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
> 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.

I think in the absence of actual injuries, the obstruction charge is actually the more serious criminal charge applicable. Which is not an indirect charge; obstruction is a distinct crime with its own harms.

>>dragon+hb
It really irks me when authorities go after someone, can't prove something then because they don't want to look bad and want to get a promotion will instead get people for nonsense like they did Mrs Stewart. She should have been able to sure the government and get punitive damages for malicious prosecution.