Originally Posted by
notquiteaff
You are welcome to debate that with the FAA rule makers.
Unless you were the guy in question, I wonder how you know what the guy intended or not.
Alcohol is not an excuse or justification. Period. It may result in additional charges against others if they served when they shouldn't have (FA) or allowed him to board when they shouldn't have (GA), but it was the alleged offender who drank it.
La critique est aisée, et l'art est difficile (to criticize is easy but the art is difficult).
The FAA may use inoxification as a categorical description, but for the flight attendant it is really not necessarily easy to determine. In retrospect we can all see he was probably drunk as per OP description but it may or may not have been evident at the time the FA served drinks. We do not know the class of travel and whether this was purchased as opposed to complimentare alcohol which can also be a factor in FA response to request for alcohol (and I know the FAA doesn't make distinctions etc etc).
By definition if he was drunk at time the events occured then the events could not have been intentional - either he was drunk (and incapacitated) or he wasnt (and thus competent and aware of actions) - we can't have it both ways.
That said the details of this case are sketchy and uncollaborated so our discussions are largely hypothetical. I agree alcohol is not an excuse or justification for bad behaviour, but alcoholism is a disease and people affected need society's help as much as criticism.