Hacker News Reader

Comment by FreeCodeFreak | Hacker News Reader

20 years is outrageous and very unlikely given his probable experience and making sure no one would be hurt. There is a vast difference in crashing an airplane over a populated area, intentionally wanting to cause harm, and it being accident. Afaik this area is not even populated.

If such a thing happened by accident, you should not get 20 years. If you did so intentionally wanting to cause harm, them perhaps you should get 20+ years, because that would be an act of terrorism. If someone got killed, you should probably not get your freedom back.

Journalists need to always mind the context and emphasize the likelihood of what will be the outcome. It is not really truthful to bluntly state he faces 20 years. If he were to actually get 20, the legal system would obviously be severely flawed. There are murderers that get 20 ffs.

View on HN

> There is a vast difference in crashing an airplane over a populated area, intentionally wanting to cause harm

That would be mass murder, and would carry a much harsher penalty than 20 years! In the US, probably life times the number of victims.

> and it being accident

It wasn't an accident. He intentionally crashed his plane. That's the crime he's accused of.

He has agreed to plead guilty to one count of destruction and concealment with the intent to obstruct a federal investigation, a crime that carries a statutory maximum sentence of 20 years in federal prison.

I find the context very clear. The writer did a superb job.

I think you may need to familiarise yourself with US federal sentencing guidelines. Unlike being found guilty of breaking state laws, where many state judges will be endowed with discretionary authority to impose a sentence within a wide range and reflecting the facts found/pleaded, my man is pleading to a federal crime involving defrauding the US government and federal judges are largely beholden to a matrix of crime/sentence with a teeny bit of wiggle room for facts and circumstances.

> 20 years is outrageous

No, it was a stupid stunt for profit (he made a significant amount of money from his video), a dangerous one. Flying is highly regulated for obvious reasons, he should have done his research before thinking it was a good idea to do that just to get views.

> Journalists need to always mind the context and emphasize the likelihood of what will be the outcome.

I’d really suggest you read the article, which offers a clear explanation of the facts and crimes he committed. Not sure which journalists you’re ranting about?

IANAL, but ridiculous cumulative charges (20 years in this case) are standard strategy, intended to make the defendant plead guilty on some of them.

>be an act of terrorism

Intentionally ditching a plane in region known for catastrophic forest fires is close to ecologic terrorism.

Only terrorism if his intention was to cause a fire for some pollical influence.

If that's the case you must have prisons full of Tannerite gender reveal Muppets right?

Those at least aren't intentional.

Here's the definition of terrorism:

https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/terrorism#:~:text=Internatio....

International terrorism: Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups who are inspired by, or associated with, designated foreign terrorist organizations or nations (state-sponsored).

Domestic terrorism: Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as those of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature.

You can't just call anything terrorism from a legal standpoint, though many try.

> Here's the definition of terrorism

Unfortunately not everyone agrees with the FBI's definition of terrorism. The FBI's definition of International terrorism depends on a list of organizations more-or-less arbitrarily assembled by politicians. Their definition of domestic terrorism is even looser.

Basically, both definitions are "violent criminal acts [waffle]". That definition is circular, because terrorism is criminal.

The word should be banned from newspapers and from political and legal discourse. Broadly speaking, it means "political activities of which we disapprove".

Someone crashing a plane on purpose doesn't amount to terrorism - there would need to be a political motivation as well.

Edit: Also the post says up to 20 years .. not sure why you've become fixated on it being simply 20. People dropping planes out of the sky for likes need to be made an example of imo, and I personally would be happy to see him locked up for life as a deterrent to others. The lengths people are going to for likes is frightening.

I just hope you have absolutely no power in this world. You shouldnt have with your total lack of empathy and common sense. Locking an annoying guy away for life for a stupid prank... Nobody got hurt. And you're not even alone and don't even get downvoted like crazy. American society sure is fucked up.

My empathy is with the people who have their lives destroyed by reckless idiots pulling these "stupid prank"s for likes.. common sense says society doesn't appreciate this nonsense so deterrent is the only way to deal with it - but if you have as better idea I'm sure myself and the world are listening.

By that logic, we should shoot on sight for over speeding a car or drunk driving. I hope you know how many people die in automobile accident every day.

Nobody had their life destroyed, except maybe the idiot youtuber. He already paid with all the ridicule he's getting. That is deterrent enough. It's not like "faking plane crashes for likes" is common at all. You're really not making any sense.

He ditched a plane on purpose for youtube likes and you think he paid the price through ridicule - but I'm not making any sense, OK.

Well, his plane is broken too. Again, there has not been any damage to anyone. Of course his pilot license should be revoked. But jail time? I'm pretty sure he won't repeat that stupidity, so why lock him away. People in jail cost money. And if they get out they are more likely to go back due to stigmatization and questionable connections made in jail. You're not even doing yourself a favor.

Deterrence doesn't work, if it did, there would be no drug use (or insert any other crime really, you should see our incarceration statistics) in the US. Why do people still think this?

The biggest problem with deterrence is it relies on people not thinking they won't get caught. Everyone thinks they won't get caught.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com