83
Why are state troopers enforcing a local law in a town that they hadn't yet flown to?
They want a new "drug enforcement plane" to fly around on the weekends
They should do that with commercial flights. Customs finds something -> plane is crushed into a cube.
You cant even party rock anymore
In addition to what else i've said it seems kinda weird and fucky to have state police act to enforce local prohibition bans. Seems like if a town wants to ban alcohol it should be a them problem to enforce
Where's the libertarian "i don't want my tax dollars to pay for a school" crowd when it's the Alaskan state govt paying to hassle people over beer
Half of them think this is the one function the state should fulfill and the other half think that the cop should be replaced with a rent-a-cop.
I think the cop should be replaced with Paul Blart, and if he can enforce this law without any government support then it stands
Paul Blart with a Stinger missile.
He's a white guy so he has a good chance of winning.
There is a bit more to the story. The passenger had 3 cases of beer, but they found the pilot only responsible for the 6-pack because it was in plain sight where the pilot obviously saw it. I do think what this guy did was wrong. A lot of these indigenous communities suffer because of alcohol. If they don't want it in their villages, they have every right to ban it and the state should enforce the law.
That said, I don't think he should lose his plane. If he had been caught doing this multiple times, then yes, I would support them taking his plane. But he is a first time offender, I think fine + jail time would be sufficient.
I agree, the plane seems totally excessive but if the location bans alcohol then he's due a punishment for it. Just not that particular punishment because it's absurd.
shouldn't be on the pilot to know the laws in every little village. or if he does, for all anyone knows he was going to snitch and radio ahead for local authorities to intercept her at their leisure.
On the one hand I feel like a private pilot like this shouldn't be expected to inspect everything his passenger is carrying. On the other I feel like if this precedent gets set then what's to stop someone from getting a DUI and arguing "you can't take my car away it's too expensive"
He's not being charged with DUI though, he's being charged for, if Im reading correctly, intending to fly into some hick dry town with alcohol on board. So it's like smuggling. Except it was his passenger's, packed in with her groceries, and they didn't even leave the area where it was legal, so it's more like intent to smuggle
This should have been thrown out in the very first trial. Maybe charge the passenger since it was hers and she's presumably familiar with the law there if she lived there, but the pilot? I don't think it should be his job to inspect passenger belongings.
Even if it was, jesus christ it's a fucking 6 pack of beer. How long do the judges and juries involved here think that will last? Do they think you bring in a 6 pack and then dilute it or something, cut it with shit to stretch it out and resell on the black market??? it's just literally not how this works. Nobody on earth is going to be smuggling, as part of a criminal enterprise, a six pack of beer. They're acting like it's multiple bottles of liquor instead!
Fucking bureaucratic robot shit taking it this far
6 pack and then dilute it or something, cut it with shit to stretch it out and resell on the black market
It's nonzero chance they believe in homeopathy
Seems like you could do something with thresholds on misdemeanors vs felonies and barring that you could duck the whole issue because you are just rescinding their license but not seizing the car
Maybe he was drinking and flying...
Nah. It says he was being payed by a woman to fly to a remote village in Alaska and that woman had a 6-pack of Buddweiser. Alcohol is banned at the destination. The pilot and the passenger were both charged with misdemeanor. The incident happened in April 2012. The Alaska Supreme Court ruled that it was fair for his plane to be seized. Now it's going to the US Supreme Court.
Yeah i glanced through the article and it looks like they hadn't even left for the destination yet
This could have very easily been a situation of the police confiscating the beer and everybody getting off with a warning, instead everyone went turbo bureaucrat mode. You're bringing in a 6pk of Budweiser? That's smuggling with INTENT, death penalty!
this post was submitted on 22 Jul 2026
83 points (100.0% liked)
news
24831 readers
765 users here now
Welcome to c/news! We aim to foster a book-club type environment for discussion and critical analysis of the news. Our policy objectives are:
-
To learn about and discuss meaningful news, analysis and perspectives from around the world, with a focus on news outside the Anglosphere and beyond what is normally seen in corporate media (e.g. anti-imperialist, anti-Zionist, Marxist, Indigenous, LGBTQ, people of colour).
-
To encourage community members to contribute commentary and for others to thoughtfully engage with this material.
-
To support healthy and good faith discussion as comrades, sharpening our analytical skills and helping one another better understand geopolitics.
We ask community members to appreciate the uncertainty inherent in critical analysis of current events, the need to constantly learn, and take part in the community with humility. None of us are the One True Leftist, not even you, the reader.
Newcomm and Newsmega Rules:
The Hexbear Code of Conduct and Terms of Service apply here.
-
Link titles: Please use informative link titles. Overly editorialized titles, particularly if they link to opinion pieces, may get your post removed.
-
Content warnings: Posts on the newscomm and top-level replies on the newsmega should use content warnings appropriately. Please be thoughtful about wording and triggers when describing awful things in post titles.
-
Fake news: No fake news posts ever, including April 1st. Deliberate fake news posting is a bannable offense. If you mistakenly post fake news the mod team may ask you to delete/modify the post or we may delete it ourselves.
-
Link sources: All posts must include a link to their source. Screenshots are fine IF you include the link in the post body. If you are citing a Twitter post as news, please include the Xcancel.com (or another Nitter instance) or at least strip out identifier information from the twitter link. There is also a Firefox extension that can redirect Twitter links to a Nitter instance, such as Libredirect or archive them as you would any other reactionary source.
-
Archive sites: We highly encourage use of non-paywalled archive sites (i.e. archive.is, web.archive.org, ghostarchive.org) so that links are widely accessible to the community and so that reactionary sources don’t derive data/ad revenue from Hexbear users. If you see a link without an archive link, please archive it yourself and add it to the thread, ask the OP to fix it, or report to mods. Including text of articles in threads is welcome.
-
Low effort material: Avoid memes/jokes/shitposts in newscomm posts and top-level replies to the newsmega. This kind of content is OK in post replies and in newsmega sub-threads. We encourage the community to balance their contribution of low effort material with effort posts, links to real news/analysis, and meaningful engagement with material posted in the community.
-
American politics: Discussion and effort posts on the (potential) material impacts of American electoral politics is welcome, but the never-ending circus of American Politics© Brought to You by Mountain Dew™ is not welcome. This refers to polling, pundit reactions, electoral horse races, rumors of who might run, etc.
-
Electoralism: Please try to avoid struggle sessions about the value of voting/taking part in the electoral system in the West. c/electoralism is right over there.
-
AI Slop: Don't post AI generated content. Posts about AI race/chip wars/data centers are fine.
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS