Man charged by Ohio gestapo in use of camera drone at accident.

Note the obedient conditioned response of the concealed carry
gun nuts.

Kele Stanley has been charged with a felony because officials
say he refused to land the camera-equipped drone that he had
been guiding over a traffic crash scene, but he says he is no
idiot.

A videographer and remote-controlled airplane hobbyist, Stanley
admits that he twice flew his remote-controlled hexacopter —
which looks more like a robotic spider than a hobby plane and
costs about $4,000 — about 75 feet above where a pickup had hit
a tree on Saturday morning in Clark County’s Moorefield Township.

But he disputes the law-enforcement version that says he refused
to bring his drone down when authorities ordered him to because
a medical helicopter was about to land to transport the injured
driver.

“I am not an idiot,” said Stanley, who said he was shooting the
video as a hobby and would have turned it over to local
television stations, as he has done before. “If I had known that
Care Flight was on the way, my helicopter would have come down
immediately. There wouldn’t have been any dispute.”

Stanley, a 31-year-old copy-machine repairman who videotapes
weddings as a side business, posted his $425 bail after being
arrested by Clark County deputies about 10 a.m. Saturday. He had
his initial court appearance yesterday on a felony charge of
obstructing official business and misdemeanor charges of
misconduct at an emergency and disorderly conduct.

His case already is drawing the attention of those interested in
the drone issue, the regulation of which is under debate at both
the state and federal level.

There currently are no regulations in Ohio governing private use
of the unmanned aircraft. The federal government has said that
law-enforcement agencies must receive special permits to use
them but commercial use — by real-estate agents or corporations,
for example, that want a bird’s-eye view of something — or the
hobbyist’s use is so far unregulated fair game.

Peter Sachs is a Connecticut lawyer, a (real) helicopter pilot
and a drone enthusiast who runs the Drone Law Journal. He’s a
critic of the Federal Aviation Administration’s assertion that
it has a right to control such use.

He has watched Stanley’s case play out in social media and,
judging by the expensive equipment that Stanley was using, Sachs
said it appears he is “far from amateur.” He said he can’t
imagine that anyone would continue to fly knowing he could be
interfering with a helicopter coming in to save a life.

Sachs said the drones simply make some people nervous, so they
try to stop them. He sees it as a First Amendment issue: “Anyone
can take a view from a public place of anything happening
publicly."

Clark County Sheriff Gene Kelly didn’t return a call seeking
comment, but the criminal complaint against Stanley says he was
told both by fire officials and a deputy that he had to stop
flying and why.

Stanley said he knew there was no law against what he was doing,
so he put the helicopter back up after being approached by a
deputy. But he says the first time he heard about Care Flight
was after he already had brought the drone down a second time,
and he didn’t fly it again.

Sachs said those on both sides of the drone issue will be
watching the case.

“If he did do something wrong, it should come out,” Sachs said.
“And if he didn’t, that story needs to be told, too. Drones have
an unfair, bad connotation surrounding them.”

The sheriff’s office hasn’t released the name or condition of
the man hurt in the crash.



Comments:

OLD VET (OLDVET)

Guilty as charged, Pay the fine(s.) Simple rule of thumb says if
a law enforcement officer tells you to do something at a crime
scene or accident scene you do it. If you think he/she was wrong
you can bring it up later, but defying them at the scene can get
you or someone else seriously injured or dead. As a concealed
carry licensee I can tell you that is one of the first things
you are taught.

2014-04-15 10:29:08.0

flag
ROBERT JACKSON (DOGPATCHBOB)

When the whoever authority-figure tells you to stop playing with
your whirly-bird toy, please conform knowing you'll be able to
play again and have fun again with the other boys and girls.
Otherwise i would think that your newfangled gyro-copter thingy
is a major distraction to those trying to apply their services
to a very fast changing situation.

2014-04-15 18:41:50.0

flag
JOHN HEIN (JOHNHEIN)

You guys do realize that you live in the United States of
America, right? If you're not breaking a law, the police can't
require you to do something.

2014-04-16 11:57:14.0

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stor...014/04/15/man-
charged-in-use-of-camera-drone-at-accident.html

**

On Tue, 22 Apr 2014 23:22:38 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

Gestapo? I'm no fan of police and security who go overboard when it comes to cameras, but this guy was creating a safety hazard.*When enough of these drones drop on people's heads, the regulations will come in swiftly.

My reading is that he didn't know he was creating a safety hazard and
nobody told him he was creating a safety hazard until after he had
finished flying. Where then did he go wrong?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 4/23/2014 4:56 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 22 Apr 2014 23:22:38 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

Gestapo? I'm no fan of police and security who go overboard when it comes to cameras, but this guy was creating a safety hazard. When enough of these drones drop on people's heads, the regulations will come in swiftly.

My reading is that he didn't know he was creating a safety hazard and
nobody told him he was creating a safety hazard until after he had
finished flying. Where then did he go wrong?


Drones themselves are not so harmless. An aerobatic show featuring RC
planes were the feature of a halftime show at a Jet game. One of the
planes got out of control and hit some guy between his eyes. Killed him
on the spot. I was about 25 yds away and saw it happening.

--
PeterN

In article , PeterN
wrote:

Gestapo? I'm no fan of police and security who go overboard when it comes
to cameras, but this guy was creating a safety hazard. When enough of
these drones drop on people's heads, the regulations will come in swiftly.

My reading is that he didn't know he was creating a safety hazard and
nobody told him he was creating a safety hazard until after he had
finished flying. Where then did he go wrong?

Drones themselves are not so harmless. An aerobatic show featuring RC
planes were the feature of a halftime show at a Jet game. One of the
planes got out of control and hit some guy between his eyes. Killed him
on the spot. I was about 25 yds away and saw it happening.

aerobatic planes crash, sometimes killing spectators in addition to the
pilot.

cars crash, sometimes killing the driver, passengers and even
pedestrians.

did you have a point?

nothing is 100% safe.

drones will bring a lot of benefits with almost no risk, but there will
always be those who fight progress.

On Wednesday, April 23, 2014 1:56:35 AM UTC-7, Eric Stevens wrote:
...
Gestapo? I'm no fan of police and security who go overboard when it comes to cameras, but this guy was creating a safety hazard.*When enough of these drones drop on people's heads, the regulations will come in swiftly.

My reading is that he didn't know he was creating a safety hazard and
nobody told him he was creating a safety hazard until after he had
finished flying. Where then did he go wrong?
...

Ignorance of why an officer gave you a direction is not an excuse for disobeying the direction.

Dale B. Dalrymple

On 4/23/2014 12:11 PM, dbd wrote:
On Wednesday, April 23, 2014 1:56:35 AM UTC-7, Eric Stevens wrote:
...
Gestapo? I'm no fan of police and security who go overboard when it comes to cameras, but this guy was creating a safety hazard. When enough of these drones drop on people's heads, the regulations will come in swiftly.

My reading is that he didn't know he was creating a safety hazard and
nobody told him he was creating a safety hazard until after he had
finished flying. Where then did he go wrong?
...

Ignorance of why an officer gave you a direction is not an excuse for disobeying the direction.

True if that really happened. Also, the direction given by the police
must be legal, and related to the incident happening. e.g. If a PO told
me never to drive in a certain area, by itself it would ne one that I
could legally ignore with p\impunity. I might even give him the one
fingered salute, if there were enough witnesses.


--
PeterN

On 4/23/2014 12:06 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

Gestapo? I'm no fan of police and security who go overboard when it comes
to cameras, but this guy was creating a safety hazard. When enough of
these drones drop on people's heads, the regulations will come in swiftly.

My reading is that he didn't know he was creating a safety hazard and
nobody told him he was creating a safety hazard until after he had
finished flying. Where then did he go wrong?

Drones themselves are not so harmless. An aerobatic show featuring RC
planes were the feature of a halftime show at a Jet game. One of the
planes got out of control and hit some guy between his eyes. Killed him
on the spot. I was about 25 yds away and saw it happening.

aerobatic planes crash, sometimes killing spectators in addition to the
pilot.

cars crash, sometimes killing the driver, passengers and even
pedestrians.

did you have a point?

nothing is 100% safe.

drones will bring a lot of benefits with almost no risk, but there will
always be those who fight progress.


Whoosh. Your contribution to this discussion was inciteful.


--
PeterN

"dbd" wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, April 23, 2014 1:56:35 AM UTC-7, Eric Stevens wrote:
...
Gestapo? I'm no fan of police and security who go overboard when it
comes to cameras, but this guy was creating a safety hazard. When enough
of these drones drop on people's heads, the regulations will come in
swiftly.

My reading is that he didn't know he was creating a safety hazard and
nobody told him he was creating a safety hazard until after he had
finished flying. Where then did he go wrong?
...

Ignorance of why an officer gave you a direction is not an excuse for
disobeying the direction.

Dale B. Dalrymple

And if the "direction" is an unlawful one then what? For example, If I'm
recording an officer's actions and not interfering but am told to stop
recording by the police, I do not have to comply because it is perfectly
legal to record them in public. Police have no right to violate our rights
just because they have a badge. We'd be fooling ourselves to think that
they don't live under a different set of laws then the rest of us do but
their position does not permit to abuse our rights.

On 4/23/2014 2:52 PM, PAS wrote:
"dbd" wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, April 23, 2014 1:56:35 AM UTC-7, Eric Stevens wrote:
...
Gestapo? I'm no fan of police and security who go overboard when it
comes to cameras, but this guy was creating a safety hazard. When enough
of these drones drop on people's heads, the regulations will come in
swiftly.

My reading is that he didn't know he was creating a safety hazard and
nobody told him he was creating a safety hazard until after he had
finished flying. Where then did he go wrong?
...

Ignorance of why an officer gave you a direction is not an excuse for
disobeying the direction.

Dale B. Dalrymple

And if the "direction" is an unlawful one then what? For example, If I'm
recording an officer's actions and not interfering but am told to stop
recording by the police, I do not have to comply because it is perfectly
legal to record them in public. Police have no right to violate our rights
just because they have a badge. We'd be fooling ourselves to think that
they don't live under a different set of laws then the rest of us do but
their position does not permit to abuse our rights.


OMG We agree on a political concept. Yesterday I was in Southhold
traffic court. The case was adjourned for the third time because they
could not find the accident report. (I was T-boned by a cop, and they
gave me a ticket.)
Are you coming to the PFLI on Sunday?


--
PeterN

On Wednesday, April 23, 2014 11:52:57 AM UTC-7, PAS wrote:
"dbd" wrote in message
...

Ignorance of why an officer gave you a direction is not an excuse for
disobeying the direction.

Dale B. Dalrymple

And if the "direction" is an unlawful one then what? For example, If I'm
recording an officer's actions and not interfering but am told to stop
recording by the police, I do not have to comply because it is perfectly
legal to record them in public. Police have no right to violate our rights
just because they have a badge.
...

If you choose to play lawyer at an accident scene you can shouldn't be surprised to find yourself in court. If you are wrong, even out of ignorance of safety issues, you are still guilty of a crime. So far, no one has claimed that the direction was to stop recording, rather than to stop flying the drone. Analogies to situations without the safety issue aren't relevant to this situation either.

Dale B. Dalrymple