Was the Shoreham air disaster verdict fair?

The pilot involved in the deaths of eleven innocent bystanders because he he flew too low causing his aircraft to crash, in an aerobatics stunt, has today been found not guilty of manslaughter by way of gross negligence.

Quote:

In a statement Sue and Phil Grimstone, whose son Matthew died in the crash, said: "There seems to be no justice for our son Matthew and all 11 men who died in such tragic circumstances. The couple said the case had raised questions about the safety of aerobatic air displays "when there is now doubt concerning any pilot's ability to avoid becoming cognitively impaired". They added: "Matthew had no interest in air shows, he could not have cared less. Knowing he died because an aircraft was being flown for fun, for the entertainment of others makes it even harder to bear." Oliver Morriss, nephew of victim Mark Reeves, said his family felt "complete devastation at the most surprising not guilty verdict".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-47495885

Andrew Hill, 54, the pilot says he remembers nothing about the accident.

How much responsibility should he take for the deaths of the eleven men, bearing in mind he flew 1,000 too low to be able to make a safe successful loop back upwards, according to aviation experts, in his vintage aircraft during an airshow?

In my view the jury just sees the defendant in the dock and feels sorry for him. Empathy and sympathy for the accused is all very well. Would they still come to the same verdict had the eleven men lived, now in wheelchairs, been able to appear in front of them in the witness box and testify, 'This is what this man's antics did to me'?

What does the panel think?

via International Skeptics Forum https://ift.tt/2Tu7n7H