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

← 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 Monday February 27, 2017 @07:00PM 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.

48 of 358 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Good. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-27 19:07 · 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 · 2017-02-27 19:49 · 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 Gussington · 2017-02-27 21:38 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  im glad he wasn't driving a vehicle.
  Imagine if was a real helicopter and it crashed into a crowd only resulting in mild concussion. He as pilot would be considered a hero.
3. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-27 22:16 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  He's 38 years old and convicted of a crime. He's as good as dead already.
4. Re: Good. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-27 22:28 · 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.
5. Re:Good. by v1 · 2017-02-28 00:33 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  There's a difference here between criminal and civil action. There's a fairly good chance she's going to sue him in civil court, (and settle for doctor bills, time off work, maybe some pain and suffering compensation etc) and that alone could be quite punishing. Don't think of this criminal sentence as the retribution for the crime, that will come later.
  This is all about the criminal case. Try to keep in mind it is supposed to weigh things like criminal intent, deliberate as well as actual negligence with respect to the public, etc. There certainly was negligence here, but is the punishment appropriate?
  If I'm riding my bicycle down the sidewalk (which is illegal in this city btw, you're supposed to keep to the streets to avoid hitting peds) and I am talking with my friend behind me and don't see that ped on the sidewalk and run into them, knock them down, I'm likely to do more damage to them than most drones. Maybe I even give the 'ol gal a mild concussion when she hits the sidewalk. There was no criminal intent, I didn't intend to be negligent but in the end I was. (and in this case I was even breaking a law, which here is used primarily simply to make the collision undeniably my fault, rather than to ticket or arrest me) Now, in addition to any civil case she may file against me, do I deserve a month in jail?
  I think his chances on appeal are quite justified, and quite good. That judge needs some perspective rather than a knee-jerk response. He will probably get his sentence replaced with some sort of citation, pay a $350 ticket or so for some related offense. And that makes a heck of a lot more sense than jail time. (I'm assuming this is his first offense - obviously jail time starts becoming appropriate on repeat offenders in cases like this)
  
  --
  I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
6. Re:Good. by DrXym · 2017-02-28 01:04 · Score: 2
  
  Now, in addition to any civil case she may file against me, do I deserve a month in jail?
  I would consider riding the pavement and not paying attention to where you going makes you culpable for the harm you caused even if it was unintentional. You might have not meant to cause the accident but it wouldn't have happened without your intentional negligence.
  The same for this guy. If there is a law about causing harm through negligence and it carries a custodial sentence, and if it can be shown that flying a drone above people in an area filled with hazards is negligent, then yes he deserves jail.
Overboard, Sad! by negRo_slim · 2017-02-27 19:10 · 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 · 2017-02-27 19:20 · 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 dunkelfalke · 2017-02-27 19:24 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  The drone operator got lucky that the boyfriend of the injured woman acted quickly. People routinely die when they fall to the ground and hit their heads. Hence only 30 days, not a few years of prison. A car driver losing control and injuring a pedestrian would serve more time.
  
  --
  "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
3. Re:Overboard, Sad! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-27 19:41 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  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.
  Someone texting while driving hardly does so with the intent of running someone over either.
  "I didn't mean for this to happen" is a bad defense if you consistently acted recklessly and caused an accident that hurt someone.
  It's not like this was the first time the guy flew a drone over a crowd. It was going to happen sooner or later so while maybe not intentional it is hardly an unpredictable accident.
  The main problem I have with the sentence isn't the time in jail, but rather the quality of the jailtime.
  If the jail focused on education and rehabilitation rather than a punishment I think the time would be acceptable.
  With the current way jail works I'm reluctant to even put people guilty of manslaughter in them unless they are likely to commit the act again.
4. Re:Overboard, Sad! by rsmith-mac · 2017-02-27 19:55 · 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.
5. Re:Overboard, Sad! by jandersen · 2017-02-27 21:04 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  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.
  Two pounds is about 1 kg, the weight of an average iron mallet, I'd say - more or less. Being hit on your head with a falling mallet could very easily kill you - it is only luck that saved this woman. Also, flying a drone is a deliberate act that does in fact carry the risk that it might fail for whatever reason and drop out of the air, which is why there are very clear rules banning you from flying near to people - not to mention near to buildings, overhead cables, and other things that the drone might hit. As it stands, this is not all that different from hurling a mallet or brick out over a crowd "just for a bit of fun"; it doesn't really matter that you were too dim to realise that it is wrong - the damage is the same.
6. Re:Overboard, Sad! by JaredOfEuropa · 2017-02-27 21:16 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  It seems that he broke FAA rules (I'm not familiar with those, but most countries' rules for model aircraft don't allow them to be flown over crowds). Because of the resulting injury, a stiff sentence would be in order. But in this case, as opposed to violent crimes and the like, there is no benefit in removing this guy from society for a bit, other than making an example out of him. Wouldn't justice be better served with community service? Especially since I'd think the guy is also on the hook to pay a substantial amount in damages to the girl, even if he's only ordered to pay actual damages.
  
  --
  If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
7. Re: Overboard, Sad! by Goaway · 2017-02-27 21:16 · Score: 2
  
  Depends on if you have guards for the props. If you don't, like is often the case with many big drones, you can easily trash the propeller blades, which will cause a pretty instant crash.
8. Re: Overboard, Sad! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-27 21:29 · Score: 2
  
  I'm not entirely sure what an "iron mallet" is, but 2 pounds is like 2 blocks of butter. It's pretty heavy weight to fall on you from a tall height, but it really depends on the density, shape and elasticity of what is hitting you. 1 kg of feathers landing on you probably won't do a lot of damage, a 1kg cube of lead would likely kill you. The average shape and materials of drones, being plastic which is usually somewhat springy, will fit somewhere in the middle between lead and feathers. Anyway it's not immediately obvious that a 1kg drone falling from a height would be particularly legal on average.
9. Re:Overboard, Sad! by Bongo · 2017-02-27 21:50 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Even if it was, it was highly preventable. The risk of failure of these things is well known...
  The risk was entirely obvious.
  Very true.
  Plus it was an unnecessary risk. Cars and planes and phone batteries and things, all have a balance of risk to benefit, which kinda set the "accident" threshold. A truck driver who knows he has a health condition which may cause him to pass out, is not "accidental". A person who knowingly transmits AIDS is not accidental. And so on. Otherwise it starts to sound like something out of Goodfellas, "hey there wasn't anything we could have done about it."
  A person who is trying to be careful isn't going to fly drones over a crowd. And as for that TV company which dropped a drone on a skiier's head...
10. Re: Overboard, Sad! by thegarbz · 2017-02-27 21:53 · 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.
11. Re: Overboard, Sad! by ls671 · 2017-02-27 21:57 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  I thought mass and speed (inertia) might have something to do with it.
  For example, mosquitoes and other flying insects can bounce off my building windows without harm but birds usually die doing it. Similarly, it is easy for a tiny toy drone to bounce off a wall but will be much harder for any bigger drone, propeller guards or not.
  Try putting propeller guards on this to see if it is going to help it slam into wall as OP suggested:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
  
  --
  Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
12. Re: Overboard, Sad! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-27 22:24 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Many people don't know that, but concussions are often life-threatening. People can appear to be normal at first and die of a seizure days later. That woman was lucky.
13. Re: Overboard, Sad! by jabuzz · 2017-02-28 00:41 · Score: 2
  
  The most famous case I can think of being Natasha Richardson. Fell from standing still on a beginners ski slope, got up and was fine, even rang her husband (Liam Neeson) and was dead less than 24 hours later.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
14. Re: Overboard, Sad! by nedlohs · 2017-02-28 02:20 · Score: 2
  
  Often is a rather large exaggeration. Yes, people die from concussions - however, there are four million concussions annually just in sports (and training/practice) in the US. There'd be a lot fewer high school students if it was "often".
15. Re:Overboard, Sad! by jittles · 2017-02-28 02:48 · Score: 2
  
  It seems that he broke FAA rules (I'm not familiar with those, but most countries' rules for model aircraft don't allow them to be flown over crowds). Because of the resulting injury, a stiff sentence would be in order. But in this case, as opposed to violent crimes and the like, there is no benefit in removing this guy from society for a bit, other than making an example out of him. Wouldn't justice be better served with community service? Especially since I'd think the guy is also on the hook to pay a substantial amount in damages to the girl, even if he's only ordered to pay actual damages.
  Most jurisdictions will let you do a 30 day stint like this on weekends. He'll show up after work on Friday and get out to go to work on Monday bright and early. So we're not preventing him from being a productive member of society, but we are preventing him from having the free time to crash a drone into people for a quarter of the year.
16. Re: Overboard, Sad! by ScentCone · 2017-02-28 02:53 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Guns and shootings are also highly preventable. Problem is Americans don't want to grow up and admit the more guns the public has the more gun violence occurs...
  All SORTS of violent crime is highly preventable. Far more people are killed every year, for example, using pipes and clubs or other objects than are killed using "assault" rifles or ANY sort of rifle, shotgun, or other long gun. More people are killed with BARE HANDS than are killed by someone using any kind of long gun.
  
  In fact, one of the most common ways to PREVENT someone from being violently killed by an attacker is: pointing a gun at the attacker. Defensive brandishing (and much less often, actualy shooting) of guns - usually handguns - happens hundreds of thousands of times a year. In places where people are allowed to carry, violent crime GOES DOWN. The "more legally owned and used guns equals more crime" meme is demonstrably false.
  
  --
  Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
17. Re:Overboard, Sad! by drinkypoo · 2017-02-28 03:44 · Score: 2
  
  That isn't a valid comparison to someone who likely is in their right mind and is just pursuing a hobby.
  First, it was not a hobby flight. He's a photographer and he was working. Second, if they were in their right mind, they would be responsible enough not to fly their craft over crowds.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
18. Re: Overboard, Sad! by GLMDesigns · 2017-02-28 04:22 · Score: 2
  
  You ignore the fact that there are more guns now than 20 years ago and yet shootings are down.
  You also ignore the fact that there are many areas with lots of guns without violence.
  
  Interesting, isn't it, that the most violent areas are the ones in which guns are already banned.
  
  Just keep ignoring facts and expect to be paid attention to. See how far it gets you.
  
  --
  If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
  Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
19. Re: Overboard, Sad! by Rick+Schumann · 2017-02-28 04:58 · Score: 2
  
  Well if you're going to be like that about it then you may as well advocate for banning any object that can be used as a weapon, which is essentially anything that's not nailed down to a stationary object. Additionally you'd have to outlaw people's bodies, since there are dozens of different martial arts that can be used to injure and kill people -- including just hands around someone's throat, preventing them from breathing.
  
  I want to stop violence!
  That's nice, Viriginia; but face it: You have to change hearts and minds to get people to stop treating other people like shit; taking away the implements that can be used for violent acts does nothing, and is just a knee-jerk reaction to the problem, not a well-thought-out solution. Try working to get people to not want to commit violent acts, and to identify people who might be prone to violent acts (mentally/emotionally ill, for instance) and devise ways to 'fix' them or at least prevent them from doing so, because people intent on committing violent acts will find ways and means to do so, regardless of banning any sort of ostensible 'weapons'. Otherwise you live in a world like at the top of this comment, where anything and everything is banned (and everyone is likely watched and guarded like convicts in prison, 24/7/365) just in case someone decides to do something violent against someone else.
20. Re: Overboard, Sad! by ScentCone · 2017-02-28 05:41 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Put it in context. The states with the highest level of "gun" homicides are also the states with the highest rates of ANY kind of homicide, including stabbings, beatings, etc.
  
  Yes, it IS cultural, not legal. Which is why a place like Chicago - which has absolutely draconian gun laws - none the less has extremely high murder rates. But we're not talking about illegally possessed guns. We're talking about what happens to the rate at which the average innocent person is violently attacked before and after the place they live makes it legal for them to defend themselves, especially outside their homes. None of that has anything to do with hundreds of gang members in Chicago or New Orleans killing each other with (mostly) stolen or illegally owned guns.
  
  --
  Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
What does Jail achieve? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-27 19:19 · 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 · 2017-02-27 19:29 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Justice is also about sending a message
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
2. Re:What does Jail achieve? by Aethedor · 2017-02-27 20:17 · Score: 2
  
  Sending a harsher message to the offender than the unjust that was done to the victim will only make things worse. Law should be about punishment, not about revenge.
  
  --
  It doesn't have to be like this. All we need to do is make sure we keep talking.
3. Re:What does Jail achieve? by stephanruby · 2017-02-27 23:51 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Punishment has four possible components
  1. Protection
  2. Deterrence
  3. Rehabilitation
  4. Vengeance
  In this case, I think deterrence is the goal. This guy is likely never to do the same thing again, but many other drone owners are very likely to want to fly their drone over very large crowds. The temptation is there and it's very real. And in a way, the judge is not sending a message to the offender, he is sending that message to those other potential offenders.
4. Re:What does Jail achieve? by ChrisMaple · 2017-02-28 03:12 · Score: 2
  
  A disproportionate punishment is unjust, and sending a "message to those other potential offenders" is no excuse for injustice.
  In my opinion, this guy deserved 30 days.
  As a side note, vengeance is a valid reason for punishment. By putting vengeance into a standardized and official form, the public can recognize that justice is being done. People are less likely to seek exaggerated vengeance when vengeance is legally performed in a controlled and appropriate manner.
  
  --
  Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Parachutes available by rkagerer · 2017-02-27 19:52 · Score: 3, Informative

Lightweight parachute systems are available for popular consumer drones (e.g. Skyfallx, Mars Parachutes, FruityChutes, Skycat.pro). Not endorsing as a substitute for good pilot judgement, but it might have helped here.
Federal Law by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-27 20:08 · Score: 5, Informative

Must fly under 400 feet*
Must fly during the day*
Must fly at or below 100 mph*
Must yield right of way to manned aircraft*
Must NOT fly over people*
Must NOT fly from a moving vehicle*
src https://www.faa.gov/uas/getting_started/
1. Re: Federal Law by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-27 22:51 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Those rules were not in place in 2015. They came into being last year.
Plain stupid sentence by Aethedor · 2017-02-27 20:11 · 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.
1. Re:Plain stupid sentence by Aethedor · 2017-02-27 21:00 · Score: 2
  
  Place yourself in the position of the operator. As far as I can see, I didn't do it on purpose. Sending him to jail for a month, putting him between a bunch of real criminals, how to you think he will feel afterwards? Think he feels he's been treated fairly? Law should be about making society a better place, for both the victim *and* the offender. How about community service in a hospital for a few days and not allowing him to fly his drone for a month? Let him see and understand what the results are of the risks he took. That's a message he can learn from. What possibly can he learn from sitting in a cell for a month, staring at four walls? Don't forget, he's just a man who made a mistake, not a criminal willingly harming other people.
  
  --
  It doesn't have to be like this. All we need to do is make sure we keep talking.
2. Re:Plain stupid sentence by Aethedor · 2017-02-27 21:10 · Score: 2
  
  The operator made a mistake. A bad mistake, but just a mistake. While applying law, I think we should primarily took at someone's intentions, not only is actions. My point is; what do you think the operator feels like after that month jail time? Do you think it will be something like "Ok, that was a meaningful lesson. I'm a better person now" or more like "Yes, I made stupid mistake. But for that, I was kicked aside for a month like dirty trash. F*ck this shit". Personally, I think it will more likely be the last one. I think that man will leave jail with some anger. At least, not with positive energy. Now tell me, how is that going to make society a better place?
  
  --
  It doesn't have to be like this. All we need to do is make sure we keep talking.
3. Re:Plain stupid sentence by Aethedor · 2017-02-28 00:03 · Score: 2
  
  But not with the intention to harm people. Yes, he took a big risk. But putting him behind bars so he can sit there and do nothing, is not the best way to point that out to him. Let him do community work at a hospital for several days. Show him what an injury can do to people's life. Confront him with the results of his actions. That's how he learns and will think twice before doing anything stupid like what he did again. Jail time doesn't do that.
  
  --
  It doesn't have to be like this. All we need to do is make sure we keep talking.
4. Re:Plain stupid sentence by Dorianny · 2017-02-28 00:33 · Score: 2
  
  A concussion that results in the loss of consciences is *extremely* serious. Some Neurological damage is a given and it even increase the risk of (CTE) Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy, especially if the person in question suffers another concussion (no-fault accidents do happen). He didn't simply make a unfortunate mistake, he intentionally broke FAA regulation in a situation in which even common sense tells you is there is high risk of injury to people.
5. Re:Plain stupid sentence by blind+biker · 2017-02-28 01:49 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Consider that such a head trauma will leave her with a lifetime decrease in cognitive capabilities. Then it's not such a joke anymore.
  I speak from experience: being knocked out is severe brain trauma, and it does leave consequences that never heal.
  
  --
  "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
6. Re:Plain stupid sentence by mjr167 · 2017-02-28 02:28 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Some mistakes you don't get to make. Mistakes have consequences. To real people. We can't just ignore them and pretend it didn't happen.
  The other day one kid hit their sibling on the head with a toy truck. The hitter was yelling "Sorry!" at their crying sibling who yelled back "Sorry doesn't help!" You can be sorry. But "sorry" doesn't magically make it better. It doesn't roll back time.
  Mistakes can cost you your job, your family, your reputation, and your freedom. That is why you have to think before you act.
In another development by sonamchauhan · 2017-02-27 21:25 · Score: 5, Funny

Amazon filed an amicus curiae brief, arguing the supreme importance of drones to the wellbeing of mankind in general, and Amazon shareholders in particular.
Good example re bicycle by raymorris · 2017-02-28 01:48 · Score: 2

That's a good example, unlawfully riding your bike on the sidewalk and not being careful. 200 lbs of man and bike is much more likely to cause significant damage than 2 lbs of plastic. They guy did wrong by flying it over people - just like the guy next to him did wrong by running a stop sign.
A friend of mine shot at her ex-boyfriend with a shotgun. Because she didn't hit him, she did less than 30 days in jail.
Lots of factors go into sentencing by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · 2017-02-28 03:08 · Score: 4, Informative

You can always find cases of unfair sentencing where small crime X is punished at level Y in one place but at level 2 times Y or 3 times Y at another place. I have a relative who got caught for DUI on a two lane (one lane in each direction - no median) surface road within 2 miles of his house while driving home when he came upon a police roadblock he could not avoid. First offense. He had a lawyer. Still went to jail for a week over it. No wreck. No injuries. Barely crossed the DUI threshold. My best friend is a lawyer and I've learned from him that all of the following can play a role in sentencing.

1) Judge might be a hard liner.
2) Judge wants to send a message that the incident in question is not acceptable and deter others from doing the same (ie. DUI incident I referenced).
3) Defendant might have used a public defender and this almost always leads to a bad outcome for the defendant. My lawyer friend sometimes does criminal defense work and he's told me that the DA will often completely back down and offer greatly reduced penalties if he simply shows up in court to fight for his client. Defendants with PDs don't get these sweet deals.
4) Defendant could be a combative jerk in court and that played a role in the sentence.
Re:Justice is not enough. by ChrisMaple · 2017-02-28 03:46 · Score: 2

Imagine this: "That guy KO'd my girlfriend with his drone. I'm going to KO him with my baseball bat."
Seeing physical justice done by a duly authorized organization removes a lot of the motive for escalating violence.

--
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
The drone operator got off light by LeftCoastThinker · 2017-02-28 05:51 · Score: 2

The first of several huge differences here is that riding your bike is an activity that is known and understood by the public. The pedestrian in your example, while you were breaking laws, likely saw you and had a chance to avoid you. Your use of a bicycle has positive impacts on society (improved health, reduced carbon footprint etc.) Also, there are inherent motivators for paying attention while riding a bike in that you yourself are in personal danger from vehicles and other hazards, and you may have been injured in the collision.
The drone operator was operating his drone illegally above people in a reckless manner in direct violation of the law. The people who were injured didn't see the drone coming and had no opportunity to avoid being clobbered in the head by what amounts to a 18" x 18" falling brick. They are lucky they weren't killed. The drone operator was not at risk of being injured when his drone crashed, because there is virtually zero inherent danger in remotely operating a drone once it is in the air.
As you can see, there are unique differences between operating a bicycle and a drone that cause your argument to break down. Drone operators want to practice their hobby and they complain about all the constraint and regulation, but then you have a large segment (20%? go on youtube) of drone hobbyists who operate their flying camcorders/kinetic bombs as complete sociopaths and you wonder why society wants to regulate you. As a non-drone operator, my opinion of drone operation is that anything over around 16oz should be banned everywhere without a 16h or more training license that requires both demonstration of knowledge of the law, good judgement and expertise flying your drone, except at specifically designated areas in parks or other wide open spaces. Any drone flying around in neighborhoods or cities or other populated areas that weighs more than like 8oz should be required to have a fail safe parachute similar to a model rocket, or an airbag. All drones larger than 16oz or so should be required to have a license that is identified by a simple sequence of primary colors and shapes displayed on the drone for easy identification by LEO or concerned citizens. (If I'm close enough to read/record your license with my smartphone, you were probably breaking the law.)

--
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like