[Athens]

This is just brutal, a story just played on the news about a man arrested and sentenced to 90 days in a federal prison for shining a spot light on a helicopter flying low over his own property on the border while in his back yard. Residents on the US side of the US Canada border are having border personal totally ignoring there property rights and are getting annoyed.

Lynden man sentenced for spotlight on border protection helicopter | KING5.com Seattle

I think this is just insane that a honest hard working person can go to jail for just being in his back yard with a hand held spot light.

http://www.king5.com/news/local/Bord...124099849.html

[OldManMac]

Welcome to Amerika. It's rapidly becoming a fascist state. Check into some of the stories about ordinary civilians recording police while doing things the police shouldn't be; the citizens are the ones going to jail.

[lpkmckenna]

This does seem to be an over-reaction. 60 days in jail, 90 days home detention, 120 hrs community service, and a $5000 fine? Way, way over-reaction.

Is it normal to own a spotlight that's effective for 600 ft?

And why were the cops hovering over his backyard and spying with night vision goggles? I'd like to know that.

[subego]

@Athens

Sorry.

Go on the highway at night and start pegging cars with a spotlight, see how that works for you.

You shine a spotlight on a helicopter at night for five minutes, you get what you have coming. He could have very easily precipitated a major disaster, including multiple deaths.

[lpkmckenna]

It seems the cops are only pissed because the pilot was wearing nightvision goggles. But I find it the comparison to blinding drivers to be non-analogous, since the helicopter isn't gonna crash into another helicopter or run off the road.

If there were people rooting in my backyard, I'd go back there with a flashlight. If it was cops with nightvision goggles, I don't think the courts would have a case for harm.

Frankly, using nightvision and helicopters over private property without a warrant seems like cops too lazy to get a proper warrant for a search and used this as an end-run around the system.

The cops are probably pissed they have nothing else to prosecute this guy for (they probably suspected the homeowner of drug- or people-smuggling), so this is prosecution is sour-grapes/revenge.

[Waragainstsleep]

This was in America, why didn't he just start shooting at them? That probably would have been fine right?

[subego]

@lpkmckenna

C'mon dude. That analogy don't hunt.

Guy in your backyard vs. guy flying a frigging Blackhawk.

[lpkmckenna]

How does the owner know it's a Blackhawk, or even a police helicopter? Even with illumination, I doubt he could read the markings. I'm in the army, and I wouldn't know a Blackhawk from a crop duster at 600 ft at night.

[SSharon]

Now everyone on the border will just litter their property with LEDs to prevent easy surveillance with night vision goggles.

And where does his property extend to on the Z axis? Planes fly over us all the time, but that doesn't give us a right to shine bright lights at them.

[subego]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

How does the owner know it's a Blackhawk, or even a police helicopter? Even with illumination, I doubt he could read the markings. I'm in the army, and I wouldn't know a Blackhawk from a crop duster at 600 ft at night.

C'mon dude v2.

If it stays over your property without circling, it's a helicopter.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by subego 

C'mon dude v2.

If it stays over your property without circling, it's a helicopter.

Of course it's a helicopter, silly. My point was, there's no way to tell what kind of helicopter or whether it's a police copter at 600ft during the night.

Aircraft don't require permission to fly over private property, but this wasn't a flyover, as it seems to be deliberate surveillance, which would certainly be illegal for a private citizen.

[subego]

And just to reiterate the main point:

Shining a spotlight on a person ≠ shining a spotlight on the operator of a vehicle.

[subego]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Of course it's a helicopter, silly. My point was, there's no way to tell what kind of helicopter or whether it's a police copter at 600ft during the night.

My apologies. I misunderstood your point.

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Aircraft don't require permission to fly over private property, but this wasn't a flyover, as it seems to be deliberate surveillance, which would certainly be illegal for a private citizen.

The fact someone is committing a crime doesn't automatically let you commit a crime back at them.

[lpkmckenna]

But my point was: the cops appear to be pissed because the pilot was using nightvision, which is why he was temporarily blinded. There's no reason to blame the homeowner for a fact he couldn't know. Pilots don't use nightvision to fly at night, they use it for surveillance.

[subego]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

But my point was: the cops appear to be pissed because the pilot was using nightvision, which is why he was temporarily blinded. There's no reason to blame the homeowner for a fact he couldn't know. Pilots don't use nightvision to fly at night, they use it for surveillance.

What is your evidence they wouldn't be equally pissed if the pilot hadn't been using night-vision gear?

Edit: As I said earlier, go shine a spotlight at cars on the highway at night and see what happens. They aren't wearing night-vision gear either.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by subego 

The fact someone is committing a crime doesn't automatically let you commit a crime back at them.

I don't know that using a spotlight on a helicopter is a crime, but even if it is, that doesn't warrant the excessive penalty here.

[subego]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

I don't know that using a spotlight on a helicopter is a crime, but even if it is, that doesn't warrant the excessive penalty here.

I'm pretty sure blinding vehicle operators is a crime.

I think it's possible the penalty is excessive. The one thing which gives me pause is the length of time the spotlight was used.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by subego 

What is your evidence they wouldn't be equally pissed if the pilot hadn't been using night-vision gear?

It was mentioned in the news story, so it was certainly brought up in court (unless the police are telling tales to the press out of court, which seems unlikely here).

If you were driving a car with nightvision goggles and were blinded by a light and crashed, you'd be at fault. And an idiot.

Frankly, a pilot using nightvision seems pointlessly dangerous. The pilot should fly, and another cop should surveil.

[subego]

One more point:

The cops didn't sentence this guy, either a judge or a jury did. Which means either:

1) These people are massive ****ups
2) The system is hopelessly broken
3) They know more about what happened than we do

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by subego 

2) The system is hopelessly broken

This one.

[subego]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

It was mentioned in the news story, so it was certainly brought up in court (unless the police are telling tales to the press out of court, which seems unlikely here).

This is a fallacious assumption. Just because the NVG is relevant here does not prove the lack of it would be relevant had that been the situation.

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Frankly, a pilot using nightvision seems pointlessly dangerous. The pilot should fly, and another cop should surveil.

Doesn't work that way. The person on surveillance can't be looking out for navigation hazards (trees, wires, etc.).

[subego]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

This one.

Three fits Occam's Razor better, so you need some significant evidence to show two is more valid.

A couple paragraphs from a newspaper article won't cut it.


Edit: further, what evidence the article provides is completely consistent with three.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by subego 

Doesn't work that way. The person on surveillance can't be looking out for navigation hazards (trees, wires, etc.).

Look out for that 600ft tall tree!

[subego]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Look out for that 600ft tall tree!

Now you're being silly.

If a helicopter is directly overhead, you can't peg the pilot.

Likewise, just because the range is 600' for this particular incident you can't make the assumption the helicopter never goes closer than that.

[subego]

DP. Sorry.

[subego]

Can anyone give a justification to five minutes? I'm having trouble justifying even one.

Maybe I'm weird, but if a helicopter is ****ing with me, I go inside.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

How does the owner know it's a Blackhawk, or even a police helicopter? Even with illumination, I doubt he could read the markings. I'm in the army, and I wouldn't know a Blackhawk from a crop duster at 600 ft at night.

Exactly and drug runners have used helicopters in the past flying low to get product over the border. For all he knew it was a drug runner not the border patrol.

The reason the border patrol is using helicopters is because of the resistance they get trying to enter properties on land. Residence have posted signs to tell them to stay off, added chains and so forth.

And it does not take a very powerful light to blind night vision. A typical powerful flashlight aimed at the right spot can do it too.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by subego 

What is your evidence they wouldn't be equally pissed if the pilot hadn't been using night-vision gear?

Edit: As I said earlier, go shine a spotlight at cars on the highway at night and see what happens. They aren't wearing night-vision gear either.

The only way your analogy works is if your shining a spot light on a car driving through your property like up a long drive way. He didn't go to a airport to shine a light at a helicopter. He was standing in his backyard shining it from on his property. At least be a little more honest with a flawed analogy.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by subego 

Can anyone give a justification to five minutes? I'm having trouble justifying even one.

Maybe I'm weird, but if a helicopter is ****ing with me, I go inside.

Ya, trying to identify, maybe protection from being shoot by blinding if it was a drug runner. A message F-OFF my family is trying to sleep. And im sure 5 minutes is a gross exaggeration as well because what pilot would sit there for 5 minutes being blinded. Perhaps he shined the light at the helicopter for 5 minutes but I doubt the pilot was blinded for more then a few seconds and just couldn't look at the direction of the light for 5 minutes.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Athens 

The only way your analogy works is if your shining a spot light on a car driving through your property like up a long drive way. He didn't go to a airport to shine a light at a helicopter. He was standing in his backyard shining it from on his property. At least be a little more honest with a flawed analogy.

You should be sure you understand my point before you go flinging accusations of dishonesty.

Said point being the irrelevance of the vehicle operator wearing night-vision gear.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Ya, trying to identify, maybe protection from being shoot by blinding if it was a drug runner. A message F-OFF my family is trying to sleep. And im sure 5 minutes is a gross exaggeration as well because what pilot would sit there for 5 minutes being blinded. Perhaps he shined the light at the helicopter for 5 minutes but I doubt the pilot was blinded for more then a few seconds and just couldn't look at the direction of the light for 5 minutes.

You protect yourself from being shot by taking cover (the whole "go inside" thing). You don't try and blind someone who hasn't even presented a weapon.

As for the five minutes, a gross exaggeration from whom?

The newspaper? Okay, fine. Where else are they grossly exaggerating?

The cops? Okay, fine. How exactly do you think they proved this gross exaggeration to a jury or judge beyond a reasonable doubt?


My assumption (and I fully admit this is an assumption) is a surveillance helicopter just might have been recording the incident.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by subego 

You protect yourself from being shot by taking cover The whole "go inside" thing. You don't try and blind someone who hasn't even presented a weapon.

As for the five minutes, a gross exaggeration from whom?

The newspaper? Okay, fine. Where else are they grossly exaggerating?

The cops? Okay, fine. How exactly do you think they proved this gross exaggeration to a jury or judge beyond a reasonable doubt?


My assumption (and I fully admit this is an assumption) is a surveillance helicopter just might have been recording the incident.

Im not disagreeing that he had a light on the helicopter for 5 minutes. Im disagreeing that the pilot was blinded for 5 minutes. At best he was blinded for a few seconds. Unless the pilot was stupid and just looked into the light for a entire 5 minutes and decided hum perhaps I should stop looking at the light so I can start seeing again. And the cops would have been taking the statement from the pilots to how long it was. The cops didn't see it first hand either. Now what would be accurate to say is the border agents where screened from observing the property for 5 minutes due to the light, thats not really blinded. They could still see in any other direction except for the light. Could just be lazy reporting. And yes this is a assumption because I was not there. But its a safe assumption a pilot would not continue to look into a light for 5 minutes being blind all that time.

[subego]

Since we're talking about honest analogies, I think it should be reiterated that flying over someone's property is not the same as being there on the ground. Not legally. Not practically.

[besson3c]

This story reminds me of some of the airport security stories that have been released along the lines of forcing old people to remove their adult diapers, soaking cancer victims in their own urine, etc.

To what end can we overreach before the powers that be are no longer able to do so, is my question?

[Athens]

Originally Posted by subego 

Since we're talking about honest analogies, I think it should be reiterated that flying over someone's property is not the same as being there on the ground. Not legally. Not practically.

Flying over implies a very short duration. Hovering over is a different ball park. I wonder what the reaction would have been if some one with the same light had been standing on the other side of mile zero shining the light at the helicopter. Oh they prob would have flown away since they couldn't actually do a dam thing about it.


At best the guy deserved a $100 fine and a warning. A second offence would demand what he got.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Im not disagreeing that he had a light on the helicopter for 5 minutes. Im disagreeing that the pilot was blinded for 5 minutes. At best he was blinded for a few seconds. Unless the pilot was stupid and just looked into the light for a entire 5 minutes and decided hum perhaps I should stop looking at the light so I can start seeing again. And the cops would have been taking the statement from the pilots to how long it was. The cops didn't see it first hand either. Now what would be accurate to say is the border agents where screened from observing the property for 5 minutes due to the light, thats not really blinded. They could still see in any other direction except for the light. Could just be lazy reporting. And yes this is a assumption because I was no there. But its a safe assumption a pilot would not continue to look into a light for 5 minutes being blind all that time.

What's relevant here is the person's intent.

Considering the sentence, it appears as if the prosecution was able to prove significant negative intent.

I don't really trust the cops, and I sure as hell don't trust prosecutors, but I trust juries enough to get more information before I make sweeping generalizations.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Flying over implies a very short duration. Hovering over is a different ball park.

I don't disagree, however, my statement still stands.

Originally Posted by Athens 

At best the guy deserved a $100 fine and a warning. A second offence would demand what he got.

That's certainly possible.

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

This story reminds me of some of the airport security stories that have been released along the lines of forcing old people to remove their adult diapers, soaking cancer victims in their own urine, etc.

To what end can we overreach before the powers that be are no longer able to do so, is my question?

I'm having trouble parsing your question.

[Athens]

I want to know what the charge itself was, Attempted irritation? disorderly illumination?

[subego]

Reckless endangerment I would presume.

[Athens]

Ok the Vancouver Paper does a much better article in telling the story...

Man who shone torch at U.S. border chopper gets 60 days' jail

Groen’s actions in Sept. 2010, had blinded the pilot of the helicopter, who was wearing night goggles, forcing him to veer into Canadian airspace near Abbotsford’s airport.

He was convicted of temporarily incapacitating the pilot in the authorized operation of his aircraft.

At Thursday’s sentencing in U.S. District Court in Seattle, Judge Thomas S. Zilly described Groen’s actions as “stupid.”

“We’re all lucky that you are standing here convicted of a charge, and that the helicopter did not crash,” said Zilly.

Sounds like the Judge was harsh because of the stupidity of what happened. Def does not sound like the light was on the pilots for 5 minutes though.


I should post a photo of what the border looks like up here. Road on the left is the USofA, Road on the right is Canada

[subego]

The only person who claimed it was on the pilot for five minutes is you.

[Athens]

Border Patrol Infringement of Wayne Groen’s Civil Rights Lead to Groen’s Conviction � Greg Boos' US Immigration Law Blog

I like this article a lot

A recent incident involving a Lynden, WA, resident highlights the dilemma caused by these conflicting policies. Wayne Groen was indicted in January on one count of interfering with an aircraft’s operation and one count of incapacitating a person operating an aircraft. The charges carry penalties of up to 40 years in prison.

The incident occurred when a U.S. Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) Blackhawk helicopter allegedly flew close to Groen’s home during a night mission causing his entire house to shake. Groen reacted by shining a high-powered flashlight at the cockpit, temporarily blinding the pilot who was wearing night vision goggles at the time. Agents on the ground arrested Groen shortly thereafter. Groen was convicted on the second count and faces up to 20 years in prison.

Many residents along the Northern border are angered by the arrest and consider CBP’s incursions as an infringement on their private property rights.
Neighboring property owners are reporting similar low flying night missions. These missions cause trouble with their dairy operations, and infringe upon the quiet use of their property. Some have even begun to chain and lock their gates to keep border agents from speeding across their property and conducting what they feel is unwarranted surveillance. They argue that DHS is treating the northern border like the southern border and that DHS is harassing local residents as a result.

The anger caused by Groen’s conviction is now being directed at the agencies, and concerned citizens have begun to question border tactics and results. One resident asked how many terrorists had been apprehended in relation to the number of flight hours logged; a CBP representative stated that in the 2500 flight hours logged last year, zero suspects had been apprehended. Yet Wayne Groen, a law abiding citizen and longtime resident of Lynden, faces up to 20 years in prison because an unlit Blackhawk helicopter flew so close to his home that his belongings were thrown from their shelves. .

And your comment about the 5 minutes, silly rabbit tricks are for kids

Originally Posted by subego 

@Athens

Sorry.

Go on the highway at night and start pegging cars with a spotlight, see how that works for you.

You shine a spotlight on a helicopter at night for five minutes, you get what you have coming. He could have very easily precipitated a major disaster, including multiple deaths.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by news story

He was convicted of temporarily incapacitating the pilot in the authorized operation of his aircraft.

In other words, if he wasn't wearing NVGs, there'd be no prosecution. This was malicious prosecution.

[subego]

@Athens

Whether it's a waste of resources is a totally different argument. You're talking to someone who believes in open immigration for non-criminals.

[subego]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

In other words, if he wasn't wearing NVGs, there'd be no prosecution. This was malicious prosecution.

As I said above, this is a fallacious assumption. You don't need to be wearing NVG to be blinded by a spotlight.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

It's rapidly becoming a fascist state.

Rapidly. I hate to agree, but it sure looks like we're giving up more and more freedoms every year, with no end in sight.

Example: Take a commercial flight.

Example: Digital broadcast TV.

Example: Take a look at the light bulb aisle these days.

Example: Try to buy a health insurance policy for a child.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Athens 

And your comment about the 5 minutes, silly rabbit tricks are for kids

Oh FFS.

Do I really need to explain the difference between a helicopter and a helicopter pilot?

Really?

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by subego 

I don't really trust the cops, and I sure as hell don't trust prosecutors, but I trust juries enough to get more information before I make sweeping generalizations.

Are you kidding? Juries are sheep. They do whatever the judge tells them, even when it lacks common sense. When the judge tells them "you cannot judge the law, you must judge the defendant," they obey, even when the law is clearly inadequate for the circumstance to which it is being applied.

[Athens]

According to comments of people in that community that saw it and went to the trials, the border patrol lied about how low they flew. People claimed 150 feet, while they said it was never below 600 feet. Now I know for a fact they fly lower then 600 feet, I have seen it with my own eyes. So it already sounds like it was not a fair trial anyways.