There was a police helicopter flying in the area... Drone operator got what he deserved and may get a lot more... JSNS
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.
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.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.
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.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.
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 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... JMHOThis 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
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.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?
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
"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."
Not only bad judgement, but I believe it is illegal. In any event, the operator got what he deserved.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.