3 ms·
There would have to be harm...I mean I think so. Like if he made sure nobody got hurt? No damage, no risk?
by daniel-cussen 5y 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 5y 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 5y agoOh 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 5y agoIf 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.