Comments:Police charge Australian man over laser incident
This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.
Quick hints for new commentators:
- Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
- Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
- You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading
Does this law work in reverse? Can the people confiscate the police helicopter if it does not have a reasonable explaination for being there? There is something deeply wrong and orwellian about police choppers "patrolling" neighborhoods. The claim is that they don't need a search warrent because whatever you do outside is public. But obviously people with say high wooden fences in their yards have a reasonable expectation of privacy, which the police choppers are all to happy to violate.
When I was in college about 20 years ago the Los Angeles police department made a bad habit of flying low over the college dorms whenever we had a party. (especially if we were having a bon-fire in the courtyard) One time, after they had been hanging around for too long we tossed about 20 pounds of sawdust into the air above the bonfire to make a large but harmless fireball. The resulting thermal sent the chopper for a bit of a ride.
The cops complained to the dean, and we caught hell for it, but they *did* stop flying over the dorms.... These days, I suppose they'd strafe anyone who tried something like that.
A key-chain laser pointer is totally harmless at a range of 1600 feet. The cops arrested him for an act which is essentially free speach. He did nothing more dangerous than flipping them off. It's not very nice, but it should be protected as a valid form of protest.
Otherwise, the people below the chopper are essentially sheep.
- Uhhh... have you ever had someone do this to you in traffic? If not, then you don't know. This is about as much "free speech" as shouting "fire!" in a crowded theater. It's malicious and extremely hazardous. A laser's brilliance doesn't diminish much, even over 1600 feet - that's the entire *point* of lasers! And trust me, when a laser beam suddenly strikes your retina, it is *very* hard to keep paying attention to whatever else you're doing, much less see anything (the automatic reflex reaction to shut your eyes kicks in).
- I hope they throw the book at the brat. He could have cost everyone in that chopper - plus whoever it could have landed on - their lives. -- on WP as User:Kasreyn 167.127.107.8 12:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with your statements, but the law is not blind either... or at least not yet (har har?). Perhaps they are over-reacting, but their reaction is justified of its own means. While this incident was rather harmless, what happens when people start shining lasers into cars on the freeway? - w:User:Poe Joe 13:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.122.56.217 (talk)
- I'd take the cases of shining lasers into people driving down the highway, and shining lasers to get a spying police state out of your hair, separately. Fephisto (talk) 14:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
This law SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!!! it is stupid to assume that all teens or people are going to shine lasers in peoples eyes!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwerty (talk • contribs) 00:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC)