Nor do I believe the police response.
Just reported it as well, maybe if they get more reports they will act fasterComment on Youtube to an interview with David Keith:
I reported the comment a few days ago, but nothing happened, it's still there.
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday made it harder to prosecute people for threats made on Facebook and other social media, reversing the conviction of a Pennsylvania man who directed brutally violent language against his estranged wife.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for the majority, said prosecutors must do more than prove that reasonable people would view statements as threats. The defendant’s state of mind matters, the chief justice wrote, though he declined to say just where the legal line is drawn.
Chief Justice Roberts wrote for seven justices, grounding his opinion in criminal-law principles concerning intent rather than the First Amendment’s protection of free speech. The majority opinion was modest, even cryptic.
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. voted with the majority, though he said a defendant’s recklessness in making threatening statements should suffice to require a conviction. The majority opinion took no position on that possibility.
“Attorneys and judges are left to guess,” Justice Alito wrote.
or
Offences Against the Person Act 1861
s16. Threats to kill.
A person who without lawful excuse makes to another a threat, intending that that other would fear it would be carried out, to kill that other or a third person shall be guilty of an offence and liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.
s1. Malicious Communications Act 1988
Offence of sending letters etc. with intent to cause distress or anxiety.
(1)Any person who sends to another person -
(a) a letter, electronic communication or article of any description] which conveys—
(i)a message which is indecent or grossly offensive;
(ii)a threat; or
(iii)information which is false and known or believed to be false by the sender; or
(b) Any article or electronic communication which is, in whole or part, of an indecent or grossly offensive nature,
is guilty of an offence if his purpose, or one of his purposes, in sending it is that it should, so far as falling within paragraph (a) or (b) above, cause distress or anxiety to the recipient or to any other person to whom he intends that it or its contents or nature should be communicated
“(1) A person who intentionally or recklessly, and knowing its contents, sends or delivers, or directly or indirectly causes to be received, any document threatening to kill or inflict bodily harm on any person is liable to imprisonment for 10 years.
(2) It is immaterial for the purposes of an offence under this section whether or not a document sent or delivered is actually received, and whether or not the threat contained in a document sent, delivered or received is actually communicated to the person concerned or to the recipient or intended recipient of the document (as relevant in the circumstances).”
(CNN)Thirty-four commercial flights reported lasers pointed at them Wednesday night as they flew over New Jersey -- the latest in a growing number of such dangerous incidents plaguing U.S. skies......
About half of the incidents reported by the FAA were close to Newark Liberty International Airport, while the others occurred elsewhere in New Jersey -- from Robbinsville, near the Pennsylvania border, to Ocean City, along the Atlantic Ocean in the southeast corner of the state.
Three American Airlines planes were among those affected, as were two from JetBlue and one each from United, Delta and Republic.
Five planes informed air traffic controllers in the Newark Liberty tower "that lasers were being pointed at them" between 10 and 11 p.m. Wednesday, according to Ron Marisco, a spokesman for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which runs the Newark airport as well as Kennedy and LaGuardia airports in New York.
"The incidents are under investigation," Marisco said.
So-called laser attacks aren't unprecedented, but they are on the rise, as handheld lasers become more common and affordable. There were 3,894 such strikes reported in 2014, the FAA says. For comparison's sake, there were only 283 in 2005.
That works out to about 10.5 incidents a day. But that's nationwide, so the 11 reported attacks over New Jersey alone in one night do seem to stand out.
More at this link.
I read that as "Boom, there it [i.e. the proof] is", not any kind of threat.
Exactly. I would hate to see how badly this game's review page will get trolled, but it would be worth it.
That's right, folks, police helicopters have police in them, can hover over your house and watch where you go. Obviously had too many drinks at the Mensa meeting he was participating in, or got bored in between planning launch trajectories, removing brain tumours or whatever his job entails...
An Adelaide father of three who repeatedly shone a laser pointer at a police helicopter has avoided jail, despite a judge describing the man's actions as "drunken, dumb and dangerous".
....
Judge Paul Rice said the pilot, formerly with the Defence Force, was using night vision goggles and was forced to shield his eyes and look away.
"In the worst of circumstances the helicopter could have crashed on the home where your wife and children live," he said.
"The night vision goggles magnify the light by up to 4,000 times.
....
"For 48 hours after these events [the pilot] had minor discomfort and sensitivity to light."
....
Police officers on board the helicopter sent patrols on the ground to arrest Stewart.
He pleaded guilty to prejudicing the safe operation of an aircraft and using a prohibited weapon.
His sentence of two years and four months was suspended, in favour of a $500, two-year good behaviour bond.
The court heard Stewart previously had no convictions.
"This is the first trouble you've ever been into and I hope it's the last," Judge Rice said.
Judge Rice said the same leniency would not be shown if Stewart committed another crime.
But they could "get them on the ground".
I know Mick, which is why I steered the thread to the other forum last time.
