RCU Forums

RCU Forums (http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/)
-   AMA Discussions (http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/ama-discussions-74/)
-   -   FAA fine against drone photographer dismissed. (http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/ama-discussions-74/11595811-faa-fine-against-drone-photographer-dismissed.html)

mongo 06-11-2014 08:03 AM

the real story here, is, the guy was totally owned and whipped by a beach mom.
he sure has a lot to be proud of.

joebahl 06-11-2014 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mongo (Post 11821743)
the real story here, is, the guy was totally owned and whipped by a beach mom.
he sure has a lot to be proud of.

Ha Ha your correct on that but i wish she would have shoved his girl watching toy up somewhere else on him. Do these guys realy need to be flying over people at the beech ,if so lets take our rc planes down there and fly away ! lol This is going to be stopped soon and not soon enough for me. joe

JohnShe 06-11-2014 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ira d (Post 11821721)
What is wrong with people these days? If she didn't like him taking pictures move to another part of the beach. As for me I could care less if I was at a beach
and someone was flying a rc as long as it was not directly over me and if someone was and I asked them to stop and they didn't I would either move or call
the police.

Right, she called the cops. Her mistake was her impatience. She couldn't wait. As for the drone operator. It sounds like a clear case of "stand your ground". He should be a bullet riddled corpse.

ira d 06-11-2014 09:07 AM

He may have been flying in a reckless manner we don't know, But her trying to stop him was totally wrong and she should have been arrested.

ira d 06-11-2014 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnShe (Post 11821799)
Right, she called the cops. Her mistake was her impatience. She couldn't wait. As for the drone operator. It sounds like a clear case of "stand your ground". He should be a bullet riddled corpse.

And she would be going to the gas chamber.

JohnShe 06-11-2014 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ira d (Post 11821804)
And she would be going to the gas chamber.

Not in a "stand your ground" state. Shooting someone for any reason is perfectly legal. It has stood the test of the courts.

bradpaul 06-11-2014 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnShe (Post 11821828)
Not in a "stand your ground" state. Shooting someone for any reason is perfectly legal. It has stood the test of the courts.

Actually if that had happened in Florida and the pilot felt that he was:

(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

It would be the fat A** beach whale that would be in danger of taking a dirt nap. Having the assault on video would make it a slam dunk.....................

ira d 06-11-2014 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnShe (Post 11821828)
Not in a "stand your ground" state. Shooting someone for any reason is perfectly legal. It has stood the test of the courts.

Sadly some may think so but it's not the truth. The lady would not have had a legal ground to stand on because she approached him first and he did not fight her.

bradpaul 06-11-2014 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mongo (Post 11821743)
the real story here, is, the guy was totally owned and whipped by a beach mom.
he sure has a lot to be proud of.

So in TEXAS it is OK for a man to punch a "woman".......... Yeah that would be something to be proud of.

JohnShe 06-11-2014 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bradpaul (Post 11821846)
So in TEXAS it is OK for a man to punch a "woman".......... Yeah that would be something to be proud of.

Whatever... The guy was a jerk and she overreacted and paid the penalty. While he got away with being a jerk. Go figure?

ira d 06-11-2014 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnShe (Post 11821876)
Whatever... The guy was a jerk and she overreacted and paid the penalty. While he got away with being a jerk. Go figure?

Maybe I missed something but I did not see anything that would say the guy was a jerk. How come he could not have just been minding his own business when
she attacked him.

NorfolkSouthern 06-11-2014 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnShe (Post 11821799)
Right, she called the cops. Her mistake was her impatience. She couldn't wait. As for the drone operator. It sounds like a clear case of "stand your ground". He should be a bullet riddled corpse.

You would advocate shooting the photographer dead, just for taking some videos at a place that's open to the public? A totally, completely unarmed photographer, who was only enjoying a hobby, with no compensation received or expected? Wouldn't it have been better for her to just call the law, leaving it in their hands thereafter? I would think the latter makes a bit more sense.

JohnShe 06-11-2014 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NorfolkSouthern (Post 11822020)
You would advocate shooting the photographer dead, just for taking some videos at a place that's open to the public? A totally, completely unarmed photographer, who was only enjoying a hobby, with no compensation received or expected? Wouldn't it have been better for her to just call the law, leaving it in their hands thereafter? I would think the latter makes a bit more sense.

Isn't that what "stand your ground" permits?

JohnShe 06-11-2014 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ira d (Post 11821979)
Maybe I missed something but I did not see anything that would say the guy was a jerk. How come he could not have just been minding his own business when
she attacked him.

Go back and read the story, he behaved like a jerk. No one ever has tacit permission to phatograph another person unawares. That is a violation of privacy.

ira d 06-11-2014 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnShe (Post 11822170)
Go back and read the story, he behaved like a jerk. No one ever has tacit permission to phatograph another person unawares. That is a violation of privacy.

You mean the story crazed woman attacked man on the beach. Ha Ha give me a break, The story gives no detail as to what was being photographed or if in fact he was
photographing anything. In any case people are photographed all the time just watch the news and it's not illegal in most cases.

ira d 06-11-2014 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnShe (Post 11822164)
Isn't that what "stand your ground" permits?

No it does not, You should read up on the various stand your ground laws. You can't shoot someone just because they are doing something you don't like or even something illegal in most cases.

Jim Branaum 06-12-2014 07:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnShe (Post 11822170)
Go back and read the story, he behaved like a jerk. No one ever has tacit permission to phatograph another person unawares. That is a violation of privacy.


Ummm..not right under most circumstances. Right if it is an individual being photographed, but not if it the crowds (as are seen on the beach). If she did not want to be photographed, she COULD/and SHOULD have asked him not to take pictures of her and then called the law. As soon as she touched his equipment, she was in violation of common decency and getting physical elevated it into a criminal assault charge that will stick. The video insures that. Most LEO's tend to take a dim view of males that strike females, so I do understand his unwillingness to reply in kind, even though it does make him look like a wimp.

I hope he has the intestinal fortitude to file a civil suit along with pressing the criminal charges.

Some women...

littlecrankshaf 06-12-2014 07:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Branaum (Post 11822419)
Ummm..not right under most circumstances. Right if it is an individual being photographed, but not if it the crowds (as are seen on the beach). If she did not want to be photographed, she COULD/and SHOULD have asked him not to take pictures of her and then called the law. As soon as she touched his equipment, she was in violation of common decency and getting physical elevated it into a criminal assault charge that will stick. The video insures that. Most LEO's tend to take a dim view of males that strike females, so I do understand his unwillingness to reply in kind, even though it does make him look like a wimp.

I hope he has the intestinal fortitude to file a civil suit along with pressing the criminal charges.

Some women...

I think she should be prosecuted for even trying to touch his junk... I guess JohnShe doesn't have any worry about that tho...:confused:

bradpaul 06-12-2014 07:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Branaum (Post 11822419)
Ummm..not right under most circumstances. Right if it is an individual being photographed, but not if it the crowds (as are seen on the beach). If she did not want to be photographed, she COULD/and SHOULD have asked him not to take pictures of her and then called the law. As soon as she touched his equipment, she was in violation of common decency and getting physical elevated it into a criminal assault charge that will stick. The video insures that. Most LEO's tend to take a dim view of males that strike females, so I do understand his unwillingness to reply in kind, even though it does make him look like a wimp.

I hope he has the intestinal fortitude to file a civil suit along with pressing the criminal charges.

Some women...

Just to be precise:

You can photograph anyone and anything you see in public where people have no expectations of privacy. Images taken this way belong to you. What you can do with these photos is quite restricted because the image in the photo belongs to someone else. Because of this you cannot use such images for most commercial purposes, including licensing such images, selling prints of it or making advertisement from them. You can use these images for editorial use.

And of course there may be certain "public sites" where photography is restricted by law, military bases, public restrooms, etc. so be aware of local laws. But with all of that said, it is just good manners to ask permission of an individual before taking their picture.




littlecrankshaf 06-12-2014 08:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bradpaul (Post 11822434)
Just to be precise:

You can photograph anyone and anything you see in public where people have no expectations of privacy. Images taken this way belong to you. What you can do with these photos is quite restricted because the image in the photo belongs to someone else. Because of this you cannot use such images for most commercial purposes, including licensing such images, selling prints of it or making advertisement from them. You can use these images for editorial use.

And of course there may be certain "public sites" where photography is restricted by law, military bases, public restrooms, etc. so be aware of local laws. But with all of that said, it is just good manners to ask permission of an individual before taking their picture.




What??? Sanity in this thread!!! You got to be kidding us...

Sport_Pilot 06-12-2014 07:38 PM

Quote:

No one ever has tacit permission to phatograph another person unawares.
That is totally incorrect. Unless he sells the video it is completely legal. In fact that was the point of the site that hosted the video.

Sport_Pilot 06-12-2014 07:43 PM

Quote:

People have already used "stand your ground" to commit murder and gotten away with it
No matter how you feel about it, it is not murder when it is legal. Murder is an illegal killing. So if self defense under "stand your ground" it is a legal homicide, not murder.

But I understand your need for hyperbole since you never have any facts to back up your claims.

RCKen 06-13-2014 07:56 AM

Ok guys, talks of Stand your ground and riddling corpse with bullets is really getting the conversation out of control. Let's reign in it a big and get back to a modicum of sanity.

Ken

littlecrankshaf 06-13-2014 08:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnShe (Post 11821799)
Right, she called the cops. Her mistake was her impatience. She couldn't wait. As for the drone operator. It sounds like a clear case of "stand your ground". He should be a bullet riddled corpse.

Interesting to say the least!

JohnShe 06-13-2014 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by littlecrankshaf (Post 11823061)
Interesting to say the least!

Ha, Ha! You have misunderstood my snide sarcasm.

I still think that what he did was wrong. keeping the video for his own use is a perversion. Posting it on a public forum is a violation of her privacy and a perversion.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:56 PM.