zlacker

>>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
People getting off on technicalities is one of the things that keeps police honest.

>>jkubic+I5
Why? Do police officers get fired or lose money when technicalities free criminals? If so, why couldn't we just keep that part and not release the criminals on the technicality?

>>ALittl+H6
> Do police officers get fired or lose money when technicalities free criminals?

Presumably there's some level of incentive to catch criminals. Otherwise why would police officers do anything? (Of course another possible answer is that they don't).

> If so, why couldn't we just keep that part and not release the criminals on the technicality?

Because it's very hard to maintain an incentive unless it's aligned all the way through an organisation. The consequences for police dishonesty needs to be something that will cause police chiefs to lose elections. Letting criminals go free is one of the few things that does that.