71–80 of 281 posts
It's unclear to me why he's destroyed this evidence or how the vague explanation suggested in the article (for YouTube views) makes any sense. Anyone understand it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What does "control" mean, technically? I have an intuitive sense of what you're pointing at with the Boeing 727 crash experiment, but how does the law phrase it?
> What does "control" mean, technically? "The power to govern, manage, direct, or oversee something" [1]. So if I own/possess acres of unfenced grasslands, I'd need to put up fences or people to monitor the property or at the very least crash site's borders. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/control
If you want to crash a plane, you'd likely have to apply for/receive temporary flight restrictions over the area where you want to crash it so that ATC can ensure everyone else stays clear.
https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/foa_html...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nobody does hard time for stealing a loaf of bread, but sure keep ranting..
USSR? China? Malaysia? Saudi Arabia? Iran? USA if the police and DA want to make an example?
Sentenced not for crashing the plane, but destroying the evidence and impeding a federal investigation. Hope they pull his pilots license if they haven't already.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What does "control" mean, technically? "The power to govern, manage, direct, or oversee something" [1]. So if I own/possess acres of unfenced grasslands, I'd need to put up fences or people to monitor the property or at the very least crash site's borders. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/control
It's a more specific definition in aviation -- think air traffic control . You need to actively make sure that there won't be any other flights near where you're intending to crash your plane which is tricky if you just bail at altitude and let it sail into terrain for YouTube. If you want to crash a plane, you'd likely have to apply for/receive temporary flight restrictions over the area where you want to crash it s…
Correct. I was simply talking about control of the land underneath. Owning and controlling the land doesn't mean you have any rights to its airspace.
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
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.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Perhaps laziness? Determining which profits are due to a crime could be difficult to separate from legitimate activity. That said, they could write the law to claw back anything that's easily accounted for, and just use some approximations when that's impractical.
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.