Shocking moment passenger tries to stab flight attendant and open emergency exit
Shocking footage shows Francisco Severo Torres, 34, threatening fellow passengers on a United Airlines flight from Los Angeles to Boston in March 2023.
About 45 minutes into the journey, a flight attendant reportedly raised the alarm after noticing shady behaviour near one of the plane's emergency exits.
Torres was confronted by the flight attendant and asked if he had tampered with the door.
That was when he got out of his seat and marched back over to the door.
Shocking footage taken by a fellow passenger shows Torres shouting that he was 'taking over this plane' and that he would 'kill every man on this plane'.
The crazed passenger then lunges at a flight attendant, trying to stab them with a broken metal spoon.
Torres beat the flight attended three times around the neck, according to federal prosecutors.
Passengers then tackled Torres and he was restrained with the assistance of flight crew.
Once the plane landed at Logan Airport the man was detained.
Torres later told police he had wanted to open the door to jump out of the plane – and said he knew many people would die if he did, according to charging documents.
Torres has pleaded guilty to the attack, admitting to one count of interference and attempted interference with flight crew using a dangerous weapon, according to the office of Massachusetts US Attorney Leah Foley.
This comes after a passenger was tackled by fellow flyers after attempting to pull the plane's emergency exit lever while at 35,000 feet.
The Plus Ultra flight 701 was heading from Madrid, Spain, to Caracas, Venezuela on 28 February when the incident took place.
The Airbus A330 was about halfway through its journey, flying high over the Atlantic Ocean when the man became 'restless'.
A Plus Ultra spokesman said: 'A passenger began to feel restless, annoying the person in the next seat with shouts and slapping him while he was asleep.
'The crew acted quickly, calming the situation between the two and relocating the passenger to another seat where he could not disturb anyone.
'Moments later, this individual suddenly went to one of the doors of the plane trying to manipulate it.
'Immediately, our cabin crew subdued the passenger and, following the action protocol, secured him in the back of the plane until he reached the destination.
'At all times he was accompanied by two people from the crew, lying on the ground and attended to avoid any possible altercation.'
The passenger was reportedly detained after the plane landed in Caracas.
It is unclear exactly what prompted the man to try to open the plane door.
It is nearly impossible to open modern plane doors after they have reached around 10,000 feet.
This is because the difference between the internal cabin pressure and the outside air pressure effectively seals the doors.
Some aircraft have a special flight lock feature that mechanically closes the door after the aircraft reaches a certain speed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
7 hours ago
- ABC News
Barack Obama rejects Donald Trump's unsubstantiated accusations of treason
Barack Obama has dismissed Donald Trump's allegation he has committed treason, following the US president accusing him without evidence of leading an effort undermine his 2016 election campaign. A spokesperson for the former president took the unusual step of issuing a statement denouncing Mr Trump's claims, saying "these bizarre allegations are ridiculous and a weak attempt at distraction". Mr Trump's comments rehashed his longstanding grievances over investigations into alleged Russian interference in the election — claims that shadowed much of his first term. On Tuesday the president lashed out following a new report from his intelligence director that aimed to cast doubt on the Senate intelligence committee's 2020 findings that Russia worked to influence the 2016 election outcome but did not successfully manipulate any votes. "It's time to go after people," Mr Trump said from the Oval Office. While Mr Trump has frequently attacked Mr Obama by name, the Republican president has not, since returning to office in January, previously gone this far in pointing the finger at his Democratic predecessor with allegations of criminal action. During remarks in the Oval Office, Mr Trump leapt on comments from his intelligence chief, Tulsi Gabbard, in which she threatened to refer Obama administration officials to the Justice Department for prosecution over an intelligence assessment of Russian interference in the 2016 election. She declassified documents and said the information she was releasing showed top officials' "treasonous conspiracy" to undermine Mr Trump in 2016, claims that Democrats called false and politically motivated. "It's there, he's guilty. This was treason," Mr Trump said on Tuesday, though he offered no proof of his claims. "They tried to steal the election, they tried to obfuscate the election. They did things that nobody's ever imagined, even in other countries." An assessment by the US intelligence community published in January 2017 concluded that Russia, using social media disinformation, hacking and Russian bot farms, sought to damage Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton's campaign and bolster Mr Trump. The assessment determined that the actual impact was likely limited and showed no evidence that Moscow's efforts actually changed voting outcomes. A 2020 bipartisan report by the Senate intelligence committee found Russia used Republican political operative Paul Manafort, the WikiLeaks website and others to try to influence the 2016 election to help Mr Trump's campaign. "Nothing in the document issued last week [by Gabbard] undercuts the widely accepted conclusion that Russia worked to influence the 2016 presidential election but did not successfully manipulate any votes," Patrick Rodenbush, a spokesperson for Mr Obama, said in a statement. Mr Trump, who has a history of promoting false conspiracy theories, has frequently denounced the assessments of Russian interference attempts as a "hoax". In recent days, Mr Trump reposted on his Truth Social account a fake video showing Mr Obama being arrested in handcuffs in the Oval Office. Mr Trump has been seeking to divert attention to other issues after coming under pressure from his conservative base to release more information about Jeffrey Epstein, who died by suicide in 2019 while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges. Backers of conspiracy theories about Epstein have urged Mr Trump, who socialised with the disgraced financier during the 1990s and early 2000s, to release investigative files related to the case. When asked in the Oval Office about Epstein, Mr Trump quickly pivoted into an attack on Mr Obama and Ms Clinton. "The witch-hunt that you should be talking about is they caught President Obama absolutely cold," Mr Trump said. Mr Trump suggested action would be taken against Obama and his former officials, calling the Russia investigation a treasonous act and the former president guilty of "trying to lead a coup". "It's time to start, after what they did to me, and whether it's right or wrong, it's time to go after people. Obama has been caught directly," he said. Since returning to office, Mr Trump has castigated his political opponents, who he says weaponised the federal government against him and his allies for the 2021 attack on the US Capitol and his handling of classified materials after his first term. Mr Obama has long been a target for Mr Trump. In 2011 he accused the-president of not being born in the United States, prompting Mr Obama to release a copy of his birth certificate. In recent months, Mr Trump has rarely held back in his rhetorical broadsides against his two Democratic predecessors in a way all but unprecedented in modern times. He launched an investigation after accusing former president Joe Biden and his staff, without evidence, of a "conspiracy" to use an autopen, an automated device that replicates a person's signature, to sign sensitive documents on the president's behalf. Mr Biden has rejected the claim as false and "ridiculous". AP/Reuters
ABC News
14 hours ago
- ABC News
Legal experts cast doubt on Donald Trump's defamation case against Rupert Murdoch over alleged Epstein letter
US law experts say Donald Trump faces significant hurdles in his $10 billion case against Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal over reports he sent a birthday message to Jeffrey Epstein with a sexually suggestive drawing. The lawsuit, filed in the Florida Supreme Court, claims the Wall Street Journal "failed to show proof that President Trump authored or signed any such letter and failed to explain how this letter was obtained". But experts say defamation cases, brought forward by public figures, are notoriously hard to prove in the US, and they rarely make it to a jury. The paper has said it was prepared to "vigorously" defend its journalism. If the case does go to trial, Mr Trump may be forced to provide information about the nature of his relationship with the convicted paedophile and billionaire, and the Journal may be asked to show how it obtained the letter or proved its existence. So, how likely is it Mr Trump will get his day in court? Winning or settling a defamation case in the US can be difficult, mostly due to the Supreme Court's interpretation of the First Amendment in the US Constitution. The First Amendment protects freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly, and petition. It is even more difficult for a public figure like Donald Trump to win a defamation lawsuit, said Harry Melkonian, a media lawyer and honorary associate at the United States Studies Centre. "It is extremely difficult and intentionally made so for public figures to bring defamation claims in the US," he said. "By definition, the US president is the most public of public figures." Shawn Trier, a constitutional law expert at Australian National University, agreed. "A case in the early 1960s during the civil rights movement found that even if you have factual information that's incorrect, unless you prove a term called actual malice — that you knew it was wrong or didn't care — it would be really hard for that to be proven," he said. Actual malice is knowledge that the material published was false, or reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. "In the case of the Wall Street Journal, it would literally have to be the case that they knew the letter was false or knew it didn't exist or they had a really good reason to suspect it was forged but ignored it," Dr Tier said. Dr Melkonian said the Supreme Court set this standard for public figures to prevent self-censorship by the media. "They also felt that public figures are pretty well equipped to respond publicly to undo any harm, and Trump can get on TV any night and say this story is false, they made it up," he said. "So when you combine all those things, it makes for an extremely difficult case, and quite honestly, I've read the complaint and I think they will have difficulties even getting this complaint to court." In Australia, defamation law is "relatively straightforward", Dr Melkonian said. If a publisher prints something that a person says isn't true, the publisher must prove on the balance of probabilities that it is. But American law is the opposite, Dr Melkonian said; the public figure has to prove the story is false. "Trump has to prove they either knew it was false or they harboured serious doubts and did it anyway," Dr Melkonian said. "And he has to prove that by an exaggerated standard of proof." But US courts rarely find that actual malice exists, and there has only been one case, which was between Time Magazine and the Israeli defence minister in 1984. Court documents show that Mr Trump will argue that such a letter did not exist and the two journalists who wrote the story "possessed information and had access to information that showed their statements were false." It does not say, however, what that information was. "The mere fact that he told them 'it's false' before they printed it isn't enough because if that was, you could stop anything from being printed," Dr Melkonian said. From the legal documents, it appears Mr Trump will also argue that the circulation of the story created further damage to his reputation. "And given the timing of the defendants' article, which shows their malicious intent behind it, the overwhelming financial and reputational harm suffered by President Trump will continue to multiply," the court documents said. But Dr Melkonian said, "he's already said it's false, and he certainly has made more publicity saying it's false than the Wall Street Journal got with the article." Dr Melkonian said public figures sometimes took steps like Mr Trump's to "make it clear to the public that they believe the article is a falsehood". "Donald Trump has gotten a lot of publicity out of filing this case, and that may be the vindication that he wants now the public knows he is taking it to court to prove he didn't do it," he said. A $10 billion award would be the largest finding of defamation damages in history, dwarfing already-massive cases in recent US proceedings. These include a $1.5 billion judgement against conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, and Fox News's settlement with Dominion Voting Systems for $787.5 million. "It's unlikely he has a legal case against the Wall Street Journal, but it probably helped him politically," Dr Trier said. "He likes to do this a lot, to say 'look how I've been treated, it's so bad I'm suing.'" The Wall Street Journal has indicated it will defend itself. "We have full confidence in the rigour and accuracy of our reporting, and will vigorously defend against any lawsuit," a spokesperson for publisher Dow Jones said in a statement. Yesterday, the White House removed the Wall Street Journal from the pool of reporters covering Trump's upcoming weekend trip to Scotland. "As the appeals court confirmed, the Wall Street Journal or any other news outlet are not guaranteed special access to cover President Trump in the Oval Office, aboard Air Force One, and in his private workspaces," White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement to various US media outlets. "Due to the Wall Street Journal's fake and defamatory conduct, they will not be one of the 13 outlets on board. Every news organisation in the entire world wishes to cover President Trump, and the White House has taken significant steps to include as many voices as possible." While the Murdoch-owned media company has the power to fight such a case, many do not. "It could have an insidious effect on journalism and free speech," Dr Trier said. "There should be early dismissals [in defamation cases like these], but there are still costs, and smaller organisations that get threats like this are more likely to back down. "It raises a lot of concerns, and Trump has been very unique in using his office to carry out these retributions against the media."
ABC News
a day ago
- ABC News
Man accused of 1979 kidnap and murder of Etan Patz in New York has conviction overturned
The man convicted of one of America's most infamous and tragic cold cases will face a fresh trial, a federal appeals court has ordered, 45 years after the presumed killing of New York schoolboy Etan Patz. Patz's disappearance on his way to a school bus stop in Manhattan rattled the city, and was unsolved for decades before Pedro Hernandez was convicted of the killing in 2017. But that conviction has now been overturned and Hernandez will face a new trial, where his confession to the crime will be under scrutiny. Here's what to know about the young boy's disappearance and why Hernandez's conviction has been overturned. Patz was a first grader who always wanted "to do everything that adults did", his mother, Julie Patz, told jurors in 2017. So on the morning of May 25, 1979, she agreed her son could walk by himself to the school bus stop, two blocks away. It was the first time he was allowed to go alone, and the last time she saw her son. When Patz did not come home from school that day, his parents reported him missing and the police searched for him for weeks. For decades, his parents kept the same apartment and even phone number in case he might try to reach them. Patz's body has never been found, and a civil court declared him dead in 2001. Hernandez was a teenager working at a convenience store in the neighbourhood when Patz vanished. Police met him while canvassing the area but didn't suspect him until 2012, when they got a tip from a relative. He had made remarks during a prayer group years earlier about having killed a child in New York. While there was no physical evidence against Hernandez, police said he confessed during a seven-hour interrogation to luring Patz into the store's basement by offering him a soft drink. Hernandez said he choked the young boy because "something just took over me". Hernandez said he put Patz, still alive, in a "garbage bag" before stuffing him into a box and leaving it outside with a pile of rubbish. In one of the recorded confessions, he added that he'd wanted to tell someone, "but I didn't know how to do it. I felt so sorry". Hernandez, however, later recanted and pleaded not guilty to murder. His lawyers said the admissions were the false imaginings of a man with mental illness, low intelligence and a propensity towards vivid hallucinations. But in 2017, Hernandez was sentenced to 25 years to life in prison after being convicted of second-degree murder and first-degree kidnapping. This was his second trial; the first in 2015 ended in a hung jury after 18 days of deliberations. "After all these years we finally know what dark secret you had locked in your heart," Etan's father, Stanley Patz, said at the sentencing. Hernandez's lawyers have long argued that their client's mental illness and the circumstances of his confession undermined the fairness of the 2017 trial. In a ruling on Monday, local time, a federal appeals court said the trial judge gave a "clearly wrong" and "manifestly prejudicial" response to a jury note during the trial. The note addressed how the jury should interpret recordings of the police interrogation in which Hernandez confessed. Police said he initially confessed before they read him his Miranda rights — a constitutionally mandated warning about self-incrimination. Immediately after, he was given a legally required warning that his statements could be used against him in court, and was asked to repeat his confession on tape. Several hours later, he did so again for a federal prosecutor. At the trial, jurors sent repeated queries about the multiple confessions. The last inquiry asked whether they had to disregard the two recorded confessions, if they concluded that the first one — given before the Miranda warning — was invalid. The judge said "no". The appeals court ruled that the jury should have received a more thorough explanation of its options, which could have included disregarding all of the confessions as improperly obtained. The court ordered Hernandez's release unless the 64-year-old gets a new trial within a "reasonable period". The Manhattan District Attorney's Office, which prosecuted the case, said it was reviewing the decision. Patz's missing persons campaign attracted national attention and became a cautionary tale during the 80s. The six-year-old was one of the first children whose disappearance was publicised in what became a high-profile way: on billboards and milk cartons. His case also ushered in an age of parental anxiety around child safety. Parents became more protective of kids who were once allowed to roam and play unsupervised in their neighbourhoods. The Patzs' advocacy also helped establish a national missing-children hotline. US president Ronald Reagan marked the anniversary of the boy's disappearance in 1983, proclaiming it National Missing Children's Day.
