Laser Painting Could Lead to 25-Year Prison Term 1615
lowy writes "According to this USA Today article, a New Jersey man was charged under federal anti-terrorism laws with shining a laser beam at a jet flying over his home. The Feds arrested him after he flashed a police helicopter searching for the source of the beam. He now faces up to 25 years in prison under Patriot Act charges." It seems to be happening around the country, as our earlier post makes clear.
RTFM (Score:4, Informative)
Re:ummm.... (Score:5, Informative)
Here's the missing story link (Score:1, Informative)
You mean this article? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Only 25 years? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Only 25 years? (Score:5, Informative)
another site [skypointer.net] says:
Red laser pointers have grown cheap and ubiquitous, but unfortunately, they are not very effective as sky pointers. In contrast, green laser pointers are very effective because of the eye's greater sensitivity to the 532 nanometer green light. Under dark sky conditions, the beam from a 5 milliwatt green laser pointer creates a dramatic impression, and the beam apparently extends for more than a kilometer. Any bright light source, ranging from light pollution induced sky glow to a crescent moon, will reduce the apparent brightness of the SkyPointer(TM) although the beam will usually remain visible. The light pollution acts in such a way that people closer to you will still see the beam, whereas those further away may have difficulty.
Re:Only 25 years? (Score:5, Informative)
They work quite well too so there's no "it's that star...no no, that one next to the bright on there...no, down further....see it?" With the pointer you just follow the beam upwards. A green lasers beam is quite visible.
Physicist: Lasers are a poor choice of weapon (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Only 25 years? (Score:5, Informative)
I know the /. article did not provide a link to the actual article, but you're making some rather strong incorrect statements. I did RTFA and (A) the laser light entered the cockpit and temporarily blinded both the pilot and the co-pilot. Apparently either the angle of laser relative to the cockpit was such that it went in, or else there was some unlucky refraction/reflection. (B) There was no concern that this represented someone pointing a gun at the plane, there was concern that terrorists were trying to blind pilots to cause them to crash. Although the investigators did state that they do not believe the actions of the suspect in this case to be terrorist.
Re:Only 25 years? (Score:2, Informative)
Ease Up on the Paranoia (Score:2, Informative)
So please, stop acting as if every enforcement of a provision of the Patriot Act is some new depradation by the current administration. There may be some provisions of that act that should be revisited, but that doesn't make the entire thing some vast conspiracy to revoke our civil liberties.
Re:Your Rights Online? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:It's OK to own a gun... (Score:1, Informative)
We put away rapists and murders for less on a routine basis.
Re:Your Rights Online? (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.kpvi.com/index.cfm?page=nbcheadlines
The guy is moron... (Score:2, Informative)
And directing a laser pointer into the eyes, or in this case cockpit of a plane trying to land is one of them.
Landing my Piper at night is tense enough, your flying off instruments, that are lit up about like your cars gauges. The runway's landing lights give you an idea of distance but little else.
Harsh sentences vs learning (Score:5, Informative)
The man who was arrested was caught because he shined the same green laser into the cockpit of a helicopter that was surveying the area to discover the origin of the laser that temporarily blinded the pilots of the airliner. They were able to find his location because of this, and incidentally he blamed the helicopter lasing on his daughter. So here we have not just poor judgement or a one-time prank, but a guy who was shining a very bright laser (according to article it was used to test fiber optic cables) at pretty much anything that flew overhead. If he had just done it once he likely would have never been caught and it could be written off as poor judgement.
Because of this I think his sentence should be more than just a slap on the wrist, definitely some heavy fines, maybe a few years jail time depending on what motives they discover for his actions. However, if it turns out he was just a jerk, or an idiot, or whatever and wasn't trying to bring down aircraft, then the maximum 25 year sentence is definitely too long. What I fear is that to make an example of him and to stop others who seem to think lasing planes is a fun idea (reports from multiple other airports of similar events) is that the government will hit him with the max or near max penalty.
I have to wonder, making examples of criminals or not, how some judges can justify these extreme jail sentences? The criminal learns his lesson for sure, but is effectively never given the chance to apply that lesson. In 25 years the man will be so old as to almost be ready for social security, and with a criminal record he'll be lucky if greeter at Walmart is even available to him. What the system has done now is taken an otherwise productive (granted rather stupid for his actions) member of society, burned a ton of taxpayer $$ on him for 25 years, then released him to be a further drain on the system.
At what point will someone - the american people, congress, other judges - say enough is enough and start setting limits on jail sentences to times that make sense? If this guy is guilty of nothing more than the airline equivalent of chucking rocks over the freeway as a dumb prank then I'm pretty sure 5 to 10 years in the fed pen will be quite enough to ensure he doesn't shine a laser anywhere again. Even 5 years is a sizable chunk of someone's life, and prison is no fun place to spend it, plus getting one's life back on track after such a sentence will be hard enough. It's time to stop this "War on X" mentality that the justice system has taken and give non-violent offenders a chance to learn from their actions and apply those lessons in their lifetime instead of overcrowding prisons and sucking up taxpayer dollars.
Anyway, this rant is mostly concerned with if this guy turns out to be just a beavis/butthead type who got his hands on a laser and gets the 25 yrs. If he gets a more appropriate sentence length, or if his actions were in fact malicious then I guess this rant is moot. But there seems to be a trend in our courts to just throw people away forever, which in the end really doesn't teach a very long lesson since those people never get out to tell others to not follow their example.
How do pilots manage to see the runway? (Score:3, Informative)
The plane was only at about 3,000 feet on approach for landing. I'm guessing that the pilot just MIGHT have been looking towards the ground.
But maybe that's just me.
Re:Only 25 years? (Score:5, Informative)
The Old Saying Goes ... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Physicist: Lasers are a poor choice of weapon (Score:1, Informative)
Nonsense. You only need to sweep the beam across the cockpit enough to catch the flight crew's eyes. To do this, set the laser on a vibrating mount. Or hold it with your hand... the effect is almost the same.
the necessity for line of sight to the eyes of the pilots (thus requiring special site selection).
Line of sight is not hard. You can see a very wide area from the cockpit, by design. That's what the huge windows are for.
On the various approaches to the airport, the planes will sweep out a wide area.
Re:I'm confused by the distance (Score:3, Informative)
Laser light, because it's coherent, doesn't do that. It's biggest loss of energy is to the medium that it must pass through , which in this case is air and would result in neglible loss of energy before reaching the target. There is an additional loss of energy due to lack of perfect coherence in the laser light generated, but that is insignifant compared to the total power output of the laser.
Comment removed (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Painting? (Score:2, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Only 25 years? (Score:1, Informative)
Which agreements? 'The' Geneva Convention (actually, do you know which one refers to the treatment of prisoners? Go read them!!!). Once you do, you'll find out the US is in compliance, and actually acts no differently than how the French government is handling illegal combatants right now in the Ivory Coast. The French handle illegal combatants no differently than the US [nationbynation.com] when faced with an enemy that refuses to differentiate itself from civilians.
Please understand there is a reason France, Germany, the US and others do this. When combatants disguise themselves as normal civilians, they cause civilian deaths. Militaries must begin shooting civilians because nothing identifies the enemy. Innocent people are lost. Civilized nations absolutely must use punitive means to make practice have a consequence. Slashdotters that oppose the treatment of these combatants are actually advocating the death of innocent civilians! Think about the consequences of your words, read the actual treaties before you profess to be an expert on it, and open your eyes to how nearly all western nations behave consistently on this issue. As a Bangolore friend of mine used to say:
"One does not teach his grandfather how to f*ck!"
Re:Only 25 years? (Score:2, Informative)
It's not so much for looking at the stars, but for sharing the experience of looking at the stars. Have you ever tried to point out a specific star (other than the brightest, most obvious ones) to someone else? It usually goes something like this:
Up there, see that one that's kind of reddish? Now go a little left and up? Got it? Now the one directly above that about twice as far away as the second was from the first? OK? Go just to the right of that about as far as the width of the full moon. That's the one...
Needless to say, it's frequently very hard to get two people, especially if one of them is inexperienced with observing the night sky, looking at the same point on the celestial sphere.
Now, the scenario with a green laser:
That one, right there. [points laser directly at the object of interest]
---
When this story started coming up, I was concerned because members of my astronomy club routinely use lasers for this purpose, and I for one had never considered we might inadvertantly blind a pilot!
I have no idea if this guy is on the level or not. Just trying to answer your question...
Re:Your Rights Online? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Only 25 years? (Score:3, Informative)
If you're directly underneath, there isn't much danger. He was not directly underneath the plane. He was able to paint the cockpit window with his laser. The diffusion of light on that window temporarily blinded the captain and copilot.
Wouldn't it require hitting the pilot and the co-pilot in the eye while simulteaneously something goes wrong on the plane that the on board computer can't fix?
No.
Pilots don't do particularly much now adays from what I understand.
They still land the plane, which is what they were doing when this idiot blinded them. They were at approx. 3000 feet as the descended for landing. The autopilot doesn't land the planes. People do.
LK
Re:Only 25 years? (Score:3, Informative)
For starters, I fail to see how charging someone under a specific provision of a federal law is evidence that ANYTHING can be labeled as terrorism. Note: this case is not being labeled as terrorism. Also, please point out the due process being skipped, and the Constitutional protections being violated.
Further, you state that the PATRIOT act shouldn't be used, instead deferring to existing laws. Well, the PATRIOT act is an existing law, so that doesn't make sense. You state that he should instead be charged with "interfering with an aircrew." Did you RTFA? "He was charged with interfering with a flight crew under the USA Patriot Act."
As further evidence that the PATRIOT act does not mean that "ANYTHING the powers-that-be don't like" is illegal, I would like to point out the fact that the man in question was not charged in the targetting of the helicopter specifically because there is no provision in the act to allow for this.
Re:Lasers are different (Score:1, Informative)
Re:I'm confused by the distance (Score:2, Informative)
Your laser pointer is just run through a columnating lense.. it is not a perfect beam, and spreads out linearly.
The decrease in energy density is because it's spreading out over a wider and wider area. The inverse square law still applies, unless I"m mistaken, and the beam doesn't get wider and wider, and in fact stays the same.
Re:I'm confused by the distance (Score:2, Informative)
Re:I'm confused by the distance (Score:5, Informative)
As a rule of thumb this is about 1.5 millimeters spread to each meter
traveled. Hence at 100 meters the beam will be about 150mm wide which is
just under 6 inches in diameter. Using this formula you can calculate your
beam diameter at different distances.
Oh and semiconductor lasers have a much larger beam spread.
now, if at 100 meters if a laser can damage your eyesight 200 meters it will not. because the amount of laser light entering your eye is dropping extremely fast as the beam spreads further.
will you be "dazzled" by the bright light you see at the opening of the laser? yes, it will make it difficult for you to see who is standing behind that laser, epically if the contrast is high, I.E. completely dark room with little lighting on t he subject and a laser pointed at you. it will certainly not affect your vision at other angles.
I strongly suggest you learn about lasers, they are pretty darn fascinating, you seem to only know a very little about them but try to pass yourself off as an expert.
Stupid (Score:2, Informative)
--- Jan. 5, 2005 |
I'm a few months away from receiving my Ph.D. in physics from a highly respected physics department. A good portion of my work has involved using various types of lasers.
To understand the improbability of a laser attack, consider the technical requirements involved. A weak laser beam can indeed blind a person. However, hitting a small target like an eye is very difficult over long distances. In order to have a high probability of success the terrorists would need to spread out the laser beam to fill the cockpit window. That isn't so difficult, but when you spread out a beam of light it becomes weaker, so you need a more powerful laser to compensate. Terrorists would need a large laser with a portable power supply and cooling system. Such systems are available, but they are bulky and expensive.
Next, temporary blindness is certainly dangerous. However, as Patrick Smith pointed out, blinding a pilot for a few seconds is not necessarily enough to bring down a plane. To bring down a plane the terrorists would have to inflict an injury that pilots can't recover from quickly. That requires either more power or a sustained exposure.
Sustained exposure requires the ability to track a plane. Tracking a moving target is certainly possible, but it would require skilled engineers to develop a system as well as money for parts. To reduce the necessary skill and expense, they would want to illuminate the plane from a point along the flight path. They would also want to do it from a high point that has a line of sight to the cockpit during takeoff or landing. However, takeoff and landing paths are generally chosen for a lack of tall buildings and large hills.
The location requirement is by no means an impossible resource constraint, but it does add to the difficulty of the task. It is interesting that the alleged attacks are happening around the country. Each site would need to be carefully selected, to ensure a good line of sight as well as easy access for bulky equipment and little scrutiny from law enforcement or other nosy observers.
Realistically, the complete weapon system would cost a hundred thousand dollars, require at least two people to operate, and would require considerable time to setup. Not to mention considerable time to dismantle before fleeing. (Unless they want to leave behind expensive equipment that authorities can trace.) And all of this would have to be done from one of the few hills or tall buildings in the flight path.
These are not impossible hurdles for a terrorist group, but most terrorist attacks against America in the past 10 years have involved fertilizer bombs, other improvised explosives, and boxcutter knives. If terrorist groups have money, technological savvy, and a network of operatives to scope out prime sites near airports around the United States, why not do something simple like make conventional explosives and plant them in public places?
Finally, the fact that the alleged incidents have involved visible light makes me even more convinced that these are not terrorist attacks. Lasers that emit visible light would be a poor choice for a weapon system. First of all, pilots would notice that the cockpit was being illuminated and they could cover or avert their eyes while waiting for the illumination to pass. Second, a powerful laser beam passing through the sky will scatter from dust and water droplets in the air, letting l
Re:Harsh sentences vs learning (Score:3, Informative)
Here's a nice article: http://www.reason.com/sullum/042304.shtml [reason.com] entitled "Pill Sham - A man seeking pain relief gets 25 years for drug trafficking."
Re:I'm confused by the distance (Score:5, Informative)
Laser light can be focused into a nearly parallel beam http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/miscon/miscon4.html [eskimo.com]
But it can't be done perfectly (wave nature of light prevents perfection) and it's rarely done well.
Still, 1.5 mRad sounds high to me.
For a high quality optical communication laser, it would be more like 0.0015 mRad.
Grabbing my pocket laser pointer, and a ruler, I can measure a spot of about 3mm at a distance of 1 meter, and 5 mm at a distance of about 15 meters.
Granted I could easily be off by 2mm, that's still no where near 20mm.
Measuring laser 'dot' size is a simple experiment that I urge anyone who thinks lasers don't spread to try.
-- should you believe authority without question.
Re:Your Rights Online? (Score:3, Informative)
Well, I truly believe that that's not the true reason that this was truly in the YRO section. Does that count?
Seriously, read the article. Among other things, it states:This is the kind of reaction that people feared in September and moreso in October of 2001 as it became clear that the US government would spare no time in taking advantage of the bombing of the WTC and pentagon in order to clamp down on the freedom of its citizens.
So, let's tick off the concerns:
- This is a crime, and one which should be considered serious. It is not a crime which compares to the sort for which people spend 25 years in prison. This is a simple matter of applying the wrong laws to the criminal, and violates the criminal's rights under the 8th amendment, IMHO. This is backed up on FindLaw [findlaw.com] where the annotation suggests:IANAL, but the idea of trying to hold a man to an anti-terrorism law with a 25 year prison-term for painting an airplane with a laser seems to me to be a clear-cut example of disproportionate, which is sad because it gives this guy (who deserves at LEAST a serious fine, if not some amount of prison time), a legitimate reason to get off, though possibly only through appeal.
- The quote from the U.S. attorney above is clearly wrong. There certainly is "harmless mischief when it comes to airplanes", but this isn't it. When you endanger the safety of passengers on an airplane or turn the airplane into a danger to others, that is not harmless mischief. When you don't, then it is harmless by definition. I know, for example, that hobbiest and non-commercial pilots are being brought under increasing restrictions and scrutiny for no particular reason of safety these days (restricting airspace around major cities was an unfortunate, but reasonable precaution, and there it should have stayed).
- Such an over-reaction serves to muddy an important issue: lasers (especially those that are more powerful than the garden-variety pointers) are not toys, and people who (ab)use them as such should expect to face law enforcement.
Hope that helps to clear up the position of at least some of those who feel that this is most certainly an issue of "rights", though clearly you are correct in that YRO is more "Your Rights, Discussed Online" rather than "Your Rights Online".Re:Don't be daft (Score:3, Informative)
Why? Because in my experience, the pilots do a better job at managing a smooth landing. The two (I think?) automated landings I've experienced have had a very noticable "touch down bump". I would liken the experience to being in a car with someone planting their foot on the brake in a car with ABS - it gets the job done quite safely, but it's not a smooth ride.
No it can't (Score:3, Informative)
They aren't high powered enough to permanatly blind you. However, obviously, they are still dangerous to people driving vehicles and aircraft!
Comment removed (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Its impossible (Score:3, Informative)
Didn't this same topic get beat into the ground [slashdot.org] just 6 days ago?
Do you really think there is no place on the ground to shine something into the eyes of a pilot? Do you really think pilots only look at the sky and there's no way for them to see the ground? Haven't you even seen a movie, TV show, or sat in a plane and watched the pilot line up on the runway? There's a reason runways have lines and lights all around them -- THE PILOTS ARE LOOKING AT THEM!
Yes, a pilot doesn't look straight down. But if you were positioned past the end of a runway you could look right into the pilots eyes as he landed.
Let's not let our hatred of authority blind us of basic understanding of science. We're supposed to be nerds, for cryin' out loud, not schoolkids whipped into a frenzy over the latest conspiracy theories. And this is modded "insightful", no less...
Re:I'm confused by the distance (Score:2, Informative)
Take apart a laser pointer, you'll find a columnating lens. Take that out, have the laser diode out in the open, and you'll see the entire room awash in that funky red laser glow, interference patterns and all (indicating coherence). (please don't look directly at it.)
Some (most?) laser devices generate a highly focused beam naturally.
Lasers tend to be single wavelength and coherent, making them easier to accurately focus, without scatter.
They don't call it a "light pointer" because it's actually in-phase laser light.
This is wrong. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Lasers are different (Score:2, Informative)
To quote: "If you look directly into the beam from a laser pointer for more than a minute and a half in a very steady manner, or shine the beam into your eyes with binoculars, you could end up with permanent eye damage."
Real Terrorists... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Don't be daft (Score:3, Informative)
I am a corporate jet pilot (Score:5, Informative)
First of all, let me say that all of the above posters who wonder "what the big deal is of a laser hitting the bottom of a plane when the cockpit window is on top" are uninformed. As a pilot on final approach, the only direction I cannot see is directly behind or directly under me, but I continuously scan every other segment of the sky. Especially at night I have to let my eyes pause for a moment on each section in order to discern relative motion, as a quick scan would not allow me to detect the characteristic red/green/white nav lights + strobe of a moving aircraft above the many lights (both stationary of all color, flashing, and more slowly moving ground vehicle) below the aircraft. So a fair amount of our time on final approach is spent gazing downward, since while descending that part of the sky represents the largest risk of collision hazard. This attentive watchfulness is of course an important part of what we do, and if while looking for aircraft below us both pilots are "temporarily blinded" or worse (depending on the type of laser used) we are obviously in a very scary situation.
Secondly, this idea that pilots fly the approach on autopilot is misinformed. Yes, cruise flight and the initial segment of the approach are usually (but by no means always) performed with the assistance of an autopilot. However, the autopilot is routinely and often given manual commands in a terminal environment to comply with air traffic control instructions all the way up to the very last final intercept of the glideslope. So pilot incapacitation during any descending maneuver before that final segment poses a very real threat to people on the ground below the aircraft's path (a much larger area than the airport proper). Also, with the exception of some large airliners and very few corporate aircraft, most jets do not have autopilots approved for autolandings, so at some point during the last 200 to 1000 feet the pilot will hand fly the plane, adjusting the pitch attitude and simultaneously reducing thrust to make a smooth landing flare. This is not something I want to feel my way through without sight.
There are many reasons to not use autopilot, some flights are also operational line checks where the pilot in command is being evaluated by a check airman who expects them to hand fly the plane to demonstrate proficiency. I often fly by hand both to keep my skills sharp as well as because it is enjoyable to have the responsiveness of a very powerful jet airplane at my fingers. There is satisfaction in rolling the plane onto a perfectly aligned final approach without the autopilot's assistance.
As a group, professional pilot's take the safety of our passengers very seriously. We attend recurrent training continuously throughout our careers, and simulate almost every conceivable emergency that it is possible to contend with. However, some emergencies elude constructing nice pat standard operating procedures to deal with. Obviously if an aircraft comes apart in flight then all you can do is follow the arc of the individual parts toward the ground below. Likewise, becoming blind is a situation that we just can't train for.
Finally, I've also noticed some posts recommending using some sort of film on the windshield that would protect the pilots. This is unlikely to happen soon for several reasons. I would love to hear that such a material exists that is effective over the many frequency ranges that could conceivably be used in a laser. But even if it did exist, each aircraft has a slightly different type of construction and would require a huge amount of research and development. The price would be astronomical. As an example, the windshield of a Learjet is nearly an inch thick, is comprised of multiple layers of various materials (including different types of plastic and acrylic and a layer of gold used to heat the windshield) which have been thoroughly tested for strength, compatibil
NEVER talk to feds without a lawyer present (Score:5, Informative)
This is relatively new. Until the 1990s, it was safe to talk to the FBI. But it no longer is.
So just keep insisting that you want your lawyer present. And you have to be very clear about it. [aele.org] Courts have held that "I think I should talk to a lawyer" is not sufficient to invoke the 6th amendment right to counsel. You have to make an unambiguous statement.
That's supposed to stop interrogation, but it doesn't always. Eventually, if you keep insisting, they usually give up and let you talk to a lawyer.
Re:Patriot? (Score:4, Informative)
We're not talking about al-Queda's A-team here.
Re:send it back (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Planes are not travelling at 600 miles an hour (Score:1, Informative)
Fine. Surely you can account for the in-air attenuation of a 2mW 532 laser at 8000 feet and can say without doubt that the laser power at such a distance would be strong enough to cause out-of-medium scatter.
What is much more likely is that any small amount of laser that did happen to get past there would've been attenuated and would predominantly refract into the glass pane. Not to mention that the angular reflection of the laser to transmit through the a singluar glass pane would have to be between 1 and 30 degrees, because beyond that point the attenuation caused by the glass would negate most anything that could get beyond that.
And finally, since your statements in your post betray the fact that you DO NOT work around lasers, and have no idea of how dangerous they are to human eyes, your arguments are bullshit. As for a laser system that can down targets (aircraft and missiles) look at MTHEL, the Army's high energy DF laser in New Mexico. That one HAS downed incoming missiles and can down aircraft.
Your use of examples shows that you have zero knowledge of the scaling of lasers and the power used. Now, also bear in mind that the MTHEL is currently a one-shot system, as it requires 1 Megawatt of input energy for a 10KW blast. A lot of heat and power to contend with. Not exactly backyard, three-shot equipment.
Yes, the MTHEL has taken care of aircraft and missles. If I said no lasers had done this, I simply meant to say that the threat of lasers that he possessed is so small it's negatable.
The MTHEL is a 10KW Neodymium doped laser system. This guy had, at most a 2mW laser pointer, but I'll grant you a 10mW laser.
Do the math. The power of 100 of his would "equal" 1W, and 10,000 of those would equal the MTHEL capabilities, which would be easily and legitimately a weapon. So, I guess if he fired 1 million of his laser pointers at once, then he'd have a legitimate weapon.
If I throw a pebble at someone, it's miles of difference from throwing a SUV-sized boulder at someone.
I know of one person where I work that was blinded by a targeting laser that is used to align another laser. This laser was akin to a HE-Ne laser that you can buy from radio shack for 10 bucks. The guy suffered permanent retinal damage, and this is from a scattered beam that got out of it's containment tube and bounced off a wrench. And the guy wasn't wearing his eye protection, so he's also a dumbass, but his exposure was on the order of a millisecond of scattered laser light.
And I'm going to go ahead and say that while it was "akin" to a RadioShack He-Ne 1mW system, it was akin only in type, but was orders more powerful, which can definitely have eyesafety problems.
FWIW, since you asked, I *do* work with lasers on a daily basis as part of a Free-Space Optics communications system, operating at 785, 808 and 850 nm, through a pulsed wave 100mW (on our 3R product; ~67mW on our 1M product) infrared laser system.
Re:I am a corporate jet pilot (Score:3, Informative)
And of course, there's no evidence the guy in the story was agitated anyway.
AND.... he hasn't received 25 years, that's only the maximum sentence, and he's likely to only get a small fraction of that, if he gets any jail time at all. In fact, he'll probably get more time from an obstruction of justice charge for lying to investigators than he'll get from anything else.
-Restil