home

Stupid Prosecution of the Week

by TChris

Federal prosecutors love to bring Patriot Act prosecutions, even when they can't find appropriate targets for the law's anti-terrorism provisions. Hence the decision to charge David Banach, who the Justice Department admits is not a terrorist.

Banach was charged with "interfering with a flight crew" by shining a laser at a charter jet flying over his home. Banach's lawyer says that Banach was playing with his daughter in the back yard, using the laser to point at trees and stars.

Banach's attorney blasted federal officials for what she called an overreaction. "One would think they would want to devote their time and resources to prosecuting real terrorists, not people like my client," Gina Mendola-Longarzo told the Associated Press.

The Justice Department -- noting recent but unrelated reports of lasers shining on airplanes -- says it wants to "send a message." The message it is sending: we have nothing better to do. Assuming there's evidence that Banach acted intentionally, his crime was disorderly conduct. Treating him as if he's a terrorist, when he admittedly isn't, demonstrates bad judgment in the extreme.

< Changing the Rules | Rehnquist Returns >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: Stupid Prosecution of the Week (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 08:27:22 AM EST
    Definite overkill, but this guy is still an idiot. He knew the thing could blind somebody, but admits to having shined it on the airplane. If he had managed to blind the pilots and the plane had crashed, it would have been his fault. And given his statement that he knew he hit the plane with it, it sounds like his lawyer is blowing smoke. Still, it owuld be nice if the government could find something more productive to do with its time.

    Re: Stupid Prosecution of the Week (none / 0) (#2)
    by cp on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 08:37:24 AM EST
    i noticed in that same report that helicoptors are not included as mass transit vehicles. hence, they would not fall under the purview of the patriot act provisions. when questioned, reps of doj refused to respond. i would prefer that doj spend its scarce allocable resources prosecuting criminals, not "sending messages". sending messages is what the telegraph is for. granted, this guy is clearly a twit, and there are a multitude of statutes he could probably be charged under, other than the patriot act. hell, while they're at it, why not go ahead and charge him under the federal rico statutes, since he was obviously involved in an on-going criminal conspiracy?

    Re: Stupid Prosecution of the Week (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 08:38:14 AM EST
    I think that items like this can almost 100% seperate out those of us who fly a lot from people who make a trip a year or so. I think this guy, if guilt, should be put in, as they noted in Office Space, an "*ss f*cking Federal Pen!" Now, I admit that I am not fully rational about people messing with airplanes: I was sitting in RDU on 9/11 waiting to fly to DCA and I had flown on three of the other four flights over the last 18 months. So it is pretty personal with me. -C

    Re: Stupid Prosecution of the Week (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 08:40:21 AM EST
    more drivel from the master

    Re: Stupid Prosecution of the Week (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 08:40:29 AM EST
    Rereading this piece, this guy's lawyer is definitely blowing smoke. He not only hit the plane, he hit the helicopter trying to find his location. This guy has himself a new hobby and it trying to hide behind his daughter.

    Re: Stupid Prosecution of the Week (none / 0) (#6)
    by Patrick on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 09:10:35 AM EST
    I also heard his admissions prior to the poly were more significant that he was "just playing with his daughter." I believe that was the lie, he wasn't playing with her.

    Re: Stupid Prosecution of the Week (none / 0) (#7)
    by Dadler on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 09:25:20 AM EST
    cliff, settle down. worry about someone sitting near an airport with a high-powered rifle and shooting at your fuel-loaded wings. or putting a bomb in a suitcase. or taking a machine gun to a mall. or poisoning the water supply. or, or, or. this guy might be dim, but wanting him in prison, come on. there are people actually hurting other people to worry about. and it's beyond highly unlikely that had he blinded the pilot, that the plane would've done anything but keep flying courtesy of the co-pilot. there are so many things to be genuinely concerened about. this is not one of them by miles.

    Re: Stupid Prosecution of the Week (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 09:28:32 AM EST
    et al - I will grant you that the guy appears dumber than dirt, but when is being dumb an excuse for criminal activity? Understand something. Blinding, even for a few minutes, of a pilot while on approach to landing is extrenely hazardous and can lead to some very bad things. Such as, crashes with 200 or so dead. So why are your panties in a wad over the DOJ going after him? Surely you don't condone such activity.

    Re: Stupid Prosecution of the Week (none / 0) (#9)
    by wishful on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 09:29:24 AM EST
    I like the title of this post.

    Re: Stupid Prosecution of the Week (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 09:31:59 AM EST
    I just don't lose sleep watching idiots get caught up in these types of things. I know it's wrong of me, but I truly don't care. Too many people need my care and sympathy. This guy just isn't one of them.

    Re: Stupid Prosecution of the Week (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 09:39:40 AM EST
    Jeez. Does mens rea actually mean anything any more?

    Re: Stupid Prosecution of the Week (none / 0) (#12)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 10:05:06 AM EST
    why not just declare laser pointers WMDs and be done with it?

    Re: Stupid Prosecution of the Week (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 10:07:22 AM EST
    C'mon, guys. TChris doesn't appear to be suggesting that this loser walk- he seems to be quite sensibly suggesting that the Patriot Act be used to prosecute terrorists- and the DOJ admits this guy isn't a terrorist. Like others have said, plenty of other ways to nail this guy and send him away for a long time.

    Re: Stupid Prosecution of the Week (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 10:08:03 AM EST
    The guy needs thrown in the clink for trying to lay the blame on his seven year old daughter. I threw a sailor off my aircraft once. He was flashing a laser pointer around in the cabin. putting it on the forehead of the loadmaster, stupid stuff like that. He got warned, and denied it and when he didn't own up to it, I threw him off. My contention is we (the flight crew) did not know whether the laser was attached to a pistol or not. We had a mixed load of Seals and regular sailors onboard. His chief was pissed but understood. A laser in the eyes of a pilot at landing would be catastrophic at the wrong moment.

    Re: Stupid Prosecution of the Week (none / 0) (#15)
    by cp on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 10:13:20 AM EST
    no one is defending this person, or his actions. the point is that you don't use a sledgehammer, when a flyswatter will suffice.

    Re: Stupid Prosecution of the Week (none / 0) (#16)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 11:45:42 AM EST
    So this story turned out to be another muslim terrorist false alarm. But I bet if we could use torture on him he would admit to being Al Qaeda.

    Re: Stupid Prosecution of the Week (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 12:00:51 PM EST
    These laser pointers are a few microwatts in power. If you stare right into one for 30 seconds you night have a temporary blind spot, but one striking the inch-thick windshield of a jet going 300 MPH will cause a brief eerie red glow, and that is it. All this talk of blindness is complete hyperbole. Throw the guy in jail for a couple of days, fine him $1000, and confiscate the laser pointer. Make him write "I will not scare the FAA" 100 times on the blackboard. Terrorist? No way.

    Re: Stupid Prosecution of the Week (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 12:14:30 PM EST
    What do we know about this guy, without looking? HE'S WHITE. Otherwise, he'd be all wired up, screaming in some prison cellar. Think of that TERRORIST who drove his tractor into the traffic interchange near DC last year, who sat in his vehicle, saying he had a bomb, and tangling traffic for days. WHITE. Had that turkey been at all brown, he would have been blown out of his highchair by the biggest cannon McAshcroft could get to the site. Fox news would have reported he was further proof that brownness and terrorism are equivalent; lock up your daughters, cause the blacks want to spread their blackness by rape, only they want to do your daughters, while Arabs want to do your sons. Bush's CCC (KKK) buddies know what's best for Amerika. The racist rightwing gov't is a treasonous, illegally-acquired, alternative-irreality FARCE. Put the electrodes to GW Bush. The confessions that would come out of his mouth would give plenty of leads to prosecutors for a decade to come. --

    Re: Stupid Prosecution of the Week (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 12:17:35 PM EST
    I can't believe you guys are taking this laser thing seriously. I work with lasers. A very high-powered visible-light laser can blind a person if they can stare at it for less than a minute, but do you honestly think that is going to happen? Can a person standing 100's of meters away hold a hand-held laser directly onto a pilot's eyes for more than a fraction of a second? While the plane is flying over 100 miles per hour (which they do until after landing)? Through a cockpit window where they cannot see the pilot's face? Yet this man can accurately track the pilots eyes from this distance? Please. This is an excuse. Laers can be used to target planes with REAL wepons, but to blind the pilots is absurd. All it takes is a $100 coating on the windows to shield the pilots eyes from most lasers. We all wear cheap $5 goggles when the laser is in use to totally shield our eyes. Lasers can be used as tracking and targetting devices for high-powered rifles or rockets. These are real concerns. Prosecuting this man as a terrorist does absolutely nothing to deter this. I can't believe people seriously think this guy could cause the plane to crash.

    Re: Stupid Prosecution of the Week (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 12:23:59 PM EST
    Paul, thanks for the laugh.

    Re: Stupid Prosecution of the Week (none / 0) (#21)
    by kdog on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 12:35:35 PM EST
    I think Ditto has it about right. A few days in jail and a fine for stupidity seems applicable. Using the patriot act to threaten him with 20 yrs. hard time is major-league overkill. And it doesn't do much to ease the fears of civil libertarians over the Patriot Act.

    Re: Stupid Prosecution of the Week (none / 0) (#22)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 12:48:27 PM EST
    I want to thank Paul as well for the laugh, just think of all the coke dealers dubya would be able to give up if he could spend an afternoon at Gitmo. I wonder what color and ilk they'd be too.

    Re: Stupid Prosecution of the Week (none / 0) (#23)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 01:00:37 PM EST
    vlad - So for $100 a plane, the pilot will be protected from MOST lasers. Question: The commercial airlines probably have over 6000 commercial aircraft in service. Should the industry just eat the $600,000 because some idiot wants to do stupid things? Question: Do you understand that the issue isn't "blinding" but rather causing a disruption of the pilots focus on his job. Let me explain something. Depending on the exact distance and landing speed. The pilot can make a mistake that will result in the aircraft landing short. i.e. Not enough additional power can be applied by the engines to prevent the aircraft from "landing short" even though the pilot recognizes what is happening. That's a polite way of saying hitting the ground at about 150 miles per hour forty feet from the end of the runway with the nose of the aircraft too high or too low. Can you guess what happens? Let me help you. Throw an egg at the floor. At the same time throw on a cup of kersoene and light it. Michael Ditto - Read the above. You have some serious misunderstanding about aircraft. cp writes - "no one is defending this person.." Hmmm, I guess you read the comments after yours? Wile E - Nice move. I hope the jerk got some attention getting punishment. et al - Two closing comments. Using the Patroit Act may have been a method of getting the most harsh penalty. Aircraft, especially in flight, are dangerous places. The crew, the passengers and people on the ground must not play games with them.

    Re: Stupid Prosecution of the Week (none / 0) (#24)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 01:05:40 PM EST
    Intent is a good question. Given that he aimed this thing at both an airplane and a police helicopter in one week's time, what was his intent in doing so? Are we really expected to believe his lawyer's claim that these were accidents that happened while he was pointing his little laser at stars, or is it more likely that this guy doesn't like the air traffic over his house and thought he'd have a little fun with the pilots? Unless he was intentionally trying to bring down an aircraft, the Patriot Act use is overkill, but intent is a question someone is going to have to answer. And even if they never prosecute him under that, which I don't believe they will, I'll bet we see less of this stuff for the next few months at least.

    Re: Stupid Prosecution of the Week (none / 0) (#25)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 01:09:06 PM EST
    gee whiz, ppj - i am so glad that we have someone like you around to explain these complicated things to us. i know that we simple liberals just don't understand the danger involved in flashing lasers at jet airplanes. and i am sure that the money the doj spends on this could not be better spent. the message is - no matter what you know or don't know, no matter if anyone gets hurt or not, if you mess with airplanes at all you are a terrorist and you will be punished as one. sounds like a fair and judicious implementation of the patriot act to me. and really, who cares about fair and judicious when we have all of those terrorists out there!

    Re: Stupid Prosecution of the Week (none / 0) (#26)
    by desertswine on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 01:12:05 PM EST
    So what was this guy using; a laser cannon? Surely not a laser pointer. Because that's ridiculous.

    Re: Stupid Prosecution of the Week (none / 0) (#27)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 01:16:31 PM EST
    kelite - I liked the original wording of the bill where the passengers of the affected plane (or their survivors) got to beat the cr*p out of the miscreants. Unfortunately "Cajun Law" isn't very popular anymore. Go figure. Dadler - If you'd ever shot a rifle you'd know that it would be almost impossible to hit a jet with a 30-06. Or really any caliber. On the other hand some d*mn fool did, in fact, hit a US Air plane when it was landing at RDU ten or so years ago. He bragged to his girlfriend, they had a fight the next week, she ratted him to the feds, he got 2 years in the pen. -C

    Re: Stupid Prosecution of the Week (none / 0) (#28)
    by cp on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 01:30:52 PM EST
    ppj - no, i didn't read the comments after mine, before i last posted, because they were, well............after mine! ok, let me see if i have this correct: this guy used a laser pointer, which he apparently aimed at some aircraft, flying several hundred feet overhead, at several hundred mph, at night, and momentarily blinded the pilots? ok, this is getting harder and harder to swallow. i've used laser pointers, and this guy would have to be the world's foremost expert in them, to have actually managed to aim it right in the plane or helicoptor's cockpit, for any length of time. he just didn't come across as the world's foremost expert in anything. seems to me as though you would have a better shot, at blinding the pilot of a high-flying, fast moving aircraft, by using one those new, incredibly bright, high intensity flashlights. why do i feel there is more to this story than we have been told so far?

    Re: Stupid Prosecution of the Week (none / 0) (#29)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 01:31:47 PM EST
    He´s a terrorist!! It´s obvious this guy is a threat to national security and a terrorist. The suspect almost blinded the pilot and distrupted the fragile landing electronics... with a simple toygun! Anyway, should sue the toymaker & the store that sold the weapon of such immense power. I mean there is something wrong when these weapons (able to bring down entire airplanes!) are sold as toysguns for kids to play with.

    Re: Stupid Prosecution of the Week (none / 0) (#30)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 01:47:02 PM EST
    kelite writes - "the message is - no matter what you know or don't know, no matter if anyone gets hurt or not, if you mess with airplanes at all you are a terrorist and you will be punished as one." Just when I start thinking you are a rational person you scorn an explanation of what could very easily happen, and write the above. So yes. Terrorist or not if you do something that could kill hundreds of people, they should throw the book at you. Especially when it is apparent that it was no accident. desertwine - We're talking about distahnces of 3,000 - 5,000 feet. Lasers can go a long way. They start out as a very narrow beam, and then refract/absorb as they move through the air. Think of it as a "cone" with the laser being the pointed end. By the time it hits the aircraft it is highly doubtful that actual retina damage would occur. However, the cockpit would be lit up in a greenish flash of light that would definitely destroy the night vision of the pilot, impair it during the day, and be a very large distraction. BTW - Laser transmission through fiber optic cable can go 20-40 miles without being reamplified.

    Re: Stupid Prosecution of the Week (none / 0) (#31)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 01:51:13 PM EST
    One of my friends has an acquaintance who just bought a .50 cal machine gun (since banned in CA?). Forget laser pointers. Those .50s that McAscroft, McCongress, and McBush have allowed to be sold in the US --- THOSE can do a airliner but good. Just wait until some neocon gun nut goes hog wild in the supermarket with his new AK-47. It will, according to Fox, be the fault of the liberals, who have blocked the carrying of defensive weapons in supermarkets. mAnn Coulter will announce that liberals think that only blacks can handle a big weapon like that, so naturally some white guy with a swastika had to prove them wrong. Damn Liberals! Clinton has $.15 of stock in a Taiwanese laser pointer company. It's all his fault. --

    Re: Stupid Prosecution of the Week (none / 0) (#32)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 01:54:28 PM EST
    Oh, and btw, I'm sure we're all tracking two trials, one for the white supremacist group in Michigan with the warehouse full of illegal guns and missile launchers, and the other the white supremacist group in Texas with the warehouse full of suitcase bombs, and truck fertilizer bomb apparently 'ready to go.' Wonder why you haven't heard anything about those cases? WHITE. --

    Re: Stupid Prosecution of the Week (none / 0) (#33)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 01:54:35 PM EST
    cp - See the explanation I gave to desertwine. The actual light pattern at the large end of the cone would be quite large., BTW - I think the loss of vision is actually a loss of night vision, which, at night, is a form of blindness. Given that the landing lights on the runway are bright they would come back pretty quickly. But another aircraf wouldn't. IM - No, he didn't harm the aircraft's electronics.

    Re: Stupid Prosecution of the Week (none / 0) (#34)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 02:15:51 PM EST
    I think the interesting part of the story is that the government has known for at least a decade that these lasers can cause problems for pilots, and that Great Britain has restricted or banned their sale to the public. Once the government figures out something is a threat to our pilots, doesn't it make more sense to restrict access to the item rather than waiting around to catch someone using it? I would not be surprised to learn that this guy pointed the laser at the plane on purpose, but I would be really surprised to learn that he ever imagined it would affect the pilots at all. Whatever. It's all just in line with politicizing prosecution.

    Re: Stupid Prosecution of the Week (none / 0) (#35)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 02:16:08 PM EST
    ppj; who said i was scorning anything other than your patronizing tone? seriously - i think very few people commenting here do not think this guy is a criminal. i think he's a criminal, and that what he did was dangerous - i just don't think he's a terrorist. i think we could be going after some much more dangerous people (i.e. actual terrorists) with the money we'll be spending trying to go after this mook. maybe we should just agree to disagree on this topic.

    Re: Stupid Prosecution of the Week (none / 0) (#36)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 02:19:07 PM EST
    Look people the guy is an ass! but why is he under-arrested its not really because he did what he did, he is a real easy target for the system and ask how many more will go to prison be find, with insane amounts of money that can never be paid to this insane government, it is a trojan horse against all of us, Yes this guy is an ass! but ask is it justice to put him away and take from his family his home his job and his freedom for a show of power by an insane government that is in many ways helping Bin Laden and the Terrorists to win? It is nothing but the show, and they do it to you for being a fool. Stop bush from mass murder of this once great nation, he is the enemy as Bin Laden is your enemy, Freedom not mass murder of the bill of right, long live the ideals of JFK, FDR.

    Re: Stupid Prosecution of the Week (none / 0) (#37)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 02:22:11 PM EST
    Why would you use a Laser to point at stars? All the stars I've seen were self illuminated.

    Re: Stupid Prosecution of the Week (none / 0) (#38)
    by soccerdad on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 02:26:31 PM EST
    The Justice Department -- noting recent but unrelated reports of lasers shining on airplanes -- says it wants to "send a message." Whether it's some idiot wielding a laser pointer, a whistle blower, or insurgents in Iraq, the only approach this administration understands is brute force, fear and intimidation. This is how they handle almost everything.

    Re: Stupid Prosecution of the Week (none / 0) (#39)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 02:32:33 PM EST
    I think I found the culprit´: Green Laser pointer check you the action shots, it´s actually quite strong. my apologies, definitely not a toy..

    Re: Stupid Prosecution of the Week (none / 0) (#40)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 02:39:12 PM EST
    PPJ: If the light beam disperses to a degree that it "would be quite large" at a distance of a couple of thousand feet, how is it possible to bounce a laser off that little reflector sitting on the surface of the moon? The guy was screwing around. Even you humorless conservatives have probably screwed aqround at one time or another. Should you be thrown in jail for what "could have happened?" What "could have happened", in fact, did not. Ditto had it right - "Throw the guy in jail for a couple of days, fine him $1000, and confiscate the laser pointer. Make him write "I will not scare the FAA" 100 times on the blackboard." When are you yahoos going to realize that there isn't space or money enough to put everybody in jail? Jail isn't the answer to everything...or hardly anything. Now, here's an interesting question. I'm assuming the alleged perpetrator was ont he ground, i.e., the surface of ye olde planet Earth. I'm also assuming the airplane was, in fact, flying. Now, every airplane cockpit I've ever seen is on the TOP of the airplane. A laser originating from underneath would have a difficult time hitting the windshield. Of course, from the side it could hit the side window...but the pilot was looking out the front (during landing, concentration on the task, etc.), and the co-pilot wouldn''t be affected by that because he couldn't see it from the other side of the plane. So the question....which laws of physics had to be violated for the laser beam hit the cockpit? No, really, what am I missing here? I'm trying to draw a straight line (in which light travels)and having a difficult time with the geometry.

    Re: Stupid Prosecution of the Week (none / 0) (#41)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 02:56:48 PM EST
    One of my friends has an acquaintance who just bought a .50 cal machine gun (since banned in CA?). This is either B.S. or the poster has no idea what a machine gun is.

    Re: Stupid Prosecution of the Week (none / 0) (#42)
    by Sailor on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 03:12:08 PM EST
    et al - LASERs are collimated light, they spread very little. If it is the product listed in the comment by IM, there are a few oddities in the description; How is 'range 9000ft' arrived at? It is 1.1mm in diameter at source, what is the spread at a mile? Is the point spread function the same at source and target? They say 'xtremely bright green laser at 532 nm wavelength' The eye is most sensitive at about 532, which could account for it appearing to be 'extremely bright', but it wouldn't have necessarily have any more energy than a light that doesn't appear bright. They won't destroy night vision because they are very narrow bandwidth which would only cause the green cones to trigger. Reds and blues would barely even 'see' the light. While the rods might trigger, there are no rods in the fovea so functional vision is not lost. They can distract a pilot, but momentarilty and w/o damage. The distraction would be the surprise, not being 'dazzled' by the light. The odds of this distraction happening at such a small time window are enormous and the perp would have to be very near the runway and the plane in the flare of short final. Any other time and this is an annoyance. This is a tempest in a tea cup and should have been dealt with accordingly, not with the patriot act. BTW, yes I am a pilot. Yes I do optometric research. Yes, I work with LASERs, shining them directly into peoples eyes as part of that research.

    Re: Stupid Prosecution of the Week (none / 0) (#43)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 03:17:37 PM EST
    Paul - I think you are probably talking about a .50AE bolt action rifle. .50 Caliber machine guns have been very very hard to obtain since the 30's. And you wouldn't use something like that to shoot at a plane - the muzzle velocity isn't that high (compared to my 30-06 semi-auto, for example) and the weight of the bullet would limit its effectiveness at any real height. Also, the rounds for .50's tend to be round nosed, further harming their distance shooting profile. I don't know what CA has banned for sale, thought it was the ammo not the rifle, but I do not believe there is a penalty for owning. Silly legislators. -C

    Re: Stupid Prosecution of the Week (none / 0) (#44)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 05:48:26 PM EST
    Sailor - One of the articles noted a greenish flash, so it all folds together. I'll note your experise in eyes, but are you sure that night vision wouldn't be harmed? And, would the refraction/reflection of the atmosphere slow down enough of the light to produce some reds? Commercial DWDM lasers are in the 1500nm range. As for the tempest in a teapot, I think my memory says seven times over the past few month, and the commercial pilots were not happy. I'll go with them. So here's hoping you don't get hit. Hate to see the tail end of your plane sticking out of the side of the LAX Hilton. Y - The side window available would be dependent on several factors. Distance from the laser, height from ground, assuming straight and level. If the aircraft is turing into the laser it would probably be in a nose down attitude. As noted, I think people who do stupid things that could kill a lot of people should pay a tough very public penalty. Call it the fools filter to prevent future dummies from playing games.

    Re: Stupid Prosecution of the Week (none / 0) (#45)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 06:02:45 PM EST
    "One of my friends has an acquaintance who just bought a .50 cal machine gun (since banned in CA?). "This is either B.S. or the poster has no idea what a machine gun is. " My mistake, no doubt. He must have meant one of the .50 cal Barrett sniper rifles, which have a stand. I probably mistook his mention of the stand for a tripod. The point is the same: this rifle, legal in the other 49 states, apparently, fires a similar HUGE shell quite capable of downing an aircraft from considerable distance. Gun nuts in CA and around the country are adding this latest example of Californian sanity to their reasons to hate their fellow Americans. Hatred and gun owners -- how come it doesn't surprise to see those things together? --

    Re: Stupid Prosecution of the Week (none / 0) (#46)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 06:13:33 PM EST
    WASHINGTON, DC -- The Violence Policy Center (VPC) released a study entitled "Just Like Bird Hunting"-The Threat to Civil Aviation from .50-Caliber Sniper Rifles, which details the threat of military-bred .50-Caliber sniper rifles to aviation and passengers throughout the United States. The 32-page study discusses the range and striking power of the .50-Caliber sniper rifle and its ammunition in the context of potential terrorist attacks against civilian airports and aircraft. Article on risk to civilian aviation --

    Re: Stupid Prosecution of the Week (none / 0) (#47)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 06:16:18 PM EST
    Paul in LA: AK-47s are illegal to own. Machine guns have been illegal to own since the twenties.

    Re: Stupid Prosecution of the Week (none / 0) (#48)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 06:20:43 PM EST
    Hey, I'm over limit, can't respond to all your kind b*tchslaps, but this paragraph is hilarious: "In a brochure advertising its Model 82A1 .50-Caliber sniper rifle, Tennessee-based Barrett Firearms Manufacturing Inc. states, "The cost-effectiveness of the Model 82A1 cannot be overemphasized when a round of ammunition purchased for less than 10 USD [U.S. dollars] can be used to destroy or disable a modern jet aircraft." The horse's mouth. --

    Re: Stupid Prosecution of the Week (none / 0) (#49)
    by pigwiggle on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 06:39:12 PM EST
    Anything from the violence policy center should be viewed as highly suspect. In a number of their studies concerning ‘assault weapons’ they further broadened the definition past that of congress to include many more rifles. In so doing their statistical analysis favored their notable anti-gun bias. This would be fine if they had disclosed the modified definition within the text of these studies. However, they chose not to. If you chose to quote their ‘studies’ scrutinize the context and data closely. This is equally applicable to other gun related studies and other topics where folks may be emotionally invested.

    Re: Stupid Prosecution of the Week (none / 0) (#50)
    by Richard Aubrey on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 07:15:53 PM EST
    This might be a cluster of events, or it might be a cluster of reports. In addition to the commercial pilots mentioned, a couple of military guys had eye damage when hit by a laser from a Russian ship several years ago. One was US, the other Canadian. Since the aircraft was not trying to land on the Rooski trawler, it would appear that other positions relative to the source provide vulnerability. Under some circumstances, this is a federal crime. Still, this being a defense lawyers' board and all, the guy isn't really, really guilty and it's all Ashcroft's fault that any fuss is being made. And any pilots who complain are probably working for The Man.

    Re: Stupid Prosecution of the Week (none / 0) (#51)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 08:10:41 PM EST
    Paul - Barrett is a brand, and sniper rigle, like assault rifle, is a term of art that is often used by marketing people for different purposes. As to the destroying things meme, I'll just note that in one infamous jello shot weekend someone (ahem) used a can of hairspray to torch a car. Again, without being familiar (which you are clearly not - a shell and a bullet are different) with firearms perhaps you should choose a weapon with which you are familiar? Please let me know if you're ever in NC as I will be happy to take you to the range for a safety check and some time firing shotguns (skeet), 9mm (pistol and TEC-9), .357 (pistol), 45 (semi-auto), .22 (pistol and rifle), 8mm (rifle), 5.66 (rifle), and 8mm (rifle). If you'd like I'll have a friend with a M16-A2 come over and you can experience full-auto firing. You'll have to pay for ammo though. I have no idea about lasers and airplanes (except for beating the people with lasers, of course :-) but I can tell you that on the firearms front you're not on target. As it were. -C

    Re: Stupid Prosecution of the Week (none / 0) (#52)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 08:13:12 PM EST
    PPJ - listen to Sailor, he knows what he is talking about. I am a pilot and an astronomer. I use a green light to read star charts because it does the least damage to night vision, though there is much argument amongst astronomers as to whether green or red is less damaging to night vision. Needless to say, my green flashlight has a considerably broader spectrum than a 5320 angstrom LED laser. You obviously don't understand much about physics or lasers. Lasers emit an essentially parallel beam of light. In the absence of atmosphere, a good laser beam that is 1/4" wide at the source will be 1/4" wide 100 miles away, and generally the same brightness. In the presence of atmosphere, the intensity of the laser decreases over distances by a significant amount depending on particulates and moisture. That's why I have to use a bigger laser pointer in the 35' planetarium than I have to use in the classroom when I'm 3 feet from a white board. If the beam were conical as you suggest, the "light pattern" would be dimmer at distance than it would be at a short range because it would cover a larger area. That is why I can point at stars in a planetarium using a hand-held LED laser that's a few milliwatts, but the laser we used for laser shows that gets spread across 400 sqft of planetarium dome using vibrating mirrors has to be a liquid-cooled 7-watt helium/argon laser in order to be seen. Assuming you could accurately point a laser that weighs a couple hundred pounds you could do some damage. The flash caused by a hand-held red or green laser pointer will cause far, far less night vision damage than the flashing lights you would normally see at an airport--strobes on planes, landing lights, strobes on ground vehicles, runway and ramp lights that while being simple colors are really quite broad-spectrum. Bottom line: The guy's a jerk. Treat him as such. The belligerent, drunk CEO's in first class are much more of a danger to civil aviation than some moron on the ground with a laser pointer. "Most of these incidents are accidental or mischievous in nature," Valerie Smith, a spokeswoman with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's headquarters in Washington, D.C., told the Chronicle. The Transportation Security Administration, she said, "has looked at the incidents and determined the threat to commercial aviation is low."

    Re: Stupid Prosecution of the Week (none / 0) (#53)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 08:22:11 PM EST
    I should amend by saying that a major reason that I have to use a bigger laser in the planetarium is the "inverse square law" which states that the intensity of a point source is inversely proportional to the square of its distance. Lasers don't adhere to the inverse square law because the beam doesn't spread out, but since the light is reflected back in all directions by an uneven surface, the law applies (generally) to the light on its return trip.

    Re: Stupid Prosecution of the Week (none / 0) (#55)
    by Sailor on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 09:04:19 PM EST
    In light of Mr. Ditto's posts I should probably say "what he said", but no, I had to go over this ... stuff and now, so do you: PPJ writes - Sailor - One of the articles noted a greenish flash, so it all folds together. Uh, only if you accept the second hand account thru the filter of our news media, and we both know better than that. Plus, a greenish flash of a copper based flare would be remarkable and much more distracting/damaging. Not quibbling, just not enough data to respond. I'll note your experise in eyes, but are you sure that night vision wouldn't be harmed? 'Night vision', the colloquial term for the photo receptors in the periphery of our visual field, is not at play during final approach. The eye is concentrated on the bright lights, (whi=runway;blu=taxiway;red=danger;strobe=centerline ... etc), color and intensity discrimination are crucial, but if your greens are overstimulated, you mentally wouldn't take them into account because our brain discounts any outlier. PS - red, white and blue are OK. And, would the refraction/reflection of the atmosphere slow down enough of the light to produce some reds? There are no 'reds' in this beam, this is inherent in any LASER and how it has such power at distance. LASER light, by definition, isn't multi-frequency, to slow down a beam of 532 nm would require a gravity well such as we will probably never see in our lifetimes, (of course there is a small possibility that we will see it forever;-) Commercial DWDM lasers are in the 1500nm range. Jim, if you think that shooting a modulated non-visible EM beam down a fiber optic channel has anything to do with a LASER fired thru the air at ... anything, you may be starting to bring a tear to my eye; of course the odds against that would be 640,000 to 1. As for the tempest in a teapot, I think my memory says seven times over the past few month, and the commercial pilots were not happy. I'll go with them. Me too, to an extent, but this had been in PIREPS for awhile (since 1989), the difference is that the media hypes it and pilots are reporting it more. There has been one report of damage in the media, but no way for me to confirm it. So here's hoping you don't get hit. Hate to see the tail end of your plane sticking out of the side of the LAX Hilton. Good thing you mentioned my plane. I actually had my tail sticking out of the side of the Lacks Hilton. Butt I'm not prepared to discuss that in mixed company.

    Re: Stupid Prosecution of the Week (none / 0) (#54)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 09:59:14 PM EST
    M Ditto - I didn't say he was wrong. My comment was could refraction and reflection through atmosphere cause a downward shift towards red, and if there would be enough color in between to cause a problem. FYI - I am familar with the general characteristics of lasers, especially in communication systems using lasers in the 1500 NM range, and they run out of steam around 20-40 miles depending on cable loss, etc. That's with about 6 db input to single mode fiber cable. FO cable is a lot better transport medium than atmosphere, and atmosphere is what we are talking about. I know nothing of these pointers. But per IM's link, the spec's: "Extremely bright green laser at 532 nm wavelength Output power of Range of approximately 9,000 ft (2600 m) in darkness 1.1 mm beam diameter at source Momentary push button switch Solid, heavy duty construction Constant wave output (as opposed to pulse output) Takes 2 "AAA" batteries (included) Class IIIa Laser Can be used for skypointing, projection on low clouds, signalling, detecting explosives 90-day warranty Are you saying that there would be no dispersion or refraction that would cause the beam to spread? And wouldn't this also cause a color shift down? And if so, wouldn't the beam be a rough cone? Smaller at the laser and becoming larger? i.e. Are you saying no beam spread? And if you are.. Are those pilots lying when they describe a greenish flash in the cockpit?? As for those CEO's, don't be too hard on them. They're the one's paying enough in taxes and contributions to keep the gears in that telescope greased and moving smoothly.

    Re: Stupid Prosecution of the Week (none / 0) (#56)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 11:04:17 PM EST
    Well no laser has a perfectly collimated beam, so at a sufficient distance the laser might project the image of a line, an ellipse, or a larger circle, or any number of blobular shapes. I have no idea how well-built this model of laser is, or how far away the laser would have to be to appear like anything other than a 1.1mm dot. You'd just have to test it and see. The atmosphere in and of itself will not change the shape of the beam much. Lensing effects of the atmosphere can cause the dot to move around some though. The wavelength of the light is 532 nanometers. If the laser emitted a broader spectrum it's possible that elements in the atmosphere would absorb some wavelengths and not others and thus cause a color shift, but in this case if the atmosphere absorbed 532nm it would just make the laser dimmer. The reason they use 532nm however is that there is very little in the atmosphere that absorbs 532nm light, so the 9000 foot range is probably determined mostly by light scatter from moisture and dust under average conditions.

    Re: Stupid Prosecution of the Week (none / 0) (#57)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jan 06, 2005 at 07:00:29 AM EST
    Everyday idiocy that places innocent people's lives in danger should be treated as a crime. We need an "Idiot Act" to deal with this type of conduct. Where's Tom Delay when you need that ratcatcher?

    Re: Stupid Prosecution of the Week (none / 0) (#58)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jan 06, 2005 at 07:21:50 AM EST
    As for those CEO's, don't be too hard on them. They're the one's paying enough in taxes and contributions to keep the gears in that telescope greased and moving smoothly. And the right-wingnut machine continues to spin on to the amusement of all and sundry. All I see CEO's doing these days is taking multi-million dollar golden parachutes for bankrupting ordinary workers' pension plans, and the corporations they work for. Sorta just like pRzeNit CEO is doing with the country. When you let a$$hole Repugnicants frame the debate, how can you ever win?

    Re: Stupid Prosecution of the Week (none / 0) (#59)
    by pigwiggle on Thu Jan 06, 2005 at 07:33:17 AM EST
    “All I see CEO's doing these days is taking multi-million dollar golden parachutes for bankrupting ordinary workers' pension” Don’t be theatrical. There are CEOs making salaries from $3 million to $30 thousand. Many work extremely long hours at the sacrifice of their health and well being for their own profit and the success of their company. I would like you to qualify ‘all I see’, as only two come to mind, just one recently. However, if you could name a dozen a year it is trivial compared to the efforts of the thousands of other corporate officers. But, I guess when you let morons frame the debate…

    Re: Stupid Prosecution of the Week (none / 0) (#60)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jan 06, 2005 at 08:35:40 AM EST
    Michael D - Thank you for the information. As noted, my last laser experience has been with telecommunication lasers in high bit rate (10 and 40 gbs) FO systems, which do have dispersion, loss, scatter, reflection, refraction problems even inside some very expensive .3db loss/km fiber cable. I have heard the really smart people - I was an engineer at one time but gave it up for a career in technical sales - refer to dispersion loss, etc. Sailor notes that the atmosphere would not cause slowing, and a red shift. I believe he is a lot more knowledgeable than I, but I do have problems with that, perhaps I am too focused on sound lowering in frequency when the source is leaving the listner. (Train whistle.) And light slowing down, the red shift in my probably incomplete understanding. These lasers in question are pin diode types (I think) and would not be very stable, so if held "on" I would guess that the output coud vary plus/minus 30 (or more) NM's. Whether or not this would be enough to produce visible color shifts I have no idea. If we are to believe the reports, and Sailor notes that they are filtered through the news media, the cockpit has been lit up in a geeenish flash. That is quite different than seeing a "green" dot on something in the cockpit. To me, it says that the beam of light has become big enough - cone shaped or whatever variation) to completely cover the cockit side windows, although it could also be head on, depending on aircraft attitude. (Turning, nose down, nose up, etc.) If we say the color hasn't changed, then night vision should not be affected very much, especially on landing. But if bright enough, I would think it could cause brief blindness, but I doubt it would be that from the lasers involved. So the real grief seems to be a fear of the pilot becoming distracted and making a mistake. Even that is slim, since most accident reports I have seen come back to three bad things happening at the same time. Someone back up the thread said that the windows could be treated for $100 and that would fix most of the problems. Given that secure cockpit doors and a no entrance policy for any reason on commercial aircraft would have prevented 9/11, that may be an excellent suggestion. But no matter what, idiots who "shoot" anything at an aircraft should be put in jail for a significant period of time, and I really don't care if the "patroit act" is used or not. Results count.

    Re: Stupid Prosecution of the Week (none / 0) (#61)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jan 06, 2005 at 09:05:53 AM EST
    But no matter what, idiots who "shoot" anything at an aircraft should be put in jail for a significant period of time, and I really don't care if the "patroit act" is used or not. Results count. okay, i can agree with the first part of that. but labeling him a terrorist? basically saying he's the equivalent of a zarkawi or bin laden? not only is that not accurate, but it's totally unfair to this guy. he's an *ssclown, no doubt. and perhaps he should do jail time (depending on what the jury finds). but convicted of terrorism? what ideological or political reasons did he have? i think prosecuting him as a terrorist under the patriot act is a big case of overkill.

    Re: Stupid Prosecution of the Week (none / 0) (#62)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jan 06, 2005 at 11:23:15 PM EST
    ""The cost-effectiveness of the Model 82A1 cannot be overemphasized when a round of ammunition purchased for less than 10 USD [U.S. dollars] can be used to destroy or disable a modern jet aircraft." Pigwiggle: "Anything from the violence policy center should be viewed as highly suspect." That ISN'T from VPC. It's from a manufacturer. Posted by Cliff at January 5, 2005 09:10 PM "Paul - Barrett is a brand, and sniper rigle, like assault rifle, is a term of art that is often used by marketing people for different purposes." Yeah, you're saying that manufacturers REFER to the gun as a SNIPER rifle that shoots down planes in order to sell them to people who think that's neat. You really don't get what's wrong with that, do you? "As to the destroying things meme, I'll just note that in one infamous jello shot weekend someone (ahem) used a can of hairspray to torch a car." Yeah, but when the guy opens up with the .50 from a high window, the people will be pretty sure to notice it isn't hairspray. "Again, without being familiar (which you are clearly not - a shell and a bullet are different) with firearms perhaps you should choose a weapon with which you are familiar?" Hilarious. "Familiarity" with .50 cal sniper rifles will make the statement by the manufacturer ANY better. The marketing of these guns to people EXPLICITLY referencing terrorist acts...that doesn't bother you at all, Cliff. And you want ME to get a better understanding? "Please let me know if you're ever in NC..." Yeah, thanks for the offer, Cliff, but I've already fired most of those, and big F deal. I'm not antigun, nor am I opposed to personal safety. I AIN'T TALKING ABOUT EITHER OF THOSE THINGS, AND NEITHER IS THE MANUFACTURER. There are a lot of unstable people in the world. Marketing violence to society is the PRIMARY fault that I find with corporate Hollywood, not showing Janet Jackson's black breast. You guys are goosing people who are arming themselves as a result. That's not responsible gun ownership, and those people should NOT be allowed to own .50 cal rifles that can fire exploding rounds, etc. --

    Re: Stupid Prosecution of the Week (none / 0) (#63)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 08:20:57 AM EST
    Paul In LA writes - "not showing Janet Jackson's black breast." I agree. The problem was the violence shown towards women as he ripped her clothes off. Millions of teenage boys probably thought that was a grand thing to do.