Go Back  RCU Forums > RC Airplanes > AMA Discussions
Reload this Page >

this is why...

Notices
AMA Discussions Discuss AMA policies, decisions & any other AMA related topics here.

this is why...

Old 09-20-2016, 11:24 PM
  #1  
mongo
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (14)
 
mongo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Midland, TX
Posts: 3,014
Received 28 Likes on 25 Posts
Default 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.
Old 09-21-2016, 06:49 AM
  #2  
rgburrill
 
rgburrill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Dallas, Tx CT
Posts: 2,581
Received 45 Likes on 43 Posts
Default

Too bad he didn't finish the job.
Old 09-21-2016, 10:22 AM
  #3  
TimJ
 
TimJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Orange County CA
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by rgburrill View Post
Too bad he didn't finish the job.
He would end of in jail or fined. It is a federal crime to shoot at aircraft.
Old 09-21-2016, 11:27 AM
  #4  
init4fun
 
init4fun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 3,919
Received 26 Likes on 21 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by TimJ View Post
He would end of in jail or fined. It is a federal crime to shoot at aircraft.
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 .....
Old 09-21-2016, 11:45 AM
  #5  
Hydro Junkie
 
Hydro Junkie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Marysville, WA
Posts: 9,623
Likes: 0
Received 93 Likes on 90 Posts
Default

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.
Old 09-21-2016, 12:30 PM
  #6  
TimJ
 
TimJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Orange County CA
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by init4fun View Post
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 .....
Oh yeah, I forgot. They live by a different set of rules than us. Nothing to see here, move along. LOL!
Old 09-22-2016, 04:25 AM
  #7  
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,916
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by TimJ View Post
He would end of in jail or fined. It is a federal crime to shoot at aircraft.

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
Old 09-22-2016, 04:27 AM
  #8  
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,916
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by Hydro Junkie View Post
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
But you don't have to worry about losing millions when networks cancel your contracts, and sponsors cancel your commercials.
Old 09-22-2016, 05:14 AM
  #9  
init4fun
 
init4fun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 3,919
Received 26 Likes on 21 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot View Post
But you don't have to worry about losing millions when networks cancel your contracts, and sponsors cancel your commercials.
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 ......
Old 09-22-2016, 05:24 AM
  #10  
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,916
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by init4fun View Post
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 ......
I agree, but the execs who write the contracts are mostly libs.
Old 09-22-2016, 05:50 AM
  #11  
init4fun
 
init4fun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 3,919
Received 26 Likes on 21 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot View Post
I agree, but the execs who write the contracts are mostly libs.

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
Old 09-22-2016, 05:54 AM
  #12  
rgburrill
 
rgburrill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Dallas, Tx CT
Posts: 2,581
Received 45 Likes on 43 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by init4fun View Post
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 .....
Actually it is a federal crime to damage and aircraft. But only if you get caught.
Old 09-22-2016, 06:01 AM
  #13  
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,916
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by rgburrill View Post
Actually it is a federal crime to damage and aircraft. But only if you get caught.
But a drone is not the aircraft that the law intended. It was written in 1984 and was to prevent killing the people on board.
Old 09-22-2016, 07:31 AM
  #14  
Hydro Junkie
 
Hydro Junkie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Marysville, WA
Posts: 9,623
Likes: 0
Received 93 Likes on 90 Posts
Default

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
Old 09-22-2016, 08:15 AM
  #15  
init4fun
 
init4fun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 3,919
Received 26 Likes on 21 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by rgburrill View Post
Actually it is a federal crime to damage and aircraft. But only if you get caught.
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 .
Old 09-22-2016, 08:25 AM
  #16  
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,916
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by init4fun View Post
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 .
Right, that law was to protect the people inside the plane so it should not apply to unmanned aircraft.
Old 09-22-2016, 10:04 AM
  #17  
CESSNA 421
My Feedback: (17)
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Charles, MO
Posts: 261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

I would not have hesitated as long as Mike Rowe did before I blew the SOB out of the sky!!!
Old 09-22-2016, 10:32 AM
  #18  
init4fun
 
init4fun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 3,919
Received 26 Likes on 21 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot View Post
Right, that law was to protect the people inside the plane so it should not apply to unmanned aircraft.
Originally Posted by CESSNA 421 View Post
I would not have hesitated as long as Mike Rowe did before I blew the SOB out of the sky!!!
I heartily agree with both of these posts .
Old 09-22-2016, 12:33 PM
  #19  
TimJ
 
TimJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Orange County CA
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot View Post
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
The last I understood, These were considered aircraft.

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:




Last edited by TimJ; 09-22-2016 at 12:35 PM.
Old 09-22-2016, 01:10 PM
  #20  
init4fun
 
init4fun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 3,919
Received 26 Likes on 21 Posts
Default

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 .
Old 09-22-2016, 01:41 PM
  #21  
TimJ
 
TimJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Orange County CA
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

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.
Old 09-22-2016, 03:25 PM
  #22  
init4fun
 
init4fun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 3,919
Received 26 Likes on 21 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by TimJ View Post
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.

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 .

Originally Posted by mongo View Post
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.
And speaking of which , to finally address the title subject directly , yes I too believe "This is why" , as the title suggests , that the general public ain't all that enamored with drones as the folks who fly / advocate for them would have us believe . I have said this before , when folks see my planes , and then ask if I have any drones and I say no , the greater majority of the reactions are relief . And then the #1 universal thing that almost all of them mention is "I'm afraid of one of em peekin in my window" , for real , and I do believe that's the public's #1 fear of drones , that they'll be used to spy on folks just like in Mongo's example here . Not once in my lifetime have I ever read of a "traditional model airplane" getting caught hovering just outside a celebrity's window taking pictures or video , and I'm fairly sure I'm not likely to hear of any such thing happening anytime soon in the future . I wonder how long it'll be before we hear of the next "peeping drone" story ?

Last edited by init4fun; 09-22-2016 at 03:27 PM.
Old 09-22-2016, 05:05 PM
  #23  
porcia83
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Hartford, CT
Posts: 7,269
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default This seems far scarier!

http://<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/FyfK1tea3zo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Old 09-26-2016, 04:21 AM
  #24  
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,916
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot View Post
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
Anybody know how to look up this on the court dockets? I can't find it in either the western or eastern district of Ky.
Old 09-26-2016, 07:05 AM
  #25  
init4fun
 
init4fun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 3,919
Received 26 Likes on 21 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot View Post
Anybody know how to look up this on the court dockets? I can't find it in either the western or eastern district of Ky.
Hi Sport ,

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.

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.