News:

Long overdue maintenance happening. See post in the top forum.

Main Menu

Remote Controlled Multicopters

Started by patric, October 02, 2014, 09:15:53 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

patric

Quote from: rebound on October 28, 2015, 10:43:34 PM
Well I wasn't really trying to be specific to the case, just putting together a general string of events/scenario. 

There is a general level of argument here related to flying drones that I don't have a firm opinion on.  But as far as the first contact by officers goes in this case, it appears that while he may have been outside the fair grounds, the drone itself flew over the grounds.  Does a drone cause a danger to the crowd?  I suppose there is some danger if it crashes, etc., but that is arguable.  But regardless, that appears to be the first contact reason. 

And let's give the guy leeway and accept that he his being polite, etc, with the police.  But during questioning they discover his sex offender charge.  I don't see any other option for them at the time than to want to see the video to make sure the footage is innocent, etc.  If it is, then they can figure out whether they need to fine him, or let him go, or whatever.

But at the point he says NO, this raises (unnecessary, if the video is innocent enough) doubt in the officers' minds.  I am not in any way suggesting he did anything wrong, but there are certain ways to handle certain situations,  and in this case he (to me) intentionally raised doubt in the officers' minds when he did not have to do this.   And generally, that is not a winning situation. 

Exactly what the pilot had the right to say NO to might make a big difference.  "We want to look at your video"" is not the same as "We want to seize your camera."  I havent read the specifics of that particular aspect, but in our legal system, not even someone who served time in 1999 for sex with a girl who lied about her age is "guilty until proven innocent." 

"Tulsa will lay off police and firemen before we will cut back on unnecessarily wasteful streetlights."  -- March 18, 2009 TulsaNow Forum

rebound

Quote from: patric on October 30, 2015, 01:53:36 PM
Exactly what the pilot had the right to say NO to might make a big difference.  "We want to look at your video"" is not the same as "We want to seize your camera."  I havent read the specifics of that particular aspect, but in our legal system, not even someone who served time in 1999 for sex with a girl who lied about her age is "guilty until proven innocent." 

Fair enough.  (State Fair...   I crack myself up.) 

But I just skimmed every article I could find on the situation, and I'm going to hold to my first position/instinct.   Again, whether or not flying a drone at a fair (or over a fair, in this case) should be regulated is a arguable, but right now apparently that's not OK there and so that point is moot. Also, I had the same thought regarding the applicability of his sex offender conviction. But we don't know specifics of that, and regardless of the circumstances around his conviction he is none the less still a registered sex offender and it's not up to the officers in this case to make decisions like that.  He's a sex offender, and so suspicion is this case seems very appropriate.

And I can't find whether they seized his drone or not.  It sounds like they did, and then got a search warrant prior to reviewing the drive.  (and I do think that order of events is very important.)   And I can't tell what the nature of the interaction with the officers was.  Was it cordial? (sp?) I don't know.  But given that the police went to the trouble to get a warrant indicates to me the refused their request to look at the pictures.  (If he had done that, no warrant would be needed.)  And I can't help it, and I try to look at stuff like this abstractly, but the dude looks pretty squirrelly, and he has other sex-offender related stuff going on right now as well.

I think I've shown that I can be very suspect regarding police behavior, etc, but I don't see anything wrong here.

 
 

Hoss

Quote from: rebound on October 30, 2015, 03:17:03 PM
Fair enough.  (State Fair...   I crack myself up.) 

But I just skimmed every article I could find on the situation, and I'm going to hold to my first position/instinct.   Again, whether or not flying a drone at a fair (or over a fair, in this case) should be regulated is a arguable, but right now apparently that's not OK there and so that point is moot. Also, I had the same thought regarding the applicability of his sex offender conviction. But we don't know specifics of that, and regardless of the circumstances around his conviction he is none the less still a registered sex offender and it's not up to the officers in this case to make decisions like that.  He's a sex offender, and so suspicion is this case seems very appropriate.

And I can't find whether they seized his drone or not.  It sounds like they did, and then got a search warrant prior to reviewing the drive.  (and I do think that order of events is very important.)   And I can't tell what the nature of the interaction with the officers was.  Was it cordial? (sp?) I don't know.  But given that the police went to the trouble to get a warrant indicates to me the refused their request to look at the pictures.  (If he had done that, no warrant would be needed.)  And I can't help it, and I try to look at stuff like this abstractly, but the dude looks pretty squirrelly, and he has other sex-offender related stuff going on right now as well.

I think I've shown that I can be very suspect regarding police behavior, etc, but I don't see anything wrong here.

 

The problem now is that people (and the government has been just as guilty of this, surprise) haven't educated themselves on the kinds of capabilities these 'dangerous' drones have.  I've posted links to videos I do.  In order to get closeups of people you'd have to fly them at ground level.  Defeats the purpose of what the cameras on the vehicles were put on there for.

It's all a big knee-jerk reaction.  In other words, it's a solution looking for a problem, not the other way around.

Red Arrow

Quote from: Hoss on October 30, 2015, 04:44:42 PM
It's all a big knee-jerk reaction.  In other words, it's a solution looking for a problem, not the other way around.


I'm confident that one will be found.
 

patric

"Tulsa will lay off police and firemen before we will cut back on unnecessarily wasteful streetlights."  -- March 18, 2009 TulsaNow Forum

Townsend


Hoss

Quote from: patric on December 15, 2015, 02:11:11 PM
FOX23 becomes first Tulsa station to launch FAA approved newsgathering drone
http://www.fox23.com/news/news/local/fox23-becomes-first-tulsa-station-fly-drone-newsca/npjq2/





Wow, they spared no expense there.  Newer version of my old DJI but with a little better camera.  Cost of that max is about $1200.  Other news outlets use bigger rigs so they can use better optics.  But whatever.

Hoss

Quote from: Townsend on December 15, 2015, 02:58:56 PM
Will it fly around with a fox23 banner hanging off it?

It would have to be a really really small banner.  That thing can't haul a whole lot.

Hoss

Quote from: Red Arrow on October 30, 2015, 05:25:12 PM

I'm confident that one will be found.

And you were right.

http://www.npr.org/2015/12/14/459718303/faa-announces-new-registration-guidelines-for-drones

This will be nearly unenforceable as it is.  I will register as I want to remain clear of government BS (haha, funny) but I expect injunctions will be filed with this 'directive'.

I still think it's a solution looking for a problem.

Vashta Nerada

Quote from: Hoss on December 15, 2015, 05:49:54 PM
And you were right.

http://www.npr.org/2015/12/14/459718303/faa-announces-new-registration-guidelines-for-drones

This will be nearly unenforceable as it is.  I will register as I want to remain clear of government BS (haha, funny) but I expect injunctions will be filed with this 'directive'.

I still think it's a solution looking for a problem.




On November 17, 2015 the National Press Photographers Association ("NPPA"), joined by 10 other organizations submitted supplemental comments to the FAA regarding the unintended consequences of drone registration. The groups are concerned that a registration process requiring all drone operators to carry a certificate of registration with them, and produce it on demand to a federal, state or local police official, will be used by police and prosecutors in a pretextual way to chill free speech and freedom of the press. Journalists often encounter this type of interference. Police officers who do not like news coverage of an event often use vague charges like failing to obey a lawful order or interference with officers at an emergency scene to stop journalists.

Writing for the group, NPPA general counsel Mickey H. Osterreicher, expressed the concern "with these unanticipated and unintended consequences which illustrate how government, and particularly law enforcement, can use discretionary laws to suppress speech activities in ways that were not considered at the time of their enactment. To pass constitutional muster and forestall constitutional conflicts between journalists and law enforcement officers, any registration system, must contain provisions that preclude officers from demanding to see journalists' registration papers, and to then detaining, fining, or seizing property from journalists who are not carrying such documentation with them."


http://blogs.nppa.org/advocacy/category/drone/



dbacksfan 2.0

Quote from: Vashta Nerada on December 15, 2015, 07:46:27 PM



On November 17, 2015 the National Press Photographers Association ("NPPA"), joined by 10 other organizations submitted supplemental comments to the FAA regarding the unintended consequences of drone registration. The groups are concerned that a registration process requiring all drone operators to carry a certificate of registration with them, and produce it on demand to a federal, state or local police official, will be used by police and prosecutors in a pretextual way to chill free speech and freedom of the press. Journalists often encounter this type of interference. Police officers who do not like news coverage of an event often use vague charges like failing to obey a lawful order or interference with officers at an emergency scene to stop journalists.

Writing for the group, NPPA general counsel Mickey H. Osterreicher, expressed the concern "with these unanticipated and unintended consequences which illustrate how government, and particularly law enforcement, can use discretionary laws to suppress speech activities in ways that were not considered at the time of their enactment. To pass constitutional muster and forestall constitutional conflicts between journalists and law enforcement officers, any registration system, must contain provisions that preclude officers from demanding to see journalists' registration papers, and to then detaining, fining, or seizing property from journalists who are not carrying such documentation with them."


http://blogs.nppa.org/advocacy/category/drone/





patric

Quote from: Hoss on December 15, 2015, 05:49:54 PM

This will be nearly unenforceable as it is.  I will register as I want to remain clear of government BS (haha, funny) but I expect injunctions will be filed with this 'directive'.

I still think it's a solution looking for a problem.

Ive not heard of TPD ever enforcing federal aviation law but we'll see...  Might be a lot less hassle to shoot video as a private individual and send out links.
"Tulsa will lay off police and firemen before we will cut back on unnecessarily wasteful streetlights."  -- March 18, 2009 TulsaNow Forum

Ed W

Ride a bicycle. You'll learn that police enforce imaginary laws all the time.
Ed

May you live in interesting times.

patric

"Tulsa will lay off police and firemen before we will cut back on unnecessarily wasteful streetlights."  -- March 18, 2009 TulsaNow Forum

Hoss