Well, no. He didn’t think he touched her in an inappropriate manner. That certainly wasn’t his intention. But, when the Prosecutor asked if he had touched her, he admitted that he had done so.
Under the relavant law, that was enough.
But, apparently even the Prosecutor and Judges thought it was a trivial matter, as they only fined him the absolute minimum amount.
Well, no. He didn’t think he touched her in an inappropriate manner. That certainly wasn’t his intention. But, when the Prosecutor asked if he had touched her, he admitted that he had done so.
Under the relavant law, that was enough.
But, apparently even the Prosecutor and Judges thought it was a trivial matter, as they only fined him the absolute minimum amount.[/quote]
The way I read that, She said he touched her inappropriately. He said he touched her appropriately.
I see.
My point, however, is that the law doesn’t describe “inappropriate” and this wasn’t a case of him denying any touching at all.
how can you touch someone appropriately? if the touch is unwanted (which it was) it was inappropriate…i can’t help but feel this is one of those touchy-feely old foreigners who have been in Taiwan too long and have lost a sense of perspective on certain cultural mores vis a vis the opposite sex…but i could be wrong…
Easy… in a way that is not inappropriate.
I can’t believe that we are so devious in thought that a simple tap must always be regarded as suspiciously perverse and sexual in nature.
Have you never tapped someone on the shoulder to get their attention? Was that an inappropriate touching?
The guy was in Taiwan for two weeks at invitation by a Taiwanese university.
I don’t know if this was a frivolous lawsuit or not, but what Sandman says makes it sound like one.
The last thing the U.S. needs is more people that are looking to file frivolous lawsuits. Maybe that’s what immigration was thinking when they denied her a visa.
As for touching, how does a flight attendant wake a sleeping passenger? Don’t they touch you on the shoulder? Of course they don’t touch your thigh as it’s too far from them while they are standing (and you are sitting).
Now if the old guy 
was sitting in one of the FA’s seats to avoid being bumped, and she might not have understood why he was there, he might have touch her outer thigh 
(what most people consider a fairly inoffensive part of the body) to show how he didn’t want to get bumped. He wouldn’t have been able to touch her shoulder easily if he had been seated in one of those low seats while she was standing.
Exactly. But of course, reading between the lines from the peanut gallery the question becomes was it offensive what he was doing uinder the blanket with his other hand?
HG
[quote=“zender”]I don’t know if this was a frivolous lawsuit or not, but what Sandman says makes it sound like one.
The last thing the U.S. needs is more people that are looking to file frivolous lawsuits. Maybe that’s what immigration was thinking when they denied her a visa.
As for touching, how does a flight attendant wake a sleeping passenger? Don’t they touch you on the shoulder? Of course they don’t touch your thigh as it’s too far from them while they are standing (and you are sitting).
Now if the old guy was sitting in one of the FA’s seats to avoid being bumped, and she might not have understood why he was there, he might have touch her outer thigh (what most people consider a fairly inoffensive part of the body) to show how he didn’t want to get bumped. He wouldn’t have been able to touch her shoulder easily if he had been seated in one of those low seats while she was standing.[/quote]
If he was not American should we deny him entry then because he has been convicted in this case?
Which is subjective at best.
[quote]I can’t believe that we are so devious in thought that a simple tap must always be regarded as suspiciously perverse and sexual in nature.
Have you never tapped someone on the shoulder to get their attention? Was that an inappropriate touching?[/quote]
Weak analogy because he didn’t tap her on the shoulder, did he?
This stinks. From what I read, it seems the only reason the poor guy settled for 150k was because the flight attendant appealed the 3k ruling. During which he was already detained in Taiwan for more than 2 months, and obviously would have wanted to return home. This is nothing less than extortion.
I wonder if she sought representation herself or was being represented by a lawyer from China Airlines. Because it would seem very strange if China Airlines had a lawyer, who knew this woman had a history of seeking claims against passengers (according to earlier posts) , then after detaining a passenger for over 2 months, and already having a ruling made by the court, would go on to challenge that in order to literally blackmail the passenger out of money so he could leave the county.
Another reason to stay away from CAL… Getting shaken down by the staff.
I despise women like that, who make every other woman even more of a target.
And the guy; whywhywhy would you touch a woman you don’t know on the thigh? Idiot.
No. She represented herself.
Taiwan’s procedure allows a party to attach a civil suit to a criminal suit. The cases are, however, theoretically separate. Except that they are tied together. That is, once the criminal complaint was adjudicated, there was theoretically no reason for the court to maintain the travel restriction even though the civil claim still was pending. Typically, the defendant in these cases is a Taiwanese national and thus there is no rush to conclude the procedure. The Taiwanese defendant lives at home and goes to work as he would normally.
In this case, the foreign defendant did not have to settle the civil claim… its just that he had been detained in Taiwan for over two months and could not be certain as to when the court would get around to signing the order to lift his travel restriction. However, when he settled at that hearing, the court signed the order lifting his travel restriction and after paying the settlement amount he left Taiwan that evening, on a different airline.
Guys, from my work in the airline, I know no one except flight crew can get on those seats. It is just like asking for the stewards help while taxing down the runway: at least in US airlines, unless you are having a heart attack, it can get you in deep trouble -fines, admonitions, etc. It is a no-no.
If it had been AA, UA, NW, or any other US airline, would it have been different? Yep, probably the air marshall would have been the first to get there instead of the flight attendant. And I am sure he wouldn’t have touched his thigh.
Was he railroaded? He left himself open to that by stepping over the line -the initial seat takeover. He had his chance to complain at the gate if the seat assignment was not to his liking. If people were still boarding, he needed to be more understanding -there is no chance for lingering in the galleys, either.
I know we have all complained of the lack of discipline in Asian airlines. Then, why are we justifying patronizing behavior?
What’s next stepping into the cockpit to complain to the man himself?
He wasn’t prosecuted or sued for sitting in the flight attendants’ seat.
Which proves nothing and is therefore irrelevant. Fact is the whole issue started because the guy decided to sit where he was not supposed / not allowed to. And based on the article he did not go back to his seat immediately when requested to do so, instead he was asked and refused so that he had to be urged, upon which he decided to illustrate his point.
Just to be clear - I am not defending the flight attendant nor do I conclude the guy is a molester, but some of the arguments here appear not to be based on facts, at least the articles don’t mention those nor have other sources been linked or named that would back those up, and some even contradict what has been reported.
That’s right. Nobody cares that the guy sat in the attendant’s seat. Taiwan’s authorities did not press any charges for that, nor did China Air seek any punishment for his sitting in the attendant’s seat. His sitting in the attendant’s seat was completely irrelevant.
Irrelevant.
The article is not accurate on this point. But, perhaps you believe everything you read.
Indeed.
Imagine that! 
Which proves nothing and is therefore irrelevant. Fact is the whole issue started because the guy decided to sit where he was not supposed / not allowed to. And based on the article he did not go back to his seat immediately when requested to do so, instead he was asked and refused so that he had to be urged, upon which he decided to illustrate his point.
Just to be clear - I am not defending the flight attendant nor do I conclude the guy is a molester, but some of the arguments here appear not to be based on facts, at least the articles don’t mention those nor have other sources been linked or named that would back those up, and some even contradict what has been reported.[/quote]
Im commenting, because I see the relevance to those around me and the world we all live. Imagine this silly old codger was an eccentric relative or parent. He’s exhibiting stress from boarding a flight, which I would hope people would relate to, flight attendants are trained to deal with the claustrophobic and those afraid to fly. This guy exhibited stress and being banged around from bags was his breaking point.
So, perhaps a decent attendant could have sternly told the silly old tool, “no touching” “get back to your seat” , end of story.
In an alternate reality, removing him from the plane, charging him with inappropriate touching, appealing a judgment that then requires him to stay in Taiwan for months, further appealing a second ruling in order to extort a sum so goofy professor can actually get home.
put it this way, if i was AIT, I would be questioning this womans ability to perform as a flight attendant, in fact , I think they sould have stood their ground and refused a visa for this employee on the grounds of an inability to relate adequately on a human level to her passenger.
Obviously it was not, otherwise this story wouldn’t exist. 
And as you surely know the fact that the authorities nor CI pressed any charges doesn’t mean there wasn’t a violation of the relevant laws or regulations or that the flight attendant was in any way wrong to ask the passenger to move.
Sure about that? Are you trying to say that he touched the flight attendant for other reasons then to stress the point that he felt the flight attendant’t seat was more comfortable during boarding after he was asked to move because he was not allowed to sit there? Seems to be a fact, but your opinion may of course differ.
Nope, nor do I believe everything other people here on f.com claim.
Yes, imagine that those arguments come from you and that you have repeatedly refused to name your sources - which are of course the only truth and nothing but the truth.
Seems Tigerman has possible connections to the professor in question and if so it would be way cool if he can get the professor to come on f.com and give us his version of the story. And way cool too if someone knows the stew in question and get her to write here her version? We could have us a good ol discussion then couldnt we?
I do think its pretty clear the Prof was sitting in a seat that was not appropriate and did touch the stew, which in itself is inappropriate. He shouldnt have been made to go through what he did though and if it had been another stew, there wouldve been no incident. He had the misfortune of meeting up with this particular stewardess who perhaps used this opportunity for personal gain (it may or may not have been the money, it maybe that shes fed up with passengers in general and this one in particular). But he did set himself up with this mis-step. He was guilty of a minor misdemeanor it would seem (he didnt deny it) but was inappropriately punished. If the guy was Taiwanese, the lady would be scared that he would round up some of the brothers and come over to her house and have a personal discussion. But the old guy had no such connections for her to worry about. But on the other hand, most Taiwanese wouldnt touch a stewardess at all by patting her on the thigh.
I dont think there is any circumstance that warrants touching a stewardess except purely by accident while passing by her in a crowded aisle.
Maybe the professor should have said it was “internationally accepted etiquette.”
[quote=“In September 2002, cranky laowai”]Taiwan’s Supreme Court has let stand a lower court ruling that a 45-year-old man who entered a convenience store and kissed a 15-year old employee there on the cheeks for more than one minute while restraining the frightened girl with a “bear hug” was not guilty of lewd and lascivious behavior. (FWIW, the two did not know each other.) “Kissing someone on the cheeks is internationally accepted etiquette,” said a district court judge in the earlier ruling.
taiwanheadlines.gov.tw/20020 … 917s2.html[/quote] (Please note, the above link is dead, and I couldn’t get it either on Google or on archive.org–according to archive.org, this is because the site was blocked)
cranky laowai’s post is here: forumosa.com/taiwan/viewtopi … =36&t=5034