Drone Knocked Down at Staples Center

a reply to: buster2010

A couple of things... The drone would be legal if it was part of the Staples Center security, or police with their permission. If it was some ya ho filming then they could be in big trouble with the FAA.

The question to ask is, can I stand across the street in a public area and film people on private property? Staples does not own the air above it, and so it can not control it just like it can't not control across the street.

I think if this is to be the norm then people should also start climbing poles and buildings to remove all the security camera.

RPGs for the news helicopters as they fly over. People can have a ball with this stuff.

The question to ask is, can I stand across the street in a public area and film people on private property?

And that would be yes.

Ok, wait stop and think a second.

A simple question for you anti-drone people out there:
How is this drone possibly different to somebody filming the crowds from an apartment balcony overlooking the crowds?

As stated before on this thread, if the government were to use a UAV for surveillance on a crowd it would be hundreds of meters away and up against a black night sky you probably wouldn't know if it was even there whilst it would have a high power of zoom and possibly thermal imaging and or night vision.

Lets get this straight. This was a fairly simple, and in fact rather low tech drone which only has a mediocre camera (when compared to others on the market) minding its own business and filming the crowds - not stalking or harming anybody. Face it, the only damaged caused was all of those missed shots and bottles, the damage to the drone itself and the damage it did when it was disabled and most likely hit somebody in the crowd - all of which was caused by the crowd itself.

It seems preetty clear to me who was causing any harm or violating any rights

Any way back to the first question:
So would you go up to the balcony of an overlooking apartment, wrestle a camera from a cameraman and throw it over the side onto a person below?......
I think not!

I don't know about you, but being a Brit, I work on the principle that while I am out in a public environment, I have no expectation of privacy. That seems to be common sense, which I guess is too sensible and common for most people.

I am also an amateur photographer, and I treat people in the same way, if they are out in public on public land, they have no expectation of privacy, and I have no problem with photographing them, if something interesting catches my eye.

A slight oddity of UK law means that even if they are on private property, as long as they are in view and I am on public property, I can still legally photograph/film them. Not really applicable here, but lets not get paranoid about cameras.

Whether or not the Staples center allows this or not really doesn't matter. It was not a LEO or Staples center security or employees that brought down the drone. Unless this act is a felony the citizens have no right to be "vigilantes" and take down the drone themselves.

If you and I were at the Staples center and I pulled out a video camera you are not allowed to knock it out of my hands and destroy it. That would be considered theft, assault, and destruction of private property. Only a LEO or the people who work for the center can do anything about it.

That said, the guy was an idiot for flying his drone that low over a bunch of drunks.

a reply to: XTexan

Just a point of interest, UK law is similar. If I'm filming on private property, a person can't come up to me, and destroy my camera. That is, as you say, theft and destruction of private property.

Neither can the security officials employed. All they can do is ask me to stop, and if I refuse, escort me off the premises. They cannot confiscate the camera or footage already taken.

Now heres another oddity of UK law, Police have even less rights than security in this kind of case. Police can't even escort you off the premises, unless the landowner has made a request for them to do so, citing trespass. Trespass is a civil offence, not criminal, so police have no powers to intervene. However, as is always, there are nasty gotcha's in other sectors of law that the police can (ab)use. They could state that there is a suspicion that you inadvertantly filmed a crime in progress, and therefore they are confiscating your equipment to preserve the evidence (this (ab)use happens quite a lot and takes months to get your equipment back, and often you get it back "damaged").

But yeah, at no point does anyone have the right to destroy private property.

Is it Legal to use a Drone to Shoot Video?

It is not laws that stop citizens from shooting drones out of the skies, plain and simple, you fly you darn drone over my property I will shoot it down, now let see the legality of private drones over public places.

The short answer is both yes and no. There are many rules to flying an unmanned aerial system as presented by the Federation Aviation Administration. The most basic rules to follow (that should keep you safe, and the FAA off your case) are to keep your UAS in sight, never fly more than 400 feet above the ground (don’t fly within five miles of airports, and if you follow it everywhere, you’ll be pretty safe), NEVER FLY OVER PEOPLE, and never fly where you can cause property damage. Basically, these are the same rules that you should follow when flying your standard hobby, electric, radio controlled aircraft,

So there you have it, you can Play with your "toy" but you have no right to fly the toy over people.

When it comes to cameras they are considered illegal to film people without their permission, but you can make personal videos of yourself.

How about cameras

You can fly any radio controlled aircraft with a camera on it. At least for now. There are currently 30 states attempting to outlaw radio-controlled aircraft with cameras on them. Where things really get dicey, is when flying a radio-controlled aircraft for commercial purposes (like shooting video).

Then again how legal is to film.

According to Les Dorr (a spokesperson for the FAA out of Washington, D.C.) "…if you are taking video for your own personal use (including YouTube) and you're not going to do anything else with it, and you adhere to model aircraft guidelines, you're okay…" He continues, "…you cannot sell the video, and you cannot take money for shooting the video." Why? Because using unmanned aerial systems for commercial purposes is illegal.

Interestingly the Man in the White house has allowed for people to get permits to use private drones by 2015, but until them drones are fair game for those that feel that they are infringing in their private space.

Still when it comes to individual states they are compel to write their own rules about drone use in their space.

There are permits available for unmanned aerial systems at this time. But not for profit, and not for shooting video. The current permits being issued are called "experimental airworthiness certificates”and are for (again from our FAA spokesperson) "… Demonstrations only."

At the end of the story is clear, You are not allow to shoot videos without permission and can not fly over people.

So for those that think that is legal to do that as today, they have one coming, that is the right of the private citizens to take matters in their hands and those people that are doing what they are not supposed to do will lose their "Toys", and you will be fine by the FAA, let not forget you can get a law sue by a citizen too

So fly at your own risk.

www.videomaker.com...

a reply to: marg6043

I think we make a HUGE mistake by the knee jerk idiotic reactions like "outlaw all remote control aircraft with cameras"! Yeah.. doh.. what a brilliant idea. (sigh) Why not just outlaw all cameras. Perhaps require a permit for equpment beyond a certain level? May as well for all the sense that makes.

I'd be all for laws targeting invasions of privacy, but we need some lawmakers with the sense god gave the common goose for targeting PROBLEMS, not entire classes of behavior which have as much good as they do negative.

How about I want to make a little company for 'as-needed' S.A.R. assistance in disasters? I'm in Missouri ..this isn't a business likely to be short for work in the wrong times..just highly seasonal. I'd have to practice and get good with my equipment, which would mean flying it in urban areas around abandoned areas or empty industrial perhaps ..but still, live flying with live audio/video gear running...and what those laws WOULD outlaw by the blanket 'get 'em all!' approach.

Now if a private survey drone is running up and down my street to survey property lines or pipe routes or anything they need ...fine with me. If it crosses to obviously peeping in the BACKYARD side of the public street, then it's no longer going under an "eyes can't trespass" concept that I HAVE video taped neighbors and had cops called on it to test the legality of as a concept. If the public can see it...it's not private and generally speaking, 'The eye can't trespass' from a vantage point of legal public view ...likewise electronic means. At least here that's true.

Our Lawmakers need to spend more than 5 minutes from a sound bite birthing a brain fart of an idea to go say RAH RAH! We DID something! for the cameras. They do as much damage as they do positive, IMO.

I've given some more thought to this whole incident and something seems a bit strange to me.

First I must consider the source where I found this video.

Luke Rudkowski from We Are Change posted this story to his Facebook. He is a long time Truther with close ties to Alex Jones.

Second thing is that the drone is intentionally flown too low above a crowd which was already throwing things at.

Third thing is the person filming is somewhat drone savy as they state "phantom 2 got knocked out of the sky".

I'm starting to feel this could be a staged event.

I like Luke Rudkowski and Alex Jones but I wouldn't it put it past them to pull a stunt like this for the cameras. Unless this was just an act of pure stupidity by someone.

The fact that the drone drops even lower after the crowd begins to throw things really seems suspicious to me.

a reply to: marg6043

Thanks for the info. Good post.

That clearly outlines the laws as far as the drone being permitted to fly above crowds.

originally posted by: AlphaHawk
a reply to: Desert3dR0ma

Yup, this Forbes article agrees

www.forbes.com...

This was good article. Thanks for posting.

I agree with it. I think both the crowd and the drone owner were dumb.

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

That is the thing, when it comes to commercial use of drones or drones used by the police department or government is special permits to do so.

Is not gray area here but only when it comes to privately used of drones as today.

Laws has been written and they are on the table, states are waiting for the Federal government upcoming regulations of drones as states can challenge whatever the federal government is going to do.

Still if drones are to be used for commercial purposed is just no brainer that they will ask permission to go over private property as is laws already that deals with that.

The biggest problem with private drones and cameras is that they can be abuse by the stupid and sick few as usual.

If you linked to my second post you see that a private drone that crashed was spying on a women in the backyard of her house sun tanning by her pool

That is an example of how private drones can be use to abuse privacy.

a reply to: marg6043

I agree with you 100% that they can be abused. Oh, I can imagine more ways than we've seen yet. No one has flown an X-6 or that little toy we're thinking this was at Staples Center over Blacks Beach yet, have they? Just one childish example, but surely a notable one to imagine how widespread abuse could really be.

Still.. As Americans we do things every day that 95% of us don't abuse, 5% or less DO, and we don't pass silly laws to outlaw a whole activity for it. (Okay..sometimes..but this isn't a gun debate ..lol)

I'm fine with passing high level felony laws regarding peeping, voyeurism or any sort of covert filming of anyone for any purpose outside of just being a part of a public scene or a presence in public view anyway, secondary to something else being done. Hang 'em high and string them up.

Where I think I get ruffled fur on private business is when the talk isn't surgical law to remove a cancer from a healthy populace ...but a sledgehammer to cure a headache by addressing ALL activity in a class, legal or not, as a knee jerk thing. Outlawing cameras on remote control aircraft as a blanket thing, as I understand some have put forward, is just such a sledgehammer and the poor patient didn't need their head squashed over the headache of others.

*Government and State drones are a whole different ballgame, as they are literally under a whole different standard by being State/Government extensions of enforcement or policy.

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

Exactly, as of today drones are on "testing bases only" and that is the only way states and federal government can used drones, but when it comes to private use they are using the laws that were enacted under small toy airplanes, with a difference, the toy airplanes were no able to fly at the same altitude as the newest drones do.

This is a good example of how states will be dealing with private users of drone after 2015

There are also simple safety concerns. A drone capturing images of a bull race in Virginia this summer suddenly fell from the sky, injuring at least four people in the stands.

One month later, Texas became the first state to pass legislation punishing improper drones use. Now, flying a private craft without permission from authorities will come with a $500 fine. That's more than $200 more than the most popular recreational drone model.

thelead.blogs.cnn.com...

Even when Texas used the example of what happen in Virginia to pass laws on drones in their state without waiting for 2015, many other states will do the same when hundred of thousands of privately owned drones takes to the sky with permits or illegally, the safety of this small drones is questionable, regardless of what some have said in this thread, they will fall on people, they will cause damage, they will fly into each other and buildings and that is when the regulations will get strict, because when you have so many flying objects in the sky is going to be problems.

Right now anybody can buy a small drone from children to adults and fly them without permission even when is already clear that only with a permit from the FAA you can fly one.

"For right now, there's no law stopping a 13-year-old from buying one of these at Best Buy and flying over (Comerica Park). ... I want to see it be regulated before aforementioned 13-year-old flies his drone around (Comerica Park) during the first inning because he thinks he will be cool and he crashes and hurts everybody, and all of a sudden, drones are illegal," he said.

See is a can or worm what is been opened amid the commercial sell of small drones for personal use.
thelead.blogs.cnn.com...

New York Drone Crash Prompts Second FAA Fine for Reckless Flight

Remember that one, I guess already the first fine due to safety issues of drones has been issue by the FAA.

www.businessweek.com...

I see it this way, once the hundred of thousands of small privately owned drones take the skies and they start to become an issue of safety and the fines for recklessness starts to be issue, people will think twice about wasting their money on drones.

edit on 15-6-2014 by marg6043 because: (no reason given)

a reply to: marg6043

marg, thanks for your detailed workup on this issue.

My concern and reason for protest against these mini-drones is that they can just be dropped on an unsuspecting public and no one can be sure who is operating them and for what purpose. Maybe some are okay with this. I am not. No, I have nothing to hide. Let's just say I'm camera shy. No one knows just how this footage will be used without our permission. I don't like that, call me old-fashioned.

On the other hand, maybe I should get myself a mini-drone and make some cash with beach-voyeur drone videos. Yeah that's the ticket!

What gives the right for someone to fly one over people and film them? Why does there have to be a camera or any other sort of optic viewing, unless used for flying.

Eventually people will use these things for their mass shootings, instead of even doing it themselves. Just a thought.

a reply to: NarcolepticBuddha

I am very concern also, but things will start to heat up once the use of privately small drones take to the sky and then complains from citizens starts to hit the state officials.

Also is laws that have to do with infringing in property, like copyright laws, that means that no everybody can go around filming games, gatherings an such without consent.

a reply to: wutang717

I wonder no about other people, but the rights of the government to do that, after all only the government and state law enforcers will be able to get their hands on more sophisticated drone technology.

Like Obama been the one that signs who armed drones are to be targeting, but he is no the only one, the CIA have carte blanche on killings from a list that they gather themselves.

I can only imagine the government dictating who can or not be targeted by an arm drone in our own soil.

That is the biggest concern of all.

a reply to: marg6043

I agree with you about the government, they would do something like that and than we would be in '1984'.

Who is to stop anyone from using one of these to spy or do damage to anyone, I really hate these things and like I have said before I hope everyone does what these people did. That way people and the government will learn fast WE as a people won't allow drones here. (not that they should be used anywhere)