U.S. Department of Justice : Their Drone Rules and Regs and Their Punishment Criteria.

[AZDave]

Yeah, criminal law typically revolves around intent. But in our justice system, regardless of how the system is supposed to work, the onus is on you to prove you didn't have the intent if you are charged with a crime. And doing that tends to involve things like an arrest, bail, lawyers, a trial or plea deal, etc...I would much rather fight a civil fine than face a felony charge, even if I didn't intend to break the law.

"But in our justice system, regardless of how the system is supposed to work, the onus is on you to prove you didn't have the intent if you are charged with a crime."

That isn't true, and there are thousands of cases to prove you wrong. It may be true in terms of getting charged, but not in terms of getting convicted. The onus to prove felony intent is on the prosecution.

 

[Dmcvey]

"But in our justice system, regardless of how the system is supposed to work, the onus is on you to prove you didn't have the intent if you are charged with a crime."

That isn't true, and there are thousands of cases to prove you wrong. It may be true in terms of getting charged, but not in terms of getting convicted. The onus to prove felony intent is on the prosecution.

It is like the person getting brake and gas mixed up and creating a new drive-thru and the person driving into a parade.

 

[BobaFut]

"But in our justice system, regardless of how the system is supposed to work, the onus is on you to prove you didn't have the intent if you are charged with a crime."

That isn't true, and there are thousands of cases to prove you wrong. It may be true in terms of getting charged, but not in terms of getting convicted. The onus to prove felony intent is on the prosecution.

Look, I understand the concept of "innocent until proven guilty," but there's a reason a person is said the person accused of a crime is on the "defense." If you do not actively defend yourself the prosecution wins. And defending yourself can be extremely costly in terms of time, money, relationships, stress, etc...Plenty of peoples' lives have been ruined by merely being accused of a crime, much less getting charged, tried, and convicted.

If, for whatever reason, this law is passed and you find yourself accidentally entering restricted airspace. YOU will have to prove that you did not have the intent, because the prosecution's argument can simply be "if you did it it's because you meant to." And then it's up to you to provide why you didn't mean to do it and hope you have evidence for that. That's how a system where everyone is "innocent until proven guilty" can also put the onus on the accused to prove their innocence.

 

[BobaFut]

It is like the person getting brake and gas mixed up and creating a new drive-thru and the person driving into a parade.

What if you get the gas and brake mixed up and drive into a parade? Do you think cops will treat you like the incompetent driver you are or like a terrorist?

 

[Chip]

"uses an unmanned aircraft to cause serious bodily injury to a person or damage exceeding $1,000 to property",...crashing accidently and causing injury would not apply, using is the key here, aiming the drone at a person or crowd and flying into them, yes. it is the intent.

This seems a reasonable, less draconian, alternative interpretation. I agree that "intent" should be essential element of any serious crime. I agree that the word "using" may imply that proof of intent to cause harm is required.

Maybe this is an inadvertent ambiguity that will be cleaned up as bill winds its way through the legislative process. I am just thinking there is a big difference between "knowingly" and "intentionally."

"Knowingly" means you are conscious and aware that the device in your hand is controlling a drone. "Intentionally" means you plan to use drone to cause injury or damage (even if the injury or damage turns out to be much worse than originally planned or intended).

Draft language as currently written:

Ҥ 40B. Misuse of unmanned aircraft.

“(a) WEAPONIZATION. – Whoever knowingly –

...(4) uses an unmanned aircraft to cause serious bodily injury to a person or damage exceeding $1,000 to property...

shall be punished as provided in subsection (f).

Clearer language that should be used:

“(a) WEAPONIZATION. – Whoever intentionally –

uses an unmanned aircraft to cause serious bodily injury to a person or damage exceeding $1,000 to property...

*The word "weaponization" may also imply intent to cause harm. But why use "knowingly" if you mean "intentionally?" Interesting little puzzle.

 

[WackeDad]

I guess I'd prefer they focus on Chinese Spy Balloons the size of several busses drifting lazily over the U.S. for days on end. Kind of the bigger fish to fry logic. Oops, there's the key word...logic.

 

[sar104]

I guess I'd prefer they focus on Chinese Spy Balloons the size of several busses drifting lazily over the U.S. for days on end. Kind of the bigger fish to fry logic. Oops, there's the key word...logic.

Who would "they" be in this situation?

 

[PepperBird]

It is probably working through committee sloooowly.
I think the VP is considered the President of the Senate, similar to House Speaker.

The VPs role is ceremonial, except when it comes to breaking ties. She does not manage the development of legislation. That is the executive role of the Speaker

 

[sar104]

The VPs role is ceremonial, except when it comes to breaking ties. She does not manage the development of legislation. That is the executive role of the Speaker

The Senate doesn't have a Speaker. The presiding officer is the VP (Harris) as the President of the Senate.

 

[Chip]

Who would "they" be in this situation?

I would think multiple federal agencies charged with protecting the security of the USA. My recollection is that a fly away plastic bag caused panic in London in 2016. They thought the bag of wind was a drone as opposed to a surveillance balloon hovering over nuclear missile silos in Montana.

A reported drone collision with a plane 'may have been a plastic bag'​

A reported drone collision with a plane 'may have been a plastic bag'

The Verge is about technology and how it makes us feel. Founded in 2011, we offer our audience everything from breaking news to reviews to award-winning features and investigations, on our site, in video, and in podcasts.

www.theverge.com

 

[sar104]

I would think multiple federal agencies charged with protecting the security of the USA. My recollection is that a fly away plastic bag caused panic in London in 2016. They thought the bag of wind was a drone as opposed to a surveillance balloon hovering over nuclear missile silos in Montana.

A reported drone collision with a plane 'may have been a plastic bag'​

A reported drone collision with a plane 'may have been a plastic bag'

The Verge is about technology and how it makes us feel. Founded in 2011, we offer our audience everything from breaking news to reviews to award-winning features and investigations, on our site, in video, and in podcasts.

www.theverge.com

What on earth does that have to do with the current situation with the ex-balloon? And the implication that the US military isn't capable of dealing with one balloon without stopping all other existing legislative efforts is absurd.

 

[devellis]

Not to debate the purpose of laws, but the argument you put forth is one against all laws, which is obviously a non-starter.

The violations outlined in this proposed legislation (e.g. flying without lights at night, violating restricted airspace) are regulatory violations (Part 107 falls under Title 14 of the US Code of Federal Regulations) with civil penalties. This law would make them *criminal* violations (again, I'm happy to have this interpretation corrected if I'm wrong). The US has civil penalties and criminal penalties, and being hit with one or other is (put very simply), the difference between getting fined and getting thrown in prison. I personally would not like to even potentially face felony charges if I don't fly with strobes on my drone at night or accidentally wander into controlled airspace without authorization.

I believe another difference between civil and criminal offenses is that the threshold for conviction is a preponderance of evidence (i.e., more likely guilty than not) for civil offenses and evidence beyond a reasonable doubt (almost certainly guilty) for criminal offenses. So the burden of proof would be higher for offenses subject to criminal prosecution than for civil.

 

[dan.utinske]

"operates an unmanned aircraft across a border of the United States or its territories or possessions without complying with the requirements of Federal law".......Fly a drone of drugs from Mexico to US...how are you going to enforce that?

“(d) INTRUSION ON PROTECTED SPACES. – Whoever, knowing that his conduct is unlawful".....if you did not know or accidently flew into protected airspace???? but then you would be violation of flying reckless because you should have planned adequately and seen the restricted airspace.

"uses an unmanned aircraft to cause serious bodily injury to a person or damage exceeding $1,000 to property",...crashing accidently and causing injury would not apply, using is the key here, aiming the drone at a person or crowd and flying into them, yes. it is the intent.

Guess that doesn't apply to China; you can bet that the technology that makes our drones so accurate was used in the balloon while it navigated our airspace. It maintained set altitudes and could change direction reportedly.

 

[JimSteadman]

Maybe we need to change the conversation about drones. I have a Mavic Air and a couple of Mini's. My drones cannot carry a payload, drop bombs or win the war in Ukraine. I admit they could be used for limited surveillance, but it wouldn't take a genius to knock them out of the sky. I try to always follow the rules.

But my drones, a couple of which do not even need to be registered, and all of which weigh less than the average duck, get lumped into the same basket as the ones used in the Ukrainian war, which seem to be about the size of a Piper Cub, but much faster and more deadly.

The word "Drone" has achieved a mythic power over the minds of many people who cannot or choose not to distinguish small recreational drones from military ones used for long range surveillance or the large deadly ones and therefore people fear all drones. And fear, rational or not, can be used to sensationalize the conversation and drives politics which, in turn, needs to raise endless amounts of money to feed its message to the public. Nothing drives political contributions like fear.

 

[sar104]

Maybe we need to change the conversation about drones. I have a Mavic Air and a couple of Mini's. My drones cannot carry a payload, drop bombs or win the war in Ukraine. I admit they could be used for limited surveillance, but it wouldn't take a genius to knock them out of the sky. I try to always follow the rules.

But my drones, a couple of which do not even need to be registered, and all of which weigh less than the average duck, get lumped into the same basket as the ones used in the Ukrainian war, which seem to be about the size of a Piper Cub, but much faster and more deadly.

The word "Drone" has achieved a mythic power over the minds of many people who cannot or choose not to distinguish small recreational drones from military ones used for long range surveillance or the large deadly ones and therefore people fear all drones. And fear, rational or not, can be used to sensationalize the conversation and drives politics which, in turn, needs to raise endless amounts of money to feed its message to the public. Nothing drives political contributions like fear.

The Ukrainians, and others, are using Mavics to carry explosive payloads. Lots of them.

 

[Dmcvey]

This bill died when the 117th Congress closed. It has not been reintroduced in the new congress.

 

[MS Coast]

I would have to assume that it was only introduced in the House and went no further that this particular legislation is dead in the water.

But I'm still amused by "President Harris". I suspect we might see this in the near future. I have thoughts on this, but I'll stop here for the sake of forum rules

Amused? Why?
As I recall from high school civics classes, the Vice President of the United States serves as the President of the Senate.

See Article 1, Section 3 of the Constitution.

The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.

 

[vindibona1]

Amused? Why?
As I recall from high school civics classes, the Vice President of the United States serves as the President of the Senate.

See Article 1, Section 3 of the Constitution.

The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.

Unless Kamala is actually sitting presiding in the senate she is Vice President. The amusing part is that Joe Biden more than once called her "President Harris"... and not in the context of being Senate President. I think this is deep enough into politics here.

 

[MS Coast]

Unless Kamala is actually sitting presiding in the senate she is Vice President. The amusing part is that Joe Biden more than once called her "President Harris"... and not in the context of being Senate President. I think this is deep enough into politics here.

The letter was appropriately addressed to her as President of the Senate.

No more on this from me. It's wandering too far from drones.

 

[sar104]

Just Unless Kamala is actually sitting presiding in the senate she is Vice President. The amusing part is that Joe Biden more than once called her "President Harris"... and not in the context of being Senate President. I think this is deep enough into politics here.

Just leave this alone. It's not amusing at all, and it's not appropriate to start BS innuendo and then abandon it when you are called out on it.