5 ms·

On top of everything, it was a blue laser, which can cause the most rapid damage to human eyes. It has always surprised me that it’s so easy to acquire these d

On top of everything, it was a blue laser, which can cause the most rapid damage to human eyes. It has always surprised me that it’s so easy to acquire these devices. With that said, the judge’s comparison to shining a flashlight in an officer’s eyes seems rather stretched. Perhaps similar from a behavioral standpoint, but rather dissimilar in terms of risk/danger.

karmakaze 4y ago
It was explicitly stated in the context of behavior. > He also said the behavior was similar to a 2017 arrest when Link shined a flashlight in the eyes of the arresting officer. I've noticed that there's a slight rise in comments that seem to be adding information but is only restating what was written. I've done this myself from not reading articles fully or carefully. I hope it's not from losing the ability to actually absorb facts/details when actually trying.
- haswell 4y ago
  I’m aware of the context and that’s why I acknowledged the behavioral similarity. My point (which I didn’t state very well) was that in noting the behavioral similarity, the Judge seems to be implying that one somehow is connected to or informs the other. That shining a flashlight is somehow as problematic as shining a laser, or at least somehow linked. Beyond the similarity of “shining something”, it’s unclear what the Judge’s thought process could be that links the two in any meaningful way. One could conclude that shining the flashlight at an officer is an egregious lack of respect for authority, or that it’s just a bad idea to mess with police, but the context and potential harm here seems quite different than shining lasers at airplanes. Put another way, I recognize the apparent similarity, but I don’t recognize the relevance.
  - karmakaze 4y ago
    > That shining a flashlight is somehow as problematic as shining a laser, or at least somehow linked. This isn't what I got from reading it at all. To me it seemed to be saying that both actions may come from a similar motivation, to bother, distract, and annoy an officer or authority figure, etc. We're not discussing the literal behavioral actions but rather the psychological intentions.
  - rdtsc 4y ago
    > Put another way, I recognize the apparent similarity, but I don’t recognize the relevance The judge recognized the similarity too. He was arrested for the previous incident so as far as this criminal’s arrest record goes, he was arrested for a similar thing already and never learned to do better. I guess you’re arguing, his subsequent crime is a lot more serious and deserves a harsher punishment? Previous he tried to disorient and incapacitate a police officer, probably with a firearm which can then be taken while they are incapacitated, and here it’s a whole plane full of passengers.
randyrand 4y ago
> the judge’s comparison to shining a flashlight in an officer’s eyes seems rather stretched Cheap lasers are not very coherent. At a distance of ~500 meters the spot size is typically more than 1 meter. There’s no injury risk at large distance, for most handheld lasers.
- kordlessagain 4y ago
  If there is intent to blind, or incapacitate, that is enough to prosecute. Doesn’t matter if one threatens with a stick and it’s too small. What matters is the intent to cause harm.
lostlogin 4y ago
> It has always surprised me that it’s so easy to acquire these devices. To make a parallel - guns are somewhat further along the ‘can cause harm or damage’ spectrum, actually cause deaths and are available (with varying degrees of restrictions).

karmakaze 4y ago

It was explicitly stated in the context of behavior. > He also said the behavior was similar to a 2017 arrest when Link shined a flashlight in the eyes of the arresting officer. I've noticed that there's a slight rise in comments that seem to be adding information but is only restating what was written. I've done this myself from not reading articles fully or carefully. I hope it's not from losing the ability to actually absorb facts/details when actually trying.

haswell 4y ago
I’m aware of the context and that’s why I acknowledged the behavioral similarity. My point (which I didn’t state very well) was that in noting the behavioral similarity, the Judge seems to be implying that one somehow is connected to or informs the other. That shining a flashlight is somehow as problematic as shining a laser, or at least somehow linked. Beyond the similarity of “shining something”, it’s unclear what the Judge’s thought process could be that links the two in any meaningful way. One could conclude that shining the flashlight at an officer is an egregious lack of respect for authority, or that it’s just a bad idea to mess with police, but the context and potential harm here seems quite different than shining lasers at airplanes. Put another way, I recognize the apparent similarity, but I don’t recognize the relevance.
- karmakaze 4y ago
  > That shining a flashlight is somehow as problematic as shining a laser, or at least somehow linked. This isn't what I got from reading it at all. To me it seemed to be saying that both actions may come from a similar motivation, to bother, distract, and annoy an officer or authority figure, etc. We're not discussing the literal behavioral actions but rather the psychological intentions.
- rdtsc 4y ago
  > Put another way, I recognize the apparent similarity, but I don’t recognize the relevance The judge recognized the similarity too. He was arrested for the previous incident so as far as this criminal’s arrest record goes, he was arrested for a similar thing already and never learned to do better. I guess you’re arguing, his subsequent crime is a lot more serious and deserves a harsher punishment? Previous he tried to disorient and incapacitate a police officer, probably with a firearm which can then be taken while they are incapacitated, and here it’s a whole plane full of passengers.

randyrand 4y ago

> the judge’s comparison to shining a flashlight in an officer’s eyes seems rather stretched Cheap lasers are not very coherent. At a distance of ~500 meters the spot size is typically more than 1 meter. There’s no injury risk at large distance, for most handheld lasers.

kordlessagain 4y ago
If there is intent to blind, or incapacitate, that is enough to prosecute. Doesn’t matter if one threatens with a stick and it’s too small. What matters is the intent to cause harm.

lostlogin 4y ago

> It has always surprised me that it’s so easy to acquire these devices. To make a parallel - guns are somewhat further along the ‘can cause harm or damage’ spectrum, actually cause deaths and are available (with varying degrees of restrictions).