3 ms·

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

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.
- ChrisLomont 5y ago
  > possibly not as known to be potentially directly harmful as much as shooting a gun at someone. Shooting a gun at someone could lead to one person dead. Shooting a laser at a plane could lead to hundreds dead. If this is a metric, then 6 months is a great deal for the shooter, correct? >I am not sure it's cut-and-dry that a sentence like this is net better outcome It's probably impossible to measure that, since the factors are subjective. But it is in line with many punishments for similar action, as I mentioned. Also 6 months sentenced means much less served in most cases, the same way a 10 year sentence may get out in 5.

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.

ChrisLomont 5y ago
> possibly not as known to be potentially directly harmful as much as shooting a gun at someone. Shooting a gun at someone could lead to one person dead. Shooting a laser at a plane could lead to hundreds dead. If this is a metric, then 6 months is a great deal for the shooter, correct? >I am not sure it's cut-and-dry that a sentence like this is net better outcome It's probably impossible to measure that, since the factors are subjective. But it is in line with many punishments for similar action, as I mentioned. Also 6 months sentenced means much less served in most cases, the same way a 10 year sentence may get out in 5.