rotorwrench
Active member
No. I don’t equate penalty and punishment to threats and violence. As the adage goes, if you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime.
So it’s your belief that all aviation violations should be free of penalty and punishment?
You mean they didn't summarily execute him?
- Thread starter PeterNSteinmetz
- Start date
So it’s your belief that all aviation violations should be free of penalty and punishment?
Winthrop
Active member
So let us say you were in Singapore where corporal punishment is used for minor crimes, e.g. vandalism. Do you consider the threat of being caned in Singapore to be a threat of violence?
In the US the 8th Amendment has been interpreted as banning corporal punishment as "cruel and unusual" but if you refuse to willingly go to jail you can be physically harmed in the process of dragging you to jail. Indeed, most police rather enjoy claiming people are "resisting arrest" to engage in legalized beatings. But I gather you do not consider that state sanctioned violence.
Yes, this seems to be skirting the issue. While it is true that the FAA does not have a SWAT team yet, it does refer the cases for criminal prosecution by people who have guns and will use them to enforce a judgement.
So yes the FAA regulations are backed by a threat or actual use of violence in the final analysis. As are all government laws and regulations. That is what makes them government laws and regulations rather than suggestions.
What do these 3 things have to do with each other?
Do you deny that Brailsford used violence against Shaver? Yes or no? If yes, what are the pertinent differences between what happened there and the definition?
Let’s deal with this one item at a time. After we establish the meaning of the terms being used in the discussion, it will then become more meaningful to contemplate the refinements and distinctions which are likely the source of disagreement here.
Last edited:
Winthrop
Active member
The idea that because the FAA does not generally engage in criminal enforcement directly there is not threat of violence would be like arguing that the People's Republic of China is a peaceful country because it does not have an army. (The country does not have an army, but the communist party does)
These are sophistic distinctions which are based partly on fact, but lead to ludicrous conclusions. I should stress that I am not suggesting there should not be an element of force in the enforcement of laws for public safety, but denying they exist is ludicrous.
Perhaps the more interesting question which I will pose in another thread is when does a safety violation necessitate the threat of violence for enforcement purposes.
These are sophistic distinctions which are based partly on fact, but lead to ludicrous conclusions. I should stress that I am not suggesting there should not be an element of force in the enforcement of laws for public safety, but denying they exist is ludicrous.
Perhaps the more interesting question which I will pose in another thread is when does a safety violation necessitate the threat of violence for enforcement purposes.
rotorwrench
Active member
Because the FAA does not directly engage in criminal enforcement nor is it permitted to. However, your new thread is more relevant and realistic to this topic than this thread’s generalized route, so I’ll reserve my future replies to there.
Winthrop
Active member
Actually they have in the past and could in theory do so. I am sure if I pulled cases I would find some SAUSAs from the FAA.
rotorwrench
Active member
Are those the badges from the original airport check point police?
Winthrop
Active member
Yes, point being they are under statute and DoT regulations empowered to investigate and even prosecute certain crimes.