A Cars forum. AutoBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AutoBanter forum » Auto newsgroups » Driving
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

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



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 16th 14, 06:07 PM posted to talk.politics.guns,sac.politics,alt.politics.usa,rec.autos.driving,alt.politics.usa.constitution
Lane[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default Man charged by Ohio gestapo in use of camera drone at accident.

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

Ads
  #2  
Old April 16th 14, 07:31 PM posted to rec.autos.driving
harry k
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 148
Default Man charged by Ohio gestapo in use of camera drone at accident.

On Wednesday, April 16, 2014 10:07:06 AM UTC-7, 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.


Yes he is. Another case proving the old adage "You cannot win an argument with a cop on the side of the road" Proper place to argue is at the precinct to file a complaint.

<snip>

Harry K
  #3  
Old April 16th 14, 08:13 PM posted to talk.politics.guns,sac.politics,alt.politics.usa,rec.autos.driving,alt.politics.usa.constitution
Klaus Schadenfreude[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2
Default Man charged by Ohio gestapo in use of camera drone at accident.

On Wed, 16 Apr 2014 19:07:06 +0200 (CEST), "Lane"
> wrote:

>Note the obedient conditioned response of the concealed carry
>gun nuts.



Note the babbling by the AOL user.


"Based on the stupid **** you post and your apalling [sic] lack of
education I'm sure your kids are dummer [sic] than sheep."
-Professor Deep Dudu
  #4  
Old April 16th 14, 08:23 PM posted to rec.autos.driving
Brent[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,430
Default Man charged by Ohio gestapo in use of camera drone at accident.

On 2014-04-16, Harry K > wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 16, 2014 10:07:06 AM UTC-7, 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.

>
> Yes he is. Another case proving the old adage "You cannot win an
> argument with a cop on the side of the road" Proper place to argue is
> at the precinct to file a complaint.


And what happens when the cop or the entire force strikes back for
filing the complaint?

Taking on cops is a risk regardless of how one chooses to do it. There
really is no proper way. It's a game best avoided since it is one where
one slip means the mundane loses.




  #5  
Old April 16th 14, 08:46 PM posted to talk.politics.guns,sac.politics,alt.politics.usa,rec.autos.driving,alt.politics.usa.constitution
richard
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 89
Default Man charged by Ohio gestapo in use of camera drone at accident.

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.
  #6  
Old April 17th 14, 03:53 PM posted to rec.autos.driving
harry k
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 148
Default Man charged by Ohio gestapo in use of camera drone at accident.

On Wednesday, April 16, 2014 12:23:13 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:
> On 2014-04-16, Harry K wrote:


<snip>

> >> 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.


> > Yes he is. Another case proving the old adage "You cannot win an
> > argument with a cop on the side of the road" Proper place to argue is
> > at the precinct to file a complaint.


> And what happens when the cop or the entire force strikes back for
> filing the complaint?


Do much paranoia?

> Taking on cops is a risk regardless of how one chooses to do it. There
> really is no proper way. It's a game best avoided since it is one where
> one slip means the mundane loses.


So if you want to protest but don't because you're paranoid what do you accomplish.

Argue with a cop on the side of the road - you lose EVERY TIME!

Don't argue and don't file a complaint because you're paranoid? You lost again.

File a complaint and you can (and people do) win a lot of the time.

Harry K
  #7  
Old April 17th 14, 05:37 PM posted to rec.autos.driving
Brent[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,430
Default Man charged by Ohio gestapo in use of camera drone at accident.

On 2014-04-17, Harry K > wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 16, 2014 12:23:13 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:
>> On 2014-04-16, Harry K wrote:

>
><snip>
>
>> >> 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.

>
>> > Yes he is. Another case proving the old adage "You cannot win an
>> > argument with a cop on the side of the road" Proper place to argue is
>> > at the precinct to file a complaint.

>
>> And what happens when the cop or the entire force strikes back for
>> filing the complaint?


> Do much paranoia?


You are neglecting a long history of what happens to people who file
complaints against cops in small towns to big cities. The harrassment
has been well documented. You chose to label and remain ignorant of it.

>> Taking on cops is a risk regardless of how one chooses to do it. There
>> really is no proper way. It's a game best avoided since it is one where
>> one slip means the mundane loses.

>
> So if you want to protest but don't because you're paranoid what do
> you accomplish.


What do you accomplish by filing a complaint? Ever notice that before
some cop's action gets media attention there is a long list of
complaints filed against him? They do nothing. Only when he escalates to
a point worthy of media attention does something happen and it happens
because of that action the public is aware of. The long history of
complaints is just a footnote. They achieved nothing.

> Argue with a cop on the side of the road - you lose EVERY TIME!


I've "won"* myself so I know you are wrong. You're just too paranoid to
stand up for yourself in the time and place it often really matters when
it can be done effectively. You'd rather file a meaningless complaint
after the fact that makes you feel better, but in the end you backed
down and obeyed in every way that mattered.

*defined as the cop backing down and leaving me alone.

> Don't argue and don't file a complaint because you're paranoid? You
> lost again.


Either do nothing or sue for damages. A complaint may be part of that
process but unless you want to go all the way by bother with a half
measure that effectively does nothing? One is better off going to the
media. Without the media nothing of significance is going to happen
anyway. Just filing a complaint relies on the cops policing themselves,
and cops have been proven to do that rather poorly.

> File a complaint and you can (and people do) win a lot of the time.


What do they win? Winnings come from lawsuits, not complaints. One
already lost by backing down and obeying, what is 'won' after the fact?
A promise the cops won't do it again? LOL.

  #8  
Old April 17th 14, 07:04 PM posted to talk.politics.guns,sac.politics,alt.politics.usa,rec.autos.driving,alt.politics.usa.constitution
Peter Franks
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 36
Default Man charged by Ohio gestapo in use of camera drone at accident.

On 4/16/2014 5:08 PM, Topaz wrote:
>
> Here are some quotes from the book "SS Defender against Bolshevism" by
> Reichsfuehrer SS Heinrich Himmler:


No one is talking about Bolshevism.

  #9  
Old April 18th 14, 04:53 AM posted to talk.politics.guns,sac.politics,alt.politics.usa,rec.autos.driving,alt.politics.usa.constitution
Peter Franks
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 36
Default Man charged by Ohio gestapo in use of camera drone at accident.

On 4/17/2014 4:41 PM, Topaz wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Apr 2014 11:04:36 -0700, Peter Franks >
> wrote:
>
>> On 4/16/2014 5:08 PM, Topaz wrote:
>>>
>>> Here are some quotes from the book "SS Defender against Bolshevism" by
>>> Reichsfuehrer SS Heinrich Himmler:

>>
>> No one is talking about Bolshevism.

>
> What about gestapo?


Nope.

  #10  
Old April 18th 14, 09:32 PM posted to talk.politics.guns,sac.politics,alt.politics.usa,rec.autos.driving,alt.politics.usa.constitution
Josh[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 42
Default Man charged by Ohio gestapo in use of camera drone at accident.

On Wed, 16 Apr 2014 15:46:24 -0400, richard >
wrote:
> 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.



>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.


Read it as "No person...shall do any act...". As in "Nobody, without
my permission, may go in the pool".

Josh
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Drone-Free Mufflers? NoOp[_2_] Ford Mustang 3 February 19th 10 12:41 PM
Street racer kills 3 - charged w murder - supporter says "People should be forgiven; it was an accident" Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS[_1_] Driving 14 April 21st 09 09:28 PM
Deported man back; charged in hit-and-run accident Ted Driving 12 November 2nd 07 02:17 AM
VA Driver Revolt Over Gestapo Giving Out $2500 Fines For Speeding [email protected] Driving 8 July 19th 07 10:59 PM
sporadic drone [email protected] 4x4 1 August 23rd 06 01:24 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:19 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AutoBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.