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

81–90 of 281 posts

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

#81

Post by sokoloff »

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?

The tech in that airplane is much closer to a 1935 tractor than it is to even a 1985 passenger car (which also didn’t have anything like a black box).

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

#82

Post by [deleted] »

shpx wrote: post #68
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.

[deleted]

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

#83

Post by [deleted] »

duskwuff wrote: post #6
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #3

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.…

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.

[deleted]

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

#85

Post by das_keyboard »

> who had secured a sponsorship from a company that sold various products, including a wallet. Pursuant to the sponsorship deal, Jacob agreed to promote the company’s wallet in a YouTube video that he would post.

All that for Ridge Wallet!??

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

#86

Post by voisin »

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.

Isn’t the Martha Stewart insider trading story one of these counter examples?

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

#87

Post by [deleted] »

autoexec wrote: post #80
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.

There are things that shouldn't have been crimes at all ruin people's lives. I'm not saying this guy deserves to lose everything, but I agree that less than one year isn't justice considering all the harm he did and could have caused.

[deleted]

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

#88

Post by jjoonathan »

mattmaroon wrote: post #34
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.

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

Nixon didn't know that the evidence tying him to the Chennault Affair was weak. If it was weak, he could play the "I didn't know" card. If it was strong, he would have had to play the much worse "It wasn't illegal" card. These are mutually exclusive, so conducting a criminal operation to get a peak at the evidence was a rational gamble. It didn't pay off, but no, just chilling was not a good option and no, the underlying act was not the lesser evil.

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

#89

Post by bmitc »

bhhaskin wrote: post #13
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.

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.

> There isn't a law that prevents you from intentionally crashing other vehicles. Just around property damage and endangering other people.

Those two sentences don't make any sense next to each other. There's no way to intentionally crash your vehicle that doesn't include several other things for which their are specific laws for. One can't intentionally crash a car in the same way that you can intentionally swing a bat in your backyard without hitting anything.

Edit: Also, for what it's worth, it wasn't even his plane.

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

#90

Post by financltravsty »

adrr wrote: post #73
financltravsty wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

USSR? China? Malaysia? Saudi Arabia? Iran? USA if the police and DA want to make an example?

I doubt anyone does any jail time for stealing bread unless they are habitual offender(multiple felony convictions) or its aggravated theft(eg: by force/violence). Court cases are public so feel free to prove me wrong.

Todd Hutchinson (bread, candy, and a radio -- U.S.A), Elkeno Wallace (hot dog buns -- Bahamas), Jean Valjean (self-evident), numerous gulag victims (see: Solzhenitsyn), unnamed father who got his hand and foot chopped off for stealing a bag of flour in Syria, etc.
Post reply on HN