Slashdot Mirror
Man Gets 30 Days In Jail For Drone Crash That Knocked Woman Unconscious (arstechnica.com)
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.
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.
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
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.
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/
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.
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.
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...
Amazon filed an amicus curiae brief, arguing the supreme importance of drones to the wellbeing of mankind in general, and Amazon shareholders in particular.
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.
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.