Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Medical Topics' started by pit2atx, Nov 29, 2017.
Once again, we arguing about the one eyed cat
I believe I already answered that question in my text that you quoted, although it really isn’t about feelings. If I tell you again that I don’t believe he has a substance abuse problem and that I wish him luck will you believe me? This is a case of a federal agency with very specific rules and an individual who needs to answer for his violations if he wishes to operate lawfully within those rules. It ain’t about feelings. The OP seems like he is trying to follow the rules, and it does not matter what we think about it. Best of luck to him.
Sorry. Misread your post. Had you lumped in with the folks passing judgement
Are you an LEO? Who has taken an oath to enforce all laws? (no matter how unjust or cruel)
Literally w t f ?
Yeah that’s a bit out there.
It’s apparent you and I may have differing opinions on this but Im pretty sure we both took an oath to uphold and enforce laws in this country. Not really sure how being a LEO has relevance
Agreed. People have differences of opinion on the law on almost every case I deal with. You and I have expressed a difference of opinion for sure. But what this has to do with an oath?
No clue. From left field for sure
Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice.
Well, if the FSDO involved wasn't aware before this, they sure are now.
Yeah, this is the wrong bunch to look to for support. Lots of tools with an agenda on here.
I guess that struck people as puzzling. I would agree it is not directly relevant to the point in the OP regarding what will happen in this case.
I think it is indirectly relevant when evaluating the opinions expressed regarding the OPs likely regulatory or legal culpability. If a speaker is willing to take an oath to uphold all laws, no matter how unjust or cruel, it indicates a certain attitude — that the speaker is willing to be more bound to adherence to a set of rules and laws than to justice and fairness.
I think that attitude likely strongly influences how the facts in the case posted by the OP are evaluated in forming and expressing opinions about this case. As noted above, the facts are somewhat unclear regarding the actual existence of a substance dependence, so the underlying attitudes of the speakers have a greater impact on their evaluations.
As a practical matter for the OP, particularly if this issue will go away in a few years, can the OP learn to fly gliders in the meantime? No medical required if I understand the rules correctly.
I don't give two shiites about someone consuming alcohol in moderation when not flying/operating a motor vehicle for 12 hours or more before flying. 2 citations for a minor in posession of alcohol, doesn't strike me as a character issue. Everyone except some right winger religious nuts had a beer or two underage. In Europe, young adults under 18 have glasses of wine with dinner all the time. Arrest um all right? No alcohol citations in 8 years should be plenty good enough to prove to the FAA there ISN'T an ongoing issue. Thats the problem in this country, make some mistakes a decade ago and society still punishes people no matter how reformed they are.
It’s because we have, as a nation, turned into a bunch of scared pussys that value safety, protection and security more than individual liberty and individual responsibility.
Really?? I have little issue with the OP’s actions too, but political name calling??
The issue, in essence, is proving a negative. Not being caught <> not having a problem.
Because flying is a privilege, it it incumbent on the pilot to prove that he's going to be safe and not be a risk. Where there is not hard evidence that there could be a problem, the assumption by the FAA is that no problem exists (which really is the only rational way to deal with it). However, where there is some form of record (in this case, convictions) that there could be some form of problem, the FAA insists on the pilot proving that there really is no problem. There are folks who would want the FAA to do a full work-up for everyone, but that is fraught with problems from one end to the other (not much different than those on one side of the gun control debate that want some form of psychological testing before one is allowed to possess a gun).
So the FAA has been made aware that the pilot may have an issue, as evidenced by an old record. Therefore, they have an obligation to 'do something' to make the pilot prove that he/she is going to be a safe pilot and not put others at risk. Because it's a privilege, they can impose whatever standards they like within the law (and they've certainly been called on the carpet by the Hill enough times over the years to take the cautious approach.
A couple of other points...(I may be repeating some others, if so, sorry).
The OP didn't say he was a minor, just that he got a "Minor in Possession". Here in Michigan, as in several other states, a person can received a "minor in possession" charge at age 20. If you receive one at 17, you are also an adult under the law. So we may, or may not, be talking about offenses as a minor.
And as far as my opinion that this guy shouldn't getting his medical...if he had said, "I got three alcohol offenses, two as a minor, and so I stopped drinking after the last one..." I'd be fine for him getting his medical. If he had said, "I got an alcohol offense 10+ years ago, and I still drink just not break the law," I'd also be fine for him getting his medical.
But that's not what he said. He said (me summarizing):
3 alcohol offenses. I still drink alcohol.
Alcohol is a drug. I choose not to drink, because I don't care for drugs...if this makes me a nerd, weird, etc, I say "whatever". I don't take pain pills, I've never smoked weed, or even a single cigarette or cigar and I drink decaf. Again, if this makes me someone not to trust, whatever. If my job makes me a minion of the government, again whatever. I will say that I see daily, through my job, the problems that alcohol and other drugs cause people, and I feel my decision not to drink, smoke, etc is an informed one. I think you're a fool if you repeatedly have legal issues over drinking, and you think, "Me drinking alcohol is not the problem." I'd prefer fools that think this don't get their medical.
So, in your world, who gets to decide what is just and fair. We are a nation of laws. Do we go back to the Wild West, where Justice is decided by the guy with the biggest gun? Not all laws and rules may stand the test of time, but we do have ways of amending or changing them and it sure beats the alternative of chaos and vigilante justice. And now you mock those who are willing to risk their life to provide you this safety net. Perhaps you should move to Africa, where gangs and hoodlums run the show and few people have taken an oath to uphold the peace.
I would not suggest that. However, I do believe we have way too many laws presently. There are other choices a society can make between the extremes of LEOs will enforce all laws, regardless of justice, and complete lawlessness. That is a bit of a false dichotomy.
That's a good suggestion, I would be more in favor of an "oath to uphold the peace" and having people who are "peace officers", which is what many modern positions called "law enforcement officers" used to be called.
The more serious question raised by LEOs taking an oath to enforce all laws, without regard to justice or cruelty, is when will they stop enforcing because a law is unjust or cruel? Clearly following such an oath literally can lead to outrageous consequences when people enforce laws in dictatorial and oppressive regimes. The standard excuse in such cases for LEOs is "I was just following orders". While I don't think we presently live in a dictatorial regime, I think it is also clear there are many examples of LEOs following orders and thereby creating outrageous outcomes.
Do you really believe that law enforcement officers should get to selectively decide which laws should be enforced? That is very slippery slope that can end up supporting religious intolerance, racism and other historically relevant results. Or, do you have some way screening law enforcement applicants to make sure that their values align with, apparently, your values.
DSM-V could be used to "prove" every one if us is unfit to be in public unsupervised.
I have three children. Surely I plugged away more times than that, so I must be a sex addict.
I've never gotten a DUI, so that means I'm lying about my drinking problem.
It should be noted LEOs are presently under no obligation to enforce any laws, this is a well established principle of law. The police don't have to respond to your call or do anything when they observe a law being violated. So there is already substantial selectivity in what actually gets enforced and prosecuted.
So the question of an oath and titles is really one of what society wants to emphasize. I think we would be better off with a different oath and different titles, to emphasize that people working as peace officers are supposed to help maintain peace and order, not just blindly enforce the law.
Having too many laws, many of them vague and confusing, is exactly what gives rise to the negative sequelae mentioned (and are serious concerns), because LEOs can easily and perhaps even subconsciously have their own religious, racist or other personal views influence which laws get enforced and how vigorously or violently they are enforced.
The other items noted strike me as personal choices, where "whatever" is a reasonable personal choice. Being a "minion of the government" means using physical violence, or the threat thereof, to force people to do things they otherwise don't want to do. I personally would be a bit concerned to do such a thing because "whatever". That strikes me as a much more serious choice.
Also, Mark Twain:
"Now, I don't approve of dissipation, and I don't indulge in it either; but I haven't a particle of confidence in a man who has no redeeming petty vices."
"X is a privilege" is what tyrants say when they want to take away our rights. ALL of us "may" have an issue. Every.Single.One of us. I don't have much confidence that the FAA has a clue about what constitutes due process. (And on some issues, I'm not so sure about the Supreme Court, either.)
Probably not. However, fortunately not even the FAA uses the presence of a DSM defined disorder as the standard for issuance. And if we locked up everyone with some level of psychiatric disorder, we'd have full asylums and no industry selling therapy services, psychoactive drugs, and self-help books.
I'm having a hard time understanding the sarcasm here.
Ah, but it's well established that administrative law is significantly different in terms of what "due process" means. The government, through legislation passed by our elected representatives, has declared that flying in the "public" airspace, like driving on a public road, is a privilege. And that privilege is administered by the FAA, who sets specific standards in conformance with the laws passed by Congress. Within administrative law, the burden of proof is generally on the regulated party.
Flying is generally an interstate activity (or impacts interstate commerce) so it falls under the commerce clause. It should also be noted that at one time intrastate airlines avoided federal regulations and were subject to state regulations - Southwest famously got its start as a in intrastate airline.
I would be inclined to disregard the minor in possession charges providing the youngster passed field sobriety tests and blew a zero. The DUI as an adult is another consideration. Sure he still drinks, but we don't know how much or whether it is consistent or occasional. My LEO friends tell me it is harder to catch a chronic alcoholic on the road than it is to nab some poor guy who seldom drinks but had too much at the office party. The former has learned reasonable control even when under the influence, but the latter dude, not being used to the effects, doesn't possess that control and is much more obvious while driving.
That said, in my middle teens my dad allowed me to have an occasional beer under supervision at home and I wasn't allowed to leave home for a few hours afterward. I was taught to respect the effects of the stuff.
I respect the choices you have made in lifestyle as well as respect you for taking on the career you chose. The latter is a tough job. Think Eric Overall. My friends are still in a bit of shock about that. Given that it was not a high speed chase I don't believe alcohol was involved but it sounds likely some mind altering weeds were.
My two cents worth from someone who has LEO friends.
Posted with ultimate respect for LEO's.
Constitutional process and the FAA are on opposite sides of the fence. You are denied your rights as long as the FAA declares "civil penalty". Been through that process once having been declared guilty six months later for not replacing a missing placard that was there during an annual. After getting screwed on that I began taking time and dated photos of the instrument panel at each annual.
And that's part of the problem.
Best chance in decades to change that in DC right now. Good luck.
Highly skeptical of that.
He didn’t call anyone any names or mention any politics? *
* Unless the post was edited.
I know of a number of laws enacted by politicians who know there’s absolutely no way anyone can ever change them by voting, because they benefit politicians.
Even knowing we aren’t a Democracy, and we’re really a Republic with an overriding two-Party Oligarchy, people still believe that crap posted above.
All sorts of laws that nobody but politicians wanted or voted for.
“We are a nation of laws” is always the motto of someone who has no idea how law is actually made and thinks there’s some sort of benevolence about it. As is the tired old “move to Somalia”, that silly phrase comes up over and over and it’s beyond boring reading it again at this point.
As far as that “safety net” goes, describe to me exactly how a “safety net” that only arrests people AFTER they’re doing a dangerous thing IF anyone even noticed, increases your safety? Prohibition didn’t work, last I checked.
Assuming what the OP has told us is true (and there is no alcohol problem), his best option to get in the air may be to go with gliders. No medical required and unlike sport pilot it doesn't matter if you failed your last medical. It could save him a lot of time an money and he could always get a motor-glider if he wants to fly without a club involved.