Posted on 01/04/2005 4:27:48 PM PST by Las Vegas Dave
Probably a surveyor's laser.
He does have that "I'm the stupidest moron on the planet" expression. Poor guy.
Ich weiss nicht. Möglicherweise, Herr Schumer?
Maybe one of the Patriot Act authors: Hart or Young (for the Young at Hart?) Maybe Diane Feinstein or Harry Reid.
25 years with no parole sounds stiff to me.
Agreed.
Well I guess we are starting to realize the Patriot Act isn't just about Terrorism. It's about giving the federal government more power.
I've seen laser toys for made for cats. They chase the dot like it was a piece of string.
I can't imagine something powered by a couple of AA batteries could cause such a problem.
I can't imagine something powered by a couple of AA batteries could cause such a problem.
..........................
The cat toy lasers are class II red diodes running at one or two milliwatts, at most five. You can power quite a laser with AAs- the green lasers are "diode pumped solid state frequency doubled" (DPSSFD) lasers that can crank out up to 40 mW or even more, though battery life is poor.
Because the green light is much closer to the sensitivity of the eye, they will look (to the eye) to be twenty times brighter than a red laser.
So if you figure the 5mW green pointer laser has twice the power and your eye has twenty times the sensitivity, the DPSSFD laser will appear to be fourty times brighter than the red "cat toy"- capable of causing much glare and dazzle in your eye but probably not any permanent damage.
If you get one of the boosted DPSSFD pointers, the power can be 40 mW- very very bright and still running on AA cells.
I have an ultraviolet LED light that runs on two CR0232 cells (button cells) that came with a stern warning about eye damage- although the light appears to be dim to teh eye, there's apparently 500 mW of 370nm UV coming out of the LED, enough to cook my corneas if I'm not careful.
Sure. that sounds plausible.
So before te Patriot Act was passed he wouldn't have been charged? Of coures he would have, but under what statutes?
maybe he'll drop a couple lbs in prison
He won't get 25 years. He should however, be held responsible for his actions, a concept which will no doubt piss the left off.
There are laws about lasers near airports. The law sets up three zones, and each zone has a maximum power density.
IIRC, the closest zone is two miles, and it basically says "no laser beam", then the other zones are concentric. The outer zone is, I think, 6 microwatts of laser light per square centimeter. The law is set up to protect airports from outdoor laser shows or indistrial/scientific laser use.
If this guy met these guidelines, then there is "interfering with an aircraft" which includes bright lights, spotlights, searchlights, and lasers. There probably is a specific federal law that states that you can't shine a laser at an aircraft so that it bothers the pilots, but I'm not sure.
Then there are state and local laws- malicious mischief is a good broad category.
There are enough existing laws to convince this dude he had a lapse in judgement. I think the Patriot Act is an overkill; one that could backfire if the defense is on the ball.
When I have time I'll link to a post that has the limits and distances for airports and lasers.
Certainly aiming a laser beam at a pilot should be punished most harshly...but since nothing happened and no one was harmed how could it be charged under Patriot?
If his intentions were not terror based, Patriot should not be used I guess. But I'm not sure...
So, if I shoot at you with a gun, but miss, that makes it OK?
First: This guy, in light of 9/11 and the like, is a complete idiot for doing something like this and thinking that it would not be suspected as terrorism.
Second: This guy certainly has a few screws loose if he has kids and is doing this sort of thing.
Third: you never talk to the feds or the police unless you have an attorney present. To do otherwise is complete foolishness.
Fourth: The patriot act should not apply here. I agree this guy should do some time, but not 25 years. Yes, he could have potentially caused harm, but the fact is that he did not and is clearly not a terrorist. Maybe a nut, but not a terrorist.
Fifth: After Martha Stewart, what was this idiot thinking blaming his daughter?
"So, if I shoot at you with a gun, but miss, that makes it OK?"
Of course not. I wrote:
Certainly aiming a laser beam at a pilot should be punished most harshly
I am simply asking, just asking, about Patriot being used in this case. If the intent was not terror, why is Patriot being used? Can't this guy get punished under other statutes? By the way, pointing a gun at someone and pointing a lasser at a plane full of people is quite different. The latter should be punished more harshly and if Patriot can do that so be it.
Brave man blaming the incident on his daughter. "The b*tch set me up."
Vee haff our vays.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.