As a side note, I know it was mentioned that the wife already knows and doesn’t seem to care, but I will say from (thankfully not very) near personal experience that while she may not care what’s going on, she will likely care that everyone in the professional community knows what’s going on. Often the noteriety is worse than the actual deed.
Folks, if you’re going to plan assault and battery, I suggest, very strongly, that you NOT plan it on a public message board.
Lynn the spoilsport
For the Straight Dope
Yes, particularly since the person in the OP (uh… that’s me, isn’t it?) is trying to AVOID sensible… er… senseless violence and vigilantiism.
Tempting as whacking the bejeezus out of Asshole Gramps would be, we’re all supposed to be responsible adults, right?
Now’s the time I describe the South Dakota Drunk treatment, which, unfortunately, is a Federal felony offense. So of course, that means that I am submitting this only for humor value, and not as a serious suggestion.
Requires two people, a bottle of Ether, a car, a bottle of cheap whiskey and a reasonably close proximity to South Dakota, Nebraska or a similar state.
Someone walks up behind Gramps and hits him with an ether mask. Important that he not see this person. He goes out.
He is then placed in a car and kept unconscious via the Ether.
Drive to the middle of South Dakota, then about 60-80 miles off of I-90, away from any decent sized towns.
Take Gramps out of the car. Strip him naked. Pour the booze all over him. Dump him on the side of a dirt road.
So…
He wakes up. Naked. No ID, no money. Reeking of booze. No friggin’ clue where he is. At least 60 miles from a major road or a town of any consequence.
If you want to really give him a shock, squirt a shot of KY between his cheeks for good measure.
It’d make quite a story, wouldn’t you say?
(I made this up months back when we were wondering how to get rid of a friend’s asshole boyfriend. She eventually broke up with him.)
Dude, if he ended up naked, he’d think he’d gotten the girls drunk and gotten lucky.
The lady’s got a point. Especially if you add the KY jelly! Broomstick, I know you don’t want physical retaliation or jailtime for this guy, but I’m honestly not sure if anything less will make it through his skull. For some logic and rationality defying reason, he’s got the notion that he’s God’s gift to young women. God ain’t that cruel or if He is, I’m joining the Atheists.:rolleyes:
CJ
Not with KY between his asscheeks.
Even then, I say he’d just claim the girls were not only hot, but kinky! I’ve learned the hard way never to underestimate the power of denial.
CJ
Wifey may be the key. Broomstick says she suspects the wife stays with this guy because otherwise there will be no money left. Maybe someone can get to her and convince her that if Asshole Gramps goes to jail she gets the worst of both worlds; No money and she still has him. Perhaps she can keep him in line.
That seems like the only option left because he is pushing it to the point that the Airport is going to have to have him arrested in order to protect them from the liability a hostile work envirement subjects them to.
The wife knows. She doesn’t care. He goes to jail? That’s more time for her on the airplane, and him out of her hair. Better than a divorce, really, in many ways. I mean, she has a job, she doesn’t need him for money to live on. It’s not that there wouldn’t be money, it’s rather that you can’t saw an airplane in two. How would you divide that asset?
Wife is a hopeless cause.
You should print this thread out and leave it on his kneeboard. 
See if he says anything. Hell, send it to the wife. See if she (pun coming, duck!) gives a flying fuck.
But at the least, I agree with what others have been saying before. At the minimum, get the girls a memo pad that they can start jotting down exact days and times, and exactly what was said. I’m sure that would be interesting to the police.
Tripler
Pun came and went. I warned you.
Not to toss cold water or anything, but this whole scenario is patently ridiculous. This ain’t the wild frontier and airports–even small ones–aren’t fodder for spaghetti westerns: downtrodden wifey, macho mechanics, heroic pilot-cadre, menaced maidens…
::barfs::
This is so much ado about nuthin’. So the sensible steps have been taken, Broomstick? Then, based on your stated worries, I’d suggest your most useful actions would be include applying as much responsiblity and control on the ground as you claim for the air. Rein in your more volatile cohorts and give laws a chance to work.
or, maybe, just maybe:
let the bastard be an object lesson for the young women - no matter what is “right”, sometimes assholes slip through, and you have to learn how to deal with them - all by yourself - knights in shining armor don’t always arrive on cue…
I suspect they have already figured out the first part - and are working on the second.
So sorry my reality makes you nauseous.
First of all, I don’t consider the wife “downtrodden”. She’s in a marriage of convenience, just like Hilary Clinton (who I wouldn’t consider “downtrodden” either"). I have zero sympathy for her. Despite the repeated urgings to “get the wife involved” no one seems to be listening when I say she’s fully aware of her husband’s extramarital activites and she doesn’t give a damn.
“Macho” mechanics… hmm… what the hell does that mean? One of the mechanics is the father of one of the girls involved, I’d expect him to be a little pissed off. That doesn’t make this “spaghetti western” material.
Heroic pilots? Well, we like to think we’re heroic 
… Asshole Gramps alone demonstrates that there are scumbag pilots. The fact that some of the guys in the “defend the girls” camp are pilots has more to do with the airport location than anything else. There’s a bunch more who are unaware anything is happening. To top it off, a half dozen guys beating the snot out of a middle-aged man isn’t “heroic”, it’s bullying and mob tactics. MY concern is that some of these guys don’t gang up on the old fart - that won’t make life easier for anyone.
Or maybe we should all just be limp little dishrags and do nothing until the “authorities” come to rescue us? Blechh If it can be solved outside of the courts and the police - in other words, if the asshole can be convinced to turn his attentions elsewhere - so much the better, as long as it isn’t “solved” with a wrench to the back of the head.
Hmmmm.
Broomstick, I’m not sure I ‘get’ your presentation of the alternatives in your last two paragraphs.
What we’ve settled:
- We don’t want to beat Gramps up. Not because he doesn’t deserve it, but because of the possible legal consequences to the beaters, and because we don’t like the idea of ganging up on a middle-aged man.
- The wife’s no help, ain’t gonna be no help, and there’s no way of getting her to be any help.
We’ve got an unresolved question of whether Gramps can be banned from the airport. You seem to think he can’t be; TVeb and Muffin seem to think he can. At any rate, you haven’t addressed whether the steps Veb recommended are being followed.
Now, this:
Well, what else are you going to do? Force is out, and the obvious diplomatic levers have been tried already or aren’t gonna work either. It’s either the authorities or nothing, it looks like.
Not that that exactly involves being “limp little dishrags” and doing nothing, as Veb’s post (the one near the bottom of the first page) indicates. And I’ll be damned if I see the dishonor in that. You want a nonviolent solution; I respect that. And you want a private solution; I respect the desire for one.
But private, nonviolent solutions rely on someone on the other side who’s willing to listen to reason, or respond to social disapproval, or something like that. When the person you’re trying to deal with isn’t particularly amenable to reason or social pressure, your choices pretty much come down to law or vigilante justice. We’ve already eliminated the latter. The former exists to eliminate the need for the latter, anyway. So what’s so bad about going that route?
This is in direct contradiction to your first post/Op, where after reading it, I would justified calling you a bigot.
His age and their age matter not (assuming we are all talking about adults here, and we are). Thinking that younger men should not date older women or the other way around is “ageist” and thus bigotry.
Now, what does matter is that he is an asshole- Not that he is “gramps”. Somehow it comes through in your first post that it is disgusting for an older man to hit on a younger girl. But again- age matters not. I count some 20+ references to age in your OP- including the title. Why is it any more disgusting for a 60 yo man to sexually harrass a woman of whatever age that it is for a 21yo man? Both are equally wrong. It is also wrong for a woman to sexually harrass a man, I will note - regardless of their respective ages.
Age matters not. Unless- you’re a bigot.
Broomstick, I am sorry, but after reading your OP, it seems to me your more upset about the difference in age than the harrassment. See the sentence immediately above.
Oh, and if you don’t beleive me, repost your OP. Everytime you use the term “old” replace it with “black”, for “old fart” or any hate term like the, use “nigger”. For “young” replace it with white.
You’d be banned in 10 seconds. Oddly enough, our Great Defender in the War Against Hate Mail and Bigotry Administrator posted here after reading your OP, and saw nothing wrong. Note I also called a poster out for using the a bigoted term for a white person. That also passed without comment. Also being bigoted against Christians seems OK, but not against Molsems. :dubious: :rolleyes:
Which leads one to the conclusion that Racism, Bigotry & Hate will be severely warned or punished- unless you are bigoted against old white Christian guys. Then it’s OK. :rolleyes:
When will you all learn that bigotry & the resulting Hate is wrong no matter whom it is directed against?
Actually, I did. Several times. Airport management is following their stated policies on harassment, evidence is being gathered, etc. As I said in an earlier post, why do so many assume this isn’t being done?
As for banning the Asshole - banning someone from a public use airport is rather like banning them from a public street. Although buildings located along that street may be privately owned, the street itself is open to all. Likewise, while the man could be forbidden from entering a privately owned structure on the airport, actually banning him form the airport itself is not so easily done. The only justification in the eyes off the FAA is a flight safety issue - which this is not. That leaves getting a court order for him to stay away from the girls and not contact them - which still would not prevent him from using the runway, the ramp, or his own hangar (at least until the lease runs out).
Frankly, I think court orders of protection are worth about what the paper they’re written on is worth - not much. My personal opinion of how to deal with stalkers is over the top for most folks, and I don’t care to get into it here. Especially since it would not qualify as a non-violent solution.
Bitch on the Dope?
I never said older men shouldn’t date younger women - and if I did I’d be a screaming hypocrit since in my marriage the man is considerably older than the woman. The problem is the girls have said NO and the Asshole refuses to listen!!!"
I don’t know how you want me to describe this guy - saying he’s young and skinny would be a lie. Perhaps you object to the term “asshole”? I mean, rectums (unlike this jerk) actually serve a useful function in life and, I’m told, can even be fun when properly manipulated. Just because I use the term “asshole” as an insult does not mean I am against defecation. Just because I describe an aged jackass as “gramps” does not mean I’m an age bigot.
The problem isn’t gender, it’s age. It’s more wrong in my eyes for someone significantly older to engage in harassment than someone younger. Young people are inexperienced and they make mistakes. A considerable amount of maturation occurs between 15 and 25. A person 60 years old - man or woman - should know better and have more practice in behaving in a civilized manner.
There’s also the problem that I think this guy is triggering the incest taboo - both girls have mentioned that going out with him would be (and I quote) *“would be like dating my grandfather”/i] I don’t know why he’s coming across like that to them - frankly, he’s never said much to me and certainly never put the moves on me.
Tell me, are you just crusing looking for someone to call a nasty ol’ bigot? Maybe the mod didn’t object because there’s nothing to object to. It just may be that an old man is hitting on two girls who object to that sort of attention. Does that mean ALL old men are nothing but nasty sexual harassers? Of course not! Does the fact that I witness this and state “he’s old and an asshole” mean I hate men, or hate older men? No. Get a grip.
And, uh, just WHY are you dragging the issue of religious bigotry into this? Looking to pick a fight? Go to some other thread.
**
Actually, you’re quite wrong here.
This seems to be my week for posting on legal stuff. I haven’t read through the entire thread, but it seems like everyone’s gathered lots and lots of evidence. Assuming this to be the case, here’s what you do:
First, have one of the friendly pilot-lawyers send a formal letter to AG briefly laying out the facts of his conduct and telling AG that if he ever speaks to on of these two girls on any topic other than one covered by the scope of their employment, you will go to court and seek a restraining order preventing him from coming within 500 yards of the girls’ homes, schools ** and place of employment**. Of course, this will, if granted, effectively bar AG from the airport.
Second, follow through if AG still doesn’t get the message. A judge will be extremely cautious about granting such an order precisely because it will bar AG from the airport. Therefore, the judge will almost certainly order a hearing. AG will then have to go to court and argue against the order. The girls will get to present all their evidence. My psychic abilities are in fine fettle this morning so I can predict exactly what will happen. The judge will ream AG a new one but will decline to grant the order, with the either explicit or implicit proviso that if AG doesn’t knock it off and the girls have to come back to court, the judge will grant the order.
Third, if the girls do eventually get the order granted, I’m sure from what you’ve said that the airport sherrifs would be more than pleased to enforce it and arrest AG if he does show up.
The advantage of this scheme is that it bypasses the airport bureaucracy and its finely-grinding wheels. Assuming this guy is at all rational, I’m betting that he gets the message after step 1. I doubt seriously if AG will want to go to court to publicly explain his sad wankerdom.
This premise is questionable at best. Unless you (or airport admins) have gotten qualified legal advice to the contrary, I beg leave to doubt it’s this cut and dried. People can be trespassed from publicly owned facilities. I run one, and it deals with constituonally protected rights. I HAVE gotten legal counsel, and the fact is that if people don’t conduct themselves appropriately they lose their rights to use that facility.
And why so dismissive of protective orders? The sheer fact that one is issued could very possibly solve the problem. So it takes some steps. Big deal. I greatly dislike your whole premise of attacking the moron, physically or otherwise. 1. There’s absolutely no need for it and 2. it’s stupid. He’s not without rights either, y’know. If he’s that arrogant, every time one of you get mouthy, rat on him to his wife, etc. you’re handing him leverage. It wouldn’t take much for him to claim harassment, slander, etc. It’s stupid to blithely hand this guy ammunition.
You don’t know his wife’s motives for staying married to him; you just know how you see it from the outside. How did she become remotely responsible for his misbehavior? If she’s made her separte peace with his behavior, or even if she IS a hardcore money-grubber, dragging her into this mess–which she didn’t cause and probably couldn’t prevent–would just make another enemy in his camp.
Fantasizing paybacks for bad behavior can be satisfying but I vehemently disagree with your “run the varmit outta town ourselves” bias. Do you want to actually solve the problem or do you want to swashbuckle? You can be contemptuous of the law but you can bet your ass that ignoring it will make you (plural) vulnerable to counterattack.