Man gets 14 years for ‘lasing’ helicopter(blog.sfgate.com)
blog.sfgate.com
Man gets 14 years for ‘lasing’ helicopter
http://blog.sfgate.com/crime/2014/03/10/man-gets-14-years-for-lasing-helicopter/
16 comments
Pointing a laser at an aircraft is just plain stupid. However, I have a problem with the justice system making "examples" out of people, 14 Years is more then some people get after being convicted of rape or murder. Seems more like a 2-5 year offense, and unless you can point me to even one incident of a person that's been killed by this behavior the argument about it being potential murder etc.. is moot. Driving badly is can also kill people (and does, every day) however when was the last time someone was sentenced to 14 years for (just) driving like an ass?
Sure the sentence might be too much. 7-8 years might be suffice. But I totally disagree with Seems more like a 2-5 year offense, and unless you can point me to even one incident of a person that's been killed by this behavior the argument about it being potential murder etc.
Here is one for life sentence: http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/05/21/texas-man-sentenced-to-4...
So do a quick search.
Why do I disagree? Because that's a reckless behavior. Did you read the article? He did it twice. Twice. Twice.
As someone have put it, if you were on the aircraft, how would you feel about your safety? How would feel about people who are important to you on that aircraft? Of course we should punish assholes driving on the roads. If you have problem with your local laws on handling bad drivers, please talk to your local council members/congressmen to do a better job. If they think 14 years is too much, they can appeal and I think there is a high chance of lowering to 7-8 years. But whatever the length might be, he deserves a good hell lengthy sentence. And sometimes, lengthy sentence is to scare people off.
This is what I called "establish an example."
Here is one for life sentence: http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/05/21/texas-man-sentenced-to-4...
So do a quick search.
Why do I disagree? Because that's a reckless behavior. Did you read the article? He did it twice. Twice. Twice.
As someone have put it, if you were on the aircraft, how would you feel about your safety? How would feel about people who are important to you on that aircraft? Of course we should punish assholes driving on the roads. If you have problem with your local laws on handling bad drivers, please talk to your local council members/congressmen to do a better job. If they think 14 years is too much, they can appeal and I think there is a high chance of lowering to 7-8 years. But whatever the length might be, he deserves a good hell lengthy sentence. And sometimes, lengthy sentence is to scare people off.
This is what I called "establish an example."
"Judge O’Neill cited Rodriguez’s criminal past, which includes probation violations and gang affiliation, as additional reasons for the sentence."
That might help add a few years.
That might help add a few years.
Tell that to the multi-billion dollar correctional services industry who has a very easy time convincing politicians to increase prison sentences.
Do you have any data on how sentences for this or similar crimes have changed over time?
This:
>Judge O’Neill cited Rodriguez’s criminal past, which includes probation violations and gang affiliation, as additional reasons for the sentence.
And this:
>convicted of using a high-powered laser pointer to strike the cockpits of a Fresno police helicopter and a hospital transport helicopter near the Fresno Yosemite International Airport in the summer of 2012.
(In other words, they did it twice).
>Judge O’Neill cited Rodriguez’s criminal past, which includes probation violations and gang affiliation, as additional reasons for the sentence.
And this:
>convicted of using a high-powered laser pointer to strike the cockpits of a Fresno police helicopter and a hospital transport helicopter near the Fresno Yosemite International Airport in the summer of 2012.
(In other words, they did it twice).
Federal law and California law have this crime as a max 5 year and max 1 year respectively.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/39A
http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/247.5.html
You should have noticed that this individual's sentence was lengthy because of a long history of crime. Not only that, this person was caught doing this particular crime twice.
Your example of driving like an ass can encompass things like Reckless Operation, Racing, Impaired Operation, etc. When you get caught doing these things repeatedly over many years, you see prosecutors demanding maximum sentences, multiple "strike" mandates and penalties reactivated from previous paroled offences, etc.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/39A
http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/247.5.html
You should have noticed that this individual's sentence was lengthy because of a long history of crime. Not only that, this person was caught doing this particular crime twice.
Your example of driving like an ass can encompass things like Reckless Operation, Racing, Impaired Operation, etc. When you get caught doing these things repeatedly over many years, you see prosecutors demanding maximum sentences, multiple "strike" mandates and penalties reactivated from previous paroled offences, etc.
Generally, people who are driving like an ass think that they are not putting people at serious risk. They think they can handle what they are doing. They also are often trying to accomplish something legitimate, such as getting to a destination quicker.
I have a hard time believing that someone shining lasers at helicopters thinks he is not putting people at risk, or was attempting to accomplish some legitimate purpose.
I have a hard time believing that someone shining lasers at helicopters thinks he is not putting people at risk, or was attempting to accomplish some legitimate purpose.
Maximum penalty under the statute is 5 years, http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/39A, so what else was going on?
Looks like he was convicted both for pointing a laser at an aircraft and attempting to interfere with the safe operation of an aircraft. There is a good chance this gets overturned on appeal. Under the sentencing guidelines, the two offenses are similar offenses arising out of the same conduct and should have been grouped. You don't get to impose an above maximum sentence just because the guy has gang affiliations.
Looks like he was convicted both for pointing a laser at an aircraft and attempting to interfere with the safe operation of an aircraft. There is a good chance this gets overturned on appeal. Under the sentencing guidelines, the two offenses are similar offenses arising out of the same conduct and should have been grouped. You don't get to impose an above maximum sentence just because the guy has gang affiliations.
Important bit:
Judge O’Neill cited Rodriguez’s criminal past, which includes probation violations and gang affiliation, as additional reasons for the sentence.
Judge O’Neill cited Rodriguez’s criminal past, which includes probation violations and gang affiliation, as additional reasons for the sentence.
I wonder if "lasing," people's cars as they drive would cause the same types of ramifications. Seems very likely, and even more dangerous than "lasing," a pilot (a highly trained individual). I consider most drivers easily distracted and careless (myself included).
Food for thought, while lasers can focus a beam at a pilot, at air shows and in the air force, pilots usually have spotters that use a mirror and line of sight....so while I understand his sentence to be a deterrent by example, I DON'T agree with harsh sentences for non-violent crimes.
Food for thought, while lasers can focus a beam at a pilot, at air shows and in the air force, pilots usually have spotters that use a mirror and line of sight....so while I understand his sentence to be a deterrent by example, I DON'T agree with harsh sentences for non-violent crimes.
This is a violent crime.
In no way is this a violent crime.
What if your significant other was in a life flight helicopter, and someone lased it?
Emitting unwanted photons is not an act of violence unless the laser is ablating.
Thankfully, most people consider an attempt to harm other human beings as an act of violence.
Almost no one would use that definition. Calling someone a mean name would be an act of violence. Violence implies physical effort of some kind and not intent- ie, both storms and people can be violent.
No it isn't. It's a distracting annoyance at best.
Like putting your hands over the eyes of someone driving a car.
More like shining your brights to oncoming traffic: people do this all the time. No one gets 14 years for that.
The sentencing is IMO shameful, but shining a laser into someone's eye is not at all like shining a bright light, and temporarily blinding a driver on a well maintained, well marked road is nothing light blinding an operator of a technically sophisticated, carefully balanced machine that operates in six degrees of freedom.
Bright lights cause an iris response that protects the eye and is familiar. Lasers cause temporary spot blindness and are bewildering.
Helicopters are, to my knowledge, the most difficult vehicle that humans pilot. They are fundamentally unstable and operate in an environment in which seemingly benign towers are fatal and there is no means of escape. Have you heard of an ejection seat on a helicopter? How about an escape hatch? Parachute? Floatation device? Airbags? Most failures in a helicopter can be fatal, even simple mechanical ones. You basically hope that you don't hit the ground too fast.
Bright lights cause an iris response that protects the eye and is familiar. Lasers cause temporary spot blindness and are bewildering.
Helicopters are, to my knowledge, the most difficult vehicle that humans pilot. They are fundamentally unstable and operate in an environment in which seemingly benign towers are fatal and there is no means of escape. Have you heard of an ejection seat on a helicopter? How about an escape hatch? Parachute? Floatation device? Airbags? Most failures in a helicopter can be fatal, even simple mechanical ones. You basically hope that you don't hit the ground too fast.
> Have you heard of an ejection seat on a helicopter?
Well, since you asked...
http://www.zvezda-npp.ru/engl/k37.html
"K-37 (РПС К37-800) ejection system for helicopters"
Well, since you asked...
http://www.zvezda-npp.ru/engl/k37.html
"K-37 (РПС К37-800) ejection system for helicopters"
Shining your high beams into oncoming traffic is incredibly dangerous. Don't ever do it.
The impact can be catastrophic.
Lasers in eyes are more than just a distraction. Certainly not a 'non-violent crime'.
c.f. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strait_of_Juan_de_Fuca_laser_in...
c.f. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strait_of_Juan_de_Fuca_laser_in...
I may be misunderstanding it, but the Clinical Assessment section of that article appears to claim that the reported injuries were not due to a laser but to other pre-existing conditions.
And on a related note, I wonder if buying a pair of IR-filtering safety glasses for every pilot in America would be cheaper on the system than jailing people as criminals for over a decade...
http://www.lasersafetyindustries.com/100_20_120_UV_and_IR_La...
http://www.lasersafetyindustries.com/100_20_120_UV_and_IR_La...
I wonder if buying bullet-proof vests for every person in American would be cheaper on the system than jailing people as criminals for over a decade..
If someone intentionally tries to cause another person harm, or in this case, crash a helicopter, I believe they need to be removed from society.
If someone intentionally tries to cause another person harm, or in this case, crash a helicopter, I believe they need to be removed from society.
Pilots don't get distracted by UV or IR, they get distracted by visible light. And glasses that effectively filter out visible light are detrimental to pilot safety for another (obvious) reason.
The night vision system in most military helicopters nowadays have light interference filters that remove lasers.
Switzerland seems to be equipping all of its first responders with laser protective eyewear as well.. http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&pre...
Switzerland seems to be equipping all of its first responders with laser protective eyewear as well.. http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&pre...
Lasing a car driver would seem to be even more likely to cause injury, given that the amount of time between vision impairment and actually hitting something is likely to be much shorter.
Airplanes have been known to fly for hours with sleeping or otherwise incapacitated pilot(s).
Airplanes have been known to fly for hours with sleeping or otherwise incapacitated pilot(s).
Airplanes have been known to fly for hours with sleeping or otherwise incapacitated pilot(s).
Helicopters do not fly for hours with sleeping pilots.
Helicopters do not fly for hours with sleeping pilots.
"Lasing" an airplane is actually much worse than doing so to a car because of the way the cockpit glass is made (in addition to the diffusion from being so far away). See http://www.pangolin.com/faa/images/FAA-simulator_4-pics.gif for an example of this. Basically, the laser light gets diffused throughout the cockpit.
ROFL. Build a million dollar plane. Confuse the shit out of it with a homemade laser. We need more glass research.
He had a criminal past because of which his sentence was so harsh. His gf who is an accomplice got 5 yrs imprisonment.
Great success. You have to ask yourself what possesses people to shine a laser at an aircraft.
It's just a shame this article contains my most hated word: 'Lasing' or Light Amplification by Stimulated-ing
It's just a shame this article contains my most hated word: 'Lasing' or Light Amplification by Stimulated-ing
Disclaimer: I am a private pilot and I am biased.
Pointing a laser at the aircraft is dangerous to passengers and people on the ground. But it is also dangerous to pilots who might receive (permanent) damage to their eye sight thus risking to lose the job (that they love and that feeds them). If someone points a gun at the police officer and gets shot, then I think it is a Darwin law at work. Same here - I have no problem with getting idiots locked up for life.
Pointing a laser at the aircraft is dangerous to passengers and people on the ground. But it is also dangerous to pilots who might receive (permanent) damage to their eye sight thus risking to lose the job (that they love and that feeds them). If someone points a gun at the police officer and gets shot, then I think it is a Darwin law at work. Same here - I have no problem with getting idiots locked up for life.
Arguably two counts of attempted murder, plus the distinct possibility of additional injury on the ground? Sounds about right to me.
Good.
I like pranks, but this crap goes way beyond "prank" and gets close to "attempted murder".
I like pranks, but this crap goes way beyond "prank" and gets close to "attempted murder".
Not really. Apparently it's not all that dangerous to shine a laser into a helicopter, because rather than attempt to escape and control his vehicle, the pilot was able to catch the offender by staying in flight and locating him by following the source of the light. This allowed ground personnel to come in and arrest the offender.
It's conceivable that it could be dangerous if it happens at a very inopportune time for a pilot. So far, though, nobody's ever died from laser pointers shined at cockpits.
It's conceivable that it could be dangerous if it happens at a very inopportune time for a pilot. So far, though, nobody's ever died from laser pointers shined at cockpits.
Can I ask if you've piloted many aircraft that had lasers aimed at their cockpits from the ground?
No, but that's pretty blatant "ad hominem" isn't it?
If American courts want to put a precedent to an ordinary crime such as this, they may follow India's example and do this instead:
http://www.deeshaa.org/2013/12/06/lets-weep-for-a-morally-ad...
http://www.deeshaa.org/2013/12/06/lets-weep-for-a-morally-ad...
I realize I'm probably supposed to be outraged about this.
Helicopters are complex, unstable, low-flying machines that require active awareness from the pilot. This person put multiple lives at risk because he thought it was funny. I have very little sympathy.
Helicopters are complex, unstable, low-flying machines that require active awareness from the pilot. This person put multiple lives at risk because he thought it was funny. I have very little sympathy.
Except people that actually kill others often end up with shorter prison terms. Note, the Judge understood the only risk was "distracting" the pilots but the tax payers still need to spend $30,600 per year to keep this fellow behind bars... really?
What would you think would be acceptable for maliciously attempting to down an aircraft?
This. If he had used a surface-to-air missile to down that helicopter, he would have received life in prison, perhaps the death penalty. A laser to incapacitate the pilot would be just as effective.
[deleted]
He did it at least twice.
If people are only getting 7 years for murder, then that's a problem in its own right.
If people are only getting 7 years for murder, then that's a problem in its own right.
Murder is a somewhat vague term in common speech. But, yea people are getting 7 years or less for 'Murder'. Not that I really think someone's behavior really changes based on a 5 year prison sentence vs a 20 year one.
http://www.madd.org/laws/law-overview/Vehicular_Homicide_Ove...
This document covers statutes providing for penalties to be brought against a drunk driver who kills another person through the operation of a motor vehicle, either intentionally or negligently.
Delaware: First degree: death caused by criminally negligent driving while DWI is a Class E felony. Not less than 2 years or more than 5 years. Second degree: death caused by criminally negligent driving or negligent driving while DWI is a Class F felony. Not less than 1 year or more than 3 years.
However I was really more comparing it to Kansas: Death caused by operation of a vehicle in a manner that causes unreasonable risk and which constitutes a material deviation from the standard of care which a reasonable person would observe under the same circumstances Class A Personal Misdemeanor. Not more than 1 year and not more than $2,500
http://www.madd.org/laws/law-overview/Vehicular_Homicide_Ove...
This document covers statutes providing for penalties to be brought against a drunk driver who kills another person through the operation of a motor vehicle, either intentionally or negligently.
Delaware: First degree: death caused by criminally negligent driving while DWI is a Class E felony. Not less than 2 years or more than 5 years. Second degree: death caused by criminally negligent driving or negligent driving while DWI is a Class F felony. Not less than 1 year or more than 3 years.
However I was really more comparing it to Kansas: Death caused by operation of a vehicle in a manner that causes unreasonable risk and which constitutes a material deviation from the standard of care which a reasonable person would observe under the same circumstances Class A Personal Misdemeanor. Not more than 1 year and not more than $2,500
You've cherrypicked one.
Most of the others allow for at least ten years, and some as much as 30.
Also, "negligent" isn't the same thing as "intentional".
Most of the others allow for at least ten years, and some as much as 30.
Also, "negligent" isn't the same thing as "intentional".
I don't think cherry picking really apply's when there is a full state where everyone get's less. My point was more that large numbers of people get less than 14 years for actually killing people.
As to the murder angle the minim sentience for second degree murder in Illinois is 4 years. Mitigated Deliberate Homicide in Montana goes as low as 2! years. So, while I have no problem saying this might be as bad as drunk driving even though the actual risks are lower I really do see a problem comparing negligible potential risks vs actual harm.
As to the murder angle the minim sentience for second degree murder in Illinois is 4 years. Mitigated Deliberate Homicide in Montana goes as low as 2! years. So, while I have no problem saying this might be as bad as drunk driving even though the actual risks are lower I really do see a problem comparing negligible potential risks vs actual harm.
> I realize I'm probably supposed to be outraged about this.
As the person who posted the link to HN, I posted because there have been other discussions of "lasing" here.
If you mean "outraged at the 14 year sentence," I didn't expect people to be outraged by that. Given previous discussions, I expected people to be glad to see it was taken seriously.
As the person who posted the link to HN, I posted because there have been other discussions of "lasing" here.
If you mean "outraged at the 14 year sentence," I didn't expect people to be outraged by that. Given previous discussions, I expected people to be glad to see it was taken seriously.
Embedded at the end of the Article is the critical information that reduces the Outrage-of-the day reaction a bit:
"Judge O’Neill cited Rodriguez’s criminal past, which includes probation violations and gang affiliation, as additional reasons for the sentence."
So this is some "repeat-offender" (three srikes/N strikes/Parole violation) type sentencing.
Still a bit much in my opinion - He & his girlfriend were being stupid and reckless no doubt, but 14 years (and five for the GF) for this crime is excessive however you slice it.
"Judge O’Neill cited Rodriguez’s criminal past, which includes probation violations and gang affiliation, as additional reasons for the sentence."
So this is some "repeat-offender" (three srikes/N strikes/Parole violation) type sentencing.
Still a bit much in my opinion - He & his girlfriend were being stupid and reckless no doubt, but 14 years (and five for the GF) for this crime is excessive however you slice it.
"Rodriguez’s sentence clearly demonstrates the seriousness of his actions."
This awkward moment when the seriousness of the crime is judged by the length of the sentence. Reminds me of a typical Soviet (and modern Russian) "public process" comments like "He wouldn't has been sentenced if he hadn't committed anything criminal", "Our court doesn't just sentence for nothing" etc.
This awkward moment when the seriousness of the crime is judged by the length of the sentence. Reminds me of a typical Soviet (and modern Russian) "public process" comments like "He wouldn't has been sentenced if he hadn't committed anything criminal", "Our court doesn't just sentence for nothing" etc.
Anyone know how these guys get caught?
Rest assured, it is not a smart idea to shine a concentrated light source at a helicopter equipped with technology to track persons and cars day and night.
This video shows the "cockpit view":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74VeecMWWN0
This video shows the "cockpit view":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74VeecMWWN0
I've had this happen while flying military helicopters at night. We usually get a grid or address, and report it when we land.
14 years is probably too much, but I have no problem with hefty jail time for someone who does this. Attempting to blind a pilot is very serious and puts lives in danger.
Is attempted blinding really the intention? They should be locked up for overestimating the power of laser pointers if nothing more.
I keep reading 'attempted murder' too. Hyperbolic nonsense. Shooting at a plane maybe but shining a light - give me a break!
I keep reading 'attempted murder' too. Hyperbolic nonsense. Shooting at a plane maybe but shining a light - give me a break!
When a plane or helicopter cockpit at night gets hit with a strong laser, it can leave the pilots with blindness or severely impaired vision for up to several minutes.
BTW, it was not a laser pointer. Laser pointers are 5 mw or less in the US. He was using a 65 mw laser.
BTW, it was not a laser pointer. Laser pointers are 5 mw or less in the US. He was using a 65 mw laser.
Anyone who is shining a laser at a plane knows that it is dangerous and can impair the pilot, if not they will find out how dangerous it is at their sentencing hearing. Stupidity doesn't absolve you from putting someone elses life at risk.
I disagree. Stupidity does absolve people to some extent. Intent to harm is extremely important.
Would you jail a 2 year old who stabbed someone with a knife because they the poor kid didn't know what they were doing? If someone crashed into someone in a road accident(read "accident", they just fucked up, it happens), how would they like 14 years in prison? Do soldiers get imprisoned when they willingly murder innocent civilians abroad if they get in the way?
I can't accept "if not they will find out how dangerous it is at their sentencing hearing". WTF? We can surely do better than that. This isn't North Korea.
I can't comment on the intents of this dude with the 14 year charge, though.
Would you jail a 2 year old who stabbed someone with a knife because they the poor kid didn't know what they were doing? If someone crashed into someone in a road accident(read "accident", they just fucked up, it happens), how would they like 14 years in prison? Do soldiers get imprisoned when they willingly murder innocent civilians abroad if they get in the way?
I can't accept "if not they will find out how dangerous it is at their sentencing hearing". WTF? We can surely do better than that. This isn't North Korea.
I can't comment on the intents of this dude with the 14 year charge, though.
This story isn't an accident, or a 2 year old. It is someone knowing what he is doing and knowing it is dangerous.
A laser that can dazzle from half a mile or more is not your standard $10 lecture-hall laser pointer. They don't put "AVOID EYE EXPOSURE TO DIRECT OR SCATTERED RADIATION" stickers on those things for funsies. There are consequences for reckless use of dangerous equipment.
[deleted]
I can't wait for drones to replace helicopters. Helicopters are too loud and expensive and more dangerous than they should be.
Cheaper, maybe. What leads you to believe that drones would be quieter?
The drone is likely to be a lot smaller because it doesn't have to carry a crew. Smaller engine -> quieter.