No, not without some look-up of rules that might apply in the situation, and that is why I asked. I certainly agree that the operations were reckless and put people and property in danger, and there should be some consequence for the perp's actions. LEO needs needs to have the answer(s) in order to make charges. They are apparently confused. The spokesman for the fire boss in a broadcast TV interview re this incident said the model airplanes were limited by law to operate within 400 ft of the surface. FAA has made no such law, though they have made it clear for decades that is what they feel is needed in the interest of avoiding conflict between models and manned aircraft, but per AMA lobbying Congress ruled to constrain FAA from regulating model aircraft, buying into AMA's argument that they (as CBO) could do the regulating. FAA doesn't have much to work with here; there seems to be a lack of objective standards in the regulation of model aircraft, but all they have is subjective rules ala 'reckless endangerment.' Charges of violating subjective rules nearly always end up being argued in a court, as they always open to interpretation. Seems to me rather chaotic for law enforcement to deal with, as in charging everyone that commits a driving infraction (speeding, running stop light,etc.) with generic "reckless endangerment" of the public. That should make traffic courts the biggest business in the country.
I am sorry, but your statement than FAA can <regulate MA> and forget Congress won't fly. Congress holds the purse, and so the power over FAA. The action by Congress pandering to AMA's wishes that FAA be reined in was within the context of an FAA funding bill.