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

PeterN wrote:
[...] 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.)

For the third time??? :-)

That must have had the judge rolling his eyes, and
everyone else snickering.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

On 4/23/2014 3:44 PM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
PeterN wrote:
[...] 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.)

For the third time??? :-)

That must have had the judge rolling his eyes, and
everyone else snickering.


The Court is about 75 miles from my house. Fortunately, nobody was
seriously injured. I walked around for weeks with a sore shoulder,
caused by my seat belt. I have a feeling that the case will either be
dismissed, or reduced to a point where it is not worth my time to
litigate.


--
PeterN

On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 11:23:57 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

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.

Same applies to bicycles, skate boards, kites etc. That doesn't mean
that anyone with a skateboard, bicycle or kite is automatically
creating a hazard worthy of prosecution.

Life is hazardous.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 09:11:02 -0700 (PDT), 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.


"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.”

In most parts of the world the officer is only empowered to give
lawful instructions. The officer would have had no legal authority to
just throw his weight around.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 08:10:05 +0200 (CEST), "Lane"
wrote:


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.�

There we go again, LEOs lying to protect their so called territory,
and beat their chests in the goody goody two shoes realm of public
relations.

--
Ret. General Bang_Pow RLA/FAR CIA Secret Army, Calif.
National Association of Assault Research
(http://mypage.uniserve.com/~vampire-inter/badcop.html)

PeterN wrote:
On 4/23/2014 3:44 PM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
PeterN wrote:
[...] 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.)

For the third time??? :-)

That must have had the judge rolling his eyes, and
everyone else snickering.


The Court is about 75 miles from my house. Fortunately,
nobody was seriously injured. I walked around for weeks
with a sore shoulder, caused by my seat belt. I have a
feeling that the case will either be dismissed, or
reduced to a point where it is not worth my time to
litigate.

Don't let it go...

Consider that *any* ticket will have an effect on things
like your insurance.

But more important is the principle, and the fact that
you are able (in every way) to stand for what is right.
If you don't, the next person may suffer because they
are simply unable to fight back.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

In article , dbd%
says...

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.

When you're engaging in a lawful activity and a police officer wants you
to stop, he should ask you to do so and explain the reason. However too
many police today think that their job is to push people around.

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 09:11:02 -0700 (PDT), 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.


"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."

In most parts of the world the officer is only empowered to give
lawful instructions. The officer would have had no legal authority to
just throw his weight around.

In this case it seems fairly clear that everyone agrees the
officer had good cause to set up a "non-interference" zone.
Typically that means anyone getting too close is ordered to
remain at a distance.

The specific reason for drawing the line here instead of
there is not something the police officer is required to
provide to every citizen requested not to cross the "police
line".

If the police had been insisting on no photography that
would be something entirely different. They weren't, and
what they did was quite reasonable.

The guy is going to lose (if what has been described
here is accurate). Trying to push this one is just
stupid.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

"J. Clarke" wrote:
In article , dbd%
says...
Ignorance of why an officer gave you a direction is not an excuse for disobeying the direction.

When you're engaging in a lawful activity and a police officer wants you
to stop, he should ask you to do so and explain the reason. However too
many police today think that their job is to push people around.

Generally, that is a sentiment I can agree with.
However, it has to be reasonable...

Control of an accident scene (or a crime scene, or any
other situation where scene control is required for
public safety) literally means that a police officer
necessarily must do exactly that: control the scene.
And citizens have no "right" to demand extra police
effort just to inform each affected person of any and
all legal technicalities.

It has been made very clear that the police officer had
extremely good reason to restrict access, both on the
ground and in the airspace, surrounding the accident
scene. He had no need to explain his reasons in detail
to that individual, or to anyone else.

Unless this has not been described accurately (for
example if in fact no medical helicopter was possibly
going to be called, much less was enroute), the fellow
who didn't clear the area on request is going to lose in
court, because the police officer was right about what
he did.

If it had been an unlawful prohibition, for example on
taking photographs in general, that would be nothing
other than an officer pushing his weight around. I
would agree totally with going after him, because the
officer would be wrong to do that.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 15:42:22 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 09:11:02 -0700 (PDT), 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.


"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."

In most parts of the world the officer is only empowered to give
lawful instructions. The officer would have had no legal authority to
just throw his weight around.

In this case it seems fairly clear that everyone agrees the
officer had good cause to set up a "non-interference" zone.
Typically that means anyone getting too close is ordered to
remain at a distance.

I suspect the officer did say something like 'Get that thing out of
here' without explaining why. The probability is that the officer
would have no legal authority to give that order on his whim: he had
to have a reason. Once again I suspect that, had he said 'There is an
air ambulance coming in' the operator would have had the drone on the
ground within a few seconds. There is not much point arguing about
this as we are never likely to know the full truth.

The specific reason for drawing the line here instead of
there is not something the police officer is required to
provide to every citizen requested not to cross the "police
line".

If the police had been insisting on no photography that
would be something entirely different. They weren't, and
what they did was quite reasonable.

The guy is going to lose (if what has been described
here is accurate). Trying to push this one is just
stupid.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens