This is a pointless strawman. This is like saying an F-15 on a training exercise crashed and that it's unfair the pilot/crew/USAF wouldn't be treated the same as some random who flew a drone with a gopro over an airport.
I don't think you know what a strawman is - parent was making a (perfectly legitimate, IMO) point about how misconduct/negligence/accidents on the part of the government result in few to no penalties (worst case: someone may lose their job), while same behavior on the part of citizens can result in life-ruining, throw-the-book-at-him consequences.
It's pretty hard to misrepresent an opponent's argument when there have been no opposing arguments made yet!
That's a terrible example, why can't it be some random crashing a F-15? In which case I don't see why some random and an USAF pilot should be treated differently. Assuming both had proper permits, of course.
It's pretty hard to misrepresent an opponent's argument when there have been no opposing arguments made yet!