5 ms·

I dunno. I believe the guy is guilty and should be punished for recklessness, etc. but I don’t like it when authorities rely on indirect charges to “get” some

by mc32 3y ago

I dunno. I believe the guy is guilty and should be punished for recklessness, etc. but I don’t like it when authorities rely on indirect charges to “get” someone. Prove the original crime, don’t rely and peripheral procedure like “they lied to a federal agent” (uhh) cop-out. Do your job. Likewise I’m not don’t of people getting off on “technicalities” (Some more than others)

dfadsadsf 3y ago
Fully agree. After how obstruction of justice without underlying crime was used in political trials recently, I would fully support either removing or substantially increasing bar for it to be a crime.
- mempko 3y ago
  I'm not aware of any political trials. Which trials are you referring to?
sgjohnson 3y ago
> Prove the original crime The evidence of which was destroyed?
- rain1 3y ago
  "I Crashed My Airplane" - TrevorJacob https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbYszLNZxhM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbYszLNZxhM
  - sgjohnson 3y ago
    Yes, obviously the FAA/NTSB/whatever agency needed the remains of that plane to prove their case that the crash landing was staged. I don't think that the video alone gets past the reasonable doubt standard.
    - mc32 3y ago
      What’s the angle? The fuselage doesn’t crumple one way if it’s staged and another way if it was an accident. The metal and construction materials cannot know intent.
      - sgjohnson 3y ago
        It should still be possible to find out if there was a problem with the engine before the crash.
- adrr 3y ago
  Do you need prove a crime was committed in the first place? Or can the government accuse me of being a drug dealer but I disposed of the evidence when I took out the trash last week so I obstructed their investigation.
  - tedunangst 3y ago
    How awful that this innocent man is being punished simply for cleaning up a plane wreck.
  - paulgb 3y ago
    If you film it and put it on YouTube, sure they can.
  - sgjohnson 3y ago
    Did you read the article? He destroyed the remains of the plane AFTER the FAA explicitly told him to not even touch it. Sure, no evidence, no crime, but in this case there was evidence that the feds knew about. If you destroy the evidence before the cops know it exists, fair game. But this wasn't it. As usual, the coverup is worse than the crime. Especially for the guy getting railroaded.
    - mc32 3y ago
      Destroying property should not exceed the punishment for the original crime, unless there was some insurance fraud or other aspect to the case.
      - sgjohnson 3y ago
        Why not? The original crime was stupidity. Destroying the evidence is outright malice.
        mc32 3y ago
        It doesn’t make sense. Crime A is $2500 fine or 2 mos in the slammer, let’s say. The evidence that would convict me is worth a grand. I destroy it. The penalty for destroying this evidence should not exceed the original crime or value of the property I destroyed in any rational way.
MattRix 3y ago
It’s not really an indirect charge, he did try to cover it up.
jkubicek 3y ago
People getting off on technicalities is one of the things that keeps police honest.
- ALittleLight 3y ago
  Why? Do police officers get fired or lose money when technicalities free criminals? If so, why couldn't we just keep that part and not release the criminals on the technicality?
  - sokoloff 3y ago
    Primarily because of the Fifth Amendment, specifically the combination of the double jeopardy and due process clauses. See also: Blackstone's formulation: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blackstone%27s_formulation https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blackstone%27s_fo...
  - josephcsible 3y ago
    If we didn't let people go on technicalities, then there'd be no consequence for the government violating people's rights in investigations.
    - ALittleLight 3y ago
      My point is that letting a criminal go isn't a consequence. Suppose a police officer, instead of waiting for a warrant that was going to be issued, barges into a suspect's home without a warrant and finds the evidence to convict the suspect. The officer has done wrong (entering the home without the warrant) and should face some punishment for that. The threat of punishment deters the officer from acting without a warrant. On the other hand, releasing the criminal, who is actually guilty, is not a real deterrent. What if the officer doesn't particularly care if the suspect gets arrested or not? It's the threat of consequences to the particular individual that decide their actions - not the threat of conflicts with the purpose of their organization. Put another way, I bet fewer police officers would commit misconduct if the consequences were "you personally go to jail" as opposed to "a criminal is freed and your organization is supposed to do the opposite of that, don't you feel bad?"
johndhi 3y ago
Agree
tedunangst 3y ago
You're saying he didn't impede the investigation into the cause of the crash?
gavinsyancey 3y ago
If you read the article, it's not really a technicality. He filed a false incident report with the FAA, lied to the FAA about what happened, and destroyed evidence despite an order from the NTSB to preserve the wreckage in order to cover up what really happened. That is all illegal for a good reason.
dragonwriter 3y ago
> I believe the guy is guilty and should be punished for recklessness, etc. but I don’t like it when authorities rely on indirect charges to “get” someone. I think in the absence of actual injuries, the obstruction charge is actually the more serious criminal charge applicable. Which is not an indirect charge; obstruction is a distinct crime with its own harms.
- mc32 3y ago
  It really irks me when authorities go after someone, can't prove something then because they don't want to look bad and want to get a promotion will instead get people for nonsense like they did Mrs Stewart. She should have been able to sure the government and get punitive damages for malicious prosecution.
ocdtrekkie 3y ago
Arguably the lying to investigators crime is worse than the original. He crashed a plane he owned with only him in it. Sure, there was risks of danger to the ground and wildfires, but those risks are the same if you accidentally crash a plane, and the actual resulting damage was indeed minimal. Reckless behavior that ultimately does not cause damage or harm is rarely penalized heavily. Lying to investigators and destroying evidence is unquestionably wrongdoing, and required far more explicit intent and action than merely failing to correctly fly an aircraft.
- astura 3y ago
  >He crashed a plane he owned with only him in it. Nobody was in it when it crashed, he jumped out of the plane midair.
- krisoft 3y ago
  Perhaps you are not familiar with the case? “Failing to correctly fly an aircraft” is quite an understatement. This person didn’t just accidentally run out of fuel, or accidentally stalled. He intentionally set up the airplane with cameras, intentionally wore a parachute, intentionally stopped the engine mid-flight and then intentionally jumped out of the airplane while holding a camera on a selfie stick. None of this can be described as ”failing to correctly fly an aircraft”. What he did required explicit intent.

by mc32 3y ago

dfadsadsf 3y ago

Fully agree. After how obstruction of justice without underlying crime was used in political trials recently, I would fully support either removing or substantially increasing bar for it to be a crime.

mempko 3y ago
I'm not aware of any political trials. Which trials are you referring to?

sgjohnson 3y ago

> Prove the original crime The evidence of which was destroyed?

rain1 3y ago
"I Crashed My Airplane" - TrevorJacob https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbYszLNZxhM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbYszLNZxhM
- sgjohnson 3y ago
  Yes, obviously the FAA/NTSB/whatever agency needed the remains of that plane to prove their case that the crash landing was staged. I don't think that the video alone gets past the reasonable doubt standard.
  - mc32 3y ago
    What’s the angle? The fuselage doesn’t crumple one way if it’s staged and another way if it was an accident. The metal and construction materials cannot know intent.
    - sgjohnson 3y ago
      It should still be possible to find out if there was a problem with the engine before the crash.
adrr 3y ago
Do you need prove a crime was committed in the first place? Or can the government accuse me of being a drug dealer but I disposed of the evidence when I took out the trash last week so I obstructed their investigation.
- tedunangst 3y ago
  How awful that this innocent man is being punished simply for cleaning up a plane wreck.
- paulgb 3y ago
  If you film it and put it on YouTube, sure they can.
- sgjohnson 3y ago
  Did you read the article? He destroyed the remains of the plane AFTER the FAA explicitly told him to not even touch it. Sure, no evidence, no crime, but in this case there was evidence that the feds knew about. If you destroy the evidence before the cops know it exists, fair game. But this wasn't it. As usual, the coverup is worse than the crime. Especially for the guy getting railroaded.
  - mc32 3y ago
    Destroying property should not exceed the punishment for the original crime, unless there was some insurance fraud or other aspect to the case.
    - sgjohnson 3y ago
      Why not? The original crime was stupidity. Destroying the evidence is outright malice.
      - mc32 3y ago
        It doesn’t make sense. Crime A is $2500 fine or 2 mos in the slammer, let’s say. The evidence that would convict me is worth a grand. I destroy it. The penalty for destroying this evidence should not exceed the original crime or value of the property I destroyed in any rational way.

MattRix 3y ago

It’s not really an indirect charge, he did try to cover it up.

jkubicek 3y ago

People getting off on technicalities is one of the things that keeps police honest.

ALittleLight 3y ago
Why? Do police officers get fired or lose money when technicalities free criminals? If so, why couldn't we just keep that part and not release the criminals on the technicality?
- sokoloff 3y ago
  Primarily because of the Fifth Amendment, specifically the combination of the double jeopardy and due process clauses. See also: Blackstone's formulation: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blackstone%27s_formulation https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blackstone%27s_fo...
- josephcsible 3y ago
  If we didn't let people go on technicalities, then there'd be no consequence for the government violating people's rights in investigations.
  - ALittleLight 3y ago
    My point is that letting a criminal go isn't a consequence. Suppose a police officer, instead of waiting for a warrant that was going to be issued, barges into a suspect's home without a warrant and finds the evidence to convict the suspect. The officer has done wrong (entering the home without the warrant) and should face some punishment for that. The threat of punishment deters the officer from acting without a warrant. On the other hand, releasing the criminal, who is actually guilty, is not a real deterrent. What if the officer doesn't particularly care if the suspect gets arrested or not? It's the threat of consequences to the particular individual that decide their actions - not the threat of conflicts with the purpose of their organization. Put another way, I bet fewer police officers would commit misconduct if the consequences were "you personally go to jail" as opposed to "a criminal is freed and your organization is supposed to do the opposite of that, don't you feel bad?"

johndhi 3y ago

Agree

tedunangst 3y ago

You're saying he didn't impede the investigation into the cause of the crash?

gavinsyancey 3y ago

If you read the article, it's not really a technicality. He filed a false incident report with the FAA, lied to the FAA about what happened, and destroyed evidence despite an order from the NTSB to preserve the wreckage in order to cover up what really happened. That is all illegal for a good reason.

dragonwriter 3y ago

> I believe the guy is guilty and should be punished for recklessness, etc. but I don’t like it when authorities rely on indirect charges to “get” someone. I think in the absence of actual injuries, the obstruction charge is actually the more serious criminal charge applicable. Which is not an indirect charge; obstruction is a distinct crime with its own harms.

mc32 3y ago
It really irks me when authorities go after someone, can't prove something then because they don't want to look bad and want to get a promotion will instead get people for nonsense like they did Mrs Stewart. She should have been able to sure the government and get punitive damages for malicious prosecution.

ocdtrekkie 3y ago

Arguably the lying to investigators crime is worse than the original. He crashed a plane he owned with only him in it. Sure, there was risks of danger to the ground and wildfires, but those risks are the same if you accidentally crash a plane, and the actual resulting damage was indeed minimal. Reckless behavior that ultimately does not cause damage or harm is rarely penalized heavily. Lying to investigators and destroying evidence is unquestionably wrongdoing, and required far more explicit intent and action than merely failing to correctly fly an aircraft.

astura 3y ago
>He crashed a plane he owned with only him in it. Nobody was in it when it crashed, he jumped out of the plane midair.
krisoft 3y ago
Perhaps you are not familiar with the case? “Failing to correctly fly an aircraft” is quite an understatement. This person didn’t just accidentally run out of fuel, or accidentally stalled. He intentionally set up the airplane with cameras, intentionally wore a parachute, intentionally stopped the engine mid-flight and then intentionally jumped out of the airplane while holding a camera on a selfie stick. None of this can be described as ”failing to correctly fly an aircraft”. What he did required explicit intent.