Survey Time

[DILLIGAF]

Of the five what is the biggest threat to GA?

1. High fuel cost
2. Insurance
3. FAA policies
4. Terror war restrictions
5. Maintenance cost on aircraft

[Peter Duniho]

"DILLIGAF" > wrote in message
. ..
> Of the five what is the biggest threat to GA?
>
> 1. High fuel cost
> 2. Insurance
> 3. FAA policies
> 4. Terror war restrictions
> 5. Maintenance cost on aircraft

#4, sort of.

It's not "terror war restrictions" per se, though they are pretty damn
harmful. It's the general public opinion and attitude that has led to them,
as well as other effects.

#3 seems like a red herring to me, and #'s 1, 2, and 5 are really all just
the same issue: economics.

I think that fundamentally, economics is always an issue, but I also think
it's one that will resolve itself, as long as the other issues are dealt
with.

But public perception is a big problem. It gets in the way of new
participants, and it allows draconian and useless regulations to be put in
place, strangling the entire industry.

Pete

[kontiki]

DILLIGAF wrote:

> Of the five what is the biggest threat to GA?
>
> 1. High fuel cost
> 2. Insurance **
See #5 below
> 3. FAA policies
> 4. Terror war restrictions
> 5. Maintenance cost on aircraft ***
I believe this (which is ultimately related and interlocked with #2) is
doing the most damage. Lawsuits result in very high parts and maintenance
costs which reult in people avoiding maintenance or upgrades they might
otherwise perform. This results in less safe aircraft and higher risk of
accidents/incidents/lawsuits which further increases costs.

This is a vicious spiral and, if nothing is done, will eventually kill off
GA all but the extremely wealthy.

[Matt Whiting]

DILLIGAF wrote:
> Of the five what is the biggest threat to GA?
>
> 1. High fuel cost
> 2. Insurance
> 3. FAA policies
> 4. Terror war restrictions
> 5. Maintenance cost on aircraft

6. Stupid ng posts.

Matt

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
DILLIGAF > wrote:

> Of the five what is the biggest threat to GA?
>
> 1. High fuel cost
> 2. Insurance
> 3. FAA policies
> 4. Terror war restrictions
> 5. Maintenance cost on aircraft

1) Real estate developers and their political cronies. They have the ear
of the local politicians and all too often persuade (read: sometimes
bribe) them into closing airports for "better" uses. Real estate
developers are the single biggest political contributors at the local
and state level in the US.

2) #1 above

3) #4 above

4) Tort lawyers with their "deep pockets" mentality. A "loser pays"
legal policy would straighten this one out immediately ( plus, it would
solve a lot of other problems.) We will probably never see it because
the trial lawyers are one of the biggest lobbies in DC. #2 above is a
result of this one, as is #5

5) #4 We have Chicken Little making policy and Fearless Fosdick
enforcing it. #3 above is part of this, but it is the Homeland Security
tail wagging the FAA dog.

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
DILLIGAF > wrote:

> Of the five what is the biggest threat to GA?
>
> 1. High fuel cost
> 2. Insurance
> 3. FAA policies
> 4. Terror war restrictions
> 5. Maintenance cost on aircraft

In my neck of the woods, I would vote #4.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Jose]

> A "loser pays"
> legal policy would straighten this one out immediately

The problem with "loser pays" is that only the rich could afford to take
the risk of having to pay, so the less well off would be without fair
representation.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose]

> Well, the system as it is isn't working

.... which is no reccomendation for a fix that won't work.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[RomeoMike]

cost, cost, cost, all of them plus IMHO less of an interest or
excitement for GA compared to decades ago.

DILLIGAF wrote:
> Of the five what is the biggest threat to GA?
>
> 1. High fuel cost
> 2. Insurance
> 3. FAA policies
> 4. Terror war restrictions
> 5. Maintenance cost on aircraft

[ktbr]

Jose wrote:
>> Well, the system as it is isn't working
>
>
> ... which is no reccomendation for a fix that won't work.

The "fix" is out there (I'd be happy to elaborate on my
proposal if it would do any good) but nothing will ever
be done because of the general makeup of government and
the inherent lack of leadership.

A bunch of self-serving career politicians (mostly layers)
have proven themselves exceptionally adept at doing pretty
much nothing except throwing money at problems and getting
re-elected year after year.

[Jay Honeck]

> Of the five what is the biggest threat to GA?
>
> 1. High fuel cost

The cost of Avgas combined with the decreasing availability of unleaded,
alcohol-free car gas is killing grass roots aviation. It (would have) cost
$320 to fill my Cherokee in St. Louis, which means that flying is now well
beyond the means of most Americans.

All other factors pale into insignificance by comparison.

(2) Insurance is actually less than my car insurance...

(4) Terror war restrictions aren't an issue in 95% of the country...

(5) Maintenance costs are owner-dependent in many ways...

and (3) I don't even understand what you mean by "FAA Policies"...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
Jose > wrote:

> > A "loser pays"
> > legal policy would straighten this one out immediately
>
> The problem with "loser pays" is that only the rich could afford to take
> the risk of having to pay, so the less well off would be without fair
> representation.
>
> Jose

That is the usual response from the tort lobby.

Is it fair representation when anybody who has even a peripheral
involvement in an accident is financially responsible for the whole
thing?

Is it fair representation when a manufacturer or individual is pulled
into a legal action and has to hire lawyers to defend against someone
else's misuse of a product?

Is it fair that a lawyer can, with impunity, name uninvolved parties in
legal actions?

We truly need tort reform! How about making losing lawyers pay the costs
of defense against their predations?

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Jose > wrote:
>
>> > A "loser pays"
>> > legal policy would straighten this one out immediately
>>
>> The problem with "loser pays" is that only the rich could afford to take
>> the risk of having to pay, so the less well off would be without fair
>> representation.
>>
>> Jose
>
> That is the usual response from the tort lobby.
>
> Is it fair representation when anybody who has even a peripheral
> involvement in an accident is financially responsible for the whole
> thing?
>
> Is it fair representation when a manufacturer or individual is pulled
> into a legal action and has to hire lawyers to defend against someone
> else's misuse of a product?
>
> Is it fair that a lawyer can, with impunity, name uninvolved parties in
> legal actions?
>
> We truly need tort reform! How about making losing lawyers pay the costs
> of defense against their predations?


Juries should have a minimum of three verdicts in a tort case.

A. In favor of the Plaintiff.
B. In favor of the Defendant.
C. This is so stupid that the lawyer that brought the case is suspended from
the Bar for X months/years.

[Jose]

> Is it fair representation when anybody who has even a peripheral
> involvement in an accident is financially responsible for the whole
> thing?

That's not a question of represntation, it is a question of the
judgement. "loser pays" won't alter the judgement of who wins and who
loses, but it will alter the field of who decides to bring suit in the
first place.

> We truly need tort reform!

Yes, but not so much in the procedures as in the attitudes of those who
make the judgements. It should also be noted that not all things which
appear frivilous on the surface are in fact unfounded.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Andrew Sarangan]

I would rank them in the following order:
1. High fuel cost
2. Maintenance cost
3. Insurance
4. Terror war restrictions
5. FAA policies


High fuel cost affects GA more than others. Cars can be made to run on
electric. Airlines may develop specific technologies for turbines.
Piston engines will be left in the dust.

As GA activity declines, maintenance cost will go up. Its just a matter
of market volume. Less volume, higher prices.

Insurance has already killed many clubs and FBOs. But individuals may
still be able to operate without hull insurance.

FAA's strict medical ceritification process will remove more aging
pilots from the GA pool.

Terror war restrictions have already shutdown many flight schools who
used to cater to foreign students. Presidential TFRs, Washington ADIZ,
airport closures (Meigs) and the crazy TSA requirements pretty much put
the nail in the coffin.



DILLIGAF wrote:
> Of the five what is the biggest threat to GA?
>
> 1. High fuel cost
> 2. Insurance
> 3. FAA policies
> 4. Terror war restrictions
> 5. Maintenance cost on aircraft

[Peter Duniho]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:iPmKf.780050$x96.151238@attbi_s72...
>> Of the five what is the biggest threat to GA?
>>
>> 1. High fuel cost
>
> The cost of Avgas combined with the decreasing availability of unleaded,
> alcohol-free car gas is killing grass roots aviation.

Per gallon, fuel for airplanes in the US is still less than fuel for motor
vehicles elsewhere in the world. Yet, that industry seems to continue to
thrive.

Fuel costs are a poor scapegoat. Even for thirsty airplanes, fuel costs are
a small proportion of total operating costs (generally estimated at 25-33%).
The cost of fuel cannot possibly be "the biggest threat to GA".

> It (would have) cost $320 to fill my Cherokee in St. Louis, which means
> that flying is now well beyond the means of most Americans.

"To fill"? How is that relevant? You apparently did not fill up your
airplane, so you did not need to, so the cost to fill up your airplane is
irrelevant.

Conversely, if you really want to look at the cost to fill your airplane
with fuel, you need to look at the total operating costs for a flight that
would require that much fuel, the number of passengers you might have taken
(let's say four, in your six-seater), and how that total operating costs
compares to the fuel cost portion of the total.

Assuming fuel is 1/3rd of the total cost of the flight (a very generous
assumption), then you could cut the fuel costs in half and still save only
1/6th the cost of the flight. A 20% increase in costs doesn't kill any
industry, not even aviation.

> All other factors pale into insignificance by comparison.

Hardly.

> (2) Insurance is actually less than my car insurance...

I pay about 10 times my car insurance for my airplane. You either have very
inexpensive airplane insurance (fixed-gear land-plane helps that for sure),
or very expensive car insurance, or both.

> (4) Terror war restrictions aren't an issue in 95% of the country...

The factors that make them politically viable are.

> (5) Maintenance costs are owner-dependent in many ways...

That's not an argument that those costs are "insignificant by comparison".
Fuel costs are owner-dependent as well. A cost being "owner-dependent"
doesn't mean that the cost is insignificant.

Pete

[ktbr]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
> A. In favor of the Plaintiff.
> B. In favor of the Defendant.
> C. This is so stupid that the lawyer that brought the case is suspended from
> the Bar for X months/years.

Exactly... if we required a pre-filing review of the basic _merits_
of a lawsuit by qualified individuals (i.e. a sort of "grand jury" made
up of respectable individuals, who have a JOB and pay taxes) we could
eliminate many of them. Those that did not pass this "pre-file" test
of merit could still file but would be responsible to pay ALL legal
costs if they lose.

[Jose]

>>(4) Terror war restrictions aren't an issue in 95% of the country...
> The factors that make them politically viable are.

Bingo. That's the thing that Jay consistantly misses.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[ktbr]

Jose wrote:
> Yes, but not so much in the procedures as in the attitudes of those who
> make the judgements. It should also be noted that not all things which
> appear frivilous on the surface are in fact unfounded.

Sorry Jose but its way past time for the pedulum to swing back
and even overshoot. These lawsuits are destroying this country
and have become no more than a lottery for people who figure
they can eventually get in on the action.

If the jury pool had to pass a basic test of integrity, intelligence
and demonstrate a track record of productive citizenship (other
than just being a voter) then there would be hope for minor changes.
But unfortunately this isn't the case... in fact the attorneys
filing the lawsuits seek the lowest lifes they can take advantage
of their ignorance, baffle them with BS and appeal to their hopes
of winning the lottery themselves someday.

[Jose]

> Sorry Jose but its way past time for the pedulum to swing back

I agree...

> and even overshoot.

No, that would be destructive.

> These lawsuits are destroying this country

No, they are merely a symptom of what is destroying the country.

> If the jury pool had to pass a basic test of integrity, intelligence
> and demonstrate a track record of productive citizenship

.... only supporters of the present administration would have legal
representation. You do support Bush and all his policies, don't you?
You wouldn't be un-American, would you?

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[ktbr]

Jose wrote:
>> Sorry Jose but its way past time for the pedulum to swing back
>
>
> I agree...
>
>> and even overshoot.
>
>
> No, that would be destructive.

And what is going on now isn't?
>
>> These lawsuits are destroying this country
>
>
> No, they are merely a symptom of what is destroying the country.

Well, since you have clarified the statement, I certainly agree.

>
>> If the jury pool had to pass a basic test of integrity, intelligence
>> and demonstrate a track record of productive citizenship
>
>
> ... only supporters of the present administration would have legal
> representation.

Now that is uncalled for, and certainly makes no sense in the
context of what I was saying

>..... You do support Bush and all his policies, don't you?
> You wouldn't be un-American, would you?

In fact, I most certainly do NOT support ALL of Bush's policies,
in fact there are relatively few that I could support other than
reduced taxation.

I am a libertarian and as such find myself basically un-represented
by either major party.

[Gene Seibel]

Politicians
Media
Pilots
Public opinion
Minority status
--
Gene Seibel
Hangar 131 - http://pad39a.com/gene/plane.html
Because I fly, I envy no one.

[Matt Whiting]

Jose wrote:

>> A "loser pays" legal policy would straighten this one out immediately
>
>
> The problem with "loser pays" is that only the rich could afford to take
> the risk of having to pay, so the less well off would be without fair
> representation.

Ok, then tax all attorneys 10% of their income to put into a fund to pay
for legal action for those who can't afford it.


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Jose wrote:

>>> (4) Terror war restrictions aren't an issue in 95% of the country...
>>
>> The factors that make them politically viable are.
>
>
> Bingo. That's the thing that Jay consistantly misses.

As long as he doesn't miss it consistently.

Matt

[Bob Fry]

>>>>> "PD" == Peter Duniho > writes:

PD> But public perception is a big problem. It gets in the way of
PD> new participants, and it allows draconian and useless
PD> regulations to be put in place, strangling the entire
PD> industry.

Keep flying Young Eagles. Still the best single program for improving
GA's image to the public.

[skym]

We already have this...the "respectable person, who has a job and pays
taxes" is called the judge. He/she can (and do) throw out
nonmeritorious cases in a procedure known as "summmary judgement."
Also there is a rule (Rule 11, Fed R Civ Pro) that subjects an attorney
to monetary sanctions for filing a case that is not well founded in the
law and facts. The fact of the matter is...most lawsuits are
meritorious of consideration by a judge or jury.
Also, as for your loser pays rule, besides the other arguments put
forth in this thread, consider the satisfaction that most plaintiffs'
lawyers would have in having the losing mfr pay his fees. The cases
you probably decry are, for the most part, cases where the plaintiff
DID win, and you just don't like that.
Finally, my aircraft premiums went down this year by almost 20%. (I
think it's because I'm a lawyer. ;) )

[Jose]

> And what is going on now isn't?

It's not bandied about as a solution. Implementing something else as a
solution, which is also destructive, is more destructive, kind of like
the FRZ and ADIZ is bandied about as a solution, but is also
destructive. The =fact= that it is bandied about, and even accepted, as
a solution, is even more destructive.

>>> If the jury pool had to pass a basic test of integrity, intelligence
>>> and demonstrate a track record of productive citizenship
>> ... only supporters of the present administration would have legal representation.
> Now that is uncalled for, and certainly makes no sense in the
> context of what I was saying

Just who do you think is going to administer this "basic test of
integrity, intelligence, and productive citizenship" before allowing
access to a jury of twelve peers?

Papers please.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose]

>>>> If the jury pool had to pass a basic test of integrity, intelligence
>>>> and demonstrate a track record of productive citizenship
>>> ... only supporters of the present administration would have legal representation.
>> Now that is uncalled for, and certainly makes no sense in the
>> context of what I was saying
> Just who do you think is going to administer this "basic test of integrity, intelligence, and productive citizenship" before allowing access to a jury of twelve peers?

Actually, rereading what you said.. you were talking about the =jury=
having to pass this test. I'm a bit more comfortable with that. I had
originally thought you intended the =plaintiffs= to meet this test
before being permitted to bring suit.

But.. AFAIK jury trials are primarily for criminal cases, not civil
torts. And each side gets to nix jury members. The issue seems to be
that the jury represents our culture's values... and you have (perhaps
justified) issue with those values.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[John Swarey]

On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 01:33:38 -0500, DILLIGAF
> wrote:

>Of the five what is the biggest threat to GA?
>
>1. High fuel cost
>2. Insurance
>3. FAA policies
>4. Terror war restrictions
>5. Maintenance cost on aircraft


6. None of the above.

None of those things are killing GA, or even hurting it. GA is killing
itself.

There is a complete lack of professionalism and customer support in
any GA business I have dealt with. Why would anyone want to learn to
fly when instructors are never on time, if they bother to show up at
all? Then they bitch about not having any money! It takes a lot of
self control just to not choke the **** out of them.

Then there are the mechanics. I have money I want to spend on my
plane. I can't even beg anyone to take it! Maintenance costs? I wish I
had some. I can't even get anyone to consider working on my plane.
Then these assholes bitch about not having any money! I am about
ready to call it quits myself. It's just too much stress to deal with
such stupidity.

I can go into any non aviation related business and get treated like
the most important person in the world. If I don't, I will just go to
the next place. There is plenty of competition.

I am sure there are thousands of people who wanted to learn to fly,
but just gave it up because of the **** poor customer service.

I don't need my airplane and I don't need to fly. It is a luxury, and
I can live without it. When it gets to be too much trouble, I will
sell my plane and be done with it. I can spend all that extra money I
have on crack and whores. I'll probably just waste the rest.

[Peter Duniho]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>> Bingo. That's the thing that Jay consistantly misses.
>
> As long as he doesn't miss it consistently.

And you claimed the *original* post was stupid. How ironic.

Sheesh.

[Doug]

Maintenance has been the biggest headache for me, in my ownership
experience. I agree that high fuel costs are scaring people away,
although an extra $10 per hour is not all that big in the scheme of
things.

[Icebound]

"DILLIGAF" > wrote in message
. ..
> Of the five what is the biggest threat to GA?
>
> 1. High fuel cost
> 2. Insurance
> 3. FAA policies
> 4. Terror war restrictions
> 5. Maintenance cost on aircraft

This website says it pretty well:
http://philip.greenspun.com/flying/cirrus-sr20
(By the way, the rest of this page is a lengthy and most informative review
of the Cirrus)

quote:
Mooney, Cirrus, and other makers of small piston-powered planes are
generally making a product that is comparatively much less affordable than
decades ago. For example, a Chevrolet Corvette sports car in 1978 listed for
$14,000 and a Mooney was 2.7 times more expensive at $37,500. Today the
vastly improved Corvette is $44,500 and a somewhat improved four-seat
airplane is around $280,000 or 6.3 times more expensive. Most of the
improvement in the 2005 airplane versus the 1978 airplane comes from the
advent of the Global Positioning System.
:unquote

[ktbr]

skym wrote:
> We already have this...the "respectable person, who has a job and pays
> taxes" is called the judge. He/she can (and do) throw out
> nonmeritorious cases in a procedure known as "summmary judgement."
> Also there is a rule (Rule 11, Fed R Civ Pro) that subjects an attorney
> to monetary sanctions for filing a case that is not well founded in the
> law and facts. The fact of the matter is...most lawsuits are
> meritorious of consideration by a judge or jury.
> Also, as for your loser pays rule, besides the other arguments put
> forth in this thread, consider the satisfaction that most plaintiffs'
> lawyers would have in having the losing mfr pay his fees. The cases
> you probably decry are, for the most part, cases where the plaintiff
> DID win, and you just don't like that.
> Finally, my aircraft premiums went down this year by almost 20%. (I
> think it's because I'm a lawyer. ;) )
>

Of course you think that the current system "works", because you are
a part of it. I'm sure that most (if not all) all of the politicians
in Washington think that they are not part of the problem. They vote
for their own raises and create their own rules why shouldn't they?

The people rest their case.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

If all the plaintiff's trail lawyers in the country like the way the system
is that should tell you there is something unfair to the defendants.


"Jose" > wrote in message
. com...
>> Sorry Jose but its way past time for the pedulum to swing back
>
> I agree...
>
>> and even overshoot.
>
> No, that would be destructive.
>
>> These lawsuits are destroying this country
>
> No, they are merely a symptom of what is destroying the country.
>
>> If the jury pool had to pass a basic test of integrity, intelligence
>> and demonstrate a track record of productive citizenship
>
> ... only supporters of the present administration would have legal
> representation. You do support Bush and all his policies, don't you? You
> wouldn't be un-American, would you?
>
> Jose
> --
> Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Jose" > wrote in message
m...
>>>>> If the jury pool had to pass a basic test of integrity, intelligence
>>>>> and demonstrate a track record of productive citizenship
>>>> ... only supporters of the present administration would have legal
>>>> representation.
>>> Now that is uncalled for, and certainly makes no sense in the
>>> context of what I was saying
>> Just who do you think is going to administer this "basic test of
>> integrity, intelligence, and productive citizenship" before allowing
>> access to a jury of twelve peers?
>
> Actually, rereading what you said.. you were talking about the =jury=
> having to pass this test. I'm a bit more comfortable with that. I had
> originally thought you intended the =plaintiffs= to meet this test before
> being permitted to bring suit.
>
> But.. AFAIK jury trials are primarily for criminal cases, not civil torts.
> And each side gets to nix jury members. The issue seems to be that the
> jury represents our culture's values... and you have (perhaps justified)
> issue with those values.
>
> Jose
> --

No the juries are made up of people who couldn't get out of jury duty.

[Peter Duniho]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in message
...
> No the juries are made up of people who couldn't get out of jury duty.

I always find it funny that it always seems like the people who are most
critical of juries are the ones who are so proud that they (presumably) are
able to shirk their responsibility as a citizen to serve on a jury.

[ktbr]

Peter Duniho wrote:
> I always find it funny that it always seems like the people who are most
> critical of juries are the ones who are so proud that they (presumably) are
> able to shirk their responsibility as a citizen to serve on a jury.

Desire to serve has little to do with whether you actually are chosen
from the pool. The one time I received a notice to serve as a juror
on a civil case (involving someone suing a contractor for problems
on a contruction contract) I was cut out early on by plaintiff's
attorney during jury selction process.

After all the questioning was over the the jury was selected the
judge released the rest of us. Later, outside the courtroom those of
us that were cut had a chance to chat and found that we all had
above average knowledge of technical subjects being engineers of
various types, technicians and business owners. The ones utlimately
chosen for the jury were basically housewives and schoolteachers.

It was apparent that the plaintiff was not interested in a jury
that of the defendents peers... i.e anyone that could read a
blueprint or capable of serious analysis of technical subjects.

[Jose]

> It was apparent that the plaintiff was not interested in a jury
> that of the defendents peers... i.e anyone that could read a
> blueprint or capable of serious analysis of technical subjects.

Well, the whole idea of a jury of peers is flawed. Not fatally, but
consider...

A politician bulldozes a runway, making it unusable, and then closes the
airport, destroying businesses and adversely affecting aviation, but
helping real estate developers and other politicians. He is tried on
criminal charges and a jury is to be drawn up.

A jury of pilots, who should know about avaition?
A jury of politicians, who should know how the system works?

There is an altercation between some Presbyterian clergy and some
Islamic Fundamentalists. An attack occurs, somebody dies. A jury is to
be drawn up.

A jury drawn from the community of the attacker?
A jury drawn from the community of the victim?

Does it matter whether the attacker was the Christian or the Islamic
funamentalist?

The choice of jury determines the choice of values that will be upheld,
and the way in which those values will be applied. When victim and
attacker are peers, the question never really comes up. But we are not
peers to each other in this day and age, and it does matter.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Peter Duniho]

"ktbr" > wrote in message
...
> Desire to serve has little to do with whether you actually are chosen
> from the pool.

That's not my point. The previous poster wrote: "juries are made up of
people who couldn't get out of jury duty". The implication is obvious: only
dumb people can't "get out of jury duty".

The phrase "get out of" doesn't concern itself with whether such a person is
ultimately selected. It's a way of saying that the person has removed
themselves from the possibility of selection at all.

There may be other problems with the issue of jury selection, but when
people actively attempt to remove themselves from the selection process,
they are at least as guilty of being a part of the problem as anyone else.

> [...] The ones utlimately
> chosen for the jury were basically housewives and schoolteachers.
>
> It was apparent that the plaintiff was not interested in a jury
> that of the defendents peers... i.e anyone that could read a
> blueprint or capable of serious analysis of technical subjects.

I find that the implication that housewives and schoolteachers are incapable
of comprehending technical issues to be incorrect. I know plenty of very
intelligent and well-educated housewives and schoolteachers. Furthermore, I
have run into plenty of people supposedly trained as engineers or other
technical professionals who couldn't make a correct technical observation to
save their lives.

It may well be that the lawyers are playing the odds, and manage to shift
things in their favor. But it's incorrect to assume that they are 100%
successful at it.

So, once again, to clarify my point: what I find amusing is when someone who
complains about the content of juries proves themselves to be part of the
problem.

Pete

[Dave Stadt]

"ktbr" > wrote in message
...
> Peter Duniho wrote:
>> I always find it funny that it always seems like the people who are most
>> critical of juries are the ones who are so proud that they (presumably)
>> are able to shirk their responsibility as a citizen to serve on a jury.
>
> Desire to serve has little to do with whether you actually are chosen
> from the pool. The one time I received a notice to serve as a juror
> on a civil case (involving someone suing a contractor for problems
> on a contruction contract) I was cut out early on by plaintiff's
> attorney during jury selction process.
>
> After all the questioning was over the the jury was selected the
> judge released the rest of us. Later, outside the courtroom those of
> us that were cut had a chance to chat and found that we all had
> above average knowledge of technical subjects being engineers of
> various types, technicians and business owners. The ones utlimately
> chosen for the jury were basically housewives and schoolteachers.
>
> It was apparent that the plaintiff was not interested in a jury
> that of the defendents peers... i.e anyone that could read a
> blueprint or capable of serious analysis of technical subjects.

That only works up to a point. Plantiff and defendant can excuse a limited
number of possible jurors. I have been on two jurys, one civil and one
criminal. both jurys represented a pretty good cross section of the
community. Definately not all one sided. Both were very interesting
experiences.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in message
> ...
>> No the juries are made up of people who couldn't get out of jury duty.
>
> I always find it funny that it always seems like the people who are most
> critical of juries are the ones who are so proud that they (presumably)
> are able to shirk their responsibility as a citizen to serve on a jury.
>

I've served but it wasn't until the Judge that was sitting made it clear to
me that if I wasn't in his court room Wednesday morning I had better not be
seen at the golf course on Wednesday afternoon.

Yes I try to get out of it because it costs me money to do it and since
others are getting out for one reason or another then I'm going to do my
best to do the same.

That said, I'd have no problem if they simply required it and didn't take
any excuses short of hospitalization.

[Jim Macklin]

See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in message
...
|
| "Peter Duniho" > wrote in
message
| ...
| > "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in
message
| > ...
| >> No the juries are made up of people who couldn't get
out of jury duty.
| >
| > I always find it funny that it always seems like the
people who are most
| > critical of juries are the ones who are so proud that
they (presumably)
| > are able to shirk their responsibility as a citizen to
serve on a jury.
| >
|
| I've served but it wasn't until the Judge that was sitting
made it clear to
| me that if I wasn't in his court room Wednesday morning I
had better not be
| seen at the golf course on Wednesday afternoon.
|
| Yes I try to get out of it because it costs me money to do
it and since
| others are getting out for one reason or another then I'm
going to do my
| best to do the same.
|
| That said, I'd have no problem if they simply required it
and didn't take
| any excuses short of hospitalization.
|
|

[Morgans]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote

> No the juries are made up of people who couldn't get out of jury duty.

Not completely. There are still many people out there that think serving is
part of their civic duty. Some are intelligent, moral human beings.

I am one of them, and I suspect many here, and you, would serve, also.
--
Jim in NC

[Peter Duniho]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in message
...
> [...]
> Yes I try to get out of it because it costs me money to do it and since
> others are getting out for one reason or another then I'm going to do my
> best to do the same.

Like I said. You're part of the problem.

[Peter Duniho]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:0LMKf.103006$4l5.39815@dukeread05...
> See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.

That's an interesting slant on the whole "jury duty" issue. Hardly
definitive though.

[Jim Macklin]

Wasn't meant to be. I was called to jury duty many years
ago. When we were called into the court room the judge
asked the panel a question about our opinions. I said I had
an opinion of the subject and he asked what it was. I gave
a full and honest explanation and both the defense and
prosecuting attorneys jumped to their feet like synchronized
jack-in-the-boxes and said "Excused."

The question, Do you have an opinion about drugs? My answer
was yes and I asked if I could explain my entire opinion. I
explained that drugs had been a serious social problem prior
to 1910 when controls were applied. Alcohol prohibition
created a black-market in alcohol and organized crime.
Repeal left organized crime without a product so they moved
into drugs. I suggested that all drugs should be made legal
for adults and anyone who provided drugs to minors should be
executed. BTW, the judge nodded his head.


"Peter Duniho" > wrote in
message ...
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| news:0LMKf.103006$4l5.39815@dukeread05...
| > See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and
duties.
|
| That's an interesting slant on the whole "jury duty"
issue. Hardly
| definitive though.
|
|