zlacker

>>tafda+(OP)
Harsh, but fair.

>>thrill+q4
Feels overly harsh considering no one was hurt. Send him to jail for a year for obstructing the investigation. It’s not like he’s going to do this again.

>>valine+x5
But they could have been hurt, especially if he kicked off a wildfire or landed on some unsuspecting party.

I mean, we charge people for hiring a hitman, or shooting at someone and missing, even though in both cases nobody is necessarily harmed. 20 years may be excessive, but I'm not sure 'was anyone actually hurt' is a good sentencing guideline either.

>>silisi+o6
In those cases the intent would be to cause harm. Here the intent was not to cause harm, it was just a reckless and bad thing to do.

>>ALittl+X6
That's a very fair point. I guess the question then is how we should treat recklessness with potential to harm, as there definitely should be a deterrent for that. But perhaps not as much as my examples.

>>silisi+k7
We treat drunk drivers harshly, even if they harmed no one.

The potential for harm, body and property, combined with the complete disregard for safety (aviation and otherwise) and federal aviation laws/regulations, from someone who had a high level of training (as required for all private pilots) makes it really hard to excuse.