ADIZ pilot's ticket revoked

Peter Duniho wrote:

The guy sure did screw up. But at what point was "the life or property of
another" endangered as a direct result of his actions?

The minute the F-16s were scrambled.

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'.

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...
"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?

If he had, he'd have recognized that his course of flight busted the 2nd
restricted area he crossed.

A forensic examination of his hard drive might confirm his
statement.


Not if he doesn't cache his history files.

What I'm trying to say is that his story seems hopelessly contrived. I'm
sure the attorney is playing on that, but that's what attorney get paid for.

"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
...
"Greg Farris" wrote in message
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?

The issue here is reckless endangerment, not attempted murder.

If the police lawfully shoot at a robber and accidentally kill a
bystander,
the robber is certainly legally responsible for that death. The
*foreseeable
possibility* of that consequence is one of the things the robber is
responsible for. There may or may not be a separate statute under which
the
robber can be charged merely for posing that danger to himself or others
(even if the danger is not realized); but there *is* such a regulation
with
regard to posing an analogous danger while flying.


There are such laws. What's more, if during said robbery and accomplice gets
killed (by police or other person who intervenes) the charge of murder can
(and often is) added, just as if the bad guy had pulled the trigger himself.
Seen that one on COPS.

Greg Farris wrote:

I also find rather dubious that the chopper pilots placarded an unuseable
frequency for the wayward pilots to communicate on. Looks like there was more
than one blundering aircrew up there that day.

Seems quite understandable to me. They wanted him to use 121.5, which is SOP. It
turned out there was an ELT sounding in that area. Not only would you not know
that until you dialed in the frequency, but it's quite possible that the ELT was
not blocking the frequency a few miles or minutes before.

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'.

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
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.

Well, to be more precise, the point is that the danger was engendered in
part by the offender's *wrongful*, *unlawful*, or *negligent* action. That's
not true of Cessna.

--Gary

Greg Farris wrote:

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.

Not in any State in which I've lived. The thief would be held responsible. If a
death ensues, he would be charged with that death. It is the thief's actions of
attempting to run from the police that are the root cause of the accident, and
the police are blameless under law.

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'.

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...
"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?

If he had, he'd have recognized that his course of flight busted the 2nd
restricted area he crossed.

Not if his navigation was so bad that he simply didn't know where he was.

The alternative explanation is that he not only didn't know about the ADIZ
(which hardly requires an up-to-the-minute briefing), but also didn't know
about the Class B that he was busting.

A forensic examination of his hard drive might confirm his
statement.

Not if he doesn't cache his history files.

And you know that he doesn't? Besides, that's not even true. Unless you go
out of your way to securely wipe your drive's free space (and often even if
you do), recoverable traces of your browsing remain.

--Gary

"George Patterson" wrote in message
news:qDGke.63$5b.44@trndny03...
Not in any State in which I've lived. The thief would be held responsible.
If a death ensues, he would be charged with that death. It is the thief's
actions of attempting to run from the police that are the root cause of
the accident, and the police are blameless under law.

What leads you to believe that the police are not legally liable *in
addition* to the thief, under some circumstances?

--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'.