You are reading a single comment by @Howard and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
-
His explanation is that it seems inconceivable that he would have done that were his mind functioning properly, and the jury have decided that they cannot say that beyond reasonable doubt, he is incorrect in that argument.
Gets a bit philosophical here, but if we can claim the benefits of 'normal operation' of our own minds, I'm not quite sure how we can dodge accountability should there be a seemingly temporary glitch and things go wrong.
People this experienced tend not to just crash.
On a long enough timeline everyone crashes.
Howard
mashton
I'm not sure the comparison to driver on cyclist incidents is particularly apt. The main difference being that the only person he was likely to kill by this dangerous flying was himself. Tragically, he managed to kill 11 people and miraculously not himself.
From what I've read, it appears he started the manourve from such a poor altitude and speed it was almost impossible for it to succeed. This seems particularly odd because he is without doubt an experienced and highly trained aerobatic pilot.
His explanation is that it seems inconceivable that he would have done that were his mind functioning properly, and the jury have decided that they cannot say that beyond reasonable doubt, he is incorrect in that argument.
Its a crazy case. I certainly expected him to be found guilty, but Ive also been baffled at how it happened, if there was no mechanical failure. People this experienced tend not to just crash.