terrorists. Do I think the 2 pilots would be able to shoot dead 5 terrorists without being injured and without causing any damage to the cockpit instruments? No. My view is the people on those 4 flights didn't have much hope at all.

Dear God. Flight 93 CRASHED because the people put up a fight and took down the terrorists. Whilst it's true that they all died, it's also true that due to their heroic effort many more lives were saved by preventing the terrorists conducting an attack similar to those on the two towers.

So again as I said - it is better to put up a FIGHT and take them *******s down than to go to your grave like a sitting duck. Agreed?


And no, I don't support racial or religious profiling - but there's a difference between someone threatening to blow up an airport, and a Muslim wanting to catch a flight.

OHHHHHHHHHH so the minute when I complain about our civil liberties being damaged or destroyed, you turn around and tell me that it doesn't matter as long as we're safe. But the minute somebody suggests random checks on the people who are more likely to carry out terrorist attacks (statistically) you falter and put political correctness before safety. Why is it that you'll place political correctness before our safety but not place civil liberties before our safety?

And for the record, i'm against racial or religious profiling.

[Kardan]

Dear God. Flight 93 CRASHED because the people put up a fight and took down the terrorists. Whilst it's true that they all died, it's also true that due to their heroic effort many more lives were saved by preventing the terrorists conducting an attack similar to those on the two towers.

So again as I said - it is better to put up a FIGHT and take them *******s down than to go to your grave like a sitting duck. Agreed?



OHHHHHHHHHH so the minute when I complain about our civil liberties being damaged or destroyed, you turn around and tell me that it doesn't matter as long as we're safe. But the minute somebody suggests random checks on the people who are more likely to carry out terrorist attacks (statistically) you falter and put political correctness before safety. Why is it that you'll place political correctness before our safety but not place civil liberties before our safety?

And for the record, i'm against racial or religious profiling.

I never said they didn't stop more potential deaths, but my point still stands, those 4 flights all still would have crashed. Also, let's take your unlikely situation, that on all 4 planes, somehow all 19 hijackers were taken down without any damage to the plane or pilots, and everyone landed safely and 9/11 was averted. How many flights from 2001 to now would have had issues with people being allowed to carry guns onto planes?

And presumably, guns on airplanes would only be allowed for domestic flights (USA to USA) - you wouldn't be allowed to bring a gun from the USA to UK for example? So how do we tackle terrorists from international flights?

It's also worth noting that Flight 93 managed to fight back *without* the use of firearms, sadly for them, the pilots were already dead.

So people should be able to freely say they're going to blow up an airport? Freedom of speech is obviously more important than protecting against potential threats that have been declared. And you said yourself 'Carry out random checks' - they're not random if you're profiling.

[Kardan]

Also worth noting -:Undertaker:-; you say that the people on Flight 93 'took down the terrorists' - they didn't. The passengers didn't breach the cockpit. All they did was force the terrorists to crash earlier and not into their intended target.

[Kardan]

Also, if you let passengers carry guns onto a plane... Well... Then the hijackers can simply take guns onto planes as well...

[scottish]

9/11 wouldn't have happened or would have been less likely to have happened had the pilots firstly been armed and trained OR had some passengers also been armed. Or just cabin crew for that matter. Absolutely. It's better to go down with a fight than to sit there like a dummy.

And can I ask with the security thing and terrorism, do you support racial/religious profiling in the name of safety then?

and at the same time we'd have 100x other planes per year going down due to guns being allowed on board

don't be a ******* ****** for once in your life.

[Empired]

With that argument you could ask why doesn't the state just strip us all down at the airport, conduct a rectal examination on everybody and install CCTV in every single house in the country because something COULD MIGHT WOULD happen. Better safe than sorry, right?
What's the difference between making a threat on Twitter and making a threat whilst stood in the airport? Both of them are real threats and of course action should be taken.

And anyway, that was just an appeal to ridicule; taking action against someone who is threatening the safety of lots of people (sensible) and putting CCTV in peoples' houses (ridiculous) are totally incomparable and your argument there is pretty much invalid :S

[-:Undertaker:-]

I never said they didn't stop more potential deaths, but my point still stands, those 4 flights all still would have crashed. Also, let's take your unlikely situation, that on all 4 planes, somehow all 19 hijackers were taken down without any damage to the plane or pilots, and everyone landed safely and 9/11 was averted. How many flights from 2001 to now would have had issues with people being allowed to carry guns onto planes?

But you are not listening to what I am saying. I am not saying that the flights would have landed safely - that would have been out of the question with the pilots both dead. I am saying that had people been armed on the flights that flew into the towers, the terrorists would have been shot dead and the people would have foiled their plan by not crashing them into the two towers.

Yes the people would still have died - but it would have saved 2,000+ lives. Do you understand now?


And presumably, guns on airplanes would only be allowed for domestic flights (USA to USA) - you wouldn't be allowed to bring a gun from the USA to UK for example? So how do we tackle terrorists from international flights?

It's also worth noting that Flight 93 managed to fight back *without* the use of firearms, sadly for them, the pilots were already dead.

Just have Pilots and Cabin Crew armed then.

Or have onboard (armed) security.


So people should be able to freely say they're going to blow up an airport? Freedom of speech is obviously more important than protecting against potential threats that have been declared.

If somebody makes the threat in an airport, have the airport security investigate them there and then. But threats on twitter, down the pub and so on? It's utterly ridiculous. It goes to show by the fact we're sitting here arguing over whether a 14 year old girl on Twitter should be arrested on suspected terrorism threats. Absurd, absurd, absurd.


And you said yourself 'Carry out random checks' - they're not random if you're profiling.

And I said that I don't agree with random checks (which are a PR stunt) OR racial profiling.

AND (unlike you) I support our civil liberties which is exactly what we are fighting for against Islamic jihadists.


Also worth noting -:Undertaker:-; you say that the people on Flight 93 'took down the terrorists' - they didn't. The passengers didn't breach the cockpit. All they did was force the terrorists to crash earlier and not into their intended target.

YES AND THATS MY WHOLE POINT - that it is better to fight back and DIE but to save other people's lives than it is to sit there like a dummy while the hijackers prepare to kill even more people. That's known as putting yourself before others.

If you want to sit there on the plane chewing your nails then that's fine, i'd rather that I was armed and have a shot at one of them *******s and at least attempt to DO SOMETHING against evil people. The government cannot save you thousands of feet in the air whilst your being held hostage by an Islamic jihadist. Do you get that?


Also, if you let passengers carry guns onto a plane... Well... Then the hijackers can simply take guns onto planes as well...

Yes. But the hijackers are outnumbered then by 4 to 200.


and at the same time we'd have 100x other planes per year going down due to guns being allowed on board

OMGZ YES COS ALL AMERICANS ARE GUN RAVING LOONS. Rightttttttt. :rolleyes:

Can I ask though - would you at least agree with arming the pilots and cabin crew?


don't be a ******* ****** for once in your life.

You shut your filthy mouth.


What's the difference between making a threat on Twitter and making a threat whilst stood in the airport? Both of them are real threats and of course action should be taken.

Do I need to answer that? It's self evident.


And anyway, that was just an appeal to ridicule; taking action against someone who is threatening the safety of lots of people (sensible) and putting CCTV in peoples' houses (ridiculous) are totally incomparable and your argument there is pretty much invalid :S

No it isn't.

A few years ago the last Labour government attempted to ram through parliament an act that would have increased the time you can be held by the government under 'terrorism' charges to 90 DAYS. That's like something out of a dictatorship.

Yet a lot of people sat by like lemmings (Kardan) and were prepared to accept it because they're paranoid over terrorism.

[Empired]

Do I need to answer that? It's self evident.
Actually you do. Just because a threat is made on the internet doesn't instantly make it a "joke" or something not worthy of notice. Making a stupid, threatening comment on the internet is just as real as making one in real life.


No it isn't.

A few years ago the last Labour government attempted to ram through parliament an act that would have increased the time you can be held by the government under 'terrorism' charges to 90 DAYS. That's like something out of a dictatorship.

Yet a lot of people sat by like lemmings (Kardan) and were prepared to accept it because they're paranoid over terrorism.
I'm not sure if you meant to quote me for this bit or made a mistake or what, but I'm confused by how this is relevant to me telling you you used an appeal to ridicule.
As far as I can tell, my point about CCTV in houses and that girl getting arrested had absolutely nothing to do with me saying it was okay for people to be held by the government under terrorism charges for 90 days.

[Kardan]

So you would happily have all the people onboard a flight engage in a gun battle in mid flight? And I can imagine that these situations would be entirely hectic, it wouldn't be out of the question for innocent people to be shot dead in all the carnage. And once again, it's not as simple as 200 people vs 4 terrorists (Worth noting that there were only about 40 people on Flight 93, but I guess we're talking in general terms now), it's 200 people vs 4 terrorists vs 1 plane. You have people misfiring and you'll get the cabin depressurising, and that's not taking into account potentially shooting pilots, cockpit controls, wiring, fuel tanks and engines.

The number of flights where guns *could* have prevented deaths is surely way smaller than the number of flights that would be put into danger because of civilians bringing armed guns onto planes. Surely that's obvious.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Actually you do. Just because a threat is made on the internet doesn't instantly make it a "joke" or something not worthy of notice. Making a stupid, threatening comment on the internet is just as real as making one in real life.

Well yes it does, do you even understand how security and intelligence services work? If the CIA, MI5 or MI6 come across a threat or whatever it may be - they assess the threat and then make a judgement on whether to a) follow it up or leave it & b) how many resources they put in to investigating that person/s.

Intelligence services and the Police do not sit there acting as though every threat carries the same weight.


I'm not sure if you meant to quote me for this bit or made a mistake or what, but I'm confused by how this is relevant to me telling you you used an appeal to ridicule.
As far as I can tell, my point about CCTV in houses and that girl getting arrested had absolutely nothing to do with me saying it was okay for people to be held by the government under terrorism charges for 90 days.

Because i'm showing you just how in a climate of fear the government can force through draconian and terrifying legislation and much of the population - like Kardan - because they've been scared accept it in order to make them 'safe'.

It's classic of all dictatorships and tyrannies.

- - - Updated - - -


So you would happily have all the people onboard a flight engage in a gun battle in mid flight? And I can imagine that these situations would be entirely hectic, it wouldn't be out of the question for innocent people to be shot dead in all the carnage. And once again, it's not as simple as 200 people vs 4 terrorists (Worth noting that there were only about 40 people on Flight 93, but I guess we're talking in general terms now), it's 200 people vs 4 terrorists vs 1 plane. You have people misfiring and you'll get the cabin depressurising, and that's not taking into account potentially shooting pilots, cockpit controls, wiring, fuel tanks and engines.

If the plane is going down either way is that not better than to have it crash into a tower of 2,000 people?

It's glaringly obvious.


The number of flights where guns *could* have prevented deaths is surely way smaller than the number of flights that would be put into danger because of civilians bringing armed guns onto planes. Surely that's obvious.

Then just apply to cabin staff and the Pilots. Simple.

[scottish]

OMGZ YES COS ALL AMERICANS ARE GUN RAVING LOONS. Rightttttttt. :rolleyes:

Can I ask though - would you at least agree with arming the pilots and cabin crew?



You shut your filthy mouth.

Nowhere did I claim all Americans are gun raving loons?

Yes, pilots should be armed not so much cabin crew (maybe trained and know that there's firearms in the cockpit, but certainly not on them/accessible for them without access to the cockpit).

No you shut your mouth you little ****

[Kyle]

why is it that people can't have opinions across a continuum and are being told they must be drastically on one end or the other.
-:Undertaker:-; if the threat came from a 30 year old muslim man 'down the pub' on twitter rather than a 14 yo girl would you condone an investigation then?

[LiquidLuck.]

I have a question. How many guns have actually been taken on board after all these post 9/11 laws?

Because if pilots have guns, then it makes it so much easier for someone else to get hold of those guns..

About the thread topic itself, she was not ''trolling'', she was harassing.. Due to the fact that she is 14, so a minor, they MAYBE took it a little bit to far, but a good investigation so she can still fear the consequences of her stupidity wouldn't warm anyone.

[Kardan]

Well yes it does, do you even understand how security and intelligence services work? If the CIA, MI5 or MI6 come across a threat or whatever it may be - they assess the threat and then make a judgement on whether to a) follow it up or leave it & b) how many resources they put in to investigating that person/s.

Intelligence services and the Police do not sit there acting as though every threat carries the same weight.



Because i'm showing you just how in a climate of fear the government can force through draconian and terrifying legislation and much of the population - like Kardan - because they've been scared accept it in order to make them 'safe'.

It's classic of all dictatorships and tyrannies.

- - - Updated - - -



If the plane is going down either way is that not better than to have it crash into a tower of 2,000 people?

It's glaringly obvious.



Then just apply to cabin staff and the Pilots. Simple.

I thought we were talking generally now, not about 9/11. We've already established that the flights crashing in a field is better than crashing into their intended targets. But allowing guns on flights may have saved 2,000 people, but it will certainly have opened a new can of worms in the 13 years since. My last comments are not about 9/11, but in a more general situation. If everyone is armed - a gun fight will emerge 30,000 feet into the air - not ideal.

If only the pilot is armed, they will have to leave the cockpit (which means it now has the possibility of being entered) to deal with the threat. In my opinion, guns have no place on a plane. And looking at the last 13 or so years, we've been fine without them. It would cause way more problems than it solves.

[LiquidLuck.]

To be honest, if it hadn't happened on the 9/11, which made the proper security start, then it would have happened in the years since then and at the end of the day we would have found ourselves in the situation that we are today in what relates to security in airports.

[Kardan]

To be honest, if it hadn't happened on the 9/11, which made the proper security start, then it would have happened in the years since then and at the end of the day we would have found ourselves in the situation that we are today in what relates to security in airports.

I totally agree.

[xxMATTGxx]

You really do not want gun battles on a airliner. Once a window has been shot that could easily cause a cabin depressurization.

[e5]

She won't have be imprisoned for 'trolling' but more like al Qaeda threats or w.e. American Airlines pursuing it is tight tho but they might have question her to find it how she knew about it at 14 n could link to summat!!!!

[scottish]

I have a question. How many guns have actually been taken on board after all these post 9/11 laws?

Because if pilots have guns, then it makes it so much easier for someone else to get hold of those guns..

About the thread topic itself, she was not ''trolling'', she was harassing.. Due to the fact that she is 14, so a minor, they MAYBE took it a little bit to far, but a good investigation so she can still fear the consequences of her stupidity wouldn't warm anyone.

How?

They're in a locked cockpit which only flight crew can access, you can't just randomly walk into the flight pit and ask for their gun..

I don't know if they are even armed, but aren't there flight marshals on most flights now? or did I take too much out of Non-Stop movie

[Empired]

How?

They're in a locked cockpit which only flight crew can access, you can't just randomly walk into the flight pit and ask for their gun..

I don't know if they are even armed, but aren't there flight marshals on most flights now? or did I take too much out of Non-Stop movie
But if they're just going to be locked away for the whole flight, what's the point in having them for safety in the first place?

Someone said earlier that it's more dangerous to have guns on planes that to not and I agree with them really.

[Kardan]

There's rarely any air marshalls on flights from the UK. I think it's a US thing.

On 9/11, the USA had 33 air marshalls, in August 2013, it stands at 4,000, by 2019 it will stand at 1,200, and by 2024 it will be just 500, so they're phasing it out.

[Kyle]

There's rarely any air marshalls on flights from the UK. I think it's a US thing.

On 9/11, the USA had 33 air marshalls, in August 2013, it stands at 4,000, by 2019 it will stand at 1,200, and by 2024 it will be just 500, so they're phasing it out.
where are you getting this info from

[Kardan]

Also, in the US, air marshalls lead to 4.2 arrests per year, meaning at the cost of the current program, it costs about $200 million per arrest. Probably why it's been phased out.

[LiquidLuck.]

How?

They're in a locked cockpit which only flight crew can access, you can't just randomly walk into the flight pit and ask for their gun..

I don't know if they are even armed, but aren't there flight marshals on most flights now? or did I take too much out of Non-Stop movie

Yes and if there is ever a need to use the guns and the pilot comes outside with it, I'm sure someone would find a distraction to manage to take the gun away from him. And again this comes back to my question.

How many guns have been taken on board ever since all the post 9/11 security measures??

If the answer is none then why was the need of guns in the cockpit even analyzed? S:

- - - Updated - - -


Also, in the US, air marshalls lead to 4.2 arrests per year, meaning at the cost of the current program, it costs about $200 million per arrest. Probably why it's been phased out.

And do you know what are the arrests for?

[Kardan]

where are you getting this info from

33 air marshals on 9/11: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3020570.stm
Marshals being cut: http://edition.cnn.com/2014/02/25/us/air-marshals-cut/

Seems the numbers in 2019/2024 aren't reliable, my bad. But offices around the country are being scrapped.

- - - Updated - - -


Yes and if there is ever a need to use the guns and the pilot comes outside with it, I'm sure someone would find a distraction to manage to take the gun away from him. And again this comes back to my question.

How many guns have been taken on board ever since all the post 9/11 security measures??

If the answer is none then why was the need of guns in the cockpit even analyzed? S:

- - - Updated - - -



And do you know what are the arrests for?

From what I've read, the air marshals in the US have only opened fire once on a plane, and that was when it was on the ground boarding, not during flight. I can't find any examples of air marshals needing to open fire during a flight.

[LiquidLuck.]

From what I've read, the air marshals in the US have only opened fire once on a plane, and that was when it was on the ground boarding, not during flight. I can't find any examples of air marshals needing to open fire during a flight.

Do you not have the reason why though?

[Kardan]

Do you not have the reason why though?

They opened fire in this particular incident because the guy had a row with his wife, so he wanted to abandon the flight. The flight attendant said he couldn't leave, so he said he had a bomb. He was shot 11 times when he was on the boarding bridge after exiting the plane. The guy suffered from a mental illness, and apparently the flight marshall knew this beforehand.

[LiquidLuck.]

They opened fire in this particular incident because the guy had a row with his wife, so he wanted to abandon the flight. The flight attendant said he couldn't leave, so he said he had a bomb. He was shot 11 times when he was on the boarding bridge after exiting the plane. The guy suffered from a mental illness, and apparently the flight marshall knew this beforehand.

Shot to death??

[scottish]

But if they're just going to be locked away for the whole flight, what's the point in having them for safety in the first place?

Someone said earlier that it's more dangerous to have guns on planes that to not and I agree with them really.

As pilots would have access to it in an emergency such as a bunch of terrorists sitting outside the cockpit door?

[Kardan]

Shot to death??

Yup.

[LiquidLuck.]

Yup.

Isn't that like WAY too much?! Can't you only shoot someone if they are about to shoot you back?! Omg wtf really..
scottish; if that happened, I hope the pilots didn't open the cockpit because if they did, then it could get a lot worst! Actually does the cockpit lock? Because if it does that's how it should always be..

[scottish]

It does lock, but afaik the flight crew have access to it (might need to be buzzed in, idk)

[LiquidLuck.]

It does lock, but afaik the flight crew have access to it (might need to be buzzed in, idk)

Well then if there are terrorists right outside of the door, the door should not be opened by anyone or the risk of the whole flight getting in the hands of the terrorists would only increase, even if the pilots had guns.

[Kardan]

It does lock, but afaik the flight crew have access to it (might need to be buzzed in, idk)

Flight crew need to be granted access for meals, refreshments etc, but can only be let in by the pilot I think? Although that sounds wrong, because I'm sure I read something about a flight attendant trying to fly a plane once when the pilots were unconscious...

[scottish]

Well then if there are terrorists right outside of the door, the door should not be opened by anyone or the risk of the whole flight getting in the hands of the terrorists would only increase, even if the pilots had guns.

Well i've never been on a plane when it's hijacked, but if the door is opened I assume it's to ensure the safety of the passengers rather than hey come in this is the cockpit let me give you a guide

If they have weapons or something on board then they can do a lot of damage especially if it's at like 35k ft.

[LiquidLuck.]

Well i've never been on a plane when it's hijacked, but if the door is opened I assume it's to ensure the safety of the passengers rather than hey come in this is the cockpit let me give you a guide

If they have weapons or something on board then they can do a lot of damage especially if it's at like 35k ft.

Exactly so if it's impossible to bring guns on board, lets not give guns to pilots either, lets just not have them at all in the plane and it'll be much safer.

[scottish]

Exactly so if it's impossible to bring guns on board, lets not give guns to pilots either, lets just not have them at all in the plane and it'll be much safer.

But what if they do get it past security?

If they removed flight marshals from planes I'm all for pilots having access to firearms (if they don't already?)

[LiquidLuck.]

But what if they do get it past security?

If they removed flight marshals from planes I'm all for pilots having access to firearms (if they don't already?)

Thing is, they never will get past security!

- - - Updated - - -

In this case there isn't even the exception to the rule. The security is super tighten, nothing will ever happen. I've been flying quite a lot since I moved to Scotland and not only Edinburgh-Lisbon, I've been to like 5 airports since I moved here, and in every single one of them, there is no way a gun would not be detected. X-ray of bags, checking if you beep in those beepy things.. One time they asked me to open my bag because it was too full and could not see everything properly. They have also asked me to take off my timberland boots and some of them were talking about a lady's bad that had an object that looked like a gun and then it was just a beauty product or whatever. Unless they create an object in like paper or plastic, that can go unnoticed glued to your skin and actually manages to hurt people, there is no way something like that will happen.

[scottish]

Thing is, they never will get past security!

- - - Updated - - -

In this case there isn't even the exception to the rule. The security is super tighten, nothing will ever happen. I've been flying quite a lot since I moved to Scotland and not only Edinburgh-Lisbon, I've been to like 5 airports since I moved here, and in every single one of them, there is no way a gun would not be detected. X-ray of bags, checking if you beep in those beepy things.. One time they asked me to open my bag because it was too full and could not see everything properly. They have also asked me to take off my timberland boots and some of them were talking about a lady's bad that had an object that looked like a gun and then it was just a beauty product or whatever. Unless they create an object in like paper or plastic, that can go unnoticed glued to your skin and actually manages to hurt people, there is no way something like that will happen.

Obviously will as they have before.

[LiquidLuck.]

Obviously will as they have before.

Please tell me when then because that's what I've been asking since my first post in this thread.

[FlyingJesus]

What I've learned from this thread is that making bomb threats is a civil liberty and security checks are worse than racism

[karter]

lol nobody bats an eyelid on the fact that the girl wrote "i'm afghan i'm muslim" something like that

eat my **** by the way

[LiquidLuck.]

Flight crew need to be granted access for meals, refreshments etc, but can only be let in by the pilot I think? Although that sounds wrong, because I'm sure I read something about a flight attendant trying to fly a plane once when the pilots were unconscious...

14th of August 2005, the cabin pressurization failed so the crew fell unconscious. The plane flew to its destination on autopilot and assumed a holding pattern there until a flight attendant with a commercial pilot's license woke up and climbed into the cockpit.

[Americanozz]

If it bothers them that much, the account should just block the troll or get them banned

[wordofwisdom]

twitter trolls have been sent to jail

14 year old dutch girl been arrested for trolling american airlines

is it TOO MUCH?

In my opinion if it's not serious them yeah it does go alittle to far but if it gets beyond a joke like death threats bomb scares or very abusive them i'd take action

[Kuybii]

If she has been taken to prison that really is ridiculous, a thorough search of her residence, known family and close friends' houses aswell as her electronics surely would have discovered this was just a bored teenager sitting at a bus stop. Its far too easy to tweet something like that. But, for something which can severely jeopardize the safety of thousands, the necessary precautions need to be taken.

[KJK]

Depends. If the trolling is threatening someone's safety online, action should be taken. Threats should never be joked about. Obviously there will always be trolls, however.

[The Don]

It would be incredibly stupid to allow firearms on flights, especially for passengers.