The Bridge Run, the Police and our Hyper Sensitive Culture

Re: The Bridge Run, the Police and our Hyper Sensitive Cultu

You were not doing anything wrong, but in their eyes they're obligated to act on any suspicious activity and rightly so. I'm sure the Boston bombings were running through their minds when they were assigned to the tasks. It's a great way to see when the bridge has the highest density to blow it up or crash the Phantom on it. In time, quads, UAS will be so common it wont phase people, but now everyone is getting adjusted. On one hand you have people who say 911 could have been prevented but on the other hand you have people who say the government does too much. And here comes all the comments that say no law was broken... GO!
 
Re: The Bridge Run, the Police and our Hyper Sensitive Cultu

learn these two phrases, they are all you will ever need to know when it comes to law enforcement


"am i being detained?"
"am i free to go"

You are not required to present ID, unless your driving a car. They will try and coerce you and ask you other things and say What have you got to hide just talk to me for a minute. If they answer YES you are being detained, well my legal knowledge stops theres, you are screwed, keep your mouth shut and call a lawyer.
 
Re: The Bridge Run, the Police and our Hyper Sensitive Cultu

MILLER4PRESIDENT2020 said:
learn these two phrases, they are all you will ever need to know when it comes to law enforcement


"am i being detained?"
"am i free to go"

You are not required to present ID, unless your driving a car. They will try and coerce you and ask you other things and say What have you got to hide just talk to me for a minute. If they answer YES you are being detained, well my legal knowledge stops theres, you are screwed, keep your mouth shut and call a lawyer.

+1 Also, as soon as you are approached by Police (in the UK anyway), take out your phone, open camera, change to video and start recording the full interaction.

In my experience, the Police have a bad habit of attempting to make people do things that they have no legal right to do, but with a camera in their face, somehow most of them no longer seem to exhibit this trait, and the ones that do, well you have all the evidence you require to have them disciplined / prosecuted :lol: :roll:
 
Re: The Bridge Run, the Police and our Hyper Sensitive Cultu

I wonder if one could go to the local PD and speak with a commanding officer about possible blanket permission in their jurisdiction?
Sitting down and explaining what happened and asking if there's some kind of notation,memo or actual written permit that shows you're ok to fly and have been checked out being deemed not a threat.

As far as the event goes, there had to be some police dogs at the event that could've easily sniffed your pack/quad for explosives and clearing it (assuming there were no explosives in it :) ).
At least if they make note of you if another situation comes up they'd call in and be told you're ok.
 
Re: The Bridge Run, the Police and our Hyper Sensitive Cultu

I appreciate the support and suggestions from both sides. I've done some more digging and spoken to a neighbor who was on duty for the event. Although he couldn't really give me a straight reason why there was a blanket ban there was talk amongst the officers working the event on restricting drones. Apparently they tried the FAA for guidance but didn't get any. He said it's likely this time next year there will be local ordinances governing the use of "drones."

He also suggested I go and speak with the local officers about what I am doing and keep them informed of where I would be operating. This concerns me for a two reasons. There are 10 city police departments in the area I would have to go through, and 3 county sheriffs. It's very unlikely I would get a similar response from all of them. Their response is my other concern. A possible response would be: "I don't want that thing flying in my city at all." My only option is to hire a lawyer at that point. I don't have the time or money for that kind of nonsense. I would be in a similar situation I was in during the event. I probably could have used it, been fined and If I had the money to hire an attorney the fine would have been thrown out.

I'm still having a hard time swallowing the justifications for not allowing a 3 lb remote controlled aircraft to film an event. All I'm hearing is decisions based out of fear it might fall on a participants head. While this is possible so is getting stuck by lightning, or a drunk driver plowing into a crowd of people (SXSW last month). These are irrational fears and irrational fears produce irrational decisions.
 
Re: The Bridge Run, the Police and our Hyper Sensitive Cultu

I would think if you could get a couple of positive responses you could snowball them into full permission from all of the jurisdictions. Kind of like "well, john,**** and jane have agreed that I'm ok so what do you think?" Getting a negative response doesn't automatically toss it into a lawyers lap, maybe "if" you get a ticket or the unit confiscated then a lawyer but until then it's a question as to what would happen.
 
Re: The Bridge Run, the Police and our Hyper Sensitive Cultu

That would definitely be ideal but I'm still leaning towards better to ask forgiveness than permission. It is after all completely legal for now.

I was in the Army for 9 years. I have a good understanding of risk aversion in bureaucracies. If I put the ball in the court of a public official there's a good chance they won't want to endorse a new technology.
 
Re: The Bridge Run, the Police and our Hyper Sensitive Cultu

This may be one place FAA regulation helps us. Just as no city can change the speed limit on an Interstate Highway that passes through it, they also have no legal right to enforce anything with regard to the use of airspace.
 
Re: The Bridge Run, the Police and our Hyper Sensitive Cultu

derrickduff said:
All I'm hearing is decisions based out of fear it might fall on a participants head. While this is possible so is getting stuck by lightning, or a drunk driver plowing into a crowd of people (SXSW last month).
You're overlooking the possibility that it could be used to deliver something other than "falling parts". And even if that is the only potential problem, why should the general public be subject to any additional risk (regardless of how miniscule) just for one person's enjoyment. Again, you know how reliable your device is, authorities do not. You can almost bet that whatever rules the FAA comes up with for commercial flight will include some sort of craft certification relative to airworthiness and reliability. Hobbyists' craft are going to be exempt (unless the 2012 law changes), and therefore of unknown reliability unless some voluntary certification program comes into being.

Beyond that, we need better examples ... lightning is an act of nature, and not preventable (perhaps absent clearing the streets at a large event, which is done at stadium events). Drunk driving IS illegal and presumably would have been stopped if detected beforehand.

derrickduff said:
These are irrational fears and irrational fears produce irrational decisions.
Prior to the Boston Marathon bombing, this might have been a true statement regards the Bridge Run. At this point it'll be hard to convince anyone that it's an "irrational" fear. Not only could it happen, it has happened.

twodips said:
As far as the event goes, there had to be some police dogs at the event that could've easily sniffed your pack/quad for explosives and clearing it.
There may or may not have been explosives detecting dogs in the area, but the problem is one of logistics. How many "unknown" devices might show up at an event? And how many dogs do you have? And where are they relative to the devices?

My impression is that derrickduff was not in close proximity to the crowds - but that's where the dogs, if any, are likely to have been. The issue is how much "clearance" ability do authorities have? And where is it best used? How much of it can be used (meaning diverted to) for ensuring that a limited number of individuals can play with their "toys" in close proximity to a big event? You need to challenge yourself with the task of figuring out how to best ensure the SAFETY of EVERYONE in the area of a huge event with limited resources, rather than focusing solely on how to protect the RIGHTS of a HANDFUL of people. It's a ridiculous assumption to think you have the resources to do it all ... something has to be sacrificed.
 
Re: The Bridge Run, the Police and our Hyper Sensitive Cultu

Visioneer, that's why I suggested going to them prior to flying and letting them know you'll be there. Not exactly asking for "permission" but making it a statement so they don't have to make an off the cuff wrong decision. Maybe a conversation with the city/county council/board of supervisors is in order as they're the boss in the end and (usually) more reasonable?

Ben Franklin said "They who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
While I believe this to be true these days it is one hell of a balancing act.
 
Re: The Bridge Run, the Police and our Hyper Sensitive Cultu

Visioneer said:
You're overlooking the possibility that it could be used to deliver something other than "falling parts". And even if that is the only potential problem, why should the general public be subject to any additional risk (regardless of how miniscule) just for one person's enjoyment.

I was hoping for more of your input Visioneer. The Constitution and specifically The Bill of Rights come to mind. There's an equal argument for why people shouldn't own assault rifles (or any fire arms) for their own enjoyment. Every other month or so for the past few years there's been some sort of public shooting. I don't want to start a gun control argument but that is why I find this fear of remote control aircraft irrational. There is so much fear causing illogical knee-jerk reactions over something new.

Presumably, most of us purchased a phantom to get a camera in the air and to share the images and video. It is not only for my own enjoyment, but for everybody I share with.

Visioneer said:
Drunk driving IS illegal and presumably would have been stopped if detected beforehand

It's not just drunk drivers. Every year thousands of people are struck and killed by vehicles. I don't know of a single death caused by a remote control aircraft.

Visioneer said:
You need to challenge yourself with the task of figuring out how to best ensure the SAFETY of EVERYONE in the area of a huge event with limited resources, rather than focusing solely on how to protect the RIGHTS of a HANDFUL of people. It's a ridiculous assumption to think you have the resources to do it all ... something has to be sacrificed.

This is the heart of the matter, security over freedom. And from here it's all opinion and we'll have to agree to disagree. I can't get on board with fear trumping freedom.
 
Re: The Bridge Run, the Police and our Hyper Sensitive Cultu

twodips said:
Visioneer, that's why I suggested going to them prior to flying and letting them know you'll be there. Not exactly asking for "permission" but making it a statement so they don't have to make an off the cuff wrong decision. Maybe a conversation with the city/county council/board of supervisors is in order as they're the boss in the end and (usually) more reasonable?

Ben Franklin said "They who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
While I believe this to be true these days it is one hell of a balancing act.

Absolutely! I made the point of "educating" the higher ups in an earlier post. There's no way to know how they'll respond but if you make a strong "pseudo-legal" case that they really have no jurisdiction and you also have some rights (though I'd avoid that term), it might at least make them consider if there are other alternatives. Without this knowledge, they'll not get beyond banning all craft - the obvious, simple, and effective solution. They may also reveal to you issues from their perspective that you hadn't considered. And, from a less noble view, it gives them a CYA defense as to why they don't stop aerial photography, should they ever need one. Of course, it may also cause them to attempt legislation that, at least temporarily, appears to give them authority in these situations (even if a law they pass is ultimately proven unconstitutional or usurps federal law, they still can enforce it while it winds its way through the courts - unless a judge issues an injunction).

My response to your post was simply meant to remind everyone that we always need to consider perspectives other than our own. Very few of us (myself included) are really good at doing that.

Good ole Ben turned a lot of catchy phrases that sound good ... until you start applying them to today's reality. I have surrendered my liberty to drive unimpeded down the road by stopping at red lights - in exchange for my safety and that of others, but I still believe I deserve both. Ben also didn't have to deal with terrorists who could kill thousands, in seconds, by themselves.
 
Re: The Bridge Run, the Police and our Hyper Sensitive Cultu

It seems to me this is not as much of an issue of flying a drone as it is flying a drone at an event.

Most people don't differentiate between a Phantom or an S1000--all they see is a drone. Me you and everyone on this forum knows, but the public and public officers are still not familiar. I'll bet my left nut that most public events anywhere in the future will ban drones unless authorized by the event holder or city--and they'll have the laws and ordinance to back it, which would be right. The fact these things can easily deliver a payload into a crowd is scary to say the least. I think it's fine to let people fly in their backyard, around the park, around the city block, but when you bring a UAV to an event, it's a whole other ball of wax. Shoot your guns on your property, shoot them on the range, bring them hunting, but don't bring them to a concert.

Sure the Phantom is harmless, but to say drones have not already been weaponized is a joke. Somewhere, right now, an idiot thinking about how to strap a bomb to one, I'll bet my right nut on that.
 
Re: The Bridge Run, the Police and our Hyper Sensitive Cultu

thongbong said:
I'll bet my left nut ... I'll bet my right nut

Talk about going all in :lol:
 
Re: The Bridge Run, the Police and our Hyper Sensitive Cultu

Hey look, lightning actually struck someone!

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=11837

not all in yet, I still have a middle nut
 
Re: The Bridge Run, the Police and our Hyper Sensitive Cultu

derrickduff said:
The 5th of April was one of Charleston SC largest event weekends. Amongst other events that bring thousands to the area was the Cooper river bridge run. The 7th largest road race in the country with 30k+ finishers. It's larger than the Boston Marathon in terms of the amount of participants. The security presence was high to say the least. On par with a presidential visit. But with the number of mass shootings taking place in this country and the Boston Marathon bombings less than a year ago I can't say it was unnecessarily high.

I usually participate in the run but my wife and I procrastinated this year and didn't want to pay the increased entry fee for signing up late. My real excuse was to go to a park next to the bridge and film the race with my Phantom. Bad idea...

I parked near the base of the bridge, which is about mile 2 of the 6.2 mile race. I walked over to the park at the base of the bridge, with my phantom in hand. I passed and was eyed pretty hard by several police officers. It really didn't occur to me I was doing anything suspicious, or illegal at the time. I had a backpack as well, for my spare batteries, my tripod and video screen for FPV. But the Phantom was in my hand, out in the open. There was nothing covert about my attire, appearance or what I was about to do in the wide open.

After passing a half dozen officers one stopped me and said;
"You can't have that hear, no drones on the bridge run."
I said; "I wasn't flying it on the bridge, I was going to the park and would be filming away from the bridge and people."
He repeated himself.
A second officer, a county sheriff asked for my identification. I obliged, which he took to his vehicle to run a check on me.
I asked the first officer; "Is there a specific ordinance or law I would be breaking by flying it in the park?"
He said; "Yes, no drones for the bridge run."
I said; "really, there is a specific ordnance that I can't fly a drone on the bridge run"
He corrected himself; "No but there are no drones for the bridge run"

The first officer left and handed it off to a third officer. After they finished running my background check the 3rd officer told me;
"Here's the deal, The way society is today and with everything going on we can't have you flying this today. Just bring it back to your car. If you launch this we're going to have to ticket you. We don't want to have to do that today, it creates more hassle for you and us."
Sheriff; "Here is a ticket saying we ran your ID. We may be in contact with you."
Third Officer; "Can I get your phone number?"

Here is the ticket: Scroll down to see "nature of violation"


I put the Phantom away and was a good citizen the rest of the day. But I have some serious problems with what happened.

First I want to say the officers were doing their job, and the bridge run went off without incident. Kudos to law enforcement.

With that said I don't really understand how what I was doing is labeled as suspicious activity or denying my right to photograph an event (from a safe distance with no people overhead) is law enforcement. Most of my flight would have been over water.

I'm also a marked drone owner now. If there is any event or accident in the Charleston area involving a drone where the owner of the drone is unknown I will be one of the first persons to be contacted and/or suspected.

I don't know if the decision to not allow me to fly was made on the spot or was determined prior to the race. I walked past several officers before being confronted which leads me to believe it was made up on the spot. Even if it was determined prior to the race I'm interested to know the legality of making up laws for events. I can understand flying it over people is a public safety issue but flying in a park?

There was no concern about my backpack or what was in it. They also didn't check the drone for anything suspicious. Obviously there was no active threat based on drone use. Had there been they would have either inspected my drone and backpack and/or called in the bomb squad. This furthers my belief it was made up on the spot or for the event alone.

So, all in all I can't say I'm surprised at what happened. Just disappointed this is the state of our country.

Anybody else have a similar story? Or thoughts on what happened? Do I have to keep my head low? Are there any legal steps I can take? Or am I an idiot for thinking I have a right to use the Phantom during a big event, even in a safe manner?

You should have flown it, got the ticket, and then fought it.
 
Re: The Bridge Run, the Police and our Hyper Sensitive Cultu

At what cost? BMEWS previous post hinting at extortion isn't far from the truth. One way or another I would have had to pay to do something no law states I cannot do.

If I knew I could get free legal council (reputable, not a public defender) or had a stash of expendable money to pay for an attorney I would have taken the chance.
 
Re: The Bridge Run, the Police and our Hyper Sensitive Cultu

derrickduff said:
I appreciate the support and suggestions from both sides. I've done some more digging and spoken to a neighbor who was on duty for the event. Although he couldn't really give me a straight reason why there was a blanket ban there was talk amongst the officers working the event on restricting drones. Apparently they tried the FAA for guidance but didn't get any. He said it's likely this time next year there will be local ordinances governing the use of "drones."

He also suggested I go and speak with the local officers about what I am doing and keep them informed of where I would be operating. This concerns me for a two reasons. There are 10 city police departments in the area I would have to go through, and 3 county sheriffs. It's very unlikely I would get a similar response from all of them. Their response is my other concern. A possible response would be: "I don't want that thing flying in my city at all." My only option is to hire a lawyer at that point. I don't have the time or money for that kind of nonsense. I would be in a similar situation I was in during the event. I probably could have used it, been fined and If I had the money to hire an attorney the fine would have been thrown out.

I'm still having a hard time swallowing the justifications for not allowing a 3 lb remote controlled aircraft to film an event. All I'm hearing is decisions based out of fear it might fall on a participants head. While this is possible so is getting stuck by lightning, or a drunk driver plowing into a crowd of people (SXSW last month). These are irrational fears and irrational fears produce irrational decisions.

I have a hard time swallowing it too. We are just taking a picture after all. But fair or not, it is what it is. And it may mean you can't always film when you want. However, it can work if you plan accordingly. I shot at Union station yesterday in downtown Los Angeles after talking to two police officers on duty there. No problems.



The more interesting point you brought up is the local laws. Because the FAA has failed us so utterly completely, local municipalities are going to fill the void with a hodgepodge of over-restrictive ordinances, many of which will be obtuse and crafted out of fear of the unknown. Thank you FAA for living up to expectations on all counts.

twodips said:
Ben Franklin said "They who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
While I believe this to be true these days it is one hell of a balancing act.

Exactly. Ben Franklin never had a drone, an AR-15 or a computer! The goal may remain the same but the circumstances are always evolving.
 
Re: The Bridge Run, the Police and our Hyper Sensitive Cultu

derrickduff said:
Visioneer said:
You're overlooking the possibility that it could be used to deliver something other than "falling parts".

I was hoping for more of your input Visioneer. The Constitution and specifically The Bill of Rights come to mind. There's an equal argument for why people shouldn't own assault rifles (or any fire arms) for their own enjoyment. Every other month or so for the past few years there's been some sort of public shooting. I don't want to start a gun control argument
Yes, please, let's not.
derrickduff said:
but that is why I find this fear of remote control aircraft irrational. There is so much fear causing illogical knee-jerk reactions over something new.

I'm very reluctant to get into quoting the Constitution and Bill of Rights in any of these discussions for two reasons, 1) very few people have actually read them and, more importantly, 2) even if someone has read them, an individual's interpretation is pointless - we have some 225 years of case law "interpreting" their meaning for us, and I suspect no one has all of that on the tip of their tongue. That's one reason why lawyers take months (if not years) to research their cases before going to trial, and why we have courts for appeal - they address not only the facts of a case but also what the law means ... since we've come to learn that, according to our courts, the words don't always mean what they seem to say.

You may have inadvertently answered your own question here, at least partially. The proliferation of guns is a done deal - that cat got out of the bag years ago. The "irrational fear" of remote control aircraft may unconsciously be driven by the notion that if they're left alone now, by the time we conjure up some reasonable regulations, they will have proliferated and evolved to the point that they can't be stopped - "Apparently we didn't see coming what has transpired as a result of allowing relatively free gun ownership, let's not repeat that with anything else." Here's an unsettling thought, since guns ultimately always seem to get a pass, I'll mount a gun on my drone and then any "drone laws" won't apply. Ludicrous? I hope so.

Again, we don't want to make this thread about guns but as you raised the analogy it put a question in my mind; what if someone shows up at an event like this with a weapon in plain view. My uneducated impression is that there can be no law against it. Yet it's hard for me to imagine such person would go unchallenged.

derrickduff said:
Presumably, most of us purchased a phantom to get a camera in the air and to share the images and video. It is not only for my own enjoyment, but for everybody I share with.
True enough, but that's still probably only enjoyment for tens (hundreds at the most) of people versus the safety of thousands at a big event.

Visioneer said:
Drunk driving IS illegal and presumably would have been stopped if detected beforehand
derrickduff said:
It's not just drunk drivers. Every year thousands of people are struck and killed by vehicles. I don't know of a single death caused by a remote control aircraft.
The point is valid but it implies we should wait for a "drone" to actually kill someone before we contemplate forced precautions. That's a tough sell.

I'd venture to say that a significant majority of the laws we have in this country were passed after somebody did something that turned out badly for someone else's property or person. And in many of these cases the bad outcome could have been predicted if the actor had given some serious advance thought to "what's the worst that could happen" ... but he/she didn't (or blew off concern for others) ... and somebody else had to pay a price for the rest of us to be educated and subsequently protected. As long as you're not the person paying the price, no problem. I'm guessing that if you were at a public event and somebody else's "drone" fell out of the sky and took a chunk out of your kid's ear, your reaction would not be, "that's life". Is that likely to happen, no ... could it happen, yes. The point is do you want somebody else making the decision regards what's an acceptable risk to put your kid at? And everything has degrees - one aircraft in a sparsely populated park - very unlikely, twenty aircraft in the vicinity (within fly away, pilot error, or mechanical failure distance) of thousands - the odds go up).

Visioneer said:
You need to challenge yourself with the task of figuring out how to best ensure the SAFETY of EVERYONE in the area of a huge event with limited resources, rather than focusing solely on how to protect the RIGHTS of a HANDFUL of people. It's a ridiculous assumption to think you have the resources to do it all ... something has to be sacrificed.

derrickduff said:
This is the heart of the matter, security over freedom. And from here it's all opinion and we'll have to agree to disagree. I can't get on board with fear trumping freedom.

I'd don't have an issue with this as a generic statement, but in the context of this example the more accurate statement is fear for the many trumping freedom of the few. It puts a different perspective on it. I'll concede this revised statement doesn't really apply if limited to your Phantom which we know is not loaded with explosives ... the safety of the one or two people it could possibly injure (very unlikely) shouldn't trump your freedom to fly it if done so with reasonable precaution ... but the authorities don't know it's "safe". There should be a better solution to an outright ban, but it's going to require their being educated in concert with their capabilities to ensure it is safe.

I'm not sure we're really disagreeing on most of this. Knowing what I know about the Phantom, I absolutely agree that you should have been allowed to fly it where and when you indicated you would (after all, you were checked out by LEO). But I also recognize that the authorities don't know what I know and likely don't have the resources to "clear" every unknown device they might encounter in an event of this kind. I'm simply trying to see both sides. Without more info regards their knowledge, direction, and resources I can't say that they had any realistic alternatives. That having been said, it's unlikely that they'll do anything different in the future unless you or someone else can help with their knowledge or resources.

The one minor point we may disagree on is whether or not the fear referenced herein is irrational, though I suspect it's really an issue of semantics. Knowing what we know, fearing the Phantom is irrational - there's nothing about it to be feared (perhaps absent scopophobia). But if one's primary exposure to "drones" is of the military variety (or largely as portrayed as "bad" by the media), it might be entirely rational. Just a thought - perception is everything.
 
Re: The Bridge Run, the Police and our Hyper Sensitive Cultu

thongbong said:
Most people don't differentiate between a Phantom or an S1000--all they see is a drone. Me you and everyone on this forum knows, but the public and public officers are still not familiar.

You're correct, most people actually don't differentiate this: (edit, sorry for the massive picture)


From this:


There is definitely an up hill battle we have with the general public. I'm sure most of us are aware of the 60 minutes special on "Drones" and the several other news outlets talking about them. Although they differentiate between the military and civilian models most viewers take away the negative aspects.

thongbong said:
Hey look, lightning actually struck someone!

http://phantompilots.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=11837

not all in yet, I still have a middle nut

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dro ... story.html

So far no deaths I can find... However, I believe in personal responsibility in cases like this. The operators were performing in unsafe conditions, or in an unsafe manner and should be held liable. Until the time that these are rated as airworthy by the FAA or some other jurisdiction we shouldn't be flying them over crowds.
 

Attachments

  • index.jpg
    index.jpg
    4.5 KB · Views: 358
  • MQ-9_Reaper_taxis.jpg
    MQ-9_Reaper_taxis.jpg
    88.6 KB · Views: 424

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
143,066
Messages
1,467,359
Members
104,936
Latest member
hirehackers