So some idiot shot my phantom3 advanced WITH 22.
- Thread starter Cody Fontenot
- Start date
Do you have time to read the first post on page 1?
Let me get this straight...you have an opinion, one founded on whatever you're pulling out of your ***.
You're provided the legal documents, AND the Civil Code (which is only a couple of pages) that you're unwilling to read, and due to your unwillingness to read, the federal code is BS?
That makes no sense. There truly are laws about shooting firearms from a moving vehicle. However, there are no "See **** and Jane Run" illustrations that draw pictures for you. Unfortunately, some things that adults are expected to understand are in writing, rather than pictures.
You're provided the legal documents, AND the Civil Code (which is only a couple of pages) that you're unwilling to read, and due to your unwillingness to read, the federal code is BS?
That makes no sense. There truly are laws about shooting firearms from a moving vehicle. However, there are no "See **** and Jane Run" illustrations that draw pictures for you. Unfortunately, some things that adults are expected to understand are in writing, rather than pictures.
Proof of which? That it's illegal to inhibit the flight of a drone? Already showed it to you, you're simply too lazy to read.
Proof of the arrest for shooting down a drone? Let me google that for you
Not my fault nor responsibility to educate your illiteracy. If you are unwilling to read, that's on you. However, ignorance of a law, regulation, ordinance is not an excuse for breaking same.
Proof of the arrest for shooting down a drone? Let me google that for you
Not my fault nor responsibility to educate your illiteracy. If you are unwilling to read, that's on you. However, ignorance of a law, regulation, ordinance is not an excuse for breaking same.
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2016
- Messages
- 346
- Reaction score
- 58
- Age
- 44
Not a way to act on the forums YCampCub. Not cool at all. Hate to sound like a parent but if you have nothing to add don't bother posting.
Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots mobile app
Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots mobile app
Meta4
Premium Pilot
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2014
- Messages
- 15,301
- Reaction score
- 9,243
You really need to read our community guidelines to learn what kind of posts aren't acceptable.
Since you are too busy to read them all, here's one that's quite relevant:
2. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Challenge others' points of view and opinions, but do so respectfully and thoughtfully.
Excessive sarcasm, belligerence, insults, profanity, anger, offensive comments about race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, and national origin, are not acceptable.
Interesting -OPINION-.
I suggest you send your findings the the FAA, since they don't seem to be on board. If what you write is such incontrovertible fact, why doesn't the FAA prosecuted these cases? Why do the local DAs invoke local/state laws? How many times has 18 USC 32 been used to prosecute a case of someone interfering with a hobbyist UAV?
You should also send a copy of your findings to the author of the article I commented on, as well as the lawyers referenced in that article. They all seem to disagree with you.
Check your own facts and read for context. State and local law has EVERYTHING to do with the conversation. Regardless of any Federal statues (which may or may not apply to model aircraft), there are plenty of state and local laws to handle the situation. The FAA/Feds have clearly shown they have zero interest in prosecuting these types of cases involving UAVs. Any enforcement has, and will likely continue to involve local law enforcement (where is should be). Illegal discharge of a firearm, destruction of property, etc. ... all valid and enforceable local laws which have nothing to do with, and don't conflict with any federal laws regarding "aircraft."
No, there really isn't... until the FAA actually figures out how they want to handle the subject, makes some actual rules and then tests those rules in court. Until then, we are all just guessing - just like the lawyers in the article originally referenced.
Do you have links to the stories you reference? The only arrest I can find for shooting a drone is the Kentucky case. That arrest had nothing to do with Federal charges and the defendant was found not guilty.
The only firefighter case that comes up is the one in New York. I find no record of any arrest. Seems the FD didn't even release the name of the firefighter who turned the hose on the drone. Where is the case where the feds/FAA made an arrest under 18 USC 32?
How about the NJ case you reference... he was charged with "charges of possession of a firearm for an unlawful purpose and criminal mischief." So much for your federal jurisdiction and claim that State law has nothing to do with it.
It's a shame Google doesn't work for you. I suggest you subscribe to the myriad UAV law blogs, Rupprecht, Sachs, Pillsbury, and others. The cases are there. The names are there. The filings, albeit only the New Jersey case is complete, are there. It's part of my job to monitor this industry. What isn't part of my job is chasing down case citations for droners that are ignorant of the FARs, and moreover, want to remain ignorant of the FARs. The FAA has prosecuted more than one or two, and they're not all that difficult to find. Right now however, their main focus is bringing stability and consistency to the regulations that are currently proposed. Did you listen to Huerta's speech yesterday? In that one speech, he spoke of forthcoming prosecutions amidst the clarification of 336 in education.
Yes, my opinion without backing it up with hours of copy/pasting to satisfy a lazy person are indeed, just opinions. Ignore them.
My Google must be broken. It is linking me to articles which contradict your claims. The NJ case you mention was an arrest under State law. The NY fireman wasn't arrested - they FD wouldn't even identify him.
You stated "State law has zip to do with the conversation." Yet people have been prosecuted under State law while NOT being prosecuted under the federal code you cite.
Unfortunately for those arrested, State Law has everything to do with the conversation.
The fact is, if you shoot at a drone, the odds of the FAA coming after you are slim to none. The odds of the local police coming after you - especially in a non-gun friendly state like NJ, NY, MD, CA, IL, etc. - are basically 100%. When the police show up at your doorstep to arrest you for an illegal discharge (among other things) and confiscate your guns, try telling them State law has "nothing to do with the conversation."
It has nothing to do with being ignorant of FARs. The FAA has trouble finding their backside with two hands when it comes to drones. To claim people should be afraid of the FAA while remaining ignorant of LOCAL laws is as absurd as it is irresponsible.
Spare us the "lazy" ad hominem crap. You are wrong about the applicability of state law. You can sit at your computer all day and "monitor" whatever you like. You can listen to Huerta talk all day. It won't help you if you violate a local law. People should be aware of ALL applicable laws that may apply.
You should use your self-claimed expertise in this area to warn fellow forum readers not to post about their Phantom crashes. I'm sure the FAA is monitoring and will subject them to extensive NTSB investigations. After all, our Phantoms are now treated exactly the same as a Boeing 747 (according to you).
dirkclod
Premium Pilot
dirkclod
Premium Pilot
Just to give an update. After I returned a few days later to detectives office, EVERYTHING CHANGED. I guess the shooter finally went in and talked with them, and it turns out, he worked for the local school board. So when I went back in I was stunned when I was arrested and charged with cyber stalking and had to bond out costing me $350. And I've never even flown in or near the direction of that area. Well after bonding out and walking over to the detectives office an hour after my arrest to make sure they were charging him because I SURLEY wanted to press charges, I and the detective got to talking and he found out that my brother was a sherif in the next Parrish and he had worked with him before. He had the nerve to ask me why didn't tell him who my brother was earlier. Needless to say, I had steam coming out of my ears. Anyways, a few days later I talked to detective a few days later and he tells me the guy will not answer the phone or his house door now. I was so pissed I just wanted to scream that he's at the school board every freaking day. But instead I just hung up. I guess it all boils down to that it's not if your right or wrong in Louisiana, it's all about who you know and what is your job title. I do know if the situation was reversed I would have been arrested and thrown under the jail. THIS WHOLE SITUATION SUCKS!!! I'm back flying though. Replaced the parts myself. Just now waiting to be notified about the court date.
Similar threads
