Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2015 April 5

= April 5 =

How is this not kidnapping?
Every so often, I read stories like this, where passengers were forced to stay on an aircraft against their will. Clearly it was safe for the police to get on and off the plane, and it was safe to let the passengers get off the plane after five hours, so how is this not kidnapping? I am primarily interested in UK kidnapping law, but US kidnapping law (or unlawful detaining or anything similar) would also be of interest. What other business gets to hold paying customers captive like this? CypherPunkyBrewster (talk) 06:38, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


 * If you read the definition of Kidnapping, you can probably see that being stuck on a plane awaiting departure does not qualify. But if you have any doubts, you should contact a lawyer. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:53, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


 * One does not contact a solicitor simply because one has a general question about something in the news.
 * You are in the US, right? "Kidnapping generally includes the seizing, confining, or detention of another, and such conduct is, essential to a criminal abduction or kidnapping. According to some authorities, confinement alone is sufficient to constitute kidnapping... The element of restraint is present, when there is substantial interference with the person’s liberty." - http://kidnapping.uslegal.com/elements-of-kidnapping/taking-seizing-detention-or-restraint/


 * Does someone else who accepts the rather obvious fact that in most other situations confining a person against their will is considered kidnapping have an answer? I found the answer given by Baseball Bugs to be somewhat lacking. CypherPunkyBrewster (talk) 07:43, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


 * What is the basis of your premise for being confined "against their will"? They weren't seize and forced onto the plane. They paid for a ticket for a flight to wherever, and boarded voluntarily. They are naturally going to be confined to the airplane during taxiing, takeoff, flight, landing, and taxiing. Sometimes there are delays. If you have a question about how long a delay is legally allowable, that's going to vary by country. But to equate delays on the tarmac to kidnapping is silly. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:07, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I have no interest in any further "answers" from you. Anyone who cannot grasp the fact that "Police were first called to the aircraft after some passengers reportedly began vocally expressing their agitation and officers were forced to return two hours later after reports that angry passengers were attempting to disembark the plane" equates to "against their will" is incapable of providing a reasonable answer. CypherPunkyBrewster (talk) 12:12, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I can see why you normally edit under a different username. I wouldn't want my name associated with your stupid question either. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:17, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


 * See Kettling and Austin v Commissioner of Metropolitan Police. The courts have ruled that a "temporary restriction on freedom of movement" does not count as "deprivation of liberty" for the purposes of Article 5.  Lord Neuberger stated "Any sensible person living in a modern democracy would reasonably expect to be confined, or at least accept that it was proper that she could be confined, within a limited space by the police, in some circumstances." So nyah. Tevildo (talk) 10:10, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the on-topic response.


 * If you look at the ref on the Kettling article, you will see that European Court of Human Rights said "The police had imposed the cordon to isolate and contain a large crowd in dangerous and volatile conditions. This had been the least intrusive and most effective means to protect the public from violence." Hardly blanket permission to hold people when there is no danger in letting them leave the plane. In the same ref the BBC legal affairs correspondent said: "The essence of the judgement really is that kettling is lawful if it's done in the right way, if it's proportionate and is enforced for no longer than reasonably necessary and if it's being undertaken to avoid personal injury and damage to property." Again, it was clearly safe to allow the passengers to leave after imprisoning them against their will for five hours, so the European Court of Human Rights ruling does not apply.


 * Likewise for the Austin v Commissioner of Metropolitan Police ruling you cited. A key fact of that case was that "The judge held that it was not practicable for the police to release the crowd earlier than they did. For them to have done so earlier would have been a complete abnegation of their duty to prevent a breach of the peace and to protect members of the crowd and third parties, including the police, from serious injury." Nobody is implying that the authorities can never stop you from leaving. The case you cite is a clear example where they would be neglecting their duty to keep the public safe if they let the crowd go. I am asking on what basis the police are allowed to stop you from leaving in a situation where it is clearly safe to leave the aircraft, go back into the terminal, and then go home. Which is exactly what you are free to do if any other business fails to provide satisfactory service. Pub runs out of beer? Lock the patrons in until it arrives! Cruise ship breaks down and cannot leave the dock? Pull up the gangplanks and stop the customers from leaving! In no other situation that I can think of would we allow any commercial entity to do this. CypherPunkyBrewster (talk) 12:12, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * As MilbourneOne points out, the passengers (assuming this was an international flight) had not been through immigration control and therefore had no right to enter the UK. They also had no right to wander around the airfield, which would constitute trespass.  Keeping them on the plane as a temporary measure does not seem unreasonable.  The police were called as a breach of the peace seemed likely, not for the specific purpose of keeping the passengers on the aircraft.  I would advise any of the passengers not to attempt rail travel in the UK, if they consider that a delay of five hours might constitute "imprisonment". Tevildo (talk) 13:05, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Indefinite detention without trial is slightly more illegal than kettling, but also different from kidnapping. Generally can't pay a ransom. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:54, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


 * If the passengers were to leave the aircraft they would have to clear through customs and immigration and then would need to be found and re-processed to get back on the aircraft that would cause even more delays, it would seem reasonable in the airlines view to avoid all this fuss if the passengers just waited somewhere safe where the airline knew where they are and could look after them. The fact some passengers were miffed is not kidnapping in any reasonable view of the subject. MilborneOne (talk) 12:24, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The airline has no responsibility to re-process them to get back on the aircraft. Just tell them they are free to go home and buy a ticket for another day or from another airline. Same as any other business. It would be reasonable to detain anyone who didn't get on the plane at that airport, of course, because that subset of passengers would indeed have to clear through customs and immigration. CypherPunkyBrewster (talk) 12:36, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "The airline has no responsibility to re-process them to get back on the aircraft." Who says they don't? The few times I've had to de-plane, we had to go through the boarding process again, and if we went outside we had to go back through security. Have you ever actually flown before? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:52, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you talking about a different case now? Because in the case you linked to above, it's clear from the article you linked to that no one on that plane who was stuck for those 5 hours boarded it at that airport. Nil Einne (talk) 14:01, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I was reminded of this by the some what similar case [//www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11435078] albeit here it wasn't even really possible for the people to be processed at the airport they landed at. A search does mention customs facility at Birmingham so I presume they were probably processed there. Although an airline could probably convince the local authorities to let them disembark at an airport without facilities and bring the people and their luggage by bus or truck to be processed at an aiport with facilities. Nil Einne (talk) 09:05, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * It might be helpful to compare with a taxi. Let's say you pay for a taxi ride, voluntarily get inside, then, once under way, the taxi suffers a mechanical failure.  You then want to get out, but he won't let you (say he has control of the door locks).  He may eventually get the taxi repaired and finish the trip, but you don't want to wait, and may be overheated, hungry, thirsty, etc.  He might have good reason not to let you out, like if it's a bad neighborhood.  Still, is he the one who gets to decide, or are you ? StuRat (talk) 16:47, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


 * In 2009 and 2010 in the US a passenger's "bill of rights" were instituted saying you have the right to deplane after a 3-hr domestic delay, and a 4-hr international delay, as well as to be provided with food and water. μηδείς (talk) 17:05, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

do unborn babies poop inside the mommys belly?
do unborn babies poop inside the mommys belly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.184.216.67 (talk) 11:51, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, in about 12% of pregnancies, and in a small percentage of that 12% it can be fatal to the baby. See http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2667/do-unborn-babies-urinate-defecate-in-the-womb CypherPunkyBrewster (talk) 12:26, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


 * From our Meconium article: Meconium is the earliest stool of a mammalian infant. ... Meconium is normally retained in the infant's bowel until after birth, but sometimes it is expelled into the amniotic fluid (also called "amniotic liquor") prior to birth or during labor and delivery. The stained amniotic fluid (called "meconium liquor" or "meconium stained liquor") is recognised by medical staff as a sign of fetal distress, and puts the neonate at risk of meconium aspiration.
 * Apparently contradicting this is Defecation in utero: a physiologic fetal function. by Cajal & Martínez in the January 2003 American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology which reports on an ultrasound study which found that, "One or more defecations were documented in all fetuses. The frequency of defecations was highest between week 28 and 34 of gestation." and concludes that "defecation in utero is a normal function and supports the view that the evacuation of rectal contents into the amniotic fluid is no departure from normal fetal physiologic behavior." -- ToE 12:46, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Could the following account for the contradictory answers? "In the fetus, passage of meconium occurs physiologically early in gestation, when it contributes to alkaline phosphatase in amniotic fluid. Abramovich1 noted that fetal defecation diminishes after 16 weeks and ceases by 20 weeks, concurrent with innervation of the anal sphincter. At that time, the rectum appears to be filled with meconium. From approximately 20 to 34 weeks, fetal passage of meconium was infrequent" http://www.nature.com/jp/journal/v28/n3s/full/jp2008162a.html CypherPunkyBrewster (talk) 12:59, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, In roughly about twelve percent of babies produce feces in the womb of their mother. If the baby is to fall in this twelve percent it could lead to disease or even fatal. Ravossman (talk) 15:42, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, around 12% of babies can produce feces while in the womb. The only way the fetus can produce poop is when its digestive system is broken down and forms a little amount of feces, which is referred to as meconium. htt There is not always good that can come from this, pooping while the fetus is in the womb can cause serious problems to the baby when it is born and can cause meconium aspiration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Therainman24 (talk • contribs) 02:46, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Cultural curiosities
Here in the U.K, poor communities and individuals seem to be more likely to have numerous tattoos, piercings and generally sport shaved heads or in the case of women, the infamous Croydon facelift. Interests seem to overwhelming include football and celebrity culture. Of course there are some exceptions, but by in large the conformity and divides in social classes exists

Why do such deep divisions exist in this society and how did they come about. Even in the U.S, the term tramp stamp has very real meaning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.24.128.230 (talk) 17:59, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


 * What is the statistical basis, if any, for your premise? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:05, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh come on. Anyone that has ever lived around here know this is entirely true. The urban lower classes have a fairly distinct pattern of dress and body modification. The reason for that is an entirely different question of course, no idea for that one. Herd mentality, I'd guess. 82.21.7.184 (talk) 18:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * How does having a tattoo constitute a "deep cultural division"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:39, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

In terms of interest in sport, they could be Baseball Thugs. But I'm more willing to be they just need baseball hugs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.229.25.123 (talk) 19:41, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Or IP thugs. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:39, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


 * What you describe would be a subculture, you may also be interested in reading our articles and their sources at working class culture, low culture, and popular culture. 70.50.122.38 (talk) 23:14, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Since this is the Reference Desk, here's one: 28% of middle-class admit to at least one tattoo but 27% of working class. Alansplodge (talk) 23:17, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


 * You might also wish to read our article on Fashion. Such people as you describe are often described as "fashion victims". --TammyMoet (talk) 10:46, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Some say they chew charcoal teeth. But there's a difference between regular Joes symbolically trapped by their curiosity of freakish culture, and freakish Joes literally trapped for the curiosity of regular culture.
 * Also a big difference between The Smashing Pumpkins and the rest. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:38, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Men going to the doctor
Please can you give any documented cases and news stories where men have been to the doctor with a penis problem and been accused of and or arrested for exposing themselves to the doctor when trying to show the doctor the problem. Thank you 175.180.183.80 (talk) 18:07, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


 * If you think about it for more than a millisecond, that's a stupid question. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:08, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't see how it is stupid. Men DO go to the doctor with problems of that nature, and it is not inconceivable that a doctor at some point has assumed the man is there for a different motive. I am only asking for documented cases, if there are any. If not, that's fine. 175.180.183.80 (talk) 18:10, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

This is a good question actually, I've wondered it myself. But in the context of female doctors and male patients insisting on repeated examinations. At what point can a medical professional refuse, and at what point could it conceivably become sexual abuse. Examples?

Bb. Maybe Medeis has something to say as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.24.128.230 (talk) 18:15, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Phillips & Schneider's 1993 survey completed by 422 licensed female family physicians in Ontario, Canada is discussed in Women and Management (Michele A. Paludi, Editor), starting on [https://books.google.com/books?id=0AKGhazL_Q4C&lpg=PP1&pg=PA93#v=onepage&q&f=false pg. 93] (§ Female Physicians): "77% of the women surveyed were sexually harassed by a patient at least once with some experiencing harassment once a month or more ... The most likely location for sexual harassment to occur was in the physician's office.  The most common type of patient harassment was to ask the physician to perform a genital exam when on was not required, and for patients to display erect penises."  Is the OP is asking if there is a documented case where such patient was falsely accused?

Edit: Here is a link to the full Phillips & Schneider article from the 23 December 1993 New England Journal of Medicine. It notes that only 5% (13) of the incidents were reported to the police, but does not distinguish between types of incidents reported. The total number of incidents included 81 cases of inappropriate touching, 15 cases of grossly inappropriate touching, and 1 rape or attempted rape. I would not be surprised if all or nearly all of the 13 reported incidents came from the 16 incidents in two most sever categories, and few or none of the exposure cases were reported. -- ToE 19:55, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The IP's question, if sincere (which is highly doubtful), appears to be talking about entrapment. Obviously, if the doctor says show it to me, then you have to show it to them. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:42, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


 * IANAL, but I believe that you are misusing the term entrapment. I've only heard it applied to law enforcement, but that aside, it involves inducing someone to commit a crime, and simply exposing yourself to your doctor as instructed (your scenario, not necessarily the OP's) is not a crime.  Should your physician lie about the circumstances, then she has committed false accusation, not entrapment.  I should note that in my short search I did not discover any such cases.  In the 1993 survey mentioned above, the majority of incidences of sexual harassment were resolved by the physician who retained her patient.  Practices adopted to help prevent such occurrences included giving patients explicit draping instructions and having a nurse present during genital examinations. -- ToE 15:13, 6 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Don't female physicians deal with male urological conditions, STDs and erectile dysfunction? I would make no special effort to see a male doctor if there were ever such an issue. Edison (talk) 19:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Russian Vs US Ground combat
With the situation in Ukraine right now, what if hypothetically the U.S decided to step in. In our hypothetical battle the U.S are unable to rely on air support due to comprehensive Russian air defence.

Instead, combat would be left to ground forces. Assuming the fight was left to armour for the most part, wouldn't it simply be carnage for the US?

Much of our forward armour is equipped with tank fired missles. Invar / Arkan / Kornet etc. These can hit reasonably well outside the practical range of 120mm cannon fire, and such ammunition common on BMP-3's, T72's, t80' etc.

The only systems that could practically counter this threat would be apaches and hellfire missiles, A10's and the like. But these would be unavailable as mentioned above. The i-tow system could be useful but the Bradleys using them are made from paper for the most part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.212.134.86 (talk) 19:16, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Up at the top, it says "We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate." Ian.thomson (talk) 19:19, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Try some wargaming club instead of an encyclopaedia. Dmcq (talk) 23:18, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If anything happened, it would be the EU and NATO that intervened, not just the US-of-Eh?. KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( もしもし！ ) 09:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * What makes you think that Russian armour is significantly less developed than US armour? The T-90 can fire anti-tank missiles, as can other recent versions of the T-72. And, as they say, professionals study logistics. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:06, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Every modern army needs air support and boots on the ground. It's not all just tanks. They need infantry support, air support, and ground troops to refuel/re-equip them. No point in sending a massive column of tanks out to a war zone if they are going to run out of fuel and ammunition (First Gulf War). KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( もしもし！ ) 14:24, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

How many people have died in Central Park since 1785?
As title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.12.9.33 (talk) 20:32, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Do you mean since 1857? μηδείς (talk) 20:45, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I suppose we should ask which Central Park. The one in New York City is the obvious one, but we should still make sure. StuRat (talk) 06:39, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Assuming that we're talking about the obvious one, I found Crime in Central Park which has some details, if not a definitive figure. There seem to be plenty of accidental deaths too - see A Bicycle Crash Kills Another Pedestrian in Central Park - and how many middle-aged joggers never make it home? Alansplodge (talk) 15:00, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The IP geolocates to Melbourne, although the two Australian entities called Central Park appear to be recent. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:08, 6 April 2015 (UTC)


 * CENTRAL PARK ELEPHANT KILLED: "Tom", the fractious trick elephant of the Central Park zoo, was killed today in accordance with the death sentence passed upon him several days ago, when he became so unruly that it was dangerous for his keepers to go near him. It took 28 minutes to kill the big animal, 600 grains of cyanide of potassium being administered to him in two pails of bran mush.
 * From The Day (New London, Connecticut), October 3, 1902.
 * Not sure if it went down in the park, but it went down. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:06, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

What is the best free-question website besides yahoo answers and allexperts that is simple to use?
Like where anyone answers a question. 23:43, 5 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluestarcanada (talk • contribs)
 * The best? Simple to use? Let me quote from the top of this page: We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate (emphasis added). -- Hoary (talk) 00:25, 6 April 2015 (UTC)


 * We have a List_of_question-and-answer_websites that will probably help you. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:23, 6 April 2015 (UTC)