ADIZ pilot's ticket revoked

Neil Gould wrote:

Current charts *are* required,

No, they are not.

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'.

Peter Duniho wrote:

Note that, at least judging from the very brief explanation Gary posted a
link for, we would not charge a criminal guilty only of theft, burglary, or
similar crimes (even if those are felonies).

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

The felony murder rule, adopted by a number of jurisdictions, is a legal
doctrine according to which anyone who commits, or is found to be involved in, a
serious crime (a felony), during which any person dies, is guilty of murder. (In
states with the death penalty, this usually includes capital murder, although
there are independent constitutional limitations on the imposition of the death
penalty on those guilty of felony murder.) This applies even if one does not
personally or directly cause the person's death. For example, a getaway driver
for an armed robbery can be convicted of murder if one of the robbers killed
someone -- or got killed in some jurisdictions -- in the process of the robbery,
even though the driver was not present at and did not expect the killing.

However, the actual situation is not as clear-cut as the above implies. In
reality, not all felonious actions will apply in most jurisdictions. To
"qualify" for the felony murder rule, the felony must present some degree of
danger. If while passing a forged check, the receiver, who happens to be a
hemopheliac, gets a paper cut and bleeds to death, most courts will not hold the
defendant guilty of murder.

On the other hand, many activities that are inherently very dangerous cannot
apply for the felony murder rule. Aggravated assault, for instance, does not.
The reason is that virtually all murders result from an assault! (It's hard to
cause the death of someone without causing them bodily harm.) But aggravated
assault is a felony. Thus if the felony murder rule were to apply in the case of
aggravated assault, it would essenitally reduce the culpability requirements
carefully set by the legislature for murder to those requirements of assault.
For this reason aggravated assault would be said to "merge" with murder.

To counter the common law style interpretations of what does and does not merge
with murder (and thus what does not and does qualify for felony murder), many
states explicitly list what offenses qualify. The American Law Institute's Model
Penal Code lists robbery, rape or forcible deviate sexual intercourse, arson,
burglary, kidnapping, and felonious escape.

Other issues also loom. For instance, whose actions can cause the defendant to
be guilty of felony murder? There are two schools of thought. One is the agency
theory; the other is the proximate cause theory. The former states that only
deaths caused by the agents of the crime can result in a felony murder
conviction, while the latter holds that any deaths that result from a crime
would qualify. As an example of the distinction, take the following hypothetical.

Say John Doe is robbing a bank. John is a bit careless however, and is not
paying attention long enough that one of the tellers has a chance to hit the
silent alarm. Police arrive, and corner John. Rather than give up nicely, John
decides to try to fight his way out, and begins shooting. Officers return fire,
and one of them tragically misaims and the bullet strikes and kills a bystander.
In this case, jurisdictions that follow the agency theory would hold that John
is not guilty of felony murder in the death of the bystander, as the death was
immediately caused by the actions of the police, who are not agents of the
crime. Jurisdictions following the proximate cause theory however adopt an
opinion much closer to a but for relationship: the death would not have occurred
but for the commission of the crime, so John is guilty of felony murder.

Note that if John Doe was not alone and was with, say, his wife Jane Doe, if
John kills someone (even accidentally) during the comission of the robbery, both
John and Jane are guilty of felony murder since they are both agents of crime,
and conspired together. Even Joe Shmoe driving around the block in the getaway
car would be guilty of felony murder despite the fact that he likely didn't even
know that anyone was killed. This is essentially universally held.

Felony murder is typically the same grade of murder as premeditated murder. In
many jurisdictions, felony murder is a crime for which the death penalty can be
imposed, subject to one of two additional requirements. A person convicted of
felony murder cannot be executed unless it is shown that he himself killed,
attempted to kill, or intended to kill. For example, three people conspired to
commit armed robbery. Two of them went in to the house and committed the
robbery, and in the process killed the occupants of the house. The third person
sat outside in the getaway car, and he was later convicted of felony murder. But
because he himself neither killed, attempted to kill, or intended to kill, he
cannot be executed even though he is guilty of felony murder.

On the other hand, a person who is convicted of murder can be executed if it is
shown that he was a "major participant" in the murder and showed "extreme
indifference to human life." For example, three brothers who broke their father
out of prison and went on a crime spree killed a family traveling along a
highway. They did so by flagging down their car under the pretense of being
distressed motorists, then leading them out into the desert and shooting them
execution-style. The father was the one who actually pulled the trigger, but the
brothers were present at the killings and could have stopped them. A statewide
police manhunt ensured; the father and brothers parted ways, and the father and
one of the brothers died of exposure in the desert. The two remaining brothers
were later apprehended, and the Supreme Court ultimately ruled that imposing the
death penalty on them did not violate the Constitution.
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'.

"Peter Clark" wrote in message
...
OK, perhaps
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...082&invol=0309
then?

So close!

This case certainly comes much closer to the question, as it involves a new
charge. However, it has at least two problems:

* The decision clearly hinged on the fact that the defendant threatent
the officers with a gun, directly causing the officers to fire back.

* In the explanatory text, the court even specifically says that "felony
murder does not embrace any killing that is coincidental with the felony but
instead is limited to those deaths caused by one of the felons in
furtherance of their crime". At least in New York, according to this court,
the felon would have to take a direct action that results in the death, and
while the text is silent on the question it certainly suggests that merely
fleeing the crime scene (for example) would not be enough.

Another interesting aspect to the case is that it illustrates that the
concept of "felony murder" as applied here is a relatively new concept, at
least in New York. The law was changed only in 1974, to provide for the
charging of a person proximally related to, but not directly causing, a
death. The discussion also suggests that, while certainly common, there is
wide variability in similar statutes in various jurisdictions. It seems not
all legislatures think it makes sense to charge a person with murder when
that person didn't actually commit the murder.

I assume that also means that at least some jurisdictions have a more
liberal law, allowing for broader application of the felony murder charge,
and perhaps even in such cases as a felon fleeing the crime. But it also
suggests that this is not uniformly agreed upon, nor am I convinced that
it's something that should apply here with respect to deciding that the
pilots involved in this airspace violation themselves violated 91.13.

Pete

"Jose" wrote in message
. ..
Ok, I'll rephrase. "it is a violation of this regulation to do something
which abides by all the FARs but is =still= something we don't like".

What did they do that abides by all the FARs, but which was still something
the FAA didn't like?

IMHO, the only act that could be even remotely construed as presenting a
hazard to the life and property of others was the same act addressed by
other charges.

What was "legal and dumb"?

Pete

In rec.aviation.owning Matt Barrow wrote:

wrote in message
...
In rec.aviation.owning Matt Barrow wrote:

snip

I check weather etc. elsewhere than finish with DUATS for a scan of
NOTAMS and PIREPS and to get my official square checked.

It may be up to the second and the most thorough but it's isn't "Official"
as far as I know (hanger lawyers, what say??).

DUATS has been an official briefing for a few years now.

Could you prove that you did anything more than just scan the data on the
screen?

No more than you can prove you were listening when you called FS.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...
[...]
Similarly, I think it's at least arguable that garden-variety instances of
airspace violations--though they all carry some risk, as you point out--do
not typically carry the exceptional risk involved in flying over a densely
populated area where the government has explicitly threatened to shoot
down even small planes. Arguably, then, there is a degree of carelessness
or recklessness there that exceeds what's already inherent in the
airspace-violation charges, justifying an additional charge under 91.13.

So, to restate your point, 91.13 isn't really a regulation to be used when
no other regulation applies. It's a regulation to be used when you want to
trump up the charges, so that you can apply a greater penalty than would
otherwise be allowed?

Pete

"George Patterson" wrote in message
news:cP2le.9$zb.0@trndny04...
Gary Drescher wrote:

If you think his course was intentional, you also have to conclude that
he didn't know about (or didn't care about) busting through the middle of
the Class B.

Yep, sure do. I think he snaked through the old VFR corridor years ago and
was planning to do the same thing this time.

I see what you mean. Still, he ended up plowing through the middle of the
25-mile-wide Class B surface area, far from any Class E airspace. Or did
there use to be a corridor right there in the middle?

--Gary

"George Patterson" wrote in message
newsY2le.1$Fb.0@trndny07...
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. [...]

Well, first of all, I'm not ready to consider Wikipedia a "real"
encyclopedia. Lots of people love it, and I don't doubt that there's a lot
of good information in there. But if I wanted to "prove" a point, all I'd
have to do is go write a new topic or edit an existing one, and then quote
it. For that matter, even a "real" encyclopedia is somewhat of a weak
reference. But IMHO what matters here are the actual laws and court
precedents.

That said, the text you quoted simply reinforces my understanding that the
concept of "felony murder" is applicable only in relatively narrow
situations, that it's not even used held in all jurisdictions, and that
where used, there is considerable disagreement as to how to apply it.

It certainly seems FAR from a foregone conclusion that it makes sense to
charge the pilots themselves with the endangerment of others.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
So, to restate your point, 91.13 isn't really a regulation to be used when
no other regulation applies. It's a regulation to be used when you want
to trump up the charges, so that you can apply a greater penalty than
would otherwise be allowed?

No, I think it's to be used *whether or not* some other regulation applies,
if there was careless or reckless conduct that goes beyond what would
typically be inherent in whatever other violations (if any) of the FARs
occurred.

--Gary

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...
No, I think it's to be used *whether or not* some other regulation
applies, if there was careless or reckless conduct that goes beyond what
would typically be inherent in whatever other violations (if any) of the
FARs occurred.

I don't see how that is different from what I wrote (other than your
inclusion of use of the regulation even when no other regulation applies,
which I'll grant).