Glider Pilot arrested for airspace

Get another lawyer and sue the *******s.
At the very least the Sheriff needs to be sacked!





t 13:54 11 January 2013, wrote:
I just read the article. Its pretty scary to know that those charged with
e=
nforcing the laws can be so ignorant of them. An initial misunderstanding
i=
s forgivable (I guess)but to be locked up overnight is not. I was a cop
for=
25 years and its unbelievable that someone didn't step up and say "Its
ob=
vious this guy is not a terrorist. What are we doing here?" I don't
think
=
I'd be as understanding as the glider pilot and I'd certainly wouldn't
agre=
e to not sue, even if its unlikely I'd ever recover anything. Make 'em
swea=
t, at least. I'd definitely want to know who authorized that charges be
fil=
ed and seek a public apology.

On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 07:28:11 +0000, Tom Claffey
wrote:

Get another lawyer and sue the *******s.
At the very least the Sheriff needs to be sacked!


IANAL, but I suspect that train has left the station. Given that he
signed a plea bargain, I'd think that any further lawsuit would just
be thrown out.

Get another lawyer and sue the *******s.
At the very least the Sheriff needs to be sacked!





t 13:54 11 January 2013, wrote:
I just read the article. Its pretty scary to know that those charged with
e=
nforcing the laws can be so ignorant of them. An initial misunderstanding
i=
s forgivable (I guess)but to be locked up overnight is not. I was a cop
for=
25 years and its unbelievable that someone didn't step up and say "Its
ob=
vious this guy is not a terrorist. What are we doing here?" I don't
think
=
I'd be as understanding as the glider pilot and I'd certainly wouldn't
agre=
e to not sue, even if its unlikely I'd ever recover anything. Make 'em
swea=
t, at least. I'd definitely want to know who authorized that charges be
fil=
ed and seek a public apology.

Sorry, yesterday's post doubled up?
Tom

PS:Here in Oz you cannot sign away your rights.



01:04 13 January 2013, Tom Claffey wrote:
Get another lawyer and sue the *******s.
At the very least the Sheriff needs to be sacked!





t 13:54 11 January 2013, wrote:
I just read the article. Its pretty scary to know that those charged
with
e=
nforcing the laws can be so ignorant of them. An initial
misunderstanding
i=
s forgivable (I guess)but to be locked up overnight is not. I was a cop
for=
25 years and its unbelievable that someone didn't step up and say "Its
ob=
vious this guy is not a terrorist. What are we doing here?" I don't
think
=
I'd be as understanding as the glider pilot and I'd certainly wouldn't
agre=
e to not sue, even if its unlikely I'd ever recover anything. Make 'em
swea=
t, at least. I'd definitely want to know who authorized that charges be
fil=
ed and seek a public apology.

Look under 'Signed under Duress'

Was he Imprissoned?
Was there restraint of his Liberty?
Did the police push the paperwork at him?
Where there threats of personal violence?
Where the policemen armed?
Where they standing over him whilst he was seated?

If the answer is 'Yes' to any of the above, I would say he has a very good
case aganst them. (doubly so it was in the UK.)



At 02:55 13 January 2013, Tom Claffey wrote:

Sorry, yesterday's post doubled up?
Tom

PS:Here in Oz you cannot sign away your rights.



01:04 13 January 2013, Tom Claffey wrote:
Get another lawyer and sue the *******s.
At the very least the Sheriff needs to be sacked!





t 13:54 11 January 2013, wrote:
I just read the article. Its pretty scary to know that those charged
with
e=
nforcing the laws can be so ignorant of them. An initial
misunderstanding
i=
s forgivable (I guess)but to be locked up overnight is not. I was a cop
for=
25 years and its unbelievable that someone didn't step up and say
"Its
ob=
vious this guy is not a terrorist. What are we doing here?" I don't
think
=
I'd be as understanding as the glider pilot and I'd certainly wouldn't
agre=
e to not sue, even if its unlikely I'd ever recover anything. Make 'em
swea=
t, at least. I'd definitely want to know who authorized that charges be
fil=
ed and seek a public apology.

I am a local lawyer and have discussed this matter with several other people who were directly involved.

As a practical matter, I strongly doubt a local jury would have awarded damages based on overzealous protection of a nuclear plant. Also, a local jury might be persuaded to find him guilty of disturbing the peace, which is a pretty vaguely written law. He is a foreign citizen, so even a minor conviction could cause problems if he leaves the country and tries to return to the US, which has become his home. In that case, it is not necessarily bad advice to have him give up his right to sue in exchange for a nolle prosequi..

Also, before I started flying gliders, I had never seen one in the air, and I am well-educated, observant and interested in aviation. Most people would not know what it was at all. Nuclear security personnel have presumably been warned to watch for drone/RC aircraft threats. Also, there is a blanket TFR as mentioned previously which specifically mentions circling near nuclear facilities. I know there is an exception for glider pilots, but only glider pilots or security experts would know about that.

All local law enforcement would know is that some crazy looking flying machine, which was clearly not a regular airplane, flew over the nuclear plant and then started circling nearby.

I hate that this happened, especially to Robin, who is a wonderful person. But I think the best possible outcome - education of the public and of relevant security officials - is happening on a much larger scale than I had anticipated, through the interest of the press.

Wow. The pilot NEVER should have signed away his right to sue. The government only understands the stick, and loosing money in a load public announcement of their incompetence.

On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 06:43:54 -0800 (PST), "Sean F (F2)"
wrote:

Wow. The pilot NEVER should have signed away his right to sue. The government only understands the stick, and loosing money in a load public announcement of their incompetence.

Well, yes. He could have refused to sign and called his lawyer, but it
would have been a gamble. The lawyer might have taken on his lawsuit
on contingency, but getting acquitted in the first place would have
cost him a load of money up front.

Laws and courts are for those who can afford to pay for them...

On Friday, January 11, 2013 7:56:40 AM UTC-5, Paul Remde wrote:
Hi,



This is amazing.



http://www.aopa.org/aircraft/article...WT.mc_sect=gan



Paul Remde

It's total madness.

T8

On 1/11/2013 6:48 AM, Evan Ludeman wrote:
On Friday, January 11, 2013 7:56:40 AM UTC-5, Paul Remde wrote:
Hi,
This is amazing.



http://www.aopa.org/aircraft/article...WT.mc_sect=gan


Paul Remde

It's total madness.

On the contrary, it appears to me to be "localized madness": the FAA and
DHS were not party to the plant officials' and local police's ignorance
about the airspace rules.

I do wish the pilot had discussed with the officials what they would do
the next time they saw a glider over the plant, before he agreed not to
pursue them legally.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)