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 know having a plane crash onto them ran ruin a person's entire life, right?

>>vinayp+ol2
But what this have to do with a plane deliberately into an area known to be Devoid of people?

Nothing. So why even say this? Makes no sense to me.

>>byyyy+4p2
When you get out of a plane that’s still flying you stop having any say in where that plane goes. How certain was he of where it might land? What if he misjudged and the plane had kept going much further than he expected? He had nudged it into a dive… but then he got out, changing the center of gravity of the plane - how did he know that wouldn’t trim the plane’s nose up and send it gliding off well beyond his target?

>>jamesh+uv2
All good points, except he deliberately crashed it at a specific location. He carried out an action with intention and that intention was fulfilled. You're going into hypotheticals about a possible mistake.

I mean when you drive a car everyday you could make a mistake too. It's too fuzzy to go in this direction.

>>byyyy+BI2
Right, but as a society we have taken the position that we don’t trust people to correctly aim unguided gliding missiles at safe bits of ground. We therefore require pilots to not get out of their plane mid flight. Even if this guy got his calculations right, we don’t hand out licenses to people that say ‘we trust you to do that safely’.

This is not an unreasonable regulatory burden impinging on individual freedom.

>>jamesh+J93
>Right, but as a society we have taken the position that we don’t trust people to correctly aim unguided gliding missiles at safe bits of ground. We therefore require pilots to not get out of their plane mid flight. Even if this guy got his calculations right, we don’t hand out licenses to people that say ‘we trust you to do that safely’.

Agreed and we should punish these people accordingly with fines and suspension of license. We should not classify these people as potential murderers and put them in jail.

>>byyyy+CX3
Where did you get the idea that jail is for murderers exclusively? You can turn this around as much as you like, but as a matter of fact, and as parent described, he did something willingly that could have killed people or destroyed property. That they did that in a remote location doesn’t change a thing about that, that means our legal system works.

>>9dev+vs4
Where did you get the idea that I said jail is exclusively for murderers? I didn't say that. You should read.

You going to drive has extremely high risk of killing somebody. Traffic accidents are some of the highest causes of death in the country.

What I'm saying is what he did carries equivalent risk of killing to driving. He aimed the plane at a spot devoid of people and crashed it. Is there risk? Technically yes, but it's technical to the point where it stops making sense to consider it.