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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Drone-Free Mufflers? | NoOp[_2_] | Ford Mustang | 3 | February 19th 10 11:41 AM |
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 01:17 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 |