ADIZ pilot's ticket revoked

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'.

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.

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

"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.

"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

"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

"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

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.

"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

"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