AWA Pilot's trial comes to an end...the tug driver did it!

[midlifeflyer]

Scenario: you are drunk as a skunk and in the passenger seat of the family car. Your legally licensed son is driving, but is obligated to listen to your directions and do what you tell him short of breaking the law or causing a safety breach.

It is your intention to change seats at the next intersection, and you will complete the drive home. However, you are pulled over before you get the chance to make the switch and you are given a DUI and prosecuted for it.

How does that make you feel?

I think it sucks. But if I were charged with murder after shooting someone in the head, I'd think =that= sucked also.

But in terms of deserving punishment, no problem with your scenario if I have a specific set of defined duties as a required member of the car's crew, and there are paying passengers in the back seat.

 

[FL000]

But in terms of deserving punishment, no problem with your scenario if I have a specific set of defined duties as a required member of the car's crew, and there are paying passengers in the back seat.

That's why they lost their jobs and certificates, and deservedly so. They were punished by the FAA and AWA.

Now they are facing criminal penalties from local authorities who don't operate per the FAR/AIM, or any particular company's ops specs.

 

[FN FAL]

That's why they lost their jobs and certificates, and deservedly so. They were punished by the FAA and AWA.

Now they are facing criminal penalties from local authorities who don't operate per the FAR/AIM, or any particular company's ops specs.

A sovereign state has the right to try criminal cases for violation of state laws, it doesn't matter if the crime occured in a bright and well polished aircraft.

The alternative is clear! We can make OMVWI, Operating a Motor Vehicle While Intoxicated, a Federal Crime...then we won't see states abusing pilots anymore!

Gonzales v. Raich will be the stepping stone to DUI becoming a federal crime...

Supreme Court allows prosecution of medical marijuana
By Bill Mears
CNN Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ruled doctors can be blocked from prescribing marijuana for patients suffering from pain caused by cancer or other serious illnesses.

In a 6-3 vote, the justices ruled the Bush administration can block the backyard cultivation of pot for personal use, because such use has broader social and financial implications.

"Congress' power to regulate purely activities that are part of an economic 'class of activities' that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce is firmly established," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority.

Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, William Rehnquist and Clarence Thomas dissented. The case took an unusually long time to be resolved, with oral arguments held in November.

The decision means that federal anti-drug laws trump state laws that allow the use of medical marijuana, said CNN senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin. Ten states have such laws.

"If medical marijuana advocates want to get their views successfully presented, they have to go to Congress; they can't go to the states, because it's really the federal government that's in charge here," Toobin said.

At issue was the power of federal government to override state laws on use of "patient pot."

The Controlled Substances Act prevents the cultivation and possession of marijuana, even by people who claim personal "medicinal" use. The government argues its overall anti-drug campaign would be undermined by even limited patient exceptions.

The Drug Enforcement Agency began raids in 2001 against patients using the drug and their caregivers in California, one of 11 states that legalized the use of marijuana for patients under a doctor's care. Among those arrested was Angel Raich, who has brain cancer, and Diane Monson, who grew cannabis in her garden to help alleviate chronic back pain.

A federal appeals court concluded use of medical marijuana was non-commercial, and therefore not subject to congressional oversight of "economic enterprise."

But lawyers for the U.S. Justice Department argued to the Supreme Court that homegrown marijuana represented interstate commerce, because the garden patch weed would affect "overall production" of the weed, much of it imported across American borders by well-financed, often violent drug gangs.

Lawyers for the patient countered with the claim that the marijuana was neither bought nor sold. After California's referendum passed in 1996, "cannabis clubs" sprung up across the state to provide marijuana to patients. They were eventually shut down by the state's attorney general.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2001 that anyone distributing medical marijuana could be prosecuted, despite claims their activity was a "medical activity."

The current case considered by the justices dealt with the broader issue of whether marijuana users could be subject to prosecution.

Along with California, nine states have passed laws permitting marijuana use by patients with a doctor's approval: Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont and Washington. Arizona also has a similar law, but no formal program in place to administer prescription pot.

California's Compassionate Use Act permits patients with a doctor's approval to grow, smoke or acquire the drug for "medical needs."

Users include television host Montel Williams, who uses it to ease pain from multiple sclerosis.

Anti-drug activists say Monday's ruling could encourage abuse of drugs deemed by the government to be narcotics.

"It's a handful of people who want to see not just marijuana, but all drugs legalized," said Calvina Fay of the Drug Free America Foundation.

In its hard-line stance in opposition to medical marijuana, the federal government invoked a larger issue. "The trafficking of drugs finances the work of terror, sustaining terrorists," said President Bush in December 2001. Tough enforcement, the government told the justices, "is central to combating illegal drug possession."

Marijuana users, in their defense, argued, "Since September 11, 2001, Defendants [DEA] have terrorized more than 35 Californians because of medical cannabis." In that state, the issue has become a hot political issue this election year.

The case is Gonzales v. Raich, case no. 03-1454.

 

[FL000]

A sovereign state has the right to try criminal cases for violation of state laws, it doesn't matter if the crime occured in a bright and well polished aircraft.

I completely agree. My point is that I don't think they violated any state laws...buy my opinion is not one of the twelve that matters in this case.

They may have been "under control" of the aircraft with regard to FAA and company, but those aren't the definitions used by the state.

 

[Publishers]

Actually in the State of Florida you are if you are in a position to control, not necessarily controlling.

I was recently jury foreman on a case involving a drunk who was passed out in a parking spot at the wheel of the car. While there were a bunch of side issues, the definition of contol was being where you could operate.

 

[Big Duke Six]

Originally Posted by FN FAL

Without a trial, you'll never get defintions defined and law is all about definitions. Federal and State constitutional law is a living document in that it grows and becomes more defined by age and use. Without trials like these, you'll never have a complete definition of what "operation" means and it also makes those who haven't been caught yet think about the consequences.

Nice Clintonian attempt at distorting language, FN. So you are trying to say we need a trial of these two men (who were suited up, had preflighted, programmed and ran checklists in the airplane to get ready to push) to define what the word "Operate" means? It takes a trial for that? I believe our legal system also operates under the principles of what a "reasonable" person would do or think. We don't need to act like every case is different and without lingual precedent. We all know what "Operate" means, so why try to cover for them? Is there anyone out there who thinks that just after the tug disconnected, their plan was to call the tug back and tow them back in, as if this were just some sort of exercise? I'm definitely not a fan of big government, and because of that we all need to accept responsibility now and then. You know, show some integrity occasionally. It seems to me that as much as you espouse those "small government" ideals here too, you'd be the first one NOT cheerleading for the "We didn't do it" defense. How long can we function that way?

It's up to the state to prove their case...and I don't see anything wrong with a defendant demanding due process.

This whole "why don't the pilots be men and admit their guilt" thing sounds nice in a sunday sermon, but it would effectively render the three branches of our government into two...the legislative and the executive.

Do those who think that the pilots should have admitted guilt, also believe we should live in a society where there is no judicial branch of government? It would streamline things a lot. Then you could federalize all the security guards in this country and hand them the power to grab people by their collars if they thought they saw them do something wrong and demand a written confession from them...after all, "If you're a man, you'll admit guilt...besides, it'll save us the effort of having to beat it out of ya!"

Yea, that's what I want to see happen...not.

WRONG!! People showing personal responsibility in no way obviates the need for the Judicial Branch. Law enforcement doesn't always get the right man, and that's what trials are for. I'm all about innocent until proven guilty. But that's a far cry from a guilty person demanding a trial just to see if the gov't can muster a case against them. Unless I've misread you and you are actually an anarchist, then I have a hard time believing you really think our society should encourage people to NOT tell the truth even if they know they are guilty.

I can't believe I'm having to say that. We are falling apart as a society. You've got a twisted sense of right and wrong.

 

[Standby 1]

This is just another piece of the pavement that is leading the way to cameras in the cockpit.






.

 

[Publishers]

The simple fact here is that they knew they were facing jail time and wanted to make every attempt to escape it. An acknowledgement of guilt probably could have gotten them a plea deal for a fixed sentence but instead of doing that, they put up this ludicrous defense that they were not in control on the hopes that some ignorant jury would buy it.

In short, they kept up the stupidity that they showed in the first place.

 

[FN FAL]

The simple fact here is that they knew they were facing jail time and wanted to make every attempt to escape it. An acknowledgement of guilt probably could have gotten them a plea deal for a fixed sentence but instead of doing that, they put up this ludicrous defense that they were not in control on the hopes that some ignorant jury would buy it.

In short, they kept up the stupidity that they showed in the first place.

They tried to make a plea agreement and it was not accepted.

 

[FN FAL]

This is just another piece of the pavement that is leading the way to cameras in the cockpit.

Why not put portable breath analysers at the screening locations. After all, if real men have nothing to hide, they shouldn't mind taking the test.