Papas Fritas writes:
"Scott Smith reports at AP that 26-year-old Sergio Patrick Rodriguez has been convicted of pointing a green laser at a Fresno Police Department helicopter and sentenced to spend 14 years in federal prison. 'This is not a game. It is dangerous, and it is a felony,' says US Attorney Benjamin B. Wagner. 'Those who aim lasers at aircraft should know that we will seek to convict them, and we will seek to send them to prison. The safety of aircraft and the people in them demands no less.' According to evidence presented at trial, Rodriguez and his girlfriend, Jennifer Lorraine Coleman, 23, used a high-powered green laser pointer 13 times more powerful than common pointers to repeatedly strike the cockpit of Air 1 during a clear summer night in 2012. In imposing the sentence, Judge O'Neill considered not only the severity of the offenses but Rodriguez's criminal history, numerous probation violations, and Bulldog gang affiliation. An expert said that the laser pointer that Rodriguez used was an instrument capable of inflicting serious bodily injury and death due to a high potential for crash caused by visual interference. A jury found Rodriguez guilty of attempting to interfere with safe operation of aircraft and aiming a laser pointer at an aircraft. 'Lasing aircraft is not a joke or a casual prank,' says Special Agent in Charge Monica M. Miller of the FBI's Sacramento field office. 'Rodriguez's sentence clearly demonstrates the seriousness of his actions and that the FBI will work with its law enforcement partners to locate and arrest those who engage in dangerous, improper use of hand-held lasers that puts us all at risk.'
On February 11, 2014, in 12 cities, the FBI, in collaboration with the Air Line Pilots Association International and the FAA, announced the Laser Threat Awareness campaign, a nationwide effort to alert the public to the threat that aircraft laser illumination poses and the penalties for such activity. The FBI will offer up to $10,000 for information leading to the arrest of any individual who intentionally aims a laser at an aircraft. The program is being rolled out in Albuquerque, New Mexico; Houston and San Antonio, Texas; Los Angeles and Sacramento, California; Philadelphia; Phoenix, Arizona; Cleveland, Ohio; Washington, D.C.; Chicago; New York; and San Juan, Puerto Rico."
I don't see what people think is so fun about pointing laser pointers at aircraft...
hopefully people will see this and wake up to the fact that it is dangerous.
. . . if the history part gets blurred out leaving "14 years in a Federal pen for aiming a laser pointer at an aircraft" as a warning to others, then that's just fine by me.
I think we should be very careful of using this as a method of sentencing. One definition of terrorism is "action intended to influence an audience beyond the immediate victims". Any time a judge applies extreme sentence lengths or severities "as a warning to others" they are engaging in terrorism by this definition. Unless we intend to apply the same penalty to everyone convicted of this crime it is inappropriate to apply this high a penalty.
We as a government are engaged in a global war on terror, with our service members engaged in punishing people who use it as a tool. It sends serious mixed messages if we then condone similar behavior in our own government.
unnecessarily long, rambling postscript follows - ignore the rest of this post if desired =P
Don't get me wrong, I don't object to harsh penalties for people who attempt to burn others' eyes out; doing so to someone operating an aircraft threatens the life of the pilot and all of the passengers. I simply don't see why we would need new laws for lasers specifically - battery and attempted mass-murder already carry stiff penalties. Anyone worthy of long-term incarceration due to their activities with a laser in the backyard ought to be able to be prosecuted under those laws. To those who would complain that proving mens rea [wikipedia.org] is too difficult; tough. Removing that burden from the prosecutors for their convenience adds to the likelihood of amateur astronomers being sentenced equivalently to sociopaths, and I don't see that being a benefit to society.
As to your first part:The sentence in court probably had several components, some for each different charge, and some to run concurrently, and some to run consecutively. This information is lost to the fog journalism, and we are left with what is probably an in-accurate representation of the actual sentence.
So don't rush to assume that this sentence was simply to send a message to other. That might be how the police spin it, but that doesn't mean that's how the judge graveled it down.
Other reports [sfgate.com] indicate that his girlfriend can get at most 5 years for the EXACT same crime.
Judge Oâ€™Neill cited Rodriguezâ€™s criminal past, which includes probation violations and gang affiliation, as additional reasons for the sentence. This guy needed to be off the streets anyway.
Don't rush to condemn the Judge for the words of prosecutors and police.
yeah, I was thinking 5 years would be harsh enough to make a statement to the world, 14 years just seems excessive, but with the long criminal history, seems about right.
but this will be used to give everybody 14 (or thereabouts) years in prison.
just like here in canada, a guy running away from police, police had a dog, which they ordered to attack him. he stabs and kills the dog. he gets charged with animal cruelty and given just over 2 years in prison [and then not allowed to own a dog afterwards for 25].
1. it's not cruelty to fend of a dog that is attacking you, even if it is a police dog. It's something (or should be somethign), but it's not cruelty.2. there was NO evidence he had ever injured another animal either before or after this single incident, so it's a perversion to include the restriction on owning an animal afterwards3. there was also other charges for stealing a vehicle, assaulting an officer, but they attributed the entire sentence he received for killing the dog
So, next time it happens, it will be "judge, he should get 2 years for killing the police dog, plus X years for these additional crimes".
It's just gaming the judicial system to ratchet up sentences.
The next laser pointer case, the prosecutor will go "14 years" regardless of circumstances of the defendant.
I'll cite HungryHobo's Slashdot Law [slashdot.org] here:
If there's an insane way to apply a law which everyone dismisses as "nobody would ever apply it like that" then you can bet your ass it will be abused exactly like that.
guy running away from police
we'll there's your problem right there, the cops don't release the dog if you don't run. it's the same thing if you run from a cop without a dog, (well in the US anyway) you're likely to get shot, 2 years is pretty soft compared to dying from sudden lead intake.
if you run from the cops, you're going to have a bad time.
One definition of terrorism is "action intended to influence an audience beyond the immediate victims".
Does this mean that twitter is engaged in terrorism?
Of course it does... by his idiotic definition of "terrorism".
Your definition of "terrorism" makes me a terrorist for stopping at the gas station down the street every day and buying a dollar's worth on a credit card so he loses money on the sale as a protest against recent drastic and unwarranted price hikes is terrorism. Bash Limbaugh? I'm a terrorist for trying to sway consrvatives' opinions by attacking Limbaugh.
Putting criminals in prison is not terrorism. Period. You really need a better dictionary.
stopping at the gas station down the street every day and buying a dollar's worth on a credit card
I admire your impressive reflexes, sir. Few people could click a pump nozzle that fast!
serious? we have a $2 minimum in New Zealand... that and gas is over $2 a litre. how do they let that occur?
The credit card companies have small businesses over a barrel here. Some places do have minimums, five bucks or something, but they'd have to reprogram all the fuel pumps to have a minimum. That would be expensive.
I knew a service station owner (closed down 2 years ago, someone with shitloads of money wanted his business so they could raze it) who said margins were really thin on fuel. He made most of his money on car repairs (it was an old-fashioned full service garage) and snacks and lottery tickets and such. He said if someone bought less than five bucks worth of gasoline on a card, he lost money. I just gave him paper checks, cost neither of us anything.
Also, you have to remember that we're talking gallons here, not litres. It's about a dollar a liter here (3.65 a gallon). I don't have to drive much so two dollars a day is plenty.
that sucks for the small business owner, I almost cant believe that happens, we've had the $2 limit since I started driving in 1995. fortunately I'm only 2 mins away from work so only spend a max of $20 a week on gas, that includes lunching in town, should really walk :) I guess it's a similar situation to the mobile stands in international airports, I bought a $10 sim card in Sydney recently, it took probably 20 mins to get it installed and working, I hardly see how they can survive making only tiny profits or even loss leaders with no followup charges. they must have been paying their guy far less that $20 per hour to stand at that kiosk.
You wrote:Putting criminals in prison is not terrorism. Period. You really need a better dictionary.
TL;DR version - I didn't mean what you think I meant. I agree that the examples you gave aren't terrorism under the definition I used. Also, dictionaries typically have poor definitions of terrorism.
Now for the long version: I'm going to defend my definition first, then deal with the issue of criminal sentencing later.
You have made a few comments criticizing my definition of terrorism; I think if I give a few examples with better explanations that it may be clearer to you what I mean.
Example: Hijacker threatens airliner pilot with a gun, with instructions to re-direct to a different airport or die. Not terrorism - the action has little influence on people not directly affected. Similarly, carjacking and mugging don't generally rate as terrorism.
Example: Hijacker holds airliner pilot and passengers as hostages, threatening to kill a hostage every hour until a political prisoner is released. This is terrorism; the pilot and the passengers are personally powerless to release political prisoners. The action (killing hostages) is not intended to influence the hostages (especially not the dead ones), it's intended to influence the jailers of the political prisoners.
Example: Making a protest purchase you know will cost the store money, punishing them for raising prices. Not terrorism - the store is the immediate victim, and also the party you wish to influence (you want them to reduce prices to what they were before). Your action has no influence on the stores' competitors, nor anyone else I can think of.
Example: Public statements criticizing Rush Limbaugh. Not terrorism - your influence is limited to the people who hear you, who are the immediate victims of your verbal abuse. If you intend to make Rush change his opinion, make sure you're saying it to his face, but it's still not terrorism: he is both your "victim" (as much as there can be one when you're just talking) and your intended affected audience. I don't think this changes even if you're just flaming on twitter.
Example: Assassinate Rush Limbaugh, and publish a manifesto saying that unless Ann Coulter and Glen Beck stop broadcasting they're next. Now we're talking terrorism. Similarly, bombing abortion clinics to encourage other doctors to stop performing abortions is also terrorism, for the same reason. The victims are dead, the people you intended to influence are not the immediate victims.
Example: Mafia boss burns down a store because the owner refused to pay his "protection" money, as an example of what would happen to others. This qualifies; the store owner whose store got torched will no longer be in a position to pay anything. The intended audience is the other store owners who are now afraid that their store will get burned if they don't pay.
For what it's worth, the CIA uses a similar definition [cia.gov]:The term "terrorism" means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents.I personally don't like that definition, as it's too specific - terrorist may have motivations other than political ones, and there are state-sponsored terrorist that wouldn't fall under this definition.And here's the FBI's definition [fbi.gov]:"International terrorism" means activities [which] . . . Appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnappingI don't care for this one, either, because it suggests that one nation threatening to declare war against another due to a border dispute is an act of international terrorism. Recent U.S. interventions against Syria and Libya would also qualify. Additionally, since this is explicitly a definition of international terrorism it excludes groups like the KKK that clearly engage in domestic terrorism. On the bright side, it at least captures the idea that actions taken against a specific target (e.g. assassination) are influencing a larger audience (policy/conduct of a government).
I like the definition I gave in my earlier post. It's succinct, doesn't rule out people due to differences in motivation, allows for both state-sponsored and independent terrorist agents, and doesn't result in conventional warfare getting categorized as terrorism. It was also, at one time, used by the U.S. DOD, although I'm struggling to find a reference to cite for you.
Back to your original complaint: I believe that, depending on how it's done, handing down a prison sentence can be a terrorist act. That's kinda the reason why there's a "cruel and unusual punishment" clause in the U.S constitution. "Let the punishment fit the crime" type of sentences are not terrorism, by any stretch of the imagination. The problem starts when the judge hands down an excessive sentence, perhaps to the first person convicted of violating a new law, in order to "send a message" to others. The "message" should have been delivered when the law was put into force; being the first offender should have no bearing on the judgement. Any overly-harsh judgement passed for reasons other than the defendant's own actions is unjust; doing so with the explicit intent to intimidate other would-be criminals with the threat of random and arbitrary punishments is a form of terrorism.
Yeah, I think about this way too much. If you feel like joining me in my obsession, there's a good position paper [af.mil] published by the Air force's Air Command and Staff College; its author didn't have the authority to establish it as doctrine, but I agree with many points of their philosophy regarding the definition of terrorism.
What does an extensive past criminal history have to do with anything? I assume he served his time and is a free man. Punishing him for crimes he's already been punished for amounts to double jeopardy, which is prohibited by the Constitution.
14 years is clearly cruel and unusual punishment, which is also prohibited by the Constitution. We're not talking about a murderer or a rapist here. We're not even talking about manslaughter, which might get you 5 years. This is clearly disproportionate, and anyone who defends it should be ashamed of themselves.
I think much of it had to do with being a repeat offender. If you go to prison, get out and keep committing crimes, wash rinse repeat, eventually you got locked up not just as punishment but because that's the only way to keep you from committing more crimes.
For this guy, the reason the police helicopter showed up was because he was lasing a medical emergency helicopter for a children's hospital. Then he lased the cops, too. And it wasn't like a foolish use of a laser pointer pin. He had one of those big mama jamas. According to the story, 13 times more powerful than a laser pointer. He was trying to crash the damn helicopters, thereby killing people. This is attempted murder.
Let's say it wasn't helicopters and lasers. What exactly would you think is an appropriate punishment for somebody who first tries to run an ambulance for sick children off the road, and then tries to wreck the cop car that responds?
This is attempted murder.
Great. Then try him for attempted murder.
Why try him for attempted murder?
There are specific laws on the books for what he DID, which don't require you to prove INTENT.With murder, (especially attempted murder) you have to prove intent. That's pretty hard because you have to prove what was going on inside his brain.
Why do you have this objection to specific prohibited acts being outlawed, rather than raising everything to the level of murder.
Because you justified the sentence by saying it was attempted murder. Prove it.
Why? Because it's the prosecutor who makes that call, not you. I personally would like to see crimals arrested with the maximum charge, but that's not always the case. Politics, budgets, and time constraints factor into it.
Tldr: he's guilty, going to jail, and nothing of value was lost.
Because you justified the sentence by saying it was attempted murder.
Because you justified the sentence by saying it was attempted murder.
I did no such thing.The prosecutor did no such thing.
Hmmm attempted murder. Tough one. I'm a commercial helicopter pilot. I fly low and slow. The vast majority of helos do not have an autopilot and most have just the single pilot. 500 feet is not a lot of wiggle room when bad things happen. Intentionally trying to blind me when I'm 500 feet above ground is, AFAIC, attempted murder. Well, intentional manslaughter at least, because it sure as heck is not involuntary. You wouldn't point a gun in jest at someone. You wouldn't try to run someone off the road with your car. Doing stupid stuff that you know will seriously injury or kill people generally qualifies for "attempted." So what do we call it if it's not attempted murder?
frojack wrote:There are specific laws on the books for what he DID, which don't require you to prove INTENT.
This is not the situation that strict liability laws were meant for. If the police want to give you a traffic ticket because your car was illegally parked, I have no problem with that. When the police want to send you to prison for 5 years with no requirement that you even had criminal intent, I have a serious problem with that - and so should you.
If this is a strict liability law then we're one amendment away from giving a backyard astronomer 5 years for accidentally scanning his 30 mW laser across an aircraft, same as the sociopath using a 1500 mW laser to blind pilots for fun. I don't want to live in that country.
So, shining the laser on TWO different helicopters was an accident.Just playing with the shark officer, and it went off. You're going with that?
If you can sell that to a jury, you're golden.
Frojack wrote:If you can sell that to a jury, you're golden.
That's the problem, once you're in front of a jury on a charge with strict liability intent does not matter. Once the factual matter is decided, "I didn't mean any harm" doesn't matter - guilt is assigned, and the trial is moved on to sentencing.
How is this law written? If it really is strict liability, then scanning a 5 mW laser past a plane by accident during stargazing makes you equally guilty with the sociopath who is deliberately blinding pilots with a 1500 mW laser. Same crime. No law with a 5 year penalty should be strict liability.
Kudos, by the way, on the "just playing with the shark" line, that's witty =)
The law seems to provide plenty of leeway for both a defense lawyer and the sentencing judge.http://www.laserpointersafety.com/rules-general/us laws/uslaws.html#US_proposed_2005_2007_Securing_ [laserpointersafety.com]
Knowingly: excuses the careless astronomers (who are educated enough such that they really don't do this kind of shit anyway).
The ability to issue a fine also does not tie a judges hands.
Thanks for the link, that's some good reading!
Here's my favorite bit:
. . . placing the New Jersey Division of Consumer Affairs in charge of enforcing sales restrictions that exceed federal standards is not likely to deter dangerous conduct, but instead will interfere with otherwise lawful commerce within New Jersey. The criminal laws already protecting New Jersey residents from the dangerous misuse of laser pointers would not be bolstered by an arbitrary one-milliwatt sales restriction that is inconsistent with federal standards.
Accordingly, I herewith return Senate Bill No. 418 (Second Reprint) without my approval.
Respectfully, /s/ Chris ChristieGovernor
*mind blown* Common sense? In East Coast politics? From Governor Chris Christie???
I don't know what to say. Some of my faith in humanity has been restored.
It probably means that there were other charges leveled against him in his indictment.Your bone headed press reporter glosses over these other charges in the name of journalism.
The actual statute [justice.gov] he was charged under for his light show provides for a maximum of 5 years.And that is what his girlfriend will get.
He was charged with two counts of lazering, so 10 years for those, (perhaps) and other things thrown in.
Quoting from the above link....
Laser Strike of Childrenâ€™s Hospital and Fresno PD HelicoptersSergio Patrick Rodriguez, aka Javier Rodrigues, 26, and his girlfriend, Jennifer Lorraine Coleman, 23, both of Clovis, were charged with two counts of aiming a laser pointer at Air George, an emergency transport ambulance of Childrenâ€™s Hospital Central California, and Air-1, a Fresno Police Department helicopter. They were also charged with conspiring to interfere with the safe operation of the helicopters and two counts of attempting to interfere with their safe operation.
Plus additional charges were added after the above linked story went to press when it was found out he had violated his terms of probation, (and thus was not already a free man).
But hey, nice attempt at silencing debate in your last sentence. You've had your say, and everyone else needs to shut up and hang their head in shame, even when your premise were totally wrong? I don't think so. You need to entertain the idea that you might actually be wrong on the facts once in a while.
I wish I hadn't used all my mod points, 3 is too low.
Awesome post. 5 years is plenty justifiable, and falls into line with sentences for manslaughter. It would still be better if he were charged with attempted voluntary manslaughter, we don't need a separate law for this.
I assume he served his time and is a free man.
Almost certainly not. Most people get out of jail or prison only to be put on probation for a good while longer. And, in this case, I think that what he did counts as attempted murder. I'm OK with 14-year sentences for that.
What does an extensive past criminal history have to do with anything?
Everything, and it should. Look, the guy rips off a liquor store and gets two years probation, you think after his probation is up and he commits another robbery you think he should get probation again? You spend a month in the county jail for putting someone in the hospital and think you should get probation for threatening more people with his sociopathic behavior? Really?
He has been convicted over and over of harming and endangering people. And you think 14 years is cruel and unusual? No, the five years in the Federal pen my friend's brother got for loaning money to a dope dealer was cruel and unusual. 14 years for repeatedly putting people in danger is certainly not.
You think if I shoot at you and miss I shouldn't be behind bars? That's exactly what he did, lasers can bring down aircraft (autos as well, the laser makes it impossible to see out the windshield) and if you're enough of a sociopath you're willing to risk people's lives for your own evil pleasure, you should be behind bars.
Especially if you keep endangering people over and over, as this guy has been proven to do.
Look, the guy rips off a liquor store and gets two years probation, you think after his probation is up and he commits another robbery you think he should get probation again?
As long as there is a prohibition against double jeopardy in the Constitution, yes. If you want people to be punished repeatedly for the same crime, you have to amend the Constitution to allow it. Or have a justice system that does not follow the rule of law.
You're not punishing him twice for the same crime, you're punishing him more harshly the second time because obviously in his case the punishment was completely ineffective. Look, take drunk drivers. Society wants to keep them off the highways because they're a menace to everyone. Get caught once, get a low fine and go drinking again? You're showing little logic here.
You're not punishing him twice for the same crime, you're punishing him more harshly the second time
I don't see the difference at all. Getting 5 years for the first crime and getting 10 years for the second crime is exactly the same as getting 5 years for the first crime and getting 5 years for the second crime plus 5 years for the first crime again. If anything, the latter is the more honest way of portraying it, because that last 5 years wouldn't exist if not for the first crime.
Then rewrite the specific law to provide a higher maximum penalty.
The issue at stake is being sentenced to time above and beyond the maximum permitted. That is cruel and unusual. If we give someone a higher-than-maximum-allowable-by-law penalty because they've done it before, and the law makes no mention of an exception to the maximum, that's double jeopardy.
If we put a maximum of less than life in jail for a particular crime, without regard to repeat offenses, that says that we consider that crime to be minor enough that a person should never give up the rest of their life for it (excepting elderly people, clearly). That, or amend the Constitution to remove the prohibition on double jeopardy.
The issue is not what the person deserves--the issue is the arbitrary application of the legal system in areas which are supposed to be well-defined, without wiggle room. How I personally feel about this person makes absolutely no difference with respect to the law-as-stated and does not, under any circumstances, make it legal to ignore the law and apply arbitrary sentencing. That merely makes the enforcers of the law criminals themselves, even if unprosecuted.
A while ago, a major airplane company made a video showing just how big a problem it is. From the video, it was clear that it is less annoying than when someone in a car going in the opposite direction forgets to turn his high beams off.
In the details about the video, it was then explained that in the video, the laser pointer was pointed towards the cockpit window for 50 times longer than what would be realistically possible with a handheld laser pointer and a moving plane.
So yeah, if you compare how dangerous it is - according to propaganda videos from THEIR side - 14 years prison for this is just as reasonable as more than 14*50=700 years for forgetting to turn your high beams off.
Again, according to what THEY try to tell us.
I have also noticed that this did not become a problem with the appearance of high powered green laser pointers. It became a problem at the same time as anything to do with flying became a problem. I.e. after 9/11.
AFAIK you don't get permanent eye damage from high-beams at the moment. These lasers can and do cause permanent eye damage. Not always of course, and not always immediately noticeable damage.
Permanent eye damage is not good for pilot careers.
According to the video, the cockpit window spreads the laser beam out. That's one small amount of light being spread over a larger area, compared to a large amount of light, which does not do permanent eye damage, because it is already spread out.
Otherwise, the much more powerfull high beams WOULD do eye damage.
If the glass didn't spread the light, hitting an eye inside a moving plane with a handheld laser, over a distance where you can't even see the face you are aiming at... Might as well start playing Lotto, because Lotto has better odds.
According to the video, the cockpit window spreads the laser beam out.
According to the video, the cockpit window spreads the laser beam out.
This isn't the only (or even the main) spreading effect involved -- the beam itself diverges significantly over such such ranges, so the beam from a very high-powered pointer at long range may have much lower power density than an alread "safe" <5mW pointer at short range. Typical divergence values for laser pointers are on the order of 1 milliradian, so over a range of 1 km, the beam expands to 1m. Compared to a perhaps 5mm beam at short ranges, that's 200^2= 40000x the area, so even a full 1W laser has 1/40th the power density of a 1mW laser at short range. There's essentially no risk of eye damage from anything that can reasonably be called a laser pointer at these ranges. You need more power and/or a larger aperture to have sufficient power density to be a credible direct* hazard.
If the glass didn't spread the light, hitting an eye inside a moving plane with a handheld laser, over a distance where you can't even see the face you are aiming at...
But that part's wrong, because as above, the beam is pretty big at typical airplane ranges, so you've got a decent chance of momentarily catching the pilots eyes with some part of your big, low-density, beam, and probably making him blink.
* This is not to deny the existence of indirect hazards, such as the possibility that dazzling/momentarily blinding the pilot (or even just inducing a reflexive blink) could, under the right circumstances, cause him to crash the plane, just as high-beams could, in just the right circumstances, cause a driver to crash a car. I'm just talking about the direct hazard of eye damage.
I realized after posting, from other comments, that this case involved a police chopper, not an airliner. In light of that, the 1km distance for which I ran numbers may not be typical. Still, the point stands, and anyone may easily do the math for any range they deem representative...
You also have to take into consideration that the eye is about 50 times more sensitive in the green than it is in the red, which is why I generally hate when a speaker uses a green laser pointer during a presentation because they appear to be much brighter (in fact, depending upon the laser pointer they use and the properties of the wall/screen, I will look away from where they are pointing because it is discomforting to stare at the laser spot). Also, an idealized nice, clean cockpit window may act as a weakly powered optic to spread out the light some more, but a real cockpit window has all sorts of scratches, microbubbles, etc. in them that will cause all sorts of annoying glinting.
if you forgot to turn your high beams off while passing a police orificer in the almighty USA, you might just get 700 years in prison. never can tell nowadays. who's game to find out?
Forget everything else for a moment and focus on just point point, pointing a laser at an airplane is both a stupid thing to do and against the law. Whether it is dangerous or not (for a pilot it can be) there is no reason to do so for any good benefit. This is not a us vs them situation where the Man is stepping on our necks. This is a situation where a common sense law was broken.
Now, is it dangerous to throw a snowball at a moving car? Sure since at worst it could break a window, effect the driver who then swerves into on coming traffic causing an accident. A laser could distract, possibly blind a pilot as the plane is on the most critical part of flying, the landing phase. Anything that distracts from outside the cockpit is dangerous and just plain stupid to do.
As to lasers, tape one to a high powered rifle and that little spot of light could be followed in a second by a bullet. A laser can help target an object so how can you not see it as dangerous? What sucks is that, because of the actions of this nimrod the government could consider all lasers, even simple pointers, as bad and ban t hem. Thus the actions of a few, or one, effect the many.
Whether it is dangerous or not (for a pilot it can be) there is no reason to do so for any good benefit.
So you're saying that anything a person can do that doesn't demonstrate a good benefit should be illegal?
No, I am saying that pointing a lit laser at an aircraft, car, or anything being operated by a human has no benefit if doing so has a negative impact on the operator. I also stated that that specific action was against the law. Never was the thought that *anything* and illegal go together.
If you do think about it just the act of pointing a hi-powered laser at a plane (or any thing or anyone)may seem harmless unless it causes loss of sight. I think one has to be pretty close to the source, the same as carbon arc on a welding machine, in order to suffer permanent eye damage. But if the laser pointer is an aiming device...like on a rifle or SAM...then there is real danger.
also, as much as i think 14 years for lasing a police helicopter is over the top, lasing a commercial jet on final approach at night in shitty weather is a different story
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=protesters+shini ng+lasers+at+helicopter [google.co.uk]
Obligatory car analogy:
It's like standing on a bride over the freeway, pouring down paint, trying to cover the front wind-shield of cars passing by.
Bad analogy. I think it is more like standing on a groom.
Obligatory correction: PEVIEW, proofread, DON'T TRUST SPELL CHECKERS. Obviously, after mulling for a minute (which I wouldn't have had to do had you had the courtesy to PROOFREAD your comment before submitting) you didn't hit the G hard enough. Bride or bridge? The stupid spell checker doesn't care as long as the word is in its dictionary.
Dew knot truss yore spill checker! Ever!
I don't see how watching the stream flow into a urinal is really going to make all that much of a difference here.
It's like standing on a bride over the freeway, pouring down paint
If you're pouring the paint *on* the bride, I think that would work, but for a different reason than you intended ;-)
Kids shouting while playing in the yard next door are dangerous for my health in case they distract me while I'm welding in my garage. We should jail them. Or banish them!
This was not some 12-year-old playing with a regular laser pointer, not realizing what the consequences could be. Mr Rodriguez, 26, deliberately and repeatedly tried to blind the pilot of a helicopter with a powerful laser, and I consider this response from the justice system to be entirely appropriate.
Morons like this guy are causing legislators all over the world to consider passing laws banning lasers or regulating them to the point where you need a special permit to buy, own, or use one. Perhaps verdicts like this will make these idiots exercise some restraint.
I agree lazing (or whatever they want to call it) is a serious issue, and this wasn't just some punk with a laser pointer, it was lowlife scum with a history of trouble with the law.
I see this, rather, as an opportunity to put a lowlife behind bars. But that brings up another issue:
The jails are filling up with this sort of person, and it's expensive. I would've preferred they just blind him in one eye (with a laser, naturally) and call it a day.
The US is in desperate need of some legal reform - stuffing the jails with people like this (for a 15 year sentence, no less!) is ridiculous.
No, this guy needs to be behind bars and would be no matter what country he was from. The trouble with our US prisons is they're full of people who should have never been incarcerated in the first place.
Also, the police helicopter showed up because he had already been lasering the emergency helicopter for a children's hospital. The guy tried to crash a helicopter, murdering sick children and medical personnel, then tried to murder the cops who showed up to stop him. And he's only getting 14 years?!
They should probably ban murder while they are at it too.If somebody is dumb enough to do this they won't be moved by any laws or punishments.
This will be almost as handy as swatting, for harassment.
All you need is a cheap laser pointer, go near the victims land, lase some cops, maybe traffic helicopters, and your victim will be busted. Its not like there's a fingerprint or something, and the odds of someone owning a laser pointer are pretty decent. Then the cops bust the nearest minority or nearest excon or whatever, who hopefully is your selected victim.
Doesn't have to be some crazy "over the internet" stalker thing, it would work just as well if our buddy here bangs some other chick at a party, the girlfriend finds out about it, mr one night stand owns a laser pointer and she knows and uses it (or one like it), so she "wins". Scorned chicks can be completely nuts, even if she gets hard time as long as he gets busted she'll probably still be happy. Then get the federal prostituter to press charges for attempted mass murder, terrorism, assault with a deadly weapon, blah blah blah line up dozens of scary sounding charges, and explain if he'll just plead guilty to a simple lesser charge of lasing an airplane, rather than 56 life sentences and the death penalty, he'll get a couple years... Ta da, thats the modern justice system for you, everyone wins financially, and otherwise. Well, except for the guy in jail, but no one cares about justice anymore, so that's OK.
Its not like there's a fingerprint or something
How do you know? There may well have been a fingerprint in this case. There may well have been a purchase history showing that this guy owned the laser pointer in question. There may well have been video footage showing the light coming from a particular apartment, and possibly footage identifying the user.
OK true for this very specific case, I was discussing the general concept of the crime as applies to swatting in general. I meant no fingerprint as an inherent part of the crime. Like its hard to steal a car without getting fingerprints on it and at least some DNA, but when lasing, red light is just red light and its rather hard to prove the victim's laser which never left his briefcase or bookshelf or the mount on his handgun locked in his safe was not the swatter's laser.
The ultimate "swatting attack" using a laser would be bouncing the beam off the victim's window to hit the cop copter or cop car or whatever. That way it would appear to come from the victim's window.
I think this could be a very effective swatting attack in general, nationwide, at any time to any one, etc. Not claiming this particular idiot was a swatting victim.
The article was lacking in details on how they caught the guy, but in your scenario, I would hope fingerprinting might help to prove someone did not use the laser. Since this is a distance crime it is hard to prove someone was at the right spot shining a laser at an aircraft without a witness, ownership of and fingerprints on the laser device, and or corroborating evidence.
I am just as cynical as you about our Justice system, but generally I think it still tries to work properly.
Except that you don't start with the laser. You start with the house that the laser appeared to have been pointed from, and when find a laser pointer it's going to be the one owned by the person who lives there, NOT the one that was used from his lawn half an hour earlier.
So looking for fingerprints, what are you likely to find? The fingerprints of the perpetrator (who was never in the house), or the fingerprints of the guy who owns that laser pointer?
Your story assumes that the rightful owner of the house has a pointer. If it does not? What then. Police storm the house, because they had a report that a laser light came from that property. Hopefully they have a search warrant, but when the search the house, no laser.
The idea of swatting(?) someone like this rests on the premise that that person you want to get arrested has the offending object. Joe shoots his wife, because she was enjoying Bob's pleasures. He drops gun off at Bob's with the idea that the police will think Bob did it? Except Bob doesn't own a gun (or that gun). There has to be something tangible to tie a person to an act.
In US justice, not finding a laser would simply be iron-clad proof that the person disposed of it.
Don't forget that "laser" is an acronym for "Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation". RADIATION being the key word here. Lasers are used in procedures to melt away fat from obese people, there is no telling what happens if this unnatural form of radiation enters the eyes.
I suggest to experiment. Take this guy, give him a model helicopter, shine laser in his eyes and tell him to fly the thing around. If he crashes it, he has to pay for the full scale thing, and make up for the crew income for the rest of their projected life. Sounds fair, I left out moral damages too.
Sure -- as long as you shine it from the same range he was shining it at the aircraft* and as long as he gets as much training on the model as the helicopter pilot had**.
* Because divergence, obviously...
**On one hand, if you gave me a model helicopter today, I'm pretty sure I'd crash it without any lasers; on the other, one hopes police chopper pilots are trained not only to fly the chopper under ideal conditions but also to deal with visual distractions -- given that this business of shining lasers at aircraft has been going on for some years, it would be foolish not to.
Article title should have used "lasering", the individual in question directed a laser at an aircraft, he did not cause the aircraft to amplify coherent light.
Otherwise, he may have been lasing the emitter in the green pointer.
Actually, one doesn't lase an emitter, rather the emitter lases radiation.
So lasing a helicopter would be amplifying light by stimulated emission of helicopters -- which would be an even neater trick than causing a helicopter to lase.
Little do you know, the chemtrail gas is an *excellent* lasing medium.
I thought we were beyond sensational titles when we left beta behind? Rodriguez was not like any other man - he had gang affiliations and criminal history.
...is friggin gang members with friggin laser beams!
So its 18 years for 'lasing.Wanna bet he would get less for just killing heli pilot with a hammer, or a car?
This is just as stupid as millions in damages for copying mp3s.
Can't believe I have to respond to this. What if the pilot got temporarily blinded & crashes the aircraft in some heavily populated place? How well does your hammer analogy work then?
Did you even RTFS? He got 14 years, not 18. The laser pointer was 13, THIRTEEN times more powerful than a regular laser pointer. He had a criminal history, probation violations, and gang affiliation, all of which were accounted for when determining how long to lock him away. My initial reaction was the same as yours after considering the necessary facts it's totally reasonable.
As mentioned in TFA and in comments, he was shining a powerful laser at two helicopters in operation (one being a medical heli). Moreover, he did so with a device certainly capable of having its effects reach the helicopters and the people inside them. Finally, he had enough skill with the device to use it effectively -- if we're going to construct an analogy, let's keep that aspect in as well.
Thus, a more appropriate analogy would be:"Wanna bet he would get less for being a trained sniper and just shooting at both heli pilots with a sniper rifle?"
You know what, I don't think the answer to that one is "yes"... and that is without considering all the aggravating circumstances.
Just ONE guy? Pointing ONE laser pointer?
You American wimps, this is how it is done in Egypt, on a military helicopter [businessinsider.com].
[/sarcasm] And they were army supporters then, chanting pro-military slogans.
Are the wavelengths known for these high powered lasers and can pilots wear filters to block that part of the spectrum?
532nm is most common for green lasers, right in the middle of the visible spectrum. I'm sure a filter excluding this wavelength is available, but it would give an odd colour cast to the user. Comparable filters are used for astronomy, to exclude the wavelengths of typical street lights. Those filters definitely impart some odd colour to whatever you see through them.
True it can cause color shifts if you use the wrong type of glasses.Pilots should also be cautious of laser safety glasses made for laboratory use, which are not specified for aviation use.
There are already several brands and models of safety eye-wear for pilots on the market [laserpointersafety.com].
I can't agree with the sentence at all. Yes, directing laser pointers at aircrafts is very dangerous to do. But what is the purpose of a jail sentence? Is it to stop the criminal from repeating the crime, or is it an outlet for vindictive tendencies of the judge? I highly doubt that 14 years is necessary to stop this guy from using a laser pointer irresponsibly again. Even for a repeat criminal, that seems wildly excessive.
Also, making an example through the penal system is not something to be proud of. There are much better ways to raise awareness about an issue than merciless sentencing. 10 year olds with access to laser pointers will not be fazed by some obscure court case.