ADIZ pilot's ticket revoked

"Greg Farris" wrote in message
...
In article ,
spam says...

Getting yourself to the point where armed aircraft are ready to shoot
you down and thus likely killing the other person onboard, or the
possibility of damage on the ground where you hit after being shot
down, isn't endangering life or property of another?

No. That's preposterous.

No, it's perfectly reasonable, if the prospect of being shot down is
something you're supposed to be aware of--which is indeed the case here.

Could you explain why you disagree?

Thanks,
Gary

In article ,
says...



No, it's perfectly reasonable, if the prospect of being shot down is
something you're supposed to be aware of--which is indeed the case here.

Could you explain why you disagree?


Certainly. I find it preposterous because the danger is not engendered
buy the actions of the "offender". The lethal danger presented by the
actions of law enforcement is - theoretically - a danger that is
controlled by experts in the interest of public safety, and as such not
a a danger to the public. If the police shoot at a fleeing bank robber,
and miss, do we charge the robber for attempted murder, because he could
have been killed?

G Faris

Greg Farris wrote:
In article ,

says...



No, it's perfectly reasonable, if the prospect of being shot down is

something you're supposed to be aware of--which is indeed the case
here.

Could you explain why you disagree?


Certainly. I find it preposterous because the danger is not
engendered
buy the actions of the "offender". The lethal danger presented by the

actions of law enforcement is - theoretically - a danger that is
controlled by experts in the interest of public safety, and as such
not
a a danger to the public. If the police shoot at a fleeing bank
robber,
and miss, do we charge the robber for attempted murder, because he
could
have been killed?

G Faris


No but if a third person is hit by that bullet that the police fires
the bank robber will usually be charged.

Gig G

In article om,
"Gig 601XL Builder" wrote:

No but if a third person is hit by that bullet that the police fires
the bank robber will usually be charged.

charged with what?! not getting in the way of a bullet?

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article om,
"Gig 601XL Builder" wrote:

No but if a third person is hit by that bullet that the police fires
the bank robber will usually be charged.

charged with what?! not getting in the way of a bullet?

Charged with first-degree murder. If your commission of a violent felony
leads to a death that otherwise would not have occurred, you have committed
first-degree murder (in most states), regardless of who fired the gun.

See http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a...st_degree.html.

--Gary

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...
Charged with first-degree murder. If your commission of a violent felony
leads to a death that otherwise would not have occurred, you have
committed first-degree murder (in most states), regardless of who fired
the gun.

See http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a...st_degree.html.

Do you have an example in which the person killed was not involved in the
crime?

It is conceivable to me that the law considers an accomplice to be
foreseeably in danger, or that it would differentiate between a lawful
killing and an unlawful killing, but that a different standard would be
applied to the killing of a bystander.

Note also that this example applies only to a very narrow range of
situations, all of which involve criminal activities MUCH more serious that
an airspace violation. It doesn't even apply to all felonies.

In any case, I also don't feel that the two situations are analogous from an
ethical standpoint (though, they may be from the current regulatory
standpoint). That is, in the case of the commission of a crime, even a
robbery, deadly force is generally authorized (just this month, here in
Washington, a couple of guys strangled and killed a would-be unarmed and
unconscious car thief, and the killing was found to be justified), but the
C150 presented no danger that would justify creating a hazard either to the
occupants or those on the ground by firing on it.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
Do you have an example in which the person killed was not involved in the
crime?

Not offhand. But surely the perpetrator of a violent felony would be *at
least* as responsible for the death (by accidental police fire) of a
bystander or of a victim as for the death of an accomplice. (If anything,
it's the application of felony-murder to the *accomplice's* death that seems
a little bit of a stretch.)

It is conceivable to me that the law considers an accomplice to be
foreseeably in danger, or that it would differentiate between a lawful
killing and an unlawful killing, but that a different standard would be
applied to the killing of a bystander.

Why wouldn't bystanders be deemed foreseeably endangered by an armed bank
robbery? Seems pretty foreseeable to me. A reasonable person feels
(justifiably) frightened to be in the middle of such a robbery, right?

Note also that this example applies only to a very narrow range of
situations, all of which involve criminal activities MUCH more serious
that an airspace violation.

Of course, but that wasn't the point of the discussion.

To support the claim that the pilot was *not* culpable for endangerment,
Greg proposed an analogy to a robber's responsibility for shots fired *at*
the robber. Greg claimed mistakenly that the robber lacks legal
responsibility for the consequences of those shots; I was merely showing
otherwise to rebut the implication of his analogy.

In any case, I also don't feel that the two situations are analogous from
an ethical standpoint (though, they may be from the current regulatory
standpoint). That is, in the case of the commission of a crime, even a
robbery, deadly force is generally authorized

And in the case of penetrations all the way into the FRZ, deadly force is
also authorized, and is well known to be authorized. Hence, its use--whether
the policy is reasonable or not--is a readily foreseeable consequence of
such an incursion, and thus a readily foreseeable source of danger to the
pilot, his passenger, and the folks below him.

--Gary

Bob Noel wrote:
In article om,
"Gig 601XL Builder" wrote:


No but if a third person is hit by that bullet that the police fires
the bank robber will usually be charged.


charged with what?! not getting in the way of a bullet?

IIRC, in Tennessee the name of the charge is "felony murder", that is, murder
due directly or indirectly to the fact that you are committing a crime.

George Patterson
"Naked" means you ain't got no clothes on; "nekkid" means you ain't got
no clothes on - and are up to somethin'.

Recently, Greg Farris posted:

[...] The lethal danger
presented by the actions of law enforcement is - theoretically - a
danger that is controlled by experts in the interest of public
safety, and as such not a a danger to the public. If the police shoot
at a fleeing bank robber, and miss, do we charge the robber for
attempted murder, because he could have been killed?

Or, perhaps more to the point, do we charge the robber for the murder of
the bystander that the police accidentally shot?

Neil

Neil Gould wrote:

Or, perhaps more to the point, do we charge the robber for the murder of
the bystander that the police accidentally shot?

Yes, we do.

George Patterson
"Naked" means you ain't got no clothes on; "nekkid" means you ain't got
no clothes on - and are up to somethin'.