Back to Squawk list

Quadrocopter pilot attacked by drone-hating woman

提交時間:
 
A Connecticut man was assaulted for flying a video-enabled quadrocopter on a public beach. Calling him a “pervert” after calling police to report him for “taking pictures of people with a helicopter plane” and "trying to upload them," the woman, 23-year old Andrea Mears, lashed out at the pilot as he was putting his quadrocopter away, knocking him to the ground and tearing his shirt. (arstechnica.com) 更多...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


MANBOI
MANBOI 13
First don't take the law into your own hands, especially if you don't understand the law. If you call the police wait for them to show up even if it takes a long time. This was a low priority call until it became an assault. She was sticking her hands in his mouth!

You have no expectation of privacy when you are at a public beach. She would have had a reasonable expectation if she was sunbathing in a fenced yard at her private property.
jmilleratp
John Miller 3
As they say on People's Court, "Don't take the law into your own hands. You take 'em to court."

[This comment was deleted.]

HowSwedeitis
This has nothing to do with the current article or topic.
AWAAlum
AWAAlum 6
If you dislike the current administration so vehemently, run for office and do something about it instead of just whining about it.
preacher1
preacher1 5
Well, November is coming.

[This comment was deleted.]

LGM118
LGM118 4
Okay. So let me get your idea straight: The fact that a single person was assaulted on a public beach based on another person's gross misinterpretation of laws and decision to attack another person constitutes proof that the current President of the United States of America is an outlaw. Is that right? I'm trying to "engage in a discussion of the merits" of your disagreement here.

Anyways, even if the conclusion were true, it doesn't even come close to following from the initial facts. It's like if I said the following: "Yesterday I rode my bike 50 miles, therefore bicycles are factually a superior mode of conveyance over automobiles and we should ban private automobiles." The first statement may be factually true (fun fact: it is!), but it it has almost nothing to do with the latter, and even if the latter were true (I'm NOT here to get into that discussion - I'm pointing out how logic works, not how cars work), it still doesn't even come close to following from the initial claim.

Additionally, given your insistence that preacher1 and AWAAlum are somehow making personal attacks, you're the one who is calling the current presidential administration an "outlaw regime", lumping the "elites of the ruling class" together, and so on. Regardless, this amounts to one big red herring fallacy - it's unrelated to the point you'd need to prove, namely that the assault in question has a connection to corruption within the Obama Administration.
preacher1
preacher1 -5
According to some here, photography of that would be legal, and per our perverted law system, it may be, but as I said, they just need to come over here in Western AR and we'll have a talk about such as that.
DTBMF
Would you take him to The Hanging Tree, say a few bible verses and heng em then? Get off your churchy high horse. Remember tornadoes are gods vengence over idiots.
preacher1
preacher1 -2
Nah, hadn't been a good hanging over here in years. LOL. As far as the tornadoes, I don't know if I agree with your statement about God's vengeance; been several around here close but so far I haven't lost a shingle.
toolguy105
toolguy105 16
You have no expectation of privacy on a public beach or any place in public. That was her first mistake. Her second was assaulting him. My hat is off to him for remaining cool and not striking her back while she was assaulting him. It would have put the whole situation in another light. Speaking out loud an clear so it could be heard on the recording was the proper thing to do. If she had real done something to hurt him then he could have defended himself. At most he lost a shirt. I'm sure as part of her conviction she will be made to replace it.
MANBOI
MANBOI 13
People really have no clue about the law or your right to privacy while in public. A few years ago my neighborhood had just held a neighborhood watch program with the local police. About a month later I witnessed two guys committing a property crime outside my home. I had inadvertently run into them while working outside and asked what they were doing. They gave me attitude and refused to leave when asked. As the police instructed in our recent meeting, I took their pictures with my phone and called the police and went inside my home to wait. When they came I gave the pictures to the officers and they were able to catch the suspects a few blocks away. I shared the pictures with our neighborhood watch folks so neighbors would know who to watch for in the future. One of my neighbors then circulated a letter to everyone in my neighborhood (about 100 homes) and said I took pictures of children without their permission without any explanation as to what the context or circumstances were. They didn't mention that I called the police and the police caught the suspects because of my picture. They also didn't mention the two men were in their mid and late 20's, from out of state and had no reason to be on our private property committing a crime. This letter made me sound like a pervert who was out sneaking around taking pictures of children in their bedroom or something that was actually illegal. I filed harassment charges against the idiot who circulated the letter and after requesting they issue a written correction via my lawyer and their refusal to do so, I sued them and they eventually moved out of state. A copy of the lawsuit including police reports with the suspects ages and the actual picture were distributed to everyone who received the misleading letter. I took a picture of two adult criminals standing within plain view of three streets while committing a crime on my property... they had no expectation of privacy!
WithnailANDi
WithnailANDi 26
Nothing is so satisfying as seeing the idiot who calls the cops get arrested! Except maybe a cheeseburger deluxe, with the fries extra crispy.
ljbowdish
Larry Bowdish -8
Or a Tommy Burger.. There's a place in LA called Tommy Burgers. I was there years ago, and they had the best.. All Gooey, cheese and chili all over. I would go back to LA just to get a Tommy Burger.
cjoe071855
Oh man! I last had a Tommy Burger way back in 1980. I'm so glad that they are still in business. If I ever am in Los Angeles again, I'll be sure to come back home with at least a dozen. Yeah, I know, this comment has zero to do with the drone hating nut, but the Tommy Burger is the shit!
KennyFlys
Ken Lane 5
Geeze, that broad is a fruitcake!

So, he's taking videos of the beach. He could have called the cops and claimed, "There are half-naked people laying on the beach!"
lynx318
lynx318 5
Lady if I had taken video of you at any distance, after seeing you close up, I would certainly edit it out.
CarlPeter
Haha, yep you took the words out of my mouth. She really doesn't have anything to worry about on that front.
However, she does need a damn good smack in the mouth.
AWAAlum
AWAAlum 2
CaptJohn1
CaptJohn1 8
She got what she deserved. Hopefully, when all is said and done, she'll have a record from this. So the next time she chooses to make up her own rules on what is right and wrong, and do as she pleases, she won't be treated like a first time offender. It's a good thing that guy had his camera recording what was going on, without that, I suspect the police probably wouldn't have seen through her lies. As far as civil courts, I've sat on jurys before in civil proceedings. Jury's have a fair amount of leeway in civil cases. She may end up oweing him some money if he brings this to court. She would be better off sucking up her pride, appologizing to the guy, and ending this as soon as possible.
Moviela
Ric Wernicke 17
There are a lot of popular beliefs concerning privacy that are flat out wrong. The first one is anything that can be seen from a public place can be photographed. With the exception of commercial use, the image does not belong to the subject of the photo, it belongs to the photographer.

If you don't want your "short comings" photographed on the beach, keep your clothes on. If you don't want your house on Google Earth, build a wall. If you don't want people to see your property from the air, put a roof over it.

If you assault a photographer you stand a good chance of writing some large checks and spending time locked up with scary people who will approach you from the rear with affection.
preacher1
preacher1 1
Well, legally right is one thing but it may not save your butt from somebody that feels threatened. Depending on the part of the country you are in, there are some things you just don't do because you can. A good dose of common sense, if you have any, must be applied to whatever you do. Intent of the law, rather than how it is written, may take precedence, whether you like it or not. If you don't, all I can say is to challenge it in court.
cm5299
Chuck Me 2
"Well, legally right is one thing but it may not save your butt from somebody that feels threatened."

What is that supposed to mean? "Save your butt" from what?
AWAAlum
AWAAlum 2
Oh for heaven's sake, it simply means even though you may be in the right, it doesn't mean someone who disagrees with you may not come after you.
preacher1
preacher1 -6
Use your imagination.LOL
cm5299
Chuck Me 6
No. Would rather hear it from the source. Care to explain?

I am curious why somebody would feel "threatened" enough by a RC drone to take some kind of action that may necessitate somebody's butt being saved.

Please elaborate. Thank you.
preacher1
preacher1 -6
Let's just say that my closest neighbor is 3 miles away and there is plenty of open space around. Folks around here would not do something like that and anybody that did has no business here, hence not welcome. From that point use your imagination as that is all I will say, lest someone twist words and use them against me. If you come down this road, you are either going fishing, coming to see someone or you're lost. If the latter, we will direct you back to the highway. If your not in one of these categories, you don't have any business here.
AWAAlum
AWAAlum 2
My gosh, are you saying the roads aren't public? That people aren't free to drive through your neighborhood just for a "Sunday drive"? Sounds a bit creepy.
mhlansdell00
After all that esplanin, how about an explanation by Chuck. What was the point of the angry outburst?
AWAAlum
AWAAlum 1
You're right about your "intent of the law" comment. Laws are intentionally worded so as to be open to interpretation.
rxcw43
rxcw43 0
Ric - can I just say I love the way you write and agree with you at the same time!..
Desperado
I see no one has asked what the woman was doing that she was worried about be photographed, perhaps a little meeting that she didn't want her significant other to know about.
mhlansdell00
Clandestine perhaps, but hardly illegal. If it was me I might want to keep that private. Maybe her husband just banned her from being seen in a bathing suit.
CaryA
Cary Alburn 3
We had neighbors with the same attitude as Ms. Mears--they did wrong, and then they called the cops. Makes no sense, but then, lots of what goes on in this world makes no sense. God gave people free will------to act like idiots.

Cary
pewomo
This lady should rather be concerned about what NSA is doing.
AWAAlum
AWAAlum 3
Oh my gosh - the issue has to be the woman assaulting the guy with the drone. Surely it can't be that he was taking photos. Look around you - you are being photographed and video'd hundreds of times every day, everywhere you go! Be realistic.
rmchambers
rmchambers 4
She needed a punch in the face, or to be tazed repeatedly when the cops showed up. What the hell was she thinking?
AWAAlum
AWAAlum 4
Yikes again!
executivedriver
It's just a matter of time before one of these voyeurs is hammered or killed by some alcohol or drug crazed beach goer. Throw in a beach party of drunks and it's going to get real ugly, real fast.
jwills8606
James Wills 2
resp. CW Currier. I don't think he uploaded the video until after he was assaulted. Don't know if that makes any difference, though.

All I can say is that he exercised a remarkable self-control. The first moment she laid hands on me, it would be Katie-bar-the-door. And of course, I would go to jail or be sued or both. Viva technology!

Great video. My next purchase will be a good dash-cam - WITH instant uploading.
CaptJohn1
CaptJohn1 1
I would have downloaded the cell phone video if I had the chance. Lets just say the cop, or someone else, decides they don't like what you were doing and they want to screw you over. And they get their hands on the cell phone and delete the video, or destroy the phone. You've still got your video for all the world to see!
dmanuel
dmanuel 4
There are people who don't believe the public should be allowed to take photographs at airports, of aircraft.
buttineleven
i think the guy was just trying to showoff his drone.
drones could hurt someone if they go out of control, they shouldnt be allowed in public places
jmilleratp
John Miller 1
Attack of the Drones! :-)
BrianL
BrianL 1
Why do people call these multi-rotor copters "drones"? They're no more (or less) a drone than an RC plane is. To me, a drone is something that performs a job. Even a drone bee has a specific job.

This lady had no reason to be concerned unless the copter was close to her, which it sounds like it wasn't. Crazy. She might as well assault everyone on the beach with a camera taking photos of the water/beach.
BaronG58
BaronG58 1
Webster Dictionary would disagree with you.
LRRPinator
LRRPinator 1
Don't call this guy a "pilot" -- that's an INSULT to those of us who actually strap real aircraft to ourselves and actually fly them. But apart from that --- who cares?
ynotssor
ynot ssor 1
There are many good comments in this thread. As an owner and flyer of several such UAV's (unmannikined aerial vehicles) with cameras, I'll offer my own observations, please.

First, the article describing the incident seems one-sided. The pilot has the stage, and the "assaulting" woman has none. The pilot's statements seem cleverly contrived, such as "some crazy lady came over and started taking pictures of me, and dialed 911 for the 3rd time in 15 minutes."

Tell me please how he knows that? My smartphone has a camera, and I'd have to be fully prepared to take such video as that presented while being assaulted while obviously absolving ones right to defend ones self.

That being said, one has to question the man's motives. Was he flying in that locale because of simple open space? Was he hovering over people who were exposing their bodies to UV sunlight? Was the quadcopter FPV (first person view) indicating that he knew exactly what the camera was recording, or was it flown by sight with subsequent viewing from a micro-SD card without knowing the exact framing of the video?

Many such questions exist before coming to any kind of judgement, yet we are arriving at a point in history where one must recognize violence before delivering a measured response. In my opinion the arrest was entirely justified, yet any charges and subsequent convictions will depend on the presented facts of the man's piloting.

My preferences for quadcopter video are exploring rock structures in Utah, Colorado and Arizona, and anywhere I happen to be. Intruding on others peace and privacy (especially in public places) isn't part of my pleasure with video UAV's.
nmctwx
Andy Dot 1
Since I live in Connecticut, I have followed this story closely since it was posted. I've read through many of the comments on here and other sites as well and there are some things that I haven't seen mentioned.

First, the video he took from the quad was legal, but actually flying the quad wasn't permitted at this park which was mentioned in an article in the Hartford Courant. The video he posted of his assault was actually illegal since it included audio. Connecticut is a 2 party state when it comes to audio recording - both parties have to agree to having their words recorded.

With that said, I can't believe that the only charge the woman faces is assault. I don't think the arresting officer was trying. It was she who endangered a whole beach of people by hammering on this kid while the quad was still in the air. I'd even go out on a limb and even throw attempted hijacking since the kid was the one piloting the quad - an aircraft nonetheless. It would be in interesting trial if those charges were included.

Other thoughts:
-I give the kid credit for not fighting back and for taking the video. I wouldn't have been able to keep my cool.
-To those who would have used a shotgun to take down the quad. You know there were a few hundred people at the beach.... The shot that goes up will come back down.
lynx318
lynx318 1
To 2nd other thought, enough Americans shot gunning quads will certainly add to the gun law debate.
BaronG58
BaronG58 1
Might want to brush-up on your 2 party state recording laws. Audio recording would have to been premeditated and intent to do harm to be illegal.
ynotssor
ynot ssor 1
We don't know enough to judge. As a quad pilot, I have to question the man's intentions. The statements in the article are entirely one-sided. We haven't heard the woman's statements yet. Was he flying there simply because of open space or was he targeting her?

If he was, I'm on her side.
imtxsmoke
Jeffrey Bue 1
I've been reading the comments and everyone seems to think the video that was posted to YOUTUBE was the one taken from the Quadrocopter. I Cut & Paste from the first two sentences from the article: "Liveleaks has published an iPhone video taken by a Connecticut man of a woman assaulting him for flying a video-enabled quadrocopter on a public beach. The man originally posted the video to YouTube, but it has been taken down by the service, and his account has been suspended “as a violation of YouTube's policy prohibiting content designed to harass, bully, or threaten.” - Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but it sounds like YOUTUBE took down the video of the "assault taken from the Iphone" rather than the video taken from the Quadrocopter. Am I reading this correctly?
banana
James Eaton 1
What has happened to integrity? She assaults him and then says he assaulted her..... that fact alone condemns her actions.
crstardust
crstardust 1
Hardly worth an assault charge.....
DAL498
DAL498 1
I would have kicked her in her face so hard her teeth would fall out. I call it self defense.
iflyrjs
She was ugly anyways she deserved to be arrested next time dude find a nude beach
chupacerveza
Open carry is also legal. Doesn't make it the smart thing to do.
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
That guy was A LOT nicer to her than I would have been. Video taping in public is legal. I do that kind of photography all the time... I would have had that B@#$h hauled off and filed charges against as well as sued her for damages.
jagerardi
jagerardi 1
I would have made sure I had video of her hitting me once, then I would have put her in the hospital, acting in self-defense.

THEN I would have had her arrested.

..Joe
flyingcookmosnter
Wow, unbelievable. Good thing he had the foresight to start recording. I bet the police would have taken them both in otherwise unless there were witnesses (which it doesn't sound like there were.)
pthomas745
Pa Thomas 1
So, those of you who think you shouldn't "fly" things at the beach....so, I can't bring my kite? Or my Frisbee?
preacher1
preacher1 -3
Flying model aircrafts as a hobby doesn't currently require FAA approval, but FAA rules say drones can fly no higher than 400 feet and must stay away from people. That raises questions about the flying over people and a public area. Ain't my deal, that's just what the Feds say. Even in the story the cops say he was legal but that it might alarm some people. When folks get alarmed and maybe feel threatened, they sometimes don't care whether you are right or not.
avihais
Those a recreational activities. There is no need to take photos/videos at the beach nor fly noisy quadrocopters there.
caktusjack
Greg Landes 10
No need to take photos/videos at the beach? Ever taken kids to the beach for vacation? I film and take pictures when we go and if someone happens to be in the background then so be it. Don't want to accidently be in a picture at the beach then don't go.
sethconner64
seth conner 0
This is why Islands are n short supply!! LOL I can see both sides of this argument. Privacy verses a public place. I am amazed at how many "public" cameras are already in place on light poles by 4 lanes and at stop lights. I guess if you run the stop light you are against cameras and if someone runs the light and T-Bones you, you are glad someone or hoping someone is watching and sends a ambulance. As a pilot I am concerned as to the number of drones, who is flying them, why they are flying them and what is their training. What about banner tow airplanes? Where do you draw the line?
Chuck214
Yes keep the cameras off them. Fly them for the fun of flying.
calcajun
Down here in the cajun country we love quadrocopters. Who cares about duck or dove season any more ? The only problem is I have yet to find recipe for them.
Croos
I have girls trying to tear my shirt off at the beach all the time. What's the big deal?
rfiory
Pretty amazing. You try to have a nice, quiet hobby and some psycho appears out of nowhere to ruin your day.
devsfan
ken young 1
Once again we see a hysterical knee jerk reactionary commit a battery against another person because they are "annoyed".
The guy is supposed to sit there and get hammered by this Harpy because if he defends himself and there is no video He gets to go to jail.
Even on this case SHE LIED to the cops and said he assaulted HER...
If she spotted someone 50 feet away taking photos in her direction, would she have reacted in the same manner? If the answer is yes, perhaps this wench needs to stay in her house and not come out.
BTE, as a rule I don't hit girls. But if a crazy female starts throwing haymakers my way, it's ON..Her problem if she gets floored.
flyingarmadillo
Jim Yahr 1
The guy broke the law and admits it indirectly in the article. Not by taking the pictures, but by not maintaining a 400 foot distance from other people. This applies to all RC aircraft.
Pileits
Pileits -4
Just another American idiot female who thinks she has some sort of entitlement that allows her to assault another person simply because SHE doesn't like what that other person is doing.
Hope the cops spank her actually.
WithnailANDi
WithnailANDi -2
Next on Cinemax... PRISON SPANK!
benin
benin -2
In the first place, Did he really need to be flying it there of all places? Yes, It was legal, but I'm sure there's a local park or related where he could of flown it as well. He could be a pervert like the woman said, but he may not. We don't know.
Also, She definitely overreacted. No need to do that. Calling the cops was ok. she was concerned and she did nothing wrong. Calling the cops three times and then assaulting him was over the line, as we all can see.
WALLACE24
WALLACE24 -6
I expect the legalities to change after some moron flies his copter into some child's head in a public place. Taking pics of Bubba's girlfriend's boobs at the beach will probably get you a real ass kickin too. Lol
Chuck214
Sooner or later the question of "where our rights of privacy begin and end?" will have to be answered. Not just with drones but the soon to be very popular "Google Glasses". Why does a camera have to be attached to any type of drone? I thought it was the fun and challenge of flying, not to see what's over the fence.
krschneider
How do we know he's NOT a pervert? I'm a pilot of 40+ years and a libertarian but I really don't like the idea of someone invading my personal space with a remote controlled peeping tom electric avatar.
RussellNelson
Russ Nelson 5
Have you seen any of these videos, Karl? In particular, the most commonly used high quality camera is the Go Pro 3. It uses a wide angle lens which is suitable for what it's being used for -- landscape shots from far away. In order to do any "peeping", you would need to be much MUCH closer, to the point where you were endangering someone, or you would need a telephoto lens. Photographers use them from a tripod for good reason.
devsfan
ken young 1
One could ask the same question about YOU....
Your premise presupposes the idea that it is ok to make an accusation then demand the accused disprove your theory.
It doesn't work that way. YOU made the claim. Therefore the burden of proof is on YOU...
cwcurrier
C W Currier -1
A lot of armchair lawyering going on here, folks. May I (a lawyer) suggest that the issue is not whether one has a reasonable expectation of not being photographed in a public place. That is a Fourth Amendment issue applicable only to government intrusions and whether such intrusion without a warrant is reasonable. The issue here is quite different: We all have an enforceable privacy right to not have photographs or images of us PUBLISHED without our consent. The woman's conduct was woefully wrong, but her complaint was that the drone guy was uploading the video and, according to the report, he did (to YouTube). if the woman's image was recognizable in the video, she (and others) would have a civil remedy against the droner. Moreover, his conduct may have been illegal depending on his purpose. There are statutes in all states addressing the conduct for which, again according to the report, YouTube took the video down.
RussellNelson
Russ Nelson 3
Citation or it's not true. Europe has all sorts of privacy laws, not so much in the USA. I know of no law or court case where someone (who doesn't use their image commercially) has prevailed against someone who published their image. You could libel someone by putting a caption on it, or modifying the photograph to show them doing something they're not, but that's possibly fraud. Nothing to do with a privacy right that you don't have in public.
devsfan
ken young 1
The predicate factor being "if her image was recognizable"....
Correct....
A reasonable person can take photos and/or video and publish the images if one or both of the following conditions are met.
1. the person(s) in the images grant permission for their images ot be published
2. the identifying portions of the images, mainly faces, are 'blurred out'.
pilot62
Geez smoki just give up - ur brain has expired :D
Yea Obama change every law - what r u even talking about ..
pilot62
outlaw regime ! Yep and 43 was completely legit for sure !
Go Bush dill weed number 3 - well number 2 I actually liked 41
pilot62
Go smoke some more
KarryEllis
Karry Ellis -2
The lady who accosted the drone pilot did not exercise much restraint, but it is possible his actions were beyond the bounds of what a reasonable public would expect. Context would be the key issue when a court would judge such actions. When someone makes an assertion "you have no right to privacy on apublic beach", the statement would have to be qualified. Taken at its face value, the statement would mean that if your spouse or child were laying on a beach minding their own business and a person came up to them and started taking photos of them, let's say from very close range, and would not quit when asked to do so, I am not sure the "No right to privacy" line quoted above would hold up. In fact, it could fit the legal definition of harrassment, as there would be no logical reason for a stranger to be photographing you or your family when asked to stop. The person taking photos could claim it is his right to do so, but when his rights cause concern and harm to those innocent of any action prompting his photos, they could claim their rights have been violated. Where does your private space start and stop? If your teenage daughter was laying on a beach and a man was photographing her crotch from two feet away, would anyone deny this to be an invasion of privacy? Would the onus be on her to cover up, or is it a reasonable expectation that once asked to move on, and the photographer doesn't, that he is now exhibiting harassing behavior? Again, context is what this case will turn on. So, what was the intent of the drone flyer? Would a reasonable person assume he was just photographing the landscape and people in general, or would a jury find it interesting enough to question the motives? Does he have any prior history of sordid behavior? Like many beaches, were their changing areas in the restrooms that are open to the sky? Does the drone pilot even need to offer an explanation if asked why he is flying a drone with a camera down a beach? All good questions, and I am not taking up for the lady who assaulted him, but there is possibly much more to this than is posted by the drone pilot on Youtube. And lawful or not, it does seem to have the possibility of something sordid or perveted. Comments about her appearance have no bearing on the rightful discussion of right or wrong of the drone action. I am amazed at the lack of civility in society.
devsfan
ken young 2
No..A person in public has no expectation of privacy. Period.
Anyone can be photographed or videoed at any time.
It's as simple as that.
Now, the crotch thing is a bit different. Two feet can be considered invasion of personal space. While I do not know of any statute protecting "Personal space", I would imagine that this would be up to contemporary community standards.
Whether it is over a beach, park or public street it does not matter. Public domain is just that. Public. Beach areas are immaterial. it's open to the public.
AWAAlum
AWAAlum 2
You make a lot of good points, but regardless, it doesn't give the woman carte blanche to physically lay hands on the guy. She needed to wait for the authorities to show up and let them decide.
RickHarrison
Movie stars go thru that every day...... and it's not against the law,,, yet! I think they are trying to pass such laws. It's not breaking the law taking the pictures but I can't say I would like it also,,, what if I have a bad hair day!! if I had hair! :)
mhlansdell00
There is always more to it than is in the article. I can only guess from your response that you're a lawyer. All the if thens have no place here in fact the only thing of interest on this site would be the use of the "quadracopter", the balance is conjecture or in terms for the layman, picking fly crap out of black pepper. Your right to violate my space is always in questio and I suspect is differentiated as you go from urban to rural parts of the land. There is a reason why some live in ant hill cities and some insist on 40 acre farms. I think for the safety of your drone, I might keep it away from preacher's front or back pourch or for that matter away from the front or back 40. If it's any where near me it's inviting distructuin. I'll probably leave the owner operator alone, I said probably, but the gixmo is fair game no matter which law you cite
preacher1
preacher1 1
Well said my friend. Sometimes "just because I can" may bring unexpected action. Very doubtful my county sheriff would back up someone like that.
mhlansdell00
You hardly need defending. I've read you in action. These folks just don'teem to be able to stay on topic. As always, it ranges from Obama and his administration to a crazy woman who can't seem to keep her temper when she feels violated. It just kinda pissed me off.
preacher1
preacher1 2
Strange how some just don't get it. LOL.
preacher1
preacher1 2
I also see below that my original comment that started all this has been down voted completely off. At least I did my time for them to have the right to disagree and do that. Problem is nowadays is that a lot of folks fail to acknowledge there may be differing opinions on a subject, and in this case, differing lifestyles in different parts of the country, and just agree to disagree with someone, but rather engage in a heated argument and act like a spoiled child if you don't change to their point of view.

[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]

tartarus12
Don't sell yourself short. You are wrong on many issues. This just being the latest. It is a public beach and he has every right to photograph there. You have no expectation of privacy when you are laying on a public beach.

As for you other issue. If he does photograph your house and you put your hands on him, you definitely will be going to jail.
preacher1
preacher1 -2
Well, on a second thought, you are correct about the privacy expectation on a public beach. As to my place, come down to Yell County AR and we'll discuss the other. LOL.
WALLACE24
WALLACE24 2
Yep. Them RC copters won't last long in someone else's neck of the woods. 12 ga or 410 is the only question. Lol
sethconner64
seth conner 1
Goose gun. 3 1/2 in BB should do it, problem solved…PULL!!!!
preacher1
preacher1 -1
yep; actually I got a little 20 that is a real nice little varmit gun.LOL
WALLACE24
WALLACE24 -3
Haters will soon catch on that they can get a transmitter and jam or take over control and crash it. Just a question of time.
mcatanese
Then the FCC will want a word with them.
preacher1
preacher1 -3
Yeah, that will keep you out of the public eye, I guess, but a shotgun shell is cheaper. LOL
ToddBaldwin3
Todd Baldwin -2
This brings new meaning to the sport of trap shooting. Since when did my clay pigeons start taking evasive actions.
joelwiley
joel wiley 0
. . . or videos?
sethconner64
seth conner 1
Lawyer Daggitt I am guessing?? LOL Who is this famous Pleader that I was happily ignorant of 10 minutes ago??
geomacbmf
Though probably legal, flying anything over a crowded beach is imprudent. Lots of liability and a flurry of reactionary laws/ordinances that are annoying to us all if someone gets hurt. I would not do that. He got lucky this time. If he hadn't got video evidence of the situation, or if the crazy woman were the wife of a cop/judge/prosecutor, he would likely have to defend himself against a litany of fictional charges at great misery and expense. What expectation to privacy does one have in a public place, especially these days? None. He should be as smart about flying as he was about documentation and restraint. Crazy people are everywhere. I wonder if there was alcohol, etc. involved on the assailants part. Usually illegal on public beaches. Just a thought...
chamrock
D Connelly -3
So if someone took a picture of your child on the beach and posted it online where disturbed people who like to look at bodies, specifically children, might see it, that would not be an issue to you. There are many reasons people react the way they do.
RussellNelson
Russ Nelson 5
What if they merely remembered what my child looked like and thought about my child?
What if they took a really crappy photo of my child?
What if they made a sketch of my child?

"OMG, somebody has a visual representation of my child" is an emotional reaction, not a logical thought process. While, yes, people are welcome to have their emotions, public policy should not be based on emotion. It should be based on logic, on balance.
chamrock
D Connelly -4
How is Obama's logic working for you.
RussellNelson
Russ Nelson 3
Who is Obama? Does he post here? i can't find his name anywhere in this comment thread.
AWAAlum
AWAAlum 0
He's busy sending drones to Iraq.
BaronG58
BaronG58 1
Forget sending drones. Obama needs to send this woman who went Chuck Norris on this guy's azz.
preacher1
preacher1 -1
He hasn't yet. He's still trying to make up his mind while the rebels continue down the road to Baghdad.
crstardust
crstardust 1
Would have to agree...perverts with drones aren't a "neat" idea when it comes to kids playing anywhere.....

登入

還沒有帳戶嗎? 現在就註冊(免費),設置諸多客制化功能、航班提醒等等!