Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Pilots detained in Brazil

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
FN FAL,

Thanks for the clarification. Although I'm not up on all the legal mumbo jumbo my basic premise was correct, the law really is changing. What was once civil is now becoming criminal. And not only can they get you for "negligence" but also for not excercising "reasonable care", regardless of whether you're aware of the risk. I'm not sure what the implications are for aviation but I think we as pilots owe to ourselves to be sitting up and paying attention to this stuff, before the day comes when AOPA has to start providing civil and criminal defense attorneys.
 
FN FAL,

Thanks for the clarification. Although I'm not up on all the legal mumbo jumbo my basic premise was correct, the law really is changing. What was once civil is now becoming criminal. And not only can they get you for "negligence" but also for not excercising "reasonable care", regardless of whether you're aware of the risk. I'm not sure what the implications are for aviation but I think we as pilots owe to ourselves to be sitting up and paying attention to this stuff, before the day comes when AOPA has to start providing civil and criminal defense attorneys.

You're welcome...just because I post what I know and see, that doesn't mean I necessarily agree with it wholeheartedly.

However, think about your definition in your post and imagine how simple it was that your scenarios actually lined up with the definitions between reckless and negligent homicide...coincidence? No.

There was a progression and from what I can tell it started in the 70's and is still evolving to this day.

Here's something else to keep in mind. One is prosecutorial discretion. Meaning the prosecutor can choose which cases to try and which cases to not try.

The other thing, we're in an unprecedented low crime era, even though the US population has grown by almost 70 million people in the last 30 years. What else do these guys have to do but try negligence cases in criminal court?

But don't you worry, with the oncomming crappy economy and the return of all the gulf war vets, combined with criminologist's forecasts of a generation of criminal "super predators", I'm sure that the next great violent crime wave will make negligence crimes the plea bargain poster child. Where there's light, there's hope.
 
But don't you worry, with the oncomming crappy economy and the return of all the gulf war vets, combined with criminologist's forecasts of a generation of criminal "super predators", I'm sure that the next great violent crime wave will make negligence crimes the plea bargain poster child. Where there's light, there's hope.

Only a pilot could be that cynical. :D
 
Only a pilot could be that cynical. :D

haha...I get the crack, but I'm a "black comedian", not a cynic...there's a difference you know.

By the way, all I said is true; criminologists predict the "superpredator", crime waves occur after a prolonged military conflict ends and maybe the ecomony isn't going to tank, but the signs do point to a period of sucking.

A review of FBI/Bureau of Justice Statistics crime stats put us at a 15 year low for crime of all kinds. Currently England has double the rape, burglary, robbery and violent crime as the US in per capita crimes. All good things come to an end...I think we are on the verge of an upswing in violent crimes, all things considered.

Negligence crimes have evoloved during a 15 year unprecedented low violent crime era...things that make you go hmmmmm?

Something to think about...we're in an era in America where crime is at it's lowest, however politicians are at their highest in "get tough on crime" election rhetoric. Hence the "n" word.
 
Last edited:
No, I would not want her sent to the big house since she is my daughter. But if my daughter was speeding and crashed into your daughter and killed her, would you want my daughter punished? My guess is....probably.
No, not at all because it would be an accident.
 
yyeeaaahhhh rriiiggghhhttt


AK
You can think what you want, but two very, very close friends of mine were killed in a car crash, accident, other guys fault he missed the stop sign, blew through an intersection, he walked away. No one held him at fault, he was sober and made a mistake, he came to the funeral paid his respect, and has since become very very close with both families, goes to all of the family functions that he is inveited too, they want to see him get better mentally, every day of his life he has to live with killing two 22 year old girls.
 
You can think what you want, but two very, very close friends of mine were killed in a car crash, accident, other guys fault he missed the stop sign, blew through an intersection, he walked away. No one held him at fault, he was sober and made a mistake, he came to the funeral paid his respect, and has since become very very close with both families, goes to all of the family functions that he is inveited too, they want to see him get better mentally, every day of his life he has to live with killing two 22 year old girls.


You are still missing the point! It was an accident, he didn't do anything wrong on purpose. How hard is this to grasp!

If the guy that ran the stop sign had been excessively speeding or drunk and ran the stop sign, then it is n-o-t an a-c-c-i-d-e-n-t.


AK
 
You are still missing the point! It was an accident, he didn't do anything wrong on purpose. How hard is this to grasp!

If the guy that ran the stop sign had been excessively speeding or drunk and ran the stop sign, then it is n-o-t an a-c-c-i-d-e-n-t.


AK
If you're sober but mentally impaired, it's ok. There's no law against being stupid...in fact the government encourages it, because it keeps them in jobs.
 
You can think what you want, but two very, very close friends of mine were killed in a car crash, accident, other guys fault he missed the stop sign, blew through an intersection, he walked away. No one held him at fault, he was sober and made a mistake, he came to the funeral paid his respect, and has since become very very close with both families, goes to all of the family functions that he is inveited too, they want to see him get better mentally, every day of his life he has to live with killing two 22 year old girls.
When the prosecutor uses his discretion to charge you for the same thing when you make your "accident", you can try to sue for discrimination but no one will hear that case.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top