Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Man Gets 30 Days In Jail For Drone Crash That Knocked Woman Unconscious (arstechnica.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the life-comes-at-you-fast dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: The operator of a drone that knocked a woman unconscious was sentenced Friday to 30 days in jail, Seattle prosecutors said. The woman was attending a local parade when the drone crashed and struck her. Paul Skinner, a 38-year-old man from Washington state, was charged with reckless endangerment in connection to the 2015 incident, in which an 18-inch-by-18-inch drone collided into a building before falling into a crowd. The authorities said the 2-pound drone struck the 25-year-old in the head and gave her a concussion. Her boyfriend caught her before she fell to the ground. Another man suffered a minor bruise. The accident took place during during the city's Pride Parade. Skinner, who had turned himself in, plans to appeal the sentence. His attorney, Jeffrey Kradel, said the punishment was "too severe." His client remains free pending the appeal's outcome. A misdemeanor reckless endangerment charge -- one that poses "substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury to another person" -- carries a penalty of up to a year in jail.

11 of 358 comments (clear)

  1. Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Good. The drone operator deserved that or more than that.
    Doesn't matter if it was a baseball bat, or a fist, or a drone.

    1. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I can't believe he's trying to weasel out of his responsibility. It's only 30 days, a fair sentence. He needs to man the fuck up and serve his time.

    2. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      He's 38 years old and convicted of a crime. He's as good as dead already.

    3. Re: Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      He wouldn't be a hero if he was directly responsible for the crash, such as by recklessly crashing the real helicopter into a building first, damaging the rotors. Ending up with "only a concussion" may then be impressive - but he shouldn't have crashed in the first place.

      He'd be a hero only if the blame is on someone else - such as the manufacturer or maintenance crew.

      Drones can be tricky - which is why most countries don't let you fly them over people without special permits. And that is a good thing - he has no right to cause concussions. Heavier drones can kill, and even a small one can take out an eye with the tip of a propeller.

  2. Overboard, Sad! by negRo_slim · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If it truly was an accident and everyone was acting in good faith I think this is a rather severe overreach by the sentencing party.

    --
    On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
    1. Re:Overboard, Sad! by tlhIngan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If it truly was an accident and everyone was acting in good faith I think this is a rather severe overreach by the sentencing party.

      Even if it was, it was highly preventable. The risk of failure of these things is well known - the battery can run out and it can plummet and fall on someone's head. Or in this case, a poor pilot can crash the thing into a wall and have it fall on someone's head.

      In other words, avoid flying the things above crowds of people because the high risk of injury. The FAA and the drone's instruction manual should make that pretty damn clear.

      It's one thing if it was an open park and it happened it hit the only person there. But the guy was flying it over crowds of people where if it failed, it would've definitely hurt someone. The risk was entirely obvious.

      And he was lucky the girl didn't suffer more for her boyfriend caught her falling and thus prevented her from hitting her head on the ground.

    2. Re:Overboard, Sad! by rsmith-mac · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If it truly was an accident and everyone was acting in good faith

      It wasn't in good faith, hence the reason he was found guilty of reckless endangerment. Negligence is the charge for "good faith". Reckless means that the accused knew it was dangerous to others and did it anyhow, thereby disregarding the safety of others.

    3. Re: Overboard, Sad! by thegarbz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A car driver losing control and injuring a pedestrian would serve more time.

      Are we still talking about America here? You think a car driver would serve a prison sentence for causing a concussion? What kind of weird world are you living in? Most car drivers are lucky to get a prison sentence after driving drunk and drugged through a children's playground trying to score as many points as they can.

  3. What does Jail achieve? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Society is not made profitably safer by spending resources to remove this guy from public life.

    1. Re:What does Jail achieve? by MightyMartian · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Justice is also about sending a message

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  4. Plain stupid sentence by Aethedor · · Score: 4, Insightful

    America's OCD of putting people in jail for even the most silliest things is very disturbing. Removing people temporarily from society should only be done when that person poses a threat to society. If the drone operator was being reckless, he should be punished for that. But putting him in jail for it, helps nobody. Not the operator, not the victim, not society. The operator is not a threat to society. This sounds more like revenge than punishment.

    --
    It doesn't have to be like this. All we need to do is make sure we keep talking.