If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
Neil Gould wrote:
Or, perhaps more to the point, do we charge the robber for the murder of the bystander that the police accidentally shot? Yes, we do. 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'. |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
Neil Gould wrote:
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. That's the way any police officer would treat a suspect. You have to determine that they are not armed first. If you were on the verge of being shot down by F-16s, you would be pretty happy about only being spread-eagled at gunpoint. |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
Recently, Bucky posted:
Neil Gould wrote: 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. That's the way any police officer would treat a suspect. You have to determine that they are not armed first. If you were on the verge of being shot down by F-16s, you would be pretty happy about only being spread-eagled at gunpoint. Sorry, but not much would make me happy about "only being spread-eagled at gunpoint". There are other ways to determine that someone is unarmed, not the least of which is that they didn't exit their Vehicle of Terror with guns blazing. Neil |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
"Jay Beckman" wrote in message
news:fXzke.1106$rr.1065@fed1read01... Quite possibly his and that of his passenger if they'd pulled the trigger... I certainly agree that life and property was in danger. But as Larry points out, those hazards were not of the pilot's creation. |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
... 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. Do you have an example in which the person killed was not involved in the crime? It is conceivable to me that the law considers an accomplice to be foreseeably in danger, or that it would differentiate between a lawful killing and an unlawful killing, but that a different standard would be applied to the killing of a bystander. Note also that this example applies only to a very narrow range of situations, all of which involve criminal activities MUCH more serious that an airspace violation. It doesn't even apply to all felonies. In any case, I also don't feel that the two situations are analogous from an ethical standpoint (though, they may be from the current regulatory standpoint). That is, in the case of the commission of a crime, even a robbery, deadly force is generally authorized (just this month, here in Washington, a couple of guys strangled and killed a would-be unarmed and unconscious car thief, and the killing was found to be justified), but the C150 presented no danger that would justify creating a hazard either to the occupants or those on the ground by firing on it. Pete |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
"George Patterson" wrote in message
news:VXHke.24$4b.10@trndny07... Or, perhaps more to the point, do we charge the robber for the murder of the bystander that the police accidentally shot? Yes, we do. 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). Pete |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
"George Patterson" wrote in message
news:ryGke.62$5b.7@trndny03... 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 [...] One would expect that the folks asking the pilot of the C150 to use 121.5 should be actually *listening* to that frequency. Just because it's "SOP" doesn't excuse their request. It is also "SOP" to be ready to communicate to the other aircraft on the frequency. Pete |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
Matt Barrow wrote: "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. Ditto. I'm glad they yanked his license. The ADIZ may very well be counter-productive but that does not diminish the carelessness he demonstrated. -cwk. |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
"George Patterson" wrote in message
news:%rGke.7$2b.0@trndny05... The minute the F-16s were scrambled. Right. Clearly F-16s were a completely justified use of force against such a terrible threat as the mighty Cessna 150. I guess if I'm caught cutting across the corner of my neighbor's yard and he starts waving a shotgun around, threatening the life and property of others, I'm to blame for that too? Pete |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
... Do you have an example in which the person killed was not involved in the crime? Not offhand. But surely the perpetrator of a violent felony would be *at least* as responsible for the death (by accidental police fire) of a bystander or of a victim as for the death of an accomplice. (If anything, it's the application of felony-murder to the *accomplice's* death that seems a little bit of a stretch.) It is conceivable to me that the law considers an accomplice to be foreseeably in danger, or that it would differentiate between a lawful killing and an unlawful killing, but that a different standard would be applied to the killing of a bystander. Why wouldn't bystanders be deemed foreseeably endangered by an armed bank robbery? Seems pretty foreseeable to me. A reasonable person feels (justifiably) frightened to be in the middle of such a robbery, right? Note also that this example applies only to a very narrow range of situations, all of which involve criminal activities MUCH more serious that an airspace violation. Of course, but that wasn't the point of the discussion. To support the claim that the pilot was *not* culpable for endangerment, Greg proposed an analogy to a robber's responsibility for shots fired *at* the robber. Greg claimed mistakenly that the robber lacks legal responsibility for the consequences of those shots; I was merely showing otherwise to rebut the implication of his analogy. In any case, I also don't feel that the two situations are analogous from an ethical standpoint (though, they may be from the current regulatory standpoint). That is, in the case of the commission of a crime, even a robbery, deadly force is generally authorized And in the case of penetrations all the way into the FRZ, deadly force is also authorized, and is well known to be authorized. Hence, its use--whether the policy is reasonable or not--is a readily foreseeable consequence of such an incursion, and thus a readily foreseeable source of danger to the pilot, his passenger, and the folks below him. --Gary |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
Light Sport Aircraft for Private Pilots (Long) | Jimbob | Owning | 17 | March 1st 05 03:01 AM |
Bush Pilots Fly-In. South Africa. | Bush Air | Home Built | 0 | May 25th 04 06:18 AM |
Older Pilots and Safety | Bob Johnson | Soaring | 5 | May 21st 04 01:08 AM |
UK pilots - please help by completeing a questionnaire | Chris Nicholas | Soaring | 0 | September 15th 03 01:44 PM |