Slashdot Mirror


Man Who Pointed Laser At Aircraft Gets 30-Month Sentence

coondoggie writes "In a move federal prosecutors hope sends a strong message to the knuckleheads who point lasers at aircraft for fun, a California man was sentenced to 30 months in prison for shining one at two aircraft. According to the FBI Adam Gardenhire, 19, was arrested on March 29, 2012 and named in a two-count indictment filed in United States District Court in Los Angeles that said he pointed the beam of a laser at a private plane and a police helicopter that responded to the report."

74 of 761 comments (clear)

  1. Good. by ZorinLynx · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's because of idiots like this that we can't have nice toys. Laser pointers get banned and people who buy them get looked on with suspicion. All because some morons think pointing them at aircraft is a good idea.

    How about we punish the idiots, and let the rest of us have our toys?

    1. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Of course a very remote secondary consideration is not blinding the pilot and causing a planeload of passengers to crash. A very remote consideration compared to getting my geek on.

    2. Re:Good. by iggymanz · · Score: 4, Informative

      yeah so very sad we can no longer buy laser pointers online powerful enough to bore holes through solid materials....oh wait, you can

      http://www.wickedlasers.com.hk/arctic

    3. Re:Good. by X0563511 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Intelligence and Wisdom are two different things.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    4. Re:Good. by Frederic54 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      same for magnets, banned them because some people can eat them...

      --
      "Science will win because it works." - Stephen Hawking
    5. Re:Good. by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 3

      You can't import anything into the US over 5mW.

    6. Re:Good. by Phrogman · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yeah I usually prefer a higher INT score unless I am rolling a Cleric :P

      --
      "The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
    7. Re:Good. by iggymanz · · Score: 5, Informative

      yes, you can. I know people that have recently done so for their holography hobbies

    8. Re:Good. by Chrisq · · Score: 5, Funny

      Intelligence and Wisdom are two different things.

      Don't forget Charisma, Dexterity, Constitution, and Strength

    9. Re:Good. by lgw · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because the term "idiots" could be applyed for you too...

      The 19yo "idiot" who beamed the laser directly on a place is perhaps a total idiot, but could be a total super math freak and perhaps he works in a lab near you...
      I'm a programmer, so I'm not an "idiot" when facing computer... but... I can easily be considered an idiot while doing something else...

      you know, it's kinda relative, since we're all idiots in somes areas.

      No, if you're "an idiot" anywhere, you're an idiot. Good judgment and personal responsibility has little to do with education or subject matter.

      All of us have a duty to think about the consequences of our actions, and to help remediate the negative outcomes of anything we do. Good intentions count for nothing; making a real effort to limit the harm our action cause to others is what makes an adult.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    10. Re:Good. by fyngyrz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem is not the toddlers, or the magnets. The problem is the parents.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    11. Re:Good. by slashmydots · · Score: 5, Funny

      Maybe magnets shouldn't be so delicious then

    12. Re:Good. by An+ominous+Cow+art · · Score: 5, Funny

      Eating magnets? What's the attraction in that?

    13. Re:Good. by SternisheFan · · Score: 5, Informative
      The problem today is that some of these handheld lasers are 10X more powerful than they're rated at.

      {Low-cost apparatus designed by National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) researchers to quickly and accurately measure the properties of handheld laser devices has shown that nearly 90 percent of green pointers and 44 percent of red pointers tested were out of compliance with federal safety regulations.

      Green pointers, which rely on frequency-doubling optics, also emitted “unacceptable” levels of infrared light, reported the team led by NIST Laser Safety Officer Joshua Hadler. It also found one pointer delivering more than ten times the allowable output power in the visible region. Reporting the results of its study on 122 pointers at the International Laser Safety Conference taking place in Orlando, Florida, this week, NIST says that the apparatus has been deliberately designed to be replicated easily by other institutions.

      While anecdotal reports of green laser hazards have previously appeared in scientific journals and the media, NIST says its tests are the first reported precision measurements of a large number of handheld laser devices. The tests also showed, unexpectedly, that many red laser pointers are also out of compliance with federal rules as defined by the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). "Our results raise numerous safety questions regarding laser pointers and their use," the team's paper states.}

      http://optics.org/news/4/3/33

    14. Re:Good. by Greyfox · · Score: 5, Informative

      Oh you can still buy them, just not in buckyball form anymore. Head over to the United Nuclear website and look for the 10 pound rare earth magnets labelled "Extremely Dangerous Magnet"! Remember, it's not fun if it's not labelled "extremely dangerous!"

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    15. Re:Good. by jellomizer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Justice or Revenge.

      It seems to me 30 Months (2 1/2 years) of prison for someone being a knuckle head is over the top. Yes what he did was dangerous, and he should be punished. But I could see 2 Weeks prison as justice.

        This guy was 19 years old. That 2 1/2 years cost him a good opportunity to get a college education, once he gets out his life is in screwed.

      2 Weeks of prison he probably wouldn't do it again.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    16. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Except that the magnets are small and easily missed by parents, especially if they've fallen on the floor at a friend's house.

      The fact is that at some point, you do have to recognize societal responsibilities, these aren't always obvious without benefit of hindsight.

    17. Re:Good. by interkin3tic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't want them to be banned by law, but people... DON'T USE GREEN LASER POINTERS FOR PRESENTATIONS.

      I've had to sit through a number of powerpoint presentations in darkened rooms where a green laser pointer was too bright. If red is too dim, it's the batteries.

      Occasionally I've been in presentations where someone was using a dry erase whiteboard as a screen. Never do that with a laser pointer. If they had tried to do it with a green laser, I would have walked out. That shit is reflective.

      Last gripe: people, you really shouldn't need to use a laser pointer on every single slide. Scientists are horrible at this. "If I am not making little circles around random places on the screen at all times, they'll think I'm not a real scientist!" Text should speak for itself, if you're pointing at text, you probably have too much to be of any use, or are nervously pointing unnecessarily. If you have images and you want to direct someone's attention at a small part, you could put arrows on it pretty easily, but that's the one time you need a laser pointer, that's typically only one or two times a slideshow from my experience.

      /gripe

    18. Re:Good. by nitehawk214 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Eating magnets? What's the attraction in that?

      Ironic, don't you think?

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    19. Re:Good. by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Toddlers were eating those tiny magnet balls... which is a problem since it'll effectively punch holes in your intestines and kill you. It's not like it was grown men doing it.

      What I heard was teenagers were using them as impromptu toungue studs.

      --

      ---
      ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
    20. Re:Good. by ace37 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Completely agree. It's an issue, so if they want to make a point, put the guy in jail for a week or two. More than a day but less than a month.

      A 30 month sentence is not appropriate for being a douchebag. This is essentially just making an example of the guy and is unjust--the punishment doesn't fit the crime at all. Because of that, I hope this knucklehead appeals and gets off scot free.

    21. Re:Good. by Kilo+Kilo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      2 weeks in prison for someone who could have caused a plane crash? Really?

      We should probably lighten up those drunk driving laws too. It's not like those people ever repeat their crimes... oh, wait.

    22. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't see anything in your post that absolves the parents from their responsibilities to watch their children. Especially if your children are at the age where they instinctively put things in their mouths, you need to watch them at all times. If your friend has loaded guns lying around his house, is it the gun's fault for going off when the child picks it up?

      -- green led

    23. Re:Good. by SecurityGuy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, yeah, because you can't catch everyone. If the punishment is a week in jail and you're very unlikely to get caught, plenty of people are going to do this. If you have a small chance of spending years in jail, non-idiots will think twice and not do it. I hope he spends every day of it in jail and a bunch of similar morons decide to find their fun in other ways.

    24. Re:Good. by sFurbo · · Score: 5, Informative

      Most cheap "lasers" you buy are not true lasers, running on LEDs.

      How are LED lasers not true lasers?

      . I also wonder why it would need a focus lens to stay focused for ~100 ft (as per video from their web site).

      because of the size of the lasing medium. Given the smallest radius of the beam, which of course can't be larger than the exit aperture of the optics, or the size of the lasing medium if no optics are used, and the wave length, the minimum dispersion angle can be determined. IIRC, the dispersion angle for a LED laser is something like 30 degrees before the optics, because the lasing medium is roughly the size of the wavelength.

    25. Re:Good. by Triv · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ...then he would be charged for assault and/or murder. Leaning on WHAT IFs as justification for overreach is what got us into a lot of the mess we're in in the first place.

    26. Re:Good. by NeverVotedBush · · Score: 3, Informative

      FTFA: "The FAA last May said the number of reported laser incidents nationwide had risen for the fifth consecutive year to 3,592 in 2011. Pointing a laser at an aircraft can cause temporary blindness or make airliner pilots take evasive measures to avoid the laser light." It's time that these idiots - yes, the people pointing lasers at aircraft - get taught that they are endangering a lot of people's lives.

      With publicity over the punishment for doing it, other idiots may just learn something. Just telling the one idiot that they did a bad thing that could have led to a crash doesn't serve the larger purpose of stopping this behavior.

      The kid gets 30 months (probably much less if he behaves) in jail but is now much less likely to bring down a plane by blinding the pilot. So, hopefully, are many others who see that there are actually consequences for these stupid kinds of actions on their part.

      Next up - the idiots flying their multicopters and model airplanes into airliner takeoff and glide paths...

    27. Re:Good. by goodmanj · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We punish a crime based on the foreseeable consequences of the crime, not on the simplicity of the act. This guy really could have crashed an airliner, killing hundreds. Pointing a laser at a plane is easy, but so is pulling a trigger.

    28. Re:Good. by c++0xFF · · Score: 4, Informative

      Zen Magnets are still available.

      Less expensive than Buckyballs were, and the quality seems to be pretty decent.

    29. Re:Good. by roc97007 · · Score: 5, Informative

      I'm going to take in seriousness something said in jest, but that's what geeks do... I read recently that the laser doesn't actually drill right through the cockpit window and quick-fry the retinas of the pilots, Rather, the beam splashes on the window, making it difficult or impossible to see out while the beam is in play. Which is still a really bad thing (and a phenomenally stupid thing to do at many levels) ESPECIALLY at low altitude approaching an airport, but is not exactly the same thing as smoking two sets of eyes and leaving the plane permanently pilotless. The article was making the case that the talk of permanently blinding pilots is conventional justice-system-driven hyperbole to make the crime seem worse than it is. (Which in my opinion is unnecessary. It's a stupid move that really could have dire consequences, so I'm ok with offenders going to jail. Eventually the word will get around.)

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    30. Re:Good. by mjr167 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Or you for allowing your toddler to be able to pick up a loaded gun. When I take my small children to friend's houses that are not normally prepared for toddlers, I watch them like a hawk. I move knick-knacks and glasses that they can easily knock over and break. I move bowls of hard candy and TV remotes. If there was a gun on the coffee table, I sure as hell would move it too. I certainly don't let the wonder around by themselves and if they pick something up off the floor I grab them and find out what it is. Fishy stuff out of a toddler's mouth is sometimes gross, but not hard. It's called being responsible.

      Fact: People without small children do not recognize the stupid things small children will do. It is the parent's responsibility to know what their child is capable of and react accordingly.

    31. Re:Good. by nbauman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We've been through this argument before.

      "Why should 100,000 people be denied the fun of playing with their toys just because a dozen toddlers go to the hospital and one or two of them die as a result?"

      "It's not the manufacturer's fault, it's not the toy's fault, it's the parents' fault for not supervising their toddlers properly. Irresponsible parents absolve us of all responsibility."

      "I want to play with my toys and I'm willing to see a couple of toddlers die as a result as long as I can blame their death on their parents' responsibility."

      That argument doesn't play too well, even in the freedom-loving United States (much less nanny-state Europe and Australia). All you have to do is bring up one set of parents whose toddler died and that brings people back to reality.

      When manufacturers try that in product liability cases, the juries don't buy it and hit them with big damage awards. "I knew some toddlers were dying but I'm a libertarian and it serves them right for having irresponsible parents" is not a successful trial strategy. And when government agencies ban these products, the (elected) politicians back them up. And the voters back them up.

      You've lost that argument. If anyone is on the high school debating team and wants to continue it, I'll leave it to you.

    32. Re:Good. by femtobyte · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So, you bring your toddler over to a friend's house, and see a plastic squirt gun and a teddy bear on the coffee table --- double-check that the squirt gun is really a squirt gun, and it's no problem, right?

      After your toddler blows her head off, you realize that the teddy bear was a loaded custom-designed teddy-bear-shaped semi-automatic pistol with the safety off.

      That's the problem with the magnet systems --- they look like fairly harmless kids' toys, so unless a parent already *knows* how dangerous the clusters of shiny marbles in their geeky friend's apartment are (like they would know a gun-shaped gun is), they're unlikely to be sufficiently protective of their child until a few days too late.

    33. Re:Good. by stenvar · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The fact is that what you suggest is literally impossible.

      The fact is that humans have managed to survive in a dangerous world with lots of things that would kill little kids for hundreds of thousands of years. Yes, there are ways of protecting kids as a parent. It's people like you who'll bring about the idiocracy.

    34. Re:Good. by AaronLS · · Score: 4, Informative

      He didn't put it away, and instead flashed at the police chopper that was responding to the report.

    35. Re:Good. by KGIII · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I don't see anything in your post that absolves the parents from their responsibilities to watch their children. Especially if your children are at the age where they instinctively put things in their mouths, you need to watch them at all times.

      The fact is that what you suggest is literally impossible.

      If your friend has loaded guns lying around his house, is it the gun's fault for going off when the child picks it up?

      No, but that of the friend, and that of lax gun regulation that allows him to have guns in the first place.

      Please do not vote or breed. It is the parent's responsibility to ensure the environment the children is safe - always unless that responsibility is given to a caretaker. Even selecting a quality caretaker is a parent's responsibility. Stop trying to blame your ineptitude on inanimate objects.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    36. Re:Good. by asylumx · · Score: 5, Interesting

      but is not exactly the same thing as smoking two sets of eyes and leaving the plane permanently pilotless.

      I am a private pilot, and you should be aware that without the threat of lasers shining on your windscreen, 56% of fatal aircraft accidents happen during the takeoff, initial climb, final approach and landing phases of flight (where it's possible to shine one of these lasers). This represents approximately 6% of the total time of an average flight. Let me repeat: 56% of fatal accidents happen during the same 6% of a flight.

      Given that these are already the most stressful parts of the flight for the pilot, adding stress like not being able to see is insanely bad news. If this had happened at night, it could have temporarily blinded the pilot, long enough to lose control of the plane on the initial climb and stall it out. If it had happened on the final approach or landing, especially on a windy day, the pilot would have missed the runway and likely cratered.

      Picking nits about whether the pilot was permanently blinded or not won't matter so much once everyone aboard (and likely some on the ground) are dead because of the incident.

      Reference: http://planecrashinfo.com/cause.htm

    37. Re:Good. by roc97007 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Apparently people really are that stupid.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    38. Re:Good. by tompaulco · · Score: 4, Funny

      If this happens to you, then aim your plane toward where you first saw the light. You won't save your own life, but with luck, you can save future lives.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    39. Re:Good. by asylumx · · Score: 4, Informative

      Thus we should kill all birds, or preferably something even more drastic.

      Several airports have hawks on the premises for exactly this purpose.

  2. Re:From the article: by iggymanz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "let's give pilots kevlar body suits in a suitcase, if someone sprays the cockpit with bullets they can open the suitcase and put the suits on"

  3. Re:From the article: by fuzzybunny · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How about we put the onus for not being an asshole on the people who could cause the damage in the first place, not on those who might (in addition to their passengers) become victims of it?

    Lasers can cause eye damage or blind a pilot pretty immediately, without time to put on goggles.

    This is a good verdict. Society works if people are not assholes to each other; when they start being assholes, you need laws and enforcement to motivate them not to be.

    --
    Cole's Law: Thinly sliced cabbage
  4. Sounds reasonable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I am perfectly okay with this.

  5. Re:All those old laser devices by fuzzybunny · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Hardware hackers can also pop down to the nearest gun shop, pick up a .30-06 hunting rifle, and start potting away at airplanes, injuring or killing the pilot, hitting a fuel line, or otherwise causing it to fall down go boom.

    People generally don't because it's understood that (a) doing so is malicious and destructive, and (b) there are laws prohibiting it with very severe punishment as consequences.

    There are a lot of things in this world that are potentially dangerous weapons, including high-powered lasers. Banning them isn't the answer, but making it very clear that they're dangerous and that you're not to treat them like toys definitely is.

    --
    Cole's Law: Thinly sliced cabbage
  6. Re:All those old laser devices by fuzzybunny · · Score: 4, Informative

    They are tremendously useful for stargazing - e.g. green laser collimators are fantastic tools for pointing out celestial objects or aiming a telescope.

    Also, long-distance cat annoying.

    --
    Cole's Law: Thinly sliced cabbage
  7. Harsh but probably well deserved by supertrooper · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The only issue I have is that this kid, probably non-violent dumb-ass, will come out of prison where he will experience many bad things, and probably learn many many bad things. When he comes out he probably won't be as non-violent any more.

  8. misuse of sentencing by X0563511 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sentencing should be for punishment/rehabilitation and not to "send messages."

    That kind of shit needs to go away. That's why we have "hackers" getting put away longer than rapists, or issues like Aaron Schwartz.

    --
    For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    1. Re:misuse of sentencing by Omnifarious · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There are a lot of reasons for punishment. Deterrence is a valid reason. The possible harmful consequences of this action are extreme. This kind of reckless behavior could easily result in multiple deaths. I think a little bit of extreme deterrence is warranted.

      Aaron Schwartz's behavior might've hurt someone's profits someday, and really didn't hurt anybody. It took up the time of a few admins who decided to try to stop him and that's about it. There is no societal need for a high level of deterrence there.

  9. Re:Sentence is too long by SirGarlon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And if he had gotten his wish, and crashed the aircraft, how long should we have locked him up then?

    --
    [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
  10. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  11. Re:Most horrible non-lethal weapon idea still by X0563511 · · Score: 4, Interesting
    --
    For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
  12. Re:Sentence is too long by raju1kabir · · Score: 3, Insightful

    He deliberately put people's lives at risk. If anything, the sentence is too short. He doesn't need to be in a maximum security facility, but he needs to be taken out of circulation for a while, both to teach him a lesson and to serve as a warning to others who might be tempted to do the same thing.

    --
    "Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
  13. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Informative

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  14. Punishment fetish wins again by TheCarp · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Ok this guy did something monumentally stupid which, most certainly should serve as example for others. Done. Now whats with the 30 months in prison? Why must this guy be a felon? Now unable to leave the country, unable to vote in most places, unable to own a firearm.... all for something stupid that, he is unlikely to ever do again.

    The punishment fetish in this country really needs to be checked, punishments are totally out of whack with crimes when we have people losing their rights indefinitely over something which, while it could have been disasterous wasn't, and more would have been served (and just as useful an example set) by using it as a teaching moment than by ruining this guys life and making crime one of his best options going forward.

    But hey, the harsh punishment crowd can go stroke themselves over it, so someone benefits.

    --
    "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    1. Re:Punishment fetish wins again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It simple. You do the crime, you do the time.

      In Germany this crime would be "dangerous interference with railroad, ship and airplane traffic" punishable with prison for six months to ten years, minor cases 3 months to 5 years. I'd guess it is similar in the US.

      It is however the first time I hear somebody prosecuted for shining lasers at airplanes.

    2. Re:Punishment fetish wins again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Agreed - for doing something dumb (not intending to harm anybody) he gets more than someone who committs assault on a peace officer and fleeing arrest... so they people trying to commit crimes get a (relative) slap on the wrist, and the people causing possible harm (no actual harm) due to lack of judgement gets three years.

      Sounds like a great system!

    3. Re:Punishment fetish wins again by Sarten-X · · Score: 4, Insightful

      all for something stupid that, he is unlikely to ever do again.

      Doing it twice isn't a pattern, and it's not like blinding a pilot is putting anyone's life at risk. It's far more important to preserve our freedom!

      You're absolutely right. Punishment is blown way out of proportion in this country. Look at explosives, for instance. Yeah, there's some risk to explosive chemicals, but just because some guy throws a lit stick of dynamite at a crowded building, then another at the responding police car, is no reason to lock him up for 30 months, especially if the sticks didn't actually explode. While it could have been disasterous, it wasn't, and someone could have walked over the shocked and fainted bystanders, past the dynamite, and just asked the guy not to do it again. Surely he'd learn the error of his ways.

      Lasers, like explosives, firearms, revolving credit, and cars, are just dangerous toys. When someone does something reckless and still doesn't kill people, they should be applauded for their courage. Everyone of lesser courage and luck will recognize their clear inferiority, and would never try to duplicate the risky stunt. Deterrent punishment is only useful in a society where people copy each other mindlessly, and clearly everyone in the United States is too smart for that.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
  15. Why? by Lumpy · · Score: 3, Funny

    Why not public stockades for 10 days and allow the public to throw old food at him, totrure him, humiliate him, and even give him some corporal punishment?

    Why the hell dont we do this anymore to people so they actually learn?

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  16. Crewel and unusual punishment by bussdriver · · Score: 5, Interesting

    By "sending a message" they are by their own admission, using an unusual punishment.

    Sure, this is an interpretive call on the meaning of "unusual" and judges are extremely unlikely to limit their own power by using a broad definition, just as they are unlikely to limit their power by using a narrow definition.

    Apparently, California's prison lobby has not been deterred by the budget problems and overcrowding. We have the technology, house arrest for 30 months would be more reasonable.

    1. Re:Crewel and unusual punishment by Xest · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "By "sending a message" they are by their own admission, using an unusual punishment."

      Why do you assume that? The message they're sending could just as well be that this is a fairly new crime, and hence the decision is that this is actually the standard punishment for this sort of crime going forward. There needn't be an assumption that the punishment is unusual, on the contrary, this could be normal punishment for this sort of crime going forward.

      You can only reasonably jump to the conclusion you have if there have been a decent number of equivalent cases whereby they gave lesser sentences and if hence this particular case stands out. There haven't been enough cases yet for that to be true.

  17. Re:From the article: by rfolkker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Thank you, with how many people seem to think that it is the responsibility of the victim to make sure that they are properly protected against idiots, it is nice to hear some sanity.

    I personally think 30 months is too short. And the man should have been charged with attempted murder once for every person in each aircraft.

    People need to become more conscious of their actions. If you know something "fun" that can kill people, you should still be charged with attempted murder, even if you were too stupid to realize your actions could have resulted in death.

    But, you do end up in a grey area of what is a stupid attempt, and what is an honest mistake. However, in this case, it was obviously not a mistake, it was just stupid "fun".

    As for his statement that he didn't know it was dangerous only leads to the fact that people are continuously using things without understanding what it is that they use. All laser pointers come with warnings. Even if his friend removed the label before letting his friend use it, the friend should also be responsible for notifying his friend of the dangers.

    There is also the fact that this kid was not aware of the fact that it was illegal.

    Now I know I am getting old, but the repeated use of the "I didn't know" defense sickens me every time I hear it in the news. What level of stupidity is required for people to do something they have no idea what they are doing?

    I have been slowly getting my niece into astronomy, and now I have to deal with keeping up with these idiots causing new laws getting created, so I then have to research them, so that I can continue to teach her how to look at the stars responsibly, and while, it is obvious to keep pointers out of flight paths, now, before going to a new place I need to make sure I am more than 10 miles away from any registered airport.

  18. Re:From the article: by michelcolman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And what exactly is the "practical solution" for keeping laser light out of windows which are designed to give pilots the best possible view outside? Any new materials I don't know of that keep laser light out but let other light through so pilots can still see the ground at night?

    I don't think it's "overbearing" to make it illegal to shine lasers at aircraft.

    I do think the punishment is a bit harsh for a 19 year old first offender who probably had no idea that what he was doing was so dangerous.

  19. Re:From the article: by michelcolman · · Score: 5, Informative

    I would bet that the pilot would have plenty of time to see the dot and grab the protection after he sees it, are there even any documented cases of a pilot being blinded by a laser? How many compared to reports of beams on aircraft? (also of note, passengers being blinded, while not life threatening to the whole plane, is still bad and unconscionable)

    I have flown with colleagues who have been hit by a laser and who were blinded for a few minutes, having to transfer control to the other pilot but fortunately without permanent eye damage. It's a very sudden flash without warning. Laser light is very focused, so you don't see any "dot" until it's pointed directly at you.

    Even worse, I have heard of at least one pilot who has actually lost his license due to permanent eye damage after a laser strike. What a fun game, isn't it?

    Taking precautions against them, especially small, cheap precautions (like door locks and protective glasses) which are effective against some of the more common problems, makes sense....

    If only there was a way of keeping laser light out and letting other light in so the pilots can still see the runway at night... Yes, even with all the modern electronic guidance systems, being able to look outside is still one of the very basic safety features of any aircraft.

  20. Re:Sentence is too long by Tynin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    At no point should the justice system try to make an example out of anyone. Law should always be dealt evenly. The severity of punishment does nothing for deterrence, the only thing that helps serve as a warning is consistent enforcement of the law. To punish one person more than others so others take notice, has never worked, and is more of a sign of seeking vengeance than rehabilitation. Additionally, those who would do bad things likely aren't studied in criminal law and past case history to know if anyone has been made an example of whatever stupid thing they are about to do, so no warning to others is ever realistically possible. Gone are the days when a small community would get together to exact a punishment on an offender, and only in those small communities could setting an example work.

    I just believe we should try to bring the young back into society where they can be constructive, at least give them the chance, before sending them on to learn to be a real criminal.

  21. Re:From the article: by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 4, Informative

    What kind of accuracy would be required to hit a pilot in the eye from 100m away?

    It's not necessarily hitting the pupil, but rather the scattering of the light. Cockpit glass is not a perfect surface. All the dust and microscratches scatter the light across the surface, and the pilot can no longer see out. And looking out the window is pretty much required when you are trying to land.

    We've had this problem here locally, with Navy jets coming over the oceanfront hotels on final approach. Beer fueled idiots on a hotel balcony, shining their toys at the jets.

  22. Re:How did they know it was him? by mastershake82 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Here is a video of a guy with a laser pointer being caught from above.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3k4C8grAGP4

  23. Re:From the article: by michelcolman · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I know of at least one pilot who got permanent eye damage after a laser strike, and who can no longer fly. The beam becomes pretty wide at that distance but is still strong enough to cause serious damage.

  24. Re:From the article: by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The law is stupid because the idea that laws serve as an effective deterrent is stupid.

    No it isn't.

    Remember when they passed that law against __________, and now no one does __________ anymore?

    smoking in indoor public places
    driving without a seatbelt
    leaving dog poop on the pavement
    corporal punishment in schools
    child labour

    If "laser strikes" are now a potential safety hazard, and the government wants to "do something" about them, they should start requiring pilots to wear appropriate safety gear to protect themselves against laser strikes.

    So, your answer to the problem of, say, graffiti would be to coat every wall with teflon, instead of punishing those responsible? How about mandatory burkas instead of those silly anti-rape laws?

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  25. Re:From the article: by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What kind of accuracy would be required to hit a pilot in the eye from 100m away? The pupil has a radius of probably 5 mm.

    Simple trig fails because a laser doesn't project an infinitesimal point, especially at 100m. And even if it did, you only need to hit your target for a moment to cause temporary blinding. Just the dazzle of a powerful laser as it reflects off various surfaces (or refracts through the glass) within the cockpit is probably enough to disorientate a pilot, so you don't even need to aim anywhere near their eyes.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  26. Not the first instance of jail time by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 4, Informative

    This guy pleaded guilty for repeatedly lighting up Navy jets. 18 months and $4k fine.
    He was pissed at all the noise. The base was there before he was born.

  27. Re:This wasn't a laser pointer! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Nobody is pointing scientific lasers at aircraft.

    What this is all about is direct-diode lasers. Wicked Lasers takes these high-powered diodes, backs them up with a small power source and places them in a pointer housing. Voila: "Commercial-grade laser"

    Laser power has gotten DRASTICALLY higher in recent years, specifically with the advent of high-powered direct-diode lasers which much more portable than any type of laser tech previously available.

    Anything over 1mW (or somewhat higher as long as its firmly ensconced in an enclosure that prevents direct access) is not considered eye-safe (class 1).

    Classes 2 and 3 (and the associated sub-classes) cover lasers between 2mW and 500mW. Lasers in this class can cause permanent damage very quickly, however the blink reflex (at roughtly 250ms) is fast enough to prevent such damage.

    Anything over 500mW (1/2 Watt) is considered Class 4. There is no Class 5.

    Class 4 means various things: Permanent instantaneous eye damage (blink reflex is not fast enough to prevent damage). Clearly, the "pointers" coming from overseas fall into the Class 4 category. While these diodes may not be waveform stabilized enough to find use in holography, they are plenty powerful to do some real damage if not handled correctly. Owning a hand-held device capable of output power in excess of 1 watt requires proper handling and respect.

    Gov't enforcement on import of high-powered lasers is lax. Enforcement of their usage falls to the various state radiological boards, and the FDA at the Federal level. Any operator must possess a federal variance in order to run public laser exhibitions indoors, an additional FAA clearance is required to run outdoors, also any laser display device must be covered separately under a device variance (which ensures the device contains proper safety labels, keyswitch interlocks, registration with gov't entities, etc.) before it can be considered legal for "professional" use.

    As a laser show professional, I'm just awaiting the day someone does something really stupid which results in catastrophe and ruins it for the rest of us. The US already has some of the most stringent regulations in the world covering allowable exposure and prohibiting certain types of effects (audience scanning, etc) from being used. Enjoy the pretty lights while you can, before some bozo prompts a crackdown.

  28. Re:From the article: by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 4, Informative

    No Mythbusters needed. This is what it looks like from the air. And this guy was prepared for it, having been notified by a previous aircraft. They went looking for this guy.
    And here is another one.
    And for an airliner, you're looking at a 9 sq/ft window, instead of a 5mm pupil.

  29. Re:All those old laser devices by simonbp · · Score: 4, Informative

    Heh, amateurs. Literally.

    I got to use the Keck II Laser Guide Star Adaptive Optics systems last week (to hunt for binary Kuiper Belt objects). It fires a 16 W CW laser (32x beyond what's needed to be Class 4) from one of the world's largest telescopes up to create an artificial ball of plasma about 90 km above the Earth. Since the ball should appear as a point source, all the distortion it in is due to the atmosphere. So, the computers calculate the distortion and cancel it out to create better resolution images than the atmosphere would allow. In theory it's better than Hubble (or so the PR people say), but in our experience using both, it really has to be a perfect night to just match Hubble.

    There is an automatic aircraft detection system, but we still have to have a guy out there with a pair of binoculars looking for airplanes. More pressing though, is the satellites. To insure the laser doesn't blind any "downward-looking satellites", we have to submit our list of targets to the US Space Command. If we get close to violating any of the closures that they gave us, the laser automatically shutters and the control system bleats out "Waring! Warning! Space Command! Space Command!", which has several near heart attacks at about 3 AM...

  30. "Not intending to harm anybody"? by sirwired · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "For doing something dumb (not intending to harm anybody)"

    What, precisely, do you think he had in mind when aiming a laser pointer in the cockpit of an airplane lining up for a landing? "Harmless", my a$$.

    This was a serious violent crime. Period. End of story. The fact that his crime failed to have the intended result doesn't mean he gets a slap on the wrist.