Controversy continues at pipeline

Joined
Jul 25, 2016
Messages
44
Reaction score
12
Age
73
There was a police helicopter flying in the area... Drone operator got what he deserved and may get a lot more... JSNS
 
  • Like
Reactions: TacomaGuy
Joined
Jan 29, 2015
Messages
4,847
Reaction score
2,052
Location
Salt Lake City, UT
IF police can be believed that the drone operator threatened manned operations. That's a big IF.
We don't have all the facts but it appears that someone at the protest might have been using the drone to scare away the helicopter that was monitoring their actions.

What I wonder is how someone was able to take an accurate shot at a drone that was chasing a helicopter and how someone would have shot a drone that was close to a helicopter. Sounds more likely that the drone was no longer endangering the helicopter when it was shot.

I see this as two edged sword. If the drone was being used to chase a helicopter, good that they got the drone and hoping they can trace it. However, this is yet another story of a drone being shot down which leads some people to think they can shoot drones as well.
 

BigAl07

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jan 5, 2015
Messages
6,208
Reaction score
4,721
Age
48
Location
Western North Carolina
We don't have all the facts but it appears that someone at the protest might have been using the drone to scare away the helicopter that was monitoring their actions.

What I wonder is how someone was able to take an accurate shot at a drone that was chasing a helicopter and how someone would have shot a drone that was close to a helicopter. Sounds more likely that the drone was no longer endangering the helicopter when it was shot.

I see this as two edged sword. If the drone was being used to chase a helicopter, good that they got the drone and hoping they can trace it. However, this is yet another story of a drone being shot down which leads some people to think they can shoot drones as well.

I think you nailed it!! This could go badly for us on several different levels.

Regardless we need more "concrete" details. Love to see a video of it happening to get a real feel for what lead up to it.
 

BigAl07

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jan 5, 2015
Messages
6,208
Reaction score
4,721
Age
48
Location
Western North Carolina
Unfortunately I see nothing positive coming from this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sagebrush
Joined
Mar 31, 2015
Messages
659
Reaction score
194
Age
42
Location
Albuquerque,NM
strange stuff, wonder if it was legal for the cops to shoot at the phantom. based on the video it seems to be at a fairly low altitude. should be interesting to see what the FAA has to say about this one.
 
Joined
Sep 22, 2016
Messages
133
Reaction score
64
In the case of flying the drone close to a police helicopter, I would reserve judgment until all facts are available. It may be that the drone operator was being a jerk and deliberately flying it close to the helicopter, or it may be that the helicopter pilot flew over to where the drone was and THEN they claimed the drone was too close.
In the case of the "stalking" charge against the other drone operator, that is CLEARLY an abuse of the law, and intended to stifle freedom of the press. As we all should know by now, if you're out in a public space (like a public road), photographers and videographers have every right to film you. Courts have consistently ruled that there is no expectation of privacy in a public space. This arrest is because law enforcement there is beholden to the oil companies who leverage way too much influence on the justice system.
 

BigAl07

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jan 5, 2015
Messages
6,208
Reaction score
4,721
Age
48
Location
Western North Carolina
In the case of flying the drone close to a police helicopter, I would reserve judgment until all facts are available. It may be that the drone operator was being a jerk and deliberately flying it close to the helicopter, or it may be that the helicopter pilot flew over to where the drone was and THEN they claimed the drone was too close.
All sUAS must give way to ANY manned aircraft regardless of "who was there first". If a manned aircraft enters in an area where you're flying you should land immediately with no hesitation. Anything else is reckless and very bad judgement.
 
Joined
Sep 22, 2016
Messages
133
Reaction score
64
All sUAS must give way to ANY manned aircraft regardless of "who was there first". If a manned aircraft enters in an area where you're flying you should land immediately with no hesitation. Anything else is reckless and very bad judgement.
I won't argue that. However, I'm saying that MAYBE the drone was targeted when it was doing nothing wrong. I'm merely suggesting the POSSIBILITY that the police helicopter flew over to the drone and shot it before the drone operator had a chance to move to a safer distance or location. Maybe the drone operator was in the act of moving the drone away but the helicopter shot it anyway. And of course, there's always the CHANCE that the drone operator was being a jerk.

As I said ... I would reserve judgment until all facts are out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigAl07

BigAl07

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jan 5, 2015
Messages
6,208
Reaction score
4,721
Age
48
Location
Western North Carolina
This is pretty interesting. One of the drone operators was aware of the manned aircraft. "Dedman admits he knew the helicopter was in the vicinity, but denies flying too close to the helicopter or in a threatening manner."

Here is where I think he screwed up (my personal opinion)
"“I know what we’re doing out here — we may be bending a few rules and jumping through some hoops, but it’s for the good of this movement,” Dedman says."

Drone Pilot and FAA Comment on Drone Shooting at North Dakota Pipeline Protest | Drone360 Magazine
 
Joined
Jul 25, 2016
Messages
44
Reaction score
12
Age
73
In the case of flying the drone close to a police helicopter, I would reserve judgment until all facts are available. It may be that the drone operator was being a jerk and deliberately flying it close to the helicopter, or it may be that the helicopter pilot flew over to where the drone was and THEN they claimed the drone was too close.
In the case of the "stalking" charge against the other drone operator, that is CLEARLY an abuse of the law, and intended to stifle freedom of the press. As we all should know by now, if you're out in a public space (like a public road), photographers and videographers have every right to film you. Courts have consistently ruled that there is no expectation of privacy in a public space. This arrest is because law enforcement there is beholden to the oil companies who leverage way too much influence on the justice system.
I'm sorry but I think protest
This is pretty interesting. One of the drone operators was aware of the manned aircraft. "Dedman admits he knew the helicopter was in the vicinity, but denies flying too close to the helicopter or in a threatening manner."

Here is where I think he screwed up (my personal opinion)
"“I know what we’re doing out here — we may be bending a few rules and jumping through some hoops, but it’s for the good of this movement,” Dedman says."

Drone Pilot and FAA Comment on Drone Shooting at North Dakota Pipeline Protest | Drone360 Magazine
I'm a hunter/2nd amendment advocate.... I don't believe protest movements, of any sort, have a 'right' to occupy/tresspass! Period. If you don't like something, take it to court or the ballot box... JMHO
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigAl07
Joined
Sep 22, 2016
Messages
133
Reaction score
64
I'm sorry but I think protest

I'm a hunter/2nd amendment advocate.... I don't believe protest movements, of any sort, have a 'right' to occupy/tresspass! Period. If you don't like something, take it to court or the ballot box... JMHO
Are you saying that American citizens should just shut up and wait for the next election to voice their opposition? A lot of people DO take their grievances to court, but then they get accused of litigating everything, or judges get accused of "legislating from the bench" when all they ever do is rule based on the evidence of the case presented to them.
If you're a 2nd amendment advocate, are you not also a 1st amendment advocate?

People do not have a right to occupy/trespass on private property. A lot of times protesters who do that are trying to get arrested in acts of civil disobedience. What would you do, as a hunter, if your state passed a high tax on high caliber ammunition? Would you just wait until the next election? Would you go through the litigation process? Would you protest?
 
Joined
Jul 25, 2016
Messages
44
Reaction score
12
Age
73
Are you saying that American citizens should just shut up and wait for the next election to voice their opposition? A lot of people DO take their grievances to court, but then they get accused of litigating everything, or judges get accused of "legislating from the bench" when all they ever do is rule based on the evidence of the case presented to them.
If you're a 2nd amendment advocate, are you not also a 1st amendment advocate?

People do not have a right to occupy/trespass on private property. A lot of times protesters who do that are trying to get arrested in acts of civil disobedience. What would you do, as a hunter, if your state passed a high tax on high caliber ammunition? Would you just wait until the next election? Would you go through the litigation process? Would you protest?

I would 'lobby' and contribute to the applicable organizations.. I would vote.. I would also send letters and contact my legislators.. Finally I would be active in any legal protests in designated legal areas. I would NOT block highways... trespass or vandalize private property.. Finally, as a last resort I would NOT comply with laws mandating confiscation of my firearms.. At that point, I would probably be considered a criminal... And live with the consequences... Our founders were 'concerned' with the tyranny that often arose FROM government. Our Constitution was their attempt to put 'checks' on government... Some have been trying for many years to dismantle those protections.. I think they are just about there. LOL JSNS
 

BigAl07

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jan 5, 2015
Messages
6,208
Reaction score
4,721
Age
48
Location
Western North Carolina
Joined
Feb 15, 2013
Messages
133
Reaction score
102
Location
Hollywood, CA
Website
www.dronepilotflightschool.com
SO when the cops want to shut down media coverage all they have to do is declare a No Fly Zone? Nothing like just tearing up the parts of the constitution you don't like. As to the people hear saying that the pipeline and protesters are on private property. If you have ever checked or know about local zoning laws, if what you are doing on your property effects your neighbor, especially with regards to poising the water, then your land isn't "private" now the effects of the pipeline are still understudy in that area, but the pipeline and land owner are building and digging anyway. So maybe the American people need to hear the whole story, but I guess that is not going to happen when the militarized troops of the governor can just declare a No Fly Zone, when ever.
 
  • Like
Reactions: erkme73
Joined
Dec 27, 2015
Messages
169
Reaction score
24
Website
Earth.com
I suppose if you really wanted to get a shot you could go up to 800/1200 feet (very wrong to do) and no one would ever see you (cannot shoot at what you cannot see, except for Frances Gary Powers) then get all the footage you want and get out......still wrong, that notwithstanding a way to get it done.
 
Joined
Jan 4, 2014
Messages
162
Reaction score
80
"In an ominous sign, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has restricted flights, and banned the use of drones within a radius of about 4 ½ miles of Cannon Ball. The FAA declared that only aircraft affiliated with the North Dakota Tactical Operation Center are allowed within the restricted airspace. The flight restriction went into effect Wednesday and will last until November 5."
THIS is the story. The protests are an entirely separate issue. Don't think for a second that if the FAA (or .gov in general) could ban all civilian-based eye-in-the-sky technology everywhere without massive revolt, they wouldn't do it.

It's on thing to claim interference with manned aircraft, or harassing operations on the ground. But to be an unbiased observer from an acceptable distance that does not distract, harass, or interfere with LEO activity should pose ZERO risk to whatever operations they're conducting.

Try filming a cop from across the street, doing a sobriety test on a motorist and see how quickly they claim you're interfering. Or they'll threaten to arrest you for obstructing. Or they'll demand you turn off your camera. There are countless examples of citizens' rights being trampled by .gov that doesn't want to be filmed.

Unfortunately, law enforcement operations and civilian observers with cameras seem to be diametrically opposed. This is just a natural extension of the same bullying. Unfortunately, it looks like the FAA has chosen sides.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ROD PAINTER
Joined
Aug 30, 2016
Messages
182
Reaction score
59
Age
74
Location
Morgan Hill, CA
All sUAS must give way to ANY manned aircraft regardless of "who was there first". If a manned aircraft enters in an area where you're flying you should land immediately with no hesitation. Anything else is reckless and very bad judgement.
Not only bad judgement, but I believe it is illegal. In any event, the operator got what he deserved.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigAl07

New Threads

Forum statistics

Threads
133,608
Messages
1,383,536
Members
97,496
Latest member
Wayne Goldpig