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

271–280 of 281 posts

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

#271

Post by petsfed »

Dalewyn wrote: post #212
zztop44 wrote: post #104

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.

Except that in a lot of cases, a failed coverup incurs a few more felonies, so "don't bother" is closer to like 75%, while "failed cover up" is definitely 100%.

In terms of risk analysis, rationally considering a coverup is in the same ballpark as rationally considering shorting a stock, in the sense that making the wrong call can cost a whole bunch more.

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

#272

Post by SAI_Peregrinus »

Dalewyn wrote: post #212
zztop44 wrote: post #104

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.

I'd say failed cover up is 100% damage, but "don't bother" is under 100%. A failed cover up is always worse than the initial screw up. E.g. this exact case, which went from civil penalties (loss of pilot's license) to criminal (jail time) AND civil penalties due to the failed cover up.

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

#273

Post by zlg_codes »

tremon wrote: post #247
zlg_codes wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What prior evidence do we have of government honoring such "if you were honest we'd be easier on you" crap? Zero incentive to trust such a statement. It's backed by nothing.

Plenty of evidence. Search keywords are "sentence", "reduced" and "cooperating". Not sure about the veracity of this site, but it includes the law article number so you can verify it yourself: https://www.gordondefense.com/federal-crimes/federal-crimina... > Federal Safety Valve (Title 18 United States Code Section 3553(e), United States Sentencing Commission §§ 5C1.2 and §2D1.1(b)(17)) > A person may be able to coop…

I don't think you understand where I'm coming from. Those statutes and documents aren't trustable.

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

#274

Post by zlg_codes »

ponector wrote: post #241
zlg_codes wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Do you think this youtuber should not be punished with prison time? So any other kid can do the same knowing they will not be punished?

No, I don't. Lecture the guy about how to do it correctly, maybe make him pay for the pollution he caused or something.

Locking him away solves nothing.

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

#276

Post by usefulcat »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #57
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #36

Earlier 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).

Even in cases where the perpetrator believes that the underlying act is survivable, they'd probably still rather not get caught at all.

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

#277

Post by brailsafe »

dghlsakjg wrote: post #156
brailsafe wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seemed like a carefully chosen representation of the pdf, here's the quote from the linked 2011 estimated risks > The average adjusted, standardized risk of death reached 10% at an impact speed of 23 mph, 25% at 32 mph, 50% at 42 mph, 75% at 50 mph, and 90% at 58 mph. Risk of death increased approximately linearly with speed for speeds between 32 mph and 50 mph, with an average increase of 2.8 percentage points…

True, I did cherry-pick the data, but pedestrian/vehicle interactions are the most likely to occur in areas where the speed limit is lower. i.e. Most 55mph roads do not have crosswalks at every corner and pedestrians using uncontrolled intersections. Most 25mph roads DO have crosswalks (marked or unmarked) at every corner, and intersections are likely to be uncontrolled for peds. In other words, I am much more worrie…

I'd rather every crosswalk start a 5 sec timer and flash the lights, and then spikes come up that blow out the tires of any car that's going fast enough within proximity of someone crossing. Driving in the city for anything but uniquely dependant utilitarian purposes should be a relatively rare thing, and building cities in a way that prioritizes it is preposterous.

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

#278

Post by bryanrasmussen »

mike_hock wrote: post #237
bryanrasmussen wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this has some faulty reasoning involved as well. There are the following conditions: 1. individual determines correctly the crime is not survivable and does cover up that fails and you have both crime and cover up. 2. individual determines correctly the crime is not survivable and does cover up with succeeds in covering up crime sufficiently but then the individual gets damage from cover up, since there is a strong s…

3. Individual does cover up, which gets discovered along with a crime, and the individual gets punished for both the cover-up and the crime that was discovered. The cover-up was successful. It hid a much more egregious crime that nobody ever learned about.

right there are a number of different variations that I didn't add in because I didn't have time - just wanted to show there is more than just "it's not the crime it's the coverup" or "no it's the crime!" going on here.

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

#279

Post by unaindz »

bmitc wrote: post #94
mattmaroon wrote: post #39

He deserves a much longer sentence for this. There is so much risk of killing someone or damaging property. Even in a remote area you cannot be sure there is nothing below or that you won’t start a forest fire. I’ve seen less bad crimes get years.

6-months does seem insanely light even if one only considers intentionally obstructing a federal investigation. Only 6 months for covering up and lying to investigators? I would have imagined that the sentence for that would be much longer. Is he additionally being tried for crashing the airplane on purpose?

The instagram post suggest the judge went light with him on purpose. Personally I think it's fine. If he does something remotely similar they will not be as lenient.
Post reply on HN