6 ms·
Not sure what should be funny about this or implications? He did something wrong, he might go to prison. Does any other actions from others change what he did?
by Zesti 3y ago
Not sure what should be funny about this or implications?
He did something wrong, he might go to prison. Does any other actions from others change what he did? No.
And tbh hindsight is easy. Of course no one was hurt of 'the guy who purposely crashed a fucking airplane in some more remote area for clicks'.
Like wtf how sick is this?
Why do you even defend such a shitty thing?
- byyyy 3y ago[flagged]
- brokenkebaby 3y agoThe punishment is for destroying evidence, not destroying a plane. And it's so heavy because otherwise it would make perfect sense to destroy evidence.
- byyyy 3y agoDestroying evidence for what? A crashed plane that did nothing to no one? Don't be naive, this is a crime punishable by revocation a pilots license and a huge fine. That's it. Boeing deliberately withheld information on what was causing people to get killed. Actual man slaughter.
- brokenkebaby 3y agoDestroying evidence. Not for something. Just destroying evidence is a crime in itself. Ask your lawyer maybe.
- byyyy 3y ago[flagged]
- throwbadubadu 3y agoStill there must be a difference between destroying evidence for stealing a chewing gum vs a murder? > And it's so heavy because otherwise it would make perfect sense to destroy evidence. Thus no, this is no good argument for high punishment for any evidence destroyed? Proportionality is a principle in many law systems.. not in the US? Wouldn't surprise me too much, but personally I find 20 years also much out of proportion, so not sure why parent poster gets downvoted so much. (On the other hand, rereading, faces up to 20 years, and judges will likely put this still in proportion, right? So just sensationalist headline once again..)
- brokenkebaby 3y agoCourt usually takes circumstances into consideration, so yeah, there's proportionality encoded. It's not like everybody's given 20 years automatically.
- byyyy 3y ago[flagged]
- Zesti 3y ago'faces up to' And tempering with evidence is a problem. Crashing a fucking airplane without controlling a large potential crash side is tremendously dangerous. So you think it's okay that someone might just crash a fucking airplane on top of your head because of fucking likes?
- byyyy 3y ago>So you think it's okay that someone might just crash a fucking airplane on top of your head because of fucking likes? What's the point of this question when you know I'm not ok with it. There is no point, so don't ask it when you know the answer. >Crashing a fucking airplane without controlling a large potential crash side is tremendously dangerous. Except he controlled the crash site successfully. So what's the point. I think there's gross negligence but "hypothetical unintentional manslaughter" is going to far.
- MSFT_Edging 3y agoHe's not defending this but baring witness to the double standard that a corporation can basically do the same thing(Knowingly put bad hardware/software into a plane for profit vs jumping out of a plane) and kill hundreds and see no consequences. Every executive and manager in the hierarchy of responsibility should be seeing that jail time, if not even more. I don't think the person you're replying to thinks that this youtuber should have gotten off scott free, but that the double standard is an indictment of the industry and regulation agencies at large.
- detrites 3y agoLoads of people have smashed or blown up vehicles in the name of entertainment, or clicks. An airplane is just a vehicle. Important is whether what was done was conscious of the safety of others. Seems in this case it was. Not condoning his actions, but if he didn't intend anyone to be hurt, took reasonable precautions to ensure that, and then as a result, no one got hurt, it seems you're just left with fraud and a few damaged trees. Who even cares? I similarly wouldn't care if someone targeted their 18-wheeler at a brick wall in the middle of nowhere and bailed, for clicks, and then lied on the accident report. This sensationalist reporting just makes a copycat more likely.