Gold Star family booed on flight bringing home dead soldier - disrespect for military service

[alhoon]

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/californ...ghanistan-dad/

This is simply heartbreaking!

The gist: Sgt. John Perry was killed on Saturday in Afghanistan by a suicide bomber. Sgt Perry intercepted the bomber before the bomber would hit a veteran's day marathon. Sgt Perry died to save his compatriots and other people honoring the sacrifice of USA soldiers, just like him.
The flight to bring the body of now hero Sgt Perry home, the nightmarish flight no parent would ever want to make, was delayed because of the Gold star family. And boos raised from the first class cabin because of the delay a dead soldier's body would bring. Understandably, the boos of privileged people his son died defending, made the grieving parents even more upset.


I can't even begin to put my frustration and indignation in words. In order to not break several rules of the forum, I would just say that one more of the best USA has to offer was booed by creatures that haven't spared a thought about who they were booing.

Sgt Perry, rest in peace.

Whether you agree or disagree with USA presence in Afghanistan, Sgt Perry died to save other people. Perhaps these people and Sgt Perry should not have been there. But that was not Sgt Perry's decision. He deserved, his grieving family deserved, far more than to be booed because a few rich people would reach their mansions an hour later than expected.


I am not for restriction of free speech. But those people booing actually caused emotional pain to the grieving parents. I think they should be fined for that. Having had the misfortune to see parents with the coffin of their kid, I believe there's no greater disservice than boo their sacrifice. A punch in the gut they would forgive and forget easier. This is worse.

The end of the article is stunning.
"A soldier’s death defending his country has left a father defending his son.“My kid was over there to help put a stop to this garbage, and he died,” [the father] said"


I believe USA nowdays sees a disrespect for the military not seen since the end of Vietnam war. I don't know how it can be fixed, but I believe it should.

[Phier]

Not enough info really to get properly outraged.

I am not for restriction of free speech.

Good!

I think they should be fined for that.

Thats not how this free speech stuff works.

The US it the only country that really has Free Speech, if you think yours does, it doesn't. Its somehow restricted. We have to take the bad with the good. Calling people out for it is fine, which is what this article does, but in such a vague manner I can't get properly upset.

Were they Hilary voters?
Were they foreigners?
Were they just a couple of drunk idiots?

So its bad, but what kind of bad? From the fathers statement it sounds like Hilary voters, but again not enough info.

[Ventos Mustel]

Not enough info really to get properly outraged.



Good!



Thats not how this free speech stuff works.

The US it the only country that really has Free Speech, if you think yours does, it doesn't. Its somehow restricted. We have to take the bad with the good. Calling people out for it is fine, which is what this article does, but in such a vague manner I can't get properly upset.

Were they Hilary voters?
Were they foreigners?
Were they just a couple of drunk idiots?

So its bad, but what kind of bad? From the fathers statement it sounds like Hilary voters, but again not enough info.

Are you saying that whether or not you would be outraged by this depends on the political identity of the booers?

[Phier]

Are you saying that whether or not you would be outraged by this depends on the political identity of the booers?

Yes, outrage is an emotional response, and as such requires such a component. If they were a couple of drunks who were just so blasted out of their minds because their heard "flight delay" then yea thats less outrage than if I found out is was say two Hilary Clinton staffers. See the difference?

Or lets take the riots in my city of Chicago that the HRC campaign started. When I thought it was organic Bernie Sanders supporters I was mad, but not out raged like when I found out it was paid for protestors by the DNC.

[Copperknickers II]

Not enough info really to get properly outraged.



Good!



Thats not how this free speech stuff works.

The US it the only country that really has Free Speech, if you think yours does, it doesn't. Its somehow restricted. We have to take the bad with the good. Calling people out for it is fine, which is what this article does, but in such a vague manner I can't get properly upset.

Were they Hilary voters?
Were they foreigners?
Were they just a couple of drunk idiots?

So its bad, but what kind of bad? From the fathers statement it sounds like Hilary voters, but again not enough info.

I can happily report that my country absolutely does not have free speech, unfettered free speech is nearly as stupid an idea as unfettered freedom of action. Also, the US most definitely does not have complete freedom of speech, it just has fewer restrictions than most other countries.

As for the main topic, we need much more information. Who were these people booing, what exact information did they receive, and were they American? It says the booing was on the flight home from Afghanistan, in which case there must have been many Afghans on board. They probably don't even know what 'gold star family' means (I still don't, I'm guessing it has something to do with medals?), not to mention the fact they are well within their rights to have beef with American soldiers.

Speaking from a British point of view, I have some level of respect for soldiers, but I really find it difficult to understand the godlike status they are afforded in the USA. Veterans in the USA are treated like minor royals, people go up to them and shake them by the hand in the street. I was in an American airport once and I saw this happen, I thought he must have been a celebrity or something. Very odd.

[Phier]

I can happily report that my country absolutely does not have free speech, unfettered free speech is nearly as stupid an idea as unfettered freedom of action. Also, the US most definitely does not have complete freedom of speech, it just has fewer restrictions than most other countries.

The US restrictions are such that are relatively unimportant to any political discourse and can't be used prevent it. Lets hope some future government in your country doesn't consider you an internet troll

[Copperknickers II]

The US restrictions are such that are relatively unimportant to any political discourse and can't be used prevent it. Lets hope some future government in your country doesn't consider you an internet troll

Unless internet trolling is now considered a type of political discourse, then you are at liberty to have civil political disagreements in the UK, online or offline. Although I suppose in America, internet trolling is soon to be an important part of the school history curriculum:

AP US History, 2040 Final Examination
2000 words

"Assess the extent to which President Trump's tweets in the weeks prior to the Sacramento Massacre contributed to the secession of the Confederacion de Alta California, Arizona y Nuevo Mexico."

[Phier]

Unless internet trolling is now considered a type of political discourse, then you are at liberty to have civil political disagreements in the UK, online or offline. Although I suppose in America, internet trolling is soon to be an important part of the school history curriculum:

Well good luck! You will need it.

[Roma_Victrix]

I can happily report that my country absolutely does not have free speech, unfettered free speech is nearly as stupid an idea as unfettered freedom of action. Also, the US most definitely does not have complete freedom of speech, it just has fewer restrictions than most other countries.

To demonstrate that, you can't say in a public forum "I'm going to kill Clinton and Trump very soon" without a nice little visit by either the Secret Service or the FBI at your front door should your identity be known to them. However, simply saying "I think Clinton and Trump deserve to be executed" is absolutely protected speech under the First Amendment and no one has the right to stop you from saying it. Mind you, it's a crazy and unhinged thing to suggest, but you can certainly say it in the US. You are also at risk of being sued in a civil lawsuit for slandering or libeling figures like Clinton or Trump if you accuse them of very specific crimes they never committed. However, it would be pointless to attempt to sue someone in court over vague statements like "Clinton is corrupt and a criminal" or "Trump is a scam artist and a liar." It also goes without saying that satire, sarcastic jokes, and tabloid-style "journalism" are exempt from slander and libel charges, since they are inherently not taken seriously or literally.

[Abdülmecid I]

I don't think that institutions like the army or religion need to be treated like snowflakes and enjoy some sort of special respect. Nor do I believe that Sergeant Perry's or any other American soldier's presence in Afghanistan serves in any tangible way the defense of his homeland. However, that being said, that being said, the reaction of the passengers was unacceptable, not only because the victim sacrificed his life to save his comrades, but also because a grieving family, parents who just lost their child, deserve our compassion, not our anger. I would describe it more as a moral than a political issue, though, placing our selfishness before solidarity and common human decency. A bit of a naive question, finally? Is there any chance that the first cabin was unaware of their family loss?

[alhoon]

According to what I got from the article and the videos, no, they knew it was a dead soldier. They were told there would be a delay because of it.

Which brings us to another matter like: The pilots should have respected the privacy from the grieving family and instead of announcing that these people there were bringing in their dead son, say that there will be a slight delay because of some protocol procedures and pass around free peanuts, leaving it at that.

Phier: Your freedom stops where mine starts. I'm not asking for free spaces where people wouldn't have their opinion challenged, but personal attacks of this kind should be fined. Even in USA, free speech allows me to say that I believe blond women should be exterminated from the face of the earth and not allowed to exist. It doesn't allow me to call for others like me to take up guns and start shooting blonds to correct the mistake of their existence.
This is the same kind of situation in my opinion.

[hellheaven1987]

It doesn't allow me to call for others like me to take up guns and start shooting blonds to correct the mistake of their existence.

Actually under free speech you are allowed to do that.

[Infidel144]

Fined? No. OTOH, booting the people booing off the flight would be appropriate.

[IronBrig4]

From what I've read, the other passengers were not fully aware of the circumstances. They knew it was a military family but not a Gold Star family. It sounds like they were just being the usual impatient, self-important first-class travelers.

[Phier]

From what I've read, the other passengers were not fully aware of the circumstances. They knew it was a military family but not a Gold Star family. It sounds like they were just being the usual impatient, self-important first-class travelers.

I'm sure you are trying to make a social point here but you'd be wrong. I fly equally first class and coach. I'm cheap so I only do first class when I can upgrade with points. Never have seen anything worse in first class than coach when it comes to impatient self importance. I've seen more in coach honestly but there are also a lot more people there so I can't say its statistically more.

[IronBrig4]

Fair enough. But I have been on flights with pushy first-class passengers. In my experience coach problems are just as prevalent but they're different. More screaming babies and coughing sick guys.

And the person who leans their seat way back in front you is exclusively a coach problem.

[Prodromos]

Highly likely this was just ignorance instead of evil. I mean if you went to see a movie, and you had to watch a 20-minute charity ad before the movie started, you'd be annoyed too.

I am not for any criminalization of stupid speech. However if any of them were government workers or non-citizens, they should be mandated to spend a few hours with families of fallen troops, or at least with injured troops.

I also disagree that the military doesn't deserve any special respect. It's a form of public service and all public servants deserve respect. Most other forms of public service, however, have few to no downsides. You have your salary, your public respect, reasonable or short hours, and you get to go home every night. Military personnel on the other hand, and especially combat troops in warzones, face constant threats to their lives, a relatively low standard of living, as well as very long periods of separation from home, which means missing unrepeatable experiences such as birthdays, holidays, etc., or a young child's major milestones (e.g. first walk, first word). It generally has quite a few downsides as well as a few advantages.

The only form of public service that is similar, is perhaps police officers, paramedics, firefighters and the like. However these jobs at least allow you to go home almost every day.

[Mangalore]

Sounds a bit flimsy. Any more concrete evidence the people booing knew the reason instead of booing because of the delay? Doesn't make them great people, just not seeing the causal link made clear in the source aka the father makes the causal link from his subjective perception which is entriely fine as describing how he felt, it's not entirely fine in understanding the objective situation.

[alhoon]

I read the story elsewhere. Mangalore is right. There was already a delay so the pilots asked the people to remain seated for a "military family" to get out first to catch their next airplane, that due the delay of this airplane, was leaving in a few minutes.

[Roma_Victrix]

The airline could have kicked the people who booed off the plane, but then again First Class passengers are their "bread and butter" so to speak, so of course they're going to cater and pamper them in every way. I think what they did was atrocious, but I'm not entirely sure they knew it was a Gold Star family or that the dead veteran was a hero who saved a bunch of his comrades. In either case no one should be fined in a court of law for just being an insensitive jerk. That flies in the face of freedom of speech. Again, a private company like an airline can refuse you service for whatever reason they like, especially if you're being drunk and obnoxious. The government, however, has no business stepping in here and mandating who can boo at what and at whom in any given situation. That's the slippery slope towards fascism.

Remember the charming Fred Phelps from that Westboro Baptist Church? Who led horrifyingly distasteful protests right outside soldiers' funerals with signs that God punished them with death because we as a society allow homosexuality, porn, etc.? Phelps was a monster, but he had every right to say the things he did and make a fool of himself, as did his followers. People should be free to ostracize themselves in the public discourse; the social consequences of that are perhaps enough. Again, big daddy government has no business interfering here.