Norton explores the secret world of bulletproof hosting that’s hidden deep in underground bunkers. You make your own decision/conclusion on this interesting subject
crime
All posts tagged crime
A South Korean court Friday suspended the prison term of the former Korean Air executive whose onboard “nut rage” tantrum delayed a flight last year, immediately ending her incarceration.
Cho Hyun-ah, who is the daughter of the Korean airline’s chairman, did not violate aviation security law when she ordered the chief flight attendant off a Dec. 5 flight, forcing it to return to the gate at John F. Kennedy Airport in New York, according to the Seoul High Court.
Photo: Associated Press
The upper court sentenced Cho to 10 months in prison and then suspended the sentence for two years. It said she was guilty of assault. A lower court had earlier sentenced Cho to a year in prison. She has been locked up since her December arrest.
She achieved worldwide notoriety after an onboard tantrum triggered when a first class flight attendant served her macadamia nuts in a bag instead of on a dish. Cho, head of the airline’s cabin service at the time, had a heated, physical confrontation with members of the crew.
Swarmed by reporters at the court, she made no comment in front of the TV cameras, bowing her head and burying her face in her hands as the media pressed in and yelled for her to say something.
The incident was a lightning rod for anger in a country where the economy is dominated by family-run conglomerates known as chaebol that often act above the law.
Kim Sang-hwan, head of the three judge upper court panel, said that even though Cho used violence against crew members, she should be given a second chance. The judge also cited her “internal change” since she began serving her prison term as a reason for lessening the sentence.
The upper court also took into consideration that Cho is the mother of 2-year-old twins and had never committed any offence before. She has resigned from her position at the airline.
And it seems that chaebol justice has prevailed yet again! Not only was her sentence reduced to 10 months, and then suspended for teo years, they cite that people using violence against others is OK, and should be given a second chance.
In Korea, as in Japan, the class system is alive and well. This judgement has shown once again that the upper classes, the chaebol, can do whatever they like and skirt around the judicial system with impugnity.
Had a lesser person carried out these acts, I’m sure they would be languishing in a U.S. Federal Prison for an undetermined period.
Readers of this blog will recall my post Germanwings Crash – Deliberate act by Co-pilot? where it is suggested that the co-pilot deliberatly flew the Airbus A320 into the French Alps.
D-AIPX, the Airbus A320-200 involved in the accident. Image by Sebastien Mortier via Wiki Creative Commons.
I came across this story today by Christine Negroni which takes a somewhat alternate and plausible view of what may have happened on the flight deck of the Germanwings aircraft. I tend to agree with her, as it is far too early to conclusively say what has occurred. I know when the “murder-suicide” theory was brought to my attention by a colleague, I replied that the thought of this being a deliberate action was too “bizarre” to contemplate, and bordered on conspiracy theory. But French investigators were saying that was so, therefore it must be – right?
So I’m now glad that somebody else sees the possibility of another cause of this disaster!
The news coming from the French prosecutor Brice Robin regarding Monday’s crash of Germanwings Flight 9295 is shocking, but on what facts is the statement based? Surely Mr. Robin knows something he’s not sharing with the rest of us, or how could he possibly come to the conclusion that “the co-pilot wanted to destroy the aircraft”? And yet that is what he is saying based on facts that still could suggest other possibilities.
The evidence so far suggests first officer Andreas Lubitz deliberately flew the plane to a lower altitude. What we do know is that the plane wound up crashing into a mountain. The question Mr. Robin has not answered is how he knows the co-pilot had that end in mind.
We know the plane was commanded down to a lower altitude after reaching 38,000 feet. We do not yet know why.
We know the Captain, identified in as Patrick Sonderheimer, left the cockpit and was unable to get back in. We do not know that he tried to enter using the door passcode or that the door was blocked beyond the normal locking function. All we know is that the cockpit voice recorder shows he tried to enter by knocking. There is a suggestion that an axe was used to try and gain access to the flight deck – ed.
There may be reasons for trying to enter by knocking, including confusion or distraction due to alarm.
We know that the first officer Lubitz failed to heed the knocks on the door. We do not know if this was deliberate. We know Lubitz was breathing. Both his inappropriate action in not heeding the knocking on the door and his breathing is consistent with deliberate action OR incapacitation.
Finally, unlike in the United States and other countries, the French judicial authorities are in charge of cockpit voice recorders and flight data recorders, which then makes them available to the air safety agency the Bureau d’Enquêtes et d’Analyses. There’s a reason for this increased oversight: In the crash of an Airbus A-320 in 1988, BEA was suspected of tampering with FDR data.
As a consequence, air accidents in France are seen through the prism of criminality. In other countries seasoned air safety investigators understand there is a multitude of factors that contribute to a disaster and will wait to have all the evidence before drawing conclusions.
This is the only way I can understand how the Marseilles French prosecutor made the tremendous leap of logic in concluding that the first officer “wanted” to crash the plane killing all 150 onboard.
The evidence so far shows Lubitz deliberately flew the plane to a lower altitude and a crash resulted. The question not answered in anything I’ve heard or seen is whether he intended for that to happen. This is not a subtle quibble. It makes a monumental difference in what really happened to Germanwings Flight 9295.
Source: Christine Negroni is an aviation journalist and safety specialist who is writing a book on aviation mysteries to be published by Penguin in 2016. This story first appeared on her blog.
Man Haron Monis, the violent criminal involved in the Lindt Café hostage drama in Sydney last Monday and Tuesday was well known to Australian law enforcement and security agencies since 1996, when he arrived from Iran and was granted “political refugee” status.
He had a long history of violence, mental instability, religious extremism. So how was it then that Monis was able to walk our streets and perpetrate the most heinous crime in Australia’s history? And let’s get this right. His actions were not terrorism, but rather those of a deranged criminal who happened to be Muslim. To their credit, Monis’ actions have been soundly denounced by the Australian Islamic community. To answer the above question, let’s take a look at Monis’ background and Australian security agencies failures in respect of that background
- FAILED – Granted Bail in Murder Charge – Monis was granted bail in December 2013 after being charged with being an accessory before and after the fact in the murder of his ex-wife.
- FAILED – Prevented from Extradition – In 2010, Iran requested the extradition of Monis to face fraud charges in Iran in respect of the travel agency he ran. The request was refused as Australia had no extradition treaty with Iran.
- FAILED – Removed from Watch List – Monis dropped of the ASIO watch list in 2010. if he had been on the watch list, bail would not have been granted.
- FAILED – Citizenship Granted – Monis was granted Australian citizenship in 2004 despite the Iranians having a warrant out for his arrest. To be granted citizenship the applicant must be of “good character”. Australian authorities seem to have overlooked his criminal history and unanswered charges in Iran and granted citizenship anyway.
- FAILED – Allowed to Enter Australia – Granted “political refugee” status in 1996, in full knowledge of his outstanding charges in Iran.
- FAILED – Given Legal Aid – He was able to access the High Court to attempt to have a trial aborted. His action was dismissed.
- FAILED – Gun Licence – There seems to be some dispute as to whether Monis has held a gun licence in Australia
- FAILED – Allowed to Live on Welfare – Monis survived on the Australian welfare system for many years.
- FAILED – Multiple Identities – The use of numerous aliases led to some difficulties in tracking his criminal activities.
- FAILED – Allowed to Write Hate Mail – Monis wrote deplorable hate mail to families who had lost sons, husbands, brothers in the war in Afghanistan. For this crime he received a minor sentence of “community service”.
- FAILED – Information Not Shared between Security Agencies – Decisions about Monis may have been made without having the information that other agencies knew!
- FAILED – Was Able to get a Firearm – Where did Monis get the pump-action shot gun that he used to murder two people in the Lindt Café? Did he steal it, or was is supplied by an accomplice to his crimes?
- FAILED – Able to Register Extremist Company Names – Monis was able to register Hizbullah Australia and Dar El Fatwa Australia. These names should have alerted security authorities to Monis’ possible criminal intent. Further he had a 1300 service number – 1300 4 JIHAD – which has since been disconnected.
It would appear that those red flags that should have been raised in respect of Monis’ activities were not raised, or if they were, they were indeed ignored. This ultimately led to the horrific events which occurred in Martin Place and to the death of two innocent people.
Lax bail laws need to tightened, inter-agency cooperation and information sharing needs to be improved, and citizenship for those involved in jihadist and other criminal activities need to be annulled and those persons deported back to their country of origin. The Australian attitude of “She’ll be right, mate” is out of place in today’s times. Its time to toughen up against all those who have demonstrated a behaviour of a violent, criminal or extremist nature.
Australia is a peaceful multi-cultural society with people from many countries and many faiths. There is however NO place for religiously motivated extremism and/or violence affecting the innocent members of the community going about their daily lives.
A 21-year-old man has been charged after allegedly assaulting a female ambulance paramedic in the Sydney city overnight.
At about 2.20am Sunday, police from Operation Simmer were patrolling George Street, Haymarket, when they came across the man who they said was unresponsive and possibly intoxicated.
Officers called for assistance from NSW Ambulance, whose paramedics attended a short time later. Police allege that as a female paramedic attempted to treat the man, he struck her in the face and pushed her to the ground, before starting to kick her. Police intervened and after a short struggle, the man was arrested.
The paramedic, who has taken time off from work, suffered wrist and back injuries, as well as contusions to her face, a NSW Ambulance spokeswoman said.
The Plumpton man was taken to Sydney City Police Station and charged with common assault. He was granted conditional bail to appear before the Downing Centre Local Court on February 24. Operation Simmer focuses on Sydney’s CBD, Darlinghurst and Kings Cross, is conducted in the city every weekend as part of a summer-long crackdown targeting alcohol-related crime and anti-social behaviour.
This is just another example of a cowardly attack on a female paramedic by an intoxicated lout. NSW Ambulance has indicated that they have a zero tolerance on violence directed toward paramedics, and will pursue offenders vigorously through the courts. I know this paramedic believes the full weight of the law should be applied to the perpetrators of these cowardly acts. Assaulting a paramedic carries the same sentence as assaulting police.
Source: Sydney Morning Herald, 2/02/2014.
Words, By George! 