Commanders are dropping like flies this year

[Sua Sponte]

36 minutes ago, slackline said:

So for everyone saying there are ways to beat this, and how easy it is I’m curious. Are you saying a member should then be reinstated because they got off on a technicality? Maybe I’m misreading the trending comments, but I don’t want any idiot who will drive drunk in the AF. I don’t care if they beat it on a technicality. I would have zero mercy on a dude that hit my kid while DUI. A DUI that doesn’t result in an accident is just somebody being more lucky than they deserve. There is the whole “Integrity First” thing that we should all subscribe to. Again, If I’ve misread the situation, press.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I don’t really consider Due Process a “technicality.” It’s in some famous document at the National Archives in D.C. Just became someone is “accused” of breaking the law, doesn’t give the DA/Cops/Government a green light to not follow the law to obtain a conviction/sentence. If you’re drinking a beer, get pulled over cause you did a California stop, get a breathalyzer because they smelled booze and have a .10 BAC, that’s a DUI in most jurisdictions. But you know you just had a beer, there’s no way that you could’ve blown a .10 BAC. During your trial through cross examination come to find out the cop that gave it to you was newly trained with the equipment and the equipment was last calibrated a year ago and was pencil whipped erroneously saying it was calibrated. You get acquitted/charges just get dropped. However, the holier-than-thou crew at work is too busy talking shit about you, not that they know any of the facts, because you got pulled over and charged with a DUI. 

 

[Majestik Møøse]

Korea’s BAC max is 0.03% now. Including, unbelievably, people on bicycles, scooters, and hover boards. https://www.military.com/daily-news/2019/06/28/new-law-drops-bac-limit-03-all-troops-stationed-south-korea.html

[slackline]

Most of you are splitting hairs. I’m not talking about legitimately innocent people. I’m talking about people who committed the crime, found a loophole, and walked because of it.

The integrity about the system and the cops and everything else is a straw man argument. If the guy did it, this is a purely ethical question. Does he deserve to be free of consequences? I agree with you that the system has to be free of issues regarding integrity.

To the question of a one mistake AF, no it shouldn’t be a one mistake AF. There is however a chasm of difference between a mistake and a crime. Just like there’s a massive difference between hitting a child while DUI and just DUI, but they’re both still crimes. I guess I’m harsh because while I’d be very lenient with legitimate mistakes that were unintended consequences, I will hammer a guy as hard as possible for a DUI. He absolutely can turn his life around, but not in my unit. That is a risk I’m not willing to take. You tell me, is a guy more likely to kill people if he ignores 12 hours bottle to throttle, or if he gets in his car and drives home through a neighborhood while DUI? We’d FEB a guy immediately for that, but you think they should be able to move up the ranks for doing it in a car?

I know that is a harsh stance. I’m not like that with many things, but ~10K people die in drunk driving crashes a year.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[jice]

15 minutes ago, slackline said:

Most of you are splitting hairs. I’m not talking about legitimately innocent people. I’m talking about people who committed the crime, found a loophole, and walked because of it  

As far as the law is concerned those people are legitimately innocent.

Just to restate for clarity:

Somebody under your command could be found ‘not guilty’ for a crime they are accused of committing, but you would throw the book at them to the max extent based on your understanding of the events? What makes you more qualified than the court to determine guilt and the person’s future likelihood to commit said crime (or be accused)?

I hope I don’t work for you. 

Edit to add: there very well may be times that that outcome (not guilty in court with admin action/njp) is appropriate... but I just can’t wrap my head around that approach as a going in argument when the matters in question (wrt the law and your commander’s prerogative) are the same. 

Edited August 13, 2019 by jice

[slackline]

As far as the law is concerned those people are legitimately innocent.
Just to restate for clarity:
Somebody under your command could be found ‘not guilty’ for a crime they are accused of committing, but you would throw the book at them to the max extent based on your understanding of the events? What makes you more qualified than the court to determine guilt and the person’s future likelihood to commit said crime (or be accused)?
I hope I don’t work for you. 
Edit to add: there very well may be times that that outcome (not guilty in court with admin action/njp) is appropriate... but I just can’t wrap my head around that approach as a going in argument when the matters in question (wrt the law and your commander’s prerogative) are the same. 

I never said that’s what I would do. If someone goes through the process and walks out the other side, cleared, I have no choice in the matter. I’ve already seen it happen.

Once again, I’m talking about the ethical side of this. People on here seem to be rooting for people to escape the consequences of their actions.

You seem to never have been in a position of real leadership if you aren’t aware of the fact that there are times when you know someone is guilty of an action, but because of the loophole they found, or an investigating official screwing up somewhere along the process allows that guilty person to escape their consequences. There’s no throwing the book at that person, but I would no longer trust them with anything more important than snack-o.

Once again, don’t twist what I’m saying. You say you hope not to work for me. I can tell you that feeling is mutual. I don’t want people working for me who cannot correctly read what is written, but instead choose to infer intent and guidance from their boss. Feel free to twist my words to take this down a rabbit hole we aren’t discussing. DUI is a DUI. Those can be messed up, but it’s more rare that it is messed up than it is that the member is guilty of DUI.

One mistake is a horrible way to lead. Allowing people to continue to progress in our AF at a time when getting a DUI is so clearly understood as to be wrong and dangerous... That’s not a mistake. That’s a crime. It doesn’t matter how stupid anyone things the BAC is, or how it’s unfairly low. Unsure how that is still questioned.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Bergman]

8 hours ago, slackline said:

So for everyone saying there are ways to beat this, and how easy it is I’m curious. Are you saying a member should then be reinstated because they got off on a technicality? Maybe I’m misreading the trending comments, but I don’t want any idiot who will drive drunk in the AF. I don’t care if they beat it on a technicality. I would have zero mercy...blah blah a bunch of self-righteous words...

You’re damn right they should be “reinstated”.  They are innocent until proven guilty.  That’s how it works around here.  A “technicality” may be blind ass luck or a poorly trained officer or whatever, but if the proof of guilt doesn’t meet the standard of law...that person is innocent.  Period.

“For the law holds, that it is better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer.”

 

[jice]

9 minutes ago, slackline said:

You seem to never have been in a position of real leadership if you aren’t aware of the fact that there are times when you know someone is guilty of an action, but because of the loophole they found, or an investigating official screwing up somewhere along the process allows that guilty person to escape their consequences. There’s no throwing the book at that person, but I would no longer trust them with anything more important than snack-o.

Once again, don’t twist what I’m saying. You say you hope not to work for me. I can tell you that feeling is mutual. I don’t want people working for me who cannot correctly read what is written, but instead choose to infer intent and guidance from their boss. Feel free to twist my words to take this down a rabbit hole we aren’t discussing. DUI is a DUI. Those can be messed up, but it’s more rare that it is messed up than it is that the member is guilty of DUI.

Good luck to you. I hope you’re able to always get it right, like you expect. 

[Bergman]

13 minutes ago, slackline said:

 DUI is a DUI. Those can be messed up, but it’s more rare that it is messed up than it is that the member is guilty of DUI.

One mistake is a horrible way to lead. Allowing people to continue to progress in our AF at a time when getting a DUI is so clearly understood as to be wrong and dangerous... That’s not a mistake. That’s a crime. It doesn’t matter how stupid anyone things the BAC is, or how it’s unfairly low. Unsure how that is still questioned.

There is a huge difference between “charged” and “convicted” of a DUI or anything else.  

 

Are you saying if someone was pulled over for DUI, went to jail for the night but was later acquitted for lack of evidence, faulty equipment or improper procedure, that you still consider it a crime?

 

What about a pilot who does a flyby at 800’ instead of 1000’?  He knowingly broke the “law”...so it’s a crime, not a mistake, right?

Edited August 13, 2019 by Bergman

[magnetfreezer]

12 hours ago, FltDoc said:

I've never heard of a DUI case that later turned out the accused was innocent.  Am I missing a bunch?  

Media isn't in the habit of publishing acquittals/retractions. Doesn't get as many clicks for some reason.

[Sua Sponte]

3 hours ago, slackline said:

Most of you are splitting hairs. I’m not talking about legitimately innocent people. I’m talking about people who committed the crime, found a loophole, and walked because of it.

The integrity about the system and the cops and everything else is a straw man argument. If the guy did it, this is a purely ethical question. Does he deserve to be free of consequences? I agree with you that the system has to be free of issues regarding integrity.

To the question of a one mistake AF, no it shouldn’t be a one mistake AF. There is however a chasm of difference between a mistake and a crime. Just like there’s a massive difference between hitting a child while DUI and just DUI, but they’re both still crimes. I guess I’m harsh because while I’d be very lenient with legitimate mistakes that were unintended consequences, I will hammer a guy as hard as possible for a DUI. He absolutely can turn his life around, but not in my unit. That is a risk I’m not willing to take. You tell me, is a guy more likely to kill people if he ignores 12 hours bottle to throttle, or if he gets in his car and drives home through a neighborhood while DUI? We’d FEB a guy immediately for that, but you think they should be able to move up the ranks for doing it in a car?

I know that is a harsh stance. I’m not like that with many things, but ~10K people die in drunk driving crashes a year.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Innocence, which by the way is until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal court setting, is found by a fact-finder i.e. a judge or jury, not a casual bystander like yourself. If the law and court were so concise, there would be no reason to have superior appellate courts look at the verdict of cases, if petitioned. But it's not, and they do, because it's not concise. It's not a straw man argument. There are people like this guy who did illegal things to people, to show they did illegal things, to help convict them for something they never did and put them in jail for it and ruin their lives. The original idiot trial counsel in Navy SEAL Chief Gallagher was removed for illegally spying on the defense emails.

A DUI is a DUI once that person is either convicted or pleads guilty of it. Not when people like you already judge from the cheap seats before knowing all the facts. 

Edited August 13, 2019 by Sua Sponte

[Sprkt69]

15 hours ago, FltDoc said:

Really?  For DUI?

What's the thought on likelihood of innocence?  Police officers pull over a driver, come to the conclusion he's impaired, test to confirm and to have enough data to achieve a conviction, and they're wrong?  Because going to all that work and creating paperwork for yourself is fun?

I've never heard of a DUI case that later turned out the accused was innocent.  Am I missing a bunch?  

Yes.

Ive seen a dude get pulled over and given a DUI for a 0.08 blown in a 0.08 allowed state. Upper management immediately gave this guy an Art 15. The DUI was thrown out in court. However, the Art 15 remained and he was separated during the great purge.  

Thats pretty darn good management right there

[matmacwc]

3 hours ago, Sprkt69 said:

Yes.

Ive seen a dude get pulled over and given a DUI for a 0.08 blown in a 0.08 allowed state. Upper management immediately gave this guy an Art 15. The DUI was thrown out in court. However, the Art 15 remained and he was separated during the great purge.  

Thats pretty darn good management right there

You can get a DUI for .05, watch your ass.

[FLEA]

17 hours ago, slackline said:

So for everyone saying there are ways to beat this, and how easy it is I’m curious. Are you saying a member should then be reinstated because they got off on a technicality? Maybe I’m misreading the trending comments, but I don’t want any idiot who will drive drunk in the AF. I don’t care if they beat it on a technicality. I would have zero mercy on a dude that hit my kid while DUI. A DUI that doesn’t result in an accident is just somebody being more lucky than they deserve. There is the whole “Integrity First” thing that we should all subscribe to. Again, If I’ve misread the situation, press.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Its not a technicality. If there is data that says you breath contains a higher PPM of alcohol follow a belch than obviously the test is not accurate since it is not supposed to be measuring your breath but your blood based on the concentration on your breath. If LE disregarded this and you didn't know, and then popped positive after only one drink when you knew you were fine, I'm sure you'd want the courts to throw out the incorrectly administered test. 

Same thing, if you are asked to give blood and the nurse used an alcohol wipe to sanitize the surface of your skin to withdrawal the blood, that is not a technicality, that is the improper administration of a test. The test data is now invalid.

Look, I get it, you don't want anyone hitting your kids, but that doesn't trump a lot of people not wanting to go to jail and lose their career when they did nothing wrong. 

[jrizzell]

10 hours ago, slackline said:

One mistake is a horrible way to lead. Allowing people to continue to progress in our AF at a time when getting a DUI is so clearly understood as to be wrong and dangerous... That’s not a mistake. That’s a crime. It doesn’t matter how stupid anyone things the BAC is, or how it’s unfairly low. Unsure how that is still questioned.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

You literally contradict yourself...One mistake is terrible, unless you get a DUI, then off with your head “in my unit”.

I understand everyone has their own personal experiences which drive their world view; and it seems like DUI is yours. During my time in the AF, I’ve known people that did stupid shit as a LT, but we’re able to have fantastic careers because their leadership didn’t end it before it really began. Personally I’ve never thought the “hammer” style leaders create a healthy work environment, just one based on fear.

[Homestar]

I have a pretty low tolerance for O-6s that drink and drive. Did he blow a marginal BAC that might be overturned by a blood test? Maybe. I’ll leave room for nuance. I personally wouldn’t write NJP till proven guilty or if wrongdoing is admitted. But I’d also remove him from any position of leadership until a conclusion is reached. 

Not driving drunk is one of the most basic of social responsibilities. An E-3 gets a chance to learn his way out of drunk driving. An O-6 has much, much higher expectations. 

Drunk driving convictions should have a mandatory 1-year jail sentence with driving privileges suspended. It’s one of the most deadly things in n the country. 

[HossHarris]

That and smoking ... being a gang banger in Chicago.... skin cancer .... 

you doing sunscreen inspections on the flightline?

[gearhog]

7 hours ago, Homestar said:

An E-3 gets a chance to learn his way out of drunk driving. An O-6 has much, much higher expectations.

What about the rest of us in the E-4 to O-5 range? Are we good? Cause I feel like I drive better after a few drinks. I'm more cautious.

[Homestar]

3 hours ago, HossHarris said:

 

you doing sunscreen inspections on the flightline?

Only when BQZip’s mom shows up. 

[Majestik Møøse]

19 hours ago, Homestar said:

Drunk driving convictions should have a mandatory 1-year jail sentence with driving privileges suspended. It’s one of the most deadly things in n the country. 

A year in jail? Really. For how much BAC? 0.03? Career over, marriage over, kids disgraced for something I’d bet you’ve probably done yourself once or twice at a much higher BAC and gotten away with...

[Homestar]

3 hours ago, Majestik Møøse said:

A year in jail? Really. For how much BAC? 0.03? Career over, marriage over, kids disgraced for something I’d bet you’ve probably done yourself once or twice at a much higher BAC and gotten away with...

I don't drink.  For whatever the state says is illegal.  I can't believe this this position is so controversial.

You put lives at risk when you drive drunk, buzzed, or high.  Period.

[Bigred]

On 8/12/2019 at 7:16 PM, slackline said:

Once again, I’m talking about the ethical side of this. People on here seem to be rooting for people to escape the consequences of their actions.
 

In matters of the law, ethics don't matter. The first is objective, the second is subjective. If we determine legal outcomes based on ethics, then the whole idea of equality under the law goes out the window.

[jrizzell]

2 hours ago, Homestar said:

I don't drink.  For whatever the state says is illegal.  I can't believe this this position is so controversial.

You put lives at risk when you drive drunk, buzzed, or high.  Period.

I’m not disagreeing that a DUI isn't a poor choice that endangers others; what I’m saying is that Commanders should evaluate each individual situation and determine the appropriate level of punishment. But to start the conversation with, regardless of circumstances your out of my unit is shitty leadership. And an O6 should obviously be held to a higher standard than an E3 or O2.

Let’s be real folks, we will never eliminate alcohol related events, it’s a legal intoxicate and people will always misuse it.

[pcola]

I have a pretty low tolerance for O-6s that drink and drive.
Drunk driving convictions should have a mandatory 1-year jail sentence with driving privileges suspended. It’s one of the most deadly things in n the country. 

And I’ll bet you’ve never looked at your phone while driving either, right? Pretty sure that’s deadlier, especially for innocent children considering the time of day when most DUI fatalities happen compared to distracted driving. So what’s an appropriate punishment for that, and should you turn yourself in to the authorities?


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

[Orbit]

Do I need to call a taxi next time I have been awake for 18+ hours, is the AF going to pay for this after a long shift or flight? Because you can still get arrested if the cop thinks you are impaired.  Even though its not illegal to be drowsy they can still charge you if they think you are impaired.  

Is it safer to drive after being awake for 18 hours or have a beer and drive?

Point is this is not a black and white problem and we can not treat it as such.  Yes drunk drivers are assholes, i've been hit by one and was lucky that I was not seriously hurt.

[Hawg15]

5 hours ago, Homestar said:

You put lives at risk when you drive drunk, buzzed, or high.  Period.

Yet the Air Force is fine with making people fly aircraft to the extent they are so exhausted that drugs are required, and used, to keep going. They don’t really care about lives, it’s all PR.