this is why...
#1
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (15)
this is why...
the general public has such a low opinion of drone/fpv/mr flyers
https://www.facebook.com/TheRealMike...580754785398:0
all the bad publicity and no real way to counter it.
https://www.facebook.com/TheRealMike...580754785398:0
all the bad publicity and no real way to counter it.
#4
Doubtful , the man who was spied on is a rich celebrity , I'd bet it woulda ended up with Mr. Nosydrone getting busted for taking pornographic pictures of the actor while he was naked in his own property , and being branded a "Level 2 Sex Offender" for the rest of his life .....
#5
It might have gotten him a fine but that's about all. All I can say is Mike has more restraint than I as I would have pulled the freakin' trigger without thinking twice. Even more to the point, when the owner showed up to collect his scrap material, I would have held him there with a reloaded shotgun leveled at his stomach, if not lower, until the police arrived
Last edited by Hydro Junkie; 09-21-2016 at 11:48 AM.
#6
Doubtful , the man who was spied on is a rich celebrity , I'd bet it woulda ended up with Mr. Nosydrone getting busted for taking pornographic pictures of the actor while he was naked in his own property , and being branded a "Level 2 Sex Offender" for the rest of his life .....
#7
Not so fast! The law 18 USC 32 was written in 1984 and it was never interpreted to include model aircraft or drones until the FAA decided that model aircraft and drones are aircraft. The following arguments can be made.
1. The law was not written to include model aircraft or drones.
2. The law was written to protect the people inside the aircraft. So it does not include drones because they do not carry people.
3. The FAA does not have jurisdiction in non navigable airspace over private property per Causby VS US.
There is some recent news about that old Kentucky case that could clarify this.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/whos-sky-...132753742.html
#8
It might have gotten him a fine but that's about all. All I can say is Mike has more restraint than I as I would have pulled the freakin' trigger without thinking twice. Even more to the point, when the owner showed up to collect his scrap material, I would have held him there with a reloaded shotgun leveled at his stomach, if not lower, until the police arrived
#9
Sport , I see it differently , I believe the greater majority of folks would have seen it as one man protecting his privacy at home from what amounts to illegal intrusion on his property . Try this , take a camera with a telephoto lens and take pictures of your neighbors naked in their own homes and then go post them up on the internet , and then see how fast the police bust down your door , and drag you away as a "sex offender" . The drone on his property was an illegal intrusion as it's specific intent was to spy on the actor while in his own home , and if you think there aren't laws against that sort of thing , try what I suggested above , you'll be schooled soon enough on sex predator law . Christ , IN PUBLIC , if you use your cell phone to take a picture that is looking up a woman's dress , your done , It's called "Upskirting" and at least where I live will earn you a spot on the "sex offender registry" , trust me on this as there was just last week a case that went all through the news of just that , complete with the "but it happened in public" defense .... The guy got 6 months in the slam and a "level two" designation on the sex offender registry ......
#10
Sport , I see it differently , I believe the greater majority of folks would have seen it as one man protecting his privacy at home from what amounts to illegal intrusion on his property . Try this , take a camera with a telephoto lens and take pictures of your neighbors naked in their own homes and then go post them up on the internet , and then see how fast the police bust down your door , and drag you away as a "sex offender" . The drone on his property was an illegal intrusion as it's specific intent was to spy on the actor while in his own home , and if you think there aren't laws against that sort of thing , try what I suggested above , you'll be schooled soon enough on sex predator law . Christ , IN PUBLIC , if you use your cell phone to take a picture that is looking up a woman's dress , your done , It's called "Upskirting" and at least where I live will earn you a spot on the "sex offender registry" , trust me on this as there was just last week a case that went all through the news of just that , complete with the "but it happened in public" defense .... The guy got 6 months in the slam and a "level two" designation on the sex offender registry ......
#11
Very true my Friend and an angle I quite honestly hadn't considered in my response . As Tim so rightly said yesterday there is the differing sets of rules for the differing stations of society one occupies , so yea , it would be an interesting case indeed ! Course , if it was just a couple of us "common citizens" on both the flying end and the receiving end of the drone's photographs , unless a public example was needed as in the case of the Upskirting conviction here last week , the dude would be out on a plea bargain by the afternoon , after of course the obligatory $1000 "donation" to the court system . They price justice at usually about $1K for small offenses around here , and the price of justice raises exponentially with the various facts of each case . Lucrative business for sure , this being on the "Right" side of the law is
#12
Doubtful , the man who was spied on is a rich celebrity , I'd bet it woulda ended up with Mr. Nosydrone getting busted for taking pornographic pictures of the actor while he was naked in his own property , and being branded a "Level 2 Sex Offender" for the rest of his life .....
#13
#14
As I said, I'd blow it away. The only thing the "law" might be able to nail me with is discharging a weapon in a residential area or, just maybe, unlawful imprisonment for holding the the "Peeping Tom" at gunpoint until the police showed up
#15
And do you really think the feds would have brought those charges if this rich celebrity had blasted the spying intruder drone on his own property , really ? Sorry RG , I don't . I think since he's a rich celebrity he'd have been let go Scot free and the drone operator would be the one facing charges . This nonsense of a hobbyist's model plane or a hobbyist's drone being a "real aircraft" akin to full scale manned craft as defined by law is perfectly ripe to be shot down by the next hotshot "F Lee Bailey" type lawyer who takes a case of some trespassing unmanned picture taking toy getting blasted outta the sky , and to me it can't happen soon enough so we stop hearing the "toy plane = real aircraft" nonsense the FAA has chosen fit to hide it's latest regulatory power grab under the guise of .
#16
And do you really think the feds would have brought those charges if this rich celebrity had blasted the spying intruder drone on his own property , really ? Sorry RG , I don't . I think since he's a rich celebrity he'd have been let go Scot free and the drone operator would be the one facing charges . This nonsense of a hobbyist's model plane or a hobbyist's drone being a "real aircraft" akin to full scale manned craft as defined by law is perfectly ripe to be shot down by the next hotshot "F Lee Bailey" type lawyer who takes a case of some trespassing unmanned picture taking toy getting blasted outta the sky , and to me it can't happen soon enough so we stop hearing the "toy plane = real aircraft" nonsense the FAA has chosen fit to hide it's latest regulatory power grab under the guise of .
#18
#19
Not so fast! The law 18 USC 32 was written in 1984 and it was never interpreted to include model aircraft or drones until the FAA decided that model aircraft and drones are aircraft. The following arguments can be made.
1. The law was not written to include model aircraft or drones.
2. The law was written to protect the people inside the aircraft. So it does not include drones because they do not carry people.
3. The FAA does not have jurisdiction in non navigable airspace over private property per Causby VS US.
There is some recent news about that old Kentucky case that could clarify this.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/whos-sky-...132753742.html
1. The law was not written to include model aircraft or drones.
2. The law was written to protect the people inside the aircraft. So it does not include drones because they do not carry people.
3. The FAA does not have jurisdiction in non navigable airspace over private property per Causby VS US.
There is some recent news about that old Kentucky case that could clarify this.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/whos-sky-...132753742.html
Here's a link to back that up a little. https://www.justice.gov/usam/crimina...tage-18-usc-32
https://www.justice.gov/usam/crimina...urisdiction-us
What is an unmanned aircraft system (UAS)?
An unmanned aircraft system is an unmanned aircraft and the equipment necessary for the safe and efficient operation of that aircraft. An unmanned aircraft is a component of a UAS. It is defined by statute as an aircraft that is operated without the possibility of direct human intervention from within or on the aircraft (Public Law 112-95, Section 331(8)).
[h=1]1405. Special Aircraft Jurisdiction of the United States[/h]The special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States is a jurisdictional requirement for an aircraft piracy offense proscribed by 49 U.S.C. § 46502(a), as well as for interference with a flight crew member or attendant, in violation of 49 U.S.C. § 46504, the "enclave offenses" criminalized in that jurisdiction by 49 U.S.C. § 46506, and the destruction of aircraft and aircraft facilities offenses of 18 U.S.C. § 32(a). An aircraft is in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States only while the aircraft is "in flight."
Included in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States, while "in flight," are the following:
(a) any civil aircraft of the United States;(b) any aircraft of the United States armed forces;
(c) any other aircraft in the United States;
(d) any other (i.e., foreign) aircraft outside the United States which:
(c) any other aircraft in the United States;
(d) any other (i.e., foreign) aircraft outside the United States which:
Last edited by TimJ; 09-22-2016 at 12:35 PM.
#20
Yes Tim we know what the statute says , for now , but do you really expect the 20" across drone to be taken to be the same thing as a Boeing 767 by the jury that will hear the case once one of these "rich people's privacy being invaded so the drone got shot" trials is actually brought to bear , by like I said earlier an "F Lee Bailey" type of Lawyer ? I expect that the hobbyist drone/model airplane being "aircraft" will be literally shot down VS some rich guy's privacy on his own property rights .
And of course this begs the question , many security firms patrol the grounds of the huge properties of the rich and famous , do you really think if a hired security guard shoots down a sleaze tabloid reporter's flying camera on the property of , say for instance Madonna or one of the Kardashians while it's peeping into one of their windows , are you honestly believing that guard is gonna face charges of shooting down an "aircraft" ?
I don't .
And of course this begs the question , many security firms patrol the grounds of the huge properties of the rich and famous , do you really think if a hired security guard shoots down a sleaze tabloid reporter's flying camera on the property of , say for instance Madonna or one of the Kardashians while it's peeping into one of their windows , are you honestly believing that guard is gonna face charges of shooting down an "aircraft" ?
I don't .
#21
I think that maybe it depends on what connections that tabloid rag reporter has.
Someone without connections, we will never hear about it.
Yes, I agree about waiting on fresher rulings on this. But as far as a jury is concerned people seem too bias against drones that a proper conclusion could be made by a jury.
As things sit, a good lawyer could argue for either side with the currently written regs and rulings and win.
Someone without connections, we will never hear about it.
Yes, I agree about waiting on fresher rulings on this. But as far as a jury is concerned people seem too bias against drones that a proper conclusion could be made by a jury.
As things sit, a good lawyer could argue for either side with the currently written regs and rulings and win.
#22
I think that maybe it depends on what connections that tabloid rag reporter has.
Someone without connections, we will never hear about it.
Yes, I agree about waiting on fresher rulings on this. But as far as a jury is concerned people seem too bias against drones that a proper conclusion could be made by a jury.
As things sit, a good lawyer could argue for either side with the currently written regs and rulings and win.
Someone without connections, we will never hear about it.
Yes, I agree about waiting on fresher rulings on this. But as far as a jury is concerned people seem too bias against drones that a proper conclusion could be made by a jury.
As things sit, a good lawyer could argue for either side with the currently written regs and rulings and win.
Hi Tim , oh yea I do agree that the one with the more money/connections always wins in court , I just can't ever see a situation where a reporter from say , the National Enquirer , would have more cash/clout than the actor whose run in with a spying drone was posted by Mongo in post #1 .
the general public has such a low opinion of drone/fpv/mr flyers
https://www.facebook.com/TheRealMike...580754785398:0
all the bad publicity and no real way to counter it.
https://www.facebook.com/TheRealMike...580754785398:0
all the bad publicity and no real way to counter it.
Last edited by init4fun; 09-22-2016 at 03:27 PM.
#24
Not so fast! The law 18 USC 32 was written in 1984 and it was never interpreted to include model aircraft or drones until the FAA decided that model aircraft and drones are aircraft. The following arguments can be made.
1. The law was not written to include model aircraft or drones.
2. The law was written to protect the people inside the aircraft. So it does not include drones because they do not carry people.
3. The FAA does not have jurisdiction in non navigable airspace over private property per Causby VS US.
There is some recent news about that old Kentucky case that could clarify this.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/whos-sky-...132753742.html
1. The law was not written to include model aircraft or drones.
2. The law was written to protect the people inside the aircraft. So it does not include drones because they do not carry people.
3. The FAA does not have jurisdiction in non navigable airspace over private property per Causby VS US.
There is some recent news about that old Kentucky case that could clarify this.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/whos-sky-...132753742.html
#25
I'm sorry that my computer skills would make a 5th grader laugh , and I have no answer for your question . I did want to comment on what I read in the story in the link you provided though . Did you notice where it was estimated that about a Drone a month is being shot down here in the US ? If that stat is true , I'm truly amazed there has not been more TV news coverage of the fact that drone shooting is becoming as popular a pastime as Skeet shooting is ! A drone a month and my local news has reported on that I know of just one or two drone shoot down stories ? It seems at such a rate as 1 per month this would be a far bigger news story than which Kardashian has broken up with which boyfriend , of which we're treated to almost nightly coverage of ?
Last edited by init4fun; 09-26-2016 at 07:13 AM.