Originally published at: https://avweb.com/aviation-news/man-acquitted-inmarine-one-laser-case/
Jury clears Washington man charged in September incident involving presidential helicopter.
So, the takeaway is a small “keychain-size” laser can be pointed at aircraft in flight? 
No.
The prosecution failed to prove each element of the crime including expert medical evidence of the risks and dangers of small, key-fob sized, hand-held lasers.
The take away is that the Department of Justice is no longer competent to prosecute relatively simple crimes after more than half of Department of Justice lawyers have left because they refused to carry out unlawful acts which they have been directed by the Attorney General to do.
This is likely due to the incompetence of the DOJ, asserting a charge that cannot be proven. A red keychain laser is typically not powerful enough to cause an issue, however if elevated to criminal act, the law has to be proven on each aspect beyond a reasonable doubt. It’s likely the flightcrew didn’t even notice it. If there’s a reasonable doubt this would have intent or ability to cause harm, that would be an example of not meeting the standard of proof. It’s possible that FAA regulations in civil court could be proven, as they have a lesser standard of proof, a preponderance of evidence, but again, like the DC “subway sandwich” case, this is an example of DOJ incompetence.
So, laws be damned? Pointing any laser at an aircraft is a crime..or at least it used to be.
This is great! Now we’ll have every moron with a laser, shooting aircraft.
Maybe when one of these idiots causes an airplane to go down and kill all the occupants, they’ll enforce the law in place to prevent an accident.
My guess is that the mistake was prosecuting this as a federal crime - thus involving a jury. If they had given it to the FAA, they could have simply issued a judgement and a punishment without a jury.
Must have been a dumb jury. The law is clear, any laser regardless of power, aimed at an aircraft, even if it does no damage or distraction, is still illegal. The law does not distinguish on intent either. It’s not up to the prosecution to prove the laser was capable to cause damage or distraction, that potential was already determined when the law was passed. No need to revisit that.
Philip, are you capable of commenting on a topic without injecting politics into the discussion? The analytical and EMPIRICAL discussion about the results of the trial is all we are interested in? If you can’t do this without political bias, perhaps you would be more comfortable somewhere where inane political diatribes are the subject of the discussions?
Actually no, pointing a laser at an aircraft is not a crime. KNOWINGLY pointing an laser at an aircraft is, it’s right in the verbiage of the law. If this agent got mad because the guy accidentally hit in the face with the laser and did not knowingly flash the helicopter, then they wouldn’t be able to prove the requirements for the criminal law. Probably best to read the court papers before making an assumption that the guy broke the law.
Actually Rick, it does distinguish on intent, it’s right at the beginning of the code. It says “knowingly”. Otherwise, that would be punishing people who made an honest mistake.
Well, Jay, if that’s true the whole case depended on that word “knowingly”. Because none of the other points made in the analysis mattered. Such as the laser’s power, etc. and yet the analysis never mentioned the prosecution couldn’t prove “knowingly”. And that intent is the low hanging legal fruit. Instead they ramble on about its low power, it was on a keychain, etc. pretty sure the laser came with a little paper that warned not to wash your hair with it, cook bacon, aim it at aircraft, don’t sleep with it. Let’s say the helicopter crashed, and the guy was just handing his wife the car keys, he would be acquitted because it was not knowingly done. But we all know he wouldn’t have gotten off. Such are the minds of those unable to sort through facts and law. Who has a laser out at night while Marine One is taking off? Was he giving a PowerPoint presentation to someone?
If the laser STAYS pointed at the aircraft, I’d say that’s ‘knowingly’. What else are they pointing a laser at, birds, butterfly’s, streetlight’s? Come on. I’ve been flashed with a laser on a night flight with a student. It’s VERY bright, VERY distracting, and scary. You don’t know what’s happening. AND, it wasn’t momentary, it lasted a couple of minutes. Is that KNOWINGLY? Explain how you would ‘accidentally’ light up a plane with a laser? If you believe this incident was accidental, then you’re full of that stuff they shovel up off the streets on Mackinac Island.
The defendant was a shirtless and homeless man with a keychain cat toy in his hand—the kind you use to tease cats with in an apartment. At trial there was no one from Marine One who testified that they even saw a laser. While the chopper was hovering over the lawn to depart, a Secret Service agent witnessed him point the cat toy at the chopper. When he was arrested he fell to his knees and kept repeating that he “wanted to apologize to Donald J. Trump.” That’s the entire factual basis for trying to put this guy in prison. Do better, prosecutors.
I don’t know Rick, I was just correcting you about the law, in that it DOES require intent.
This case should’ve been handled by the FAA … no jury, just punishi the crime, and it IS a crime to shine laser in “aviation”. The intent isnt relevant. If he meant to do it, it a crime, if he didnt mean to do it … the crime remains! Such a lazy jury!
This topic was automatically closed after 7 days. New replies are no longer allowed.