5 ms·

The maximum permitted should be zero years. Any jail time for this dumb stunt is overboard. There just needs to be a huge ass fine and revocation of pilots lice

by byyyy 3y ago

The maximum permitted should be zero years. Any jail time for this dumb stunt is overboard. There just needs to be a huge ass fine and revocation of pilots license. I point my car at a wall and drive into it on purpose for views... And suddenly that's a possibility of jail time? That's crazy. There needs to be a minimum number of permitted years when death is involved with clear negligence. Sadly there isn't any our court systems use max permitted years to pick and choose who they can punish. Dumb kid who crashes his plane on purpose versus safety inspector who Actually killed hundreds of people? There is a clear disconnect here.

ngcc_hk 3y ago
There could be people … can start a fire … your wall will not. Also whilst there can be mitigated circumstance you cannot argued for 0 max. There is a crime, there could be danger … 0 max meant anyone officially can do this without consequences?
- byyyy 3y ago
  No thats just Hollywood. In general a crashed car or small plane crumbles on impact. It doesn't explode in a ball of fire. A forest fire is very unlikely here. When you point your car at a wall and drive into that wall you ALSO cannot argue for 0 max danger of death for an innocent bystander. But the probability of a person dying is so low we know there is no danger for murder or death at all. It's just really stupid. Of course there needs to be consequences. A loss of pilots license and a huge ass fine. Jail time is crazy. You know how jail will ruin a person's entire life right? Even a month of jail time is in certain ways hangs on your record like a life sentence. It's too much.
  - vinaypai 3y ago
    You know having a plane crash onto them ran ruin a person's entire life, right?
    - byyyy 3y ago
      But what this have to do with a plane deliberately into an area known to be Devoid of people? Nothing. So why even say this? Makes no sense to me.
      - jameshart 3y ago
        When you get out of a plane that’s still flying you stop having any say in where that plane goes. How certain was he of where it might land? What if he misjudged and the plane had kept going much further than he expected? He had nudged it into a dive… but then he got out, changing the center of gravity of the plane - how did he know that wouldn’t trim the plane’s nose up and send it gliding off well beyond his target?
        byyyy 3y ago
        All good points, except he deliberately crashed it at a specific location. He carried out an action with intention and that intention was fulfilled. You're going into hypotheticals about a possible mistake. I mean when you drive a car everyday you could make a mistake too. It's too fuzzy to go in this direction.
        jameshart 3y ago
        Right, but as a society we have taken the position that we don’t trust people to correctly aim unguided gliding missiles at safe bits of ground. We therefore require pilots to not get out of their plane mid flight. Even if this guy got his calculations right, we don’t hand out licenses to people that say ‘we trust you to do that safely’. This is not an unreasonable regulatory burden impinging on individual freedom.
        byyyy 3y ago
        >Right, but as a society we have taken the position that we don’t trust people to correctly aim unguided gliding missiles at safe bits of ground. We therefore require pilots to not get out of their plane mid flight. Even if this guy got his calculations right, we don’t hand out licenses to people that say ‘we trust you to do that safely’. Agreed and we should punish these people accordingly with fines and suspension of license. We should not classify these people as potential murderers and put them in jail.
  - tiberious726 3y ago
    You seem awfully hung up on the Hollywood effects being overblown. Yes, this is true and no one is arguing against it. However, even a small spark can start a forest fire. Thinking you're safe just because there is no explosion is wildly irresponsible. Anyone who intensionally crashes a huge hunk of metal into pubic land, causing a significant hazard, and exposing the public to stupid risks for "views" absolutely deserves significant jail-time
    - byyyy 3y ago
      >You seem awfully hung up on the Hollywood effects being overblown. Yes, this is true and no one is arguing against it. However, even a small spark can start a forest fire. I'm hung up on it because the likelihood of this happening is in Actuality overblown. It's not fire season yet and CA just came out of a drenching torrent of rain.
      - jameshart 3y ago
        He did this in November 2021. The Alisal fire was still burning in Los Padres. Literally where he crashed.
    - byyyy 3y ago
      >Anyone who intensionally crashes a huge hunk of metal into pubic land, causing a significant hazard, and exposing the public to stupid risks for "views" absolutely deserves significant jail-time No people who slaughters others through deliberate negligence deserve jail time. That includes FAA and boeing employees who violated clear rules. A person who does stupid shit with no intention of killing people and put no one at risk and ended up not killing anybody should be punished for doing stupid shit. Jail time which is huge is reserved for actual criminals, who actively and have Already harmed people.
- troyvit 3y ago
  There are plenty of other consequences to levy besides incarceration. One aspect of his punishment might be to force him to produce several PSAs about the dangers of wagging the dog on his youtube account. Or you could waste the opportunity and throw the dude in jail, almost ensuring he's never a productive member of society again. That's the norm in the "land of the free"[1] [1] https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/incarceration-rates-by-country https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/incarcera...
pandemicsoul 3y ago
This is an utterly bizarre take. Just because he didn't hurt anyone doesn't mean he couldn't have. He could have started a wildfire, his plane could have crashed into hikers, he could have hurt himself and required a publicly funded rescue effort. It's like you're trying to argue that we shouldn't have rule of law??? This kind of prosecution is in place to create a disincentive to doing things that could threaten life, public property, etc. And anyway, fines only penalize poor people. Someone who can afford to AIRLIFT A PLANE and disassemble it would not be disincentivized by a fine.
- byyyy 3y ago
  Should someone who runs a car into an empty wall be charged with jail time? No. It's not bizarre at all. The bizarre part here is your stringing of logic to try to transform this into a crime related to murder. First off he crashed the plane deliberately into empty forest. There's no hikers in the place he crashed it, he knows that. Second small planes or cars don't explode in a ball of flames when they crash. That's just movie magic. What actually happens is the car or plane becomes metal debris. That's it. A fire and a crashed car or small plane are completely orthogonal concepts. Might as well arrest people who make bouncing balls because the bouncing ball might accidentally smack the trigger of a gun and kill someone. What's bizarre here is your post says I'm trying to completely eliminate rule of law when I never said that. Why lie straight to my face? What's the point? It's bizarre. You're the one twisting the rationale to fit your convenient narrative. Please be more logical with your reasoning. The punishment should fit the crime. A huge fine and revoke the pilots license. That's it. Ruining his life with jail time does not fit the crime at all. If he's rich, then increase the fine... that simple.
  - ChoGGi 3y ago
    > First off he crashed the plane deliberately into empty forest. There's no hikers in the place he crashed it, he knows that. How? He's in trouble for covering up, not so much what he did.
    - byyyy 3y ago

by byyyy 3y ago

ngcc_hk 3y ago

There could be people … can start a fire … your wall will not. Also whilst there can be mitigated circumstance you cannot argued for 0 max. There is a crime, there could be danger … 0 max meant anyone officially can do this without consequences?

byyyy 3y ago
No thats just Hollywood. In general a crashed car or small plane crumbles on impact. It doesn't explode in a ball of fire. A forest fire is very unlikely here. When you point your car at a wall and drive into that wall you ALSO cannot argue for 0 max danger of death for an innocent bystander. But the probability of a person dying is so low we know there is no danger for murder or death at all. It's just really stupid. Of course there needs to be consequences. A loss of pilots license and a huge ass fine. Jail time is crazy. You know how jail will ruin a person's entire life right? Even a month of jail time is in certain ways hangs on your record like a life sentence. It's too much.
- vinaypai 3y ago
  You know having a plane crash onto them ran ruin a person's entire life, right?
  - byyyy 3y ago
    But what this have to do with a plane deliberately into an area known to be Devoid of people? Nothing. So why even say this? Makes no sense to me.
    - jameshart 3y ago
      When you get out of a plane that’s still flying you stop having any say in where that plane goes. How certain was he of where it might land? What if he misjudged and the plane had kept going much further than he expected? He had nudged it into a dive… but then he got out, changing the center of gravity of the plane - how did he know that wouldn’t trim the plane’s nose up and send it gliding off well beyond his target?
      - byyyy 3y ago
        All good points, except he deliberately crashed it at a specific location. He carried out an action with intention and that intention was fulfilled. You're going into hypotheticals about a possible mistake. I mean when you drive a car everyday you could make a mistake too. It's too fuzzy to go in this direction.
        jameshart 3y ago
        Right, but as a society we have taken the position that we don’t trust people to correctly aim unguided gliding missiles at safe bits of ground. We therefore require pilots to not get out of their plane mid flight. Even if this guy got his calculations right, we don’t hand out licenses to people that say ‘we trust you to do that safely’. This is not an unreasonable regulatory burden impinging on individual freedom.
        byyyy 3y ago
        >Right, but as a society we have taken the position that we don’t trust people to correctly aim unguided gliding missiles at safe bits of ground. We therefore require pilots to not get out of their plane mid flight. Even if this guy got his calculations right, we don’t hand out licenses to people that say ‘we trust you to do that safely’. Agreed and we should punish these people accordingly with fines and suspension of license. We should not classify these people as potential murderers and put them in jail.
- tiberious726 3y ago
  You seem awfully hung up on the Hollywood effects being overblown. Yes, this is true and no one is arguing against it. However, even a small spark can start a forest fire. Thinking you're safe just because there is no explosion is wildly irresponsible. Anyone who intensionally crashes a huge hunk of metal into pubic land, causing a significant hazard, and exposing the public to stupid risks for "views" absolutely deserves significant jail-time
  - byyyy 3y ago
    >You seem awfully hung up on the Hollywood effects being overblown. Yes, this is true and no one is arguing against it. However, even a small spark can start a forest fire. I'm hung up on it because the likelihood of this happening is in Actuality overblown. It's not fire season yet and CA just came out of a drenching torrent of rain.
    - jameshart 3y ago
      He did this in November 2021. The Alisal fire was still burning in Los Padres. Literally where he crashed.
  - byyyy 3y ago
    >Anyone who intensionally crashes a huge hunk of metal into pubic land, causing a significant hazard, and exposing the public to stupid risks for "views" absolutely deserves significant jail-time No people who slaughters others through deliberate negligence deserve jail time. That includes FAA and boeing employees who violated clear rules. A person who does stupid shit with no intention of killing people and put no one at risk and ended up not killing anybody should be punished for doing stupid shit. Jail time which is huge is reserved for actual criminals, who actively and have Already harmed people.
troyvit 3y ago
There are plenty of other consequences to levy besides incarceration. One aspect of his punishment might be to force him to produce several PSAs about the dangers of wagging the dog on his youtube account. Or you could waste the opportunity and throw the dude in jail, almost ensuring he's never a productive member of society again. That's the norm in the "land of the free"[1] [1] https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/incarceration-rates-by-country https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/incarcera...

pandemicsoul 3y ago

This is an utterly bizarre take. Just because he didn't hurt anyone doesn't mean he couldn't have. He could have started a wildfire, his plane could have crashed into hikers, he could have hurt himself and required a publicly funded rescue effort. It's like you're trying to argue that we shouldn't have rule of law??? This kind of prosecution is in place to create a disincentive to doing things that could threaten life, public property, etc. And anyway, fines only penalize poor people. Someone who can afford to AIRLIFT A PLANE and disassemble it would not be disincentivized by a fine.

byyyy 3y ago
Should someone who runs a car into an empty wall be charged with jail time? No. It's not bizarre at all. The bizarre part here is your stringing of logic to try to transform this into a crime related to murder. First off he crashed the plane deliberately into empty forest. There's no hikers in the place he crashed it, he knows that. Second small planes or cars don't explode in a ball of flames when they crash. That's just movie magic. What actually happens is the car or plane becomes metal debris. That's it. A fire and a crashed car or small plane are completely orthogonal concepts. Might as well arrest people who make bouncing balls because the bouncing ball might accidentally smack the trigger of a gun and kill someone. What's bizarre here is your post says I'm trying to completely eliminate rule of law when I never said that. Why lie straight to my face? What's the point? It's bizarre. You're the one twisting the rationale to fit your convenient narrative. Please be more logical with your reasoning. The punishment should fit the crime. A huge fine and revoke the pilots license. That's it. Ruining his life with jail time does not fit the crime at all. If he's rich, then increase the fine... that simple.
- ChoGGi 3y ago
  > First off he crashed the plane deliberately into empty forest. There's no hikers in the place he crashed it, he knows that. How? He's in trouble for covering up, not so much what he did.
  - byyyy 3y ago