Summary
Passengers on an American Airlines flight from Milwaukee to Dallas-Fort Worth restrained a Canadian man with duct tape after he allegedly attempted to open a cabin door mid-flight, claiming he was the “captain” and needed to exit.
The man became aggressive, injuring a flight attendant as he rushed toward the door.
Several passengers, including Doug McCright and Charlie Boris, subdued him, using duct tape to secure his hands and ankles.
Authorities detained the man upon landing, and the incident remains under investigation.
They probably were going through some kind of mania or hallucination episode.
Don’t always assume the worst in people, “eye for an eye” has never worked.
“Eye for an eye makes the whole world blind” is the more accurate version I think
This saying is a pet peeve of mine, because it’s so contrary to the actual meaning of “eye for an eye”, which is a prohibition against escalation. Like in this case the guy injured someone’s neck and wrist, so the maximum punishment would be injuring his neck and wrist, not killing him. That’s not to say “eye for an eye” is an ideal justice system, just that it is opposed to wanton revenge and violence.
I like that saying, I’ll be reusing it.
It’s the original saying 😭
not at all https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_for_an_eye
“eye for an eye” is about 4’000 years old
the above saying is an american idiom coined in 1914
Uh, no? “An eye for an eye.” is old school ancient.
It was however a limiting statement. When Hammurabi made “an eye for an eye” into law, it meant you couldn’t just go kill a man’s entire family over losing an eye and call it justified.
Where the counter comes from doesn’t preclude this, but is an evolution of it. If the law says your family takes their eye in revenge for them taking yours, then they take revenge for what you did, etc. It creates a potential for a cycle of vengeance. It’s better than nothing probably, but it also has serious flaws.