5 ms·

If you squint, it looks like attempted murder. They let him off easy.

basementcat 2y ago
Apparently killing people is not the taboo it used to be. Even 20 million lives currently threatened by the PEPFAR shutdown is hardly registering in the public consciousness here in the West.
- jakedata 2y ago
  20 million lives were threatened before politics changed in stupid ways and they will continue to be threatened after. It is an abstract concept to most people. If you operate your car unsafely - for instance by driving drunk and crashing into a fire truck - you will rapidly find out how quickly that registers in the consciousness of members of the public in a very concrete manner.
- euroderf 2y ago
  Case Luigi is orthogonal to this. Mass manslaughter by bureaucratization seems to be vivid enough to many people.
echoangle 2y ago
Honest question: How can it be murder if it is not intentional? Or are you saying he did this to kill the crew of the plane? Wouldn't it be Involuntary manslaughter if he just flew the drone and didn't take care of the airspace?
- jakedata 2y ago
  It depends on whether it was done intentionally and with reckless disregard for human life. If the drone operator was intoxicated and caused the plane to crash it could very well be vehicular homicide.
  - echoangle 2y ago
    No it couldn’t, operating a drone isn’t „driving a vehicle“ as required for vehicular manslaughter in California. And vehicular manslaughter isn’t murder either.
    - jakedata 2y ago
      Please refer to California Assembly Bill No. 678, CHAPTER 747 [Approved by Governor October 14, 2007. Filed with Secretary of State October 14, 2007] Now I will grant you, a good defense lawyer would try to claim that killing someone with a remotely operated drone does not constitute "the operation of a motor vehicle, aircraft, or water vehicle that results in injury or death" but if you squint, it just might if they could prove intoxication.
      - echoangle 2y ago
        But the point still stands, even if it were vehicular manslaughter, it wouldn’t be murder.
        jakedata 2y ago
        ^f murder dont reply if you can't be bothered to read.
        echoangle 2y ago
        What exactly do you mean? I looked here: http://leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_0651-0700/ab_678_bill_20071014_chaptered.html http://leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_0651-0700/ab_678... And the only single mention of „murder“ is for placing highway signs.
demarq 2y ago
I’m eternally grateful this individual isn’t a judge
belter 2y ago
Are you sure the drone and airplane collision was not caused by DEI policies?

Apparently killing people is not the taboo it used to be. Even 20 million lives currently threatened by the PEPFAR shutdown is hardly registering in the public consciousness here in the West.

jakedata 2y ago
20 million lives were threatened before politics changed in stupid ways and they will continue to be threatened after. It is an abstract concept to most people. If you operate your car unsafely - for instance by driving drunk and crashing into a fire truck - you will rapidly find out how quickly that registers in the consciousness of members of the public in a very concrete manner.
euroderf 2y ago
Case Luigi is orthogonal to this. Mass manslaughter by bureaucratization seems to be vivid enough to many people.

echoangle 2y ago

Honest question: How can it be murder if it is not intentional? Or are you saying he did this to kill the crew of the plane? Wouldn't it be Involuntary manslaughter if he just flew the drone and didn't take care of the airspace?

jakedata 2y ago
It depends on whether it was done intentionally and with reckless disregard for human life. If the drone operator was intoxicated and caused the plane to crash it could very well be vehicular homicide.
- echoangle 2y ago
  No it couldn’t, operating a drone isn’t „driving a vehicle“ as required for vehicular manslaughter in California. And vehicular manslaughter isn’t murder either.
  - jakedata 2y ago
    Please refer to California Assembly Bill No. 678, CHAPTER 747 [Approved by Governor October 14, 2007. Filed with Secretary of State October 14, 2007] Now I will grant you, a good defense lawyer would try to claim that killing someone with a remotely operated drone does not constitute "the operation of a motor vehicle, aircraft, or water vehicle that results in injury or death" but if you squint, it just might if they could prove intoxication.
    - echoangle 2y ago
      But the point still stands, even if it were vehicular manslaughter, it wouldn’t be murder.
      - jakedata 2y ago
        ^f murder dont reply if you can't be bothered to read.
        echoangle 2y ago
        What exactly do you mean? I looked here: http://leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_0651-0700/ab_678_bill_20071014_chaptered.html http://leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_0651-0700/ab_678... And the only single mention of „murder“ is for placing highway signs.

demarq 2y ago

I’m eternally grateful this individual isn’t a judge

belter 2y ago

Are you sure the drone and airplane collision was not caused by DEI policies?