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/
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.