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.

21 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 Gussington · · 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.

    2. Re:Good. by v1 · · 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.
  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 dunkelfalke · · 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 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.

    4. Re:Overboard, Sad! by jandersen · · 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.

    5. Re:Overboard, Sad! by JaredOfEuropa · · 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...
    6. Re:Overboard, Sad! by Bongo · · 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...

    7. Re: Overboard, Sad! by ScentCone · · 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.
    8. Re: Overboard, Sad! by ScentCone · · 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.
  3. Parachutes available by rkagerer · · 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.

  4. Federal Law by Anonymous Coward · · 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 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Those rules were not in place in 2015. They came into being last year.

  5. 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.
    1. Re:Plain stupid sentence by blind+biker · · 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.
    2. Re:Plain stupid sentence by mjr167 · · 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.

  6. In another development by sonamchauhan · · 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.

  7. Re:What does Jail achieve? by stephanruby · · 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.

  8. Lots of factors go into sentencing by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · 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.