Couple Busted For Shining Laser At Helicopter 863
coondoggie sends us to another Network World piece, this one about a couple charged with shining a green laser into the cockpit of a police helicopter. The FBI and the US attorney's office charged the California couple under a federal statute. They could end up paying a $250,000 fine and doing 20 years of jail time. "The complaint states that on November 8, 2007, at about 10:55 p.m., a green laser beam illuminated the cockpit of a Kern County Sheriff's Department helicopter, which was flying at 500 feet during routine patrol in Bakersfield, California. When the light hit the cockpit, it disoriented the Kern County Sheriff's pilot, causing pain and discomfort in his eyes for a couple of hours, the FBI said in a statement."
Dumb. Asses. (Score:2, Insightful)
Put one of these powerful green lasers in the hands of an idiot and see that the first thing they'll do is shine it on somebody's face.
I have some doubts (Score:1, Insightful)
Don't lase me bro! (Score:2, Insightful)
Excessive (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:what were their intentions? (Score:3, Insightful)
Laws != Justice (Score:5, Insightful)
Umm.. (Score:5, Insightful)
At 500 feet (152.4m):
1.5 + (152.4 * 1.2) mm = 18.438cm
Roughly
to say people that aim at planes and helicopters have really good aim. While the heli pilot could
easily have been hurt if this laser was of the higher powers one can easily get around the web
(ie 200mw), a plane is much further up, the cockpit would merely be green, the pilot would not
be hurt. Remember that energy decreases with area. It's probably a distance squared type thing, but
my physics is rusty.
Is it really that hard to NOT shine a laser at a helicopter? I mean the thing takes up maybe 30'' of arc of 180deg of sky... Idiots.
Why is this in "your rights online"?? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Dumb. Asses. (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously, do they not realize that they're *also* a nuisance to people on the ground?
Yes they shoudl be punished (Score:3, Insightful)
First time offense? 5-10G and a year of community service.
Make it hurt, but don't destroy them.
This is /. worthy news WHY? an observation (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyway, this has to be considered a significant offense for two reasons reasons, the first being the one they quote: disorient a pilot and you put the pilot and any one in the neighborhood of the craft in danger. Think of the response if you dropped a paint filled balloon from an overpass onto a vehicle on a busy freeway, same type of thing. The second reason is similar: because lasers are damn straight sighting mechanisms and reflect back to an observer in an electronically or optically observable manner, anything from a high powered rifle to an anti-aircraft gun or missile can be targeted on the aircraft resulting in a significantly higher probability of a hit.
What the law can't do is say "well, there's no harm to doing ___X___" if every time someone does ___X___, other people are put at risk. Which is why "driving under the influence" is a crime even if no one got hurt. Maybe the couple doesn't deserve a huge fine and twenty years in jail. But they did the crime even inadvertently and there has to be a measurable penalty as a deterrent to other idiots doing the same thing.
My question is, are we readers on slashdot so reactive to anything the government does that we tacitly give permission and headline space to all of the idiots of the world who get in trouble for doing what they ought to have known they shouldn't?
Re:what were their intentions? (Score:5, Insightful)
If they are telling the truth, then this was a horrible accident. If they are telling a lie to protect themselves from harsher punishment, then harsher punishment they should get. Unless a third person can come forward and state that harmful intent was desired, then the judge will have to go on the sworn testimony of the two.
Re:Good! (Score:2, Insightful)
In fact if you want to see what the war on drugs really are just watch the history channels specials about drugs in the US.
Don't ruin it for all of us. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Good! (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not saying that point exists in regards to marijuana, but it's something to consider. As freedoms are gradually taken away, at some point it is NOT immoral to use deadly force against the people with guns who are trying to take away your freedoms. That point lies somewhere in-between our current system and Stalin's (or Hitler's). Mind you, there's a LOT of gray area in-between. I'm just saying, it's important to remember that this point does exist, and "just doing their job" only goes so far.
Enforcement of draconian anti-marijuana laws is immoral. Not as immoral as arresting people based on their political persuasions, but immoral nonetheless.
Re: What else is new? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's the problem. Green lasers are powerful, and they are very bright (intrinsically, plus the sensitivity of our eyes to green). If you misuse them, you can hurt somebody with them. What else is new?
I own one myself, and use it as a pointer for astronomy. It works really well. I am careful where I point it. I am careful who I allow to use it.
If I deliberately pointed it at an aircraft to try to distract the pilot, that would indeed be A Bad Thing.
If an aircraft accidently happened to wander in to the path when I was showing somebody where M31 or Comet 17P/Holmes was, is it a crime? I don't think so.
...laura
It may not be a crime, but maybe still liable (Score:5, Insightful)
It may not be a crime, but you may still be liable for the incident. It is probably your responsibility to not illuminate aircraft. Much like it is a shooter's responsibility to make sure downrange is clear. You may set up a target in the desert and intend to shoot only at the target, but if you hit someone/something a mile downrange you are responsible.
It is a virtual certainty that if a crash results you will be sued into oblivion.
Re: What else is new? (Score:5, Insightful)
Aircraft don't suddenly appear, they move across fairly predictable paths.
If an aircraft were moving towards the area you were shining the laser, would you turn it off, or keep it shining?
Re:What kind of laser? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Obligatory (Score:3, Insightful)
IMO even standing on a runway and trying to annoy pilots it would be hard to do more than get them to notice you let alone randomly flashing a laser into they sky.
Re: What else is new? (Score:3, Insightful)
If it was a plane it'd be flying at anywhere from 100 feet/second on up, so beam exposure would be sub-millisecond on any given part of the plane (or cockpit). Since helicopters can fly slowly or hover, it's less certain how long an accidental exposure might be -- although presumably the whole point of a green laser is that's it's bright enough to see the beam reflecting off dust in the air. The pilot might be a little surprised to see a beam materialize in front of him and move suddenly to avoid, but that's not the same as having the thing illuminating his cockpit. The latter seems to imply some deliberate aiming on the part of whoever is shining the laser.
Re:What kind of laser? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Dumb. Asses. (Score:3, Insightful)
See, these people would have a lot more of my sympathy if they had first advocated a change in Police Department policy, and then when the majority of their fellow community members declined to support their cause they moved out of that community to a community that agreed with their preferences, and the Bakersfield PD helicopter followed them to that new community and continued to harass them.
Police Departments don't magically appear out of nowhere, like some mist-born horror that must be battled at all costs with whatever weapons come readily to hand. They are, by and large, the product of communal agreement, and most communities--including Bakersfield, California--have plenty of resources for community members to debate their preferences and reach a peaceful consensus on policies that affect the community. If this couple were living in the mountains of Afghanistan in the mid-1980s, I could understand them attacking helicopters with lasers and more. But in Bakersfield, California? Their beef is with their fellow community members who set the Police helicopter patrol policy, not the pilot of a helicopter in flight.
Re:What kind of laser? (Score:2, Insightful)
Selling something that could potentially bring down a plane to a 13 year old seems like a criminal act to me. I would have no problem with restricting laser sales to adults and requiring them to sign a document showing they understand the consequences of misuse. Seller would be required to keep it on file to prove they aren't selling negligently.
Re: What else is new? (Score:5, Insightful)
However also according to the article, one of the couple said that they had been "taking turns shining the laser around watching the tracers in the sky."
Waving a green laser around at a relatively low angle at the horizon in a populated area just for kicks seems pretty irresponsible. If you want to do that just point it at the ground nearby where you know it's safe (and makes neat patterns on the grass =D). This is a far cry from pointing at the night's sky to point out stellar objects, especially since normally astronomy is done away from a city where the lights of a police helicopter would be obvious, and you aren't waving the laser around so the odds of someone moving -into- the beam are pretty minimal (as opposed to here, where they were sweeping large swaths of sky).
I'm not sure this should be a criminal offense in this instance, but a pilot was injured and could have been blinded, and people do need to learn how to use lasers responsibly before the gov. decides to take them away from us.
Re:What kind of laser? (Score:5, Insightful)
Truth or Consequences (Score:3, Insightful)
The judge [or jury] isn't obliged to believe that you are telling the truth. Even when you are under oath. Even when your testimony is not directly contradicted. His only obligation is to make a decision based on the evidence as a whole. How many Geeks have to learn this lesson the hard way?
If the charge is based on conduct that is defined as criminally careless, reckless as a matter of law then your "intent" isn't going to matter very much:
"I'm sorry we pointed a laser at the cockpt. I am sorry we held it there long enough to blind the pilot. I am sorry he crashed the plane. I am sorry about the people who died on the ground."
Sometimes feeling sorry isn't good enough,
Re:A good topic for mythbusters (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Umm.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Obligatory (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:No one is that accurate with a laser pointer (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Obligatory (Score:2, Insightful)
like the "reformed droogs" from the latter part of Clockwork
Orange. It is far more probable to expect a cop to mess with
a random civilian than for a random civilian to do likewise.
It's a cop's job to go looking for trouble.
Personal responsibilty (Score:0, Insightful)
Did the person intend to cause the helicopter to crash? Maybe yes, maybe no. I will bet that he/she thought they could do this and get away with doing this with no one else being the wiser. I'll bet that they were shocked as heck when they got busted.
Would you shoot a rifle at an aircraft, just to see what would happen if you hit it? What would your defense be? I didn't intend to kill the pilot, break a window, take out an engine, cause a fire? I wondered what would happen? I wondered if I could hit an aircraft a mile away, moving at a high rate of speed with my rifle? Again, does the intent matter? As long as it can be shown that intent to fire was made - the consequences fall upon the shooter.
For some things, why you did something inherently stupid isn't as important as the fact that you did it. This person knew the laser is bright - or else he would have looked at the beam directly just to see how bright it really is. He was unwilling to risk his eyesight; but was more than happy to experiment with someone else's.
20 years is a good start. Time to reflect on past mistakes, and serve as a warning to others who think this kind of thing is 'cool'.
Re:Obligatory (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Cumpulsive Behavior (Score:3, Insightful)
Which is why TV should be banned long before marijuana.
Re:Obligatory (Score:4, Insightful)
Guess what, it was almost attempted murder, or at least negligent homicide (or whatever lawyers like to call being deliberately very reckless in risking someone else's life, unasked.)
Severe recklessness and/or attempted murder do carry high possible penalties, and rightly so. They could, and should, get a reduced sentence since "all's well that ends well" for a prank, but the option should still be there.
It wasn't too long ago that kids who stole a stop sign were up on murder charges because two cars biffed at the intersection it was missing from, leading to 4 deaths.
Nice Country You Got There (Score:1, Insightful)
Ah Freedom
Welcome to America (Score:1, Insightful)
Your "freedoms" usually end when you no longer have the ability to enforce them. The rule of thumb is that your freedoms disappear when the other side has more/better weapons than you. Look at history. When was the last time anyone was ever praised by the national media for resisting an unlawful law enforcement action? I assure you, judges rule the government acted illegally on a variety of issues on a daily basis in this country. And its never mentioned.
2 years from now when these B.S. charges are dropped and these kids are $50,000 in debt with no job and a repossessed housebecause they didn't have the $10,000 to put up for the bail, where will they be? Well, they'll most likely be $50,000 in debt with no job and a repossessed house, and little legal recourse. See sovereign immunity [wikipedia.org].
Comment removed (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Obligatory (Score:3, Insightful)
I really don't understand how this could possibly be wrong for a judge to do. These judges see so little responsibility being taken that rewarding those that literally correct their infraction before the court date, with no record, is simply the right thing to do in some cases, like an emissions test or a vaccination. Once you have either there is no issue any more. Consider yourself being "forced" by our society into fixing an issue that it thought you should, little earlier than it seemed you would have.
Re:Obligatory (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I had a laser shined at me while driving (Score:3, Insightful)
Which is exactly what pilots are trained to do.
If pilots are unable to reorient after that "tiny amount of time" with the aid of their instruments, or experience vertigo when flying solely on instruments, I submit that they are not medically fit to be flying. This is a basic component to being a pilot.
I haven't read the comment you're referring to, but this is true only in a civil context. If the pilot can't demonstrate he was harmed and in need of compensation, it doesn't matter. On the criminal side, it would depend entirely on how the law was written, and whether the guy with the laser intended to do the thing that the law forbids. If the law only forbids someone from specifically targeting aircraft, then he's not guilty unless they can prove that he intentionally targeted aircraft. It wouldn't matter that his laser pointer found its way there. But it depends on how the law is written.
Firing a gun is different, because that's inherently dangerous. There are crimes on the books to deal with endangering people's lives by way of a deadly weapon. Typical laser pointers are, by definition of classification, perfectly safe. In a civil context, of course, it doesn't matter if the instrument is safe or dangerous; it's the outcome that matters. But since crimes are defined by the intent of the person committing them just as much as the outcome, the nature of the instrument matters a lot.