Video of Drug Smugglers Shot down

[eagledriver101]

I see what you mean, but then again, I'd rather Five0 show them his new toy then they t-bone my family at the next intersection. But then again, I'm a strong supporter of police brutality :buck:

Here's another situation to ponder... a/c crosses into the Washington ADIZ unauthorized on a direct course for the mall. F-16s catch up to him and he immediately hits the deck, playing Red Bull Air Races with large building and towers, obviously evading. He's unarmed - but do you still wait until he lands before intervening? I would hope the fast movers would turn him into metal confetti.

If he lands....

If the a/c in this video was allowed to cross the border they would not have been able to follow. I agree the plane should have been shot down, like it was said, I don't think a happy family was taking photos over the jungle at 1am in the morning. They gave the pilot serveral chances to turn around. There are no greay lines here, its black and white policy. The guy was trying to run, bottom-line.

Good guys 1
Bad Guys 0

 

[darrenf]

If he lands....

If the a/c in this video was allowed to cross the border they would not have been able to follow. I agree the plane should have been shot down, like it was said, I don't think a happy family was taking photos over the jungle at 1am in the morning. They gave the pilot serveral chances to turn around. There are no greay lines here, its black and white policy. The guy was trying to run, bottom-line.

Good guys 1
Bad Guys 0

Name an aircraft that has never landed, what do you mean if he lands? It is immoral to kill a person who poses no immediate threat for running. Simple as that.

 

[TurdBird]

I am curious, as a officer of the law, in which instances are you authorized to use deadly force? Can you list them, or are there too many to list here. And before some of you get uptight, yes I know this aircraft was in a foreign country!

I am authorized to use deadly force if I feel that my life, or the life of a fellow LEO (on duty) is in danger.

 

[MFT1Air]

Name an aircraft that has never landed, what do you mean if he lands? It is immoral to kill a person who poses no immediate threat for running. Simple as that.

Semantics.

You're avoiding my comments from my previous post, so I'll assume as well you're simply arguing just to be arguing. This point is obvious. I'll concede YOUR beliefs and perceptions that it is immoral to kill a person who poses no immediate threat for running. Me? I have absolutely NO problem whatsoever killing a person who poses no immediate threat for running. NONE whatsoever!

Now, to qualify the statement, there are many situations where yes, I would not fire; there would be many where I would. It is strictly situational. With the limited information provided on the video, if I were in the same circumstance, rounds would have gone downrange; the plane would have gone down. I would have gotten a good night's sleep too knowing that legally and morally - for me, it was the right course of action.

Rules of engagement particularly for the use of deadly force try to incorporate as many interim steps to preclude that last course of action. It aint perfect, but it's the best thing going. The ultimate decision maker not to become a victim was the pilot. He failed. He died. End of story. His actions, by not succumbing to the instructions of that country's military authority caused his death.

You're right - he posed no immediate threat. Guess what? He wasn't innocent either. . .not even close. Don't know specifically what he was guilty of, but I do agree to the standards by wish many rules of engagement are written which is if one fails to adhere to orders, actions, or communications by the military, you will suffer negative consequences. It's a simple as that. More importantly, as the cliche' goes, when in Rome, do as the Romans do." They're in Columbia; drug trafficking and drug distribution is rampant. Any and every pilot should take precautions to ensure they are NEVER compromised by lack of communications with military authorities thereby preventing what happened to this pilot. The same analogy applies to flying over restricted areas in the United States. Fly with your head up your rectum, you'll suffer the consequences. Those consequences do include the use of deadly force. That's easy to understand. In this and many other countries, running and a do mean running away from the armed military? Are you on a death wish? What does one really expect "the military" to do?

Oh, exactly what they did. It was due process by all the rules I'm aware of in the military.

 

[MFT1Air]

yes I know this aircraft was in a foreign country!

You're right. Case closed. Know the rules and live by them; fail to follow those rules and die by them.

 

[NickH]

You're right. Case closed. Know the rules and live by them; fail to follow those rules and die by them.

Why should your morality change when you walk accross a line on a map?

 

[Murdoughnut]

I agree, and we should not be there, either. Afganastan yes, Iraq, no.

Definitely - it just sucks that we weren't more aggressive in blasting the hell out of Afghanistan when most of the bad guys were still there. That would have been an awesome UN joint effort - everyone pick a stretch of border and start bombing towards the center.

 

[Clocks]

They were not bringing drugs into the US, if they were then we could shoot them down when they approach our airspace. This is not the case here. Just because something we don't want here is moving in this direction doesn't mean it is coming here. I am not saying this wasn't going to eventually end up here. What I am saying is that killing someone that early in the progression is immoral. There can be other opportunities to stop and arrest should the political will be there. And like I posted early on in this thread, not all planes behaving this way are drug smugglers. And as others have posted, some people are not smuggling drugs by choice.

So because something is illegal here, it should not cross borders anywhere. Doesn't seem a bit arrogant to you??

Damn you sure know a lot for a guy who watched the same 4 minute video as everyone else.

The only thing we know is a Columbian plane was shot down in Columbia by Columbians. You have absolutely NO idea what the evidence or circumstances were, what Columbian laws are, or really any idea what you're talking about at all. You just painted the picture you needed so you could stand on top of your pedestal and cast judgment on everyone else. Moral superiority must feel great if its worth making yourself look like an idiot.

 

[darrenf]

Damn you sure know a lot for a guy who watched the same 4 minute video as everyone else.

The only thing we know is a Columbian plane was shot down in Columbia by Columbians. You have absolutely NO idea what the evidence or circumstances were, what Columbian laws are, or really any idea what you're talking about at all. You just painted the picture you needed so you could stand on top of your pedestal and cast judgment on everyone else. Moral superiority must feel great if its worth making yourself look like an idiot.

Where did I cast judgement on someone from watching that video? In fact, if you were bright enough to follow the thought in this thread, you would see the entire point is about assuming too much from limited information. You state you KNOW that was a Columbian plane, in Columbia, shot down by Columbians. You managed to pick that out from within that video? You must be smarter than me than, because from watching that video, I cannot make out where that jungle is, or the tail number on the aircraft, nor does anyone in the communications identify themselves nor their location short of their own lingo "the frontier". I can see how someone like you who can make all those assumptions with such certainty cannot see the problems with this operation. :banghead:

 

[Clocks]

Let's just look at a few of your assumptions here.

...unarmed aircraft...
...that poses no immediate threat...
...unarmed aircraft... (again)
...This airplane was sneaking OUT of a country... (did you recognize a border in the video? you've been in that jungle?)
...But shooting should NEVER be the first option... (was it in this case?)
...they are not yet drug pushers, they are SUSPECTED drug pushers.... (that was stated in the video?)
...and governmental abuses of power...
...downing of a civilian aircraft...

And on and on...

So you make up all these facts, painting a picture that allows you to pat yourself on the back for being such a righteous and moral person ("fair trials for all! government abuse of power! this disgusts me! killing innocent people is bad!") while not knowing the whole story. Meanwhile other people have made different assumptions, and you chastise them for it.

I understand how you don't see the self-righteousness in what you write. Its probably a well ingrained part of your personality and only those who have to listen to you would hear it.

 

[Bumblebee]

Here are some comments about international law and what can happen when you decide that it is only worthwhile to follow the law when it's convenient.

The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), the Montreal-based body that administers international aviation regulation, reemphasized its position in 1996 when it passed a resolution recognizing that "the use of weapons against civil aircraft in flight is incompatible with elementary considerations of humanity, the rules of customary international law as codified in Article 3 and the norms of governmental behavior."

Both the United States and Peru are signatories to the convention. That did not stop the two from cooperating in a policy that results in the summary execution of persons suspected of - not convicted of or even charged with - flying cocaine across Peru. While the actual numbers of shootdowns and resulting deaths are buried in security bureaucracies in Lima and Washington, the figure of 30 aircraft shot down has been widely reported.

Peruvian and US authorities say the tactic was justified in the effort to stop the flow of cocaine into the US. Peru garnered rave reviews from US officials for its fierce anti-drug programs of the 1990s, although the degree to which the "fly and die" policy contributed is difficult to quantify.

Not everyone shares the US government's anything goes attitude, and certainly not pilots. Dan Morningstar, spokesman for the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, which represents more than half of all US pilots, told DRCNet there is "no justification" for shooting down civilian aircraft.

Stuart Matthews, founder of the Flight Safety Foundation, told Air Safety Week in June, 1994, he strongly opposed renewing the shoot-down scheme. "It's contrary to international law, it's contrary to US law," he said. "Even if an airplane were full of drug smugglers and was shot down, what ever happened to due process, to which we all subscribe?"

I guess not all of us suscribe to due process. . .without it you get Guantanamo and AbuGrabe

The Air Transport Association of America relayed the same sentiments. "There is concern here, because it's always been the policy of our members to oppose any government shooting down of any civil aircraft for any reason," he told the industry weekly. "It would then allow that government to target civil aircraft for other reasons. It's one more step down the slippery slope."
http://www.november.org/razorwire/rzold/24/24002.html

 

[darrenf]

Let's just look at a few of your assumptions here.

...unarmed aircraft...
...that poses no immediate threat...
...unarmed aircraft... (again)
...This airplane was sneaking OUT of a country... (did you recognize a border in the video? you've been in that jungle?)
...But shooting should NEVER be the first option... (was it in this case?)
...they are not yet drug pushers, they are SUSPECTED drug pushers.... (that was stated in the video?)
...and governmental abuses of power...
...downing of a civilian aircraft...

And on and on...



So you make up all these facts, painting a picture that allows you to pat yourself on the back for being such a righteous and moral person ("fair trials for all! government abuse of power! this disgusts me! killing innocent people is bad!") while not knowing the whole story. Meanwhile other people have made different assumptions, and you chastise them for it.

I understand how you don't see the self-righteousness in what you write. Its probably a well ingrained part of your personality and only those who have to listen to you would hear it.

I think you are missing the point. It has long been the U.S.'s stance to hold a moral high ground when dealing with situations around the world. Even though that might not be the most efficient means to accomplish a goal, it was the right way to accomplish a goal. This particular program erodes the efforts of that history. I stated my feelings based on the video as it was presented and discussed the situation as it was presented, both within the video and by the Title of this thread. Those are facts for the purpose of the conversation. So, I am not assuming anything but for the purpose of this conversation. If you prefer to continue deriding me, then do it in a PM, I should not have responded in kind, and will no longer jab back at you in this thread. If you prefer to discuss the issue in a mature manner, please continue to contribute to the thread. If that is being on a high horse, then so be it, I'm saddled up, and ready to ride.

 

[Bumblebee]

I am authorized to use deadly force if I feel that my life, or the life of a fellow LEO (on duty) is in danger.

I know this is just semantics but: Isn't that immediate danger?

I believe that would not just include LEO's (on or off duty), but also the life of anyone in immediate danger.

 

[TurdBird]

Force questions aside, I have a question about smuggling, and I imagine you have some expertise in this regard...

...the guys doing the nuts and bolts transporting...they're usually mules, right? Guys who make a few hundred bucks doing the bidding of the distribution side of the business, right?

I ask because I have heard/read stories about some people being extorted into these services - do this for us or we torture and kill your family. One story about that I heard was a pilot. This was well before I found JC.

I don't know how much truth there was to the story (I have some reason to question the truthfulness of the person who relayed it to me, despite the fact that he is a Federal LEO) but it was the first thing I thought of in this scenario.

Because we don't know the intent or circumstances surrounding the situation, I find it hard to automatically adopt a 'kill em' all' attitude. There is too much gray area for it to be a black and white issue, in my opinion.

Killbilly, to be perfectly honest with you I do not know enough about the subject to answer it. Sorry.

I know this is just semantics but: Isn't that immediate danger?

I believe that would not just include LEO's (on or off duty), but also the life of anyone in immediate danger.

It can only be myself or a fellow on duty LEO. Someone can shoot someone sitting right next to me and I would not be allowed to respond with deadly force until I feel it's my arse.

 

[Chewie von Nubbins]

Because people outside the US don't deserve any rights?

Umm....Nope.

Seriously, why is it any different than getting into a small GA aircraft and flying it right into a nice big line of very colorful thunderstorms? It's called risk management. If you know the consequences for your actions to fly drugs in a plane that "will" be shot down if identified by the good guys, then that is a risk those people are taking. Those people might have been lucky before, but karma is a bitch when it finally gets you.

Think about it. Say you get pulled over by the cops and as he is walking up to your car, you start aggressively reaching into your belt line as if you were going to pull a gun? But, you don't really have a gun. What do you think is going to happen then? You might be unarmed, but you are going to get a cap popped in your ####ing ass.

 

[darrenf]

It can only be myself or a fellow on duty LEO. Someone can shoot someone sitting right next to me and I would not be allowed to respond with deadly force until I feel it's my arse.

Isn't there a happy medium here?? I mean, I thought you were supposed to protect us civilians. If someone is going around shooting civs, but never aims at a LEO, he is to be taken by non-deadly means?? That doesn't seem to jive with common sense or many events around our country in the past.

 

[darrenf]

If you know the consequences for your actions to fly drugs in a plane that "will" be shot down if identified by the good guys, then that is a risk those people are taking.

Think about it. Say you get pulled over by the cops and as he is walking up to your car, you start aggressively reaching into your belt line as if you were going to pull a gun? But, you don't really have a gun. What do you think is going to happen then? You might be unarmed, but you are going to get a cap popped in your ####ing ass.

What is different here is the plane is not an immediate threat to the officers. Unless it has some sort of armament, it is not a threat. In your scenario, you are talking about an officer's reaction in the heat of the moment triggering his self defense mechanism. While the results of that officers actions are lamentable, that is life, it is not perfect, and I will never fault an officer for an action taken in the heat of the moment where he thought he was genuinely threatened. And while drug runners assume the risk, this is true, it does not make it OK to have a policy to shoot down civilian aircraft for this purpose. Innocents are too at risk.

 

[Chewie von Nubbins]

What is different here is the plane is not an immediate threat to the officers. Unless it has some sort of armament, it is not a threat. In your scenario, you are talking about an officer's reaction in the heat of the moment triggering his self defense mechanism. While the results of that officers actions are lamentable, that is life, it is not perfect, and I will never fault an officer for an action taken in the heat of the moment where he thought he was genuinely threatened. And while drug runners assume the risk, this is true, it does not make it OK to have a policy to shoot down civilian aircraft for this purpose. Innocents are too at risk.

I feel you man. But you are arguing your point about a personal hangup that you have against a national/foreign policy that is implemented outside of our nation's shores. I disagree with a state's policy about a state income tax. But, that is just the way it is and there is not much that I can do about it. If I choose to live in a state that has a state income tax, although I disagree with it...I still have to pay. But I live in Texas...and we don't have a state income tax. They left it up to the counties and cities to rape you if you own a house.

/hijack

 

[MFT1Air]

What is different here is the plane is not an immediate threat to the officers. Unless it has some sort of armament, it is not a threat. In your scenario, you are talking about an officer's reaction in the heat of the moment triggering his self defense mechanism. While the results of that officers actions are lamentable, that is life, it is not perfect, and I will never fault an officer for an action taken in the heat of the moment where he thought he was genuinely threatened. And while drug runners assume the risk, this is true, it does not make it OK to have a policy to shoot down civilian aircraft for this purpose. Innocents are too at risk.

You grayed the line here and confused the issue. These are not officers as it relates to law enforcement; it is the military as it relates to the appropriate national laws applicable to their country. Rules for law enforcement and the military, as you already know, are different. We have the same rules in the United States as they relate to shooting down of aircraft, civilian or otherwise, or are in violation of the rules. Rules are designed to protect the public interest be it in the U.S. or Columbia. Violation of those rules no longer make you "an innocent." You are a violator. You are guilty. You are subject to punitive action. That makes it OK.

 

[MFT1Air]

Stuart Matthews, founder of the Flight Safety Foundation, told Air Safety Week in June, 1994, he strongly opposed renewing the shoot-down scheme. "It's contrary to international law, it's contrary to US law," he said. "Even if an airplane were full of drug smugglers and was shot down, what ever happened to due process, to which we all subscribe?"

I guess not all of us suscribe to due process. . .without it you get Guantanamo and AbuGrabe

The Air Transport Association of America relayed the same sentiments. "There is concern here, because it's always been the policy of our members to oppose any government shooting down of any civil aircraft for any reason," he told the industry weekly. "It would then allow that government to target civil aircraft for other reasons. It's one more step down the slippery slope."
http://www.november.org/razorwire/rzold/24/24002.html

What I subscribe to are two basic principles. Perhaps he/she wasn't capable of these two significant maneuvers:

1. Slow flight - gives someone the impression you're not trying to evade military authorities.
1a. Turns around a point - same reason as 1.

2. Effective radio communications procedures. Dialogue is key. In countries such as Columbia, 121.5Mhz or 243.0Mhz are good frequencies for calling up to "say intentions." Having a backup radio precludes being mistaken for someone attempting to evade military authorities.

Other steps like complying with military authorities help immensely. For example, following authorities to an appropriate landing area minimizes misunderstandings.

Having said all that, I apologize for making a few assumptions based upon a short 3 minute video.

• I assumed the legal authorities exercises due diligence in attempting to communicate with the aircraft.
• I assumed the legal authorities attempted to divert the aircraft to the nearest landing strip.
• I assumed the pilot, realizing he was in a compromising situation, exercised bad judgement to attempt escape from legal authorities realizing what the consequences would be of his actions.