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)
Obstructing an unnecessary investigation is a big deal only because people fear-mongered us to believe it's a big deal.
Guy should get a good slap and a 6 figure fine. Not get his life taken away.
"shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both."
Yes it could have been worse, but he deliberately crashed in a desert and it wasn't actually worse. So let's judge him by what happened, not by what could have happened.
I mean, we charge people for hiring a hitman, or shooting at someone and missing, even though in both cases nobody is necessarily harmed. 20 years may be excessive, but I'm not sure 'was anyone actually hurt' is a good sentencing guideline either.
* A base level of 14 for an obstruction of justice charge (§2J1.2)
* -2 for acceptance of responsibility (§3E1.1)
Assuming no previous criminal history, that's a guideline sentence of 10-16 months. If he can get it down one more point to a level 11 sentence, that's a Zone B sentence and can be entirely served on probation.
The DoJ press release is at https://www.justice.gov/usao-cdca/pr/santa-barbara-county-ma..., but the plea agreement isn't available (yet), which would indicate if they've agreed on an offence level and any adjustments.
EDIT: Found the plea agreement; see comment in thread
https://www.popehat.com/2013/02/05/crime-whale-sushi-sentenc...
When news articles mention the maximum, especially in headlines, it feels a bit misleading. It seems there's a decent chance there is little or no prison.
See also: Blackstone's formulation: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blackstone%27s_fo...
Now, it doesn’t (in general) mean “Is likely to receive, if convicted”, which some people tend to assume, but it also doesn’t mean nothing. And given the fact that upward departure is allowed from the federal sentencing guidelines, but not from the statutory maximums for the offenses charged, it is literally all you can tell with certainty from the charges themselves.
Note, however, that even if an agreement was reached that such an agreement is an agreement on what to present to the court; the court may not be bound, in accepting the plea agreement, to accept, in sentencing, the recommended offense level, or the recommend adjustments, or even to stick to the guidelines, depending on the exact form of the agreement.
[EDIT: Revised based on a correction in the response comment].
Dude was filming himself flying, the engine stops… and all of a sudden he decides to bail out.
No effort to do anything, he just bails out.
I don’t know why he thought his video would even seem realistic.
* Harmed or threatened to cause harm to a person or property damage
* Substantial interference with administration of justice
* Extensive in scope, planning, or preparation
Minus the guilty plea, he could be looking 4-5 years.
The original version had some silly BS "I'm so brave for posting this video always wear a parachute (even though I don't in any other video)" text at the beginning and a ridge wallet sponsorship.
https://www.popehat.com/2013/02/05/crime-whale-sushi-sentenc...
True.
> no one is going to plea to the maximum, which in this case is 20 years.
Unlike in some state systems, federal plea deals do not usually packaged with a sentence. You can plea to a more limited set of charges than initially charged with (or than the Feds were waiving around at you), but you usually don’t “plea to” a particular sentence within the range for the charge you plea guilty to. [0]
The reason the maximum sentence is what is in news articles is that it is a fact. Anything else as to what the sentence will be is speculation, but that the statutory maximum for the charged offenses is the upper limit is an uncontroversial legal boundary.
[0] revised from stronger language, a reply on a separate subthread corrected that; it is possible for federal plea agreements to include a binding sentence terms which the court can only reject by also rejecting the plea agreement. But very often they do not, and the reporting of the statutoriy maximum is in that case correct as the only knowable limit.
A reasonable estimate based on sentencing guidelines isn't super hard for a lawyer to work out, and it'd be far more useful for readers, but it's slightly more work and it makes for significantly less exciting headlines.
The officer has done wrong (entering the home without the warrant) and should face some punishment for that. The threat of punishment deters the officer from acting without a warrant.
On the other hand, releasing the criminal, who is actually guilty, is not a real deterrent. What if the officer doesn't particularly care if the suspect gets arrested or not?
It's the threat of consequences to the particular individual that decide their actions - not the threat of conflicts with the purpose of their organization. Put another way, I bet fewer police officers would commit misconduct if the consequences were "you personally go to jail" as opposed to "a criminal is freed and your organization is supposed to do the opposite of that, don't you feel bad?"
The enhancement is doing so "in order to obstruct the administration of justice" -- I don't think that any of the actual dangerous actions were done to obstruct.
> Substantial interference with administration of justice
That's defined as a "premature or improper termination of a felony investigation; an indictment, verdict, or any judicial determination based upon perjury, false testimony, or other false evidence; or the unnecessary expenditure of substantial governmental or court resources."
I think the first two don't fit the factual picture that we're aware of; the last _could_ but I think it unlikely that there was that much conduct that was beyond the obstruction charge that caused this.
> Extensive in scope, planning, or preparation
Possibly - the SG don't go into much detail about what they mean by this; however, I would be surprised if this enhancement applied (but less so than the other two).
Opinions will differ on this highly subjective question.
> How does this fact aid my understanding of the severity of what he’s done?
It aids your understanding of the potential consequences, not the severity of what he has done.
But humans are made of meat, and words and phrases have connotations. There's a difference in the perception (both to the subject and society) between those two options.
"Cannot exceed" makes it pretty clear that it's a maximum bound, and doesn't imply that the actual number will be any particular distance between zero and the maximum. "Up to" leads the reader to assume that the likely sentence is close to the stated amount.
It's a bit more serious than that. It worked out to not harm anyone or do large-scale damages (fire, destruction, etc) this time, but it was still wildly dangerous and demonstrated a complete lack and disregard for aviation safety and rules.
A more apt comparison would be throwing a table off the Empire State Building, and it just so happened to not hit anything below.
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.
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.
https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-sushi-chef-whal...
Honestly, I think most readers will be more familiar with how “up to” doesn’t mean that it is likely to be close than with the meaning of “cannot exceed”, from experience (as “up to” is regularly used in this way commercially), but, yes, unfortunately given only one figure, even if clearly marked as an upper bound, people who aren’t actively critically reading are likely to fixate on it as if it was a prediction of the likely result rather than a bound.
So the argument that I keep seeing in this thread that it could've led to death so he deserves to get his life ruined by a 20 years sentence or whatever doesn't make sense to me
But then the result was even more unrealistic / suspicious.
Lots of things lawyers do are easy for lawyers to figure out. That doesn't mean a programmer is going to be able to make a reasonable estimate unless they both understand the law and the history of the accused.
Nobody was in it when it crashed, he jumped out of the plane midair.
Sentencing is a fairly well defined things. You have guidelines and upper limits that come with specific charges, and then the judge uses those guidelines and various other factors to then sentence somewhere along that spectrum. Anyone read a handful of sentencing news stories is very well familiar with how it works.
I've never heard the term National Forest before.
Press releases aren’t designed to scare the subject of the investigation, especially not press releases announcing a plea agreement that has already been reached.
Agreed to (page 10):
* Base level of 14 for obstruction of justice
* +2 for the extensive planning enhancement (b)(3)(B)/(C)
No agreement w.r.t:
* Criminal history (which I believe is fairly standard)
* +2 for aggravated role - §3B1.1(c).
* Going outside the guidelines
~ I'm surprised there's no acceptance of responsibility reduction reserved by the defendant; feels like the DoJ were pressing reasonably hard on this one (tbf, seems entirely reasonable given the conduct here) ~ Correction: this is agreed on p. 2/3
If the court sentences to 18-24 months (p. 12), both parties have waived right to appeal. (And aligns with the minimum level of 15 on p. 3)
I once helped a friend do something like this with a bunch of garbage from a house party he threw at his parents place and wanted to cover up. We drove around dropping bits of the 10+ bags of trash in bins here and there. I'm in awe imagining doing this with a plane.
The potential for harm, body and property, combined with the complete disregard for safety (aviation and otherwise) and federal aviation laws/regulations, from someone who had a high level of training (as required for all private pilots) makes it really hard to excuse.
National Parks run by National Park Service. Federally protected lands. There are lot fewer of them. They are more tourist-oriented and are treated like natural wonders for the public to experience. Very high restrictions to protect the land (staying on trail in certain areas, pets, campfires, leave no trace, camp and wilderness permits, manicured roads and trails). Has an entrance fee. Patrolled by park rangers. Often has crowds.
National Forest run by US Forest Service. Also federally protected and managed. There are a lot more of them and aren't marketed with much grandeur as a national park. They often contain a maze of rough, less-maintained forest roads. You can camp anywhere in them for free mostly without any fee or permit requirement, so it's sort of like wilderness. Less stringent rules of what you can and can't do. Very easy to drive into a national forest and see no one around. If I'm ever on the road, I'll sleep in a national forest or other public lands
Presumably there's some level of incentive to catch criminals. Otherwise why would police officers do anything? (Of course another possible answer is that they don't).
> If so, why couldn't we just keep that part and not release the criminals on the technicality?
Because it's very hard to maintain an incentive unless it's aligned all the way through an organisation. The consequences for police dishonesty needs to be something that will cause police chiefs to lose elections. Letting criminals go free is one of the few things that does that.
The whole thing went to another level when he lifted the plane out with e helicopter. There’s essentially no possible way he was going to get away with that part the mind really boggles with what he was thinking there.
On the other hand, National Forests, managed by the U.S. Forest Service, follow a multiple-use and sustained-yield approach. They're designed to support a variety of activities, including logging, grazing, mining, and recreation. These activities are carried out under sustainable practices to ensure the resources remain for future generations.
A national park is a place for humans, and to some extent, wildlife, to enjoy,
A forest in this context is a natural resource to be exploited. For the most part it’s a place where lumber is harvested.
Okay fine. Local man shorts 1 share of IBM and pays a penny to get a call option at $huge. He faces a loss of up to $huge!
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.
I hope Mr Jacobs ends up serving several years (5-10 seems reasonable) to very strongly dissuade others from having similar ideas in the future. General aviation is already a relatively high risk activity without bringing reckless attention whoring influencers into the equation.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.85...
Gorgeously absurd. And I believe you. Thanks. I needed a laugh.
Crime A is $2500 fine or 2 mos in the slammer, let’s say.
The evidence that would convict me is worth a grand. I destroy it.
The penalty for destroying this evidence should not exceed the original crime or value of the property I destroyed in any rational way.
That’s literally in the article. I don’t know how this was supposed to make me want a wallet either.
It's fun when you pissed someone with authority off and get on the sh!t list and the local guard kicks an inmate out of their bed and puts them on a floor (they call it a boat but it's just being on the floor) and gives you the bed (the guards can't get violent with you, but they know how to get someone else to). Not every inmate is going to beat you up, but when you are moved from place to place during the month or more transport takes one of the guys who get's kicked out to make room for you is guaranteed to fight over it.
The one you don't think of is that they won't unshackle you to use the bathroom (especially on con-air) so half the guy's backsides are covered in their own excrement because you need your hands to wipe. Good times, good times.
They probably didn’t know. And if they did it would probably be incredibly hard to prove.
Just doesn’t seem like anyone involved in any way should walk away without at least some punishment.
How much money would the sponsor have paid, and would it have been worth more than the cost of the crashed plane? I have no idea what planes cost, or how much sponsors pay, but this struck me as unlikely to be profitable (even before the costs of his criminal prosecution).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dghy-yyUMHo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YD6m-gVKoYw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEsXJB8IOzQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EZ3Uom7tFo
"National parks focus on protecting natural and historic resources "unimpaired for future generations." Park rangers work for the National Park Service (NPS) under the Department of Interior.
National forests, on the other hand, emphasize not only resource preservation, but other kinds of use as well."
Also, the entire institution of police/prosecutors/courts/judges need a disincentive against misconduct not just individuals. Otherwise they can just use a revolving door of disposable/sacrificial cops to violate rights and get convictions.
Allowing convictions to stand in spite of illegal investigation methods makes rules against those methods completely meaningless for defendants.
(There is a low-security federal prison in Lompoc.)
The rational reason is that this is a behaviour we want to discourage. We want to diacourage it because it makes it more complicated and more costly to catch criminals, and more likely for them to get away with their crimes.
“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.
The search warrant also includes a narrative into the investigation of four other crimes for which Jacob was investigated, but not ultimately charged.
It's a moot point though because it was a deliberate stunt.
There is the idea of commensurate punishment. 20 years for destroying evidence for something that while serious didn’t defraud anyone, maim anyone or cause damage I think is unreasonable and unconstitutional.
In this case, probably not - 20 years is pretty stiff, and the crime implies that typical sentences are much less than that.
But if the maximum sentence was say... 6 months instead; or just a fine. Yeah - I think that would be useful information.
IMO, the prank videos are at least as bad.
* There are many people, many of whom are children, that don't understand that most of those videos are staged.
* Every so often people being pranked - especially by copycats who prank strangers in public - react violently.
The plane he crashed was a real beater, not worth much at all.
Given that wildfires are, as you note, common, why is that supposed to be an aggravating factor?
You can't actually make the wildfire problem any worse by starting an additional fire. The more frequent fires are, the less fuel there is for each fire to burn. And in the other direction, if you suppress a fire, all that means is that another fire later will be worse.
I just sort of feel like there should be some sort of incentive to help ensure this kind of stuff doesn’t happen. If you have a contract that explicitly says what the person is supposed to do and they don’t, then it seems like you have a good defense to me.
On the other hand if you have a contract that says something along the lines of “do something that gets 1 million views and will pay you $200,000” then I feel like you should be liable.
I really dislike the current trend of people just doing extreme stuff to try to get views. A few people have been killed, it’s kind of amazing the number isn’t higher. And I’m wary of anything that might be seen as encouraging them.
But again, there’s probably no way to actually enforce that in any kind of law.
At the time, I had just finished sending in an appeal to being denied a medical clearance to become a pilot because of a history of clinical depression.
That appeal required undergoing a battery of tests, a psychological evaluation, multiple meetings with a therapist and a report from the same, and 15 hours of flight instruction plus a report of my performance by the flight instructors.
I intended to be professional. Everyone thought I was safe to fly.
I nevertheless thought the FAA would deny my appeal. I was right. [1]
So because I once had clinical depression, I can't get a medical. And yet, yahoos like this get to fly simply because stupidity and malice isn't as well-documented as a history of mental illness. Sigh...
To be clear, I don't think the FAA is at fault here; they didn't know, and they acted fast once he did it. They did a great job.
I just wish they would let me fly.
[1]: https://gavinhoward.com/2022/09/grounded-for-life-losing-the...
I'm just saying, the "potential to cause harm" is vague here, it could be equivalent to throwing down a table off the Empire State Building according to careful physics calculations and precisely avoid killing anybody. It's still harmful (because the calculations can be incorrect), but less so.
(honestly had he not destroyed the evidence and made the plea that he constructed the crash in a way that was designed not to harm anyone, and it ended up not harming anyone, I suspect he might've gotten a lower sentence)
I also have a wife. I can't just pack up and move to a different country.
When the rejection came, I decided my marriage was worth more than flying.
I do think what he did was stupid and brazen and that he should be punished. The punishment should be dealt in such a way that nobody else attempts this again. I'm also glad nobody was hurt (the probability of that was extremely low).
But all of that said, I'm very glad that this video and anecdote now exist. It's incredibly fascinating. Nobody was hurt, and it's such a novel thing.
If you haven't seen the video, you need to see it.
Publicity stunts and gimmicks are nothing new, even extreme ones, it's just now it reaches the entire world instead of just that area or country, especially if the "story" is pretty much as simple as a YouTube URL and a pithy summary from a journo.
Having now lived outside of the US for a period of time, I've come to the grand realization that the US is one of the least 'free' countries out there (and I moved to a communist country!).
My guess is that if you really wanted to find a way to fly, you could, and it wouldn't require moving.
If there is a will, there is a way.
I disagree entirely. It lacked novelty. The entire thing felt as contrived as an amateur stunt, which is what it was, and little more: a precious snowflake and overt narcissist desperate for attention.
But no. I was punished for being honest.
https://gavinhoward.com/2020/10/the-next-great-project-zion/
(This one jumped out to me in particular.) https://gavinhoward.com/2022/08/the-nature-of-heaven-what-i-...
https://gavinhoward.com/2021/07/the-next-free-nation/ https://gavinhoward.com/2021/06/israel-is-not-an-apartheid-s... https://gavinhoward.com/2020/07/political-slavery/
These posts you've been making might have more of an influence on your application than your medical history, bro.
edit:
In this post: https://gavinhoward.com/2021/07/the-next-free-nation/
You stated ..."So the United States must die.
But what will rise in its place will be even greater: Zion."
Bro, I would NOT want you flying my plane after reading that.
This is just natural selection at work.
Sometimes it can just be a lose/lose scenario once you come to the attention of law enforcement. If at all possible, never put yourself in a situation, or associate with those who are going to bring heat upon you from the police.
that raises the question : do you somehow attribute value to human action based on unique-ness? If so, why? It's an interesting philosophy , but I don't understand it as far as 'human improvement' goes.
> I think the world is a better and more interesting place
I think it's unique, but I also think it could possibly set a (yet another) dangerous precedent among net celebrities seeking the next illegal-yet-doable way to make a name for themselves -- I think that itself and things similar to this are a net-negative for the world at large -- it'll likely lead to more dangerous behavior that is then punctuated by larger and more broad legislation that will reduce personal liberty for the sake of some YTers whims once.
Of all the things you see on TV and in the movies about prison, the worst two are not shown: total mind-numbing boredom, and your cellmate's farts.
The point of these outrageous videos is to get attention and promote a brand. Does it really work on their target market: jaded young adults?
Also, I can't tell if any of these videos are real anymore. I don't care because the novelty, the shock, the wow factor wore off years ago.
So someone jumped out of a crashing plane. Whatever. Could be fake. Could be real. Definitely not interesting anymore.
It’s especially troubling with the hype surrounding “mental illness” or “neurodiversity” and popularization of it amongst the youth. It seems to be creating a nation of prohibited persons and second class citizens.
The FAA needs to get its stuff together in this regard, and quickly.
It's funny, in Illinois they altered the judge's plea script a couple of years back. They used to say "has anyone made you any promises in regards to this plea?", but now they say "except for the prosecutor, has anyone made any promises.."
It is hard, because if you are innocent you have to make a tough choice. Two weeks after my arrest I was offered a plea to be released the next day. I refused and it took nine and a half years in pretrial custody to actually get my case heard.
Mainly it was a matter of learning how to do the paperwork properly. Some people here pay bribes, others refuse to. I won't claim everything here is magically ideal, but as a general rule if you don't put yourself in situations where you need to pay bribes, you won't have to pay them. Mostly simple things like getting a driver's license if you're going to drive, maintaining your vehicle, and registering your current address.
Foreign residents here do have a bit of a reputation for poor compliance on stuff like this and doing everything the shadiest, laziest, and most fragile way possible.
This situation has improved in recent years -- I currently know maybe 4 or 5 other legal immigrants. We are a minority -- your assumptions about the behavior of the average person who moves here from North America are not entirely without merit, it's just not a universal truth.
Anyway I don't mean to argue with you -- just provide a hopefully interesting slice of life from a different part of the world.
Reach out to West Desert Aviators in Utah. Several young people in tech fly there. If you can find LSA to fly, light sport isn’t as restrictive of a license as it’s made out to be and you don’t have to live in fear of the FAA yanking your medical
I guess I was so discouraged because I wanted to become a professional helicopter pilot, for which I needed a first-class medical.
I love the ability to just pay the cops off, it is the best corruption ever. Who wants to go to court when you can just settle the matter right then and there for a few bucks. I also have a totally valid drivers license (A2) with my picture super imposed on someone else's head.
I'm curious, how did you immigrate there?
I want to be a pilot, though.
I guess you could guess he was doing it for potentially more lucrative sponsorships later. But I really don't think he was thinking that far ahead. Not if he thought he was going to get away with this foolishness.
The Thomas fire [0] was only 5 years ago. It burned 100k+ acres, killed two people and indirectly killed 20 more, and cost "$2.2B USD" to deal with.
Southern California is not the place to drop planes out of the sky for lulz or money.
As an amateur working towards their PPL, the whole thing is just gross.
As for your comment about sentencing in California, that possibly says less about what the punishment for recklessly endangering lives and property should be than it does about criminal sentencing in California, in my opinion. One might also suggest that putting completely innocent lives at risk over YouTube clicks is something that would be absolutely harmful if enough people engaged in that sort of behaviour, and to that extent I think that a sentence that corresponds to what one would receive for certain kinds of sexual assault is not inappropriate.
For anyone else wondering if it's a YouTuber they know. It seems more like they're an athlete that dabbles in YouTube and got famous for this one video.
If that is the entire content of the article and it has no context to which it is addressed, I think its pointless, but, no, I see no reason in your hypothetical or any obvious extension to see it as disingenuous.
I also don’t see it as particularly usefully analogous to the situation previously being discussed.
Youtuber forgot it was a tv stunt.
While a maximum of 20 years prison sounds rather harsh, intentionally crashing a plane is no joke or laughing matter. It's unfortunate that things had to end this way. The FAA does not mess around.
The stuff about mental health starts about half way through, the first half is recounting the incident.
Every time I hear stories about someone being wrongfully committed while having nothing to do with the facts I'm super scared.
A person I know who lives in Sicily shared the very same exact name with a local criminal who was often mentioned in tapes and got arrested and jailed for few weeks till it was cleared it was somebody else. It even was a strike of luck the other one was arrested few weeks after him, and you know how it goes in small Sicily villages, everyone knows each other so he also occasionally would find himself in the same places known criminals would hang out, same super markets of bars or restaurants.
Another person I know spent a similar amount of time accused of aggression towards police. He was stopped for drunk driving (which isn't a jailable felony in Italy obviously) and when he was asked to leave the car he leaned on cop's car and they "framed" that as an aggression while the guy simply couldn't keep his balance so he half felt on the cops vehicle. He was cleared thanks to cameras.
But this is a rare, once in a universe event. And like with D.B. Cooper, Max Headroom, Chris McCandless, and every other wild act of rule breaking, I'm going to hold it close and wonder.
It's possible to hold conflicting opinions and emotions and simultaneously.
If such a thing happened by accident, you should not get 20 years. If you did so intentionally wanting to cause harm, them perhaps you should get 20+ years, because that would be an act of terrorism. If someone got killed, you should probably not get your freedom back.
Journalists need to always mind the context and emphasize the likelihood of what will be the outcome. It is not really truthful to bluntly state he faces 20 years. If he were to actually get 20, the legal system would obviously be severely flawed. There are murderers that get 20 ffs.
I find the context very clear. The writer did a superb job.
Marvelous! Like an ordinary criminal trying to dispose of the body.
He may have thought no body, no crime? but that doesn't work very well when said crime is filmed start to finish and published on Youtube...
Edit: Also the post says up to 20 years .. not sure why you've become fixated on it being simply 20. People dropping planes out of the sky for likes need to be made an example of imo, and I personally would be happy to see him locked up for life as a deterrent to others. The lengths people are going to for likes is frightening.
That would be mass murder, and would carry a much harsher penalty than 20 years! In the US, probably life times the number of victims.
> and it being accident
It wasn't an accident. He intentionally crashed his plane. That's the crime he's accused of.
Intentionally ditching a plane in region known for catastrophic forest fires is close to ecologic terrorism.
This reads like something Beavis and Butthead would do.
The biggest problem with deterrence is it relies on people not thinking they won't get caught. Everyone thinks they won't get caught.
No, it was a stupid stunt for profit (he made a significant amount of money from his video), a dangerous one. Flying is highly regulated for obvious reasons, he should have done his research before thinking it was a good idea to do that just to get views.
https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/terrorism#:~:text=Internatio....
International terrorism: Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups who are inspired by, or associated with, designated foreign terrorist organizations or nations (state-sponsored).
Domestic terrorism: Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as those of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature.
You can't just call anything terrorism from a legal standpoint, though many try.
I’d really suggest you read the article, which offers a clear explanation of the facts and crimes he committed. Not sure which journalists you’re ranting about?
He may have, or maybe he thought he did nothing wrong, which is why he had it on youtube.
And so he disposed of the plane wreckage, as he needed to, lest he be fined, and he cut it up so it would fit in the bins.
20 year is the absolute maximum for the worst evidence tampering you can think of. A serial offender, after knowingly and willingly leveling a city block with people in there the second time to hide his street gang’s accounting fraud, and exhibiting open contempt towards the judge while loudly proclaiming he will do it again after they let him out. That person can not get more than 20 years for the specific crime of evidence tampering. That is what the 20 years statutory maximum is.
I’m not saying it’s what I’m advocating for it’s just an explanation of the difference.
The US forest service is quite literally a division of the department of agriculture.
I don’t think he could have been realistic in a single take.
Like he’s obligated to cooperate with the investigation but he’s within his rights to just say “hey this feels like a witch hunt I am not participating or giving statements at all” and it’s not clear how much they really would have done.
Absolute certainty he’d lose his license maybe there’s penalties or fines for stonewalling the investigation, but like it would probably blow over as long as they made sure he never got near the controls of an airplane again.
But then he decided to obstruct a federal investigation. Like that’s the one thing you really can’t do ask Martha Stewart.
Unfortunately not everyone agrees with the FBI's definition of terrorism. The FBI's definition of International terrorism depends on a list of organizations more-or-less arbitrarily assembled by politicians. Their definition of domestic terrorism is even looser.
Basically, both definitions are "violent criminal acts [waffle]". That definition is circular, because terrorism is criminal.
The word should be banned from newspapers and from political and legal discourse. Broadly speaking, it means "political activities of which we disapprove".
https://www.planeandpilotmag.com/article/on-video-guy-ditche...
He bought the plane specifically for this stunt a few weeks before, he did not use his normal plane. He paid $5,000 for the plane and $5,000 for the helicopter recovery of the wreckage. He received $8,000 from the Ridge Wallet sponsorship.
Here's the relevant quotes-
>Inspector Krantz provided me a receipt he obtained from the company Ridge Wallet. The receipt showed an $8,000 payment to JACOB for the sponsored ad shown on JACOB’s YouTube video.
> An FAA Aircraft Bill of Sale for N29508, Taylorcraft BL65, serial number 2351 showed that, effective October 06, 2021, Laura Smith (seller) transferred ownership of the aircraft to JACOB (purchaser). The sale price listed on the form was $5,000.
> On January 05, 2022, Sinton provided Krantz a written statement via e-mail. I reviewed the statement and learned the following: (1) JACOB called SINTON a few days before December 10, 2021, to lift his wrecked Taylorcraft airplane out of the forest; (2) JACOB said he was cleared to salvage the plane; (3) On December 10, 2021, Sinton flew his helicopter and met JACOB and a friend at Rancho Siquoc (Santa Maria, California); (4) Sinton flew JACOB and his friend to the wreckage and dropped them off with straps and shackles; (5) Sinton landed in an open field nearby, put on the helicopter long line and returned to the wreckage site; (6) Sinton hooked onto the plane and flew it to JACOB’s trailer; (7) Sinton sent JACOB an invoice for $4,950; and (8) On December 31, 2021, JACOB’s friend “Steve Dozier” paid Sinton $5,000 on behalf of JACOB.
He also repeatedly told the FAA and the NTSB he didn't know where the plane was -- whilst he was in fact cutting it up in his garage...
1) attached multiple cameras to the craft (not illegal but suspect)
2) Wearing a sports parachute (there uncomfortable as hell and he never wore any chute on any other flight)
3) opened the side door before claiming any engine failure.
4) made no attempt to restart engine
5) made no attempt to find a safe landing spot even though there were multiple landing areas in easy gliding distance
6) jumped out of the plan with a selfie stick which is not normal behaviour during a crisis .
7) Made his way to the wreck and took all the cameras
8) had the wreck disposed of before contact the authorities .
9) made no attempt to communicate on emergency frequency
None of which deals with the fact he had fire extinguishers strapped to his legs since that not technically illegal or the deliberate crashing of his plane into national reserve.
I get what you’re saying though. With sentencing, I feel like the maximum sentence is always given, and while dramatic it is very common to see.
What I think is wrong is that as long as there are viewers algoritms promotes content which get a lot of viewers.
For what it's worth, this one was:
1. Find the DoJ press release (I think this was just Google search for a few keywords)
2. Accidentally notice that the press release said that the plea agreement had been filed in court
3. Open the court's PACER instance, and search for the defendant's name
4. Open the docket for the case, and download the plea agreement
5. Skim through (ignoring the factual background since I was looking for the sentencing information)
Not just disposed, but disposed in multiple locations:
> two weeks after the drama he and a friend winched the wreckage out of the forest with a helicopter, [...] Over the next few days, he cut up the plane into small pieces, and dumped the parts in trash bins in and around Lompoc City Airport. [...] In a plea agreement, Jacob admitted he had intended to obstruct federal authorities when he disposed of the wreckage
All cetaceans are protected by law, morons!. We don't even know how many species of fin whales exist (one was discovered in the Gulf of Mexico in 2023) and you want sushi? Go f*k yourselves popehats!. Thousands of people spent blood, sweat and tears for the last 60 years working really hard for saving them.
If we let it pass unpunished just because "my cultcha" the calling effect will be catastrophic. Deliberately crashing a plane against a natural park is not different. Is a test. If it goes unpunished you are fully giving the castle keys to any criminals trying to make a profit of the same stunt, and they will.
- Claiming always used a parachute, while having multiple prior flight videos in his channel wearing no parachute.
- Buying the airplane from the previous owner and saying then to previous owner, he "planned to do something big" with the airplane.
34°48'53.6"N 119°57'40.4"W is the exact airplane crash location: - https://www.google.com/maps/place/34%C2%B048'53.6%22N+119%C2...
If you have a look at Google maps, within a 3 to 4 mile radius, there are multiple kids camping grounds. Even assuming they are only sporadically occupied this is a new level of recklessness.
Judging by the Hans Reiser case "no body, no crime" doesn't work at all.
https://generalaviationnews.com/2015/03/16/misplaced-fuel-se...
https://www.boldmethod.com/learn-to-fly/systems/dont-cause-y...
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.
In an organisation which is connected to the government in many ways through partnerships and contracts, putting a face to a crime is much harder to do. There's no single accountable person who can be thrown under the bus.
It was more a collection of bad actions by actors that had their own motives but nothing that was ever explicitly mean to hurt people.
(Assuming you're referring to 737 MAX)
A plane crash can cause a wildfire.
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.
My list is zero entries. Perhaps sentencing guidelines are just us spanking people and not actually a deterrent.
Please post your list when responding.
The other pilot even offered to tail him but was rebuffed, with Jacob reportedly saying "if something goes wrong I'll just jump out".
I think he was at a weird intersection where doing all the things he "should" have in the case of an actual engine failure, (try to restart it, make a radio call, try to land (there were plenty of options to land)) and somehow faking that none of those worked / were not sufficient .... would also have introduced a lot of variables he couldn't control / still resulted in a video that didn't look right / raised more suspicious.
Of course the issue ultimately was that doing none of those things was suspicious too... and you have to hide the evidence that your plane was in fact fully functional ...
Turns out it isn't an easy thing to fake.
Absolutely terrible.
Though, what damage other than crashed debris in a remote land, is exactly done?
Not to support the act anyway, but as long as no one got hurt, one may not face 20 years jail time for crashing their own plane in a remote land.
Stupid? Absolutely.
Illegal? Shouldn't be.
fatneckbeard_in_alt_universe_002: I can understand why FAA came after big corp. But both big corp && small fry are punished? Nobody got hurt here so what exactly is the government going after? This is truly chilling.
this isn't normal
but on social media, it is
He's facing 20 years of jail time for wanton destruction of evidence and impeding a federal investigation. The FAA doesn't have the resources to launch a deep detective dive on every crash, and the penalties are set to highly discourage the practice of impeding understanding of what happened in a crash because that's part of the process of making the air safer for everyone (ground-side as well as air-side).
Even the wreck itself, in its undisturbed state, would have been valuable for better understanding of how an uncontrolled plane meets its end (including possible opportunities to improve the safety of the inevitable disassembly when it finds the ground). ... unless some likes-hound cuts the plane up into tiny pieces and tries to hide it.
Got it, most people in our democracy disagree with you, but feel free to vote in the next election.
He did something wrong, he might go to prison. Does any other actions from others change what he did? No.
And tbh hindsight is easy. Of course no one was hurt of 'the guy who purposely crashed a fucking airplane in some more remote area for clicks'.
Like wtf how sick is this?
Why do you even defend such a shitty thing?
Like, I'm not a pilot but I've read exactly enough to know that the way he handled this is the opposite of the way a private pilot is trained to. So he managed, I assume, to get the idea in his head that a video of someone bailing out of a private plane would attract the attention of low-knowledge rubes for attention and clicks... While not attracting the attention of every other amateur pilot who knows how to work YouTube, as well as the FAA.
Strange train of thought.
Bullshirt.
The actual result was mere chance. He took zero precautions against hurting anyone beyond being over a remote area. Nothing to prevent wildfire (which would hurt a lot more than just people). The location of the crash was pure random chance.
Moreover, it is not ONLY for doing the stupid stunt, it is for deliberately obstructing, in multiple ways, the federal investigation. Plus, he hasn't been sentenced for 20 years, that is merely the maximum available sentence, highlighted for clickbait.
I'm only disappointed it took this long to get consequences for this outrageous BS stunt. And I'm all for risky things, just not being dishonest about it and endangering people who have no involvement or interest.
And yes, Boeing should ALSO be far more harshly punished for the deliberate 787MAX design flaws (but it looks like they didn't compound it by lying to investigators).
I'm not sure what priors the lawyer would use to guess the expected penalty for something as unprecedented as "Crashed a plane on purpose for YouTube likes."
Perhaps the maximum sentence is preferable for the news outlet because it's a number that's definitely not wrong?
My beliefs include strong loyalty to the current government. See D&C 134:5.
Every executive and manager in the hierarchy of responsibility should be seeing that jail time, if not even more.
I don't think the person you're replying to thinks that this youtuber should have gotten off scott free, but that the double standard is an indictment of the industry and regulation agencies at large.
I am surprised educated people can come up with unsubstentiated claims like that.
Or is it really always all CGI?
Doing this sets a precedent and an example that prevents people from frivolously permitting things that are unsafe if there is a risk you'll be thrown in jail.
Read the rest of the thread and my updated post. It's clear that I also believe I must have loyalty to the current government.
See D&C 134:5.
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.
Some may even be able to see those subtle, but important, differences by themselves.
But regardless, if "not scaring fly-scared people" was actually a concern, any planes crashing in movies would be forbidden, not just real planes crashing in movies. But it's not.
one of the dumber things Boeing did was having two angle of attack sensors; who the hell thought it was possible to have a quorum of two
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?
Also, excluding all the coverups he engaged in, of course.
Incidentally, I don't know if deliberately crashing a plane is a criminal act in and of itself, because planes occasionally get crashed as part of safety studies. So it seems that the offense in the actual plane crash is that he traded others' safety for his own profit, rather than the crash per se. But that is very similar to Boeing.
Not to say we've struck exactly the right balance, necessarily. But there's just no logic in making a direct comparison between a company that made an error in designing am aircraft and an individual who flew a plane into the ground on purpose.
That guy planned a plane crash for social media likes, and tried to cover it up. Actively.
Those two cases are nothing a like, not even remotely.
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.
And when the court does sentence a person for a certain offense, it should compare the specific facts of the case to the worst possible case, the one that would warrant 20 years, and if this is somewhat less than the worst possible case, then to sentence them to an appropriately shorter term.
Not condoning his actions, but if he didn't intend anyone to be hurt, took reasonable precautions to ensure that, and then as a result, no one got hurt, it seems you're just left with fraud and a few damaged trees. Who even cares?
I similarly wouldn't care if someone targeted their 18-wheeler at a brick wall in the middle of nowhere and bailed, for clicks, and then lied on the accident report. This sensationalist reporting just makes a copycat more likely.
> […] Jacob reportedly saying "if something goes wrong I'll just jump out"
Not to defend the guy or anything but this is interesting. Maybe in his mind the plane was due for scrapping, and his plan was to fly it until failure and then jump out. Still a bad thing to do of course, and could cause fires or could kill someone, etc, but this sort of makes it conceivable how he himself may have thought that what he was doing was not so bad.
Those people should be punished for murder.
Instead the concept of a corporation ends up abstracting the details away and blurring responsibility.
If our justice system was truly just it would seek out and charge named individuals for crimes.
This has the effect of being in actuality more just but it also prevents the entire corporation from pulling off crimes like this as no one can hide behind the protection of the corporation.
It's not that there is "no logic." But that there is fundamental illogic in the way it all works.
The board should be responsible. You don't get to make $200m a year and just brush hundreds of lives off as a whoops.
there's something to be said about people instinctively distrusting the socially inept: just look at all these modern "catch a pedophile" outfits, where losers are baited by impossible situations into ruining their life.
does the youtuber self-certify for safety and compliance ?
I don't think you understand how capitalism works.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Boeing_727_crash_experime...
[I watched the video (iirc) about a week after all this originally went down. Watching an airplane just kind of cruise around on its own was pretty horrifying. But I did feel a little bit better that afterwards he had to hike around seemingly forever to find someone to give him a ride. Like, at least things were remote, and he's lucky that he didn't die trying to get back to civilization.
However, apparently he thought about this as well, because nope, there's stuff all around that area. This is shooting a gun into the air to see if the bullet will come down and hurt you, but instead of doing it in a dry lake bed you do it right next to a children's hospital so you have someplace to go in case you do get hurt.
The other side of hanlon's razor is "sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from malice".]
It's just brought up as a topic of discussion. Everyone is pretty much aware of what you said.
What isn't fully spelled out is that there are social relationships involved as well. Responsible parties are buddy buddy with regulators while this YouTuber probably pissed off a regulator with his dumb antics so the regulator is unreasonably likely going all out in a fit of annoyance.
Hypothetically we all want a justice system to be based on justice but everyone is well aware that the system is at its heart capitalistic.
It's ok to discuss hypotheticals.
Or you could waste the opportunity and throw the dude in jail, almost ensuring he's never a productive member of society again. That's the norm in the "land of the free"[1]
[1] https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/incarcera...
Parent didn't supply evidence and took a position that crimes that have existed for hundreds of years shouldn't be illegal.
I dont see why the onus is on the respondent to furnish overwhelming evidence to counter that.
I am fine stating that this position is out of touch with our democracy. Sorry that isn't sufficient for you.
In general the concept of starting a fire and a crashing small plane are orthogonal concepts. What happened with that plane is not arson at all.
I think this would be greatly improve our society.
Are you serious?
And you don't care at all about the oil and fuel and fire and debriss in nature as well?
And that for clicks?
If that's true I despise you too
Worse, he reported the incident to the FAA, who asked him for the location and told him not to disturb the wreck (they told him more than once). He then disposed of the plane and continued telling the FAA/NTSB he didn't know where it was.
And anyway, fines only penalize poor people. Someone who can afford to AIRLIFT A PLANE and disassemble it would not be disincentivized by a fine.
Your attempt to portray me as clueless is backfiring rather spectacularly.
It's not bizarre at all. The bizarre part here is your stringing of logic to try to transform this into a crime related to murder.
First off he crashed the plane deliberately into empty forest. There's no hikers in the place he crashed it, he knows that.
Second small planes or cars don't explode in a ball of flames when they crash. That's just movie magic. What actually happens is the car or plane becomes metal debris. That's it. A fire and a crashed car or small plane are completely orthogonal concepts. Might as well arrest people who make bouncing balls because the bouncing ball might accidentally smack the trigger of a gun and kill someone.
What's bizarre here is your post says I'm trying to completely eliminate rule of law when I never said that. Why lie straight to my face? What's the point? It's bizarre. You're the one twisting the rationale to fit your convenient narrative. Please be more logical with your reasoning.
The punishment should fit the crime. A huge fine and revoke the pilots license. That's it. Ruining his life with jail time does not fit the crime at all. If he's rich, then increase the fine... that simple.
I am further going to assume that in his mind the video would get so many views that it would bring in more than the $5k investment.
Rule of law has probably been most influential under capitalist authoritarianism like Nazi Germany.
You don't need "exploding balls of fire" to create a disaster.
It's one thing to say "I'd like to move away to another place with more like-minded people" or even "I'd like to influence my country to align better with my own values". Great. Those are both pretty uncontroversial, non-extremist opinions. It's a whole other kettle of fish to believe "My country/city should be replaced by one composed of exclusively like-minded people." Particularly problematic if by like-minded people, you mean followers of a particular religion.
> Rain is extremely rare in the summer, and dry lightning from the occasional thunderstorms can start fires.
https://lpfw.org/san-rafael-wilderness-50-years-of-preservin...
> Wildfire frequency is an increasing concern in the San Rafael Wilderness. Over the past fifty years, three wildfires have together burned nearly the entire wilderness area, beginning with the 1966 Wellman Fire, the 1993 Marre Fire, the 2007 Zaca Fire, and the 2009 La Brea Fire. Overly-frequent fire in chaparral can permanently alter the ecosystem, depleting the seed bank and making it prone to invasions of non-native weeds.
When's the last time you seen a car light up on fire during an accident? Never because the chances of it happening are basically negligible.
Starting a fire or crashing a small plane/car are completely orthogonal situations.
Your sources point to weather/climate as the causal source of wild fires.
Nothing. So why even say this? Makes no sense to me.
> Small-airplane fires have killed at least 600 people since 1993, burning them alive or suffocating them after crashes and hard landings that the passengers and pilots had initially survived, a USA TODAY investigation shows. The victims who died from fatal burns or smoke inhalation often had few if any broken bones or other injuries, according to hundreds of autopsy reports obtained by USA TODAY.
> Fires have erupted after incidents as minor as an airplane veering off a runway and into brush or hitting a chain-link fence, government records show. The impact ruptures fuel tanks or fuel lines, or both, causing leaks and airplane-engulfing blazes.
> Fires also contributed to the death of at least 308 more people who suffered burns or smoke inhalation as well as traumatic injuries, USA TODAY found. And the fires seriously burned at least 309 people who survived, often with permanent scars after painful surgery.
And while that is about dangers for an occupant it should be noted that a fire from a small airplane crash is not a rare occurrence.
---
https://www.aopa.org/training-and-safety/students/flighttest...
> Aircraft fires often occur following forced landings, and the result is often more dangerous than the forced landing itself. The sad truth is that most light aircraft fuel systems are not designed to withstand crash impacts, and they often fail during a forced landing. Spilled fuel and hot crash components often result in a fuel-fed inferno.
Note the word often there.
Putting others in danger: should be punished.
Putting self in danger in a remote location: he can do whatever he wants with their life, even kill themselves if they want.
If you take a look at the numbers, only a ratio of 0.04 accidents result in a post-impact fire. It's rare.
As you suggested, I noted the word "often," in return please note 0.04.
> On May 22, 2021 Student Pilot Brian Parsley was completed his solo long cross country flight. Approximately 12 miles from airport started experiencing rough engine. Assuming it was "carb ice" took appropriate measures. The camera was started after it cleared to show instructor should it happen again. Shortly after communicating to ATC the video picks up. The aircraft ran out of fuel and this was 100% my responsibility at the end of the day. I did do my flight plan, checked fuel, and all necessary checks prior to leaving. It's also worth noting I've flown the same route with my instructor. So using this assumption and the fact I did my flight planning correctly I flew. This was the wrong decision and the biggest takeaway for me. I will get fuel going forward every time I land regardless of what gages state or distance. That mistake could've cost a life. This was more than just a "near death" experience. It was an incredible learning opportunity for others as well.
So a strict rule like that risks setting up a formal scapegoat situation which could then lead to the opposite effect.
Yes, I worded things very poorly. I'm famous for doing that. But I attempted to fix those problems after people have criticized me in this thread.
On my solo long cc flight, I got lost during the second leg and actually worried about the extra fuel that I burned searching for landmarks. Once I figured out where I was and landed, I went to top off the tanks just in case (in reality I should have had plenty of fuel to get home but I was paranoid).
That's when I found out that my credit card, the only payment I had with me, had expired a week before...
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
Hey, I'm already for it, you don't have to sell it to me.
I mean we have no lawyer or doctors for the same reason.
I mean when you drive a car everyday you could make a mistake too. It's too fuzzy to go in this direction.
No, because it was/is not possible for him to have made that conclusion from the air prior to jumping out of his aircraft - no matter the level of google maps or even in-person planning.
After he left the aircraft, he had no control over where it crashed, and had no way of knowing it wouldn't land on some hiker, hunter, animal, whatever... or cause a fire.
We cannot have a system were the public is afraid airplanes might just drop out of the sky suddenly. The rules are there for very good reasons, and this guy broke darn near all of them.
And what for? Youtube clicks? No, that's not acceptable.
> (honestly had he not destroyed the evidence and made the plea that he constructed the crash in a way that was designed not to harm anyone, and it ended up not harming anyone, I suspect he might've gotten a lower sentence)
No, because the regulator is not going to see it as innocent. This is a highly trained aviator - as are all aviators, and he certainly knew how dangerous this could have been. He had no clearances with ATC/FAA to have other aircraft avoid the area, or emergency services on ready in case something went wrong.
We allow acrobatics, stunts, and yes even crashes on purpose (movies or whatever) under tightly controlled circumstances where everyone knows what is going on. That was not the case here... this guy just decided to do it all on his own.
Aviation is a highly professional community - even at the amateur level - and for very good reasons.
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.
I'm hung up on it because the likelihood of this happening is in Actuality overblown. It's not fire season yet and CA just came out of a drenching torrent of rain.
That is plausible, but also illegal. It would be a violation of multiple FARs to fly a plane that you knew to be non-airworthy with the intent of having it fail.
It's very evident that he thought what he was doing (including covering up his offense) was no big deal. This is exactly why he deserves to have the book thrown at him.
That seems to be the most common occurrence in all fields...
Yeah want a weird line of thought.
It's funny because of all things you can count on if you get views on YouTube is ... SCRUTINY. Right or wrong scrutiny. Every rando with some idea of how to fly ... or even none, is going to watch that video and pick it apart.
And man that video was easy to pick apart. Dude even had is door open before the engine quit.
This is not an unreasonable regulatory burden impinging on individual freedom.
Literally where he crashed.
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...
How?
He's in trouble for covering up, not so much what he did.
There is: the CEO. This is the person put in charge to run the business against their principles [0]. This is the charter, set by the business, in how it should be run.
When the company fails to execute and people die because of these failures this is a systemic problem that is rooted within the control of a CEO. Nothing major happens in aviation without a lot of checks and balances. Boeing settled because the CEO lied. He should have gone to jail. Instead he was allowed to pay no social penalty and is making money and avoiding taxes [1].
Dennis Muilenburg killed people. He had the position to stop it. Yet he chose profits over the value of others lives. Dennis Muilenburg should be spending the remainder of his life behind bars or subject to fly in a 737 Max with the flawed MCAS that he said was safe for the rest of his life for any and all air travel.
[0] https://www.boeing.com/principles/values.page [1] https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/forme...
I think somewhere between a weekend to a month is appropriate.
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2022/04/21/14/56879553-10739213...
“You can't actually make the wildfire problem any worse by starting an additional fire.”
What if there wasn’t a fire in the first place in this location
If you're going to make an example of capitalism in particular then you should be able to justify it with non-capitalist examples. Are there some socialist or feudal states where the more powerful would lose a case like this?
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.
There is a right to a speedy trial, which in Illinois is 120 days once you demand it. Sadly the reality is that it is very hard to get that clock ticking if you are trying to prepare for trial, or waiting on evidence, etc. Also, COVID stopped the clock for two years of that too.
Plus, no-one wants to be in the same box as another man who is taking a shit. And the food is so bad that practically everyone has diarrhea all day every day.
I don't know if you're just trolling or are completely stupid, but that might be a distinction without a difference.
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.
So I guess they can crash planes.
And I hope the public makes the difference between a Christopher Nolan movie and what can happen to them on their way to Hawaii.
Traffic accidents is one of the largest causes of death in this country. When you drive you make the same call.
He aimed his plane at a specific location 100%. This is obvious because he deliberately chose not to crash in a highly populated area. He chose an area that is largely unpopulated. This is easy to choose if you know your location and you just look out the window.
>I don't know if you're just trolling or are completely stupid, but that might be a distinction without a difference.
Clever way to call someone stupid. Please be mature enough to have a civil discussion. Neither of us is stupid but possibly one of us does not have the maturity or self control not to call someone stupid. Please act like an adult or go somewhere else where antics like this are welcomed.
Think about it. I point my car at an area devoid of people and drive towards that area then jump out of the car. Is there a slight risk of the car still hitting someone? Technically yes but it's so miniscule it's stupid to consider. Am I murderer? no.
I do the same thing with a plane. Am I murderer? No.
One thing that's making me scratch my head is you realize people have eyes right? They can see out of a window and they can see if a wide area below or in front of them is populated.
Could be. This depends a lot on the owner of the wall
I don't think that the video alone gets past the reasonable doubt standard.
The fact that the personna played by this account doesn't understand that makes it either stupid or disingenuous.
Either way I'm no longer treating it as an entity worthy of dialogue with.
Well, gee, I'm just gonna run right out and riot over it. Thanks for the suggestion.
Is it not a criminal offense to lie to whatever the equivalent of the FAA is in your country if you're a pilot or otherwise under investigation for the equivalent crimes this YouTuber committed?
The context is important here: If I understand correctly, the pilot had to have a license issued by the FAA and should've been made aware of laws and penalties in the context of operating a plane. Operating a plane is not a right, it's a privilege. It's also in the public interest that there are strict regulations and investigators with the ability to look into these types of crimes.
The pilot ditched a plane and then tried to obstruct an investigation into the crime. He did commit several crimes and potentially endangered others. He tried to lie to cover it up. As a U.S. citizen who has a vested interest in not being hit by planes dropping out of the sky because the pilot decided to try to get more YouTube views - I'm not particularly offended that this is a crime.
The FAA investigator's job is to assess the cause of air accidents. That may involve interviewing a lot of people with a lot of incentive to lie -- pilots, executives of plane manufacturers who may have cut corners leading to accidents, air traffic controllers, engineers trying to avoid blame, etc. Lots of scenarios where the incentive to lie is high, the impact of a cover-up may be bad for society overall, and without penalties people would lie with impunity.
There should be guardrails around what they can ask. If he was convicted of lying about something totally unrelated to air safety, I might feel differently. This does not feel like an overreach to me.
I don't think this distinction makes much difference in this case. It's clear which person people thought was the "religious zealot" and were ganging up on. He also broke the site guidelines badly, of course.
Additionally, this is in the best interests of the GA community as a whole, given that it always has been and will continue to be under scrutiny from the general public. No one wants there to be the perception that among them there is a 100LL cowboy who’s gonna bust through a bravo, slam a red bull, and ditch their plane over a neighborhood.
The hammer needs to come down, and it needs to come down hard.
...several days after the killing (per the testimony of an officer)[0]. reading books about homicide investigation is not illegal, and certainly not suspicious enough to convict beyond a reasonable doubt.
I believe a more charismatic person could have talked his way out of it. At the very least the first impression wouldn't have been "eccentric unsympathetic computer guy, russian mail-order bride, he probably did it".
