221–230 of 281 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Jean Valjean (self-evident) Jean Valjean is a character in a novel, not a real person, and is about as relevant to this discussion as a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk.
Apparently not self-evident! A.k.a Eugène Vidocq
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I know a few people who are currently active in search and rescue organizations. None of them deserve to be forced to work with anyone like this fool - they’re professionals who control risk as much as humanly possible. This is an individual who put himself and others at incredible risk for views.
I think what GP was suggesting was that this person might have a chance to redeem themselves if they were surrounded by, and came to respect, people like you're describing. Do you think that's ever possible?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tell that to Jean Valjean.
I don't know how to tell you this, but Jean Valjean is a fictional character.
The historical element is more relevant. In the UK (and perhaps the US) in 1723 it was made illegal to hunt a rabbit - punishable by death.
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.…
Earlier 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.
The three outcomes are: * Successful cover up (0% damage). * Failed cover up (100% damage). * Don't bother (100% damage). So if doing nothing and failing to cover up lead to the same result, you might as well give a shot at successfully covering up. Whatcha got to lose? It is assumed not bothering is 100% damage because the screw up is apparently bad enough to warrant attempting a cover up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The three outcomes are: * Successful cover up (0% damage). * Failed cover up (100% damage). * Don't bother (100% damage). So if doing nothing and failing to cover up lead to the same result, you might as well give a shot at successfully covering up. Whatcha got to lose? It is assumed not bothering is 100% damage because the screw up is apparently bad enough to warrant attempting a cover up.
In the UK it’s a crime to “flee the scene of an accident”, even if that accident was a minor scratch on a stationery vehicle.
"Two years ago I jumped out of a perfectly good airplane and let it crash into the ground, took some bad advice, and decided to remove the wreckage. Today I was sentenced to 6 months in Federal Prison. Thank you to my unconditional loving family and friends. You know who you are, and who you aren't :) My incredible lawyer, and Federal Judge Walter, for understanding the truth of the situation, and giving me a second chance at life. This situation could have been a lot worse, and am extremely grateful am here to talk about it. look forward to teaching our youth from my mistake, and the lessons I have learned from this, it has changed me as a person forever, and therefore, I am so excited for this next chapter of implementing those changes into society for the better. made a video about this on my YouTube channel if you'd like to watch it.Always wear your parachute my friends. Much love"
Not really sure what to expect from his post as it gives me vibes of something his mother would write for him if he's locked up and cannot do so himself.
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.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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. If he had a private air field/airport and "landed" (crashed) the plane on his air field, then that could be argued, but there's still the fact that he bailed out of the airplane and left it in an uncontrolled state, i…
Otoh people crash stuff on the reg (crash tests, stunts, …) and an unoccupied plane should be quite predictable. If you can demonstrate that you secured the area and it is large enough there is low-to-no chances of the plane getting out from bailout conditions everyone woukd likely be satisfied.
You are probably underestimating how wast that area must be to do that.
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.…
Super curious how they even found out. Did he confess? Anyone got the info?
Found out what exactly?
> Did he confess?
He posted a video on youtube, the rest of it is just standard investigation.