Pilot Accused of Trying to Bring Down Flight Claims he Used Magic Mushrooms
-
Update: New Information... Please share in your opinions. :sigh: Do not present arguments. Do not post technical data. It's what turned this thread into a slow-motion train wreck the first time around. I'm not posting this to immerse myself in confusion and misunderstanding. I didn't particularly enjoy it. I'm guessing you likely didn't, either. OK, moving on. I'm curious what you have to say, so please share your opinions. :) Pilot claims he took psychedelic mushrooms before Alaska Airlines flight he's accused of trying to crash[^] News Article from CBS News: Alaska Airlines flight diverted, off-duty pilot Joseph Emerson arrested for trying to cut engines midflight, officials say - CBS News[^] I'm curious about your opinion on this one. Joseph Emerson has been charged with 83 counts of reckless endangerment. That makes perfect sense. He's also charged with 1 count of endangering an aircraft. That makes sense as well. He's charged with 83 counts of attempted murder. Really? In an airliner's cockpit, you have engine fire handles. When you pull the handle, fuel is cut off to the corresponding engine. You have the ability to restart an engine provided you push the fire handle back to its inactive position. The aircraft was cruising at 31,000 ft. It had been airborne for 30 minutes. The captain and first officer deactivated the engine fire suppression system quickly enough to prevent either engine from shutting down. I don't know what happened up there, but if you're attempting to crash an airliner by activating the engine fire suppression system, you're mentally retarded. At cruising altitude, you have more than enough time to restart the aircraft's engines. Just pull out the checklist required for engine restart, and do the procedure. It's designed to be quick. At 31,000 ft. you could sit back and drink a cup of coffee and maybe eat a small snack before engine restart. You're not going to fall out of the sky if both engines lose all thrust. At such an altitude, the aircraft can glide fo
-
Update: New Information... Please share in your opinions. :sigh: Do not present arguments. Do not post technical data. It's what turned this thread into a slow-motion train wreck the first time around. I'm not posting this to immerse myself in confusion and misunderstanding. I didn't particularly enjoy it. I'm guessing you likely didn't, either. OK, moving on. I'm curious what you have to say, so please share your opinions. :) Pilot claims he took psychedelic mushrooms before Alaska Airlines flight he's accused of trying to crash[^] News Article from CBS News: Alaska Airlines flight diverted, off-duty pilot Joseph Emerson arrested for trying to cut engines midflight, officials say - CBS News[^] I'm curious about your opinion on this one. Joseph Emerson has been charged with 83 counts of reckless endangerment. That makes perfect sense. He's also charged with 1 count of endangering an aircraft. That makes sense as well. He's charged with 83 counts of attempted murder. Really? In an airliner's cockpit, you have engine fire handles. When you pull the handle, fuel is cut off to the corresponding engine. You have the ability to restart an engine provided you push the fire handle back to its inactive position. The aircraft was cruising at 31,000 ft. It had been airborne for 30 minutes. The captain and first officer deactivated the engine fire suppression system quickly enough to prevent either engine from shutting down. I don't know what happened up there, but if you're attempting to crash an airliner by activating the engine fire suppression system, you're mentally retarded. At cruising altitude, you have more than enough time to restart the aircraft's engines. Just pull out the checklist required for engine restart, and do the procedure. It's designed to be quick. At 31,000 ft. you could sit back and drink a cup of coffee and maybe eat a small snack before engine restart. You're not going to fall out of the sky if both engines lose all thrust. At such an altitude, the aircraft can glide fo
-
Politics not popular here Steve
In a closed society where everybody's guilty, the only crime is getting caught. In a world of thieves, the only final sin is stupidity. - Hunter S Thompson - RIP
-
Update: New Information... Please share in your opinions. :sigh: Do not present arguments. Do not post technical data. It's what turned this thread into a slow-motion train wreck the first time around. I'm not posting this to immerse myself in confusion and misunderstanding. I didn't particularly enjoy it. I'm guessing you likely didn't, either. OK, moving on. I'm curious what you have to say, so please share your opinions. :) Pilot claims he took psychedelic mushrooms before Alaska Airlines flight he's accused of trying to crash[^] News Article from CBS News: Alaska Airlines flight diverted, off-duty pilot Joseph Emerson arrested for trying to cut engines midflight, officials say - CBS News[^] I'm curious about your opinion on this one. Joseph Emerson has been charged with 83 counts of reckless endangerment. That makes perfect sense. He's also charged with 1 count of endangering an aircraft. That makes sense as well. He's charged with 83 counts of attempted murder. Really? In an airliner's cockpit, you have engine fire handles. When you pull the handle, fuel is cut off to the corresponding engine. You have the ability to restart an engine provided you push the fire handle back to its inactive position. The aircraft was cruising at 31,000 ft. It had been airborne for 30 minutes. The captain and first officer deactivated the engine fire suppression system quickly enough to prevent either engine from shutting down. I don't know what happened up there, but if you're attempting to crash an airliner by activating the engine fire suppression system, you're mentally retarded. At cruising altitude, you have more than enough time to restart the aircraft's engines. Just pull out the checklist required for engine restart, and do the procedure. It's designed to be quick. At 31,000 ft. you could sit back and drink a cup of coffee and maybe eat a small snack before engine restart. You're not going to fall out of the sky if both engines lose all thrust. At such an altitude, the aircraft can glide fo
Have a look here: Attempted murder - Wikipedia[^]
Quote:
First, acting deliberately and intentionally or recklessly with extreme disregard for human life, the person attempted to kill someone; and the person did something that was a substantial step toward committing the crime.
Was it a deliberate act? Yes. Was it intentional or reckless with extreme disregard for human life? Yes. Did he take an action that was a step towards killing the passengers? Yes. If he thought at all, he relied on the other pilots realising what he did in time, and being able to undo what he did in time, assuming the attempts to undo it didn't have complications resulting in a crash (the system could have failed, the off switch could have broken, hydraulic problems, etc.) I suspect his defence will try to wriggle it down, but I'd say that you fly for the big one and let a jury decide.
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony "Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
-
Update: New Information... Please share in your opinions. :sigh: Do not present arguments. Do not post technical data. It's what turned this thread into a slow-motion train wreck the first time around. I'm not posting this to immerse myself in confusion and misunderstanding. I didn't particularly enjoy it. I'm guessing you likely didn't, either. OK, moving on. I'm curious what you have to say, so please share your opinions. :) Pilot claims he took psychedelic mushrooms before Alaska Airlines flight he's accused of trying to crash[^] News Article from CBS News: Alaska Airlines flight diverted, off-duty pilot Joseph Emerson arrested for trying to cut engines midflight, officials say - CBS News[^] I'm curious about your opinion on this one. Joseph Emerson has been charged with 83 counts of reckless endangerment. That makes perfect sense. He's also charged with 1 count of endangering an aircraft. That makes sense as well. He's charged with 83 counts of attempted murder. Really? In an airliner's cockpit, you have engine fire handles. When you pull the handle, fuel is cut off to the corresponding engine. You have the ability to restart an engine provided you push the fire handle back to its inactive position. The aircraft was cruising at 31,000 ft. It had been airborne for 30 minutes. The captain and first officer deactivated the engine fire suppression system quickly enough to prevent either engine from shutting down. I don't know what happened up there, but if you're attempting to crash an airliner by activating the engine fire suppression system, you're mentally retarded. At cruising altitude, you have more than enough time to restart the aircraft's engines. Just pull out the checklist required for engine restart, and do the procedure. It's designed to be quick. At 31,000 ft. you could sit back and drink a cup of coffee and maybe eat a small snack before engine restart. You're not going to fall out of the sky if both engines lose all thrust. At such an altitude, the aircraft can glide fo
Steve Raw wrote:
I don't know of any FAA laws that prohibit an idiot from doing something stupid
Most of the FAA laws are there because an idiot did something stupid and they want to prevent the next one doing it! Think about it: turning up to work drunk is bad in any profession, but as a pilot? But they still do, the FAA law is there to make sure they can't do it again by permanently removing their right to fly.
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony "Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
-
Update: New Information... Please share in your opinions. :sigh: Do not present arguments. Do not post technical data. It's what turned this thread into a slow-motion train wreck the first time around. I'm not posting this to immerse myself in confusion and misunderstanding. I didn't particularly enjoy it. I'm guessing you likely didn't, either. OK, moving on. I'm curious what you have to say, so please share your opinions. :) Pilot claims he took psychedelic mushrooms before Alaska Airlines flight he's accused of trying to crash[^] News Article from CBS News: Alaska Airlines flight diverted, off-duty pilot Joseph Emerson arrested for trying to cut engines midflight, officials say - CBS News[^] I'm curious about your opinion on this one. Joseph Emerson has been charged with 83 counts of reckless endangerment. That makes perfect sense. He's also charged with 1 count of endangering an aircraft. That makes sense as well. He's charged with 83 counts of attempted murder. Really? In an airliner's cockpit, you have engine fire handles. When you pull the handle, fuel is cut off to the corresponding engine. You have the ability to restart an engine provided you push the fire handle back to its inactive position. The aircraft was cruising at 31,000 ft. It had been airborne for 30 minutes. The captain and first officer deactivated the engine fire suppression system quickly enough to prevent either engine from shutting down. I don't know what happened up there, but if you're attempting to crash an airliner by activating the engine fire suppression system, you're mentally retarded. At cruising altitude, you have more than enough time to restart the aircraft's engines. Just pull out the checklist required for engine restart, and do the procedure. It's designed to be quick. At 31,000 ft. you could sit back and drink a cup of coffee and maybe eat a small snack before engine restart. You're not going to fall out of the sky if both engines lose all thrust. At such an altitude, the aircraft can glide fo
It seems to me that his wish was to crash the airplane, which would (probably) have caused the death of 83 people. Even though his "primary" intent probably was to commit suicide, he most certainly knew that everybody on board would die with him. Maybe he can convince the court and the judge that he did not intend to crash the plane; that would change matters - but I'd be surprised. So to me, it sounds very much as if he attempted to murder them. I also think that if you murder 83 civilians because you think that there is a certain chance that there possibly is an enemy soldier among them, you are still murdering 83 civilians. Here in Norway, a young man who "technically" was a virgin, he had never been in bed with a girl, was convicted of raping 120 girls. He hadn't ever met any of these 120 girls in person. But he had seen pictures of their bodies on his PC screen. According to Norwegian law, that is more than attempted rape, it is equivalent to actually performing the rape. As far as I understand it, it applies only if you see a digital image on a PC screen. If you see the girl's body in real life, with nothing more happening beyond you seeing her body, as far as I know, you cannot be convicted of rape. The difference comes when we can put the label 'internet' on it.) Noone claims that this guy had any real intent of physically raping the girls, and it didn't happen. Yet he was convicted as if it had happened. I find this a lot harder to accept than a man deliberately and knowingly trying to crash an airplane being convicted of attempted murder of the passengers and crew on board the plane.
-
Steve Raw wrote:
I don't know of any FAA laws that prohibit an idiot from doing something stupid
Most of the FAA laws are there because an idiot did something stupid and they want to prevent the next one doing it! Think about it: turning up to work drunk is bad in any profession, but as a pilot? But they still do, the FAA law is there to make sure they can't do it again by permanently removing their right to fly.
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony "Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
-
Politics not popular here Steve
In a closed society where everybody's guilty, the only crime is getting caught. In a world of thieves, the only final sin is stupidity. - Hunter S Thompson - RIP
-
Have a look here: Attempted murder - Wikipedia[^]
Quote:
First, acting deliberately and intentionally or recklessly with extreme disregard for human life, the person attempted to kill someone; and the person did something that was a substantial step toward committing the crime.
Was it a deliberate act? Yes. Was it intentional or reckless with extreme disregard for human life? Yes. Did he take an action that was a step towards killing the passengers? Yes. If he thought at all, he relied on the other pilots realising what he did in time, and being able to undo what he did in time, assuming the attempts to undo it didn't have complications resulting in a crash (the system could have failed, the off switch could have broken, hydraulic problems, etc.) I suspect his defence will try to wriggle it down, but I'd say that you fly for the big one and let a jury decide.
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony "Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
OriginalGriff wrote:
Was it a deliberate act? Yes.
He did commit a deliberate act. That's a yes.
OriginalGriff wrote:
Was it intentional or reckless with extreme disregard for human life? Yes.
His deliberate act was both intentional and reckless with extreme disregard for human life. That's a yes. What we haven't established yet, are his intentions for committing an intentional act. We know it was intentional and reckless with an extreme disregard for human life, but we don't know what his intentions were in committing this act. I don't know what his intentions were, but I agree with you on the points you made.
OriginalGriff wrote:
If he thought at all, he relied on the other pilots realising what he did in time, and being able to undo what he did in time, assuming the attempts to undo it didn't have complications resulting in a crash (the system could have failed, the off switch could have broken, hydraulic problems, etc.)
That's thought-provoking. You make an interesting point.
OriginalGriff wrote:
I suspect his defence will try to wriggle it down, but I'd say that you fly for the big one and let a jury decide.
Ultimately, a jury's decision is what matters. We can discuss our opinions as long as we do so in a reasonable manner. Everyone has an absolute right to hold their opinions and express them as they choose to do so. I respect that. Everyone has the right to challenge the opinions of others. I respect that. It's important that we remind ourselves of these rights. To infringe upon these rights is a violation of the most fundamental principles we live by. I want to reiterate that this thread is entirely about opinion. We don't know what the facts are. If we don't have knowledge of the facts, we can't establish a valid argument to support an opinion. Opinions are entirely subjective, and that's something we need to keep in mind.
-
OriginalGriff wrote:
Was it a deliberate act? Yes.
He did commit a deliberate act. That's a yes.
OriginalGriff wrote:
Was it intentional or reckless with extreme disregard for human life? Yes.
His deliberate act was both intentional and reckless with extreme disregard for human life. That's a yes. What we haven't established yet, are his intentions for committing an intentional act. We know it was intentional and reckless with an extreme disregard for human life, but we don't know what his intentions were in committing this act. I don't know what his intentions were, but I agree with you on the points you made.
OriginalGriff wrote:
If he thought at all, he relied on the other pilots realising what he did in time, and being able to undo what he did in time, assuming the attempts to undo it didn't have complications resulting in a crash (the system could have failed, the off switch could have broken, hydraulic problems, etc.)
That's thought-provoking. You make an interesting point.
OriginalGriff wrote:
I suspect his defence will try to wriggle it down, but I'd say that you fly for the big one and let a jury decide.
Ultimately, a jury's decision is what matters. We can discuss our opinions as long as we do so in a reasonable manner. Everyone has an absolute right to hold their opinions and express them as they choose to do so. I respect that. Everyone has the right to challenge the opinions of others. I respect that. It's important that we remind ourselves of these rights. To infringe upon these rights is a violation of the most fundamental principles we live by. I want to reiterate that this thread is entirely about opinion. We don't know what the facts are. If we don't have knowledge of the facts, we can't establish a valid argument to support an opinion. Opinions are entirely subjective, and that's something we need to keep in mind.
I don't know how much intent even matters here from a legal perspective. Intent is the difference between 2nd degree and 1st degree murder. Attempted murder would seem to cover even the cases where intent wasn't there, as long as say, the reckless disregard was. In general prosecution overcharges if anything, and defense over defends. It's an adversarial system by design where in the end, hopefully the two opposing sides air every possible avenue and something resembling "fair" emerges from the smoke. For my part, everything that happened from a legal perspective seems par for the course. I won't weigh in on how I feel about the legal system because it would get political.
Check out my IoT graphics library here: https://honeythecodewitch.com/gfx And my IoT UI/User Experience library here: https://honeythecodewitch.com/uix
-
It seems to me that his wish was to crash the airplane, which would (probably) have caused the death of 83 people. Even though his "primary" intent probably was to commit suicide, he most certainly knew that everybody on board would die with him. Maybe he can convince the court and the judge that he did not intend to crash the plane; that would change matters - but I'd be surprised. So to me, it sounds very much as if he attempted to murder them. I also think that if you murder 83 civilians because you think that there is a certain chance that there possibly is an enemy soldier among them, you are still murdering 83 civilians. Here in Norway, a young man who "technically" was a virgin, he had never been in bed with a girl, was convicted of raping 120 girls. He hadn't ever met any of these 120 girls in person. But he had seen pictures of their bodies on his PC screen. According to Norwegian law, that is more than attempted rape, it is equivalent to actually performing the rape. As far as I understand it, it applies only if you see a digital image on a PC screen. If you see the girl's body in real life, with nothing more happening beyond you seeing her body, as far as I know, you cannot be convicted of rape. The difference comes when we can put the label 'internet' on it.) Noone claims that this guy had any real intent of physically raping the girls, and it didn't happen. Yet he was convicted as if it had happened. I find this a lot harder to accept than a man deliberately and knowingly trying to crash an airplane being convicted of attempted murder of the passengers and crew on board the plane.
-
Update: New Information... Please share in your opinions. :sigh: Do not present arguments. Do not post technical data. It's what turned this thread into a slow-motion train wreck the first time around. I'm not posting this to immerse myself in confusion and misunderstanding. I didn't particularly enjoy it. I'm guessing you likely didn't, either. OK, moving on. I'm curious what you have to say, so please share your opinions. :) Pilot claims he took psychedelic mushrooms before Alaska Airlines flight he's accused of trying to crash[^] News Article from CBS News: Alaska Airlines flight diverted, off-duty pilot Joseph Emerson arrested for trying to cut engines midflight, officials say - CBS News[^] I'm curious about your opinion on this one. Joseph Emerson has been charged with 83 counts of reckless endangerment. That makes perfect sense. He's also charged with 1 count of endangering an aircraft. That makes sense as well. He's charged with 83 counts of attempted murder. Really? In an airliner's cockpit, you have engine fire handles. When you pull the handle, fuel is cut off to the corresponding engine. You have the ability to restart an engine provided you push the fire handle back to its inactive position. The aircraft was cruising at 31,000 ft. It had been airborne for 30 minutes. The captain and first officer deactivated the engine fire suppression system quickly enough to prevent either engine from shutting down. I don't know what happened up there, but if you're attempting to crash an airliner by activating the engine fire suppression system, you're mentally retarded. At cruising altitude, you have more than enough time to restart the aircraft's engines. Just pull out the checklist required for engine restart, and do the procedure. It's designed to be quick. At 31,000 ft. you could sit back and drink a cup of coffee and maybe eat a small snack before engine restart. You're not going to fall out of the sky if both engines lose all thrust. At such an altitude, the aircraft can glide fo
Here's something to consider. What if he experienced a psychotic break? What happens during a psychotic break is that a person loses touch with reality. Losing touch with reality could easily have been what caused such bizarre behavior. It can happen to anyone, even if there is no evidence that could indicate the presence of mental illness. It's possible that mental illness may not even be present. A psychotic break can happen to someone as a result of a medical condition. Oftentimes, a psychotic break will occur as a result of significant stress or trauma. If you're a pilot over the age of 40, you require a health checkup every six months. It's required by law. It's well within reason to consider that he has passed his health checkups without any problems in the past. It's well within reason to understand that without any history of mental illness, this can happen to someone without forewarning. Given that these psychotic episodes occur in a state of psychological stress, he may have acted out of panic, with a delusion that caused him to believe there was in fact an engine fire. If this were to be the case, how would it change your opinion? By no means would I consider ruling this possibility out. If this were in fact the case, would it affect your opinion? How so?
-
Update: New Information... Please share in your opinions. :sigh: Do not present arguments. Do not post technical data. It's what turned this thread into a slow-motion train wreck the first time around. I'm not posting this to immerse myself in confusion and misunderstanding. I didn't particularly enjoy it. I'm guessing you likely didn't, either. OK, moving on. I'm curious what you have to say, so please share your opinions. :) Pilot claims he took psychedelic mushrooms before Alaska Airlines flight he's accused of trying to crash[^] News Article from CBS News: Alaska Airlines flight diverted, off-duty pilot Joseph Emerson arrested for trying to cut engines midflight, officials say - CBS News[^] I'm curious about your opinion on this one. Joseph Emerson has been charged with 83 counts of reckless endangerment. That makes perfect sense. He's also charged with 1 count of endangering an aircraft. That makes sense as well. He's charged with 83 counts of attempted murder. Really? In an airliner's cockpit, you have engine fire handles. When you pull the handle, fuel is cut off to the corresponding engine. You have the ability to restart an engine provided you push the fire handle back to its inactive position. The aircraft was cruising at 31,000 ft. It had been airborne for 30 minutes. The captain and first officer deactivated the engine fire suppression system quickly enough to prevent either engine from shutting down. I don't know what happened up there, but if you're attempting to crash an airliner by activating the engine fire suppression system, you're mentally retarded. At cruising altitude, you have more than enough time to restart the aircraft's engines. Just pull out the checklist required for engine restart, and do the procedure. It's designed to be quick. At 31,000 ft. you could sit back and drink a cup of coffee and maybe eat a small snack before engine restart. You're not going to fall out of the sky if both engines lose all thrust. At such an altitude, the aircraft can glide fo
Here's another recent news involving another Alaska airlines flight - [Portland International Airport: FAA investigating possible close call between two airliners | CNN](https://edition.cnn.com/2023/10/23/us/portland-airport-near-miss-investigation/index.html)
-
Update: New Information... Please share in your opinions. :sigh: Do not present arguments. Do not post technical data. It's what turned this thread into a slow-motion train wreck the first time around. I'm not posting this to immerse myself in confusion and misunderstanding. I didn't particularly enjoy it. I'm guessing you likely didn't, either. OK, moving on. I'm curious what you have to say, so please share your opinions. :) Pilot claims he took psychedelic mushrooms before Alaska Airlines flight he's accused of trying to crash[^] News Article from CBS News: Alaska Airlines flight diverted, off-duty pilot Joseph Emerson arrested for trying to cut engines midflight, officials say - CBS News[^] I'm curious about your opinion on this one. Joseph Emerson has been charged with 83 counts of reckless endangerment. That makes perfect sense. He's also charged with 1 count of endangering an aircraft. That makes sense as well. He's charged with 83 counts of attempted murder. Really? In an airliner's cockpit, you have engine fire handles. When you pull the handle, fuel is cut off to the corresponding engine. You have the ability to restart an engine provided you push the fire handle back to its inactive position. The aircraft was cruising at 31,000 ft. It had been airborne for 30 minutes. The captain and first officer deactivated the engine fire suppression system quickly enough to prevent either engine from shutting down. I don't know what happened up there, but if you're attempting to crash an airliner by activating the engine fire suppression system, you're mentally retarded. At cruising altitude, you have more than enough time to restart the aircraft's engines. Just pull out the checklist required for engine restart, and do the procedure. It's designed to be quick. At 31,000 ft. you could sit back and drink a cup of coffee and maybe eat a small snack before engine restart. You're not going to fall out of the sky if both engines lose all thrust. At such an altitude, the aircraft can glide fo
-
OriginalGriff wrote:
Was it a deliberate act? Yes.
He did commit a deliberate act. That's a yes.
OriginalGriff wrote:
Was it intentional or reckless with extreme disregard for human life? Yes.
His deliberate act was both intentional and reckless with extreme disregard for human life. That's a yes. What we haven't established yet, are his intentions for committing an intentional act. We know it was intentional and reckless with an extreme disregard for human life, but we don't know what his intentions were in committing this act. I don't know what his intentions were, but I agree with you on the points you made.
OriginalGriff wrote:
If he thought at all, he relied on the other pilots realising what he did in time, and being able to undo what he did in time, assuming the attempts to undo it didn't have complications resulting in a crash (the system could have failed, the off switch could have broken, hydraulic problems, etc.)
That's thought-provoking. You make an interesting point.
OriginalGriff wrote:
I suspect his defence will try to wriggle it down, but I'd say that you fly for the big one and let a jury decide.
Ultimately, a jury's decision is what matters. We can discuss our opinions as long as we do so in a reasonable manner. Everyone has an absolute right to hold their opinions and express them as they choose to do so. I respect that. Everyone has the right to challenge the opinions of others. I respect that. It's important that we remind ourselves of these rights. To infringe upon these rights is a violation of the most fundamental principles we live by. I want to reiterate that this thread is entirely about opinion. We don't know what the facts are. If we don't have knowledge of the facts, we can't establish a valid argument to support an opinion. Opinions are entirely subjective, and that's something we need to keep in mind.
Steve Raw wrote:
this thread is entirely about opinion. We don't know what the facts are. If we don't have knowledge of the facts, we can't establish a valid argument to support an opinion.
Exactly, so not sure of the point of this thread. I have an interest in crash investigations (mainly rail but also air) from a technical perspective. In due course I'll be interested to read the details of this incident and the way that the judge/jury came to a conclusion, based on the facts that will be presented to them. We don't have those facts. Until then we, like the jury for now, shouldn't be reaching conclusions and judging whether a murder charge is appropriate.
Telegraph marker posts ... nothing to do with IT Phasmid email discussion group ... also nothing to do with IT Beekeeping and honey site ... still nothing to do with IT
-
It seems to me that his wish was to crash the airplane, which would (probably) have caused the death of 83 people. Even though his "primary" intent probably was to commit suicide, he most certainly knew that everybody on board would die with him. Maybe he can convince the court and the judge that he did not intend to crash the plane; that would change matters - but I'd be surprised. So to me, it sounds very much as if he attempted to murder them. I also think that if you murder 83 civilians because you think that there is a certain chance that there possibly is an enemy soldier among them, you are still murdering 83 civilians. Here in Norway, a young man who "technically" was a virgin, he had never been in bed with a girl, was convicted of raping 120 girls. He hadn't ever met any of these 120 girls in person. But he had seen pictures of their bodies on his PC screen. According to Norwegian law, that is more than attempted rape, it is equivalent to actually performing the rape. As far as I understand it, it applies only if you see a digital image on a PC screen. If you see the girl's body in real life, with nothing more happening beyond you seeing her body, as far as I know, you cannot be convicted of rape. The difference comes when we can put the label 'internet' on it.) Noone claims that this guy had any real intent of physically raping the girls, and it didn't happen. Yet he was convicted as if it had happened. I find this a lot harder to accept than a man deliberately and knowingly trying to crash an airplane being convicted of attempted murder of the passengers and crew on board the plane.
trønderen wrote:
Here in Norway, a young man who "technically" was a virgin, he had never been in bed with a girl, was convicted of raping 120 girls. He hadn't ever met any of these 120 girls in person. But he had seen pictures of their bodies on his PC screen. According to Norwegian law, that is more than attempted rape, it is equivalent to actually performing the rape. As far as I understand it, it applies only if you see a digital image on a PC screen. If you see the girl's body in real life, with nothing more happening beyond you seeing her body, as far as I know, you cannot be convicted of rape. The difference comes when we can put the label 'internet' on it.) Noone claims that this guy had any real intent of physically raping the girls, and it didn't happen. Yet he was convicted as if it had happened.
:omg: :wtf: Wow... Local laws are local laws, but WOW... Missing more information about the case: if he stalked the girls to take the pictures when undressing or in what could be called "safe space" (home, college dorms, gym...) I would kind of understand it. Just possesing some pictures that might have been hot selfies, that got synchronized to the cloud and then somehow leaked... then I would think it is a bit too harsh to make it as raping. Kind of frightening without more information about the concrete law.
M.D.V. ;) If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about? Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
-
Steve Raw wrote:
this thread is entirely about opinion. We don't know what the facts are. If we don't have knowledge of the facts, we can't establish a valid argument to support an opinion.
Exactly, so not sure of the point of this thread. I have an interest in crash investigations (mainly rail but also air) from a technical perspective. In due course I'll be interested to read the details of this incident and the way that the judge/jury came to a conclusion, based on the facts that will be presented to them. We don't have those facts. Until then we, like the jury for now, shouldn't be reaching conclusions and judging whether a murder charge is appropriate.
Telegraph marker posts ... nothing to do with IT Phasmid email discussion group ... also nothing to do with IT Beekeeping and honey site ... still nothing to do with IT
Right, we can't reach any reasonable conclusion here. What we can do is we can explore possibilities of what may have happened. We can discuss scenarios based on how we view the incident from our point of view. The point of this thread is to understand how others interpret the situation. That way it leads us to consider ideas that we haven't thought of.
-
Here's something to consider. What if he experienced a psychotic break? What happens during a psychotic break is that a person loses touch with reality. Losing touch with reality could easily have been what caused such bizarre behavior. It can happen to anyone, even if there is no evidence that could indicate the presence of mental illness. It's possible that mental illness may not even be present. A psychotic break can happen to someone as a result of a medical condition. Oftentimes, a psychotic break will occur as a result of significant stress or trauma. If you're a pilot over the age of 40, you require a health checkup every six months. It's required by law. It's well within reason to consider that he has passed his health checkups without any problems in the past. It's well within reason to understand that without any history of mental illness, this can happen to someone without forewarning. Given that these psychotic episodes occur in a state of psychological stress, he may have acted out of panic, with a delusion that caused him to believe there was in fact an engine fire. If this were to be the case, how would it change your opinion? By no means would I consider ruling this possibility out. If this were in fact the case, would it affect your opinion? How so?
For the initial question, it is attempted murder, even if the plane did not crash or was not likely to crash - you are judged for what you tried to achieve, not by whether it could still be avoided or not. A defence line like "Look, I am an experienced pilot, and I knew the plane would not crash" might succeed, but will still be hard to, IMHO. As for the psychotic issue : In France, it goes that way : experts will say whether a criminal had all his mind and means when attempting or performing a crime. If you are judged mentally disabled - be it temporarily or definitely, you cannot get sentenced, but you usually end up in psychiatric hospital for like forever. In any cases, this is a complicated topic - This case : Germanwings Flight 9525 - Wikipedia[^] ended up in very different sentences for the company or company members. There was no post-mortem sentence for the pilot though, since you cannot sentence someone who died.
-
Update: New Information... Please share in your opinions. :sigh: Do not present arguments. Do not post technical data. It's what turned this thread into a slow-motion train wreck the first time around. I'm not posting this to immerse myself in confusion and misunderstanding. I didn't particularly enjoy it. I'm guessing you likely didn't, either. OK, moving on. I'm curious what you have to say, so please share your opinions. :) Pilot claims he took psychedelic mushrooms before Alaska Airlines flight he's accused of trying to crash[^] News Article from CBS News: Alaska Airlines flight diverted, off-duty pilot Joseph Emerson arrested for trying to cut engines midflight, officials say - CBS News[^] I'm curious about your opinion on this one. Joseph Emerson has been charged with 83 counts of reckless endangerment. That makes perfect sense. He's also charged with 1 count of endangering an aircraft. That makes sense as well. He's charged with 83 counts of attempted murder. Really? In an airliner's cockpit, you have engine fire handles. When you pull the handle, fuel is cut off to the corresponding engine. You have the ability to restart an engine provided you push the fire handle back to its inactive position. The aircraft was cruising at 31,000 ft. It had been airborne for 30 minutes. The captain and first officer deactivated the engine fire suppression system quickly enough to prevent either engine from shutting down. I don't know what happened up there, but if you're attempting to crash an airliner by activating the engine fire suppression system, you're mentally retarded. At cruising altitude, you have more than enough time to restart the aircraft's engines. Just pull out the checklist required for engine restart, and do the procedure. It's designed to be quick. At 31,000 ft. you could sit back and drink a cup of coffee and maybe eat a small snack before engine restart. You're not going to fall out of the sky if both engines lose all thrust. At such an altitude, the aircraft can glide fo
What if he had succeeded to crash the plane, killing everyone else on board, but miraculously managed to survive, would he then have any responsibility the deaths of the other 83? So they did not die. He is not accused of killing them, only of attempting to. Are there various degrees of attempting to kill 83 persons, some are justifiable, others are not - and trying to crash an airplane is a justifiable killing attempt, when it was prevented? One bad thing about the legal system of the US, as seem from abroad, is that when we see fiction movies ridiculing it, we frequently have problems distinguishing them from what we read in news media about actual lawsuits. It is so that given the right lawyers (and judges) I wouldn't be the least surprised if they decided that he certainly attempted to crash the plane, and he was not mentally disturbed in the legal sense, but responsible for his actions, yet he is aquitted. We are regularly reminded that there are reasons for those ridiculing movies!
-
Update: New Information... Please share in your opinions. :sigh: Do not present arguments. Do not post technical data. It's what turned this thread into a slow-motion train wreck the first time around. I'm not posting this to immerse myself in confusion and misunderstanding. I didn't particularly enjoy it. I'm guessing you likely didn't, either. OK, moving on. I'm curious what you have to say, so please share your opinions. :) Pilot claims he took psychedelic mushrooms before Alaska Airlines flight he's accused of trying to crash[^] News Article from CBS News: Alaska Airlines flight diverted, off-duty pilot Joseph Emerson arrested for trying to cut engines midflight, officials say - CBS News[^] I'm curious about your opinion on this one. Joseph Emerson has been charged with 83 counts of reckless endangerment. That makes perfect sense. He's also charged with 1 count of endangering an aircraft. That makes sense as well. He's charged with 83 counts of attempted murder. Really? In an airliner's cockpit, you have engine fire handles. When you pull the handle, fuel is cut off to the corresponding engine. You have the ability to restart an engine provided you push the fire handle back to its inactive position. The aircraft was cruising at 31,000 ft. It had been airborne for 30 minutes. The captain and first officer deactivated the engine fire suppression system quickly enough to prevent either engine from shutting down. I don't know what happened up there, but if you're attempting to crash an airliner by activating the engine fire suppression system, you're mentally retarded. At cruising altitude, you have more than enough time to restart the aircraft's engines. Just pull out the checklist required for engine restart, and do the procedure. It's designed to be quick. At 31,000 ft. you could sit back and drink a cup of coffee and maybe eat a small snack before engine restart. You're not going to fall out of the sky if both engines lose all thrust. At such an altitude, the aircraft can glide fo
Steve Raw wrote:
I don't know what happened up there,
That is a very true statement, but spare a thought for the captain and the first officer who found themselves with a 200 pounds, 6ft 1" guy who went off the rails in a confined space full of breakers, levers and handles. All that in plane with a L/D ratio of around 14 giving you probably less than 100 miles or 15 minutes before grass goes in the cockpit. I've seen bar fights that take longer than that :) In the end, with adrenaline going through the roof, they tell ATC "we have a guy that went a bit overboard". Mic drop.
Steve Raw wrote:
Should he be charged with attempted murder?
Most certainly. Sadly, this will not prevent similar incidents from happening in the future. Nervous breakdown can happen in any profession and it has happened to pilots before. See Germanwings Flight 9525 - Wikipedia[^]
Mircea
