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

61–70 of 281 posts

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

#61

Post by paulpauper »

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

It’s a big black mark on your reputation, it’s rarely worth it.

Maybe if he was applying for a job at the FAA, as a pilot, or as a school teacher. but for a professional youtuber, not so much.

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

#63

Post by JumpCrisscross »

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?

In a normal setting, probably not. General-aviation aircraft don't have flight recorders. Helpfully for the investigators, however, this numpty decked his plane out in cameras. And then posted the video online. After he'd executed the cover-up.

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

#65

Post by tokai »

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.

Thats assuming that yt pays out and his sponsors doesn't sue him.

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

#66

Post by jxf »

omginternets wrote: post #41
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…

Applying a bit of abduction, I see two narratives that track: 1. Some other illicit activity was going on in or around that plane. 2. The pilot thought he could make the whole mess go away by erasing physical evidence of the crash; his reasoning might be along the lines of "no evidence, no feds". I find both equally credible. I'm stumped.

Never overestimate the intelligence of someone willing to jump out of a moving plane for clicks and views.

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

#67

Post by fieryskiff17 »

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.

[flagged]

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

#68

Post by shpx »

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.

Millions of lives became a smidge more interesting because they got to see, think, talk and be outraged by this guy crashing a plane into a remote mountain range on purpose. As a society we can afford things like this if they're a one-off. It's slightly more fun if this happens once in 10 years than if it happens zero times. If 6 months is all he gets then that seems right to me, maybe even a bit much.

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

#69

Post by evan_ »

boeingUH60 wrote: post #50
titzer wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

Nobody does hard time for stealing a loaf of bread, but sure keep ranting..

Tell that to Jean Valjean.

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

#70

Post by TerrifiedMouse »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #36
kesslern wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Guess some people like to play the odds. Rather than take 50% damage, they choose to gamble between 0% damage (cover up successful) and 100% damage (cover up failed and isn’t survivable) - they are equivalent in terms of expected value.
Post reply on HN