Slashdot Mirror


Gyrocopter Pilot Appears In Court; Judge Bans Him From D.C.

mpicpp writes The Florida mail carrier accused of landing a gyrocopter outside the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday was charged in federal court Thursday and has been barred from returning to the District of Columbia or flying any aircraft, officials said. Douglas Hughes, 61, was charged with violating aircraft registration requirements, a felony, and violating national defense airspace, a misdemeanor. If convicted, he could be sentenced to up to three years in prison for the felony and one year in prison for the airspace violation. U.S. Magistrate Judge Deborah A. Robinson also barred Hughes from the District of Columbia, except for court appearances, and said he must stay away from the Capitol, White House and nearby areas while he is there. He will also have to hand over his passport.

178 of 271 comments (clear)

  1. America! Fuck yeah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Lockin up the postman to save the mothafuckin day Nyah!

    1. Re:America! Fuck yeah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Speaking of the characteristics of America...

      Last week I was at an airport in Europe. I was thinking about how Americans were cautioned because certain criminals (and of course "terrorists") might target them. But this part of Europe had a demographic make-up similar to the USA - mostly white folk, plus a good percentage of people of African descent and a few Asians.

      I was thinking, how would they know who is American? Then a plane was boarding. I saw this family, six people in total. The parents and all four children (some were as young as 5 or 6) were really morbidly obese. Then I understood how criminals might target Americans. Strange how the news didn't mention this.

      Also, it's too bad telling the honest truth so often offends somebody, but they'll get over it. If you are the parent of a five year old, that five year old becomes morbidly obese, and there is no thyroid problem or other solid medical reason for that, you deserve to be tried and convicted of child abuse/child neglect. Destroy your own health all you like, as you are an adult and can make that choice just like you can choose to smoke, but to destroy your child's health from the start like that is just evil.

    2. Re:America! Fuck yeah! by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      Also, it's too bad telling the honest truth so often offends somebody, but they'll get over it. If you are the parent of a five year old, that five year old becomes morbidly obese, and there is no thyroid problem or other solid medical reason for that, you deserve to be tried and convicted of child abuse/child neglect. Destroy your own health all you like, as you are an adult and can make that choice just like you can choose to smoke, but to destroy your child's health from the start like that is just evil.

      The problem is that in some parts of the US, it's REALLY hard to source affordable real food.
      http://blog.ted.com/a-visit-to...
      Watch the talk; the stats on obesity are quite disturbing... as is the fact that Finley was arrested and cited for growing vegetables (spoiler: he eventually fought back on that and won).

      But this is a guy who's willing to go counter-culture and risk jail time to get real food to real people. Want to avoid jail and not sink all your time into sourcing your food? You may not have a choice but to buy growth hormone-infused meats and produce. Especially if you want something affordable.

      I think what *really* needs to happen is that the FDA in the US needs to reclassify a bunch of stuff so that only real food can be sold as food in the US -- anything with growth hormones should be clearly labeled as such with a disclaimer "warning: consuming product can lead to obesity and diabetes." I bet this would go a long way towards cleaning up the problem.

    3. Re:America! Fuck yeah! by i_ate_god · · Score: 1

      so the growth hormones are what's causing obesity?

      --
      I'm god, but it's a bit of a drag really...
    4. Re:America! Fuck yeah! by Gizan · · Score: 1

      Lets Lock up a FEDERAL employee (Postman) for Delivering mail to congress (His job) on Federal Property. US of A IS BEST A!

    5. Re:America! Fuck yeah! by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      You do really being obese (BMI 25-30) is the range to target for longest lifespan right? So those people who were "morbidly obese" just overshot the desired target range. Not until BMI gets to 35 does risk factors even become again like *normal* weight person

      so bottom line is, it's good to be an american lard-ass, at least with BMI under 35

      http://www.everydayhealth.com/...

    6. Re:America! Fuck yeah! by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      You do really being obese (BMI 25-30) is the range to target for longest lifespan right?

      25-30 is considered overweight, not obese. It used to be that <27.5 was considered normal but the standards were redefined in the late 90s.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    7. Re:America! Fuck yeah! by Guspaz · · Score: 1

      Or more like let's lock up a federal employee for a variety of crimes (one of them a felony), including flying an unregistered aircraft without a pilots license, and violating protected airspace.

    8. Re:America! Fuck yeah! by MrBigInThePants · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I love how you US people's use the word Felony as if it all of a sudden makes an act worse that it actually is. Its not a magic word.

      The act is as bad as it is. Just because a bureaucrat somewhere decided a different classification should be used to describe it means nothing except more prison time...because of said bureaucrat.

      Quite ridiculous.

      That's not just murder, that's FELONY murder. That person is even more heinously dead now!

      He didn't just steal a car, that is FELONY stealing of a car. The car is SOOOO much more stolen.

      My penis is not just a normal penis, its a FELONIOUS penis. What does that mean? Its an awful lot longer...

    9. Re:America! Fuck yeah! by murdocj · · Score: 1

      Uh, yes, the act is as bad as it is... not as bad as you happen to THINK it should be.

    10. Re: America! Fuck yeah! by Peyna · · Score: 2

      In most jurisdictions felony murder is actually a lesser form of murder.

      Generally a felony is a series crime, a misdemeanor is a petty crime. Misdemeanors usually carry a maximum punishment of less than one year, felonies have much higher punishment.

      As far as what crimes are classified as what is up to the legislature, obviously, but the legal distinction is more significant than just a label. One of the biggest distinctions being that felonies require a grand jury indictment (in states that have grand juries), or a probable cause hearing in non grand jury states.

      Also it's not like the U.S. invented the distinction, we inherited it from England.

      --
      What?
    11. Re:America! Fuck yeah! by MrBigInThePants · · Score: 1

      Oh wow.

      That explains EVERYTHING.

      Not I totally see the sensible practicality of it.

      Oh god, I think I just lost my eyebrows in what's left of my hair...

    12. Re: America! Fuck yeah! by MrBigInThePants · · Score: 1

      You explanation was not necessary. I was not referring to the definition, but to the use of the word in of itself as a means to make a crime worse than it is as in the source post.

      An amusing example of false causation due to correlation.

      You put two things together enough and people add their own glue. Especially when they think it makes them or something they are saying sound more important...

    13. Re:America! Fuck yeah! by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      Speaking of the characteristics of America...

      Last week I was at an airport in Europe. I was thinking about how Americans were cautioned because certain criminals (and of course "terrorists") might target them. But this part of Europe had a demographic make-up similar to the USA - mostly white folk, plus a good percentage of people of African descent and a few Asians.

      I was thinking, how would they know who is American? Then a plane was boarding. I saw this family, six people in total. The parents and all four children (some were as young as 5 or 6) were really morbidly obese. Then I understood how criminals might target Americans. Strange how the news didn't mention this.

      Also, it's too bad telling the honest truth so often offends somebody, but they'll get over it. If you are the parent of a five year old, that five year old becomes morbidly obese, and there is no thyroid problem or other solid medical reason for that, you deserve to be tried and convicted of child abuse/child neglect. Destroy your own health all you like, as you are an adult and can make that choice just like you can choose to smoke, but to destroy your child's health from the start like that is just evil.

      The other way they could target Americans is the RFID tags in the passports. I heard theres a plot to plant bombs which will only go off if enough US passports are nearby... Better keep a safe distance from other Americans, eh

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    14. Re:America! Fuck yeah! by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      Yes, that is ridiculous that you would get life in prison for hacking or for smoking pot, and also ridiculous that you would get 4 years in prison for flying near the white house. The airspace belongs to the people.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    15. Re:America! Fuck yeah! by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      fine, we'll compromise and call it pleasantly plump. whatever, the emaciated model, actor, etc. look pushed in the mass media is not healthy

    16. Re: America! Fuck yeah! by el_chicano · · Score: 1

      There is no non-felonious murder or car theft.

      Wrong, at least for car theft in Texas:

      In Texas, the value of the property will generally control the level of the offense. The higher the value of the vehicle, the higher the range of punishment for the vehicle theft.

      An inexpensive vehicle theft, (under $1500), is punished as a misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in county jail.

      http://criminal-law.freeadvice.com/criminal-law/white_collar_crimes/vehicle-theft.htm

      --
      A man who wants nothing is invincible
    17. Re:America! Fuck yeah! by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Did he even need a pilot's license? The article doesn't seem to mention anything about licenses, and the 'copter looks like it *might* full under the weight limit to be classified as an ultralight, which does not need a license to operate (~250 pounds unloaded, not counting safety equipment)

      Of course if he was honestly attempting to deliver mail then that probably wouldn't count as recreational usage, at least not if it was mail he was supposed to deliver for reasons other than his own satisfaction, so I suppose he'd need a license anyway. But then he had to know he'd be stopped, he even called ahead, so clearly he didn't actually intend to deliver the mail - rather he wanted to create a media spectacle, which I think could be argued as recreational.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    18. Re:America! Fuck yeah! by Immerman · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Yes. And the basic act was some dude landed a personal lightweight aircraft on the lawn of one of his employees in order to drop off some mail (and create a media spectacle). Seems he even called ahead, and took care to avoid the flower beds. What a monster.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    19. Re: America! Fuck yeah! by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Neither is being overweight and sedentary, or obese.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    20. Re:America! Fuck yeah! by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      The spectacle is half-successful: There is much coverage of him landing, but few articles actually mention why he was there or the petitions he was carrying. I think a lot of editors are reluctant to be seen 'endorsing' the stunt by giving him the type of publicity he wants.

    21. Re:America! Fuck yeah! by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Yes, the scale shows that those in (or near) "normal/ideal" are better off than those over or under weight. No doctor ever indicated that underweight was good. That's something that the media asserts.

    22. Re:America! Fuck yeah! by Undead+Waffle · · Score: 1

      You tend to lose more rights due to a felony conviction, so in a way it is more serious. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    23. Re:America! Fuck yeah! by GNious · · Score: 1

      To be fair, those obese people could simply be Germans...

      Germany - the America of Europe!

    24. Re:America! Fuck yeah! by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Actually, it gets better: 3 of those 4 years is only because he didn't register the aircraft properly (according to TFS). Violating national security airspace is apparently only a misdemeanor, and worth only 1 year in prison at most.

    25. Re:America! Fuck yeah! by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      IANAL, but I don't think that's correct at all. Offing a security guard is still "normal" murder, and just one step below premediated murder.

      As I understand it, "felony murder" is where someone dies as a result of your felony crime, even though you didn't intend it (this is the key). So, a good example is that you and your buddy go rob an armored car. You don't actually want to hurt anyone, but you look to the armed guards like you might, so they shoot at you in self-defense. Your buddy gets killed by shots from the armed guards. You survive, and you're now prosecuted for the "felony murder" of your buddy: even though it was the armed guard who actually killed him, your felonious actions led directly to his death.

      Another example would be committing some crime with your buddy, and he gets killed totally by accident during the crime; maybe you're breaking into a bank or something, and he gets killed by shattered glass in the process.

    26. Re:America! Fuck yeah! by Guspaz · · Score: 1

      I'm not a "US people", so your entire premise falls apart. The US considers felonies to be more serious crimes, and in some states there are three-strikes law that result in an automatic life sentence if convicted of three felonies. Committing one is a big deal, if only because there are big consequences... It illustrates, if nothing else, how stupid it is to intentionally commit one for some really dumb protest idea.

    27. Re:America! Fuck yeah! by MrBigInThePants · · Score: 1

      I am referring to the use of the word to IN OF ITSELF make an act worse than it is and mentioned the fact that you get more time.

      And act cannot be made worse than it is just because some mouth breather somewhere decided it should be dealt with in a different legal system

      The fact that it carries a bigger sentence is irrelevant.

      You missed my point entirely but then are probably one of those that use the word in this way...

    28. Re:America! Fuck yeah! by MrBigInThePants · · Score: 1

      I am referring to the use of the word to IN OF ITSELF make an act worse than it is and mentioned the fact that you get more time.

      And act cannot be made worse than it is just because some mouth breather somewhere decided it should be dealt with in a different legal system

    29. Re:America! Fuck yeah! by JimFive · · Score: 1

      Did he even need a pilot's license? The article doesn't seem to mention anything about licenses, and the 'copter looks like it *might* full under the weight limit to be classified as an ultralight, which does not need a license to operate

      I could be wrong, but I think that only applies in uncontrolled (Class G) airspace. In most places airspace is Class G within some distance (700 ft?) above ground level but around airports and in other areas airspace is controlled all the way to the ground. I suspect that the capitol (if not all of D.C.) is controlled all the way down.
      --
      JimFive

      --
      Please stop using the word theory when you mean hypothesis.
    30. Re:America! Fuck yeah! by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Are you saying two wrongs make right?

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  2. misdemeanor?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    It is only a Misdemeanor to violate National Defense Air Space??? Why do I get 5 stars on GTA then??

    1. Re:misdemeanor?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Pilot here. Even though this guy clearly did it intentionally, accidentally violating an airspace in a small plane without sophisticated navigation equipment is easier than you would think. Someone does it every once in a while. Don't get me wrong, it's still a big deal, but not a felony. I wouldn't ever fly near the D.C. area out of fear of doing exactly that. The airspace up there is pretty complicated.

    2. Re:misdemeanor?? by grimmjeeper · · Score: 2

      It's always interesting hearing the stories of people trying to fly into Meacham in Fort Worth, TX getting off by a couple miles to the west and starting an approach into what was Carswel AFB (now NAS Joint Reserve Base). The runways are only off from each other by a couple of degrees and only a couple miles apart so if you're flying VFR, it's not as hard as you think to confuse them. Fortunately, the controllers are good about making sure you get it straight before you get too far.

    3. Re:misdemeanor?? by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Pilot here. Even though this guy clearly did it intentionally, accidentally violating an airspace in a small plane without sophisticated navigation equipment is easier than you would think. Someone does it every once in a while. Don't get me wrong, it's still a big deal, but not a felony. I wouldn't ever fly near the D.C. area out of fear of doing exactly that. The airspace up there is pretty complicated.

      You can't legally fly within 60nm of the center of DC without taking an online training course. If you want to fly to an airport right on the edge of the restricted area it is probably complicated, but for the most part you just need to stay outside of a certain distance and you're fine. If I were operating anywhere near that area i'd probably request flight following as well - then you're broadcasting a transponder code and talking to somebody who can tell you you're wandering towards trouble before they are scrambling jets.

      Obviously flying IFR is the simplest solution. ATC tells you where to go and you follow the route and you're fine.

      But, if you're just buzzing around sightseeing over the white house, then sure, you're going to be in a lot of trouble. They actually have lasers to illuminate aircraft to try to warn them off, so that shooting them down isn't their only recourse.

    4. Re:misdemeanor?? by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      You can't legally fly within 60nm of the center of DC without taking an online training course. If you want to fly to an airport right on the edge of the restricted area it is probably complicated, but for the most part you just need to stay outside of a certain distance and you're fine. If I were operating anywhere near that area i'd probably request flight following as well - then you're broadcasting a transponder code and talking to somebody who can tell you you're wandering towards trouble before they are scrambling jets.

      Isn't that odd how during 9/11 NORAD went some two hours without scrambling a single jet, despite the normal response time measured in minutes they aim for and we have witnessed in every other instance of a flight going so far astray?

      Every other instance before or after 9/11? A lot of attitudes changed after 9/11.

      However, this wasn't a commercial flight. In general small aircraft can go from anywhere to anywhere and nobody takes notice. The exception is controlled interface and ADIZs, and the SFRA around DC is even more of an exception. Any aircraft that enters that airspace is subject to interception, or possibly even being shot down.

    5. Re:misdemeanor?? by sabbede · · Score: 1

      What gets me is that the registration violation is a felony, but violating National Defence Airspace, which can earn you a missile up the keester, is the misdemeanor.

    6. Re:misdemeanor?? by dougmc · · Score: 1

      Lots of misdemeanors can result in law enforcement using deadly force on you.

      That said, I would expect his autogyro to be considered an ultralight and not require registration, though maybe it's too big to qualify? Also, if it is an ultralight, then he doesn't need a license to fly it.

      It's also not equipped with a radio or transponder, though I don't know how required those are or what the penalties for not having them would be -- though a felony seems too strict.

    7. Re:misdemeanor?? by sabbede · · Score: 1
      According to some other commenter, the gyrocopter was 100lbs over the ultralight limit.

      What I'm wondering now though is how much flexibility the FAA and courts have in charging/sentencing people with that registration offence. I'd hate to think people could be going to prison because they forgot to file some paperwork on time.

  3. Is banishment legal? by slinches · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Can you really ban someone from a federal district? What about a state?

    --
    Knowledge Brings Fear
    1. Re:Is banishment legal? by pete6677 · · Score: 1

      Federal judges can do whatever they want. There are no limits to the kinds of orders they can issue, unless overturned by a higher court which this won't be.

    2. Re:Is banishment legal? by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's not a "ban" per say, it's a condition of his release pending trial. No different than the Judge telling you that you can't leave your house except for work, must submit to drug testing, or the myriad other requirements that are imposed on people who don't get pre-trial confinement. The alternative to accepting the conditions of release is to go to jail and sit there for a few months while the wheels of justice grind forward.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    3. Re:Is banishment legal? by Nukenbar · · Score: 3, Informative

      Not as a final sentence, but you can ban people from a number of things as a condition of bail.

    4. Re:Is banishment legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Hey, we Limeys used to send our criminals to the other side of the planet!

    5. Re:Is banishment legal? by Guillermito · · Score: 1

      Judges have the power to send people to jail, which is essentially banning a person from everywhere except a tiny cell. So being banned from a single city like in this case doesn't look that bad in comparison.

    6. Re:Is banishment legal? by HighOrbit · · Score: 3, Informative

      Are you jesting? A judge can ban you from everyplace excepting a 5x8 concrete pad enclosed with iron bars (commonly referred to as a "cell").

      In reallity, the Gov't rarely punishes non-violent acts of civil disobediance/protest with anything more than a fine and time served while awaiting trial (days to a few months). For history, look at all the anti-nuke demonstrators who regularly chain themselves to the fences at air force bases. The key here is non-violance. As long as nobody got hurt and there wasn't any real possibility of anybody getting hurt, they will give the guy a small to moderate fine.

      If he is not close to retirement, he might get fired from the postal service.

    7. Re:Is banishment legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They have quite a bit of leeway in this regard. This order really is pretty smart. This guy pulled this stunt specifically for the publicity it would create.

      (Anyone with two braincells to rub together would know what landing your contraception on the white house lawn would get you nabbed by guys in black vans in full view of press cameras)

      The judge is blunting his ability to capture all that media attention and use it as a platform to spread his message. This is probably a good idea, otherwise we'd have every nutcase in the nation parachuting to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue twice a week to promote their self published amazon e-book.

    8. Re:Is banishment legal? by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      He could appeal to the Supreme.....oooooohhhhhhhh....

    9. Re:Is banishment legal? by amiga3D · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The judges in my county ban people from entering the county a lot. It's one of their favorite things to do. Basically it keeps us from having to keep them up in jail. They get probation and a "get the hell out and stay out" order. If they come back they stuff them in jail to do their sentence. Works like a charm, they move on up the road and become someone else problem.

    10. Re:Is banishment legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's "per se", mr smartypants.

    11. Re:Is banishment legal? by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Federal judges can do whatever they want. There are no limits to the kinds of orders they can issue, unless overturned by a higher court which this won't be.

      Judges can't do whatever they want. We have this thing called law.
      FUCK

    12. Re:Is banishment legal? by PuckSR · · Score: 1

      His question was about banning from a federal district.
      Barring someone from Washington DC for life might be seen as a violation of his 1st Amendment.

    13. Re:Is banishment legal? by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

      "(Anyone with two braincells to rub together would know what landing your contraception on the white house lawn would get you nabbed by guys in black vans in full view of press cameras)"

      Interesting autocorrect there. I'd suspect that would gather an indecent exposure charge, maybe.

    14. Re:Is banishment legal? by theNetImp · · Score: 1

      He's allowed to DC for court appearances so he could still appeal.

    15. Re:Is banishment legal? by war4peace · · Score: 1

      Landing your WHAT, again?

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    16. Re:Is banishment legal? by war4peace · · Score: 1

      "Per se" with a 'murican accent becomes "per say" :)

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    17. Re:Is banishment legal? by Culture20 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This effectively bans him from petitioning the federal government (in person). Would the judge have inserted this order as a poison pill to force an appellate court to do something? It's awfully weird.

    18. Re:Is banishment legal? by mr_mischief · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Calling a 350-pound gyro a helicopter is kind of like calling a go-cart a sports car.

    19. Re:Is banishment legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Barring someone from Washington DC for life might be seen as a violation of his 1st Amendment.

      If he was given the choice between spending three years in jail or staying out of DC for life and he took the second option, it wouldn't be unconstitutional. He's currently barred from DC as a condition of his bail. He could just stay in jail (in DC) if he wanted to.

    20. Re:Is banishment legal? by Kyogreex · · Score: 1

      Chaining yourself to a fence and flying a helicopter at the Capitol are vastly different on the scale from harmless to harmful.

      That's complete nonsense. Considering nobody was harmed in either of these instances, both seem to fall under "harmless."

    21. Re:Is banishment legal? by Dragon+Bait · · Score: 1

      Otherwise you are not innocent until proven otherwise.

      Do you honestly take someone you presume is innocent and put them on trial? Do you make someone you presume is innocent and make them post bond or be locked up in prison?

      Of course the answer is no! You only do these things to people you presume are guilty. The innocent until proven guilty is only for the jurors. The presiding judge is schizophrenic, doing some things you'd only do if you presume the person was guilty and doing other things as if the defendant was innocent.

    22. Re:Is banishment legal? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The alternative to accepting the conditions of release is to go to jail and sit there for a few months while the wheels of justice grind forward.

      Yes, because the "right" to a speedy trial is a load of dingo's kidneys, just like all other "human rights" in this country.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    23. Re:Is banishment legal? by murdocj · · Score: 1

      You need to think harder. Really.

    24. Re:Is banishment legal? by murdocj · · Score: 1

      as opposed to ... North Korea? Russia? China? African / Middle Eastern nations? France, where wearing the head scarf is a crime? Germany? Just where is this beacon of human rights if not the USA?

    25. Re:Is banishment legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, the constitution does say any American citizen has free travel between areas within the US. So if I was this guy, I'd sue the federal court. Fun fact, because it's a federal issue, he's constitutionally promised a jury of at least 6 people if the suit is for more than $20. At that point, it really doesn't matter what the federal judge says, it's the jury. And since the US is a country of "letter of the law", the federal government is going to have a hell of a time defending this action when the constitution explicitly prohibits it.

    26. Re:Is banishment legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      How many braincells does it take to not accidentally a word

    27. Re:Is banishment legal? by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      Federal judges can do whatever they want. There are no limits to the kinds of orders they can issue, unless overturned by a higher court which this won't be.

      Kind of like ASBOs in the UK?

      "Cannot wear baggy pants in public places between the hours of 6pm and 6am"

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    28. Re:Is banishment legal? by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      Federal judges can do whatever they want. There are no limits to the kinds of orders they can issue, unless overturned by a higher court which this won't be.

      Judges can't do whatever they want. We have this thing called law.
      FUCK

      Since when did Americans allow the law to stand in the way of justice?
      FUCK

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    29. Re:Is banishment legal? by causality · · Score: 1

      Well, the constitution does say any American citizen has free travel between areas within the US. So if I was this guy, I'd sue the federal court. Fun fact, because it's a federal issue, he's constitutionally promised a jury of at least 6 people if the suit is for more than $20. At that point, it really doesn't matter what the federal judge says, it's the jury. And since the US is a country of "letter of the law", the federal government is going to have a hell of a time defending this action when the constitution explicitly prohibits it.

      Sure thing. All it will cost him is his life savings plus whatever debt he incurs.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    30. Re:Is banishment legal? by hey! · · Score: 1

      Well, keeping you out of the public eye is an appropriate punishment when you're convicted of a political crime. But we shouldn't recognize political crimes.

      If people want to pay attention to what this guy has to say because he gyrocoptered in restricted airspace, that's their business. Even though it's a pretty stupid reason, it shouldn't be a judge's role to sit in judgment of that.

      THere's an important flip side to freedom of speech that is often overlooked: freedom of listening. As a citizen you should be able to hear what the government doesn't want you to hear, unless the government has a compelling reason, and even then the restrictions should be narrowly tailored. "That guy just pulled a stupid stunt," is not a compelling reason to intervene in what people choose to listen to.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    31. Re:Is banishment legal? by Dragon+Bait · · Score: 1

      You need to think harder. Really.

      So you throw people you presume innocent into prison and make them defend themselves? Damn. I don't wan to live in your fascist world.

    32. Re:Is banishment legal? by el_chicano · · Score: 1

      (Anyone with two braincells to rub together would know what landing your contraception on the white house lawn would get you nabbed by guys in black vans in full view of press cameras)

      The White House would most likely freak out if everybody started landing condoms and birth control pills on their lawn!

      --
      A man who wants nothing is invincible
    33. Re: Is banishment legal? by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Not necessarily - start high enough, with a favorable wind and a paraglider-style chute and you could possibly make it from non-restricted airspace, especially on a nice hot day with the heat-island effect was providing a strong updraft. Or you could be launched from a catapult/cannon/etc.instead, if you could somehow get it close enough avoid raising suspicion ahead of time...

      Then again, Wikipedia at least classifies paragliders along with hang gliders as aircraft, and a determined lawyer could potentially get even a standard 'chute recognized as such, should a really lucky parachutist manage to make it. Now you've got me curious as to the legal classification. I'd think they'd be classified as ultralight aircraft, at most. But that seems rather generous.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    34. Re:Is banishment legal? by sound+vision · · Score: 1

      This type of thing is de facto legal as a final sentence. Far more restrictive travel bans are commonplace in certain situations, such as when someone is sentenced to probation. It's usually laid out in terms like "You are not allowed to leave the State of X, and must notify the court if you plan to travel outside of County Y". That's a lot more restrictive than banning a Floridian from traveling within D.C.

    35. Re:Is banishment legal? by oobayly · · Score: 1

      Probably not as much as the previous residents.

    36. Re:Is banishment legal? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      No matter what they can and can't do, Alabama will just ignore them anyway.

    37. Re:Is banishment legal? by the+grace+of+R'hllor · · Score: 1

      Prisoners are also still citizens, and judges can take away their constitutional rights just fine.

    38. Re:Is banishment legal? by sabbede · · Score: 1

      Apparently. And I think I just came up with a great punishment for corrupt politicians...

    39. Re:Is banishment legal? by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      The relevant law is here. In most cases they have 70 days to bring you to trial after the information is filed/indictment is handed down. When it takes longer than that it's usually because the defendant is the one requesting the delay.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    40. Re:Is banishment legal? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The relevant law is here. In most cases they have 70 days to bring you to trial

      That doesn't strike you as being a long time? If they want to drag you into court, they can do it in about 70 minutes. But to process you through it, it takes 70 days? Perhaps the money is being spent in the wrong place.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    41. Re:Is banishment legal? by istartedi · · Score: 1

      He has been charged with a felony. They could keep him in jail. Based on that, I'd say that banishment is quite legal. They're saying "everywhere except DC until your trial" vs. "noplace but this cell until your trial".

      It doesn't become an issue unless they deny him the right to a speedy trial.

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    42. Re:Is banishment legal? by vanye · · Score: 1

      Which part is cruel and which the unusual ?

    43. Re:Is banishment legal? by Loconut1389 · · Score: 1

      Isn't that an unconstitutional ruling that is against his right to redress his government?

    44. Re:Is banishment legal? by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      *shrug*, in New York State they have six months for all felony charges except murder, where they have a year. It takes time for both sides (defense and prosecution) to prepare their cases. 70 days seems reasonable to me, particularly in the case of someone (like the subject of TFA) who isn't being held pending trial.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    45. Re:Is banishment legal? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that *shrug* is how we got where we are now with our government in general. No justice available from the justice system? *shrug*

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    46. Re:Is banishment legal? by samwichse · · Score: 1

      As would sitting in a jail cell awaiting trial.

  4. Are things back to normal now? by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

    This sounds like the kind of reaction our glorious overlords were having to people landing on the Capitol lawn on September 10th, 2001.

    A little miffed, patronizing, an official "We have our eye on you", but not guns drawn, no disappearances into Cuban prison camps, no insane over-reactions.

    --
    You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    1. Re:Are things back to normal now? by SternisheFan · · Score: 1

      I'll just leave this here... http://www.cleveland.com/darcy...

    2. Re:Are things back to normal now? by msauve · · Score: 4, Funny

      "I can't believe no one shot him as he came over the fence. What the fuck is wrong with White House security?"

      Maybe the firearms they're armed with don't have the range to hit a gyro-copter landing at the Capitol building, which is over a mile away.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    3. Re:Are things back to normal now? by sjames · · Score: 2

      White House guards were busy guarding the White House. This guy landed at the Capitol building.

    4. Re:Are things back to normal now? by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      Is there a school house rock video explaining in song the differences?

    5. Re:Are things back to normal now? by desdinova+216 · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing that Capitol Security made a (proper) judgement call that it was safer to let him make a controlled landing instead of shooting him down and having fragments rain down.

    6. Re:Are things back to normal now? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Range is not a problem, most guns can kill someone over a mile away. Accuracy is a problem, that is, killing the person you're aiming for and not someone else on the next block.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re:Are things back to normal now? by msauve · · Score: 1

      "Range is not a problem, most guns can kill someone over a mile away."

      Some, perhaps, but certainly not most, especially if you consider handguns. It's about 1.6 miles. 9mm will only go about 1.4 miles.

      Of course, one reason even rifles don't have the range is that there's stuff in the way between the White House and the Capitol.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    8. Re:Are things back to normal now? by Undead+Waffle · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing that Capitol Security made a (proper) judgement call that it was safer to let him make a controlled landing instead of shooting him down and having fragments rain down.

      That and they were warned multiple times by different people that he was going to do this. He stated his intentions on the internet before doing it and some of the journalists watching called it in about a half an hour before he landed. I read this in an article on my phone so I don't have the link anymore unfortunately.

    9. Re:Are things back to normal now? by mjwalshe · · Score: 1

      Obviously they should replace the secret service with the average small town cop - who see quiet eager to shoot people. Or may the SS are professionals and know that shooting some one with low level mental health issues isn't going to look good on the 9 o'clock news.

  5. Typical Misdirection From White House by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 4, Insightful

    While it may be true that this guy was "literally flying under the radar", that phrase gives a very misleading impression: the impression that he was trying to sneak up on them.

    Quite the contrary. He sent them a message a full hour in advance, saying that they should expect him.

    So while it might have been "literally" under the radar, it wasn't figuratively under the radar. The White House knew he was coming and expected him. That being the case, they don't get to say they were surprised by his arrival, or imply that he was any kind of serious threat. If they were surprised at all, it was nobody's fault but their own.

    1. Re:Typical Misdirection From White House by jklovanc · · Score: 1, Insightful

      or imply that he was any kind of serious threat.

      Think of the following scenario;
      1. Inform flight control that you will be delivering letter by gyrocopter to the Capitol Lawn.
      2. Load explosives in the mail bag.
      3. Fly to the Capitol Lawn.
      4. Crash into the Capitol Building and explode instead.
      How can you trust that the stated intentions are the actual intentions? How many time are such statements hoaxes?

    2. Re: Typical Misdirection From White House by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 2

      One hour warning is ridiculously short. Also - there was no way for the White House to know he was just delivering letters and not a bomb.

      Well it was statistically unlikely. 100% of gyrocopter visits to the white house have no been to deliver a bomb.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    3. Re: Typical Misdirection From White House by Stolpskott · · Score: 2

      One hour warning is ridiculously short. Also - there was no way for the White House to know he was just delivering letters and not a bomb.

      If White House security get credible intelligence warning of an impending attack on the White House 1 hour before it happens, and they do nothing to prevent the attack, then the security staff there are ragingly incompetent. There are entire sections of the Secret Service dedicated to the protection of the President, his (maybe "her" in future) family and the White House itself, so 60 minutes' warning is at least 55 minutes more than they would need to actually do something.
      Hey, I know... let's ask the Russians and the Chinese to make their nukes slower, so that we can have more than 1 hour's warning of an attack, because 1 hour is just too little time and it's not fair. We need AT LEAST 2 hours to call the decision-makers out of their budget review meetings when important shit happens.

    4. Re:Typical Misdirection From White House by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Quite the contrary. He sent them a message a full hour in advance, saying that they should expect him.

      The White House knew he was coming and expected him

      You've got a lot of faith in Uncle Sam if you think the left hand (whomever reads info@barackobama.com) talks to the right hand (FAA, NORAD, USSS, and a few other agencies in the alphabet soup)

      Heck, it's not even a Government address, it's BHO's campaign organization's address.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    5. Re: Typical Misdirection From White House by DougOtto · · Score: 3

      Short for what should be the one of the most well-guarded structures in the US, and living quarters for our leader?

      Umm. You know the President doesn't live at the Capitol, right?

      --
      Solving Unix problems since 1989...
    6. Re: Typical Misdirection From White House by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      You do know he'd been talking about this stunt for weeks don't you? He's been telling all kinds of people what he was going to do. They had a report in the Miami press about it before he did it and then......he did it. WTF??? This shows you how fucking stupid Al Qaeda and ISIS are. If a simple minded fucker in a letter carrier's jacket can fly over the fence at the White House and the terrorists can't, then evidently the fucking terrorists are more incompetent than the White House security team. Thank God for that.

    7. Re:Typical Misdirection From White House by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      Then why didn't they shoot his ass out of the sky? A 12 Gauge pump shotgun would have sufficed.

    8. Re:Typical Misdirection From White House by Obfuscant · · Score: 2

      Quite the contrary. He sent them a message a full hour in advance, saying that they should expect him.

      And who was "them" that he sent the message to? "info@barackobama.com". If you didn't know, and didn't bother to look up, that domain is used by "Organizing for Action", a "grassroots" "community organizing" group. It has "barackobama" in the name, so the President must be involved, right? He got the message the postman delivered, right?

      According to the FAQ in their website asking about the group's connection to Barack Obama:

      The President's legacy as a grassroots organizer helped inspire a movement of millions. OFA was founded in January 2013 to make progress on the agenda the American people voted for. From fighting climate change to working toward economic opportunity for all, OFA's mission is rooted in making real, lasting change.

      In other words, they have no connection to Barack Obama at all. They were inspired by his community activism. Period.

      So, the miscreant postman told some political activism website about his mission, but nobody directly connected to the US government. By email to a role address that may or may not be read for days. And what TFA calls "a time-delayed email", so delivery wasn't even attempted until after he took off.

      So while it might have been "literally" under the radar, it wasn't figuratively under the radar. The White House knew he was coming and expected him.

      What utter and complete bullshit. He wasn't going to the Whitehouse, he was going to the Capitol, so I guess Barry was sitting on the portico with a beer and a cigar waiting for someone else. But barackobama.com has no connection to Barry or to the US government. As they admit when asked "is OFA affiliated in any way with the federal or any other government", the answer is "NO". So how an email to barackobama.com would make it to the Prez is a mystery, and how it could be seen by ATC prior to his entry to the airspace so they would know he was coming is even more of a mystery.

      Trying to defend him on the basis that he told the appropriate government officials he was coming, and the the President was looking forward to his visit, is just pathetic nonsense.

    9. Re:Typical Misdirection From White House by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      Would you want to be the one who shot down n unarmed mailman? HAd he deviated at all from his plan he probably would have been.

    10. Re:Typical Misdirection From White House by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Heck, it's not even a Government address, it's BHO's campaign organization's address.

      It's not even that. It's a community activist site that uses Barry's name because of his "legacy" and inspiration. They admit they have no connection "in any way" with the US or any other government.

    11. Re: Typical Misdirection From White House by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

      Wrong building.

    12. Re: Typical Misdirection From White House by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

      Wrong building. The Capitol is not the White House.

    13. Re:Typical Misdirection From White House by Dragon+Bait · · Score: 1

      He sent them a message a full hour in advance, saying that they should expect him.

      Wasn't the warning left on a voice mail? Was the secret service agent even in the office during that hour?

    14. Re: Typical Misdirection From White House by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Why do you consider your leaders to be so valuable?
      By law they're replaced every 8 years with by another person.

      I'll never understand Americans' deification of their presidents.

    15. Re: Typical Misdirection From White House by Stolpskott · · Score: 1

      My bad... I was thinking of the South Lawn... it's been a while since I was in D.C.
      Still, this is like 1.5-2 miles from the White House, so for a typical gyrocopter this is less than 2 minutes' flying time from WH, and well within the P-56 Prohibited Flight zone covering Washington D.C. and Baltimore.

    16. Re:Typical Misdirection From White House by Gryle · · Score: 1

      I've seen you post this comment 3 times. I'm going to extend you the courtesy of assuming you're not a troll.

      Let's assume the FBI knew this guy was intending to fly a gryocopter into no-fly space. Let's further assume based on reading this guy's emails,or tapping this guy's phone, or rummaging through his trash, or his refrigerator, or installing secret spy devices in his underpants to measure his potential for Communist sympathies, that they decided he's a legitimate protestor and not a home-grown terrorist. In that case, shooting him out of the sky risks public out-cry. Particularly since the air-defense systems around DC no-fly zones are SURFACE-TO-AIR MISSILES. Weee bit of overkill there. So what's less headache? Shoot the kook down or let the kook have his fifteen minutes of political-stunt-fame and go about your day?

      --
      Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not entirely sure about the universe - Einstein
    17. Re: Typical Misdirection From White House by kuhnto · · Score: 1

      I'll lose all my mod points I handed out, but does anyone think it a bit "creepy" when someone uses the term "our leader"? Seems a bit nationalistic.

      scary stuff

      --
      "A 'person' is smart. 'People' are dumb, panicky animals and you know that."
    18. Re:Typical Misdirection From White House by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Quite the contrary. He sent them a message a full hour in advance, saying that they should expect him.

      The White House knew he was coming and expected him

      You've got a lot of faith in Uncle Sam if you think the left hand (whomever reads info@barackobama.com) talks to the right hand (FAA, NORAD, USSS, and a few other agencies in the alphabet soup)

      Heck, it's not even a Government address, it's BHO's campaign organization's address.

      Agree. Can you imagine how much noise those addresses get?

      This is a bit like explaining to the IRS that it shouldn't have been a problem that you filed your taxes late, because you told the postal delivery agent that you were running a few days behind when he was dropping off a package.

    19. Re:Typical Misdirection From White House by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      (1) Because a bomb landing on the White House lawn that was realistically large enough to physically harm the President (or the building), would be enormous.

      Think inverse-square law. That's not exactly it, but it gives you an idea.

    20. Re:Typical Misdirection From White House by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      You do make a good point. I didn't remember the email address, thought it was info@whitehouse.gov.

      info@barackobama.com should not be expected to reach anyone of consequence, even if it went straight to the President's desk.

    21. Re: Typical Misdirection From White House by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      I'll lose all my mod points I handed out, but does anyone think it a bit "creepy" when someone uses the term "our leader"? Seems a bit nationalistic.

      I wouldn't even call it "nationalistic". This is America, in which the citizen is sovereign.

      I don't know about anyone else, but Barack Obama is about the farthest thing from MY "leader". In my honest opinion he has been a tremendous lesson in how NOT to be a good example of leadership.

    22. Re:Typical Misdirection From White House by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I'm in the Secret Service, and I'll just let good ol' Pres handle his own affairs while I'm on the shitter.

    23. Re: Typical Misdirection From White House by oobayly · · Score: 1

      Hawaii has been annexed by Kenya? /s

    24. Re: Typical Misdirection From White House by oobayly · · Score: 1

      The point still stands though. If he had been so public about it, then a brief visit from Flowers By Irene to explain that flying VFR over DC and landing at the Capitol would end badly *might* have dissuaded him.

    25. Re:Typical Misdirection From White House by Dragon+Bait · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I'm in the Secret Service, and I'll just let good ol' Pres handle his own affairs while I'm on the shitter.

      Because every secret service agent is checking his voice mail every 10 minutes ... just in case. Even while they're sleeping.

      Sorry, leaving a voice mail and expecting any sort of action within an hour is pretty stupid.

    26. Re:Typical Misdirection From White House by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      Think impact with building. The President would probably be unhurt but a few guards would probably be injured or killed and the reputation of the US would be harmed.

    27. Re:Typical Misdirection From White House by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      My comment was to counter the idea that there was no way he could be a serious threat. All I was saying is that he might be armed. There is something between "ignore him" and "shoot him down". It is called watchful waiting. Set up at the Capitol Lawn and follow him with a helicopter filming it all the way. If he deviates from his stated plan then shot him down.

  6. Re:Typical overreaction as usual by frisket · · Score: 1

    Nah, he has a passport. Can't be an American...

  7. Another load of Federal B.S. by King_TJ · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It was abundantly clear that this guy did this act as a political protest and informed people in the press a YEAR in advance that this was his plan. Secret service officials were informed about it and determined the guy wasn't a psycho or had a criminal background or anything else alarming, so they basically ignored it as a non-concern. Then, days before he did it, he let people know he was about to do it, too!

    If you wanted to give him a slap on the wrist... say, a fine for violating the rules on airspace? Sure, I think he even fully expected as much. Perhaps confiscate his gyro-copter too. Whatever.... But banning him from setting foot in the District of Columbia and talking about YEARS of prison time? That's outrageous.

    Just last week I read about a psycho woman in Oregon who bashed a guy's skull in with an aluminum baseball bat on their first date, when he went out there to finally visit her in person after a 2 year long online relationship. They only gave her a sentence of a few MONTHS in jail for the incident, despite her planning the whole thing and getting another woman to assist her with it - AND saying she got the idea from something she read or saw that said it only takes 7 pounds of pressure to snap someone's neck. Which person are you more concerned will do people physical harm in the future??

    1. Re:Another load of Federal B.S. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I miss the old slashdot.

    2. Re: Another load of Federal B.S. by future+assassin · · Score: 1

      At least make an effort so I can pull out my popcorn. This only made me want to take a shit.

      --
      by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
    3. Re:Another load of Federal B.S. by Idou · · Score: 1

      You act as though he is being punished for violating the rules on airspace. Clearly he is being punished for raising too much awareness about finance reform. The powers that be want to make an example of him before this gets too out of hand. . .

      --
      Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
    4. Re:Another load of Federal B.S. by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      Whatever.... But banning him from setting foot in the District of Columbia and talking about YEARS of prison time? That's outrageous.

      He is only banned until the trial is concluded and the years of prison time are the maximums for the charges. The maximums are not always imposed. He could also get off with probation and no jail time. Perhaps you should wait for the sentence before commenting on jail time.

    5. Re:Another load of Federal B.S. by Shakrai · · Score: 3, Informative

      But banning him from setting foot in the District of Columbia and talking about YEARS of prison time?

      The banishment is part of his conditions of release and will expire whenever the criminal case is concluded. Nothing to see there. As far as "YEARS," well, the Federal Sentencing Guidelines don't have a specific section for this offense, so it falls under the other felony offenses section, which says that 18 U.S. Code 3553 is controlling.

      Assuming he has no criminal record, my educated guess would be he stands a decent chance of doing no time. If he gets a prison sentence it will be 366 days, which is SOP is the Federal system because it gives the defendant a chance to earn early release. He'll also be required to forfeit the gyro-copter and any other property used in the commission of the offense, pay court costs, and possibly a fine.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    6. Re:Another load of Federal B.S. by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

      I miss the old slashdot.

      You know, you don't have to use beta.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    7. Re:Another load of Federal B.S. by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Powerful people don't like to be made to look like fools. That's this man's real crime. He made the Secret Service and the Air Force look like a bunch of clowns who can't defend the capital's airspace, even with whatever post-9/11 security enhancements they've made, even from a slow-flying (Maybe homebuilt? Most autogyros are.) aircraft, and even after Hughes publicly announced his intentions to do so.

      What *should* happen is a house-cleaning in the Secret Service and Air Force for being so incompetent as to allow this to happen; a slap on the wrist for Hughes for the actual offense, and then a commendation for demonstrating that the emperor was wearing no clothes that day. Unfortunately though, in this matter and more, as a nation we seem to have forgotten (or chosen to ignore) the tenet of: "don't shoot the messenger".

      --
      Imagine all the people...
    8. Re:Another load of Federal B.S. by FrozenFrog · · Score: 3, Informative

      Just last week I read about a psycho woman in Oregon who bashed a guy's skull in with an aluminum baseball bat on their first date, when he went out there to finally visit her in person after a 2 year long online relationship. They only gave her a sentence of a few MONTHS in jail for the incident, despite her planning the whole thing and getting another woman to assist her with it - AND saying she got the idea from something she read or saw that said it only takes 7 pounds of pressure to snap someone's neck. Which person are you more concerned will do people physical harm in the future??

      If you're going to cite something like this, you really should provide a link to back up your claims.

      http://www.statesmanjournal.co...

      She didn't "bash his skull in", she hit him and fractured his skull and caused two lacerations. He was treated and released released from hospital. No mention of a sentence of "a few months" in that article, or any other I could find. The woman in question is being held on $100,000 bail, and appears for an arraignment on April 20.

    9. Re:Another load of Federal B.S. by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      I miss the old slashdot.

      You know, you don't have to use beta.

      He might be talking about when there were fewer moron anonymous trolls, I miss that slashdot too!

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    10. Re:Another load of Federal B.S. by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      You act as though he is being punished for violating the rules on airspace. Clearly he is being punished for raising too much awareness about finance reform. The powers that be want to make an example of him before this gets too out of hand. . .

      Finally some talk about the topic - campaign finance reform. When do we want it, NOW, when will we get it....ummmm.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    11. Re:Another load of Federal B.S. by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      What *should* happen is a...

      complete reform of the way congresscritters are funded to get to sit in congress so that it is truely representative of the people...but fat chance of that.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
  8. Re:Ostracism? by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

    Do judges have the power to ostracize American citizens from their own country's capital city?!??

    As a condition of bail? Yes, I think so. See other posts here.

    --
    If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
  9. Re:The damage is done by jklovanc · · Score: 1

    Had they shot him down would you be the one posting that it was an over reaction and therefore the government is a complete joke and overprotective?

  10. Re:The damage is done by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

    We live in a free society, not a police state, regardless of what you may be wishing. That makes a lot of things like this possible.

  11. Re:this is a good plan. by grimmjeeper · · Score: 1

    It's a condition of his bail. If he violates it he gets to wait for his trial inside a nice cozy 8x8 cell instead.

  12. Re:this is a good plan. by amiga3D · · Score: 1

    Redundancy in government. It's a common theme.

  13. I Love This Guy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Crazy but well-intended American nuttiness at its finest. I wanna give him a Freedom medal. He had an honest populist message, he didn't set out to hurt anybody, he DIDN'T ACTUALLY hurt anybody (including himself), did it in a wacky, even laughable goof-ball way using his own ingenuity, and most important, told lots of people what he was going to do before he did it (and nobody stopped him).

    He gave us all a laugh, and at the same time harmlessly informed us that Washington's airspace is completely vulnerable to low-flying cruise missiles. Your welcome!

    I know shit has gotten so hot over the years. They used to set themselves on fire to get a message across. Now they blow themselves up to take other people with them, or blow people up after running away (looking at YOU, Boston Bomber). But whereas the Soviets were the bad guys for shooting people for looking funny at the Kremlin, the U.S. used to be the place you could take LSD on the White House lawn and get nothing more than a night in jail (all he needs is a good haircut).

    I never want to live in a USA where wacky shit like this Postman ain't funny anymore. We're supposed to know the difference between a good-hearted eccentric and the truly malicious. Give him a dirty look and a "don't do that again" thing. And maybe actually do something about campaign finance reform.

    1. Re:I Love This Guy by k6mfw · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Did he have a GoPro? I imagine seeing DC from that vantage point must have been quite spectacular.

      --
      mfwright@batnet.com
    2. Re:I Love This Guy by jeti · · Score: 3, Informative

      The Soviets never shot people for looking funny at the Kremlin. Mathias Rust pulled a very similar stunt in 1987. He was sentenced to four years, but released after one year as a sign of political goodwill.

    3. Re:I Love This Guy by Toad-san · · Score: 1

      Okay, now you're just talking crazy.

      "I never want to live in a USA where wacky shit like this Postman ain't funny anymore. We're supposed to know the difference between a good-hearted eccentric and the truly malicious. Give him a dirty look and a "don't do that again" thing. And maybe actually do something about campaign finance reform."

      Campaign finance reform? Makes you wonder who the wacko is, eh?

  14. Re:Ostracism? by amiga3D · · Score: 1

    Maybe even their own country.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...

  15. 30 day suspension of pilot's license for prev. guy by gavron · · Score: 1

    This guy flew his aircraft into the DC ADIZ.

    http://www.aerolegalservices.c...

    He did not land on national property or attempt to deliver mail, but other than heinous
    things, it's pretty much the same.

    He was given a 30 day suspension of pilot privileges.

    E

  16. Re:The damage is done by amiga3D · · Score: 1

    Like no one knew?

  17. Re:Awkwardly enough... by Shakrai · · Score: 1

    You do realize the link you offered lists about twenty things that he did wrong? Here's the big one:

    103.19 Operations in prohibited or restricted areas.

    No person may operate an ultralight vehicle in prohibited or restricted areas unless that person has permission from the using or controlling agency, as appropriate.

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  18. Re:Awkwardly enough... by Shakrai · · Score: 2

    If TFA is to be believed, his craft wouldn't meet the requirements of an ultralight aircraft:

    103.1 Applicability.

    This part prescribes rules governing the operation of ultralight vehicles in the United States. For the purposes of this part, an ultralight vehicle is a vehicle that:

    [snip]

    (e) If powered:

    [snip]

    (2) Has a fuel capacity not exceeding 5 U.S. gallons;

    From TFA: According to court documents, Hughes rented a car and towed his gyrocopter from Florida to an airfield in Gettysburg, Pa. He chose the location for its proximity to the Capitol -- about an hour away and reachable on the aircraft's 10-gallon fuel tank -- and the fact that it was an uncontrolled airport, according to a criminal complaint.

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  19. Re:30 day suspension of pilot's license for prev. by ScentCone · · Score: 1

    I don't believe you actually need a pilot's license to fly anything characterized as an "ultralight" aircraft, as these tape-and-balsawood gyrocopters appear to be. Doesn't mean the FAA can't fine your ass, of course, when you do dumb crap like flying a possibly deadly set of large rotors right past crowds of tourists at low altitudes in an urban area like DC.

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  20. I want a gyrocopter... by dtjohnson · · Score: 3

    Watching the video of this guy flying in to land shows what a cool machine the gyrocopter is...simple, cheap, easy to fly, and with a small take-off and landing footprint. Am I the only one who wants one of these now? Did the media ever identify what make and model of gyrocopter he owned? I want to get a kit and start building.

    1. Re:I want a gyrocopter... by avandesande · · Score: 1

      Maybe this will change your mind...

      http://gyroaccidents.blogspot....

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
  21. Re:Ostracism? by penandpaper · · Score: 1

    Petitioning the government for a redress of grievances and civil disobedience are two different things albeit similar.

  22. Wait... by bferrell · · Score: 2

    Unregistered Aircraft... Felony

    Violate National Defense Airspace... Misdemeanor?!

    WTF?!

    1. Re:Wait... by luther349 · · Score: 1

      if its a ultralight gyrocopter it does not need any sort of registration..

  23. The felony wasn't. by tlambert · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The felony wasn't.

    It's my understanding that the gyrocopter in question was actually under the 250 pound limit that would require FAA registration.

    This would mean the felony charge is bogus.

    Can anyone confirm the vehicle total unladen weight?

    1. Re:The felony wasn't. by bre_dnd · · Score: 5, Funny

      Is it an African or a European gyrocopter?

    2. Re:The felony wasn't. by luther349 · · Score: 1

      yep that wont stick if it is indeed a ulralight but you know cops can charge anything.

    3. Re:The felony wasn't. by tlambert · · Score: 1

      IIRC FAR 103 doesn't allow flying over cities.

      That's a misdemeanor.

    4. Re:The felony wasn't. by paazin · · Score: 1

      According to news reports the weight is ~350 lbs; it's over the 250 lb limit.

    5. Re:The felony wasn't. by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      The MPD weighed it. It's 350 Lbs AND has a 10 gallon gas tank. Limit by the way is 200 Lbs, not 250. Can't have more than a 5 gallon tank. The FAA allowed these guys to register these "fat" ultras and a bunch of them thumbed their noses at it. So he doesn't care about laws. Bunch of those guys were getting killed.

      He does have one thing going for him. He did violate the prohibited area around the Capital, no two ways about that. He didn't violate the other Washington area Special Flight Rules Area. They specified gliders, planes, helicopters, balloons.... didn't mention gyro copters. I'm sure they'll add that soon.

  24. Because by Ukab+the+Great · · Score: 1

    Capitol Hill is no place for fellons.

    1. Re:Because by mr_mischief · · Score: 1

      I thought it was damn near a prerequisite these days.

  25. Banned from DC? by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What if he wants to contact his representative or Senator? What if he wants to petition his government for redress of grievances?

  26. Re:The damage is done by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    We live in a free society

    ...in name only. The amount of freedom you get is based on how much money you have, and how inconvenient your freedom is to TPTB.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  27. My bad. by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 1

    Somehow, I had a brain fart and thought this guy landed at the White House.

    s/Secret Service/Capital Police/

    --
    Imagine all the people...
  28. Re:Typical overreaction as usual by myowntrueself · · Score: 1, Funny

    How does that relate to the above?

    He had his passport taken away. Therefore he had a passport. Since Americans live in the most awesome country ever there are only two reasons they'd need a passport; one would be to invade less awesome countries (though I'm not certain if members of the US military actually do need passports to go do violence on other countries territory) the other would be for tax evasion.

    --
    In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
  29. Re:Awkwardly enough... by Rich0 · · Score: 1

    He failed to register the LSA. If everyone who did this were locked up for 3 years there would be a lot of harmless aviation enthusiasts in federal prison.

    From my experience with regulators from several countries, they tend to not sweat the small stuff until it is obvious that you aren't paying attention to the big stuff. Then they go through everything with a fine-toothed comb and throw the book at you.

    The guy flew into the DC SFRA. If the FAA doesn't ruin his life, then everybody and their uncle will be doing it, and then they don't really have a buffer zone in which to shoot down aircraft that are potentially threatening.

    The fuel tank issue is a bit like citing somebody for worn wipers in a vehicular homicide investigation. They're just padding the charges.

  30. Of course they took his passport... by Tool+Man · · Score: 5, Funny

    He is a flight risk.

    1. Re:Of course they took his passport... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Ta dum tish! Brilliant, 10/10

  31. Re: Typical overreaction as usual by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I Consider Douglas Hughes a hero.He is the only guy to call attention to unfair campaign financing .he must be walking bowl legged cause he's got balls as big as grapefruit. Jason

  32. Re:Typical overreaction as usual by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

    Sometimes they like to look at other countries so they can feel superior.

  33. Times a-changing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Is it just my perception, or is the whole system somehow getting out of hand?

    I have the impression that these days, you get more and more of your life destroyed by just playing a harmless prank.

    I mean this guy landed with his Cessna in the Red Square, in the middle of Moscow, coming from abroad, no less -- during the Cold War. He was sentenced to four years of which he effectively served one. Harsh, yes, but we're speaking of the Soviet Union in the late eighties. Are we reaching *that* level?

    For fuck's sake.

  34. re: woman in Oregon by King_TJ · · Score: 1

    The original story I read was the one shared by KPLR TV (channel 11) in St. Louis:

    http://kplr11.com/2015/04/14/p...

    But this story has been edited since I first read it last week, as far as her punishment for the offense. (I even shared it on Facebook last week and it received comments from people who read the link and were outraged that she received such a light sentence for the crime.)

    Perhaps it was in error, since they now give a date she's supposed to return to court and only speak of her being released on bail in the meantime.

  35. Re:Awkwardly enough... by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

    If you check the SFRA rules, they mentioned it seemed everything, except a gyro copter.

    He did violate Class B airspace and a Prohibited area.

    Sounds like they're not interested in ruining his life. Just trying to encourage him to not do it again. They are usually very persuasive that way.

  36. Crime severity seems backwards here by monkeyzoo · · Score: 1

    ...charged with violating aircraft registration requirements, a felony, and violating national defense airspace, a misdemeanor.

    The latter seems the more felonious of the two!!