zlacker

Harsh, but fair.

>>thrill+(OP)
Feels overly harsh considering no one was hurt. Send him to jail for a year for obstructing the investigation. It’s not like he’s going to do this again.

>>thrill+(OP)
Since it's a plea deal I wouldn't expect anywhere near the maximum. Additionally, it looks like a fine and/or prison. Since the goal was to make money on a YouTube video, I could see the plea being more on the fine side, with little or no prison.

"shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1519

>>thrill+(OP)
How is it fair to get more than actual murderers? I get that this is "up to 20 years" but I don't see how more than a few months for a victimless crime would be fair.

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.

>>valine+71
But they could have been hurt, especially if he kicked off a wildfire or landed on some unsuspecting party.

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.

>>mardif+s1
So is drunk driving a victimless crime?

>>silisi+Y1
In those cases the intent would be to cause harm. Here the intent was not to cause harm, it was just a reckless and bad thing to do.

>>ALittl+x2
That's a very fair point. I guess the question then is how we should treat recklessness with potential to harm, as there definitely should be a deterrent for that. But perhaps not as much as my examples.

>>valine+71
It's popular in news articles to report the maximum possible sentence for a crime, but this isn't particularly informative. The federal sentencing guidelines usually give a more clear picture, and my -very much not a lawyer much less a federal criminal defense attorney- quick skim suggests he's looking at more like 1-3 years. Which is closer to your gut reaction. The details will depend also on what kind of plea bargain he negotiated, which we'll find out at sentencing.

>>pupppe+i2
People don't get 20 years for it unless there is harm done or aggravating factors.

>>pupppe+i2
You don't get punished for murders you didn't commit even when drunk driving. Actually, you usually don't even go to prison for drunk driving if you haven't hurt anyone, so if anything it proves my point.

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

>>valine+71
He hasn't been sentenced yet, 20 years is only the maximum.

>>silisi+U2
We treat drunk drivers harshly, even if they harmed no one.

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.