Slashdot Mirror
Couple Busted For Shining Laser At Helicopter
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."
Sums it all up, I think.
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.
That an individual would have the ability to actually hit the pilot in the face with a laser (most likely a generic laser pointer) from 500 feet while the target was moving.. I mean what are the odds. That said, people who are stupid enough to even contemplate such an act do deserve what they get, assuming the description of the incident is valid, but I still have some doubts.
I came, I conquered, I coredumped
Good. The maximum punishment seems a tad harsh, but yeah, they should, in fact, be busted. What they did was dangerous, and they actually hurt somebody (the pilot). It could have been worse. The pilot could have been blinded. He could have crashed the helicopter right into somebody's house. Okay, so maybe they didn't mean any actual harm, and maybe the judge will take that into account.
Shouldn't the punishment fit the crime? Up to 20 years in prison and $250,000 fine? Murderers get away with less for manslaughter.
Just because a person did not intent to do harm when harm occurred, should not protection from some form of punishment. This couple was operating a possibly dangerous device in a definitely unsafe manner. Should they get 20 years and a $250,000 fine? No. Let's reserve that for the people who had intent to harm. IMHO, they should just be fined and the lasers taken away. Our jails are already full all over the country.
Bearded Dragon
Part of the problem is that Laws have become so stict that it prevents exersizing justice. Is the action illegal... Yes does it deserve 20 years and 5 years of pay, no. What would be more fare would be $5,000 fine. for a first offence. These huge life killing fines are unjust for the crime that are caused forcing the person into jail (for people who are not a continued danger to society) or Paying huge sumes of money will only make the problem worse... Oh a person commited a Crime Put him in Jail for 1/3 of his life and make sure when he gets out he can't pay any bills... That'll make sure he won't comment a crime again... a $5000 fine will be enough for the person to feel it and not willing to try again, but yet will be able to live his life as a productive and law abiding citizen.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Alright, let's see here. An average divergence for a class 3B green laser is around 1.2mRad, with a (on the large side) 1.5mm aperture.
.6 ft diameter which, while probably larger than the distance between eyes, I'd have
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.
What right do you have to create a dangerous situation for pilots? The fact that no accident happened here should mitigate the penalties, but would you really want to be on the receiving end of a laser beam when you're trying to fly a helo or plane?
Put one of these powerful helicopters in the hands of a power-hungery cop and see that the first thing they'll do is noisily hover over my house, disrupting whatever I was doing.
Seriously, do they not realize that they're *also* a nuisance to people on the ground?
Apology to Ubuntu forum.
but more then if the accidentally shot someone with a gun?
First time offense? 5-10G and a year of community service.
Make it hurt, but don't destroy them.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
We can probably agree that at first glance, the FBI going after this couple because the pilot of the helicopter had a headache for several hours seems like using a jackhammer to swat a fly. But consider: lasing an aircraft (putting a laser on an aircraft) for any reason is a federal offense, making it the FBI's domain. [FYI the reason it is a federal offense to begin with is that the air space over the country is not considered "state property", otherwise you could have a California Aviation Administration, a Nevada Aviation administration, etc. etc. and all of the aviation systems need to work together]. Coupled with the fact that virtually everything you can do with an aircraft can have an interstate commerce connection, making it Federal vs. state anyway)
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?
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
From the article, they claim, "...Snow told investigating agents that she and Dooley were standing in the driveway on November 8 and "taking turns shining the laser around watching the tracers in the sky.""
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.
Bearded Dragon
It is not a war on drugs its a war on personal freedom. Keep that in mind at all times. (Bill Hicks)
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.
I just purchased a 55mw green laser a couple months ago, and I love it. It goes for miles with a clear, visible beam at night. It can even pop black balloons at close range! I take care to look for low flying aircraft before I point it into the sky, and I always make sure that it's not being aimed at anyone. Time-lapse laser photography is very good fun, too. I really wish idiots like these two wouldn't ruin it for the rest of us.
At what point does it become immoral for the police to "do their job"? At what point does it become not-immoral to use deadly force to prevent them from (immorally) taking away your life or liberty?
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
Where "use wisely" probably means if you're going to point these things at helicopters, to do so from somewhere they cannot identify who you are.
This seems over blown. Using a hand held laser pointer to target someones eyes at ~1/4 of a mile for long enough to do some form of damage is ridiculously small. Reading the story is sounds like the pilot noticed they where flashing a laser into they sky and decided to mess with them.
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.
If an aircraft accidently happened to wander in to the path
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.
-- Alastair
if the "perpetrator" managed to cause pain and discomfort by pointing a laser in the eye of a person flying a helicopter (fast moving target) at the altitude of 500 feet (make 900 for an oblique "hit"), and trough a thick (plexi)glass window, then that guy should be hired by the special forces as a super-sniper, and get a place in the Guinness Book too.
Right, because the citizens of Bakersfield, California are powerless to regulate Police Department policy... oh, wait.
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.
Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.
Pointing a bright laser at an armed police officer is almost certain to win you a Darwin award. I can't see much non-classroom legitimate use for laser pointers. "sky pointer" is just stupid.
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.
Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
Well for the laser to shine into the cockpit and hit the pilot in the eye then it couldn't have been directly above them. The article says the helicopter was at 500 feet -- it would have been impossible to miss if that was anywhere near them. So it was likely quite some distance away, and over a city, so it's not an unreasonable supposition that they could neither hear nor see the helicopter.
:(
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.
The enemies of Democracy are
Have you ever been blinded by a driver who didn't dim his headlights? Now imagine something about 5 times as bright. And pointed at the underside of your car.
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,
The complaint doesn't allege that the pilot's eyes were illuminated. Only the cockpit. Most likely scenario, IMO, is that they were screwing around, the helicopter flew through the beam. The pilot got pissed off and tracked them down, and then embellished the complaint to make a Federal case about it. Standard scumbag police procedure.
Source please? Or is it just FUD?
Virginia is for lovers. EVE is for griefers.
Many cops are your basic schoolyard bully. They are very much
...and to find someone to arrest and get brownie points for.
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.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
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'.
Why buy that one when you can get the SkyTag!
Marijuana "addiction" is more like sex "addiction", or potato chips "addiction". Sure, there are no withdrawal symptoms, but that doesn't stop people from their compulsive behavior.
Which is why TV should be banned long before marijuana.
> $250,000 and 20 years. Definitely an issue cruel and unusual punishment if they got that, imho
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.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
A "routine" 500 ft helicopter patrol. Just like in Iraq, Afghanistan and most everywhere you go. Glad to see you are playing by the rules.
... I don't live in the USA and have quite a lot of it.
Ah Freedom
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.
That's the thing... punishments no longer fit the crime. Everything is being criminalized, and punishments far outstrip the crime or any consequence thereof. Soon enough, the government will be able to arrest you for anything and lock you away forever, or seize your assets with no obligation to prove you did anything wrong, or even present the charges against you.
Shining a green laser at a helicopter is stupid, but so is being sentenced to twenty years prison for doing it. Vote Libertarian.
Other than this text, there is no discernible information contained in this sig.
Wait, your case was dismissed after you proved you corrected the infraction, and this is an issue? I was pulled over and arrested because my car hadn't taken an emissions test. First time I had heard of it for our county. I had the car tested that afternoon, showed the judge that I had my license back, the emissions test report, saw that I did not have a history of this sort of thing and she dismissed it.
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.
"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance - it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel Boorstin
Depends on the laser, but in general the hand-helds that are on the market are of a low enough power that the blink reflex by itself prevents any real injury. Wicked Lasers does sell some hand-helds that can be pretty dangerous at close ranges (and are horribly expensive), but working for a laser equipment integrator and having spent several years writing code to run all kinds of Class IV equipment from 1 watt UV lasers to 250 watt CO2 units and having used all kinds of smaller lasers for pointing/measurement applications, I'd be hard pressed to think of a situation where someone shining an average hand-held laser (even a green DPSS unit) directly at an aircraft would do more than very temporarily dazzle the pilot. I've unfortunately had the experience of taking some rather strong specular reflections from higher-power green units in my eyes (and no telling how many times I've been hit with IR) when equipment wasn't tagged out properly, but I've never experienced "significant pain and discomfort" and when I got my latest set of retinal photos taken earlier this year, they looked perfect.
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
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.