I assumed he was not talking on advice of his attorney.
They’re sure supposed to. Although it sometimes happens that the agent is eager to get the problem off his /her hands and dumps it on the flight crew.
Then again, with self-serve boarding passes, the agents only interact with any given customer for the 2 seconds it takes to scan their boarding pass. A passenger can be pretty wasted and still look less-than-falling-down for the few seconds it takes to get past the agent.
Recent event dealing with boarding drunks: http://overheadbin.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/07/28/7187171-police-pilot-beaten-in-fracas-with-passengers
Again, why can no one handle their liquor? I may be an exception, but when I get drunk, I don’t do anything without knowing exactly what’s taking place, I make extra sure I’m not doing something stupid, and I always remember everything I did, no matter how much I’ve had (and I can put most people under the table, believe that).
No, this guy needed a lot more than what he got. If I had anything to do about it, it would’ve been the next ten years of his life in prison, and those flight attendants would be wishing they had never even seen the inside of an airplane, but I wanna’ know how he even made it up the ramp. I understand the altitude makes intoxication worse, but you’d have to drink enough at least to make it have such an intense effect, a couple beers aren’t going to act like twenty just 'cause your in the air. What I’m getting at I guess is the fact that someone between the entrance to the airport and the on ramp should have smelled something, what happened to the extreme security everyone’s always complaining about these days? What, do they check for bombs, find booze, and say “oh, he’s just drunk, let him go…”?
I’m sure you already know this, but the answer is “it depends”. If, for example, the meth user feels threatened by someone and shoots in what they perceive to be self defence, but the only reason they felt threatened was because of the drugs they were on, you would have a hard time suggesting criminal intent. There would presumably be other crimes they could be charged with, though, as with the original subject of this thread.
Why would he WANT to pee in his closet all over his leather boots and shoes? He went right instead of left to the bathroom. When I shoved him into the bathroom, he very happily peed in the right place, and wasn’t upset that he had missed a chance to ruin all his shoes.
Quoting from BosstrainAgain, why can no one handle their liquor? I may be an exception, but when I get drunk, I don’t do anything without knowing exactly what’s taking place, I make extra sure I’m not doing something stupid, and I always remember everything I did, no matter how much I’ve had (and I can put most people under the table, believe that).
I’m glad you have all this restraint. But some people, including serious alcoholics like my husband, don’t have that kind of self-control. They want to drink until they can’t feel anymore, and they truly, after a few drinks, don’t have the ability to care about what they are doing. They may be remorseful when they find out what they’ve done, but at some point something in their brains shuts down. It’s not that they don’t care what they are doing…they just can’t care at that point. This is why they are alcoholics.
And as to the ex-olympic skier in question, if he drank all those drinks at the airport lounges, why wasn’t he carded? Or did he drink with friends before they got to the airport? I can see a young, skinny guy with not a ton of experience drinking getting totally wasted on what some of you think is not a lot of alcohol. Especially if he drank it all in a short period of time with not much food.
It doesn’t work this way at all, actually. At least not in the US. Criminal intent is irrelevant if the person volunteered to get wasted. That first decision assumes all liability for the consequences. You can’t get out of a murder charge by saying you were drunk.
So what is your point? Most people don’t get shitfaced on an airplane.
You would be incorrect. What typically happens is that the individual in question has no idea where they are at the time of peeing, sort of as if they were walking in their sleep.
No. Also, it’s not my little girl and I wasn’t there so I don’t really care that much.
That wasn’t really my point.
That’s a nice fantasy, but I’m sure an Olympic class athlete can hold his own against an old lady and her husband.
An Olympic class athlete who is so drunk he doesn’t know where he’s peeing? I think that would even the board a little.
In the movie Weird Science…yes!
It’s not murder if it’s self defence. The question is not whether someone will get away with murder, the question is whether there was a murder committed in the first place. In my hypothetical, there probably wasn’t, as there was no malice aforethought. The only way round that I know of in US law would be to claim that, by taking meth in the first place, showed callous disregard for human life, which would seem to be a stretch.
I’m not saying that the actual aeroplane pisser, or the hypothetical meth gunman, are innocent of any and all crimes. I’m saying that it is not obvious that, in law, their actions are the specific crimes that people are claiming.
This site suggests that a drunk person who kills someone would not be guilty of murder, but of negligent homicide.
It’s not self-defense if it’s not self-defense.
It’s not self-defense if it’s not self-defense.
That’s for accidental deaths (i.e. drunk driving accidents), not intentionally killing somebody.
What in the world? You have no idea what you are talking about. If you really do not know, stop pretending you do. It doesn’t matter if you were drunk while committing a crime, you still committed the crime. You really need to stop pretending that you know what you are talking about.
Of course, drunkenness is no excuse if you commit a crime. However, in most (but not all) situations, without the intent to commit a crime there is no crime. This is why there exist specific crimes related to drunkenness (where the intent to get drunk is the one that matters), and other specific crimes related to to negligence or recklessness, where intent need not be shown, but it must be shown that a reasonable person would be aware that what happened was criminal.
If you’re going to continue to claim I don’t know what I’m talking about, explain where I’m wrong. It would probably be more useful for you to research what “crime” actually is, though.
What a shame as he’s world class in the downhill.
I assumed that this was the case as well. Having a public admission of the action before the trial starts is probably something his lawyer wanted to avoid.
And what is it about booze for causing this kind of stupidity? Stoned people generally don’t do this kind of crap.
You don’t seem to able to get the idea that he wouldn’t care about future consequences of his actions. That is kind of what losing your inhibitions means. He isn’t hallucinating that the closet is a bathroom. He just doesn’t care that he is pissing on his own clothes.
An anecdote that had nothing to do with you. Who pissed in your cornflakes this morning?
I’m not sure you actually are disagreeing with me. It really sounds like you are largely paraphrasing what I said.
I have some doubts about how much remorse drunks actually feel, as opposed to mouthing whatever sounds will get you off their case.
I remember my mother told me when I was a little boy and I did something bad, I would say. “Mama, I didn’t do it on purpose.”. This worked well until the day that I asked my mother, “What does purpose mean?”. Apparently I had heard my older brother say it and I starting aping it. When I hear expressions of remorse, I remember that little boy.
Is it illegal to be on a plane if you’re drunk?