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
Arguably the lying to investigators crime is worse than the original. He crashed a plane he owned with only him in it. Sure, there was risks of danger to the ground and wildfires, but those risks are the same if you accidentally crash a plane, and the actual resulting damage was indeed minimal. Reckless behavior that ultimately does not cause damage or harm is rarely penalized heavily.

Lying to investigators and destroying evidence is unquestionably wrongdoing, and required far more explicit intent and action than merely failing to correctly fly an aircraft.

>>ocdtre+Ab
Perhaps you are not familiar with the case?

“Failing to correctly fly an aircraft” is quite an understatement. This person didn’t just accidentally run out of fuel, or accidentally stalled.

He intentionally set up the airplane with cameras, intentionally wore a parachute, intentionally stopped the engine mid-flight and then intentionally jumped out of the airplane while holding a camera on a selfie stick.

None of this can be described as ”failing to correctly fly an aircraft”. What he did required explicit intent.