Airplane shot down in Colombia

Aviv Hod wrote:
Without immediate
threat to life from the smuggling plane, this strikes me as heavy handed
to the extreme.

-Aviv

And that is where we disagree.

If you arent doing anything wrong, you have no reason to run.


I frankly wish that US domestic law enforcement was empowered to
terminate pursuits sooner rather than later.

While this veers OT, I feel someone fleeing police in a car/truck etc is
behaving recklessly with a deadly weapon - the vehicle itself. That
endangers the lives of innocents. That, in and of itself, justifies the
use of force, and deadly force, to terminate a pursuit and protect the
public in doing so.

In the same vein, maybe some drug pilots will rethink their career
choice if they know that they will be shot down for failure to comply
with law enforcement or military directives to stop, land and be
searched. Maybe the drug pilots will decide that their life isnt worth it.

If this drug pilot wanted to live, he had the ability to make a simple
choice. Divert and be inspected. He made his choice, and he died because
of it. Its a drug WAR. People die in wars. And this pilot had more due
process extended to him than any victim of a drug cartel's henchman.

What is so hard about understanding that when a bad actor dies at the
hands of the military or law enforcement, its a series of choices by the
bad actor that leads to this outcome? What is so hard about putting
blame where it belongs?

Americans tend to have a conciliatory tone toward drug smugglers, who they
consider to be involved in peddling of "social vices" and thus not really
bad guys. This is very removed from the truth. The FARC bandits are mafia
hardliners who control half of Colombia. Shooting them down is socially
constructive, and easily the right thing to do. It's like that.

Aside the socio-political context, I agree it's hard for any pilot to see a
plane shot down . . .

On Jul 1, 2:06 am, Dave S wrote:
Aviv Hod wrote:

Without immediate

threat to life from the smuggling plane, this strikes me as heavy handed
to the extreme.

-Aviv

And that is where we disagree.

If you arent doing anything wrong, you have no reason to run.

If you aren't doing anything wrong, you have no reason to stop.


I frankly wish that US domestic law enforcement was empowered to
terminate pursuits sooner rather than later.

While this veers OT, I feel someone fleeing

Your use of the word "flee" presupposes that you have done something
wrong to be "fleeing" from, or that the person trying to convince you
to stop has the right to interfere with your activities.

police in a car/truck etc is
behaving recklessly with a deadly weapon - the vehicle itself. That
endangers the lives of innocents. That, in and of itself, justifies the
use of force, and deadly force, to terminate a pursuit and protect the
public in doing so.

One could just as easily argue that the pursuers pose just as much
threat to the public as the pursued ... and if anyone is hurt as much
if not more of the blame.

Consider also that when the police or military are given the authority
to arbitrarily stop and search or question (or "deadly force" against)
people ... then you have allowed your nation to become a police state!


In the same vein, maybe some drug pilots will rethink their career
choice if they know that they will be shot down for failure to comply
with law enforcement or military directives to stop, land and be
searched. Maybe the drug pilots will decide that their life isnt worth it.

If this drug pilot wanted to live, he had the ability to make a simple
choice. Divert and be inspected.

Or ... if he refused to divert, simply follow the plane until it was
forced to land somewhere when it ran out of fuel; perhaps resulting in
the location of more important criminals in the chain ... and their
arrest, if there is criminal activity involved in the flight in the
first place.

He made his choice, and he died because
of it. Its a drug WAR.

By whose definition is this situation a WAR as you say ... some
arbitrary fiat by some politicians in the 1980s? I think calling this
kind of activity a war is insulting to the armed forces personnel that
have fought and died for real causes in the last century. The so-
called war on drugs is political posturing and always has been. To
expand on this point, the public in the last decade or two is being
increasingly deceived into a false sense of righteousness about any
disagreements that politicians might have with any group, be they
foreign or domestic, by the deceptive and devious use of the word
"war" in order to justify to the public political activity that really
bears no genuine resemblance to war whatsoever, but merely meddling in
another sovereign nation's politics, or, what is worse perhaps,
justifying ever greater intrusions into the privacy and freedoms that
we used to understand as being rights in an open and free society.

People die in wars. And this pilot had more due
process extended to him than any victim of a drug cartel's henchman.

What is so hard about understanding that when a bad actor dies at the
hands of the military or law enforcement, its a series of choices by the
bad actor that leads to this outcome?

What is so hard about putting
blame where it belongs?

Nothing ... but do you immediately know every "bad actor" you
encounter? By exactly what signs or attributes can you so judge these
people, and know the good from the bad?

Recently, Matt Whiting posted:

Kyle Boatright wrote:

If (big, big, IF in Central/South America) the local authorities on
the destination end of the flight would jump in and grab everyone at
the delivery point, that would seem to be a more just and effective
treatment.. Of course, the local policia at the destination are
probably getting a payoff and might not be happy with anyone putting
a hurt on their pocketbook...

I agree that catching them upon landing is the preferred course of
action, but given all of the talk about the border it is pretty
obvious that they were heading to a "safe haven" country. If that
really was the case (I'm only assuming that given the context), then
I have no problem at all with the shoot-down.

I don't think that the death penalty is warranted solely on the basis of
suspicion. If this was a _known_ drug trafficing aircraft, why weren't
arrests made at the point of departure, the only place that such a fact
_could_ be known?

Neil

"Dallas" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 01:04:36 -0700, Airbus wrote:

Shooting them down is socially
constructive, and easily the right thing to do. It's like that.

Most of the nations to south of the U.S.A. believe in expediency. It's
much less expensive than a cumbersome due process system.

Police states are an extremely effective and economical way to control
crime.


I can't reconcile your last two statements with the high level of organized
crime in South/Central America....

KB

--
Dallas

In article 2007063020175575249-christophercampbell@hotmailcom,
C J Campbell wrote:

The United States is signatory to treaties prohibiting firing upon
civilian aircraft, but regularly violates these treaties.

The US regularly fires at civilian aircraft?

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

"Dave S" wrote in message nk.net...

What is so hard about understanding that when a bad actor dies at the hands of the military or law enforcement, its a
series of choices by the bad actor that leads to this outcome? What is so hard about putting blame where it belongs?


The rules are wrong, therefore the blame lies in the law. If there was no market there would be no 'value stream'...

"PPL-A (Canada)" wrote in message ups.com...

By whose definition is this situation a WAR as you say ... some
arbitrary fiat by some politicians in the 1980s? I think calling this
kind of activity a war is insulting to the armed forces personnel that
have fought and died for real causes in the last century. The so-
called war on drugs is political posturing and always has been. To
expand on this point, the public in the last decade or two is being
increasingly deceived into a false sense of righteousness about any
disagreements that politicians might have with any group, be they
foreign or domestic, by the deceptive and devious use of the word
"war" in order to justify to the public political activity that really
bears no genuine resemblance to war whatsoever, but merely meddling in
another sovereign nation's politics, or, what is worse perhaps,
justifying ever greater intrusions into the privacy and freedoms that
we used to understand as being rights in an open and free society.


Well stated, thanks!

"Kyle Boatright" wrote in message . ..

"Dallas" wrote in message .. .
On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 01:04:36 -0700, Airbus wrote:

Shooting them down is socially
constructive, and easily the right thing to do. It's like that.

Most of the nations to south of the U.S.A. believe in expediency. It's
much less expensive than a cumbersome due process system.

Police states are an extremely effective and economical way to control
crime.


I can't reconcile your last two statements with the high level of organized crime in South/Central America....

KB



It is not crime if it is a part of the government is it? Mix the two together and shake...nice vicious cocktail...

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
news:2007063020175575249-christophercampbell@hotmailcom...
The United States is signatory to treaties prohibiting firing upon civilian aircraft, but regularly violates these
treaties. This is behavior that we used to associate with the worst aspects of the Soviet Union and other rogue
states.


It looks like the USA was helping with the tracking, but did not actually firing?

On the other hand, these drug dealers are conducting what is basically a civil war against the government of Columbia,
attempting to set up a criminal government providing a safe haven for all manner of gangsters and thugs.


The video was labeled from Brazil, yes? The 'border' was safe haven. What country were they talking about?


So it is a hard question. Do you let the drug dealers take over a whole country, or do you violate international
standards of behavior to prevent it? Personally, I have grave concerns about becoming what we are trying to stop.


Again, if the product were 'legal' somehow, there would be no black market...

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor