I'm not as excited about that one. In general, don't shine lasers at aircraft. It can be incredibly dangerous. I'm guessing this was a low-powered laser pointer and Pirro just overreacted as usual.
I heard it described as a "cat toy".
...and therefore not especially dangerous. However the statute (18 U.S.C. § 39A) doesn't include any specification of power or luminous intensity that would distinguish weak lasers from dangerous ones. However, the definition does require that the light be produced by the traditional laser process (to distinguish from, say, flashlights). If the "cat toy" is just a glorified flashlight and doesn't actually use the laser principle, then that would be one reason to acquit.
Oh I agree, shining lazers at aircraft is a dangerous thing. (I am not sure the type of "cat toy" the guy had posed any real threat but still not a good idea.)
I was wondering about that too. Did he actually do that or was the prosecution just there to make up the numbers?
Jacob Samuel Winkler, 33 years old, is clearly not the terrorist mastermind Jeanine Pirro wanted him to be. He was shirtless in Washington DC, shouting loudly to himself, apparently homeless. When a uniformed Secret Service officer pointed a flashlight at him, he retaliated by pointing a cat toy he had found in the direction of the officer. The Marine One helicopter was flying nearby, with President Trump aboard, so Winkler was charged with pointing a laser at an aircraft.
"...citizens who take it upon themselves to do unusual actions which attract the attention of the police should be careful to bring these actions into one of the recognized categories of crimes and offences, for it is intolerable that the police should be put to the pains of inventing reasons for finding them undesirable." - Light LCJ in R v Haddock, (1935) Herbert's Uncommon Law 24
While on the one hand there is a special hell set aside for jackasses who point lasers at aircraft, on the other hand for ◊◊◊◊'s sake.
Well I suspect that before they vote they have a few things to do... select a foreperson, review the facts, etc.
You'd be surprised how long it takes for everyone to get a coffee, nip to the loo and so on.
As a former pilot, I agree with the laser part. However, I also think there's a special hell for prosecutors who bring charges frivolously or maliciously.
Blanche has already tweeted that anyone appointed by the courts will be fired instantly. What a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊.
According to electoral-vote.com:
I do not doubt the Trump administration's expressed intent to ignore 28 U.S. Code § 546(d), but courts in the Eastern District of Virginia have already shown enough backbone to suggest they would ignore unlawful attempts to fire a US attorney they appoint under the law. The dispute would then percolate up to the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Court. A decision by the appeals court could be appealed to the US Supreme Court, where Chief Justice John Roberts would have first crack at deciding how to handle it.