Clearly, a stupid thing to do, but a felony?

[Jamisjockey]

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.

[Sergeant Bob]

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?

And if some asshat keeps pointing it at my face because he "thinks" it is safe, I will still be upset. 

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.

[roo_ster]

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?  Not a (credible) threat.*  Bright white light would be more of a threat.

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.

[Hawkmoon]

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.

[Boomhauer]

So, all you guys who are saying the threat is overblown are volunteering to have lasers shined in your eyes, right?

[Firethorn]

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.

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.

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.

[Paddy]

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.

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?

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.

[Matthew Carberry]

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.

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.

[Paddy]

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?

[Matthew Carberry]

Strict scrutiny.

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.

[brer]

As someone who has managed to get a light induced injury to his eye and has worked on cutting lasers before, I cal BS on even the possibility of one of those little laser pointers causing blindness to a pilot thats at a minimum several hudred feet away.

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.

[gunsmith]

very interesting topic. having had a nit wit shine a laser in my eyes once, I am all for making it a felony.

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

[Jamisjockey]

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.

[cordex]

I have had people shine low powered laser pointers in my eyes.  It?s irritating.  When my eyes were dark-adapted, it hurt a little.  No, these weren?t weapons grade lasers, but they were also from much closer and without intervening obstacles such as windscreens and aluminum.

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.)

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.

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.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

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?

[Sergeant Bob]

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.

[MechAg94]

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.

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)?

[Paddy]

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?

[Sergeant Bob]

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.

OK, I'll do it. ZOMG!!! I'm being tracked with a laser pointer!

[Werewolf]

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?

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.

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.

[Paddy]

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?

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

i just reread thread and evryone seems to have the shiny side out today. so far the only one talking about taking anything from folks is werewolf. i think locking the dimwit with the lazer up for a while would be congruent with a lotta folks 2nd amendment views  criminalize the actions not the object.

[Matthew Carberry]

Riley, as usual, you have a point.

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.

[Werewolf]

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?

Except that's not what you said in response to another poster who did talk about criminalizing misuse. You responded by stating:

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.

[Matthew Carberry]

I think you're misreading him.

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.