4 ms·

Good on them for making it a six month sentence, that's very fair. Shows good sense.

throwaway0a5e 5y ago
6mo in prison for dicking around with a laser pointer is right up there with sending the swat team to break up a bunch of teenagers partying. People routinely don't even get 6mo for crimes with a victim (on their first offense). For nuisance behavior like this a bunch of community service would teaches the lesson just as well and not waste as many tax dollars. Edit: FFS people, seriously? It's the aerial equivalent of some hooligan doing donuts in the middle of an intersection. Yes, you can always come up with some appeal to emotion crap but the fact of the matter is that while the behavior was reckless and negligent nobody was harmed and there was no victim, the only transgression was a temporary risk of harm. There's a very big difference between being a reckless nuisance and actually harming anyone or actually causing harm. Results matter. This is enshrined in statute all over the world (and in case law for common law jurisdictions). I hope all you people are smart enough to get out of jury duty.
- trollied 5y ago
  It's not "dicking around with a laser pointer". Actions have consequences. Blinding pilots and causing a plane crash is not really going to be classed as "dicking around" is it?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- qeternity 5y ago
  > For nuisance behavior like this This doesn't qualify as nuisance behavior. The risks are very real, particularly with civilian/LEO aircraft which don't have the training (and possible countermeasures) that a military pilot would.
- spoonjim 5y ago
  For offenses where the risk of getting caught is very low, you need to make the punishments stiff, otherwise the expected value of the punishment is near-zero.
bluejekyll 5y ago
What is it about six months that seems like it's an appropriate sentence? I infer that you mean it's better that 1-3 years or something worse. In this case (the article didn't mention the individual's circumstances) six months will most likely have severe consequences to things like employment/education/child-care. These will have negative effects on the rest of the community in all likelyhood. As it sounds like no-one was harmed, would a fine, probation, and/or some form of required community service potentially have better overall outcomes?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- meowfly 5y ago
  I think punishments need to have enough teeth to deter. Six months seems like it could be enough to deter without it unnecessarily keeping someone who is normally harmless incarcerated. I'm not too dug-in on this point though, it really depends on how risky shooting a laser at an aircraft really is.
- ChrisLomont 5y ago
  If someone fired a gun into a crowd, but no one was harmed, should that just be a fine? Why would doing something dangerous that could possibly damage a pilots eyes not be similar? Enough pilots have suffered eye damage (google it) from idiots with lasers. In the US, a first time DUI with no one injured can get you 6 months jail in many states (some higher, some lower). This seems about the same. Maybe penalties are decided including factors such as possible outcomes for dangerous behavior and as a deterrence to others?
  - bluejekyll 5y ago
    The fact that the person was caught makes this case probably a little different than most. Using analogies like yours can be helpful, but I have to wonder about the intent/knowledge of the dangers with those actions. Pointing a laser at anyone/anything is possibly not as known to be potentially directly harmful as much as shooting a gun at someone. Ironically, your analogy is something that itself doesn't always have negative consequences related to it (ie how does that change when it's a police officer, or happens during a protest, etc). Anyway, I am not sure it's cut-and-dry that a sentence like this is net better outcome, it definitely will make it more visible how bad this type of action is through news and what-not which is a good thing.

6mo in prison for dicking around with a laser pointer is right up there with sending the swat team to break up a bunch of teenagers partying. People routinely don't even get 6mo for crimes with a victim (on their first offense). For nuisance behavior like this a bunch of community service would teaches the lesson just as well and not waste as many tax dollars. Edit: FFS people, seriously? It's the aerial equivalent of some hooligan doing donuts in the middle of an intersection. Yes, you can always come up with some appeal to emotion crap but the fact of the matter is that while the behavior was reckless and negligent nobody was harmed and there was no victim, the only transgression was a temporary risk of harm. There's a very big difference between being a reckless nuisance and actually harming anyone or actually causing harm. Results matter. This is enshrined in statute all over the world (and in case law for common law jurisdictions). I hope all you people are smart enough to get out of jury duty.

trollied 5y ago
It's not "dicking around with a laser pointer". Actions have consequences. Blinding pilots and causing a plane crash is not really going to be classed as "dicking around" is it?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
qeternity 5y ago
> For nuisance behavior like this This doesn't qualify as nuisance behavior. The risks are very real, particularly with civilian/LEO aircraft which don't have the training (and possible countermeasures) that a military pilot would.
spoonjim 5y ago
For offenses where the risk of getting caught is very low, you need to make the punishments stiff, otherwise the expected value of the punishment is near-zero.

bluejekyll 5y ago

What is it about six months that seems like it's an appropriate sentence? I infer that you mean it's better that 1-3 years or something worse. In this case (the article didn't mention the individual's circumstances) six months will most likely have severe consequences to things like employment/education/child-care. These will have negative effects on the rest of the community in all likelyhood. As it sounds like no-one was harmed, would a fine, probation, and/or some form of required community service potentially have better overall outcomes?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
meowfly 5y ago
I think punishments need to have enough teeth to deter. Six months seems like it could be enough to deter without it unnecessarily keeping someone who is normally harmless incarcerated. I'm not too dug-in on this point though, it really depends on how risky shooting a laser at an aircraft really is.
ChrisLomont 5y ago
If someone fired a gun into a crowd, but no one was harmed, should that just be a fine? Why would doing something dangerous that could possibly damage a pilots eyes not be similar? Enough pilots have suffered eye damage (google it) from idiots with lasers. In the US, a first time DUI with no one injured can get you 6 months jail in many states (some higher, some lower). This seems about the same. Maybe penalties are decided including factors such as possible outcomes for dangerous behavior and as a deterrence to others?
- bluejekyll 5y ago
  The fact that the person was caught makes this case probably a little different than most. Using analogies like yours can be helpful, but I have to wonder about the intent/knowledge of the dangers with those actions. Pointing a laser at anyone/anything is possibly not as known to be potentially directly harmful as much as shooting a gun at someone. Ironically, your analogy is something that itself doesn't always have negative consequences related to it (ie how does that change when it's a police officer, or happens during a protest, etc). Anyway, I am not sure it's cut-and-dry that a sentence like this is net better outcome, it definitely will make it more visible how bad this type of action is through news and what-not which is a good thing.