Chip
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2017
- Messages
- 1,860
- Reactions
- 2,445
Defendant recently had a bail hearing. The court set the stage:
THE DEFENSE ARGUES NO BAIL SHOULD BE REQUIRED
The defense attorney argued: For the type of case that he's got, with the fact that he doesn't have a criminal history, he has a legal permanent residence, which means that someone has done a background check on him and has deemed him to be a person who is able to reside here in the United States, there's no allegation here that he was doing this on behalf of, like the Chinese government or anything else like that. He was essentially present at Vandenberg when Space X was doing a launch. And, so, this does not seem to be the type of case that would necessitate a concern that he would otherwise flee or not appear. (emphasis added)
THE US ATTORNEY ARGUES NO BAIL DUE TO FLIGHT RISK
The federal prosecutor argued: "in terms of connections to the community, we have no present job, no residence, no family members, no one willing to put up a bond here. there's abundant evidence here and there's also a degree of sophistication. This type of crime is very difficult to detect. It's only in the instance of a drone detection system at Vandenberg that we were able to uncover it. When the Defendant was first approached, he lied about who he thought the pilot of the drone was, and then he further lied about the (indiscernible) issue of the flight...(Zhou said he only flew for 15 minutes but FBI said it was 59 minutes)...All of this is just to say that he has a predisposition in not articulating accurate or truthful (sic) with law enforcement. He also -- there's evidence of premeditation, your Honor. As you saw from the complaint affidavit, he did search through -- about the legality in what he was intending to do, as early as November, and then he still went forward with his plan. All of that is to say that, given the difficulties of addressing and detecting this type of crime and the sophistication involved here, mainly his willingness to hack a drone, we believe that he presents a risk of danger that also cannot be adequately mitigated by a bail package (emphasis added).
Comment: The government is arguing that "willingness to hack a drone," is evidence of criminal sophistication and flight risk.
THE DEFENSE ARGUES NO BAIL SHOULD BE REQUIRED
The defense attorney argued: For the type of case that he's got, with the fact that he doesn't have a criminal history, he has a legal permanent residence, which means that someone has done a background check on him and has deemed him to be a person who is able to reside here in the United States, there's no allegation here that he was doing this on behalf of, like the Chinese government or anything else like that. He was essentially present at Vandenberg when Space X was doing a launch. And, so, this does not seem to be the type of case that would necessitate a concern that he would otherwise flee or not appear. (emphasis added)
THE US ATTORNEY ARGUES NO BAIL DUE TO FLIGHT RISK
The federal prosecutor argued: "in terms of connections to the community, we have no present job, no residence, no family members, no one willing to put up a bond here. there's abundant evidence here and there's also a degree of sophistication. This type of crime is very difficult to detect. It's only in the instance of a drone detection system at Vandenberg that we were able to uncover it. When the Defendant was first approached, he lied about who he thought the pilot of the drone was, and then he further lied about the (indiscernible) issue of the flight...(Zhou said he only flew for 15 minutes but FBI said it was 59 minutes)...All of this is just to say that he has a predisposition in not articulating accurate or truthful (sic) with law enforcement. He also -- there's evidence of premeditation, your Honor. As you saw from the complaint affidavit, he did search through -- about the legality in what he was intending to do, as early as November, and then he still went forward with his plan. All of that is to say that, given the difficulties of addressing and detecting this type of crime and the sophistication involved here, mainly his willingness to hack a drone, we believe that he presents a risk of danger that also cannot be adequately mitigated by a bail package (emphasis added).
Comment: The government is arguing that "willingness to hack a drone," is evidence of criminal sophistication and flight risk.
