More Consequences for Laser pranksters

http://blog.sfgate.com/crime/2014/05...t-helicopters/


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Tue, 13 May 2014 12:07:45 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:
:
: http://blog.sfgate.com/crime/2014/05...t-helicopters/
:

Good riddance of bad rubbish.

Bob

On 5/13/2014 8:34 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
On Tue, 13 May 2014 12:07:45 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:
:
: http://blog.sfgate.com/crime/2014/05...t-helicopters/
:

Good riddance of bad rubbish.


Too many people think a laser is a toy. Why only two years. If she fired
a legal gun at the copter, she would have gotten a lot more. Although
I'm sure it happens, one never hears of idiots who shine lasers at cars.



--
PeterN

In article , PeterN
wrote:

Although
I'm sure it happens, one never hears of idiots who shine lasers at cars.

cops do it every single day.

On 2014-05-14 02:27:52 +0000, nospam said:

In article , PeterN
wrote:

Although
I'm sure it happens, one never hears of idiots who shine lasers at cars.

cops do it every single day.

They use laser guns which produce a very diffused beam with a target
circle of about 60'', not a high power point focused laser beam.
Also the law enforcement laser guns I am aware of do not use a light
which is in the visible spectrum and is not likely to cause any retinal
injury.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article 2014051319421166972-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

Although
I'm sure it happens, one never hears of idiots who shine lasers at cars.

cops do it every single day.

They use laser guns which produce a very diffused beam with a target
circle of about 60'', not a high power point focused laser beam.

actually it's much narrower than that.

typical beam width is 3 feet at 1000 feet distance, which is a typical
clocking distance for vehicles, if not a bit far.

3' is definitely wider than a point focused beam, but it doesn't mean
it's entirely harmless. it's long term effects are not known. they're
approved as class 1 devices, but they also come with warnings.

it sends pulsed infrared light, whose *average* power is what is used
to determine eye safety, not instantaneous power.

the pulses are very short which keeps the overall average low, but each
individual pulse is quite strong. they have to be strong to be able to
reach a vehicle, bounce of some part of it and return back to the lidar
gun and still be strong enough to be picked up by the lidar gun's
sensor, and in bright daylight.

some lidar guns are rated for 7000 foot maximum range, which means the
beam must travel close to 3 miles round trip, including the losses from
a reflection. it also continues to disperse on the way back, further
weakening what the sensor can pick up. that's a very strong pulse of
light.

lidar guns are generally in the 20-50 watt range, whereas the laser
pointers are in the milliwatt range. that's several orders of magnitude
more power. it's only because the pulses are of a short duration can it
be approved for use.

Also the law enforcement laser guns I am aware of do not use a light
which is in the visible spectrum and is not likely to cause any retinal
injury.

just because it's not visible does not mean it cannot cause damage.

in fact, invisible light can be more dangerous because the eye won't
adapt to it as it would a bright visible source of light.

that's why sunglasses should include uv blocking, otherwise, you risk
damaging your eyes from light that is not visible, but on the other
side of the spectrum as a lidar gun, which uses infrared.

On 2014.05.13, 22:42 , Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-05-14 02:27:52 +0000, nospam said:

In article , PeterN
wrote:

Although
I'm sure it happens, one never hears of idiots who shine lasers at cars.

cops do it every single day.

They use laser guns which produce a very diffused beam with a target
circle of about 60'', not a high power point focused laser beam.
Also the law enforcement laser guns I am aware of do not use a light
which is in the visible spectrum and is not likely to cause any retinal
injury.

Invisible lasers can cause a lot of damage too if not diffused. In our
laser lab where I used to work (I was not part of that lab but
occasionally worked with those engineers on some projects), they wore
protective glasses - and it was not visible wavelengths).

Per the Wikipedia article the police laser cone is about 1 m at 300
metres distance. Still enough diffusion to prevent eye damage. And of
course the glass on the car would reflect a lot of it away from the
driver's eyes as well as absorb some of the energy.


--
"Big data can reduce anything to a single number,
but you shouldn’t be fooled by the appearance of exactitude."
-Gary Marcus and Ernest Davis, NYT, 2014.04.07

| cops do it every single day.
|
| They use laser guns which produce a very diffused beam with a target
| circle of about 60'', not a high power point focused laser beam.
| Also the law enforcement laser guns I am aware of do not use a light
| which is in the visible spectrum and is not likely to cause any retinal
| injury.
|

I'm not so sure. A cop got me a couple of years ago
for "speeding" on a 4-lane, limited access, divided roadway
marked with a 30 mph speed limit. The "retinal damage"
is caused when my eyes read the number on my car
insurance bill -- about $200 higher than it used to be.
Unfortunately, I can't punish the perpetrator for that
laser prank. It's an entirely legal, official, municipal income
enhancement scam, and he was just "following orders".

On 2014-05-14 02:15:03 +0000, PeterN said:

On 5/13/2014 8:34 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
On Tue, 13 May 2014 12:07:45 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:
:
:
http://blog.sfgate.com/crime/2014/05...t-helicopters/
:



Good riddance of bad rubbish.


Too many people think a laser is a toy. Why only two years. If she
fired a legal gun at the copter, she would have gotten a lot more.
Although I'm sure it happens, one never hears of idiots who shine
lasers at cars.

Her boyfriend got 12 years. However, he had a bunch of priors and a
California sentencing enhancement for gang affiliation, so that was 2-4
extra. Depending on the type & number of priors that would shift him to
the upper part of the sentencing range.

Also he was additionally charged with, and convicted for, “attempted
interference with persons engaged in the operation of an aircraft.
Whereas she was only found guilty of “aiming a laser pointer at an
aircraft.�

I think the real issue here was the power of this particular laser, and
that it was not a toy or a typical presentation laser pointer. Also to
be considered, the first chopper was an emergency transport helicopter
inbound to a hospital, and the second was a police helicopter.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article 2014051312074595019-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
says...


http://blog.sfgate.com/crime/2014/05...t-helicopters/

I'm curious as to whether any aircraft has been lost due to a laser
pointer attack.