I feel the same about cars as I do about drones in that they are very dangerous.<p>The car industry had a history of blaming the victim as a "jay-walker" and even lobbying for laws against them.<p>In another universe we have a name for somebody that gets in the way of a drone, and the victim is punished for not wearing a helmet.
"A man who was found guilty of reckless endangerment after his drone injured two people during Seattle’s 2015 Pride Parade, including a woman knocked unconscious, was sentenced Friday to 30 days in jail."<p>He knocked a woman unconscious!! 30 days in jail seems a little bit off to me but he could've injured someone badly...
I assume it's easier to think this kind of sentence is okay when you don't own a drone nor want to own one; it's why taxing cigarettes is the go-to funding tool for increases in education spending. I don't smoke, so who cares? So, I'm assuming this is why the judge and attorney were so aggressive with the sentencing, but 30 days in jail is beyond the realm of reasonableness. I'm all for having the defendant pay restitution, but jail does no one any amount of good.
This case seems similar to me to, for example, a flower pot falling off a balcony [1]. Does anyone know what the sentence would be for something like that?<p>[1]: <a href="http://www.standard.co.uk/news/woman-fights-for-life-after-paddington-pub-flower-pot-falls-on-her-head-6525094.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.standard.co.uk/news/woman-fights-for-life-after-p...</a>
Why is it relevant that it happened on a Pride Parade, as the headline suggest? "Pilot of drone that struck woman at parade gets 30 days in jail" is perfectly fine.<p>Now the current headline suggests it could have been a hate crime (it's not), or that a pride parade is something particular (it's not).<p>It's like "Black man robs woman" instead of "Man robs woman": a little bit too specific and suggestive.