Federal pilots may get shootdown power

[Brian Austin]

I don't think a valid case can be made that Mom, Dad, and their two kids are enemies of the United States because they violated civil law or an administrative rule when they got lost.

And that's really what it boils down to: a shoot-to-down order is a response to a CIVIL rule, not a criminal law, with no chance for trial by judge and jury.

It's like getting shot for screwing up your taxes.

 

[ausrere]

For that matter,

As far as I understand it, the Constitution also prohibits the use of the United States Armed Forces against United States Citizens, doesn't it?

Or am I really confused?

The Posse Comitatus Act prohibits the use of Army, Air Force, Navy, and Marines from civil law enforcement duties, but I believe the National Guard and Coast Guard are exempt.

Were the f-16's in the DC incident Air Force, or Air Guard units?

 

[Tom-D]

Dan, the pilot has the choice whether or not to obey such an order. If he obeys it, I hope he is strung up from the nearest light pole as the coward and murderer he will be. To support a pilot murdering innocent citizens because some of you are too fearful to live free is what is outrageous to me.

If the pilot did as you suggest, he would be court martialed and dismissed from service, and all the retirement that they have worked to get would go away.

I think most fighter pilots are in the hate the bug smasher mode, it is taught from day one in training. I have yet to talk to a fighter pilot who likes GA, almost to a person they believe we are in their way.

I believe the first time they get a shoot order we'll have dead AMERICANS on the ground, and the public will approve.

Here is a thought,,, part 103 ultra lites are not aircraft, can they fly in the "forbiden zone"?

The only government building bombed in modern times, was done with a truck bomb, why aren't the trucks kept out of DC?

Public beliefs, and their needs.
truck = good -your stuff comes in a truck
GA = bad, they are over my roof, and I don't need them.

 

[MSmith]

Is the rapist who enters your domicile at 3 A.M. considered innocent until proven guilty?

Yes. So is the person that someone accuses of rape, even though it didn't happen (they were elsewhere at the time).

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

FARs aren't criminal code, it's civil. Big difference in responses.

Aw shucks Brian, you're right.

So next time if our fighter is lucky enough to see a big 'ol plane headed dead nuts towards a skyscrapper or the Pentagon, even against the regs, we better not have any action taken. Wouldn't want to break any FARs or such.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

Yes. So is the person that someone accuses of rape, even though it didn't happen (they were elsewhere at the time).

Quote:
Is the rapist who enters your domicile at 3 A.M. considered innocent until proven guilty?


"Yes."

Thanks Mark,
I'll keep that in mind while I blow them away.

 

[Henning]

Re: Bureaucratic indiscretion

Current intercept procedures are "...a rather tedious chore."? In consideration of the severe consequences of a shoot down I would think the acting secretary would have more carefully chosen his words. OTOH, perhaps his words accurately describe his position.

This is a serious matter, how many of the "hundreds" of transgressor flights have been terrorists or have exhibited nefarious intent? A shoot down is gonna' have heads rolling on a platter. Procedure or process be damned, this is intentional destruction of human life and if this were to actually occur there will be criminal prosecution of those responsible. I would not want to be in the chain of command involved in ordering a shoot down of what would most probably be a civilian guilty only of unintentionally wandering into the airspace. I think if I were in that chain I would willfully disobey the command--I'd much rather suffer that consequence than the other. How dare anyone--especially our federal govt leaders--show such arrogance and contempt that they should think this is a proper response.

While I do not condone the errant pilot I hardly believe he should pay with his life. One consequence would be a hue and cry across the land never before heard. The nation would be sick with grief made more terrible by the realization that it was sanctioned by US federal statute.

What this whole issue and the ADIZ itself shows me is what a cowering whimpering buch of Wussies out "Leadership" really is. Where is Teddy Roosevelt when you need him?

 

[MSmith]

Thanks Mark,
I'll keep that in mind while I blow them away.

Ah, now we're getting somewhere.

This points out the difference between self-defense and a criminal punishment.

A lot of people above are saying what amounts to "blow them away - they broke the law/rule - they deserve the punishment".

Instead, it should be "blow them away - I am defending myself/government/citizenry".

We don't shoot people without a trial as punishment. We are allowed to shoot people to stop an imminent threat. There's a huge distinction between the two. In the former case, you're acting as "prosecutor/judge/jury". In the latter, it's "victim" or "police".

The decision to shoot down a Cessna over DC would be (better be, in my opinion) a decision based on risk - to stop an imminent threat.

Do you believe that a Cessna 150 meets the definition of imminent threat? That's debatable. What we don't want it to start taking irreversible action against lawbreakers without a trial - that truly would be a violation of the Constitution.

 

[Brian Austin]

Aw shucks Brian, you're right.

So next time if our fighter is lucky enough to see a big 'ol plane headed dead nuts towards a skyscrapper or the Pentagon, even against the regs, we better not have any action taken. Wouldn't want to break any FARs or such.

Sorry to burst your bubble here, Dave, but if you see a "big 'ol plane" heading towards a skyscraper or Pentagon, you've already lost. You're not firing a missile and knocking it out of the sky in time at the speeds they're moving.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

Sorry to burst your bubble here, Dave, but if you see a "big 'ol plane" heading towards a skyscraper or Pentagon, you've already lost. You're not firing a missile and knocking it out of the sky in time at the speeds they're moving.

In for a hit, yes, probably in most cases. But not "already lost".

For instance there are many sensitive TFR areas out here and elsewhere where the target would be downed in time by ground based defenses. Not that that would be any great victory for us, but it is an entirly possible scenario and probable defensive action is fully justified.

More likely though, another surprise first strike on some entirely undefended civilian structure and assembly of humanity would occur, because enemies usually prefer to strike at the weaker points of their objects of aggression.

 

[Henning]

Is the rapist who enters your domicile at 3 A.M. considered innocent until proven guilty?

The pilot(s) in question violated numerous, repeat numerous, FAR's. The act of violating these FAR's made them incapable of claiming "innocence." Of their guilt there is no doubt whatsoever.

If I may, let me point out to you that any and all rules broken were Administrative Law. Administrative Law within the United States has no provision in it for the death penalty to the best of my knowledge. This whole situation is repugnant and wreaks of cowardice, cowardice of those who should be leading by example. Bunch of carpet baggers, the whole bloody lot of them. Why do they deserve a level of protection so much higher than the rest of the nation?

 

[Ken Ibold]

Why do they deserve a level of protection so much higher than the rest of the nation?

Because while all animals are created equal, some are more equal than others.

 

[Brian Austin]

Why do they deserve a level of protection so much higher than the rest of the nation?

Same reason they give themselves perks while in office, tax exemption status, generous retirement plans, and more: they are better than the rest of us. Ask any of them. They are in a class unto themselves.

 

[Henning]

Same reason they give themselves perks while in office, tax exemption status, generous retirement plans, and more: they are better than the rest of us. Ask any of them. They are in a class unto themselves.

F'-em, time for a change.

 

[Brian Austin]

F'-em, time for a change.

No argument here.

 

[Keith Lane]

Remember the hue and cry when the Peruvian Air Force shot down a GA plane, assuming it was drug smugglers? http://www.dailytexanonline.com/media/paper410/news/2001/04/23/WorldNation/Peruvian.Air.Force.Mistakenly.Shoots.Down.Missionary.Plane-700064.shtml

"A U.S. surveillance plane was tracking the missionaries' plane before it was shot down and had been in communication with the Peruvian air force, a Bush administration official in Washington said Saturday night.
A second U.S. government official said the missionaries' plane was considered suspect because it was operating without a flight plan in airspace frequented by drug runners. Peru, which had the responsibility to identify the plane's intentions under a long-standing agreement, mistakenly decided that it was carrying drugs, the official said."


How would this be spun by 1. CNN 2. Fox News 3. Homeland Security if it had happened near one of the many "moving TFRs" that were so common during the recent presidential campaigns.
Granted, the PAF even strafed the survivors in the river, according to "eyewitnesses", and I don't believe for a second that USAF pilots would do that, but the story died fairly quickly, and we never heard another peep from the family. Could be tied up in court, I guess.
Could it happen here?

 

[woodstock]

Remember the hue and cry when the Peruvian Air Force shot down a GA plane, assuming it was drug smugglers? http://www.dailytexanonline.com/media/paper410/news/2001/04/23/WorldNation/Peruvian.Air.Force.Mistakenly.Shoots.Down.Missionary.Plane-700064.shtml

"A U.S. surveillance plane was tracking the missionaries' plane before it was shot down and had been in communication with the Peruvian air force, a Bush administration official in Washington said Saturday night.
A second U.S. government official said the missionaries' plane was considered suspect because it was operating without a flight plan in airspace frequented by drug runners. Peru, which had the responsibility to identify the plane's intentions under a long-standing agreement, mistakenly decided that it was carrying drugs, the official said."


How would this be spun by 1. CNN 2. Fox News 3. Homeland Security if it had happened near one of the many "moving TFRs" that were so common during the recent presidential campaigns.
Granted, the PAF even strafed the survivors in the river, according to "eyewitnesses", and I don't believe for a second that USAF pilots would do that, but the story died fairly quickly, and we never heard another peep from the family. Could be tied up in court, I guess.
Could it happen here?

with the proper spin, probably.

 

[Dave Siciliano]

Ahh, we are seeing why using the military for domestic protection becomes so difficult. Military pilots are not policemen, are not taught to use appropriate force or to treat the enemy after they are disarmed. It's a different mission than being a policeman. Many pieces of ordinance are now over the horizon for pete's sake; or stand off weapons.

In the case of interceptors, the pilots are not always in the best position to judge circumstances, and by the time they are scrambled, it may be too late to take a laid back evaluation approach. So, how to we thwart an attacker, while at the same time, not harming innocents? I, for one don't lay the blame at the feet of the military pilot unless that pilot was given discretion. If it's a last minute scramble and there is no time for judgement, the pilot is in a no win position: he/she can either disobey an order and possibly watch what could be a terrorist complete it's mission--be it disbursing biological agents--dirty nuclear material or of shooting down someone that could be innocent. But the pilot may not being able to determine that before the target is reached. It the pilot had time to evaluate, then we might second guess their judgement.

The entire process has to be evaluated. The folks should have clear rules of engagement. If those are followed and the pilot killed innocent people, the folks that developed the rules of engagement should be held accountable. Why is the military pilot (the gun) being held responsible for the actions of the shooter? The military vehicle is the weapon. It's the folks employing the weapon that should be accountable, unless the pilot clearly did something wrong.

I know a lot of these guys (flying fighters and CAPs). They don't want to shoot anyone down, but what are they do if ordered and they can't fully evaluate the threat? They are pleading with pilots and pilot groups to keep out of the prohibited/restricted areas, yet, there are busts every week. This latest one is just nuts.

Best,

Dave

 

[poadeleted3]

with the proper spin, probably.

Waco and Ruby Ridge are still causing trouble, and those people were unsavory, to say the least. With a plain, regular family made up of people that are actually likeable, law abiding, normal citizens murdered by the government, I don't think it would go away if the government tried the same kind of cover ups.

 

[gismo]

If I may, let me point out to you that any and all rules broken were Administrative Law. Administrative Law within the United States has no provision in it for the death penalty to the best of my knowledge. This whole situation is repugnant and wreaks of cowardice, cowardice of those who should be leading by example. Bunch of carpet baggers, the whole bloody lot of them. Why do they deserve a level of protection so much higher than the rest of the nation?

Besides, aren't all the FAR's subject to the emergency authority clause? I'm not saying the Smoketown pilots were responding to a valid emergency, but how do you know that this isn't the case in the heat of the moment?

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

Ah, now we're getting somewhere.

This points out the difference between self-defense and a criminal punishment.

A lot of people above are saying what amounts to "blow them away - they broke the law/rule - they deserve the punishment".

Instead, it should be "blow them away - I am defending myself/government/citizenry".

We don't shoot people without a trial as punishment. We are allowed to shoot people to stop an imminent threat. There's a huge distinction between the two. In the former case, you're acting as "prosecutor/judge/jury". In the latter, it's "victim" or "police".

The decision to shoot down a Cessna over DC would be (better be, in my opinion) a decision based on risk - to stop an imminent threat.

Do you believe that a Cessna 150 meets the definition of imminent threat? That's debatable. What we don't want it to start taking irreversible action against lawbreakers without a trial - that truly would be a violation of the Constitution.

Of course use force in self defense of an imminent threat.

The real conundrum is that should an error be made in assessing the percieved threat, I say so favor to those using the force in error but that were not blundering around in a negligent manner in the first place.

 

[woodstock]

The entire process has to be evaluated. The folks should have clear rules of engagement. If those are followed and the pilot killed innocent people, the folks that developed the rules of engagement should be held accountable. Why is the military pilot (the gun) being held responsible for the actions of the shooter? The military vehicle is the weapon. It's the folks employing the weapon that should be accountable, unless the pilot clearly did something wrong.



Dave

therein lies the rub. there WILL NOT be accountability. not from these guys. at minimum you have to give Janet Reno credit for taking the blame. could you possibly see that coming from who we have in now? I don't.

 

[woodstock]

Waco and Ruby Ridge are still causing trouble, and those people were unsavory, to say the least. With a plain, regular family made up of people that are actually likeable, law abiding, normal citizens murdered by the government, I don't think it would go away if the government tried the same kind of cover ups.

I really hope not.

 

[Richard]

Is the rapist who enters your domicile at 3 A.M. considered innocent until proven guilty?

The pilot(s) in question violated numerous, repeat numerous, FAR's. The act of violating these FAR's made them incapable of claiming "innocence." Of their guilt there is no doubt whatsoever.

Until he actually commences the act of rape he is guilty of nothing more than trespassing.

The guilt or innocence of the pilots in violation of FARs is not the issue, the issue is should he be shot down because he violated the airspace.

Even more pertinent than that is the pilot's intent. As in, what was his intent when he flew into the no-fly zone? The intent has to be established before anyone starts shooting at civilian aircraft in domestic airspace.

As in the case of the would be rapist, or any other criminal prosecution, the intent must be established. Without doing that our entire legal system is teettering towards failure because the system is based on due process and to not take deliberate action to establish intent prior to a shoot down is to wrongfully punish one for a crime which has not been committed.

A rational arguement to that could be that one should take care to avoid putting oneself in that situation. My rebuttal to that is it may only appear that one is in that situation. That perception is not enough to justify a determination of guilt or criminal intent. That describes the core problem of a possible shootdown of an errant pilot.

It's funny, no, not funny but it is peculiar that the "I'd rather free a guilty person than wrongfully accuse an innocent person" mindset has fallen by the wayside here. It seems there is zero margin for error here: you so much as fly into this airspace you will die. Heaven help me, I cannot believe there are some who don't see this as a monumental problem.

 

[wsuffa]

The entire process has to be evaluated. The folks should have clear rules of engagement. If those are followed and the pilot killed innocent people, the folks that developed the rules of engagement should be held accountable. Why is the military pilot (the gun) being held responsible for the actions of the shooter? The military vehicle is the weapon. It's the folks employing the weapon that should be accountable, unless the pilot clearly did something wrong.

Best,

Dave

Dave, that's great in theory. The way Washington works, the process will be covered up, not acknowledged, or spun to the benefit of the administration.

Look, for example, in the case of the C-150, where some pertinant information (the fact that 121.5 was blocked when the folks in the Blackhawk instructed the pilot to transmit there) was not admitted by the government until AFTER the pilot and his attorney did the morning talk show. If the plane were shot down, that little fact would never have come out.

Nobody - not the government security folks nor the press - has any vested interest in telling the whole truth to the American people.

 

[Richard]

If I may, let me point out to you that any and all rules broken were Administrative Law. Administrative Law within the United States has no provision in it for the death penalty to the best of my knowledge. This whole situation is repugnant and wreaks of cowardice, cowardice of those who should be leading by example. Bunch of carpet baggers, the whole bloody lot of them. Why do they deserve a level of protection so much higher than the rest of the nation?

Henning for President!!! Damn straight, Henning.

 

[Richard]

Remember the hue and cry when the Peruvian Air Force shot down a GA plane, assuming it was drug smugglers? http://www.dailytexanonline.com/media/paper410/news/2001/04/23/WorldNation/Peruvian.Air.Force.Mistakenly.Shoots.Down.Missionary.Plane-700064.shtml

"A U.S. surveillance plane was tracking the missionaries' plane before it was shot down and had been in communication with the Peruvian air force, a Bush administration official in Washington said Saturday night.
A second U.S. government official said the missionaries' plane was considered suspect because it was operating without a flight plan in airspace frequented by drug runners. Peru, which had the responsibility to identify the plane's intentions under a long-standing agreement, mistakenly decided that it was carrying drugs, the official said."


How would this be spun by 1. CNN 2. Fox News 3. Homeland Security if it had happened near one of the many "moving TFRs" that were so common during the recent presidential campaigns.
Granted, the PAF even strafed the survivors in the river, according to "eyewitnesses", and I don't believe for a second that USAF pilots would do that, but the story died fairly quickly, and we never heard another peep from the family. Could be tied up in court, I guess.
Could it happen here?

I actually knew those fine folks and we have many mutual friends. To this day it is a very touchy subject--especially in consideration of how our govt tried to save face after a shoot down of American civilians.

 

[Henning]

That's out of line. If a pilot in our military is ordered to shoot a plane down then he was obeying an order...PERIOD. Hold his superiors accountable, certainly, but say that he can't walk the streets safely any more is outrageous.

You're about 60 years behind the times. Nurenburg laid your theory to waste. "I was just following orders" didn't work too well especially at officer level. IIRC, under UCMJ, you are not allowed to follow an illegal order. Passe Comitatus IIRC prevents a US soldier taking arms against an American on American soil except during times of Marshal Law. Therefore an order, for a miltary pilot anyway, to shoot down a civilian, other than obviously foriegn, over the US would be an illegal order. I personally don't think there will be a shoot down by a pilot unless it is a blatant threat, not an errant old man. Maybe an automated system. It'll be a shame, and expose our leaders for the whimpering cowards they are, problem is will anyone care? Personally, I doubt it, not enough people anyway.

 

[Henning]

The only government building bombed in modern times, was done with a truck bomb, why aren't the trucks kept out of DC?

Pentagon 9/11?

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

and if it gets shot down, it will take out a whole bunch of people too.

quote from the English Patient: "People did die. just different people".

Right, and a no-win situation.

Perpetuated by some blundering people & some malicious people & some looking for security that's unattainable...

Ah, screw it ! Who wants to go flying !

 

[Greebo]

Until he actually commences the act of rape he is guilty of nothing more than trespassing.

The guilt or innocence of the pilots in violation of FARs is not the issue, the issue is should he be shot down because he violated the airspace.

Even more pertinent than that is the pilot's intent.

This is, of course, where the analogy falls apart.

You can't adequately evaluate the merit of shooting down planes for airspace violations by comparing it to a case where the fundamentals are so different. The analogy doesn't hold.

Because the rapist, or heck, the simple burglar, who enters my house is already guilty of criminal law for breaking and entering and trespassing, showing a willingness to violate criminal law, and thus if I discover said individual with no reason to be in my house at 3 am, I shoot first, because I don't need to know anymore about his intentions than "He deliberately broke the law" to be afraid enough for my family's safety to kill the bastard where he stands. Who cares what his further intent was - that's MY home and MY family I'm defending. If he was just looking for help, he could have KNOCKED.

But the pilot who stupidly strays into the ADIZ in violation of administrative law, dumb and stupid hasn't willingly violated that law, he's just been dumber than a box of rocks.

And by the way - that 3 AM shooting? Most states consider that justifiable homicide and in some (of note in the news recently, Florida) you don't even need to demonstrate fear for your life. The 3 AM invader who's shot by the homeowner is not treated as innocent until proven guilty. The homeowner protecting his family is.

How do you justify shooting down a family of innocent civilians for being dumb about their flying?

Without significant reason to believe a real, imminent threat exists, shooting down civilians is not justifiable to me. I hope to whatever God there is it's not justifiable to our leaders either.

 

[sere]

Re: Bureaucratic indiscretion

I concur with you 110 % Richard. Tell me that the terrorists did not win in changing our countrys way of life. I would rather be more at risk than for all of us to loose the freedoms that so many of us in the past fought for and so many are fighting for today. Sorry about getting on a soap box but this type of attitude that some of those in power gets me going. Keep in contact with your Sentor and let them know this is not an option open is all that I know to do. Lets not forget that we did have a shoot down in another country when someone thought an aircraft was flying drugs.

Current intercept procedures are "...a rather tedious chore."? In consideration of the severe consequences of a shoot down I would think the acting secretary would have more carefully chosen his words. OTOH, perhaps his words accurately describe his position.

This is a serious matter, how many of the "hundreds" of transgressor flights have been terrorists or have exhibited nefarious intent? A shoot down is gonna' have heads rolling on a platter. Procedure or process be damned, this is intentional destruction of human life and if this were to actually occur there will be criminal prosecution of those responsible. I would not want to be in the chain of command involved in ordering a shoot down of what would most probably be a civilian guilty only of unintentionally wandering into the airspace. I think if I were in that chain I would willfully disobey the command--I'd much rather suffer that consequence than the other. How dare anyone--especially our federal govt leaders--show such arrogance and contempt that they should think this is a proper response.

While I do not condone the errant pilot I hardly believe he should pay with his life. One consequence would be a hue and cry across the land never before heard. The nation would be sick with grief made more terrible by the realization that it was sanctioned by US federal statute.

 

[Henning]

And by the way - that 3 AM shooting? Most states consider that justifiable homicide and in some (of note in the news recently, Florida) you don't even need to demonstrate fear for your life. The 3 AM invader who's shot by the homeowner is not treated as innocent until proven guilty. The homeowner protecting his family is.

Heck, in Texas you can kill the repo man trying to get your car. You are allowed lethal force to protect property as well.

How do you justify shooting down a family of innocent civilians for being dumb about their flying?

Without significant reason to believe a real, imminent threat exists, shooting down civilians is not justifiable to me. I hope to whatever God there is it's not justifiable to our leaders either.

It's very justifiable to those pu*** @$$ed M*. This is really going to tell us the future of freedom in the US. Either we will see that the current status of paranoia is costing more than it benefits us and change it, or stupidity will become a capitol offense so aggregious, it allows for summary execution.

 

[Henning]

Do you believe that a Cessna 150 meets the definition of imminent threat?

The destructive force of a 150 is often underestimated. Look at the 150 that crashed in the cemetey in Poland, they dug up 730 victims in the crash zone.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

The destructive force of a 150 is often underestimated. Look at the 150 that crashed in the cemetey in Poland, they dug up 730 victims in the crash zone.

Very Funny...

 

[Henning]

and if it gets shot down, it will take out a whole bunch of people too.

quote from the English Patient: "People did die. just different people".

Well, that's the point isn't it? If you get killed, that doesn't bother our fearless leaders so long as they don't get killed, although how a 150 would deliver a payload that would threaten the White House or Capitol building is an interesting intellectual puzzle. Outside of a small tactical nuke, (Howitzer shell type, which in and of itself is a great challenge not only to acquire but to detonate as well) I can't see how it can pose a threat. Even with that type of weapon, there are more secure and terroristacly effective delivery methods. I don't think anything smaller than say a BE-18 or King Air size aircraft should be even considered a viable threat. The big thing about those airliners was the amount of fuel they were carrying. The fire resulting from even a couple hundred gallons of 100LL or Jet A is easily managed.

 

[Richard]

This is, of course, where the analogy falls apart.

You can't adequately evaluate the merit of shooting down planes for airspace violations by comparing it to a case where the fundamentals are so different. The analogy doesn't hold.

Because the rapist, or heck, the simple burglar, who enters my house is already guilty of criminal law for breaking and entering and trespassing, showing a willingness to violate criminal law, and thus if I discover said individual with no reason to be in my house at 3 am, I shoot first, because I don't need to know anymore about his intentions than "He deliberately broke the law" to be afraid enough for my family's safety to kill the bastard where he stands. Who cares what his further intent was - that's MY home and MY family I'm defending. If he was just looking for help, he could have KNOCKED.

But the pilot who stupidly strays into the ADIZ in violation of administrative law, dumb and stupid hasn't willingly violated that law, he's just been dumber than a box of rocks.

And by the way - that 3 AM shooting? Most states consider that justifiable homicide and in some (of note in the news recently, Florida) you don't even need to demonstrate fear for your life. The 3 AM invader who's shot by the homeowner is not treated as innocent until proven guilty. The homeowner protecting his family is.

How do you justify shooting down a family of innocent civilians for being dumb about their flying?

Without significant reason to believe a real, imminent threat exists, shooting down civilians is not justifiable to me. I hope to whatever God there is it's not justifiable to our leaders either.

I tried to keep my response within the confines of the post to which I responded. I think the poster was using the example of a criminal act to illustrate her point about presumed innocence. You have correctly pointed out the fallacy of that as applied to civil infractions.

 

[woodstock]

The destructive force of a 150 is often underestimated. Look at the 150 that crashed in the cemetey in Poland, they dug up 730 victims in the crash zone.

HA HA!

 

[Greebo]

The destructive force of a 150 is often underestimated. Look at the 150 that crashed in the cemetey in Poland, they dug up 730 victims in the crash zone.

I heard that was West Virginia...

Speaking of which. (Just to lighten the mood some..)

A fully loaded 737 crashes exactly on the border of Indiana and Ohio.

Where do they bury the survivors?

 

[Henning]

I heard that was West Virginia...

Speaking of which. (Just to lighten the mood some..)

A fully loaded 737 crashes exactly on the border of Indiana and Ohio.

Where do they bury the survivors?

Ohio...after you shoot them.