zlacker

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.

>>jamesh+(OP)
>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+TN
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+Mi1
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.