Jail for helicopter laser prank

[Fop 1]

Isn't this an unusual case, so it's setting a precedent?

 

I think it's relatively common (whether they get an arrest each time though, maybe not so common), in fact I remember odd cases like this going back 10+ years or more (there was definitely one in Liverpool in 96-97ish), might be for the area though I guess.

Probably just doesn't make the media much - actually there was a woman murdering an adolescent case just yesterday come to think of it, not sure how much press that has got.

 

The case with the guy and the torch was only last year as well.

Really common, aye.

Honestly man

 

Is it as "common" as murder? I dunno.

 

It is a one off thing that's never been seen before? Nope.

[Guest alex]

My point was, (fuck me, why am I doing this? ) was that I said it was unusual. You then counter by saying you think it's relatively common (with your trademark caveat) then say there might have been another case (again, with very sketchy details) about 11 or 12 years ago.

And I can't really be arsed discussing other cases, similar or not, if the only details are the ones you give, because I take anything you say on that sort of thing with a large pinch of salt because I tend to think it's just part of your anti-Police crusade. Ironic as well, given you're always saying they lie and exaggerate.

Edited June 29, 2008 by alex

[manc-mag 1]

Basically in the public interest:

 

Potential for disaster (by shining a laser in the eyes of a helicopter pilot flying over a residential area)

 

x

 

Potential for misuse (number of adolescents in residential areas with laser pens and access to alcohol who are likely to think its a good laugh)

 

x

 

Number of successful prosecutions for same (few)

 

=

 

Justifies a short custodial sentence simply for deterrent effect alone.

 

 

 

Basically, if (as I think it's safe to assume) that's essentially what was going through the Judge's mind when deciding the appropriate sentencing tariff, then I have absolutely no problem with that at all and I struggle to see how any other right minded person could either.

[Park Life 71]

I bet that huge batsignal light has brought down a few planes.

 

 

Bobbies on the beat we need not flying about in choppers, light aircraft and suped up cars. Lazy cunts.

Edited June 29, 2008 by Park Life

[Fop 1]

My point was, (fuck me, why am I doing this? ) was that I said it was unusual. You then counter by saying you think it's relatively common (with your trademark caveat) then say there might have been another case (again, with very sketchy details) about 11 or 12 years ago.

And I can't really be arsed discussing other cases, similar or not, if the only details are the ones you give, because I take anything you say on that sort of thing with a large pinch of salt because I tend to think it's just part of your anti-Police crusade. Ironic as well, given you're always saying they lie and exaggerate.

 

See now you're just ranting.

 

I don't know what you expect really, exact explicit details (including court transcripts and police radio logs) of everything that ever happened ever, or don't say anything. That other recent case I read about in a paper, I've no idea how I'd even go about getting alex-grade "evidence" for it occurring to be fair.

[manc-mag 1]

My point was, (fuck me, why am I doing this? ) was that I said it was unusual. You then counter by saying you think it's relatively common (with your trademark caveat) then say there might have been another case (again, with very sketchy details) about 11 or 12 years ago.

And I can't really be arsed discussing other cases, similar or not, if the only details are the ones you give, because I take anything you say on that sort of thing with a large pinch of salt because I tend to think it's just part of your anti-Police crusade. Ironic as well, given you're always saying they lie and exaggerate.

 

See now you're just ranting.

 

I don't know what you expect really, exact explicit details (including court transcripts and police radio logs) of everything that ever happened ever, or don't say anything. That other recent case I read about in a paper, I've no idea how I'd even go about getting alex-grade "evidence" for it occurring to be fair.

 

The hypocrisy on Fop is simply staggering at times!

[Park Life 71]

My point was, (fuck me, why am I doing this? ) was that I said it was unusual. You then counter by saying you think it's relatively common (with your trademark caveat) then say there might have been another case (again, with very sketchy details) about 11 or 12 years ago.

And I can't really be arsed discussing other cases, similar or not, if the only details are the ones you give, because I take anything you say on that sort of thing with a large pinch of salt because I tend to think it's just part of your anti-Police crusade. Ironic as well, given you're always saying they lie and exaggerate.

 

See now you're just ranting.

 

I don't know what you expect really, exact explicit details (including court transcripts and police radio logs) of everything that ever happened ever, or don't say anything. That other recent case I read about in a paper, I've no idea how I'd even go about getting alex-grade "evidence" for it occurring to be fair.

 

I prefer just to make things up in any case. Less hassle.

[Guest alex]

My point was, (fuck me, why am I doing this? ) was that I said it was unusual. You then counter by saying you think it's relatively common (with your trademark caveat) then say there might have been another case (again, with very sketchy details) about 11 or 12 years ago.

And I can't really be arsed discussing other cases, similar or not, if the only details are the ones you give, because I take anything you say on that sort of thing with a large pinch of salt because I tend to think it's just part of your anti-Police crusade. Ironic as well, given you're always saying they lie and exaggerate.

 

See now you're just ranting.

 

I don't know what you expect really, exact explicit details (including court transcripts and police radio logs) of everything that ever happened ever, or don't say anything. That other recent case I read about in a paper, I've no idea how I'd even go about getting alex-grade "evidence" for it occurring to be fair.

I was just saying why I wasn't prepared to comment on it. That wasn't even the point I was really making though. It was more that you basically agreed with what I said but couldn't quite bring yourself to do so Or so I thought, anyway. Never mind.

[Guest alex]

My point was, (fuck me, why am I doing this? ) was that I said it was unusual. You then counter by saying you think it's relatively common (with your trademark caveat) then say there might have been another case (again, with very sketchy details) about 11 or 12 years ago.

And I can't really be arsed discussing other cases, similar or not, if the only details are the ones you give, because I take anything you say on that sort of thing with a large pinch of salt because I tend to think it's just part of your anti-Police crusade. Ironic as well, given you're always saying they lie and exaggerate.

 

See now you're just ranting.

 

I don't know what you expect really, exact explicit details (including court transcripts and police radio logs) of everything that ever happened ever, or don't say anything. That other recent case I read about in a paper, I've no idea how I'd even go about getting alex-grade "evidence" for it occurring to be fair.

 

I prefer just to make things up in any case. Less hassle.

Probably why you two get on

[Fop 1]

Basically in the public interest:

 

Potential for disaster (by shining a laser in the eyes of a helicopter pilot flying over a residential area)

 

x

 

Potential for misuse (number of adolescents in residential areas with laser pens and access to alcohol who are likely to think its a good laugh)

 

x

 

Number of successful prosecutions for same (few)

 

=

 

Justifies a short custodial sentence simply for deterrent effect alone.

 

 

 

Basically, if (as I think it's safe to assume) that's essentially what was going through the Judge's mind when deciding the appropriate sentencing tariff, then I have absolutely no problem with that at all and I struggle to see how any other right minded person could either.

 

 

 

 

But why would the pointer do what the pilot said it did? It would have dazzled him with a direct shot in the eye, but lighting up the entire cockpit would require the canopy to split the beam up, yet in other examples the laser beam stays compact (dot on a chest in one example).

 

And all the guy has to do is appeal and claim it's an OTT sentence and he'll probably get less anyway.

 

 

 

Not that I've got any real opinion on the sentence, just that I find it strange to "make an example"/throw the book at them over something that might have happened, yet not over something that did happen.

[Fop 1]

My point was, (fuck me, why am I doing this? ) was that I said it was unusual. You then counter by saying you think it's relatively common (with your trademark caveat) then say there might have been another case (again, with very sketchy details) about 11 or 12 years ago.

And I can't really be arsed discussing other cases, similar or not, if the only details are the ones you give, because I take anything you say on that sort of thing with a large pinch of salt because I tend to think it's just part of your anti-Police crusade. Ironic as well, given you're always saying they lie and exaggerate.

 

See now you're just ranting.

 

I don't know what you expect really, exact explicit details (including court transcripts and police radio logs) of everything that ever happened ever, or don't say anything. That other recent case I read about in a paper, I've no idea how I'd even go about getting alex-grade "evidence" for it occurring to be fair.

 

I prefer just to make things up in any case. Less hassle.

Well in fairness most anything is "made up" once driven through the Alex test - I can't even prove I exist by that criteria.

[Park Life 71]

Basically in the public interest:

 

Potential for disaster (by shining a laser in the eyes of a helicopter pilot flying over a residential area)

 

x

 

Potential for misuse (number of adolescents in residential areas with laser pens and access to alcohol who are likely to think its a good laugh)

 

x

 

Number of successful prosecutions for same (few)

 

=

 

Justifies a short custodial sentence simply for deterrent effect alone.

 

 

 

Basically, if (as I think it's safe to assume) that's essentially what was going through the Judge's mind when deciding the appropriate sentencing tariff, then I have absolutely no problem with that at all and I struggle to see how any other right minded person could either.

 

 

 

 

But why would the pointer do what the pilot said it did? It would have dazzled him with a direct shot in the eye, but lighting up the entire cockpit would require the canopy to split the beam up, yet in other examples the laser beam stays compact (dot on a chest in one example).

 

And all the guy has to do is appeal and claim it's an OTT sentence and he'll probably get less anyway.

 

 

 

Not that I've got any real opinion on the sentence, just that I find it strange to "make an example"/throw the book at them over something that might have happened, yet not over something that did happen.

 

 

The insurgency in Iraq have suddenly taken great interest in the humble lazer pen.

[Fop 1]

My point was, (fuck me, why am I doing this? ) was that I said it was unusual. You then counter by saying you think it's relatively common (with your trademark caveat) then say there might have been another case (again, with very sketchy details) about 11 or 12 years ago.

And I can't really be arsed discussing other cases, similar or not, if the only details are the ones you give, because I take anything you say on that sort of thing with a large pinch of salt because I tend to think it's just part of your anti-Police crusade. Ironic as well, given you're always saying they lie and exaggerate.

 

See now you're just ranting.

 

I don't know what you expect really, exact explicit details (including court transcripts and police radio logs) of everything that ever happened ever, or don't say anything. That other recent case I read about in a paper, I've no idea how I'd even go about getting alex-grade "evidence" for it occurring to be fair.

I was just saying why I wasn't prepared to comment on it. That wasn't even the point I was really making though. It was more that you basically agreed with what I said but couldn't quite bring yourself to do so Or so I thought, anyway. Never mind.

 

I then.

[manc-mag 1]

Basically in the public interest:

 

Potential for disaster (by shining a laser in the eyes of a helicopter pilot flying over a residential area)

 

x

 

Potential for misuse (number of adolescents in residential areas with laser pens and access to alcohol who are likely to think its a good laugh)

 

x

 

Number of successful prosecutions for same (few)

 

=

 

Justifies a short custodial sentence simply for deterrent effect alone.

 

 

 

Basically, if (as I think it's safe to assume) that's essentially what was going through the Judge's mind when deciding the appropriate sentencing tariff, then I have absolutely no problem with that at all and I struggle to see how any other right minded person could either.

 

 

 

 

But why would the pointer do what the pilot said it did? It would have dazzled him with a direct shot in the eye, but lighting up the entire cockpit would require the canopy to split the beam up, yet in other examples the laser beam stays compact (dot on a chest in one example).

 

And all the guy has to do is appeal and claim it's an OTT sentence and he'll probably get less anyway.

 

 

 

Not that I've got any real opinion on the sentence, just that I find it strange to "make an example"/throw the book at them over something that might have happened, yet not over something that did happen.

 

With respect, this one just isn't a conspiracy theory. Sorry.

[Guest alex]

My point was, (fuck me, why am I doing this? ) was that I said it was unusual. You then counter by saying you think it's relatively common (with your trademark caveat) then say there might have been another case (again, with very sketchy details) about 11 or 12 years ago.

And I can't really be arsed discussing other cases, similar or not, if the only details are the ones you give, because I take anything you say on that sort of thing with a large pinch of salt because I tend to think it's just part of your anti-Police crusade. Ironic as well, given you're always saying they lie and exaggerate.

 

See now you're just ranting.

 

I don't know what you expect really, exact explicit details (including court transcripts and police radio logs) of everything that ever happened ever, or don't say anything. That other recent case I read about in a paper, I've no idea how I'd even go about getting alex-grade "evidence" for it occurring to be fair.

 

I prefer just to make things up in any case. Less hassle.

Well in fairness most anything is "made up" once driven through the Alex test - I can't even prove I exist by that criteria.

The last bit's made up, anyway.

[Fop 1]

The insurgency in Iraq have suddenly taken great interest in the humble lazer pen.

Well if it's as bad as that pilot claims I guess they should.

 

Actually you maybe could build something capable of burning out a pilots retina (like our navy's anti-aircraft ship device) at home, the big issues would be making it portable enough and aiming it well enough.

[Fop 1]

With respect, this one just isn't a conspiracy theory. Sorry.

 

Whether his canopy diffracts a laser should be easy enough to test.

 

 

The last bit's made up, anyway.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster, God, Allah, Yoda and Myself all have that problem.

[Guest alex]

With respect, this one just isn't a conspiracy theory. Sorry.

 

Whether his canopy diffracts a laser should be easy enough to test.

 

 

The last bit's made up, anyway.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster, God, Allah, Yoda and Myself all have that problem.

Again you miss my point.

[Fop 1]

With respect, this one just isn't a conspiracy theory. Sorry.

 

Whether his canopy diffracts a laser should be easy enough to test.

 

 

The last bit's made up, anyway.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster, God, Allah, Yoda and Myself all have that problem.

Again you miss my point.

It's like Picornaviridae, I guess, or maybe a laser shined through a special canopy.

[Jusoda Kid 1]

Rare I know, but I agree with Rob in the main. It was a fucking stupid and dangerous act.

 

It was (although the example of the guy with the torch wasn't really), but the "example" context should work in so many other ways (is mugging not a stupid and dangerous act? Is murder? etc.).

 

I do suspect the pilot probably over egged the effects a bit as well.

 

 

Suspect what you fucking like. Oh and feel free to base it on zero evidence while you're at it. (A cardinal sin at all other times you perfect hypocrite)

 

 

Like the police did? Laser pen lighting up the cockpit, rendering the dials useless, of course it did

 

 

Think I'll send that one in to mythbusters and let the Gemmil's sort it out

Edited June 29, 2008 by Wacky Jnr

[manc-mag 1]

Can't imagine that the judge would've been arsed what flowery language was used tbh. Did it impede the pilots ability to control the helicopter? Yes. Was this fucking stupidly dangerous in the extreme? Yes. Was there any excuse for it? No. Might this help to prevent people doing the same thing in future? Yes, quite possibly.

 

Next case. Thanks.

 

 

 

In all seriousness, wor lass would make mincemeat out of the likes of Fop, jovially banging on about people getting the death penalty for the likes of this offence etc etc. She does death row work for a charity out in the states and, while our legal system certainly isnt perfect (what man made thing is?) you honestly wouldnt pick any other country's criminal justice system over ours at the end of the day. Fop is basically an agenda driven anecdotalist whos views would be laughed at by both defence and prosecution practitioners alike.

[Guest alex]

[Jusoda Kid 1]

I find it laughable that people think a laser pen from e-bay could bring a helicopter down, people should start using them at the match, we might win something.

[Park Life 71]

I find it laughable that people think a laser pen from e-bay could bring a helicopter down, people should start using them at the match, we might win something.

 

It's a thought crime innit..

[Fop 1]

Can't imagine that the judge would've been arsed what flowery language was used tbh.

Probably not - that's not a "good thing™" though.

 

 

In all seriousness, wor lass would make mincemeat out of the likes of Fop, jovially banging on about people getting the death penalty for the likes of this offence etc etc. She does death row work for a charity out in the states and, while our legal system certainly isnt perfect (what man made thing is?) you honestly wouldnt pick any other country's criminal justice system over ours at the end of the day. Fop is basically an agenda driven anecdotalist whos views would be laughed at by both defence and prosecution practitioners alike.

 

Heh you do get so very uptight don't you.

 

 

You still haven't explained to me why murder isn't something to make an example about though, or mugging for that matter (not that I really think "making an example" often works, it's not what people think about in a lot of circumstances, and if they did overall longer sentences would have more impact in that context than one-off's).

 

Although I'm a bit scared to ask in case you:

Edited June 29, 2008 by Fop