Simon Says:
>>>>>>The pilot was acquitted, which means according to our justice system he is innocent.
Hmmm.....so I guess that would make you one of only 13 persons on this planet who believe that OJ didn't kill Nichole? (The 12 jurors and you) I wonder how he's doing on his quest to find the real killer?
Yeah, I knew that there'd be someone like you who completely missed my point.
My point was this: The posters before me seemed to be presenting this as a vindication of the pilot, as proof that it was all a misunderstanding. ( I realize that I'm speculating on their motives) I'm saying that it isn't, that you need to realize what it *does* mean.
It means that he was acquitted of that specific local charge of impairment. He wasn't being tried for violating the FARs on drinking before flying. He wasn’t being tried of showing up for a flight after drinking. He was being tried on a specific local charge of being under the influence, and was acquitted of that.
There are a very few people who know what the real story is, all we have is a few news articles, and we all know about news articles. You can't just read the headline and make up your mind. You have to read the actual words, and you actually have to think about what is said, and also you have to think about what is *not* said, and think about why. I know that this is a lot of thinking for someone who believes that OJ is innocent, but bear with me.
Why wasn't the BAC test result presented in court? The article says it wasn't presented, but it doesn't say why. It's possible that it was because the machine was proven to be wildly inaccurate, but more likely it was because of a technicality, as Doing time said, they may have missed a mandatory calibration, or made a procedural error, which disqualified the test. Possibly, in that jurisdiction, you are not allowed to present BAC test results which are below the legal limit *for that charge*(probably 0.10 or 0.08) and a conviction must hinge on outward evidence of impairment. There are all kinds of reasons, and the test being factually inaccruate is one of the least likely.
It is *possible* fly delta jets' rumor is true; that he took another test that showed him under the legal limit? It's possible, but don't you think if that test existed, that the pilot's attorney would have made sure that it was presented in court? If the pilot took a test that showed his innocence, don't you think that he and his attorney would be shouting it from the rooftops? We haven’t heard anything of the sort. Here's the only statement we have from the pilot: "there was no evidence that he was under the influence of alcohol, Schroeder said."
Notice that it doesn't say there is no evidence that he had been drinking, notice that there is no mention of a second test. All he said is that there's no evidence of being "under the influence".
That's what I mean about examining what was said, and what wasn't said, and *thinking* about it.
While we're thinking about it, let's take a second look at the Judge's statement, as you seem to have missed it the first time.
"Thomas (the judge) said the evidence showed Schroeder apparently had been drinking. But he ruled that no evidence showed conduct such as stumbling, which could have established that Schroeder was under the influence."
Notice that even the judge said that he had probably been drinking, but they didn't have enough evidence to support a conviction of "under the influence". Do you think that he would have said that if there had been a second test which proved he hadn't been drinking? or that the first test had been shown to be false? It's possible that the judge would make such a reckless statement, occasionally judges do dumb things, but usually not, they're usually pretty careful and reserved, that's how they become (and stay) judges.
"I am defending this guy in so far to the fact that a jury/judge thinks this guy is innocent."
You seem to conveniently forget that he was acquitted of operating "under the influence" This does not mean that he is innocent of drinking before showing up to fly an airliner full of people. The evidence seems to indicate that he is in fact guilty of doing that.
"What if you were perfectly sober, but a screener thought you were drunk. You take a breathalizer (sic) , and it shows that you have a BAC of .07 due to improper calibration. You were then pulled from the flight and the media got wind of "another drunk pilot". Your name dragged through the mud, you finally get aquitted (sic) of all charges, but everyone still thinks your drunk because of that initial breathalizer (sic)
well that’s an interesting scenario. Let’s take a look at how that would fit with what has been reported.
1) The screener would have to have thought he smelled alcohol when in fact it was something else.
2) The breathalyzer would have had to register 0.070 BAC when in fact it was 0.000 That’s a very big error
3) The pilot would have had to neglect to request another BAC test. (I don’t know about you but if I blew 0.07 when in fact I hadn’t had a drop to drink, I’d be demanding to have blood drawn in front of as many witnesses as possible for a direct test of blood alcohol content, maybe 3 or 4 tests. It would seem that this was not done)
4) The judge would have had to be so unwise to have made a public statement contrary to the evidence which was presented.
5) the pilot and his attorney would have to have made no public statements of any kind about the evidence which proved the he hadn’t been drinking. If there was such evidence, it seems they would be making a lot of noise about it. Instead, they’re keeping a low profile.
Now, any one of these things is possible, but for then *all* to have happened in the course of the same incident would seem like a monumental coincidence, a harmonic convergence of coincidences, so to speak.
We can all agree that he has been acquitted of the specific charge of "operating under he influence". What we are discussing is not that, but did he in fact (not the opinion of the court) show up for work after drinking? The answer seems to be that yes he did. You’ve shown nothing to suggest otherwise. As you stated " Showing up to work drunk is not acceptable to me or anybody else responding to this thread "
so what’s your problem? .
BTW, next time you see OJ, tell him that the real killer is hiding out in Idaho with Mark Furman, not Florida.
regards
