CHOLLY Loc: THE FLORIDA PANHANDLE!

See, THIS is what I was talking about. FOOLS and IDIOTS that ruin a great hobby for the rest of us:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/04/us/us-open-tennis-drone-arrest/

NOW do you see why we need to regulate these things? :x

Seadog Loc: Western MA, USA

And a science teacher no less

CHOLLY Loc: THE FLORIDA PANHANDLE!

An IDIOT. :thumbdown:

But idiots abound in this great land of ours. :(

Violameister Loc: michigan

Unfortunately, your favored solution (based on previous posts) seems to be to pass more restrictive laws. Yet, from the CNN article you mention above,
"That man -- Daniel Verley, 26 -- was arrested on charges of reckless endangerment, reckless operation of a drone and operating a drone in a New York City public park outside of prescribed area, according to the New York Police Department.

He was released and ordered to appear in court at a later date, according to New York police Lt. Thomas Antonetti.

Efforts to reach Verley on Friday were unsuccessful, and it could not be determined if he has an attorney.

Drones are one of a handful of items -- along with things like food, backpacks, tennis racquets and selfie sticks -- that fans are expressly prohibited from bringing on the grounds of the National Tennis Center in Flushing Meadows.

The facility is also in the shadow of one of the country's busiest airports, LaGuardia, so having unauthorized objects (besides tennis balls) flying around potentially could be problematic."

So, clearly the behavior was already against several laws, and the perpetrator is under indictment. The article in no way supports the idea that yet more laws are needed. These criminals will flout any laws you might pass, and we responsible folks pay the price.

CHOLLY Loc: THE FLORIDA PANHANDLE!

This is a terrible argument. The "people break existing laws so why create new ones" argument.

It doesn't stand up in the long run though, for obvious reasons. Because if it did, there would NEVER be any new laws or regulations... EVER.

There have always been and will always be law breakers. And no law will stop 100% of all transgressions. But they stop enough to keep most of us safe from the fools and idiots, MOST of the time.

Besides, we may need to rethink WHO should be allowed to own these things in the first place, and do it while the horses are still in the barn, the genie still in the bottle.

Seadog Loc: Western MA, USA

and who will make the decision as to WHO should be allowed to own these things. Next will be submitting DNA for qualifications to owning things. If you ain't got the right genes then you ain't gonna get it.

Violameister Loc: michigan

I expresssed the argument in more complete fashion in an earlier message to you. I will repeat it here because I think it relevant.

We have been in the habit, of late, of passing laws that have little chance of being enforceable or effective. Prohibition and War on Drugs are only two simple examples. In general, laws against theft, fraud, and mayhem which are generally perpetrated by rational people are effective. Laws, however, cannot protect us from the irrational person. To the extent that drunk driving, narcotic abuse, and texting while driving (to name a few) are irrational behaviors, laws against them have been quite ineffective.

Many quadcopter laws are attempts to protect us from crazy people and therefore won't work. Rational people, properly instructed, understand rational limitations. I think laws that restrict use near airports, higher than a certain ceiling, above dense crowds are reasonable and I don't fight against them. Laws that completely prevent me from flying in totally uninhabited areas of Federal lands at any time(however, I approve regulation such as requiring a permit to do this) is too restrictive and therefore irrational; a law that prevents me from accepting a dollar compensation for work, is neither rational, nor does it protect society. And a law that allows you to shoot my quadcopter because it flew above your house while photographing the neighborhood is likewise irrational.

Violameister Loc: michigan

:thumbup: :thumbup:

CHOLLY Loc: THE FLORIDA PANHANDLE!

It can be done.

The first thing that SHOULD be done in effective lawmaking is to bring together ALL the representatives of the various stakeholders to discuss and review the issue from ALL sides.

Goals are established and legislation drawn up to reach them.

It is completely possible.

Tomcat5133 Loc: Gladwyne PA

A 27 year-old-teacher flies a copter into the stadium while a US Open Tennis match is on yesterday. It becomes a major incident in the news. Does no one have any self control anymore. Teacher???

We are trying to get permission to shoot limited quad footage at a Triathlon event in a small beach town. It would add into my video of the event. I work with people who use drones for shoots and they are very aware of choosing position and size of copter and the having this added to the creative stories.

CHOLLY Loc: THE FLORIDA PANHANDLE!

See... the GOOD suffer because of the bad. :x

joto9d7 Loc: Laguna Hills

We are photographers and shouldn't somebody be speaking up for the photographer?

joto9d7 Loc: Laguna Hills

Somebody is creating all of these problems in order to get restrictions on us. There are no real new problems, only old problems that were never a problem until they want to turn them into problems for personal gain.

Are we to agree with them and lose this technology to them?

joto9d7 Loc: Laguna Hills

No, I don't see why we should further regulate aerial photography.

It could have been somebody tossing a molitof cocktail in that seating arena so why don't we do something about molitof cocktails?

Bobspez Loc: Southern NJ, USA

The teacher didn't do this intentionally. Supposedly he was flying in a nearby park where it was legal to fly and the craft got out of his line of sight and control. And no one was hurt. He was prosecuted because he was responsible for the incident, like someone would be if they drove recklessly and caused damage or injury. It's obvious that as a person flying a drone he was held to a much higher standard than someone who accidentally crashed a car.
Bob