AirBear

https://www.charlotteobserver.com/ne...260340940.html

-happened in July
-she was fined $81,950 by the FAA, the largest fine to date
-she struck a F/A and tried to open the cabin door

at6d

Good.



filler.

fadec

Great news!!! Civil law is the new criminal law. It's a beautiful thing when the fed sidesteps a criminal's "rights" such as appointing lawyers for them, giving them jury trials, proof beyond reasonable doubt, ex post facto laws, etc. Civil law is so much more, well, civil. It's way more streamlined and isn't bound so much by existing statutes. Seriously, show me where it's criminal to be "unruly and potentially violent". I'll wait, lol. According to the facts they probably could have charged her with assault and put her in jail. They could have charged her with a felony for interfering with flight crew and took away her guns and voting. But let's be real, her rights would have made this near impossible. Civil penalties are a beautifully efficient way to destroy the lives of undesirables like her and take all their stuff. But we can do more. Without debtor's prisons these penalties lack real teeth. Still, it's nice to see some progress.

CBreezy

Someone needs a hug

Margaritaville

Settle down Mr Beck.

rickair7777

Depends.

The FAA cannot pursue criminal charges, that would be the DOJ/FBI in this case or possible the state in which the airplane was when it happened. IIRC state laws can even apply when a plane is simply flying over. The FAA's only teeth against people who don't hold certificates is fines. Such *civil* fines can be discharged in BK, and if this person is truly a poverty-stricken member of an oppressed, downtrodden identity group she'll BK out of this so fast it'll make your head spin. So in the scenario you're worried about it's a symbolic publicity stunt with no teeth. If she's an upper middle-class Karen with an entitlement attitude, then she's going to have to write a check, and probably have to defer that new Rover for a year or two. Anyone getting fined under admin law has an available appeal process too.

However... if you're actually *convicted* of an actual crime, which *requires* all of that due process you mentioned, then you can be fined as part of your sentence... that is not going to be something you can discharge in BK, you're stuck with the debt.

Also the FAA fine is legally separate from any potential prosecution, she could very well get both and it's likely the criminal prosecution could take longer to play out. In fact she could actually get civil fines under admin law, federal criminal conviction, and possibly state/local criminal conviction to boot. Double jeopardy is not what you think it is, that's almost as misunderstood as the first amendment

DeltaboundRedux

Wonder how this outcome would play out in the proposed cross-carrier disruptive passenger shared banned list?

Definitely seems like a good test case.

fadec

I just thought of another great aspect of civil penalties. Fines actually hand out justice where it is needed. Felony convictions and jail time are harsh penalties no matter who you are with no account for the good you've done or the jobs you've created. They're an end-run around natural market forces. But when you issue e.g. a fixed $85k fine that's ironically a variable and progressive punishment. If you've been a good person and worked well within your community then you've presumably seen some reward for that. If so then $85k will be a small correctional fine. But if you're a worthless bum who feeds off society like a parasite then $85k is going to be your life's work, savings, hopes and dreams, and possibly much more. This progressive benefit of fines cannot be understated.

​​​​​​​Also progressive. Private jets.

fadec

Actually you hit on another benefit of civil penalties. Federal agencies such as the FAA, FCC, BATF, Dept of Agriculture, Department of Health and Human Services, etc should be empowered to enforce their own rules. The message to lowlifes is this: You can run from the BATF but you can't hide from the Department of Transportation. We'll get ya! And if we don't maybe the FCC will.

rickair7777

Inclusion on the proposed list would require conviction of specific crimes, on an airplane. Pretty high bar, I'm good with that.

I'm not good with FA's or CSA's handing down lifetime airline bans at their own whim.