ADIZ pilot's ticket revoked

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

If the police lawfully shoot at a robber and accidentally kill a
bystander,
the robber is certainly legally responsible for that death.

You make a good point.

On the other hand, if law enforcement creates a danger where none existed
previously, the reckless endangerment seems like a stretch. When police
chase after a car thief, and an accident ensues, the police may be held
responsible, if we assume the thief only meant to steal the car, and not
harm anyone or anything.

Under some circumstances, the police may be held responsible for an accident
caused by a high-speed chase. But that is certainly not *to the exclusion*
of holding the person being chased responsible!

Analogously, regardless of whether or not the policy of shooting down
encroaching aircraft is reasonable (and thus regardless of whether those who
formulate or execute that policy can or should be held responsible), those
who cause the policy to be invoked (by violating the prohibited airspace)
*also* bear responsibility.

--Gary

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

"George Patterson" wrote in message

"In an effort to be extra careful, and wishing to avoid the restricted
area of
Camp David during our flight, we over compensated by taking a more than
anticipated southerly route, which consequently caused us to infringe upon
the
Washington, D.C., restricted zones," said part of the statement.

Incredible!!! Amazing!!

I'm surprised the guy can make coffee.

"Mike Granby" wrote in message
ups.com...

Sheaffer has hired an attorney, Mark T. McDermott, a principal
in the Washington, D.C., law firm of Joseph, McDermott and
Reiner, to represent him. In a written statement, Sheaffer claimed
that he prepared for the flight properly by checking weather and
temporary flight restrictions and conducted a thorough preflight.

Great. So not only has he screw himself re his ticket, he's now about
to **** all his money away on high-price attornies and a useless fight.

Quite so. His statement that he checked all this from his home PC where
there is no audit history doesn't hold up.

"George Patterson" wrote in message
news:Alyke.18428$4d6.5879@trndny04...
AES wrote:

As I read through the above I kept thinking more and mo despite the
first person wording, this just doesn't sound like something two
ordinary people would have written -- it sounds more and more like words
_very_ carefully crafted by an attorney.

Actually, it sounds like absolute and total bull**** to me.

Redundant, no?

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
. ..
Recently, George Patterson posted:

AES wrote:

As I read through the above I kept thinking more and mo despite
the first person wording, this just doesn't sound like something two
ordinary people would have written -- it sounds more and more like
words _very_ carefully crafted by an attorney.

Actually, it sounds like absolute and total bull**** to me.

Especially the part about being "...treated well and proper..." by the
authorities. If I found myself spread-eagled on the ground at gunpoint,
this would not be my assessment of how I was treated.

Well, it sounds much nicer than would remarks about ****ting your pants.

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...
Quite so. His statement that he checked all this from his home PC where
there is no audit history doesn't hold up.

How do you know? A forensic examination of his hard drive might confirm his
statement.

--Gary

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

In article ,
"Gary Drescher" wrote:

It is not engendered *solely* by the offender's action. But it is certainly
engendered *in part* by the offender's action: if not for that action, that
particular danger would not be present.

Then we should blame Cessna too.

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

Ron Natalie wrote:

Customs owns the blackhawks too. They're on loan to the DC area
security efforts. Helicopters are a bit more appropriate (if you're
not going to fire weapons) than jets for shooing away wayward light
planes.

Helicopters are fine even if you *are* going to fire weapons (though it is to be
hoped that Customs doesn't own any "gunships").

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'.