Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

YouTuber sentenced to 6 months in prison for obstructing probe into plane crash

justice.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 281 posts

Re: YouTuber sentenced to 6 months in prison for obstructing probe into plane crash

#21

Post by throw0101b »

bhhaskin wrote: post #13
duskwuff wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note, however, that this doesn't mean that he would have gotten away with it if he'd cooperated. It means that the federal prosecutor decided that the act of obstruction would be easier to prove, since the intentional nature of those acts is much more self-evident.

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.

> There isn't a law that prevents you from intentionally crashing other vehicles. Just around property damage and endangering other people.

You can probably do whatever you want with your private vehicle on your private land. But on public roads you need a license to operate, and you must operate the vehicle in certain prescribed ways.

Similarly you can probably do whatever you want with your private air vehicle while it sits on your private land, but when you are operating in public air space then you must operate in the ways prescribed by your pilot license.

Re: YouTuber sentenced to 6 months in prison for obstructing probe into plane crash

#22

Post by ta1243 »

mozman wrote: post #17
duskwuff wrote: post #12

Earlier 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

Large companies commit crime constantly and make it pay, the fines they incur are simply counted a cost of doing business

Re: YouTuber sentenced to 6 months in prison for obstructing probe into plane crash

#23

Post by foobarian »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #14
foobarian wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, that's a lot of expensive trouble to go through to cover up. I wonder what the penalties would be otherwise - I'm sure there is some kind of code it broke but it's not obviously illegal. It's like me crashing my car on purpose.

> sure there is some kind of code it broke but it's not obviously illegal It's very illegal. Part 91 § 91.13 careless or reckless operation [1] and § 91.15 dropping objects [2]. (I'm studying for my pilot's license.) Also, until SCOTUS rules otherwise, agency rules carry the strength of statute. [1] https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/section-91.13 [2] https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/section-91.15

Sure, but is it a felony-20-years-in-a-FPITA-prison illegal, or a giant-fine-and-revocation-of-pilot-license illegal? :-)

Re: YouTuber sentenced to 6 months in prison for obstructing probe into plane crash

#24

Post by ryandrake »

WillPostForFood wrote: post #10
fxtentacle wrote: post #8

For me, the really interesting question is not if he's guilty - I had assumed as much - but if he will come out financially successful. That video had millions of views and a sponsorship deal. Call me a cynic, but it seems that some companies will deliberately break the law and pay the price if it's worth it, so why not independent hustlers.

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

#25

Post by JumpCrisscross »

throw0101b wrote: post #21
bhhaskin wrote: post #13

Earlier 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.

> There isn't a law that prevents you from intentionally crashing other vehicles. Just around property damage and endangering other people. You can probably do whatever you want with your private vehicle on your private land . But on public roads you need a license to operate, and you must operate the vehicle in certain prescribed ways. Similarly you can probably do whatever you want with your private air vehicle whi…

> can probably do whatever you want with your private vehicle on your private land

Sort of.

Own plane, own land and a filed flight path should satisfy the FAA's requirements, though you may also need to take active measures to ensure your private land is clear of things that could be harmed. After that, there is the environmental component. Our influencer here not only inundated the crash site with leaded avgas, but likely also sprinkled it all the way to the hangar. Given the track record of decision making, I have no hope he disposed of the parts properly, either.

Re: YouTuber sentenced to 6 months in prison for obstructing probe into plane crash

#26

Post by JumpCrisscross »

foobarian wrote: post #23
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> sure there is some kind of code it broke but it's not obviously illegal It's very illegal. Part 91 § 91.13 careless or reckless operation [1] and § 91.15 dropping objects [2]. (I'm studying for my pilot's license.) Also, until SCOTUS rules otherwise, agency rules carry the strength of statute. [1] https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/section-91.13 [2] https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/section-91.15

Sure, but is it a felony-20-years-in-a-FPITA-prison illegal, or a giant-fine-and-revocation-of-pilot-license illegal? :-)

> is it a felony-20-years-in-a-FPITA-prison illegal, or a giant-fine-and-revocation-of-pilot-license illegal

Probably the latter unless someone gets hurt. (Agree with you that this was a dumb cover-up. Particularly when he seems to have done the cover up before posting the video?)

Re: YouTuber sentenced to 6 months in prison for obstructing probe into plane crash

#28

Post by heyoni »

foobarian wrote: post #23
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> sure there is some kind of code it broke but it's not obviously illegal It's very illegal. Part 91 § 91.13 careless or reckless operation [1] and § 91.15 dropping objects [2]. (I'm studying for my pilot's license.) Also, until SCOTUS rules otherwise, agency rules carry the strength of statute. [1] https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/section-91.13 [2] https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/section-91.15

Sure, but is it a felony-20-years-in-a-FPITA-prison illegal, or a giant-fine-and-revocation-of-pilot-license illegal? :-)

Some forms of reckless driving are considered felonies and can land you in prison, I feel like it would or should be worse with an airplane.

Re: YouTuber sentenced to 6 months in prison for obstructing probe into plane crash

#29

Post by avar »

duskwuff wrote: post #6
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #3

Critically, 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.…

Note, however, that this doesn't mean that he would have gotten away with it if he'd cooperated. It means that the federal prosecutor decided that the act of obstruction would be easier to prove, since the intentional nature of those acts is much more self-evident.

> [...]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 first sign of trouble.

Re: YouTuber sentenced to 6 months in prison for obstructing probe into plane crash

#30

Post by kesslern »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #18
throw0101b wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> the whole point of the cover-up is a recognition that a full revelation of the underlying bad act is not survivable There are numerous counter-examples to this claim. In many cases, it's obvious because the cover-up is of a civil infraction.

I feel like the Toupee Fallacy is lurking around in this conversation. We know how many cover-ups are successful, and the ones we know about are nearly universally unsuccessful.
Post reply on HN