3 Alcohol Events - 2 as a Minor - 3rd Class Medical Deferment

[pit2atx]

So I was given a deferment for my third class medical and wondering how long this process will take to either deny me or go through the steps to receive my medical. This was due to having 3 alcohol events on my record. Let me explain..

All in Pennsylvania
2003 - Possession of Alcohol (Minor) - Record expunged but listed in NDR - No court records can be found
2004 - Possession of Alcohol (Minor) - Record expunged but listed in NDR - No court records can be found
2009 - DUI - Record expunged but listed in NDR - No court records can be found and can't find actual BAC. Driving record shows BAC tier between .1 and .159

The first two occurred as a minor and no records exist as mentioned but listed an alcohol related event on NDR.

Has anyone had a similar situation or know someone in a similar situation? What was the end result? Any insight into timeframe for final result?

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

3 SEPERATE alcohol offenses AND he still drinks, and you think he’s good to go? And I’m the nutty one?

Are you an LEO? Who has taken an oath to enforce all laws? (no matter how unjust or cruel)

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

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?

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.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

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.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

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?

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.

few people have taken an oath to uphold the peace

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.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

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.

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.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

If my job makes me a minion of the government, again whatever.

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.