It's aircraft _only_ in the sense that it falls under the jurisdiction of the FAA... not in general or all cases. If that were true, _everyone_ who flew a drone would need a pilots license and everything else that comes along with "aircraft". That is, there is a _huge_ difference in unmanned aircraft and manned aircraft.
I'm not Flying for a while due to Hostile Drone Press
- Thread starter RF Guy
- Start date
-
- Tags
- drone slayer
It's aircraft _only_ in the sense that it falls under the jurisdiction of the FAA... not in general or all cases. If that were true, _everyone_ who flew a drone would need a pilots license and everything else that comes along with "aircraft". That is, there is a _huge_ difference in unmanned aircraft and manned aircraft.
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2015
- Messages
- 470
- Reaction score
- 180
- Age
- 50
Without knowing ALL the details (sometimes the operator did something to warrant discharging his firearm that has not been posted) ...but even if it's a criminal case, (I still have to see what justifiably caused the owner to feel "threatened") the police should have charged the owner with a few charges as well. Meanwhile , yes the drone operator needs to appeal. Sad part is most of this will be won by who has the most money.
The appeal court is much more likely to follow the law rather than some knee jerk reaction by a lower judge.
The homeowner claimed he was defending his family and that it was an invasion of privacy. But... and this is the important part that I mention, the judge rules on the _charges_. She did make comments that made it obvious that she was bias.
Also... again... a 3rd party does not appeal a criminal charge. The government brought those criminal charges. The drone owner can bring a civil case. A civil case is much easier to prove if the person is convicted of related criminal charges.
GadgetGuy
Premium Pilot
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2015
- Messages
- 6,881
- Reaction score
- 2,199
Most criminal courts will accept a nolo contendere (no contest) plea which cannot be used as a precedent in civil cases. However, civil cases are far easier to prove than criminal cases, even with a not guilty finding on the criminal charges. The civil burden of proof is more likely than not, instead of beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal case. The OJ Simpson criminal acquittal and subsequent civil lawsuit victory by the Goldman family comes to mind.
Still CREEPY when you are taking pictures of other people superstitiously.
Would you condone "upskirt" pictures as well? That's a "well established" "art form" too.
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2014
- Messages
- 502
- Reaction score
- 117
Superstitiously? What's superstition got to do with it? Or are you referring to taking photos of people while walking under ladders, having black cats walk in front of you, knocking on wood, throwing salt over your shoulder.........?
Maybe the word you're grasping for is suspiciously. Or serendipitously.
Surreptitiously.
While we're on words, is a weeding where two scrawny people get married?
Seems anywhere south of NY, is full of gun toting paranoid cretins.
I recently made the unforgivable mistake over Thanksgiving of flying over my brother-in-laws house thinking he might like some aerial photos of his property. He calls my mother-in-law (I'm at adjacent Gettysburg farm) threatening to shoot down my drone (200+ feet) if I didn't leave immediately. This is from an artist and avid photographer and aviation enthusiast with whom I've never had any conflicts in over 40 years of being a member of this family. When he later stopped by, I told him I was now going to charge him for the photos I was going to give him for free, including the one with him on his deck pointing his rifle at the drone.
I recently made the unforgivable mistake over Thanksgiving of flying over my brother-in-laws house thinking he might like some aerial photos of his property. He calls my mother-in-law (I'm at adjacent Gettysburg farm) threatening to shoot down my drone (200+ feet) if I didn't leave immediately. This is from an artist and avid photographer and aviation enthusiast with whom I've never had any conflicts in over 40 years of being a member of this family. When he later stopped by, I told him I was now going to charge him for the photos I was going to give him for free, including the one with him on his deck pointing his rifle at the drone.
My mother-in-law wanted the photos. I deleted them after previously downloading to her computer. His loss, in more ways than one. Oddly, he didn't seem as paranoid when a local private pilot moments later llegally flew an open cockpit biplane over the same spot well below the 500ft MSA.
only how true - your 100% on the money ! I would even do it and I own a P3P. I would keep a low profile for awhile !
dirkclod
Premium Pilot
I live in the south and if that was really true I could never fly . Is hunting season here now and fly everyday it's not raining or to windy .
Then again like in my signature / If I was scared I would stay in da house
Then again like in my signature / If I was scared I would stay in da house
dirkclod
Premium Pilot
Totally agree with this as I have had similar experience in parks, with neighbors and along the NorCal coast. Just let them see through the camera and you will be magic to all but a few. Then walk away from the few as they have most likely gotten down a rat hole that they can't get out of at the moment.
"The issue of street photographers taking photographs of strangers in public places without their consent (which is the definition of candid photography) for fine art purposes has been controversial...
A legal case in the United States, Nussenzweig v. DiCorcia, established that taking, publishing and selling street photography (including street portraits) is legal without any need for the consent of those whose image appears in the photographs, because photography is protected as free speech and artistic expression by the First Amendment in the US."
Street photography - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Comparing street photography to upskirt photography eh? Does that require the same mindset that convinces people drones are spying on them and a danger to the populace?
I did some quick research and what I found agrees with what you wrote. However....
A recent Wall Street Journal (a much better source than "....they say....."!) article quoted someone from the FAA saying that states and cities/towns do NOT own the airspace, it's the domain of the FAA. However, if you're the unlucky guy who has just violated some sort of local ordinance, got arrested, etc., even if it proves to be an illegal rule/law etc., you're the one tasked with paying an attorney to get you off the hook!
Fortunately, where I fly (a public park) in a relatively small city, there hasn't been any rush to pass legislation limiting "drones" to much of anything. There is a state park out on the edge of town and they've made it pretty clear it's against the rules to take off there, land there (except in an emergency) or fly there.
On another forum I've seen references about the federal rules against flying in national parks. Some wag wrote that you can fly in the parks, you just can't takeoff or land in them. Well, that *might* be true, but a No-Fly-Zone means no flying. Someone who makes their interpretation that it's really a no-landing or no-takeoff zone better be prepared when the park ranger shows up. Right at that moment, if he thinks you've broken the rules, you're probably going to need either a bail bondsman, an attorney or both!
I just do my best to keep away from private property unless I've been given permission to fly there.
