Can an airline pilot be prosecuted for killing an unruly passenger who could not be physically restrained?
<p>The 'Arming Pilots Against Terrorism Act' (H.R.4635) '...shields flight deck officers from liability for acts or omissions in defending the flight deck of an aircraft against acts of criminal violence or air piracy...'.</p>

<p>In a scenario in which an unruly/violent passenger cannot be physically restrained by either the flight attendants or the flight deck officers, and one of flight deck officers then shoots the unruly passenger and that person ends up dying from the gunshot wound, can this flight deck officer be prosecuted for murder?</p>

<p>First of all, to clarify some numbering, <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/107th-congress/house-bill/4635" rel="nofollow noreferrer">HR 4635 (107th Congress)</a> was not actually passed. The language was passed as part of <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/107th-congress/house-bill/5005" rel="nofollow noreferrer">HR 5005</a>, becoming Public Law 107-296, and this provision now appears at <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/44921" rel="nofollow noreferrer">49 USC 44921</a>. </p>

<p>The exact text of this provision is:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>A Federal flight deck officer shall not be liable for damages in any action brought in a Federal or State court arising out of the acts or omissions of the officer in defending the flight deck of an aircraft against acts of criminal violence or air piracy unless the officer is guilty of gross negligence or willful misconduct.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The language makes it clear that this is only referring to <em>civil</em> liability.  So, if the officer is defending the flight deck, and they are sued for damages resulting from their actions, the plaintiff will not win (assuming the law is correctly applied).  But this law says nothing about whether or not they can be prosecuted for a crime.  In any case, the officer in your example does not appear to have been defending the flight deck, so this law wouldn't apply at all.</p>

<p>In your example, the officer's defense against a murder charge would probably be based on <em>defense of others</em>.  There is a discussion on <a href="https://www.justia.com/criminal/defenses/self-defense/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Justia</a>.  It seems that a key question would be whether shooting the unruly passenger was <em>proportional</em> - was there a reasonable fear that the passenger was actually going to <em>kill</em> someone?  </p>

<p>The relevant provisions are in Sections (2)(g) and 2(h) of <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/107th-congress/house-bill/4635/text" rel="nofollow noreferrer">the bill</a> (which was not actually passed but resulted in a substantially identical law being passed):</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>(g) Authority To Use Force.--Notwithstanding section 44903(d), 
  <strong>the Under Secretary shall prescribe the standards and circumstances  under which a Federal flight deck officer may use, while the program 
  under this section is in effect, force (including lethal force)
  against  an individual in the defense of the flight deck of an
  aircraft in air transportation or intrastate air transportation.</strong></p>
  
  <p>(h) Limitation on Liability.</p>
  
  <p>(1) Liability of air carriers. An air carrier shall not be liable for
  damages in any action brought in a Federal or State court arising out
  of <strong>a Federal flight deck officer's use of or failure to use a
  firearm.</strong></p>
  
  <p>(2) Liability of federal flight deck officers.--A Federal flight deck
  officer shall not be liable for damages in any action brought in a
  Federal or State court arising out of <strong>the acts or omissions of the
  officer in defending the flight deck of an aircraft against acts of
  criminal violence or air piracy unless the officer is guilty of gross
  negligence or willful misconduct.</strong></p>
</blockquote>

<p>The operative language is in bold.</p>

<p>Criminal liability and pilot's license revocation standards are governed by § 2(g) and deferred to a federal regulation.</p>

<p>Civil liability is governed by § 2(h).</p>

<p>The law is from 2002, so presumably, regulations have been adopted since then by the Department of Homeland Security. </p>

<p>When deciding if an officer's use of force is reasonable for detaining someone, the standard is set out in Graham v. Connor.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>(c) The Fourth Amendment "reasonableness" inquiry is whether the officers' actions are "objectively reasonable" in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation. The "reasonableness" of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, and its calculus must embody an allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second decisions about the amount of force necessary in a particular situation. Pp. 490 U. S. 396-397. <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/490/386/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/490/386/</a></p>
</blockquote>

<p>A federal flight deck officer is a federal law enforcement official, so the Department of Justice would review the situation and decide if what the person did was a crime, in the same way they would review what an FBI agent did on the ground. If the flight deck officer's shooting was justified the DOJ would do nothing, but if it was not justified in the situation the DOJ could indict the flight deck officer.</p>

<p>The laws and bill you and Nate cited, 49 USC 44921 and (H.R.4635), do not override the Department of Justice's right to indict a law enforcement officer. They are simply saying that as with any federal law enforcement officer, they should be immune unless their conduct dictates otherwise.</p>

<p>Any federal law enforcement officer can be charged with a crime as per  18 U.S.C. § 242. That includes, federal flight deck officers.</p>

united-states criminal-law aviation