You might be right in a way.. If a laser has 1.5 mrad divergence, the laser dot would be about 10 m^2 in size after 800 feet, and thus reducing a 100mW laser to the point where only 0.0007 mW enters the eye which is about 0.7 mm^2.
However, no one should EVER aim a laser at a plane/heli anyways, there is always a risk..
It's true, the press and the authorities always seem to overstate the disruption/danger in these kinds of cases. The press for the purpose of sensationalizing the story, and pilots and authorities for the sake of emphasizing the safety aspects.
Factoring in the airline cases, unless the person with the laser was actually on the same bearing as the approach runway, and probably standing within the (run-out space?) with the various lights VASI systems etc. (inside the airport secure area/fence) the odds of the beam actually getting into the cockpit are very low.
I'm guessing in most of these cases, the pilots could see the light, and knew it was intentional, but unless it was a monster laser several hundred mW, and very close to airport property and well lined up with their final approach, it realistically probably wasn't the risk it was made out to be.
Helicopters have it worse though, their flight profiles are different, and they often have more windows and larger canopies, many designs with canopies under the nose by the pilot's feet, so they can observe the ground etc.
However, the one time an aircraft actually DOES crash, killing people on board, and on the ground, I won't blame the previous exaggerations in the reporting. I think it's overstated because if you were to "give an inch" and explain power levels, divergence, and the angle of illumination etc. making it "not that bad", then the IDIOTS will "take a mile" and just do it more.
So the no mercy, no exceptions, no quarter given style of both reporting and prosecution is probably the only rational way to handle it.
