Jump to content

Spirit Airways Pilot and Wife, dead of suspected drug overdose


Guest

Recommended Posts

What a shame, I can not imagine what the children are going through after discovering the bodies.

Spirit Airlines pilot and wife die of suspected fentanyl, heroin overdose  

Spirit Airlines pilot and wife die of suspected drug overdose
NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
Saturday, March 18, 2017, 9:48 AM

An Ohio couple was found dead in their home from a suspected overdose of heroin and fentanyl, authorities say. The discovery was made by the couple’s four children.

The bodies of Brian Halye, a 36-year-old pilot for Spirit Airlines, and wife Courtney were found in their bedroom Thursday morning by Courtney's son and daughter and Brian's two daughters.

The children went into the bedroom after their parents failed to wake them up for school, 

Courtney's 13-year-old son made the 911 call telling the operator that his parents were on the floor and weren't waking up

"They were very cold," he said, as the three sisters cried in the background.

The son added that one of his sisters said their father was "pale" and there were black lines all over his face.

Authorities believe the parents' death may be drug-related, most likely the result of a lethal heroin-fentanyl mixture. Testing is still being done and a toxicology report will take up to six weeks.

Centerville police officer John Davis told WLWT that drug paraphernalia was found in the parents' bedroom.

"It is an unfortunate reality in the world we live in right now," he said. "I can't put it into words. It's hard to imagine as a parent, as a police officer, as just a person. It's just hard to comprehend."

Sprit Airlines confirmed Brian was a pilot, saying his last flight was March 10. The company said in a statement that it conducts random alcohol and drug tests on all employees and if any employee tests positive they are immediately fired.

Courtney's mother previously called police on her daughter fearing she was suicidal and "hooked on drugs," according to the Dayton Daily News.

Brian also contacted police during a January 2016 incident in which Courtney, 34, had locked him out of their home.

He said he was worried that she was trying to get to two unloaded guns he kept in the house. A police report stated that when Brian forced his way into the home, he found his wife holding the weapons.

The couple's four children, ages 9, 10, 11 and 13, are staying with family members.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What the heck thought process goes through people's head? Hey honey, how about we try some fentanyl tonight?  Yeah, yeah, I know hundreds of people die from overdoses each month but what the heck lets give it a whirl. Incredibly stupid. No sympathy here except for the kids. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The interesting part is, if he was a heroin user and this was not just the first time heroin was used, will there be an outcry for frequent "drug testing"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, mo32a said:

What the heck thought process goes through people's head? Hey honey, how about we try some fentanyl tonight?  Yeah, yeah, I know hundreds of people die from overdoses each month but what the heck lets give it a whirl. Incredibly stupid. No sympathy here except for the kids. 

You may not have any sympathy for the person here who was likely in the grip of an illness, but there must be something powerful at work if the company he worked for had a policy that a positive random drug test was cause for dismissal yet the person still chose to use.

 

Addiction results in a physically altered brain. Just as in the case of mental illness, addiction is not a morality issue. It is a medical issue and should be treated as such.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Listening to Ottawa radio yesterday and social worker was saying it is time, in some cases,for your tax dollars to support prescription heroin for those that can't adapt to oral methadone. WTF, how about getting them off drugs, forget the safe injection sites and all.

I know, it's a cold uneducated view and I don't have loved ones addicted,but Jesus, why is this my problem??

BTW, as I sit watching Aljazeera, in lhr, here is an interview with some Dr, recovering from fentanyl addiction from BARRIE, Ontario!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, st27 said:

 

BTW, as I sit watching Aljazeera, in lhr, here is an interview with some Dr, recovering from fentanyl addiction from BARRIE, Ontario!

I know of that Doctor, he practiced at our local hospital. It just shows that addiction can happen to people from all walks of life. Doctors, pilots, mechanics... anyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, st27 said:

Listening to Ottawa radio yesterday and social worker was saying it is time, in some cases,for your tax dollars to support prescription heroin for those that can't adapt to oral methadone. WTF, how about getting them off drugs, forget the safe injection sites and all.

I know, it's a cold uneducated view and I don't have loved ones addicted,but Jesus, why is this my problem??

BTW, as I sit watching Aljazeera, in lhr, here is an interview with some Dr, recovering from fentanyl addiction from BARRIE, Ontario!

Why is cancer brought on by voluntarily smoking or any number of obesity related illnesses brought on by overeating or injuries from extreme sports my problem?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as I am concerned, Adults who make adult choices then make the choice of accepting whatever happens after that. I am not the keeper of any adult, children on the other hand need and deserve our help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Universal health care is just that- universal. Judgement just isn't part of it and that's why it works. The societal benefits outweigh the costs, and no it probably doesn't break even on a year by year basis. For example of an alternate system please observe the Americans. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Universal health care is just that- universal. Judgement just isn't part of it and that's why it works. The societal benefits outweigh the costs"

 

That's an interesting perspective Zan Vetter, but how do we quantify, qualify or measure the "societal benefits" of universality? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, deicer said:

Latest stats on infant mortality from the CDC...

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr63/nvsr63_05.pdf

Not sure where you are going with that quote but here is more on the subject of infant mortality. The US is shown with a rate of 6 and we are shown with a rate of 5, but the UAE which has universal health care is at a dreadfull 11. So I guess it is not universal health care that should be used as a criteria but rather the quality of care. 

http://www.indexmundi.com/map/?v=29

List of Countries with Universal Healthcare
Country Start Date of Universal Health Care System Type
Canada 1966 Single Payer
Netherlands 1966 Two-Tier
Austria 1967 Insurance Mandate
United Arab Emirates 1971 Single Payer

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Malcolm said:

As far as I am concerned, Adults who make adult choices then make the choice of accepting whatever happens after that.

Unbelted driver impaled on steering column - EMS to let him bleed out on the principle of 'he got what's coming to him'?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Airband said:

Unbelted driver impaled on steering column - EMS to let him bleed out on the principle of 'he got what's coming to him'?

only if the rescue put the EMS at risk.  Same applies to those who leave a safe area to go off into restricted ski areas. Rescue should be only attempted for those folk if the rescuer is not placed into risk by attempting the rescue.. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, moeman said:

I guess lawyers should only represent the truly innocent too.

IMO, if the lawyer knows beyond a shadow of the doubt that their client is guilty, then they should have to so inform the court. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Malcolm said:

IMO, if the lawyer knows beyond a shadow of the doubt that their client is guilty, then they should have to so inform the court. 

What I might think and what I know are two different things. But assume I "know". The burden rests upon the State to prove the guilt of the accused "beyond a reasonable doubt". As the representative of the accused, I nevertheless owe a duty to the administration of justice as an officer of the court and can not ( should not) actively seek to deceive. Therefore, if ( for example) your client admits the facts alleged to counsel, that counsel should not assist him by calling him as a witness and walking him through a story counsel knows to be false.

If he insists on  telling his story, you simply call him and say; "Tell this Court what you say happened". Done.

Better....he stays silent and you let the Crown meet its burden.

Any deviation and defence counsel becomes an arm of the state and our justice system falls.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Upperdeck: if you take your path and know that someone has done something truly evil and continue to defend them,  then you are not an arm of the state but rather an arm of evil.  If you, on the other hand, have no knowledge of their quilt, then by all means defend them.

I know of lawyers, who, when their client admitted their quilt, have walked away from their client and removed themselves from the case rather than joining the bottom feeding scum who instead tried to get an acquittal for their guilty client. Those are the lawyers that I applaud, as for the others I guess $$$$ ruled. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, DEFCON said:

 

That's an interesting perspective Zan Vetter, but how do we quantify, qualify or measure the "societal benefits" of universality? 

Like I said, it probably doesn't break even year to year. There is a moral component I believe that isn't quantifiable, per se. As for comparisons, look to USA, where many people's lives are just one health issue away from total destruction. 

It used to be referred to as the social safety net. I agree that it's warm embrace has expanded too far and begun to strangle, but the premise is valid. Ever notice that the fire department doesn't ask how the fire was started, they just put it out? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Malcolm said:

Upperdeck: if you take your path and know that someone has done something truly evil and continue to defend them,  then you are not an arm of the state but rather an arm of evil.  If you, on the other hand, have no knowledge of their quilt, then by all means defend them.

I know of lawyers, who, when their client admitted their quilt, have walked away from their client and removed themselves from the case rather than joining the bottom feeding scum who instead tried to get an acquittal for their guilty client. Those are the lawyers that I applaud, as for the others I guess $$$$ ruled. 

Malcolm......with respect, I could not disagree more strongly. Please do not so easily presume that money is a motivating factor . Criminal defence work is definitely not a path to early comfortable retirement.

The most simple and fundamental principle is that EVERY accused is entitled to be presumed innocent in the eyes of the law until guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The plea is " not guilty"; the plea is NOT "innocent".

I was prepared to expand on that at length but given your belief that a lawyer who refuses to represent a client because of moral beliefs is a "good" lawyer, I think my efforts would be wasted.

Please "Allah", save us all from those few who think they know best and believe that the path they have chosen is the "right" path!

One add-on.......do you understand the difference between actus reus and mens rea? Both must usually be present to found a conviction. Do those lawyers you admire presume to know whether their client had " diminished capacity"; believe they were required to act in self-defence; acting under the influence of sleep-deprivation, alcohol or drug? Perhaps those factors were irrelevant to them.....in which event, they should stick to residential real estate and wills!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Upperdeck, the only difference I care about is one in which a lawyer continues to represent a client who has told the lawyer that they are guilty of the crime and then the lawyer continues to defend them as being not guilty. Black and white in my eyes. I do not believe being drunk etc is justification for a lawyer to continue to plead his client as being not guilty but rather that the lawyer should have the client plead guilty and then work to have any penalty reduced. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2017-03-18 at 6:06 PM, Malcolm said:

As far as I am concerned, Adults who make adult choices then make the choice of accepting whatever happens after that. I am not the keeper of any adult, children on the other hand need and deserve our help.

I had a friend who once felt very strongly the same way.  Couldn't have cared less about those scum bag addicts who just needed to pull themselves together and clean the hell up.

His tune changed after his twenty year old son broke his shoulder in a car accident and was prescribed painkillers to manage the tremendous pain following several surgeries.  A year later, his son was an opiate addict after becoming dependent on the pain killers.  That's when he figured out that addiction wasn't some decision losers make because they'd rather party then go to work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...