zlacker

>>tafda+(OP)
It's funny how if you are a major corporation with fat government contracts you can systematically destroy your engineering department, ostracize whistleblowers, and wind up killing hundreds of people and nobody gets punished and the FAA will even be on your side, like the Boeing thing.

but if you make a youtube stunt that hurts nobody you can get 20 years in prison and the FAA acts like you besmirched the stellar reputation of the aviation industry.

>>fatnec+Gt1
Both should suffer serious consequences IMO. Boeing more so.

>>jjalle+rx1
Yes, but 20 years for this dude is a bit excessive, no? Especially when nobody was killed or injured?

>>akudha+Wy1
He didn't get 20 years, that's just the maximum permitted penalty for the crime he committed. The article title cites it as clickbait.

It's rather irritating. The law was made with a flexible range of punishments to permit the judge of any particular case to use discretion when determining an appropriate punishment. The maximum permitted is thus rather high. So now every article written about the subject lazily cites "up to 20 years", and thus everyone reading those articles gets the impression that he's actually likely to get 20 years for this incident.

>>ufmace+HE1
The maximum permitted should be zero years. Any jail time for this dumb stunt is overboard. There just needs to be a huge ass fine and revocation of pilots license.

I point my car at a wall and drive into it on purpose for views... And suddenly that's a possibility of jail time? That's crazy.

There needs to be a minimum number of permitted years when death is involved with clear negligence. Sadly there isn't any our court systems use max permitted years to pick and choose who they can punish. Dumb kid who crashes his plane on purpose versus safety inspector who Actually killed hundreds of people?

There is a clear disconnect here.

>>byyyy+ZP1
There could be people … can start a fire … your wall will not.

Also whilst there can be mitigated circumstance you cannot argued for 0 max. There is a crime, there could be danger … 0 max meant anyone officially can do this without consequences?

>>ngcc_h+YR1
No thats just Hollywood. In general a crashed car or small plane crumbles on impact. It doesn't explode in a ball of fire. A forest fire is very unlikely here.

When you point your car at a wall and drive into that wall you ALSO cannot argue for 0 max danger of death for an innocent bystander.

But the probability of a person dying is so low we know there is no danger for murder or death at all. It's just really stupid.

Of course there needs to be consequences. A loss of pilots license and a huge ass fine. Jail time is crazy. You know how jail will ruin a person's entire life right? Even a month of jail time is in certain ways hangs on your record like a life sentence. It's too much.

>>byyyy+RU1
You seem awfully hung up on the Hollywood effects being overblown. Yes, this is true and no one is arguing against it. However, even a small spark can start a forest fire. Thinking you're safe just because there is no explosion is wildly irresponsible.

Anyone who intensionally crashes a huge hunk of metal into pubic land, causing a significant hazard, and exposing the public to stupid risks for "views" absolutely deserves significant jail-time

>>tiberi+dF2
>Anyone who intensionally crashes a huge hunk of metal into pubic land, causing a significant hazard, and exposing the public to stupid risks for "views" absolutely deserves significant jail-time

No people who slaughters others through deliberate negligence deserve jail time. That includes FAA and boeing employees who violated clear rules.

A person who does stupid shit with no intention of killing people and put no one at risk and ended up not killing anybody should be punished for doing stupid shit. Jail time which is huge is reserved for actual criminals, who actively and have Already harmed people.