On Wed, 16 Apr 2014 19:07:06 +0200 (CEST), Lane wrote:
> 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
2921.31 Obstructing official business.
(A) No person, without privilege to do so and with purpose to prevent,
obstruct, or delay the performance by a public official of any authorized
act within the public official's official capacity, shall do any act that
hampers or impedes a public official in the performance of the public
official's lawful duties.
(B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of obstructing official
business. Except as otherwise provided in this division, obstructing
official business is a misdemeanor of the second degree. If a violation of
this section creates a risk of physical harm to any person, obstructing
official business is a felony of the fifth degree.
And I just noted a misprint here. That is NOT my doing.
http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2921.31
The proper wording should be, ".... shall NOT do any....".
If the judge took this law as it is written, he'd have to rule the guy was
innocent as he was complying with the law.
Now what physical harm to persons was there in this case?
So what if the camera is five feet off the ground or 500 feet.
IMO, if this case goes to appeals, it will probably get dismissed.
But strange things happen with laws in Ohio.