Post by: Typhoon on December 26, 2007, 11:35:08 AM
Quote
10:36 a.m.: Laser pointer gets man arrested
Staff reports
Article Created: 12/26/2007 10:33:04 AM PST
LANDERS - A 46-year-old Landers man was arrested Tuesday after he illuminated a county sheriff's helicopter with a laser-pointing device.
The helicopter was assisting sheriff's deputies conducting a search around 8:54 p.m. near Ira Lane and Booth Road when Michael Donovan pointed the device at the aircraft, authorities said in a news release.
The helicopter's crew led a deputy on the ground to Stearman Road, where after an investigation, Donovan was arrested on a felony charge of using a laser pointer on an aircraft.
He was being held in lieu of $25,000 bail at the Morongo Basin jail.
Staff reports
Article Created: 12/26/2007 10:33:04 AM PST
LANDERS - A 46-year-old Landers man was arrested Tuesday after he illuminated a county sheriff's helicopter with a laser-pointing device.
The helicopter was assisting sheriff's deputies conducting a search around 8:54 p.m. near Ira Lane and Booth Road when Michael Donovan pointed the device at the aircraft, authorities said in a news release.
The helicopter's crew led a deputy on the ground to Stearman Road, where after an investigation, Donovan was arrested on a felony charge of using a laser pointer on an aircraft.
He was being held in lieu of $25,000 bail at the Morongo Basin jail.
Wow. Not that I would ever do something that stupid, but I can't help but wonder what other things that are felonies I don't know about...
Post by: BlueStarLizzard on December 26, 2007, 11:50:44 AM
Post by: Firethorn on December 26, 2007, 11:53:39 AM
i thought there was something about distracting or blinding the pilet which is why it was illigal? your right though it does seem a little extream.....
There might also be the concern that it could be used as a targeting designator for a missile...
And yes, blinding the pilot would be the major concern. A high powered pointer can blind, perhaps permanently, in seconds.
Post by: Jamisjockey on December 26, 2007, 12:04:32 PM
i thought there was something about distracting or blinding the pilet which is why it was illigal? your right though it does seem a little extream.....
'zactly. Al Queida even looked into using them enmasse to target airliners. I remember seeing security alerts on it when I was in the FAA. We had to report all incidents in a seperate package, and I remember a Delta Pilot in Utah being affected by a light, too.
Post by: gunsmith on December 26, 2007, 12:24:31 PM
cause a Helicopter or plane to crash by blinding a pilot.
A felony is certainly warranted.
Post by: Typhoon on December 26, 2007, 12:31:23 PM
So many behaviors are being criminalized now, it can be hard to keep up.
Post by: Paddy on December 26, 2007, 12:33:54 PM
Quote
I wonder if the man arrested knew that this was a felony.
He knows now.
Post by: gunsmith on December 26, 2007, 12:37:06 PM
This isn't like having an ounce of weed in your home for personal use, blinding someone is serious.
Post by: Boomhauer on December 26, 2007, 01:50:39 PM
A Kingair flying into my home base airport had a blue flare fired at it a few months ago. They didn't find the ahole that did it...
Yeah, there are plenty of things that ought not to be felonies...this does not fall in that category
.
Post by: Jamisjockey on December 26, 2007, 01:56:35 PM
Post by: BobR on December 26, 2007, 02:51:17 PM
I think the big concern is blinding the pilot, causing a crash.
I think he should have to pay lots of money for his stupidity.
In the 80's we had laser goggles on our P3's. Any time we went down to look at a soviet boat, we had the goggles on. They seemed to enjoy illuminating us with their targeting lasers, as well as firing flares at us as we flew down the side of their ship.
We would write an incident report, the state department would protest, and the next time we did a rig on a soviet ship we would wear our goggles.
bob
Post by: Sergeant Bob on December 26, 2007, 04:40:38 PM
Post by: Boomhauer on December 26, 2007, 05:13:11 PM
Quote
In the 80's we had laser goggles on our P3's. Any time we went down to look at a soviet boat, we had the goggles on. They seemed to enjoy illumnating us with their targeting lasers, as well as fire flares at us as we flew down the side of their ship.
Wasn't there one helo pilot that was permanently blinded by the Soviets?
Quote
I think the danger from hand held laser pointers has been highly exaggerated. From what I've read, visible light lasers can not cause any physical damage to the eye and their only effect is in that they may induce flash blindness (like a Sylvania Blue Dot flash bulb) and have much less effect at greater distances due to dispersion of the beam. In addition, AFAIK, the pilot would have to look directly into the beam for it to have much, if any effect.
I don't give a damn how much the danger may or may not be exaggerated. I ain't taken any chances with my eyesight, and anybody that points a laser of any type at my eyes will get their ass kicked.
Post by: Sergeant Bob on December 26, 2007, 07:10:58 PM
Quote
In the 80's we had laser goggles on our P3's. Any time we went down to look at a soviet boat, we had the goggles on. They seemed to enjoy illumnating us with their targeting lasers, as well as fire flares at us as we flew down the side of their ship.
Wasn't there one helo pilot that was permanently blinded by the Soviets?
Quote
I think the danger from hand held laser pointers has been highly exaggerated. From what I've read, visible light lasers can not cause any physical damage to the eye and their only effect is in that they may induce flash blindness (like a Sylvania Blue Dot flash bulb) and have much less effect at greater distances due to dispersion of the beam. In addition, AFAIK, the pilot would have to look directly into the beam for it to have much, if any effect.
I don't give a damn how much the danger may or may not be exaggerated. I ain't taken any chances with my eyesight, and anybody that points a laser of any type at my eyes will get their ass kicked.
I guess since the danger is the same as from a camera flash you'll be beating the crap outta grandma next time she takes your picture then tough guy?
Post by: BobR on December 26, 2007, 07:34:29 PM
Quote
I think the danger from hand held laser pointers has been highly exaggerated.
I guess it depends on the laser.
http://www.mayoclinic.org/news2005-rst/2800.html
http://www.sciencebuddies.org/mentoring/project_ideas/Phys_Laser_Safety.shtml
I believe it was a Norwegian P3 pilot that suffered permanent vison damage from a soviet laser that prompted the US to start flying with laser goggles, esp in the North Atlantic.
bob
Post by: Sergeant Bob on December 26, 2007, 08:01:59 PM
Quote
ROCHESTER, Minn. Mayo Clinic ophthalmologists have found commercially available Class 3A green laser pointers can cause visible harm to the eye's retina with exposures as short as 60 seconds. The findings will be published in the May issue of Archives of Ophthalmology,
Quote
The green laser damaged the pigment layer of the retina, although it did not cause a measurable decrease in the visual function of the patient's eye.
I guess if they tied you down, held your eyelid open and shined it into your eye for an extended period of time then yes, it might cause some damage. So, the effects of hand held laser pointers are indeed being exaggerated.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on December 27, 2007, 05:32:15 AM
Post by: Boomhauer on December 27, 2007, 05:44:03 AM
Quote
how drunk/stupid is a guy in his forties that does something like this? a teenager i could understand but wiould still think deserved a beating
Stupidity knows no boundries...
Post by: Firethorn on December 27, 2007, 08:09:02 AM
I guess if they tied you down, held your eyelid open and shined it into your eye for an extended period of time then yes, it might cause some damage. So, the effects of hand held laser pointers are indeed being exaggerated.
Depends on it's power. There are larger models out there that can cause damage quicker than you can blink.
For example: A 120 mW Green pointer
For comparison, 1 mW is considered safe because the blink reflex will prevent damage. 5 mW can cause damage if misused - no holding down necessary.
How much damage, and at what range, could one 24 times as powerful do?
Post by: El Tejon on December 27, 2007, 08:19:40 AM
Post by: MechAg94 on December 27, 2007, 08:56:36 AM
I guess if they tied you down, held your eyelid open and shined it into your eye for an extended period of time then yes, it might cause some damage. So, the effects of hand held laser pointers are indeed being exaggerated.
Depends on it's power. There are larger models out there that can cause damage quicker than you can blink.
For example: A 120 mW Green pointer
For comparison, 1 mW is considered safe because the blink reflex will prevent damage. 5 mW can cause damage if misused - no holding down necessary.
How much damage, and at what range, could one 24 times as powerful do?
Post by: Declaration Day on December 27, 2007, 12:28:44 PM
The helicopter's crew led a deputy on the ground to Stearman Road, where after an investigation, Donovan was arrested on a felony charge of using a laser pointer on an aircraft.
He deserves whatever he gets, +10 years for being dumb enough to get caught. You'd either have to admit to it, or do it in front of a bunch of witnesses.
Post by: MillCreek on December 27, 2007, 12:35:57 PM
Post by: Jocassee on December 27, 2007, 12:53:57 PM
Quote
There might also be the concern that it could be used as a targeting designator for a missile...
In which case the poh-poh and the pilot would have bigger worries on their hands than charging someone for a felony.
Just thought I'd point that out.
Post by: cordex on December 27, 2007, 01:28:52 PM
Post by: Jamisjockey on December 27, 2007, 01:43:47 PM
I tend to agree with the "overblown and exaggerated threat" crowd.
considering a few pilots have experienced temporary blindness due to it....it ain't overblown nor exaggerated.
Post by: Sergeant Bob on December 27, 2007, 03:57:54 PM
I guess if they tied you down, held your eyelid open and shined it into your eye for an extended period of time then yes, it might cause some damage. So, the effects of hand held laser pointers are indeed being exaggerated.
Depends on it's power. There are larger models out there that can cause damage quicker than you can blink.
For example: A 120 mW Green pointer
For comparison, 1 mW is considered safe because the blink reflex will prevent damage. 5 mW can cause damage if misused - no holding down necessary.
How much damage, and at what range, could one 24 times as powerful do?
Why not throw in a jillion watt laser. We can make almost anything dangerous if we want to get ridiculous with the proportions. What are the chances this guy was able to point his laser pointer in the pilot's eyes for any period of time which might be considered dangerous? How do you hit a pilot in the eyes with a laser pointer? You'd probably have to be inside the cockpit or have the pilot stick his head out the window and stare at the laser in order for it to hit him in the eye long enough to do any damage.
Reducto ad absurdium.
Post by: roo_ster on December 27, 2007, 05:55:46 PM
I had experience with lasers in the service and was ever so careful with them...but then, they were some no-*expletive deleted*it powerful LRFs & LTDs.
Which brings to mind: yeah, it might make a helo pilot's job more difficult if he were bathed in a bunch of white light, but why ought we not have leave to bathe them with such if they are hovering around our property? The pilot is sure inflicting light & noise pollution on those nearby. Gettin' some right back atcha is fair, IMO.
* But certtainly not neighborly.
Post by: Hawkmoon on December 27, 2007, 06:08:29 PM
I think the danger from hand held laser pointers has been highly exaggerated. From what I've read, visible light lasers can not cause any physical damage to the eye and their only effect is in that they may induce flash blindness (like a Sylvania Blue Dot flash bulb) and have much less effect at greater distances due to dispersion of the beam. In addition, AFAIK, the pilot would have to look directly into the beam for it to have much, if any effect.
I'm old enough to remember Blue Dot flash bulbs, and I know they didn't come with warnings not to look at them when they went off. Laser pointers (and laser bore sights, and laser aiming devices), on the other hand, DO come with stickers attached warning not to look at them and not to shine them in anyone's eyes.
I'm quite sure at close range they'd do some damage. Not so sure about how much effect they'd have on a whirlybird pilot, and as for blinding a pilot of a commercial jet flying at several thousand feet? C'mon -- gimme a break.
Post by: Boomhauer on December 27, 2007, 06:10:36 PM
Post by: Firethorn on December 27, 2007, 06:30:33 PM
Why not throw in a jillion watt laser.
Cause a jillion watt laser is neither holdable by hand nor can you find a site selling them within 10 seconds with google?
The site I pointed to sells them. Yes, they're $500, but people spend more money on stupid stuff all the time.
those are AAA batteries powering the thing. It's about the size of a mag light.
Heck, how's this for a feature list:
I don't know about you, but 'visible on clouds' indicates a heck of a range, and 'burns plastic/pops ballons' doesn't bode well for eyes.
Quote
What are the chances this guy was able to point his laser pointer in the pilot's eyes for any period of time which might be considered dangerous?
Not too likely, but like I said, with the more powerful ones it doesn't take long, and they want to thoroughly quash pointing lasers at aircraft. Obviously this guy was good enough that the aircrew knew somebody was pointing a laser on them, and well enough to track it's source.
Quote
How do you hit a pilot in the eyes with a laser pointer? You'd probably have to be inside the cockpit or have the pilot stick his head out the window and stare at the laser in order for it to hit him in the eye long enough to do any damage.
Easier than you might think. Lasers still disburse over those distances.
Post by: Paddy on December 27, 2007, 07:29:30 PM
Quote
Why not throw in a jillion watt laser. We can make almost anything dangerous if we want to get ridiculous with the proportions. What are the chances this guy was able to point his laser pointer in the pilot's eyes for any period of time which might be considered dangerous? How do you hit a pilot in the eyes with a laser pointer? You'd probably have to be inside the cockpit or have the pilot stick his head out the window and stare at the laser in order for it to hit him in the eye long enough to do any damage.
Quote
I am really sensitive to threats to my vision, but a hand-held visible laser pointer at a distance of how amny hundreds of feet through angled plexiglass?
Quote
I'm quite sure at close range they'd do some damage. Not so sure about how much effect they'd have on a whirlybird pilot, and as for blinding a pilot of a commercial jet flying at several thousand feet? C'mon -- gimme a break.
More foolishness. Why would you even do that in the first place?
It's exactly this kind of 'thinking' that makes it necessary to criminalize dangerous behaviors. Some people can't regulate themselves, so everyone must be regulated.
Post by: Matthew Carberry on December 27, 2007, 07:52:19 PM
I'd like to see an controlled study showing the cumulative exposure time necessary at various ranges while attenuated by various types/grades of cockpit glass (and flight googles).
If it requires pinpoint tracking over 10's of seconds at below normal flight altitudes, then it's more a theoretical than realistic threat. (turn head, increase altitude, put on goggles, move aircraft, etc.)
Extrapolating from Soviet military grade lasers to any power of AA handheld seems a bit much with out some hard numbers.
Post by: Paddy on December 27, 2007, 07:58:30 PM
Quote
Or, alternately, if he actually blinds or causes real physical harm to someone then you charge him with an appropriate existing crime for that actual harm.
No. That's completely inadequate. Why should (irreversible) harm have to come to an innocent person before society can (by law) restrain a moron?
Post by: Matthew Carberry on December 27, 2007, 08:17:30 PM
Before making more and more behaviors criminal, it is reasonable that we we use the narrowest means possible to achieve the goal.
If we can't even demonstrate that it is even reasonably likely that the behavior we want to criminalize will actually cause some sort of irreversible harm then a broad ban on that behavior is not justifiable.
Shooting at a structure is a crime in and of itself due to the reasonable likelyhood that the structure is occupied and because of the potential harm that can be caused.
Shooting through brush, at a hillside you know to be there, on your own private property of sufficient acreage is perfectly legal because the risk of someone being downrange without your knowledge is so unlikely.
Without an actual study demonstrating objectively, not through extrapolation or anecdote, that there is a real risk to lasing aircraft with most handheld civilian lasers, we are creating a wide irrational means to achieve the goal of aircraft safety.
Post by: brer on December 27, 2007, 08:58:45 PM
One of the last big scares involved an amateur astronomer showing off to his daughter with a large high power laser pointer and illuminated an aircraft with it. The one this guy had was likely several thousand times more powerful than those little suckers you buy at radio shack. It was designed to actually illuminate the sky around a celestial object at a star party so others could find it.
Post by: gunsmith on December 27, 2007, 11:26:45 PM
burning rubber and lighting matches! gee whiz! thats gonna really hurt an eyeball, whats the range for lighting matches with that stuff? could you give someone a flat tire from one hundred yards?
makes for some interesting vandalizing possibilities
Post by: Jamisjockey on December 28, 2007, 02:25:13 AM
The laser itself is perfectly legal. Illuminating the aircraft cockpit with it is what was the crime. Much like pointing a gun at someone. I'd say that's a pretty narrow activity.
Who's going to volunteer for me to shine one in thier eye at a thousand feet or so? I didn't think so.
Post by: cordex on December 28, 2007, 04:42:46 AM
Like I said before, I think the threat is overblown. I?m sure that we can come up with a potential threat to pilots pretty easily by referencing $500.00 specialty lasers, but even then it seems to me that the threat is still blown significantly out of proportion considering the distance, aiming considerations and the size of the target. (Yes, I know that the beam will spread out over distance, but remember that as the beam spreads, the danger decreases.)
Quote
So, all you guys who are saying the threat is overblown are volunteering to have lasers shined in your eyes, right?
*sigh* Look, if you want to fly me around at 500 or 1000 feet and have someone try to hit the cockpit with a laser pointer while you cover your eyes with heavy-duty aluminum foil, sure, I?ll do it.Quote
Obviously this guy was good enough that the aircrew knew somebody was pointing a laser on them, and well enough to track it's source.
Neither of which require that the laser be bright enough to do any amount of damage to the viewer. In fact identifying and locating the source would seem to be considerably more difficult if one were suffering from temporary blindness, would it not?Again, I?m not saying there is absolutely no threat, I?m merely saying that the threat is not nearly as serious as it is made out to be or necessarily worthy of a felony charge. A drunk guy in a Power Wheels could conceivably hurt someone, but I?m not in favor of hitting said drunk with a DWI/DUI charge.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on December 28, 2007, 04:44:01 AM
or maybe if i don't shoot directly at the plane but just near it?
Post by: Sergeant Bob on December 28, 2007, 05:22:03 AM
realistically if i shoot my 22 at a passing jet in the landing pattern its not going to do any harm but if i trot out the 30.06 thats different? is that what the its ok to play with the laser folks are saying?! or maybe if i don't shoot directly at the plane but just near it?
If you think actually shooting a gun at an aircraft and pointing at it with a little light are equal, I'd like to challenge you to a duel. Something about "bringing a flashlight to a gun fight" comes to mind. or maybe if i don't shoot directly at the plane but just near it? 
Post by: MechAg94 on December 28, 2007, 05:34:59 AM
You will have to sign a release form in case you get injured though. I think in this particular case, the guy was going out of his way to track the plane with his laser. Otherwise, there is no way they would have spotted the location.
Question: Is it also illegal to do the same with a mirror (not as an emergency signal)?
Post by: Paddy on December 28, 2007, 05:50:14 AM
Quote
If we can't even demonstrate that it is even reasonably likely that the behavior we want to criminalize will actually cause some sort of irreversible harm then a broad ban on that behavior is not justifiable.
Just because something is not 'reasonably likely' to cause irreversible harm does not mean it's a good idea to do. 'Reasonable' people don't do stupid things simply because they 'can'. Firing a bullet into the air is not 'reasonably likely' to do harm, yet it's hardly a good idea. Unfortunately, not all people are 'reasonable'. Many are stupid and immature and the rest of us have the right to defend ourselves against them before they harm us. You're familiar with that concept, correct?
Post by: Sergeant Bob on December 28, 2007, 05:55:10 AM
I still agree that one of you should volunteer to have a laser pointed at your eyes. Maybe we can have you drive around a traffic circle and have someone in the middle track you with a hand held laser. You will have to sign a release form in case you get injured though.
You will have to sign a release form in case you get injured though. OK, I'll do it. ZOMG!!! I'm being tracked with a laser pointer!
Post by: Werewolf on December 28, 2007, 06:35:57 AM
Quote
Or, alternately, if he actually blinds or causes real physical harm to someone then you charge him with an appropriate existing crime for that actual harm.
No. That's completely inadequate. Why should (irreversible) harm have to come to an innocent person before society can (by law) restrain a moron?
So lets take another useful tool like laser pointers away from people because they MIGHT hurt someone with them...
I'm not sure what the legal term is but regulating posession of items just to control the 1 in 1000 nut job is just wrong.
Post by: Paddy on December 28, 2007, 06:50:42 AM
Quote
And how long have you been pro gun control. Because that's the same logic antis use. Take guns away from people so they can't hurt others with them.
AFAIK, we're not talking about 'taking lasers away' from people. We're talking about criminalizing their misuse. You're for criminalizing the misuse of firearms, aren't you?
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on December 28, 2007, 07:00:12 AM
Post by: Matthew Carberry on December 28, 2007, 08:10:03 AM
I still would like to see an actual study that looks at the power of laser necessary, at different ranges and through the usual intervening substances, to cause real harm to a pilot,s eyes before determining that the behavior itself is, across the board, demonstrably harmful to pilots and needs regulating.
Once that study is done it can then be determined if criminalizing the behavior with uniform consequences, as opposed to making it criminal only with lasers of a certain type or a sliding scale of crime (misdemeanor for lasers that cannot per the study realistically cause damage say) or even restricting access to lasers of certain powers, is the more reasonable and limited course of action.
Right now we're at, some lasers may cause some kind of harm in some circumstances maybe (cause we have these anecdotes, see), thus, lasing an aircraft with all lasers, regardless of type or intent, is a felony.
Post by: Werewolf on December 28, 2007, 08:21:11 AM
Quote
And how long have you been pro gun control. Because that's the same logic antis use. Take guns away from people so they can't hurt others with them.
AFAIK, we're not talking about 'taking lasers away' from people. We're talking about criminalizing their misuse. You're for criminalizing the misuse of firearms, aren't you?
Quote
No. That's completely inadequate. Why should (irreversible) harm have to come to an innocent person before society can (by law) restrain a moron?
The only possible conclusion one can draw from your statement re: restrain since criminalizing the action is completely inadequate is that the only option left is to take away the laser pointers or put some silly regulations into effect defining just who can own them.That is what you said. Criminalizing the action of using a laser pointer in such a way as to cause bodily harm is completely inadequate. What is left but to take them away or regulate who can own them. Sounds a lot like a pro gun control stance to me.
Post by: Matthew Carberry on December 28, 2007, 08:33:46 AM
Look at the context, Riley was responding to my proposal that the law should require that someone else actually be hurt before a person's use of the laser was considered a crime. He was saying that my particular proposed relaxing of the law was inadequate to effectively and efficiently prevent the potential negative consequences of a pilot being hurt.
He is in support of the efficiency of just making lazing an aircraft a crime, regardless of the harm any particular incident may do, because of the terrible potential consequences of the action (the current law).
He's not calling for a ban on lasers, or any additional regs on purchase or possession, just the continued criminalization one particular, defined and limited, misuse of them.
Post by: Typhoon on December 28, 2007, 08:50:33 AM
The original story is no longer on the Daily Bulletins website. Just for curiositys sake, I looked it up on the San Bernardino Courts website (searchable for free by the public).
Looks like Mr. Donovan spent Christmas night in the pokey. After his arraignment and plea of not guilty yesterday, his preliminary hearing was set for 1/8/2008 and bail was increased to $125,000.00. (Yikes! $125 Large for a laser?
) Next entry is a plea bargain (approx. 2 hours later). Seems that his public defender (and no doubt the high bail amount) convinced him to plea bargain the felony charge down to a misdemeanor (PC M248 - LIGHT, ETC INTERFERING WITH OPERATION OF HELICOPTER). Fine of $166.20, two years probation and credit for time served. Post by: Firethorn on December 28, 2007, 08:52:00 AM
He is in support of the efficiency of just making lazing an aircraft a crime, regardless of the harm any particular incident may do, because of the terrible potential consequences of the action (the current law).
Pretty much my thought.
If nothing else, with a little 1-5mW unit, even a helo isn't likely to know they're being lazed.
Most of these incidents have been with higher power units, like the one I pointed out. The concern isn't just eye damage, but blinding/dazzling the pilot long enough to cause an incident. Thus the rule.
For those arguing that 'little' lasers should be exempted, well, I haven't heard about BB/airsoft guns being exempted from charges if they go pointing them at somebody.
Gunsmith, the range for doing stuff like lighting a match with it generally depends more on how steady you are more than distance dispersion. Though popping a car tire is unlikely, as we're talking about thick rubber in that case.
Typhoon - given the large bail amount, I'm curious as to more of the details(like what power was the laser?) myself.
Post by: Werewolf on December 28, 2007, 09:01:56 AM
Quote
He's not calling for a ban on lasers, or any additional regs on purchase or possession, just the continued criminalization one particular, defined and limited, misuse of them.
Sounds like a reasonable interpretation of Riley's stand though I'd still have to disagree with it.Criminalizing an action that causes no harm is wrong. Where does one draw the line. [sarcasm mode on]After all women have all the equipment necessary to be prostitutes so why not criminalize fornication. Even if it caused no harm there's still the potential for the woman to charge for it and prostitution is illegal in most states. Therefore we must use prior restraint and forbid fornication. [/sarcasm mode off]
Post by: Typhoon on December 28, 2007, 09:03:16 AM
Quote
Typhoon - given the large bail amount, I'm curious as to more of the details(like what power was the laser?) myself.
No kidding, must have been a big damned laser. (Or a strong-arm tactic to get a guilty plea and dispose of the case).
There is no other information available on the Court's website and nothing in the local papers.
Post by: Firethorn on December 28, 2007, 09:20:36 AM
Criminalizing an action that causes no harm is wrong. Where does one draw the line.
It's more like making brandishing illegal - You can still own guns, you can still shoot guns, you just can't normally point a gun at a person, because it's not only a potential indicator that you intend to shoot him, it's also extremely unsafe even if the person doing the pointing doesn't intend to fire.
Or even drunk/impaired driving - there's no guarentee that you'll cause harm, but incidents like the 'child imbedded in the grill' happen far too often.
I don't necessarily think that it needs to be a felony, but having it be illegal isn't too bad. You're still allowed to own and use laser pointers - but don't go pointing them at people, aircraft, or even vehicles in operation in general. At least without prior permission, of course.
That's just good safety.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on December 28, 2007, 09:24:03 AM
Post by: Matthew Carberry on December 28, 2007, 09:35:40 AM
Lazing with an "X" power laser of an aircraft in flight, where such laser is demonstrated to not be able to cause harm, would be the misdemeanor "harassing aircraft" charge because they do have to go to the trouble of reporting it and turning their head, etc. Write in that you lose that laser as well when convicted.
Lasing with a more powerful laser (if it can realistically cause harm to the eyes in the real world (not just "lab perfect" conditions) then using it on a person where hitting the eyes is a risk is an actual "assault", aircraft or not), or interfering with any aircraft in any distracting manner during take-off, landing or official police/rescue business could be the felony conditions.
Define the terms more tightly and accurately and charge based on the reasonable risks.
-BUT-
A dollar store laser pointer illuminating an aircraft in level flight at 5000 feet should be a felony?
