We can debate "drone" incidents endlessly on this and other forums, but it matters not one whit. As has been proven time and again, perception very often trumps reality. Whether or not a mild mannered, DJI bladed, Phantom can or can't do physical damage to some person or thing (if such could even be proven one way or the other) is immaterial. If the general public thinks they're a threat (damage, injury, or privacy), it will impact our hobby in some negative way. Incidents like this are not helpful, regardless of how harmless we may judge them.
As has already been reported in several incidents, public figures seize upon these incidents. Perhaps they're genuinely concerned, perhaps not. But if there's something garnering coverage and they can see a way to tag along, they're on it. And what better than a drone "incident"? "Drones" already conjure up a negative image, and the folks who participate in this hobby (or enterprise) are a minuscule number compared to the (voting) public at large. So if public figures sense they can get a lot of support while only pissing off an extremely small number of people, what do you think they're going to do? Even the most noble among them cannot ignore the fact that they need support in order to continue to do their "good work".
I'm not advocating any position here. I'm just making an observation about the reality of the situation. We can not debate away the impact of these incidents, and to think they won't have an impact on public policy is just kidding ourselves.