3 ms·
For whatever it’s worth, I don’t think these rules would stand under the APA. Which means any criminal convictions would be thrown out.
by JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
For whatever it’s worth, I don’t think these rules would stand under the APA. Which means any criminal convictions would be thrown out.
- mathisfun123 7mo ago> Which means any criminal convictions would be thrown out. and in the meantime people rot in jail but i guess no harm no foul :shrug:
- ternaryoperator 7mo agoNot to mention the monetary costs of defense
- defrost 7mo agoAgainst all that it seems miserly to complain about the costs of destroyed, seized, lost drones, equipment, gates, doors et al that will never be reimbursed.
- mindslight 7mo agoIt's not miserly, rather it's recognizing the exact line the government steps over when causing harm and then refusing to compensate its victims. This is the longstanding perverse incentive that has led to this specific development, the murders of Pretti/Good/Taylor (et al), "can't beat the ride", forced plea bargaining, and so on. The very idea of sovereign immunity for executive/administrative actions needs to be wholly repudiated.
- JumpCrisscross 7mo ago> in the meantime people rot in jail but i guess no harm no foul Nobody claimed no foul. Constraining a problem isn't the same as saying it's not one.
- mathisfun123 7mo agoWhat exactly have you constrained it to?
- digitalPhonix 7mo agoLosing your licence and many fines are FAA administrative processes so they don’t care. No courts involved.