‘Combative’ man restrained by fellow passengers on Frontier Airlines flight after breaking window plexiglass
AaronP/Bauer-Griffin/GC Images
(HOUSTON) — A man aboard a Frontier Airlines flight en route to Houston had to be restrained by fellow passengers on Wednesday after he began kicking seats and hitting a window, eventually breaking the plexiglass, police said.
The flight, F9 4856, departed from Denver and was in the air for about 20 to 30 minutes, when a woman asked the man behind her to switch seats, according to passenger Victoria Clark. This man quickly became enraged, profusely kicking the woman’s seat and trying to break the window, Clark said.
“I started having a panic attack,” Clark told ABC News. “[I thought] it could be a terrorist attack.”
The man continued to hit the window and was eventually able to break the plexiglass, passengers said. Without an air marshal on board, flight attendants asked if there was any law enforcement to help, passengers recounted. That’s when Tanner Phillips, a former member of the military, said he stepped in.
“This guy was just going crazy,” Phillips told ABC News. “He was screaming in multiple languages, punching out the window and laying back and trying to kick it out. I wanted to help as much as I could.”
Phillips said he and several others grabbed hold of the man, using zip ties and boot laces to restrain him and put him back in his seat. Instead of making an emergency landing, the flight continued toward its destination of Houston — forcing the group of good Samaritans to ensure the man did not escape for about two hours.
The man’s blood was everywhere around the window and the ceiling of the aircraft, since the plexiglass cut up his hands, Phillips said.
“You never know what someone is capable of,” Phillips said. “I’m really grateful that we were able to handle the situation and no one got harmed.”
Once the plane landed safely in Houston at around 10:20 p.m. local time, Clark said everyone felt an immense sigh of relief.
“People were clapping,” Clark said. “Everyone was saying thank you to all the gentlemen that helped make sure that we got there safely.”
The Houston Police Department said they received a report that there had been a “combative passenger on board,” and were already on the scene by the time the plane had landed.
Frontier Airlines declined to press charges at the scene, and police are reaching out to airport officials to see what happened to the man. Since the man is not currently facing charges, his name was not released, according to police.
Several passengers, including Jessica Brown and her daughter Chloe Starks, hope this incident shows the need for increased security aboard aircrafts, so that something like this does not happen again.
“It’s just insanity. I don’t wish this on my worst enemy,” Brown told ABC News. “I wish in 2025 we would not have situations like this.”
-ABC News’ Lindsey Krill and Jennifer Watts contributed to this report.
(BOSTON) — A federal judge in Boston said Monday he will continue to pause the Trump administration’s plan to offer a deferred resignation buyout to tens of thousands of federal employees until he issues a ruling on a preliminary injunction.
Three federal employee unions — with the support of 20 Democratic attorneys general — have argued that the Office of Personnel Management’s deferred resignation offer is an “unlawful ultimatum” to force the resignation of government workers under the “threat of mass termination.”
The pause, ordered by U.S. District Judge George A. O’Toole Jr., came just hours ahead of the program’s midnight deadline, which itself was extended by four days following a temporary restraining order that continues to remain in effect.
During an hour-long hearing Monday, a lawyer for the Department of Justice framed the deferred resignation offer as a “humane off-ramp” for federal employees before President Donald Trump enacts sweeping changes to “rebalance and reorganize the federal workforce.”
“President Trump campaigned on a promise to reform the federal workforce,” DOJ attorney Eric Hamilton said, outlining Trump’s plan to reduce the size of the federal government and his return-to-office executive order. “We understand these announcements may have come as a disappointment for some in the federal workforce.”
Hamilton argued that any further delay of the buyout would cause irreparable harm because the Trump administration plans to enact the next steps of reshaping the federal government as soon as the buyout window closes.
Elena Goldstein, a lawyer representing the unions that brought the challenge, hammered the Trump administration for attempting to enforce an “unprecedented program” with a “slapdash exploding deadline”
“For the last two weeks, confusion has rained for millions of career civil servants,” Goldstein said. “This is a program of unprecedented magnitude that raises questions about the rationality of OPM’s decision-making.”
The buyout offer, part of Trump’s effort to trim the size of government through billionaire Elon Musk’s newly formed Department of Government Efficiency, was sent out two weeks ago in an email with the subject line “Fork in the Road” — the same language Musk used when he slashed jobs at Twitter after taking over that company in 2022.
The offer, from the Office of Personnel Management, offered full pay and benefits until September for any federal employee who accepted a deferred resignation by Feb. 6, with no obligation to work after they accepted the agreement.
While Goldstein acknowledged that Trump has the right to downsize the federal government, she emphasized that OPM has not gone through any of the steps necessary to carry out such a sweeping move — including analyzing the cost and benefits of their approach, evaluating its impact on the government’s function, and accessing potential conflicts of interest for Musk. She added that the exact terms of the buyout are “shifting” for thousands of employees who have gotten inconsistent guidance from their agency.
“OPM appears to be making this up as they are going along,” she said. “When the government wants to decide, there are ways to do this correctly … none of that happened here in the two weeks since they enacted this program.”
Arguing for the government, Hamilton criticized the plaintiffs’ argument as “legally incoherent and at odds with their theory of the case,” because a further delay of the buyout would “insert more uncertainty” into the lives of federal employees.
While the plaintiffs raised concerns that the buyout program violates federal law by using money that Congress never appropriated, Hamilton attempted to push back on the claim that the buyout changes the government’s financial obligations.
“Nothing about the voluntary resignation changes anything about the federal government’s financial obligations. It just changes what employees are expected to do and not do during their period of employment,” Hamilton said.
Goldstein argued that a preliminary injunction is necessary to prevent what she said was an unlawful offer to reshape the federal government while the Trump administration continues to “put additional pressure on employees.”
“This is an unprecedented action taken on an unprecedented timeline,” she said.
Just hours ahead of Thursday’s original deadline for employees to accept the offer, Judge O’Toole — who was nominated to the bench by President Bill Clinton — temporarily blocked the offer until Monday so he could consider issuing a temporary restraining offer pausing the order.
“I enjoined the defendants from taking any action to implement the so-called ‘Fork Directive’ pending the completion of briefing and oral argument on the issues,” Judge O’Toole said in his ruling. “I believe that’s as far as I want to go today.”
The Trump administration, in response, “extended” the deadline for the offer, which more than 65,000 federal employees have already taken.
“We are grateful to the judge for extending the deadline so more federal workers who refuse to show up to the office can take the Administration up on this very generous, once-in-a-lifetime offer,” press secretary Karoline Leavitt said last week.
The unions who brought the lawsuit argued that Trump exceeded his authority as president with the offer, which they described as a “slapdash resignation program.”
According to the plaintiffs, Trump’s offer violates federal law, lacks congressionally appropriated funding, and does not offer employees reassurance that the president would follow through with the offer. Their claim in part relies on a federal law from the 1940s called the Administrative Procedure Act that governs how federal agencies create and enforce rules.
“In the tech universe, ‘move fast and break things’ is a fine motto in part because they’re not playing with the public’s money, and it’s expected that most initiatives are going to fail,” Loyola Marymount law professor Justin Leavitt told ABC News. “Congress knows that, so in 1946 they basically said, ‘When agencies do stuff … they have to be careful about it. They’ve got to consider all aspects of the problem.”
The plaintiffs also argued that the buyout is unlawful because it relies on funding that Congress has yet to appropriate, violating the Antideficiency Act.
“Defendants’ ultimatum divides federal workers into two groups: (1) those who submit their resignations to OPM for a promised period of pay without the requirement to work, and (2) those who have not and are therefore subject to threat of mass termination,” the lawsuit said.
Lawyers for the federal government have pushed back on those claims, arguing that Trump has the legal authority to provide the buyout for employees within the federal branch, and that any further delay would do more harm than good.
“Extending the deadline for the acceptance of deferred resignation on its very last day will markedly disrupt the expectations of the federal workforce, inject tremendous uncertainty into a program that scores of federal employees have already availed themselves of, and hinder the Administration’s efforts to reform the federal workforce,” DOJ attorney Joshua E. Gardner wrote in a filing last week.
This video — which was given to investigators, who are now reviewing it — shows the plane reach the ground, erupt in flames, bounce on the runway and then overturn.
The aircraft came to a stop upside-down on the snow covered Toronto runway.
The 76 passengers and four crew evacuated the plane, which originated in Minneapolis.
Everyone survived, but at least 21 people were taken to hospitals. As of Tuesday morning, 19 have been released, according to Delta.
The Transportation Safety Board of Canada is leading the investigation. Investigators from the FAA and National Transportation Safety Board are assisting.
The CRJ 900 aircraft was operated by Endeavor Air.
“Our most pressing priority remains taking care of all customers and Endeavor crew members who were involved,” Delta CEO Ed Bastian said. “We’ll do everything we can to support them and their families in the days ahead, and I know the hearts, thoughts and prayers of the entire Delta community are with them. We are grateful for all the first responders and medical teams who have been caring for them.”
As Luigi Mangione pleaded not guilty to murder charges in Manhattan Criminal Court this morning, protesters from all walks of life assembled outside the courthouse to show their support for the alleged killer.
While their reasons to bear the 11-degree weather varied — including personal healthcare issues, concerns about inequality and distrust of the media — they were seemingly united in their support for the 26-year-old whose alleged actions have ignited a nationwide conversation about healthcare.
Pushing her 1-year-old son, Emmanuel, in a stroller, 37-year-old Alicia Thomas from the South Bronx said her experience giving birth while on Medicaid helped her relate to Mangione’s grievances with the healthcare industry. Suffering from a postpartum hemorrhage, she said she wanted to spend more than two days in the hospital after giving birth but couldn’t afford care beyond what Medicaid provided.
Thomas said she believes Mangione is innocent — framing him as a victim of the healthcare industry and justice system — but said his case has brought light to the need to improve healthcare.
“It sparked a catalyst to think about what kind of world we are going to leave our children,” she said, showing a Justo Juez prayer candle she plans to light for Mangione. “Our generation has seen so much devastation throughout the years, and our children are going to suffer at the hands of corporate greed.”
Prosecutors allege that Mangione meticulously planned and carried out the murder of Thompson outside a Manhattan hotel on the morning of Dec. 4 before fleeing the state to Pennsylvania, where he was arrested days later at a McDonald’s. According to the federal complaint, Mangione was in possession of a notebook in which he expressed hostility to healthcare executives, described the insurance industry as his target because it “checks every box,” and laid out his intent to “whack” Thompson at UnitedHealthcare’s investors conference.
While Mangione did not have family in court on Monday, about two dozen women attended the arraignment in the public section of the gallery, many of them voicing support for Mangione.
“This is a grave injustice, and that’s why people are here,” one of the women, who said she arrived at the courthouse at 5 a.m., told ABC News.
Outside court, protestors rallied for Mangione, chanting “Eat the rich,” “Hey, hey, ho, ho, these CEOs have got to go,” and “Free, free Luigi.”
Nicholas Zamudio, 33, said he came to the protest after spending over $100,000 out of pocket for his treatment after an electric injury in 2021. Holding a sign that read “United States Healthcare Stole My Livelihood. Prosecute Malicious Profiteers,” Zamudio said he doesn’t know if he will be able to afford his ongoing treatment for nerve damage.
“I don’t have insurance, I’ve drained my 401K. I’ve drained everything that I have, and come January I will be trying to keep a roof over my head by couch hopping amongst friends. I’ve lost everything and that’s what brought me out here,” he said.
Zamudio said he found comfort in Mangione’s writings about his spinal injury, noting they both received similar spinal fusion operations.
“He talked about not being able to sleep, laying in pain, things like that,” he said. “I guess a lot kind of resonated with me in regards to the pain and not getting help with the healthcare system. I think murder is obviously wrong, but it did bring us to a point we needed to get to.”
Law enforcement has raised concerns about the outpouring of support for Mangione and hostility towards healthcare industry since Thompson’s killing, with multiple police bulletins warning about the increased risk to healthcare executives. UnitedHealth Group’s CEO Andrew Witty appeared to acknowledge the public sentiment, writing in an opinion essay in the New York Times earlier this month that he “understand people’s frustrations” with healthcare and vowed to “to find ways to deliver high-quality care and lower costs.”
“[W]e also are struggling to make sense of this unconscionable act and the vitriol that has been directed at our colleagues who have been barraged by threats. No employees — be they the people who answer customer calls or nurses who visit patients in their homes — should have to fear for their and their loved ones’ safety,” Witty wrote.
While the specifics of Mangione’s grievances with the healthcare injury remain unclear — and we do not know if his personal issues with the healthcare system motivated his alleged actions — many of the protesters came to their own conclusions about what motivated the alleged killer.
A 26-year-old woman from Queens who preferred to go unnamed said she related to Mangione after she fell off her parent’s healthcare plan and couldn’t afford COBRA coverage. Having gone uninsured for months, she said she believes the healthcare system is broken based on her inability to find a good plan despite days of effort calling different insurance companies.
“I spent an entire month — 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. with three phones in front of me — waiting on the phone on hold to get access to these people. They put me through circles and circles and circles,” she said.
Another woman from Brooklyn said she came to court because she believed Mangione was bringing attention to the need for universal healthcare in the United States. She added that she didn’t trust the media coverage of Mangione’s case and wanted to see the proceedings with her own eyes to draw conclusions.
“There was a lot of support from where we were in the back [of court],” she said after attending the arraignment in person. “I believe it’s a conversation that a lot of people are having now, and whatever we can do to help progress this conversation is worthy of participating in.”
Bill Dobbs, who lives in Manhattan, said he was motivated to support Mangione after federal prosecutors charged the 26-year-old with a crime that carries the death penalty. He held a sign that read “Justice not Vengeance.”
“It’s very alarming there could be a death penalty,” he said. “Punishment has got to leave a chance for change, and the death penalty doesn’t.”
Mangione’s disdain for the healthcare industry only added to his reasons to support the alleged killer, Dobbs said.
“What’s going on in the private healthcare industry is scandalous,” he said.
While most of the protestors said they believed Mangione was innocent, their support for Mangione carried an implicit incongruence — Is Mangione an innocent victim or a martyr for confronting the healthcare industry through his alleged actions? Many protestors who spoke with ABC News reconciled the beliefs by referencing the plague of mass shootings impacting the United States, claiming that the attention on Mangione and terrorism label is evidence of a broken justice system.
“He’s an alleged shooter, but how many school shooters are labeled with terrorism. How many?” asked one protestor.
