SWA f/o arrested for intoxication

[Metro752]

Has Anyone suspected a TSA employee of being intoxicated at work? Just curious.

nope, just high

 

[canyonblue]

Has Anyone suspected a TSA employee of being intoxicated at work? Just curious.

They stole all the beer out of my bag. No good theives.:smash:

 

[Yahtzee]

ski and surf....nice post. NOT.

 

[twepilot]

Has anyone ever suspected the TSA of doing any work...me either.

RV

 

[Benjamin Dover]

A350....

Why don't you tell people who comment about Lyle Prouse, what he did afterwards... That guy has more integrity respect than most. I admire the guy.

While the other two guys are rotting in jail, Lyle finished his career in the left seat of a 747. Tell the full story and you'll shut down the commentators...

Good old Lyle the hero. Maybe the other two guys "rotted in jail" and did not get their tickets back because they did not have Lyle's "genetic predisposition to alcoholism" due to his American Indian/alcoholic parents - as his lawyer effectively argued. Lyle knew the rules and grossly violated them - blew over the limit after the first flight -and he was the captain and senior man, yet he was only one to go back to work for Northwest because of his "genetics" and his mea culpa speach tour to school kids after he got busted. Noble effort in the life turnaround, but kind of sounds like Clinton getting real sorry after he got caught with his pants down. Oh, that's right...Lyle was on Slick Willie's pardon list before he left office. Funny how it all works out .... for some.

 

[MalteseX]

One thing to remember is you are innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof is on the prosecutor's table, not the pilots. The pilot can sit there and laugh all day and night and the prosecutor must show that he intended to fly drunk. With .039, the .04 does not apply--no matter what. If he staggered adn slurred, the prosecution must shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the cause of the staggering was his drunkeness. Good luck.

The fact that they have called on a grand jury to look into this should show you they are lacking evidence to charge him. When they find lack of evidence, the judge will end up tossing it.

In America, yes, you are presumed innocent. And the burden of proof is on the prosecutor.

However, the prosecutor did indeed charge him.....according to the newspaper in SLC.

Don't know what you are talking about when you say "because it's going to the Grand Jury show they are lacking evidence"-- not sure what you mean here.......

My point is..... all it takes is for a jury to say you are guilty...and they are unpredictable.

This guy is not guilty with a .039.....but it is not open and shut.

 

[ferlo]

why is there so much interest in this? Just because he worked for SWA really isn't that important. This isn't the rarest of all events.

 

[FN FAL]

Don't know what you are talking about when you say "because it's going to the Grand Jury show they are lacking evidence"-- not sure what you mean here...

The grand jury is required for the for the federal prosecutor to get an indictment. There's no determination of guilt or innocence at this grand jury hearing, this is how federal prosecutors charge a defendant...through a grand jury.

Because of the Fifth Amendment, the federal legal system has to use grand juries to bring charges, at least for certain offenses.

The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires that charges for all capital and "infamous" crimes be brought by an indictment returned by a grand jury.

The amendment has been interpreted to require that an indictment be used to charge federal felonies, unless a defendant waives his or her right to be indicted by a grand jury.

The Supreme Court has held that this part of the Fifth Amendment is not binding on the states, so they can use grand juries or not, as they wish.

If a defendant waives his or her right to be indicted by a grand jury, the prosecutor can charge them by using an "information." An information is simply a pleading that accuses the defendants of committing crimes, just as an indictment does.

The difference between an indictment and an information is that a grand jury must approve an indictment, while a prosecutor can issue an information without the grand jury's approval or, for that matter, without ever showing the information to the grand jury.

Since most federal prosecutions involve felony charges, grand juries play an important role in enforcing federal criminal law.

 

[OrionFE]

I don't know....I'm thinking, if you smell like alcohol on your way to the airport to fly an airplane full of passengers, like maybe my wife and kids, you might think about calling in sick. It is one thing to have a glass of wine or a beer up to the 8 hour limit (12 hours at my company), it is another to be totally sh*t faced at the 8 hour mark. Chances are you won't be in tip top shape for that V1 engine failure today. Where was his partner prior to getting to the airport?

 

[satpak77]

In America, yes, you are presumed innocent. And the burden of proof is on the prosecutor.

However, the prosecutor did indeed charge him.....according to the newspaper in SLC.

Don't know what you are talking about when you say "because it's going to the Grand Jury show they are lacking evidence"-- not sure what you mean here.......

My point is..... all it takes is for a jury to say you are guilty...and they are unpredictable.

This guy is not guilty with a .039.....but it is not open and shut.

remember we are talking about the GRAND JURY, all they do is indict or decline to indict. Re 9-11.101:

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/11mcrm.htm#9-11.101

....the grand jury's principal function is to determine whether or not there is probable cause to believe that one or more persons committed a certain Federal offense within the venue of the district court. Thus, it has been said that a grand jury has but two functions -- to indict or, in the alternative, to return a "no-bill." See Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure, Criminal Section 110.

Unless the defendant enters a plea, he is entitled to a TRIAL BY JURY which will determine guilt/innocence.