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
> Prove the original crime

The evidence of which was destroyed?

>>sgjohn+j4
Do you need prove a crime was committed in the first place? Or can the government accuse me of being a drug dealer but I disposed of the evidence when I took out the trash last week so I obstructed their investigation.

>>adrr+O7
Did you read the article? He destroyed the remains of the plane AFTER the FAA explicitly told him to not even touch it.

Sure, no evidence, no crime, but in this case there was evidence that the feds knew about. If you destroy the evidence before the cops know it exists, fair game. But this wasn't it.

As usual, the coverup is worse than the crime. Especially for the guy getting railroaded.

>>sgjohn+Kg
Being asked to not do it is not prereq to being charged. Even if the FAA didn’t ask, he could still be charged and prosecuted for the same crime. Its against law to destroy evidence of a crime but you don’t need to prove the crime actually existed. They could have said he was drug smuggling and still charged with obstruction of justice for the same act.