On Jul 1, 2:06 am, Dave S wrote:
Aviv Hod wrote:

Without immediate

threat to life from the smuggling plane, this strikes me as heavy handed
to the extreme.

-Aviv

And that is where we disagree.

If you arent doing anything wrong, you have no reason to run.

If you aren't doing anything wrong, you have no reason to stop.


I frankly wish that US domestic law enforcement was empowered to
terminate pursuits sooner rather than later.

While this veers OT, I feel someone fleeing

Your use of the word "flee" presupposes that you have done something
wrong to be "fleeing" from, or that the person trying to convince you
to stop has the right to interfere with your activities.

police in a car/truck etc is
behaving recklessly with a deadly weapon - the vehicle itself. That
endangers the lives of innocents. That, in and of itself, justifies the
use of force, and deadly force, to terminate a pursuit and protect the
public in doing so.

One could just as easily argue that the pursuers pose just as much
threat to the public as the pursued ... and if anyone is hurt as much
if not more of the blame.

Consider also that when the police or military are given the authority
to arbitrarily stop and search or question (or "deadly force" against)
people ... then you have allowed your nation to become a police state!


In the same vein, maybe some drug pilots will rethink their career
choice if they know that they will be shot down for failure to comply
with law enforcement or military directives to stop, land and be
searched. Maybe the drug pilots will decide that their life isnt worth it.

If this drug pilot wanted to live, he had the ability to make a simple
choice. Divert and be inspected.

Or ... if he refused to divert, simply follow the plane until it was
forced to land somewhere when it ran out of fuel; perhaps resulting in
the location of more important criminals in the chain ... and their
arrest, if there is criminal activity involved in the flight in the
first place.

He made his choice, and he died because
of it. Its a drug WAR.

By whose definition is this situation a WAR as you say ... some
arbitrary fiat by some politicians in the 1980s? I think calling this
kind of activity a war is insulting to the armed forces personnel that
have fought and died for real causes in the last century. The so-
called war on drugs is political posturing and always has been. To
expand on this point, the public in the last decade or two is being
increasingly deceived into a false sense of righteousness about any
disagreements that politicians might have with any group, be they
foreign or domestic, by the deceptive and devious use of the word
"war" in order to justify to the public political activity that really
bears no genuine resemblance to war whatsoever, but merely meddling in
another sovereign nation's politics, or, what is worse perhaps,
justifying ever greater intrusions into the privacy and freedoms that
we used to understand as being rights in an open and free society.

People die in wars. And this pilot had more due
process extended to him than any victim of a drug cartel's henchman.

What is so hard about understanding that when a bad actor dies at the
hands of the military or law enforcement, its a series of choices by the
bad actor that leads to this outcome?

What is so hard about putting
blame where it belongs?

Nothing ... but do you immediately know every "bad actor" you
encounter? By exactly what signs or attributes can you so judge these
people, and know the good from the bad?