Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Shoebomb Case: Is An Airplane A "vehicle" Or Not?  
User currently offlineBobcat From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 0 posts, RR: 0
Posted (12 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 1727 times:

The Federal Judge in the shoebomb case has thrown out 1 of 9 charges against Richard Reid.

From CNN:
"U.S. District Judge William Young said that although an airplane was engaged in "mass transportation" it is not a "vehicle" as defined by the new law."

Last time I checked my dictionary, a "vehicle" is defined as a device or structure for transporting persons. It even included the space shuttle, which can be described as a space vehicle. Just to be sure my dictionary is correct, I asked my next door neighbor who teachs college English. She said an airplane is definitely a vehicle.

...so, is an airplane a "vehicle" or not?  Smile

5 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineSquigee From Canada, joined May 2001, 652 posts, RR: 4
Reply 1, posted (12 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 1719 times:

I think the judge needs to interpret the spirit, and not the letter of the law!


Someday, we'll look back at this, laugh nervously, and then change the subject.
User currently offlineFilex23 From Singapore, joined Aug 2001, 24 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (12 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 1714 times:

A plane isn't a vehicle? By my dictionary a vehicle is "any means or by which someone or something is carried or conveyed". Last time I checked a plane absolutely did that...well...maybe this judge failed freshman english in college.

The thing that worries me is this Richard Reid guy can slip through the fingers of the US judicial system over some stupid thing like this, where will it end? Are all these dip shits going to get a free ride right out of prison over an interpretation of a vocab word? bah! Laws should be read by what they mean, not what they say (in my very humble opinion).


User currently offlineATL2CDG From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 296 posts, RR: 11
Reply 3, posted (12 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 1707 times:

To defend the judge, it is to "read by what they mean" and to "interpret the spirit" that has created MANY problems in US law code for over 200 years. The Second Amendment to the US Constitution is just one example. How does one read/interpret:

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be
infringed.

Literalists would say that citizens should own firearms for the sole purpose of a militia. Spiritists would say that this gives everyone the right to bear arms for any reason.

Without an exact and succinct law, both law enforcement officials and those seeking to violate the law could act to circumvent the original intent of the lawwriters. Therefore, it is imperative for lawmakers to act with prejudice when molding words into law and insure that there "intent" is clear. However, it is often easier to purposely write civil and criminal code in a vague manner as to avoid the responsibility of taking an action or actions that may offend various groups. Unfortunately, this is a double-edged sword... A legislative body may avoid undue resentment by writing vague code, but it then fails to accomplish its task by creating an enforcible and solid law.

In this case, the judge acted in the best manner possible. When faced with such a hastily-written law, it is better to err on the side of caution than to risk overstepping the constitutional boundaries of the judicial system and making law. Judges exist to interpret the law, not to write it, and if the legislature fails to construct a decent code, then the judge must make decisions based on precedent rulings and applicable laws.

If you do not approve of the judge's ruling, write your congressman and senators for they and their committee consuls are at fault for write poor law.



Ignorantia juris neminem excusat.
User currently offlineNBC News1 From UK - England, joined May 2001, 324 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (12 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 1676 times:

Aaron Brown on CNN said that the reason the judge threw out the law was because "an airplane was not what congress had in mind when it passed the law."

I would like to know the circumstances of congress passing the law.


User currently offlineJhooper From United States of America, joined Dec 2001, 6206 posts, RR: 12
Reply 5, posted (12 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 1665 times:

Well, he's still charged with 8 more crimes, so I don't think he'll be out of jail and back on airplanes anytime soon.... Smile


Last year 1,944 New Yorkers saw something and said something.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Is This The "New" 787 Tail Or Not? posted Sat Mar 18 2006 07:39:09 by Northwest717
Is The MD-90 A Good Aircraft Or Not? posted Tue Mar 14 2000 04:02:55 by Avro RJX
Is An "alliance Plane" Viable? posted Tue Sep 27 2005 22:44:44 by Ken777
What Is An "Auto Leveler?" posted Wed Jan 21 2004 01:55:23 by N766UA
Who Is An Airline "Jazz"? posted Tue Oct 28 2003 01:28:59 by Big777jet
...and What Is An "A320 Victor"? posted Tue Jul 16 2002 13:19:07 by 747-600X
Why The Is There An "S" In "Finals" posted Wed May 8 2002 10:37:35 by AviationLaw
Crew Claiming Anything Is An "faa Violation"? posted Fri Mar 15 2002 18:55:15 by JonnyGT
What Is An "company 747"? posted Fri Nov 2 2001 12:19:32 by Schreiner
The "Airplane Style" Is Changing! posted Sat Apr 14 2001 01:00:17 by Dellatorre