zlacker

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+(OP)
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+Z1
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.

>>ngcc_h+Z1
There are plenty of other consequences to levy besides incarceration. One aspect of his punishment might be to force him to produce several PSAs about the dangers of wagging the dog on his youtube account.

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...

>>byyyy+(OP)
This is an utterly bizarre take. Just because he didn't hurt anyone doesn't mean he couldn't have. He could have started a wildfire, his plane could have crashed into hikers, he could have hurt himself and required a publicly funded rescue effort. It's like you're trying to argue that we shouldn't have rule of law??? This kind of prosecution is in place to create a disincentive to doing things that could threaten life, public property, etc.

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.

>>pandem+gl
Should someone who runs a car into an empty wall be charged with jail time? No.

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.

>>byyyy+S4
You know having a plane crash onto them ran ruin a person's entire life, right?

>>vinayp+pv
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+5z
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?

>>byyyy+S4
You seem awfully hung up on the Hollywood effects being overblown. Yes, this is true and no one is arguing against it. However, even a small spark can start a forest fire. Thinking you're safe just because there is no explosion is wildly irresponsible.

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

>>jamesh+vF
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.

>>tiberi+eP
>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

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.

>>tiberi+eP
>You seem awfully hung up on the Hollywood effects being overblown. Yes, this is true and no one is arguing against it. However, even a small spark can start a forest fire.

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.

>>byyyy+CS
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.

>>byyyy+z21
He did this in November 2021. The Alisal fire was still burning in Los Padres.

Literally where he crashed.

>>byyyy+rp
> First off he crashed the plane deliberately into empty forest. There's no hikers in the place he crashed it, he knows that.

How?

He's in trouble for covering up, not so much what he did.

>>ChoGGi+fu1
Agreed he should be in trouble for that. But probably not jailtime.

>>jamesh+Kj1
>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+CS
He absolutely did not crash it "in a specific" location. At best he crashed it in a wide area and put people's lives at risk. It might be a small risk but it's absolutely not his call to make. He's basically saying "there's a chance you might die but that's a risk I'm willing to take". For the sake of a few video clicks.

I don't know if you're just trolling or are completely stupid, but that might be a distinction without a difference.

>>byyyy+D72
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+wC2
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.

>>vinayp+hj2
>It might be a small risk but it's absolutely not his call to make.

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.

>>byyyy+rp
> Should someone who runs a car into an empty wall be charged with jail time?

Could be. This depends a lot on the owner of the wall

>>pvalde+jP3
Wall is undamaged. Car is damaged. In that case nothing happens. (In CA, where this took place)

>>byyyy+U23
Repeating a bad analogy over and over again doesn't make it any more true. He absolutely didn't "aim at his plane at a specific location". At best his plane was aimed somewhere in several square kilometers that could have been occupied by hikers, campers, park rangers and other people.

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.