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

31–40 of 281 posts

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

#31

Post by tomatotomato37 »

COGlory wrote: post #16
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.

Is there a scenario where intentionally crashing a vehicle on property that you do not have permission to crash a vehicle on isn't reckless endangerment/reckless driving? Except maybe steering away from the oncoming bus into the jersey barrier or something?

I know there was at least one remote-controlled airliner intentionally crashed in the desert filled with crash dummies and stuff, though that was in an active partnership with the FAA

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

#32

Post by pavel_lishin »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #25
throw0101b wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> Given the track record of decision making, I have no hope he disposed of the parts properly, either.

Your instincts are correct:

> Jacob drove the wreckage to Lompoc City Airport and unloaded it in a hangar. He then cut up and destroyed the airplane wreckage and, over the course of a few days, deposited the detached parts of the wrecked airplane into trash bins at the airport and elsewhere

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

#33

Post by adrr »

ta1243 wrote: post #22
mozman wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

They don't regularly commit crimes though. They commit regulatory violations. There's a big difference. Like getting a parking ticket versus being convicted for a felony. Ones that get convicted like Purdue Pharma are fined so heavily they are forced to close. Or they could just be banned from doing business like Arthur Anderson when they had to surrender their CPA licenses and forgo rights to practice.

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

#34

Post by mattmaroon »

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.

Probably including Watergate which I believe was the inspiration for that quote. The underlying act was probably survivable. The coverup was not.

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

#35

Post by calamari4065 »

avar wrote: post #29
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.

> [...]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…

>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?

Isn't that what the black box is for?

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

#36

Post by JumpCrisscross »

kesslern wrote: post #30
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

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.

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

#37

Post by titzer »

adrr wrote: post #33
ta1243 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

They don't regularly commit crimes though. They commit regulatory violations. There's a big difference. Like getting a parking ticket versus being convicted for a felony. Ones that get convicted like Purdue Pharma are fined so heavily they are forced to close. Or they could just be banned from doing business like Arthur Anderson when they had to surrender their CPA licenses and forgo rights to practice.

Steal a loaf of bread, do hard time. Steal $5 here and there millions of times over from unsuspecting customers with completely made-up junk fees, and it's an FTC fine...after years of haggling in court. The magic of indirection!

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

#38

Post by altairprime »

ryandrake wrote: post #24
WillPostForFood wrote: post #10

Earlier 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?

What percentage of viewer income was due to the crime?

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

#39

Post by mattmaroon »

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.

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

#40

Post by [deleted] »

calamari4065 wrote: post #35
avar wrote: post #29

Earlier 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…

>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? Isn't that what the black box is for?

[deleted]
Post reply on HN