zlacker

It was a terrible and a stupid, not-well-though stunt.

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.

>>can163+(OP)
He's not facing 20 years of jail time for crashing the plane. That would have been revocation of his license and possibly some time for reckless endangerment.

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.

>>can163+(OP)
Your desire is that reckless disregard for human life, tampering with evidence and lying on official government documents aren't crimes unless a person is physically hurt?

Got it, most people in our democracy disagree with you, but feel free to vote in the next election.

>>can163+(OP)
It shouldn't illegal to potentially harm others? I'd follow your reasoning if it was his land and he took precautions to make sure there was no one else on the land where he plan to crash, but it doesn't seem like that was the situation. He basically hip-fired a plane from the sky to a public nature park, hoping no one got hurt.

Also, excluding all the coverups he engaged in, of course.

>>herman+Y2
your comment is unhelpful and unnecessarily aggressive. a better way to express the same sentiment would be pointing out the reasons that evidence tampering, despite not having an immediate victim, can be harmful.

>>kurisu+fj
I don't support your demand for asymmetric debate. If anything, unconventional positions require extra effort by the claimant not the respondent.

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.

>>herman+Y2
Disregard for human life?

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.