What happened with Patty Wagstaff?

TMetzinger said:
If I were on a jury, I'd find:

OSH rent-a-cops had bad attitudes this year.
Patty Wagstaff broke the law and behaved badly during her encounter with the OSH security (which can be mitigated somewhat by their attitudes) and continued to behave badly after more professional law enforcement arrived (for which I've seen no mitigation).

Patty deserves her OUI conviction.
The FAA should treat her no differently than any other airshow pilot convicted of OUI.
The public who looks to her as a role model should treat her according to their own convictions.

With the singluar exception of the word "airshow" I personally believe your post is the most compelling. And I agree 100%.

She Boobed. Got caught. Got convicted. Will suffer whatever Backlash there might be. Will go on being a Great Airshow Pilot.

Get over it.:rolleyes:

Chris :D
Click to expand...
 
Yet more examples of how some posters can be 'judgemental' when it suits them, unless of course it involves somone's personal hero.

Yes she made a mistake. She has been judged, and I reserve the right to judge her myself in any way that I wish, publicly or privately, especially when I have the facts on my side.
 
Last edited:
alaskaflyer said:
Yet more examples of how some posters can be 'judgemental' when it suits them, unless of course it involves their personal hero.

Yes she made a mistake. She has been judged, and I reserve the right to judge her myself in any way that I wish, publicly or privately, especially when I have the facts on my side.
Click to expand...
And some of us try to avoid being judgmental regardless of whether it involves a "personal hero."
 
Missa said:
And lets not forget to fry those who judged and condeme someone based soley on the fact they "quacked like a duck" and not giveing everyone the benifit of the doubt that is the foundation of our legal system.

If you can't treat everyone as innocent untill proven guilty... then you need to find a new profession as you are contribution to the poor public oppinion on the profession.
Click to expand...
I honestly don't know what you are talking about here. If you want to see this as some issue with my job, well, then, no, it isn't my job to assume everyone is innocent until proven guilty, and that they be given the benefit of the doubt. LOL. If that were true then no one would ever be arrested for anything, would they? But, my comments have been based on my personal opinion coupled with my experience that no one in the situation that was initially reported in the media would likely be found not guilty. As it turns out I was right.
You say that she should be held to a higher standard because she it in the public eye. So should all the law enforcment officers out there.
Click to expand...
I agree. Aside from wild speculation was that ever an issue in this case?
 
Last edited:
gprellwitz said:
And some of us try to avoid being judgmental regardless of whether it involves a "personal hero."
Click to expand...

:yes:

alaskaflyer said:
Actually I'd like to hear a lot less whining about that too :rofl:
Click to expand...

You'll receive no argument from me on that... less whining in general would be good.

However, you seem to want people who have a general negative feeling towards cops (like me) to change. Your posts on this thread cetainly have not changed my opinion other than to reinforce it.
 
Hiperbiper said:
TMetzinger said:
.

With the singluar exception of the word "airshow" I personally believe your post is the most compelling.
Click to expand...

I use "airshow" as I believe they have stricter hoops to jump through than the average pilot, as they should. They have to demonstrate high levels of proficiency and judgment to be allowed the waivers they are granted.

Patty's ticket is a separate thing from her airshow waivers. She should be judged separately by the FAA to the appropriate standards for each set of privileges she wishes to exercise.
Click to expand...
 
If this were anyone else they would be roundly and vitriolic-ally flamed with these sorts of facts.
 
alaskaflyer said:
I honestly don't know what you are talking about here. If you want to see this as some issue with my job, well, then, no, it isn't my job to assume everyone is innocent until proven guilty, and that they be given the benefit of the doubt. LOL. If that were true then no one would ever be arrested for anything, would they? But, my comments have been based on my personal opinion coupled with my experience that no one in the situation that was initially reported in the media would likely be found not guilty. As it turns out I was right.I agree. Aside from wild speculation was that ever an issue in this case?
Click to expand...

Ted DuPuis said:
:yes:

However, you seem to want people who have a general negative feeling towards cops (like me) to change. Your posts on this thread cetainly have not changed my opinion other than to reinforce it.
Click to expand...

+1, You arrest someone on "suspicion" not because they are guilty. If you arrest someone because you have already judged them guilty then you are not doing your job. If you go on to treat them like they ARE guilty (because you have already judged them) then you are over stepping your bounds and really should not be doing that job.
 
alaskaflyer said:
You say that she should be held to a higher standard because she it in the public eye. So should all the law enforcment officers out there.
Click to expand...
I agree. Aside from wild speculation was that ever an issue in this case?
Click to expand...
Seemed to me that it was a general statement, alluding to observed behavior of security at AirVenture last year. You're right about applicability to this case being speculation, though. But there's been a lot of speculation about things with this case from both those that want to hang her and those who want to deify her (yeah, hyperbole), and that's one of the things I've objected to.
 
steingar said:
If this were anyone else they would be roundly and vitriolic-ally flamed with these sorts of facts.
Click to expand...
If it was Joe the plumber, um, pilot he would be flamed with no one to defend him. Or we wouldn't care about his personal problems one way or the other. :dunno:
 
Everskyward said:
If it was Joe the plumber, um, pilot he would be flamed with no one to defend him. Or we wouldn't care about his personal problems one way or the other. :dunno:
Click to expand...

Are you saying that its OK to drive drunk if you've had a really bad day?
 
steingar said:
Of course not, you're far too sweet to flame anyone. But I have seen it happen.
Click to expand...

Why is it I see no smiley but feel the sacasim... or it could just be my interpertaion...

I've flamed people but it's usually for being judgemental. I also try to present the other possibilities, and I'm ususally passonate when I do it so I tend to be taken as being for or agianst when I'm just trying to add a counter point.
 
Missa said:
Why is it I see no smiley but feel the sacasim... or it could just be my interpertaion...

I've flamed people but it's usually for being judgemental. I also try to present the other possibilities, and I'm ususally passonate when I do it so I tend to be taken as being for or agianst when I'm just trying to add a counter point.
Click to expand...

I genuinely meant no sarcasm.
 
Hmm... Missa, how do you feel about "cheerful" and "perky"? Those words come to mind when I think of you. "Sweet" doesn't, but that's probably due to my experience in the south, where "sweet" when applied to a female may not always be a compliment.
 
steingar said:
I only get defensive when people call me bad things.
Click to expand...

You haven't met me... :eek: "sweet" sets off my "cow crap"dar. Since I'm more use to people using other words to describe me starting with a B, but that is mainly becasue I'm opnionated and not afraid to tell it like I see it. :redface:
 
TMetzinger said:
Hmm... Missa, how do you feel about "cheerful" and "perky"? Those words come to mind when I think of you. "Sweet" doesn't, but that's probably due to my experience in the south, where "sweet" when applied to a female may not always be a compliment.
Click to expand...

Perky???? really? Huh. Cheerful I get 'cause I've usually met you after I've been flying which always makes me cheerful. :smilewinkgrin:
 
Missa said:
You haven't met me... :eek: "sweet" sets off my "cow crap"dar. Since I'm more use to people using other words to describe me starting with a B, but that is mainly becasue I'm opnionated and not afraid to tell it like I see it. :redface:
Click to expand...


Beats me calling you rude and cantankerous.
 
Haha Missa, I know exactly how you feel. It's interesting how other people's impressions are sometimes very different than how we see ourselves. :eek:
 
Missa said:
Perky???? really? Huh. Cheerful I get 'cause I've usually met you after I've been flying which always makes me cheerful. :smilewinkgrin:
Click to expand...

I'd use Perky. I've only met you once, but you were certainly perky!
 
Missa said:
You haven't met me... :eek: "sweet" sets off my "cow crap"dar. Since I'm more use to people using other words to describe me starting with a B, but that is mainly becasue I'm opnionated and not afraid to tell it like I see it. :redface:
Click to expand...

How about "outgoing"? :yes:
 
gprellwitz said:
Seemed to me that it was a general statement, alluding to observed behavior of security at AirVenture last year. You're right about applicability to this case being speculation, though. But there's been a lot of speculation about things with this case from both those that want to hang her and those who want to deify her (yeah, hyperbole), and that's one of the things I've objected to.
Click to expand...

I don't believe that the security you are talking about were law enforcement officers, though I believe Airventure employees both?
 
Missa said:
+1, You arrest someone on "suspicion" not because they are guilty. If you arrest someone because you have already judged them guilty then you are not doing your job. If you go on to treat them like they ARE guilty (because you have already judged them) then you are over stepping your bounds and really should not be doing that job.
Click to expand...
That is a bit different than what you said in your last reply. If i arrest someone who in my opinion is not guilty than I will be the one going to jail. Whatever. I really don't expect to either change your mind or educate you since you are the expert... so long as you understand that we are not charged with the responsibility of giving suspects the presumption of innocence. That is the job of the court, not the prosecution.

But now I am to understand that because I am a LEO I am constrained from opining about a person's guilt or innocence?
 
Last edited:
Ted DuPuis said:
:yes:


However, you seem to want people who have a general negative feeling towards cops (like me) to change. Your posts on this thread cetainly have not changed my opinion other than to reinforce it.
Click to expand...
I neither assume that you will change your mind nor care about your opinion in this area. I am quite used to such attitudes. I am simply having a discussion like everyone else, volunteering opinion when it suits me, information when it is absent, and objecting when I feel like it.
 
alaskaflyer said:
I don't believe that the security you are talking about were law enforcement officers, though I believe Airventure employees both?
Click to expand...
Doesn't uniformed security tend to be off-duty or retired LEOs? That's been my understanding, but I don't know if that's true of those generating the complaints. Furthermore, I don't know that the complaints weren't generated by on-duty officers.

And to many civilians, a uniformed security presence would tend to get lumped together in a single bucket without benefit of the distinctions that are so plain to the officers themselves. So if they felt mistreated by the "paid" security, or whatever other term is in use, it would be logical to conclude that would influence their perceptions of all security at the event, including on-duty sworn officers.
 
SkyHog said:
I'd use Perky. I've only met you once, but you were certainly perky!
Click to expand...

flyingcheesehead said:
How about "outgoing"? :yes:
Click to expand...

"Perky" makes me think of small Japanese girls in with pigtails giggling... so I it's not an adjective I've ever associated with myself.

Outgoing is more like it but if you knew me outside of Oshkosh or a flying activity you would know I'm a dicodimy... depending on the situation I can be outgoing or a total introvert.

But thanks for the comments guys... I've been bummbed lately and they have helped to recenter.
 
Missa said:
But thanks for the comments guys... I've been bummbed lately and they have helped to recenter.
Click to expand...
Missa, I'm sorry if things are perhaps not going well for you. Hugs from Missouri. :)
 
Missa said:
Should, but I have only seen very gross missteps actually held accountable. All others that don't get a huge public outcry get protected by the ol' boys network.



Compleate assumption and totally judgmental.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, just like the above post regarding 70% of LEO's being "bad eggs".
 
I have found in my very few interactions with police officers that if you are polite and respectful, they are typically decent folks who act responsibly and professionally. Act like a idiot and mouth off and you are inviting trouble. Its just common sense, but I grew up in Philly, and cops, especially under the various Rizzo regimes didn't take any crap from anybody.

"Yes officer, no officer, thank you officer......."
 
Kelvin said:
No way I could agree to this...She should be treated just like anyone else who gets an alcohol violation on their DL who has a rating...Now here it seems you want to treat her differenty BECAUSE she is a celeberity...?! Yes? No?
Click to expand...

I see no problem with a permanent ban from flying. Perhaps since she is a role model for so many young aviators and not just some punk athlete, she should be made an example of. Since summary public executions are verboten, I guess a permanent ban from flying is an acceptable alternative.
 
Missa said:
+1, You arrest someone on "suspicion" not because they are guilty.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but normally that level of suspicion is pretty freaking high before the cuffs ever go on unless the person is just being a totally belligerent ass. However, I personally think if that is the case, the better options is tazing the dumb bastard or just plain ol' use of lethal force. Most people don't learn from the slap on the wrist you get for a DUI. With a lot of them, the only way to teach them is the same way Skinner taught his animals not to push or peck the wrong button- with pain (appropriately enough electricity in the case of the classic Skinner box experiments).

If you arrest someone because you have already judged them guilty then you are not doing your job.
Click to expand...
You don't arrest someone you don't believe to be guilty *insert LAPD circa 1991 comment here* :rofl::rofl:

If you go on to treat them like they ARE guilty (because you have already judged them) then you are over stepping your bounds and really should not be doing that job.
Click to expand...
No, that's exactly how someone who beyond a preponderance of the evidence (glassy eyes, being an obnoxious pain in the ass, smells like a bottle of Mad Dog, can't walk a straight line, and HAS AN OPEN CONTAINER OF ALCOHOL in their presence) is drunk, then they should be treated as though they are drunk in the eyes of the law. Granted, there are a handful of medical conditions that could produce that (diabetic ketoacidosis being the big one), but the chances of that are slim to none and therefore please refer to my previous statement about not arresting people you don't believe to be guilty of what you are arresting them for.

Now, if the cop starts beating the crap out of someone who is not resisting or otherwise did not deserve it (and this is like 0.01% of police "beat the **** out of me" cases), then yes, they have overstepped their bounds and probably should be stripped of their badge(s).
 
SteveinMichigan said:
I see no problem with a permanent ban from flying.
Click to expand...
I see a problem with that -- it would violate the constitutional concept of equal protection. Since the FAA doesn't permanently ban "regular" folks for their first "motor vehicle action," they should not ban Ms. Wagstaff, either. Rather, I think Ms. Wagstaff should be treated no differently by the FAA than any other pilot of her certification level, regardless of celebrity status -- no harsher, no more leniently. Bruce Chien can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the standard procedure in such is to require medical evaluation and counseling, but not to suspend her tickets unless more issues arise in the evaluation process. If so, that seems right to me for Ms. Wagstaff, too.

And maybe a month with Jack Nicholson to work on anger management.:smilewinkgrin:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top