Leaderboard

I love the irony of this... All of these box checking Sq/Gp/Wg Commanders will tell pilots who actually want to do their job instead of all the meaningless queep (AAD/PME in Cor/Etc) that they are an "Officer First" instead of a pilot, but then you have a kid who either washes out or quits UPT/Flight Screening and they say, "Sorry, we hired you to be a pilot... you're out and here is the bill".

M2 I'm with you I hate the double standard, but any reason they can use to strip him of his rights can further be used against any other citizen. The 2nd Ammendment is fairly safe, but the fourth and seventh amendments could fairly quickly disappear and most people wouldn't say a thing because it was in the "interest of safety", and it doesn't effect them... YET. Yes fuck him and I hope he rots in hell, but lets not allow him to be used to strip us of any further rights or set any precedences.

Be an asshole to everyone, and no one particular person can get offended!

What does the Air Force care about an old wooden ship? Isn't that the Navy's problem (along with anal STDs)?

You never disappoint. Wow.

I have no problem with a suspicionless search of an area of interest. I have no problem with homeowners giving consent to search. I do have a problem with coerced consent and/or warrantless search and seizure of private property absent reasonable suspicion. I understand how exigent circumstance is supposed to work and really don't see how it applies in this 20-block search. I also don't really trust the labeling of the video. It isn't out of the realm of possibility that somebody took video of something else, like a drug bust, and labelled it this way on youtube. It could also be that the homeowners got belligerent and made threats to the police, or that there was actionable intelligence on that specific house in the course of the search. I think we'd be hearing more from the hundreds of homeowners who had their 4th amendment rights violated if it really went down like the person who posted the video said it did.

Ironic isn't it, a military service that strips all entrants of their individuality, makes them dress and look the same, enforces uniformity yet celebrates diversity? Does anyone else see a conflict there?!?

I replied to your comments as a member of this forum. Moderator comments are in bold italics, such as... This thread is done.

How many Guard units have you been in?

They should have put a $100,000 bounty out on him, dead or a live. He would have been dropped off on the FBI's doorstep hog tied or with a bullet hole in the head.

Are you ######ing kidding me? So by that logic, sitting unarmed in the fetal position in the bathtub is the correct response? I know a California congresswoman who would love to shake your hand right now. If the cops illegally kick in a door in the middle of the night and startle a law-abiding, armed citizen, then the resulting firefight is 100% the police's fault. Using the argument of tension and darkness is bullshit too, it just leads to an easy excuse to bypass search & seizure.

You can't claim exigent circumstances (I.e. immediate danger) and then proceed to systematically search 20 city blocks and then it turns out the dude was hiding outside their "perimeter". If people wanted to let them in, then by all means but if I opened my door and said "he's not here", the police unless they believe otherwise should move on since a) they have no proof he's even there (or they would have a warrant) and b) they can't prove that I'm in immediate danger (then there's no need for one) Their sworn duty is to uphold the law and conduct their business within those standards. The burden of proof is on the officers to prove now that their 20 block door to door search fell into the immediate danger to each and every occupant in each and every house. They were shooting in the dark and hoping to hit something, which while it may be the best option they had doesn't mean they are above the laws. As for punishment, I respect what they were trying to achieve, maybe some law refreshers for them. Mainly I want someone to hold their feet to the fire and show them that laws apply to them still. ETA: there's no perfect solution in a free society, because the government is the one restricted, which may seem inconvenient but I would rather have more freedom and the danger associated with it, than more government control and the same danger. Notice what is constant in this equation? The danger,it will always exist, and therefore I will take the freedom.

From what I saw and heard via comms, the FBI directed much of what took place on Friday, and yet when it was time to be happy (some might say celebrate) the capture of Dbag2, the FBI throttled back and let the local and MA state folks enjoy the limelight. I think the "FBI Guys" deserve a free drink next time I see one. FM

From the AFI: In my opinion, any focus we put on unimportant differences that make us diverse like race, religion, etc, artificially creates barriers to mission accomplishment.

Dude. Just stop.

I think you're not focusing enough on your primary job from the fact that you found, read, and want to discuss this AFI.

So can commanders be more restrictive with that reg too and actually limit diversity?

Because changing the big things takes, among other things, a leap of faith, something today's AF management is (for the most part) deathly afraid of.

I'm trying to give you my advice, but you are taking it as a personal attack. The only topic you've started here was about transferring out of the C-130, and you opened it before you even started at little rock. If you went slicks by choice...you had quite a quick change of heart. I went through UNT many years before you and I saw the writing on the wall then...it's not like the J model surprised us all. I've seen one or two people transfer into AFSOC, and I will say the people who are eaten up about the mission before they transfer generally do well. Other people who finagle an assignment into our community for location, joint spouse, units being closed or other non-mission related reasons tend to not do well. Sorry if I'm being defensive, but with slicks winding down there's been a trend of AMC sloughing some of their worst to AFSOC and hording their best, and we've suffered heavily for it. From reading your posts your motivations to go to AFSOC tend to be non-mission related. I'm just trying to get you to realize that you need to have a brutally honest look at yourself and assess what your motivations are. Going AFSOC and then shortly thereafter realizing you don't like it (like you did with slicks) is only going to waste everyone's time. It's best for everyone if you slow down on this decision and make it right.

So a 1Lt in a dieing airframe, who wasn't able to get what he wanted out of UNT the first time around wants to transfer to a better job, but only if they give him a good location. Please tell me you didn't pitch that one to your commander. Here's the thing...there are probably 50 other guys in your position (hell, even more than that), with more experience who go to their commanders and are saying phrases commanders want to hear, like "Sir, I want to go to AFSOC, and I'm willing to go to any location to do so", or "Sir, I really want to vaporize terrorists, send me to ANY gunship available" etc. You aren't in any position to try to bargain or cherry pick anything. As a 1Lt you should have no stipulations. Why did you go slicks in the first place? Was it by choice or were you last in your class? If it was by choice, then you should have researched it better and seen the writing on the wall. If you weren't in a position to choose an aircraft you desired out of UNT, then you probably don't have any business in AFSOC. Either way, until you have a massive attitude change, I recommend employment elsewhere.

You don't get it--the Air Force (at least in years past) WANTS guys to take the bonus. In the mid/late 90's they were offering all kinds of bonus options...even taking guys to 20 years or even more. What that did was help the bean counters better determine retention rates, how many new pilots they would need to produce for each year group, etc. This was still the case when the bonus went to only 5 years, with another example being as to why the AF stopped giving all the Navs a bonus, the numbers worked out to where it no longer was needed. So unless the Air Force has a strong reason to believe that this year's group of eligibles are more than likely to stay in regardless of a bonus...and they're willing to stay in for at least another 5 years, then it is financially worth it for the Air Force to offer the bonus to everybody. If you don't think there are any pilots (who didn't take the bonus) never separate 2-3 years after being offered the bonus then are you very mistaken. If dudes take the bonus, it's irrelevant if they want to get out 2-3 years later since they committed to another 5 years. There's a reason our initial commitment is what it is (and was increased 2 years 12-15 years ago) and there's also a reason for the bonus...it comes down to math for Big Blue. It's not that the Air Force just has a hard on to give their pilots a bonus...if that was the case, then the bonus option would be a good as it was back in the 90's.