Time for FAA Psychiatric Illness Reform

[PeterNSteinmetz]

The government is not threatening violence by saying "Falsifying or lying on official Govt documents is a felony punishable by fine and or imprisonment". They are merely stating a fact of law. If you commit a crime, there are repercussions.

If they said, ""Falsifying or lying on official Govt documents is a felony punishable by a thorough beating with a side handle baton", That is a threat of violence.

Do you see the difference?

Have to agree with @Warmi on this one. If you don’t comply, both will result in a fairly violent situation ultimately. There is a difference in the degree and immediacy of the violent acts, but the ultimate threat is the same.

What term would you use to describe generally the type of force and threats which is used by the government to enforce laws and regulations?

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Returning to point about FAA regulations, my point was, I don’t think it is reasonable to use physical force, coercion, or violence (whatever you want to call those acts) or threats thereof, to force people to obey regulations for which there is not good evidence that they prevent a clear and present danger to others.

Would the people here arguing in favor of having regulations that just seem like a good idea, but for which there is not clear evidence of their ability to prevent a clear and present danger to others, be willing to personally go over with a gun or other weapon and force their hangar neighbor to comply? Perhaps with a group of friends to ensure compliance?

If the answer is no, then I think one shouldn’t advocate for the regulation.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

As discussed above, there are regulations with civil penalties and those with criminal penalties. Even the most trivial infraction of a law can result in disastrous levels of violence used - witness the Eric Garner case - https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/09/nyregion/eric-garner-case-pantaleo-trial.html.

There are “differences” between the type and level of force used, but isn’t any use or threatened use physical force a form of violence? If you think not, please quote a definition and we can parse whether such use of violence meets it or not.

And more to the point, any violation of a law or regulation without subsequently cooperating with punishment and simply peacefully resisting, can and likely will result, ultimately, in extreme force being used.

What do you think will happen if you violate a regulation, refuse to pay the subsequent administrative fine, have no assets at the bank to seize, and refuse to leave the house you own when they subsequently try and attach it to pay the fine, and tacked on additional fees and levies?

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Also, look up the reason the FDA came into existence, as an outgrowth of the 1906 Pure Food and Drugs act. Selling horse meat as beef, or selling a rose-flavored tonic water as a medicinal cure (unless the disease is scurvy) are certainly bad actions against others.

The important question is whether such regulations actually succeed in helping reduce clear and present dangers to others. I would submit that we have seen no clear evidence here that the FAA’s requirement for a 3rd class medical improves the safety of flight and reduces dangers to others.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Now, if said hangar neighbor had someone tided up in there hanger and they were assaulting or other wise harming them, then by all means, intervene. But if you're going to bring a gun into the equation, you've just escalated to deadly force, and you better be able to justify it or you will be facing the consequences.

I basically agree. And what the FAA in many cases is doing with regulations is essentially introducing violence or threat thereof into a situation where there is no clear evidence of a clear and present danger to anyone.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Certainly, the FDA rules have helped greatly. As for the FAA's 3rd class medical requirements, one can also argue with equal authority that people with issues have been discouraged from aviation.

Happy to look at any studies you would care to cite regarding the FDA. There are many that disagree on the assertion that the FDA’s approach is effective.

As to the FAA. Much of the thread preceding has been parsing he evidence and debating the assertion that the overall effect has improved the safety of flight. If you have some additional studies or data, please do enlighten us.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

We seem to be going round in circles here. You say: the FAA in many cases is introducing violence or threat thereof.

Please provide one example, so I can respond directly.

Ok, having a more concrete example is a good idea.

How about we parse this example indictment in another thread -

Chrisman is indeed charged with 18.1001 (2 counts).

What do you think will happen to Chrisman if he stops cooperating with this process in any way and does not respond to subpoenas, fines, notices of forfeiture etc? Just completely peacefully does not cooperate with it in any way.

I think it is a near certainty some people with a lot of guns will show up and take his property against his will. If he doesn’t have bank account they can take, they will come to his house and forcibly remove him. Or forcibly capture him and put him in a cage.

Is there any chance that would not happen? The FAA and the federal prosecutors are just going to leave him alone?

If it is a near certainty that force would ultimately be used in presence of peaceful non-cooperation, then there is a threat of such force being used to ensure compliance. The force does not have to have actually been used for the threat to exist.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Just look up the history of the FDA, and the 1903 act I cited. Look up the history of thalidomide. As an example of how they messed up, look up Fen-phen. I work with people who fall within the pharma industry, and I know FDA oversight is needed.

Actually I know some of the examples you cite here fairly well. The fact that some bad things happened doesn’t imply the regulations have improved safety overall. One has to study this and the correlations more carefully than that to tease out the causative factors. If you have some actual studies happy to look at them.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

It seems to me that you think threatening someone with a fine or jail time, is a threat of violence. I don't understand that rational. Telling the consequences or their actions for a criminal or civil act (i.e. fine or jail time) is not a threat of violence.

Ok, let’s take it one step at a time. What will likely happen to Chrisman if he simply does nothing as a next step? He completely peacefully does nothing?

I assume he will be found guilty of violating this statute and then sentenced to either a fine or prison time , is that correct?

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

One point that needs to be made is that enforcement is not necessarily violent. Equating the two is an exaggeration. If the violator uses violence or the threat of violence to RESIST the enforcement, then violence on the part of the enforcers becomes much more likely.

Plenty of people have violence, like doors being broken down and auto weapons pointed at them, having committed no violent act whatsoever. It is not an exaggeration that this happens with reasonable frequency. I should add on most cases is considered to be legal behavior on the part of the LEOs.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

No.

Well let’s back up one step. If LEOs come and break the door down to someone’s house, point an automatic weapon at them, physically pick them up, put them in handcuffs, and take them and lock them in a cage, is that a use of violence?

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

The FAA is not a party to this. A crime is the federal prosecutor representing the people of the United States who are harmed by criminal activity.

Correct, I believe the case is US vs the defendant and it is pursued by the Federal prosecutors. The case does arise however, from an operation to which the FAA was a party and Chrisman was filling out an FAA form at the time of the alleged crime. Filling out the form is required by an FAA regulation.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Let's back up another step. That's not going to happen if you don't answer a question on an FAA form. Give me a break. To say that someone is going to break into your house with guns drawn because you lied on an FAA form (which was your decision, by the way) is patently absurd.

Making an assertion and not responding to the question, which arises over the question of what constitutes an act of violence or threat thereof.

If that happens, would you agree that would be an act of violence?

Once we can agree on what is a violent act, then it might make sense to discuss when a threat of same has occurred. If we don’t agree on what is an act of violence, then it really doesn’t make sense to discuss a threat of same, because we don’t agree on the term.

I think your response could mean that yes, that would be an act of violence.

So now in Chrisman’s case, he allegedly lied on the form. What do you think will be the next thing that happens to him if he peacefully does nothing at all?

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

He'll be arrested. He's out on bail now.

What do you think will happen to him if he peacefully does nothing in the future about this? Fails to appear in court?

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Sure, violence sometimes occurs, but it's not an inevitable element of law enforcement. If the violator does not resist arrest, enforcement can be a nonviolent process.

So what if in the Chrisman case for example he does nothing henceforward. What will happen to him next? Will they come with guns to try and arrest him?

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Breaking the door down and pointing a weapon is definitely a clear signal of ones willingness to escalate to the use violence.
Physically picking someone up, placing them in handcuff and locking them up in a cage is not a use of violence.

Here is what I would expect to happen to Chrisman if he peacefully does nothing. A warrant will be issued for violating bail. US Marshalls will appear at his house and pound on the door demanding entrance. If he does nothing, they will break down the door. If he does nothing further they will physically pick him up, place him in handcuffs, and lock him in a cage. If he has any known weapons in the house, this will likely be a SWAT team raid with body armor and automatic weapons being pointed.

Is the breaking down the door an act of violence? Here's a Merriam-Webster definition: " Definition of violence 1a: the use of physical force so as to injure, abuse, damage, or destroy"

In this likely case, LEOs are using physical force to damage or destroy the door. I would submit that is violence by that 1a definition from Merriam Webster.

Say they manage to capture him walking on the street and grab him and handcuff him and force him into the car without having to break down a door. Is that violence? I think in the common sense of the word that is still violence, but I suppose one could try and make an argument that is non-violent, not that I agree that is the common meaning of the term.

Arrest while walking on the street is also a fairly unusual scenario for serving an arrest warrant. Normally they are served at home or while someone is driving. (We could parse what happens if he peacefully continues driving to his destination, though that case is more complex due to public ownership of the roads.)

So since in many cases people will be apprehended in their homes, with the use of door breaking to gain entry, it strikes me as not unreasonable and fairly accurate to say that in most cases the ultimate enforcement of laws and regulations will involve the use of this type of violent act. Thus the threat of it if you don't comply, even if you are completely peaceful.

I suppose I could rephrase my original statement to 'the enforcement of laws and regulations involves the use of physical coercion or violence or threats thereof'. I think that still makes the same point with regard to my belief that it is not reasonable to make such threats without clear evidence that a person's acts are preventing a clear and present danger to others.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

In most cases, they will succeed in arresting him without violence. If he violently resists arrest, that's on him.

As discussed at length in my post above, I think that a good case can be made that in most cases if he literally does nothing and acts completely peacefully, violence will be used to arrest him, per the dictionary definition. The only reason many arrests, especially for items like this, would go peacefully, is because of the threat of the violent act and the person knowing of that threat and deciding it is not worth a physical fight.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

[QUOTE="SToL, post: 2753978]"Fine and or Jail is a punishment (which does not indicate any violence against the defendant) that is issued at the determined and issued by a judge through the trial.[/QUOTE]

So you really want to contend that forcibly taking someone's property against their will or locking them in a cage against their will is not a violent act? I can see how maybe one can try and contend that per the Merriam-Webster definition. I must confess it strikes me as a stretch though.

Nonetheless, I could rephrase my main point as being the use of physical coercion. I trust we would agree that locking people in a cage is physical coercion?

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Those bad things don't happen now. Medicines are required to meet some sort of efficacy standard, and the prevalence of side effects understood. We can't get to the level of no side effects,at least not yet, as we don't have a perfect understanding of genetics, epigenetics. But on the whole, dangerous and/or useless medicines don't get into the marketplace anymore. We need the regulations since, as the opioid crisis shows, people in large pharma companies are willing to find ways around the regulations to maximize profits. I won't claim it's a perfect system, but it has certainly "actually succeed(ed)* in helping reduce clear and present dangers to others". Or would you like to go back to the days of soda pop being prescribed and used for medicine? Do you want to go back to the days of formaldehyde being used as a food preservative? You seem to be ignoring the root cause's of these regulations.

*(ed) added to quote for the sake of grammar.

Firstly, please don't presume to know what I am thinking or paying attention to (I don't think you meant this meanly but it is a subtle ad hominem attack).

No I am not ignoring these things, I just don't believe the efficacy of FDA regulations in ensuring safety overall, including unintended consequences and costs, has been shown to be positive. Similarly for FAA regulations regarding 3rd class medicals. Simply making this type of argument here on the forum isn't going to be convincing since there are serious studies that have examined these issues. If you want to discuss those type of studies I am game.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Here is the dictionary.com definition of violence, for another view:

violence noun
swift and intense force:the violence of a storm.
rough or injurious physical force, action, or treatment:to die by violence.
an unjust or unwarranted exertion of force or power, as against rights or laws:to take over a government by violence.
a violent act or proceeding.
rough or immoderate vehemence, as of feeling or language:the violence of his hatred.
damage through distortion or unwarranted alteration:

So I think this definition is a bit broader and does not require actual intent to injure or damage. One could go on with this semantic debate I suppose.

But I think the point is made by replacing 'violence' by 'physical coercion'. In my view, not a reasonable or peaceful thing for the government or anyone else to do without clear evidence of a clear and present danger to other parties. And I think different views of this are one cause of the political differences in the reasonability of current FAA aeromedical regulations.

The other cause of such differences is different parsings of the data on efficacy. I actually tend to be more interested in discussing this latter generally on PoA. I enjoy discussing political philosophy over a beer, less so on the internet.