Separate names with a comma.
Sign up for a weekly email of the latest drone news & information
Discussion in 'News' started by robby3265, Sep 15, 2015.
Convicted dji user , Hobbyist flew drone over Anfield to shoot video for his YouTube channel
HIP, HIP, HOORAY!
It is a pleasure to welcome you to the Phantom Pilots forum. I hope that you will take advantage of the benefits that come with membership and that you will be able to use the forum for the exchange of innovative ideas and as a resource for current developments in Phantom quadcopter’s. I have moved your thread to the proper location and I also edited the title to show what the thread is about as we try to avoid 'Clickbait' titles.
Is there more to this story or just that one line in the article?
Is this about the same guy?
WOW rooting and being happy that some one not only got in trouble but also is hurting the hobby..
ya that really sounds like some thing to be glad about.
How is that person a DJI user? There is no mention as to what brand drone he was using.
The Guardian is a more reliable source.
I am VERY GLAD he was caught, plus, now that he's banned, he can't do any more 'hurting [of] the hobby' that you're so worried about.
Maybe the problem is as much the limited thinking of the "authorities" as it is the technology.
What's needed is common sense integration of the technology. What's tainted the "hobby" is immature people doing really stupid things.
While drones have "some" inherent danger, there are MANY things commonly accepted in daily life that are more dangerous. How about crosswalks on busy intersections?
We can't just say that the technology is dangerous to be near people because there are some risks associated with it. Instead we should work on mitigating those risks.
If you don't think drones will be widely used by sports team owners, authorities and those who own stadiums increasingly over time, you are probably mistaken. It's probably a technology that will see expanded use over time.
What you're seeing now is a reaction to a new technology in it's relative infancy.
I say in years ahead, we will see drones operated over crowded areas by law enforcement, government authorities, commercial enterprises and so on. Yep, there's "some" risk, but there's also risk with police helicopters and news helicopters and blimps and planes flying over people.
If it had been relatively easy for this guy to get permitted to do these flights, having good liability insurance and agreeing to fly in the safest possible manner, perhaps people like him wouldn't fly over such places as outlaws. What do you think the chances of him getting "permission" to make these flights would have been given the current hysterical "evil drone" environment?
Its hard to say but when there are other people who also have drones happy to see some one get in trouble as if they are even happy the guy also did it in the first place will make it that much easier to place more and more restrictions esp if polishons can point to others who even own drones them selves takeing shear joy in seeing some one get in trouble for some thing that was not much or a real risk to any one or any thing in the first place.
most of the times when laws and restructions are passed they are not passed so much with any ones real safty in mind as much as they are passed to apease the public and make them feel as if the goverment is some how careing about them or wanting to keep them safe or safe from them selves.
Just look at the patriot act or the tsa sticking there hands down kids pants and even them coming straight out and admitting that not only has it not caught a single bad guy yet. They also admitted its not at all about keeping any one safe and is just to make us FEEL like they are keeping safe.
It does't matter he had to give up that drone as he has others including an Inspire. He has an amazing portfolio of videos on YT - Drone4Adventures
Not any more he doesn't.
That doesn't say a quantity nor does it mean he doesn't have more stashed away... just sayin'.
The court in the U.S. Would not have the authority to ban Mr Wilson from encouraging others to purchase, borrow or use a drone for any legal purpose. I believe the UK is similar so, if I had to guess, the reporter either doesn't understand the Court order or doesn't give a **** about getting it right.
The UK is different. I just think everyone involved in his case is over-reacting. Reminds me of the Salem witch hunts. He didn't hurt anyone.
Yeah, there are some really stupid folks out there who should not own these things....but most people are probably careful.
You weren't kidding. Plus if UK kills his hobby he can do whatever the hell he wants in Dubai.
Guy pleaded guilty! What a maroon! Over this side of the pond, ya plead not guilty and plea-bargain down to minimal sentence!
I cannot find the actual court ruling- but all the news reports state that the guy is banned from using/owning any 'Drone'
And that surprises me. I wonder what the legal definition of a 'drone' is. (Think about it- the answer is not simple)
Amazing how time moves on. In 2014 DJI actually used this guys footage filming a football match in their advertising to encourage people to buy them.
wow. Good find Greebo. I think people in Asia and Russia are just a lot tougher people than all of us in the West. Maybe their skulls are a lot thicker or something. Or maybe we've just become a bunch or pansies as a whole (not speaking of anyone in particular)
In the US or UK...all a drone has to do is fly overhead and all the henny penny's are calling the Police. God forbid a drone crash near someone. Bloody Murder I tell you!!! Lawyer UP!
On the other hand, in many parts of Asia or Russia when you do something stupid and hurt someone, you'd pray the Police got to you first because the people there will take it out of your hide for being irresponsible and stupid in a way the Police probably wouldn't.
Maybe drones of the future (that will be flown over people or crowds) will be more of the dirigible type aircraft. Like the Goodyear Blimp. Or a drone like the Phantom will have to have an automated parachute system or an airbag system.....or something.
ya guilty plea is always a bad idea esp when they have to PROVE you are guilty and you are not required to help them to do that. and if some one is not guilty of some thing but takes a ple any way they also have to commit the crime of perjery under oath and lie and say they did do some thing..
if it was i the states he could of used the 3rd pea option that many dont know about and could of atleast asked to plead no contest were he would not have to admit he did any thing but just agree to pay the fine and then not have what ever it was on his record or be held against him.
BUT if it works over there the same was it does here when some one pleads guilty allows the judge to also get you to agree to a sentance or punishiment that would not be legal to hand down on some one that was found guilty by trial. such as the agreement to not ever fly or own a drone again. Same as probation and thats why some one can not ever get probation unless they plead guilty and agree to take probation being that probation can put all sorts or constitutional provisions on some one being they are the ones asking for it and its not forced on them. Thats how probation can impose curfews even tho curfews are against the law in the us to just impose on any one or thats also how they can also force some one with a drinking problem to not drink even tho drinking in its self for some on of age is perfectly legal and also a constitutionally protected right in the us. intill someone will fully agrees to give up there right when they take a ple agreement.