questioned by police event = full cooperation = no issues

[RKBA]

Think about it like this... are you willing to back up what you're saying and PAY your $$ if someone takes your advice and ends up on the wrong side of the law? Your words on a forum can (and wrongfully so) be taken as gospel so think about EVERYTHING You say and ask yourself, "If I happen to be wrong am I man enough to back up my words?" It's all too easy to be a keyboard warrior but remember some reading this may make the poor decision to take your advice and test the law.

In what world is it remotely advisable to intentionally go against any and every Law Enforcement Officer in the land? That's absolutely HORRIBLE and reckless advice to say the least.

Just where in that post did I advise anyone to do anything?!? It’s all right there....please point it out

 

[Deleted member 29014]

This is rich! We have a ticket writer who just admitted that unless a person submits to all demands regardless of legal justification, they will arrest you.... so tell us, what statute exactly is “contempt of cop”??? Or do you just make something up on your way to booking? “Resisting arrest is always a good catch all. Yeah, let’s use that”

Once everyone started carrying a video camera in their pockets or on their Dash, that must’ve really cramped your style. You never know where those pesky things are hidden.

Oh my. I gave some friendly advice, not directed at you, and you took it personal and as an excuse to go into an anti-cop tirade. Do as you please, friend. Merry Christmas!

 

[RKBA]

Oh my. I gave some friendly advice, not directed at you, and you took it personal and as an excuse to go into an anti-cop tirade. Do as you please, friend. Merry Christmas!

Did I just commit “contempt of cop”? You going to put me in the back of your car now?
As much as you would like to, you can’t write off every criticism of police conduct as an “anti cop tirade” but do as you please friend. Merry Christmas back

 

[BigAl07]

Just where in that post did I advise anyone to do anything?!? It’s all right there....please point it out

My mistake. I was replying to couple of posts and inadvertantly deleted the wrong portion of my reply.

 

[BigAl07]

Let's keep this thread CIVIL and not personal. Debate all you want but if you make it personal we will shut the thread down and issue some reprimands accordingly.

 

[Ridowh]

The key words in your statement were "reasonable suspicion" and there was NONE in this case. The driver of the vehicle knew the laws of drone flying and the laws of road stops in New York. When he asked what he was suspected of doing, the officers had no answer. Thus there could be no reasonable suspicion. There has to be a reason for being pulled over.

I'm not saying that the driver was totally right either. He could have shown his ID, and explained he was flying his drone legally as per all laws and regulations. As I stated before, there's blame on both sides.

(My comments below are based on the assumption that flying and filming over private property, without permission, is against the law in NY state, as it is in the U.K.).

As much as I agree with the points being made here, if you listen right to the end of the video it becomes apparent that the drone operators and supporting colleagues were there to make some kind of protest / informational videos about the ‘farm’ that is allegedly breeding animals for the purposes of animal testing / vivisection.
I personally oppose all animal testing of all kinds, however the politics surrounding vivisection are not what is in focus here. As mentioned by someone above, places such as this ‘farn’ receive continuous threats of violence against the premises and the staff that work there. They are often broken into, and staff, including their families, are often directly threatened with physical and verbal abuse. As such I can imagine it being a significantly high priority for local law enforcement to ensure that all reports of suspicious behaviour are followed up and evaluated. Using a drone either above, or along the boundary lines of, the property in question could well be seen as a potential precursor to an attack, or break-in of some kind. The police would want to be absolutely sure that they followed up on the complaint, including making a record of the persons against whom the complaint was made, because if they had failed to do anything, and some kind of attack had occurred subsequent to the complaint being made, then the police could legitimately be accused of negligence.

Regardless of my views on vivisection, these guys were almost certainly out to, at the very least, find information to discredit the company that owns the ‘farm’ mentioned. At the time the drone was being flown, there wouldn’t have been any information available to the ‘farm’ as to the agenda and future intent of the operators. There is a further question here as to whether the drone operators should have been made to prove they had not broken the law, and flown over private property, as well as filming, without permission.

Full cooperation with the police, instead of inflaming the situation, would have been a far better course of action. Let’s face it, it’s not as if these guys were totally innocent of all intent and motivations here.
Making out anyone, especially police officers, to be stupid and ignorant is never going to end well.

 

[tcope]

Geez. What the hell is wrong with these people. A little cooperation with the police would have gone a long way. Now they have just added to the bad name and situation the rest of us legal drone hobbyist are getting.

You ever been stopped randomly by the police and detained for no good reason?

 

[PhantomFandom]

(My comments below are based on the assumption that flying and filming over private property, without permission, is against the law in NY state, as it is in the U.K.).

As much as I agree with the points being made here, if you listen right to the end of the video it becomes apparent that the drone operators and supporting colleagues were there to make some kind of protest / informational videos about the ‘farm’ that is allegedly breeding animals for the purposes of animal testing / vivisection.
I personally oppose all animal testing of all kinds, however the politics surrounding vivisection are not what is in focus here. As mentioned by someone above, places such as this ‘farn’ receive continuous threats of violence against the premises and the staff that work there. They are often broken into, and staff, including their families, are often directly threatened with physical and verbal abuse. As such I can imagine it being a significantly high priority for local law enforcement to ensure that all reports of suspicious behaviour are followed up and evaluated. Using a drone either above, or along the boundary lines of, the property in question could well be seen as a potential precursor to an attack, or break-in of some kind. The police would want to be absolutely sure that they followed up on the complaint, including making a record of the persons against whom the complaint was made, because if they had failed to do anything, and some kind of attack had occurred subsequent to the complaint being made, then the police could legitimately be accused of negligence.

Regardless of my views on vivisection, these guys were almost certainly out to, at the very least, find information to discredit the company that owns the ‘farm’ mentioned. At the time the drone was being flown, there wouldn’t have been any information available to the ‘farm’ as to the agenda and future intent of the operators. There is a further question here as to whether the drone operators should have been made to prove they had not broken the law, and flown over private property, as well as filming, without permission.

Full cooperation with the police, instead of inflaming the situation, would have been a far better course of action. Let’s face it, it’s not as if these guys were totally innocent of all intent and motivations here.
Making out anyone, especially police officers, to be stupid and ignorant is never going to end well.

Yes of course the guys with the drone had an agenda. That is not the question. The question is whether or not they broke any law, and it seems that they did not. In the USA it is perfectly legal to fly over private property. Landing on private property is totally different since that could and would be considered trespassing. However the airspace over a property (public or private) is not owned or controlled by the property owner. So unless you were breaking some other law, that in itself is not an issue.

 

[KMF294]

I am not going to get into the usual endless legal back-and-forth and tits for tats. They’re boring at this point when it comes to drones. I will just address the general issue of citizen interaction with sworn law-enforcement. First off, speaking for myself, I take my responsibility to know the law as best I can and understand my duty to conduct myself within the law very seriously. I have no interest in creating a confrontational or hostile situation with anyone let alone a police officer. I operate in an industry that is highly regulated and under the constant scrutiny of law-enforcement so I understand how the system works. I have a very good relationship with the law enforcement that I regularly deal with in my business. I respect them and they respect me. When it comes to my personal activities, I make choices. One of those choices is that I do not interact with police any more than I have to. A police officer is always welcome to ask me all the questions they want and I am free not to answer them. If they have witnessed me committing a crime of have other evidence that I did so (witnesses etc) then they can, and should, place me under arrest and read me my rights. In that situation, you and I both know that nothing I would say would keep that from happening. As for the innocuous and friendly “show me your id” request, unless I am detained ie a traffic stop etc, I choose to politely decline. I have no interest in having my personal information being recorded when I have broken no law. If I have broken a law then see above (cite me or arrest me, read rights etc). As a sworn police officer you know this is how the system works. If it makes you “mad” then so be it. It’s not my job to do your job.

I also am not going to get into the back and forth. All I am going to say is if a police officer is speaking to you thy either have a reason or think they do based upon reasonable suspicion. They can conduct a threshold inquiry based upon reasonable suspicion that you are or are about to commit a crime as created by the US Supreme Court Case Terry v. Ohio. This is a detention and they can use all reasonable force to conduct this inquiry.

As for reading you your rights under Miranda v. Arizona, they only trigger when there is custody and interrogation, not just arrest. In example if I arrest someone for something that I have no interest or intent to interrogate them on like for example a suspended license there is no requirement that I read them so called Miranda Rights. Most police will read Miranda just in case the person decides to start talking about how they were the second gunman on the grassy knoll in Dallas on 11/22/63 to protect the statement.

Lastly, all I am trying to do is offer some free police interaction advice from an old cop on the edge of retirement that has seen his share of situations go the wrong way because people didn’t know what they didn’t know and got a lesson in constitutional law from a judge with some sort of sanction. Ultimately the choice A yours to take the advice or not. As far as far as getting “mad”, you couldn’t do it if you tried. It’s a job, not personal. My days of getting mad in uniform at people who want to make things ,ore difficult than they have to be is in the past. The only reason we I offered the advice was because everyone on this board shares a common interest and I thought it may help. I am very much a constitutionalist and do not want to see anyone give up the rights we were given by our forefathers.

 

[KMF294]

Yes of course the guys with the drone had an agenda. That is not the question. The question is whether or not they broke any law, and it seems that they did not. In the USA it is perfectly legal to fly over private property. Landing on private property is totally different since that could and would be considered trespassing. However the airspace over a property (public or private) is not owned or controlled by the property owner. So unless you were breaking some other law, that in itself is not an issue.

Sometimes the police have to investigate a little bit to determine if no law was broken. If they just walked away from everyone that said “I didn’t do anything wrong” they wouldn’t be very effective. That’s whe. A little cooperation goes a long way. If your not doing anything wrong give them a chance to explain why they are interacting with you, answer their questions honestly, cooperate, and it ends there. Then they can explain to whoever called that your within the law and the cops are now on your side. Remember being a cop is just a job and they have people to answer to at work just like you do. Once they drive away I guarantee that a supervisor is gonna call them and get the scoop on what is up. Most cops are good cops, but there are the ones that make us all look bad. Unfortunately, they are the ones that get all the attention.

 

[KMF294]

(My comments below are based on the assumption that flying and filming over private property, without permission, is against the law in NY state, as it is in the U.K.).

As much as I agree with the points being made here, if you listen right to the end of the video it becomes apparent that the drone operators and supporting colleagues were there to make some kind of protest / informational videos about the ‘farm’ that is allegedly breeding animals for the purposes of animal testing / vivisection.
I personally oppose all animal testing of all kinds, however the politics surrounding vivisection are not what is in focus here. As mentioned by someone above, places such as this ‘farn’ receive continuous threats of violence against the premises and the staff that work there. They are often broken into, and staff, including their families, are often directly threatened with physical and verbal abuse. As such I can imagine it being a significantly high priority for local law enforcement to ensure that all reports of suspicious behaviour are followed up and evaluated. Using a drone either above, or along the boundary lines of, the property in question could well be seen as a potential precursor to an attack, or break-in of some kind. The police would want to be absolutely sure that they followed up on the complaint, including making a record of the persons against whom the complaint was made, because if they had failed to do anything, and some kind of attack had occurred subsequent to the complaint being made, then the police could legitimately be accused of negligence.

Regardless of my views on vivisection, these guys were almost certainly out to, at the very least, find information to discredit the company that owns the ‘farm’ mentioned. At the time the drone was being flown, there wouldn’t have been any information available to the ‘farm’ as to the agenda and future intent of the operators. There is a further question here as to whether the drone operators should have been made to prove they had not broken the law, and flown over private property, as well as filming, without permission.

Full cooperation with the police, instead of inflaming the situation, would have been a far better course of action. Let’s face it, it’s not as if these guys were totally innocent of all intent and motivations here.
Making out anyone, especially police officers, to be stupid and ignorant is never going to end well.

Well said!!!!!! Bravo!

 

[PhantomFandom]

I also am not going to get into the back and forth. All I am going to say is if a police officer is speaking to you thy either have a reason or think they do based upon reasonable suspicion. They can conduct a threshold inquiry based upon reasonable suspicion that you are or are about to commit a crime as created by the US Supreme Court Case Terry v. Ohio. This is a detention and they can use all reasonable force to conduct this inquiry.

As for reading you your rights under Miranda v. Arizona, they only trigger when there is custody and interrogation, not just arrest. In example if I arrest someone for something that I have no interest or intent to interrogate them on like for example a suspended license there is no requirement that I read them so called Miranda Rights. Most police will read Miranda just in case the person decides to start talking about how they were the second gunman on the grassy knoll in Dallas on 11/22/63 to protect the statement.

Lastly, all I am trying to do is offer some free police interaction advice from an old cop on the edge of retirement that has seen his share of situations go the wrong way because people didn’t know what they didn’t know and got a lesson in constitutional law from a judge with some sort of sanction. Ultimately the choice A yours to take the advice or not. As far as far as getting “mad”, you couldn’t do it if you tried. It’s a job, not personal. My days of getting mad in uniform at people who want to make things ,ore difficult than they have to be is in the past. The only reason we I offered the advice was because everyone on this board shares a common interest and I thought it may help. I am very much a constitutionalist and do not want to see anyone give up the rights we were given by our forefathers.

THANK YOU for being level headed and explaining your point of view in a nice friendly fashion. I do feel that our constitutional rights are gradually being whittled away but I always try to look at both sides of every story. Yes of course I want police to do their jobs so that we are all safer. Yes I think that a citizen has the right to call in a complaint if they feel something is wrong. Yes I do think an officer can pull over someone if there is suspicion of a law being broken. However I also think that there are illegal stops. There are times where a "bad cop" goes out of their way to make life difficult for a citizen that has done nothing wrong. There needs to be a balance. As with politics I think the most dangerous people are the ones who have an extreme view on either end of the spectrum and leave no room for dialogue and civil conversation.

 

[KMF294]

THANK YOU for being level headed and explaining your point of view in a nice friendly fashion. I do feel that our constitutional rights are gradually being whittled away but I always try to look at both sides of every story. Yes of course I want police to do their jobs so that we are all safer. Yes I think that a citizen has the right to call in a complaint if they feel something is wrong. Yes I do think an officer can pull over someone if there is suspicion of a law being broken. However I also think that there are illegal stops. There are times where a "bad cop" goes out of their way to make life difficult for a citizen that has done nothing wrong. There needs to be a balance. As with politics I think the most dangerous people are the ones who have an extreme view on either end of the spectrum and leave no room for dialogue and civil conversation.[/QUO

Unfortunately I have no choice but to agree with this part of your post. Fortunately we are moving towards an era of greater police transparency. Body cams and dash cams will help with that in the that they will show the entire event, not clips that are utilized to further a rhetoric that proclaims that all police a corrupt brutalists. Unfortunately a lot of police work is ugly and very tough for the regular public to rationalize.

 

[PhantomFandom]

Fully agreed that police work is difficult and VERY DANGEROUS. However, we all need to remember that it is your choice to become an officer. With that choice comes both the responsibility and danger of the job. That danger does not excuse shooting unarmed citizens (even if they are indeed doing bad things) and then trying to cover it up...we have all seen too much of this in the news. What bothers me is that thin blue line. Police officers should not be above the law. If there is a bad officer, the rest should not support that officer. It makes all of you look bad and corrupt. However it happens! Officers don't want to snitch. They don't want to talk to IA. IA is important so why is it so hated by police?

I totally agree on body cams and dash cams as being mandatory for all officers! Not only that but the footage needs to be released IN ALL CASES. The footage from all cams needs to be public domain. Only then can the public start to trust that there is total transparency. Why are police forces or the town/city/state allowed to withhold footage at their discretion? That immediately leads to distrust.

 

[Chipmun2]

Let's keep this thread CIVIL and not personal. Debate all you want but if you make it personal we will shut the thread down and issue some reprimands accordingly.

I would vote to close this thread ASAP. It truly has become a personal “nondrone” debate!

 

[BigAl07]

* Thread Closed*