7 ms·

I would have thought there would be a felony for intentionally crashing an aircraft

by intunderflow 4y ago

daniel-cussen 4y ago
There would have to be harm...I mean I think so. Like if he made sure nobody got hurt? No damage, no risk?
- MerelyMortal 4y ago
  "Reckless endangerment" doesn't necessarily have to have harm done to be a crime. The pilot could not have known with 100% certainty that the plane wouldn't land on a hiker or wildlife.
  - daniel-cussen 4y ago
    Oh that makes sense. And it's an airplane, the ultimate sword of Damocles hanging over people's heads by a horse hair, yeah this was like a fucking kamikaze. And like the other commenters say, there are means to do aircraft destructions properly, with permission and so forth, meaning in that case with 0% chance of killing living things and therefore no felony.
- brewdad 4y ago
  If he stayed with the plane all the way to the ground in control he could make that argument. The minute he relenquished control of the plane, there was risk it would go somewhere he didn't expect.
ericd 4y ago
Why would you need to make that criminal? It's already a crime to do something criminal like hurting someone else whether it's with a plane, a car, or a knife.
- pcbro141 4y ago
  Because it's reckless to crash a plane. You can kill people on the ground.
  - throwaway0a5e 4y ago
    There are a million specific reckless things you can do that are as bad or worse. They're not specifically illegal. And they're likely to remain that way unless someone manages to do one of them and dodge all other criminal prosecution.
falcolas 4y ago
Its his-ish property. The FAA got him for the flying equivalent of reckless driving, but its not a felony to crash your car. Its just expensive as hell, and the knock on fines will only add onto it.
- kayodelycaon 4y ago
  The felony will be under reckless endangerment or some other statute for people who intentionally do criminally stupid things that could or have caused serious harm/damage. You’re not getting off on some technicality where there is no specific law against a specific action. There are broad statutes to specifically nail people who think like that. Edit: There is a lovely idiom for this—“play stupid games, win stupid prizes”.
  - mardifoufs 4y ago
    I think he crashed in the middle of an unpopulated desert-ish area. I'm not sure what's the criteria is for reckless endangerment though, and maybe the intent matters more than the end result.
    - kayodelycaon 4y ago
      I don’t think it matters where the plane crashed if he wasn’t in control of it.
    - bombcar 4y ago
      Los Padres National Forest isn’t the Mojave Desert.
      - zinekeller 4y ago
        > National Forest Yikes, a federal property no less.
        Breza 4y ago
        If you look at a map of the area, he ditched the plane in the exact place you'd pick if you were trying to stay away from large groups of people. That's one of the many aspects that suggest this was an intentional crash.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

I would have thought there would be a felony for intentionally crashing an aircraft

daniel-cussen 4y ago

There would have to be harm...I mean I think so. Like if he made sure nobody got hurt? No damage, no risk?

MerelyMortal 4y ago
"Reckless endangerment" doesn't necessarily have to have harm done to be a crime. The pilot could not have known with 100% certainty that the plane wouldn't land on a hiker or wildlife.
- daniel-cussen 4y ago
  Oh that makes sense. And it's an airplane, the ultimate sword of Damocles hanging over people's heads by a horse hair, yeah this was like a fucking kamikaze. And like the other commenters say, there are means to do aircraft destructions properly, with permission and so forth, meaning in that case with 0% chance of killing living things and therefore no felony.
brewdad 4y ago
If he stayed with the plane all the way to the ground in control he could make that argument. The minute he relenquished control of the plane, there was risk it would go somewhere he didn't expect.

ericd 4y ago

Why would you need to make that criminal? It's already a crime to do something criminal like hurting someone else whether it's with a plane, a car, or a knife.

pcbro141 4y ago
Because it's reckless to crash a plane. You can kill people on the ground.
- throwaway0a5e 4y ago
  There are a million specific reckless things you can do that are as bad or worse. They're not specifically illegal. And they're likely to remain that way unless someone manages to do one of them and dodge all other criminal prosecution.

falcolas 4y ago

Its his-ish property. The FAA got him for the flying equivalent of reckless driving, but its not a felony to crash your car. Its just expensive as hell, and the knock on fines will only add onto it.

kayodelycaon 4y ago
The felony will be under reckless endangerment or some other statute for people who intentionally do criminally stupid things that could or have caused serious harm/damage. You’re not getting off on some technicality where there is no specific law against a specific action. There are broad statutes to specifically nail people who think like that. Edit: There is a lovely idiom for this—“play stupid games, win stupid prizes”.
- mardifoufs 4y ago
  I think he crashed in the middle of an unpopulated desert-ish area. I'm not sure what's the criteria is for reckless endangerment though, and maybe the intent matters more than the end result.
  - kayodelycaon 4y ago
    I don’t think it matters where the plane crashed if he wasn’t in control of it.
  - bombcar 4y ago
    Los Padres National Forest isn’t the Mojave Desert.
    - zinekeller 4y ago
      > National Forest Yikes, a federal property no less.
      - Breza 4y ago
        If you look at a map of the area, he ditched the plane in the exact place you'd pick if you were trying to stay away from large groups of people. That's one of the many aspects that suggest this was an intentional crash.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]