5 ms·

> 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.
        krisoft 3y ago
        > The penalty for destroying this evidence should not exceed the original crime or value of the property I destroyed in any rational way. The rational reason is that this is a behaviour we want to discourage. We want to diacourage it because it makes it more complicated and more costly to catch criminals, and more likely for them to get away with their crimes.
        mc32 3y ago
        So if I lift a candy bar at a 7-11, am detained and questioned and the investigator notices chocolate smudges on my cheeks and uses that as reason to have my stomach pumped to produced destroyed evidence after I claimed I didn’t eat it, they can stick me in the slammer for 20 years for lying and destroying evidence? There is the idea of commensurate punishment. 20 years for destroying evidence for something that while serious didn’t defraud anyone, maim anyone or cause damage I think is unreasonable and unconstitutional.

"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.
      - krisoft 3y ago
        > The penalty for destroying this evidence should not exceed the original crime or value of the property I destroyed in any rational way. The rational reason is that this is a behaviour we want to discourage. We want to diacourage it because it makes it more complicated and more costly to catch criminals, and more likely for them to get away with their crimes.
        mc32 3y ago
        So if I lift a candy bar at a 7-11, am detained and questioned and the investigator notices chocolate smudges on my cheeks and uses that as reason to have my stomach pumped to produced destroyed evidence after I claimed I didn’t eat it, they can stick me in the slammer for 20 years for lying and destroying evidence? There is the idea of commensurate punishment. 20 years for destroying evidence for something that while serious didn’t defraud anyone, maim anyone or cause damage I think is unreasonable and unconstitutional.