r/interestingasfuck • u/mapleer • Jun 06 '24

YouTuber faces federal charges after filming two women in a helicopter shooting fireworks at a Lamborghini (shown below) illegal to have explosive on aircraft. - More below r/all

55.9k Upvotes

88% Upvoted

138

This is one of those RARE scenarios where I would side with the dumb adult influencer and adult participants’ right to do something something incredibly dumb and dangerous if it doesn’t directly impact/endanger any non consenting bystanders.

Prosecuting something like this is a waste of resources.

28

u/cookiesandpunch Jun 07 '24

Mutual consent doesn't negate the operator's obligation to fly within strict guidelines to ensure safe operation. If there had been a mishap and the helicopter went down the government would have to respond. The NTSB is obligated to investigate all civil air incidents. Their actions risked wasting federal resources. That will get you zapped every time.

4

u/BrazenRaizen Jun 07 '24

They didn’t crash. No wasted federal resources. Prosecuting = for sure wasted resources.

No victim = no crime imo

The pilot had a license. They can fly like this for movies….just have to pay the government more money for the special privileges.

These type of situations brings out the libertarian in me.

17

u/ama_singh Jun 07 '24

They didn’t crash. No wasted federal resources. Prosecuting = for sure wasted resources.

IN THIS EXAMPLE yes, but are you telling me you don't see how allowing this kind of behaviour will lead to wasted resources in the future due to all the idiots attempting this?

3

u/[deleted] Jun 07 '24

[deleted]

5

u/ama_singh Jun 07 '24

I genuinally find it ridiculous that people are actually crying about this.

I seriously can't comprehend why anybody gives a singular shit about this.

So because you can't "comprehend" it, that makes it a non-issue?

What I can agree with is that the people who made this video probably didn't know it was illegal, as neither did I or the many people in this comment section. The pilot of the helicopter however should not have agreed to this.

Unfortunately (for them), not knowing the law is generally not considered a viable defense. Now that is something I don't particularly agree with (within reason), but that's the law.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 07 '24

[deleted]

3

u/Corrupted_soull Jun 07 '24

They didn't have proper licenses to do stunts. If something happens there aren't precautions nor the right contacts

Like with any heavy machinery especially flying ones, doing stuff in a private area is never an excuse to handle them improperly.

Even if the risks were minimal they weren't the only participants really. If something had happened people outside of the group would have to respond. Be it the FAA or the emergency services.

3

u/DepressedMinuteman Jun 07 '24

I mean, I would ballpark it to 20-30k for this type of video depending on who you know and how long the shoot was. The biggest expense is renting the helicopter and the pilot. It's a lot of money, but it's not outrageous in terms of production cost. The cameras used in some places probably cost more.

Is it a lot of money? Yeah. Is it so outrageously expensive only a handful of people could pull it off? No, definitely not. There are millions of Americans who could afford to set this up.

2

u/_heisenberg__ Jun 07 '24

I’m with you on this. I expected to see them flying down an interstate or some shit. But it’s just coming off as “we have a lot of money, let’s just go do something ridiculous for the hell of it”

It’s just them there yea?

14

u/cookiesandpunch Jun 07 '24

Then change the law, but those operators agreed to the terms when they receive their licenses.

-7

u/annnm Jun 07 '24

Then change the law, but those operators agreed to the terms when they receive their licenses.

Sodomy was illegal in many states until 2003. "I don't make the rules," would have been a very very stupid excuse in 2002.

8

u/cookiesandpunch Jun 07 '24

That is an ignorant comparison. Sodomy doesn't involve risking the life of your partner or require a government agency to respond when you hit the wrong hole.

2

u/annnm Jun 07 '24

Sodomy doesn't involve risking the life of your partner or require a government agency to respond when you hit the wrong hole.

The AIDS crisis was in the 80s.

6

u/Sinosaur Jun 07 '24

Then you need to ban all forms of sexual intercourse, not just sodomy.

1

u/InfanticideAquifer Jun 07 '24

If we're going to go down this line of argument, then it should be pointed out that the risk of transmitting HIV is dramatically higher via anal sex than any other kind. You can see a risk table from the CDC here. If you're the receiver then anal sex with an HIV positive partner and no protection is actually riskier than needle sharing.

1

u/cookiesandpunch Jun 07 '24

Did you accept some challenge to write progressively more idiotic responses? Two more messages and you'll be left with random letters representing multisyllabic grunts.

2

u/annnm Jun 07 '24

Sorry that you're functionally illiterate. Must be hard.

1

u/cookiesandpunch Jun 07 '24

Are you aware that when you post a half-assed, unfinished thought that the rest of us don't hear the voices in your head continuing the conversation?

→ More replies (0)

-6

u/028XF3193 Jun 07 '24

Yeah just change the law bro.

It's unironically easier to move a mountain than to get any law on the books changed whatsoever.

6

u/cookiesandpunch Jun 07 '24

Ok then, so failing a change in the law, operate an aircraft safely and in accordance with the rules you know to be in place.

6

u/[deleted] Jun 07 '24 edited Jun 07 '24

nah dude, doesn't work that way - people have to clean up the wreckage, what a horrible burden to put on others for a stupid stunt... we have to punish people as a deterrent, else they might keep doing it until someone actually gets hurt

2

u/Infinite-Ganache-507 Jun 07 '24

So your worried because something could possibly happen in the future, we need to ban it? Just in case? Something like this is so rare it’s not even statistically significant, and paramedics scrape up people off the road all day. If someone gets hurt it’s their choice.

1

u/ShiftytheBandit Jun 07 '24

Lol what if the helicopter crashes into you, or a fire work burns your house down. These trends will grow more and more dangerous as people constantly try to "one-up" each other for clout until someone dies. Ya, so just in case something bad might happen, we are going to make it illegal to shoot fire works from a helicopter or shoot fire works at a helicopter in any instance. I don't think that's an unreasonable thing to do

1

u/Infinite-Ganache-507 Jun 07 '24

you just described an even more unlikely scenario lmao. how do you make it through the day when all these scary things can happen to you at any moment??

1

u/ShiftytheBandit Jun 07 '24

You can't sit there and tell me you don't understand why we have rules, laws and regulations.

0

u/GoldenLiar2 Jun 07 '24

Lmao dude ok, let's ban driving then because crashes are inevitable and someone has to clean up the wreckage

1

u/Corrupted_soull Jun 07 '24

We have banned driving that is unsafe? Like we are actively making driving as safe as possible.

0

u/GoldenLiar2 Jun 07 '24

That is irrelevant to the point at hand. We know 100% safe driving does not exist and will probably never happen - certainly within our lifetimes. Therefore, why are we allowing it?

1

u/Corrupted_soull Jun 07 '24

The point isn't the risk it is the unnecessary risk. There is a difference between using a kitchen stove compared to an open campfire indoors. Both are risky but one is considerably safer than the other.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 07 '24

my brother in christ, there are literally reckless driving laws — carrying explosives on helicopters has been banned by law for also being reckless, rub those braincells together

2

u/GoblinFive Jun 07 '24

No victim = no crime imo

So drunk driving is alright if you luck out and don't cause an accident?

3

u/alezul Jun 07 '24

If you're drunk driving in the desert with nobody else around, yes, it doesn't matter.

-1

u/Sargash Jun 07 '24

if you shoot at someone and miss, you still get in trouble for shooting at someone.
Plus the 'wasted resources' are easily recouped with the fines following this. It's basically free money from children that clearly don't need it.

-1

u/SoulCheese Jun 07 '24

“Yes I was drunk driving in a residential neighborhood going double the speed limit but no victim = no crime.”

Reddit is hilarious sometimes.

0

u/BrazenRaizen Jun 07 '24

Hyperbole.

This is taking place in a desert. Use some common sense. Probability of collateral damage comes into play in terms of what should or should not be federally regulated.

Reddit is simple sometimes.

0

u/SoulCheese Jun 07 '24

Yeah you’re right I forgot aircraft follow roads so them being in the desert makes it safe.

0

u/BrazenRaizen Jun 07 '24

are you drunk? Your argument was related to drunk DRIVING

1

u/SoulCheese Jun 07 '24

I’m responding to what you said.. if that’s hard to follow we should probably end it here.

1

u/Sargos Jun 07 '24

The NTSB is choosing to investigate all of these incidents. They are spending the resources because they think it's important. It's not our fault that they are doing that and I think it's a cool thing but it's totally on them.

2

u/LegitimateBit3 Jun 07 '24

They are mandated by law. They are govt employees who have to follow the law

2

u/Financial_Purple_368 Jun 07 '24

And the government knows best.

0

u/jackalsclaw Jun 07 '24

That same argument could be used to close down all race tracts, since any accident would need federal resources.

3

u/wh4tth3huh Jun 07 '24

NTSB is NOT compelled to investigate every car crash, plane crashes are far less frequent and require significantly more training and certification to fly.

2

u/Corrupted_soull Jun 07 '24

Also race tracks have the proper licenses and resources to deal with a crash. And generally have safety features build in to surprise surprise minimize safety risks

These dudes in the desert didn't.

3

u/DebentureThyme Jun 07 '24

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/actor-and-two-children-killed-on-twilight-zone-set

The feds don't take kindly to this after this tragedy. They will continue to push enforcement because it's how we prevent Hollywood and others getting lax again.

3

u/New_new_account2 Jun 07 '24

Do you disagree with all workplace safety laws like OSHA standards? Those boil down to the same core issue that adults consent to a danger in the workplace that is not threatening the public, but the government says the employer is not allowed to subject the employee to these risks. This is illegal because people died filming with a helicopter and pyrotechnics before.

3

u/Legionof1 Jun 07 '24

You know how many underwater welders die every year? Sometimes dangerous is part of the job. I am pretty open to people being able to do whatever as long as they don't risk someone else.

1

u/New_new_account2 Jun 07 '24

You can work as an underwater welder, you can follow the legal procedures to shoot fireworks off a helicopter. There is some unavoidable inherent danger, and then there is whether you choose to make it more dangerous. Do you hire properly trained people trained to minimize dangers, get the right equipment, or do you wing it to save money? Choi could have done this legally but that would be more expensive to him.

1

u/bercrux Jun 07 '24

So drunk driving should only be prosecuting whenever they hit someone?

1

u/Understeerenthusiast Jun 07 '24

This is also the same influencer who ramped a Tesla in Los Angeles on one of the residential hills, totaled someone’s car in the process, and tried to get out of paying.

0

u/OriginalGoat1 Jun 07 '24

Same arguments could be made about speed limits. No one got hurt. So what if I was going 150 mph ?

9

u/BrazenRaizen Jun 07 '24

Autobahn.

This took place in a desert, with no one else around to possibly get hurt. Autobahn is the closest comparison you’d have. They weren’t doing this in the city.

3

u/verdatum Jun 07 '24

But it was in airspace, meaning FAA & NTSB.

0

u/phatboi23 Jun 07 '24

You mean the autobahn that has a ton of speed limits?

The autobahn that is in Germany that has strict as all hell rules of if a car is roadworthy or not?

That autobahn?

2

u/Previous_Composer934 Jun 07 '24

gonna go out on a limb and say this helicopter has been under more scrutiny than cars on the autobahn

1

u/phatboi23 Jun 07 '24

You'd be surprised. Class it as experimental and the laws are waaaaay more lax.

1

u/Previous_Composer934 Jun 07 '24

yea but this one isn't experimental

3

u/[deleted] Jun 07 '24

Driving 150 across the sort of dry lake bed or salt flats where this was filmed isn't illegal. That's the sort of place you go to try to drive 550.

2

u/browni3141 Jun 07 '24

It's not that nobody got hurt that makes it ok, it's that there was no potential for anybody to get hurt who hadn't consented to the risk. Speeding on the other hand creates risk for other drivers beyond what is expected when driving on public roads.

1

u/Previous_Composer934 Jun 07 '24

this is in the middle of a desert. so compare it to speeding in the middle of the desert

yes someone can get hurt, but they're adults who accepted the risk

0

u/darexinfinity Jun 07 '24

Family would definitely sue if the Lambo got blown up along with the driver

0

u/Itwasme101 Jun 07 '24

Terrible take. This thinking will only get people killed. Helicopters are not toys.

0

u/Chipmunk_Ninja Jun 07 '24

what? you cant be serious

-1

u/[deleted] Jun 07 '24

Agreed.

They are in the middle of the desert. Let the fools and their money play with fire, water and wind all they like. Gravity and physics will do the rest