>>tafda+(OP)
Curiously, the charge he pled guilty to as part of the plea deal has nothing to do with planes. He pled guilty to obstructing a federal investigation (of the crash). Makes sense. Proving his intent w.r.t. the crash back then would be harder than proving that he DID remove the wreck and subsequently destroyed it.
>>dmitry+63
I dunno. I believe the guy is guilty and should be punished for recklessness, etc. but I don’t like it when authorities rely on indirect charges to “get” someone.
Prove the original crime, don’t rely and peripheral procedure like “they lied to a federal agent” (uhh) cop-out. Do your job.
Likewise I’m not don’t of people getting off on “technicalities” (Some more than others)
>>mc32+04
If you read the article, it's not really a technicality. He filed a false incident report with the FAA, lied to the FAA about what happened, and destroyed evidence despite an order from the NTSB to preserve the wreckage in order to cover up what really happened. That is all illegal for a good reason.