* 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
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].
* 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 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).
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)