People doing stuff like this happens all the time on TikTok, Instagram, and YouTube. I think one solution could be that once you are convicted of a crime done in the service of social media that you also receive a ban from making any income from social media for a period of time. I think it may be the only way to get through to some of these people who do stuff like this.
YouTuber sentenced to 6 months in prison for obstructing probe into plane crash
131–140 of 281 posts
Re: YouTuber sentenced to 6 months in prison for obstructing probe into plane crash
#132Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lots of things that could harm or kill someone just get a small fine. For example, going 5 mph over the speed limit has likely killed many people over the decades, yet it's still only a $100 ticket or so.
Do you have statistics on the marginal cost of 5mph? Id be interested to understand your certainty that e.g. 60mph is both more fatal and the number of deaths that could be prevented by going 55mph. I expect there are relatively few deaths that can be directly attributed to 5mph, but given evidence I'll reconsider.
to be fair, they didnt claim it is likely, just that it could kill.
You could make the same point about going 5mph under the speed limit.
It is somewhat interesting to think about the factors that go into setting a punishment. It is rarely the magnitude of potential damage (worst case), and often not even the damage adjusted by the probability of occurrence.
Most often, it has more to do with subjective custom and norms. Some dangerous things are OK, some are harshly punished.
Re: YouTuber sentenced to 6 months in prison for obstructing probe into plane crash
#133Earlier quoted context omitted.
A federal felony and a 6-month prison sentence, on their own, would almost certainly tip the scales to "not worth it". I wouldn't be surprised if there were also a disgorgement involved.
It’s a big black mark on your reputation, it’s rarely worth it. He could have injured or killed someone for a video. Crime doesn’t pay
Crime often pays. That's part of why it's so popular.
Re: YouTuber sentenced to 6 months in prison for obstructing probe into plane crash
#134Earlier quoted context omitted.
> [...]this doesn't mean that he would have gotten away with it if he'd cooperated[...] If he'd stuck to the story that he just had an engine mishap would they have been able to prove that it was intentional? They'd almost certainly have revoked his license to ever fly again, but filming everything you're doing isn't illegal. Nor is wearing a parachute because you know you're a crappy pilot that'll bail out at the fi…
General Aviation airplanes require an annual inspection (from an IA A&P mechanic -- that's airframe & powerplant with inspection authorization). My understanding is that the plane was out of annual (ie, bought as parts) and he fixed it up enough to fly. There are strict limits on what repairs you can do yourself without involving a licensed A&P mechanic. FAA actually does ramp checks on occasion to verify that your b…
Nice reply. For other readers, I needed to Google these terms:
IA: Inspection Authorized
A&P: Airframe & Powerplant
Re: YouTuber sentenced to 6 months in prison for obstructing probe into plane crash
#135Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not disagreeing. Just pushing back on cover-ups being rational. In many cases, the cover-up wasn't worth it. "Full revelation of the underlying bad act" would have been utterly survivable, even taking into account the odds of getting away with no consequence.
Yeah, my feel is that the underlying act was often enough survivable, but it didn't feel like it at the time . A cover-up attempt in state of panic is opposite of rational (except maybe in terms of calming your own nerves).
And it takes a steely set of nerves to calmly wait for the dice to finish rolling.
Panic tends to bias towards action.
Re: YouTuber sentenced to 6 months in prison for obstructing probe into plane crash
#136Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is there a law that says you can't intentionally crash a plane? Honest question. There isn't a law that prevents you from intentionally crashing other vehicles. Just around property damage and endangering other people.
> law that says you can't intentionally crash a plane? No. We do crash tests from time to time [1]. But at a minimum, you must control--not even just own--the terrain you're crashing into. (It's also not solely a Part 91/FAA matter. The EPA, for example, would also want to have a say.) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Boeing_727_crash_experime...
The Wiki page says:
The site in Mexico was chosen because authorities in the United States would not allow the test to take place.
Re: YouTuber sentenced to 6 months in prison for obstructing probe into plane crash
#137Earlier quoted context omitted.
Legal fees alone are going to be many times YouTube revenue. Add lost wages for a half year in prison. Add future lost revenue from sponsors who don't want to be associated with this, and it has to be a huge financial disaster.
Even if the legal fees weren't many times the revenue, I never understood why couldn't the justice system default to fines like "All income arising out of crime + $XYZ" for all crimes, so that the fine is never a cost of doing business?
Re: YouTuber sentenced to 6 months in prison for obstructing probe into plane crash
#138Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are three outcomes in this hypothetical: don’t bother with the cover up (50% damage); successful cover up (0% damage); and failed cover up (100% damage). So the calculation is a bit more complicated.
"don't bother with the cover up" doesn't contribute to the probabilistic model. If I flip a coin, it can't come up "I didn't flip the coin".
You're right. To expand: don't bother is the null. Deciding to cover-up leads to one of two outcomes, the good one (you get away) and the bad (you get boned). You don't know which of those outcomes you'll get.
The percentages the comment you're responding to provides aren't probabilities, but damage fractions; 50% isn't a 50/50 likelihood, but 50% damage of the 100% case.
Re: YouTuber sentenced to 6 months in prison for obstructing probe into plane crash
#139Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lots of things that could harm or kill someone just get a small fine. For example, going 5 mph over the speed limit has likely killed many people over the decades, yet it's still only a $100 ticket or so.
Do you have statistics on the marginal cost of 5mph? Id be interested to understand your certainty that e.g. 60mph is both more fatal and the number of deaths that could be prevented by going 55mph. I expect there are relatively few deaths that can be directly attributed to 5mph, but given evidence I'll reconsider.
https://nacto.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/2011PedestrianR...
Risk of death for pedestrians goes up 250% when hit by a car going 32mph vs one going 23mph. Given the rising rate of pedestrian deaths in North America (at a 40 year high), it is an almost certainty that 5mph has made the difference in a great number of pedestrian deaths.
Re: YouTuber sentenced to 6 months in prison for obstructing probe into plane crash
#140Critically, he is not going to jail for intentionally crashing the plane. He is being jailed "for obstructing a federal investigation by deliberately destroying the wreckage of an airplane." Had he cooperated, it's plausible to see him getting away with a license revocation and fine. Instead he did this: "In the weeks following the plane crash, Jacob lied to investigators that he did not know the wreckage’s location.…
> Had he cooperated, it's plausible to see him getting away with a license revocation and fine. Reminder of the quotation from Howard Baker (R-TN): “It is almost always the cover-up rather than the event that causes trouble.” Though some would disagree: > There's this old line the wise folks in Washington have that 'it's not the crime, but the cover-up.' > But only fools believe that. It's always about the crime. The…
[flagged]