Arrested for flying a drone; UPDATE video

[Lapeer20m]

We won!

please be respectful.

 

[The Editor]

We won!

please be respectful.

Fantastic result - thanks for the update.

 

[Paulf10]

It’s so very sad when you hear people in authority talk in terms of “We” and “They” such as was heard on the radio call. Clearly that conversation demonstrated these people are not fit to be public servants. Some sort of disciplinary action should be taken against them.

 

[Deleted member 93449]

GENESEE COUNTY (WJRT) (2/12/2020) - A Genesee County judge has struck down the county's ban on drones and unmanned aircraft flying over parks.

Judge Joseph Farah issued an injunction Monday in a lawsuit filed by a man arrested for flying a drone at Crossroads Village in December 2018.

The drone pilot, Robert Harrison, was not criminally charged for the incident. However, the Genesee County Parks Commission amended its rules five days later to specifically outlaw drones.

A few months later last spring, a group of drone pilots planned a "fly-in" at the E.A. Cummings Center operated by the parks commission. The facility was closed after park rangers learned of the event.

The pilots instead moved to Richfield County Park on Irish Road last April. Genesee County park rangers met the group there and informed them anyone flying drones could face a misdemeanor charge.

That prompted Harrison and the Michigan Coalition of Drone Operators to sue the county. They claimed the ban on drones is not allowed under Michigan law.

Farah issued an injunction that stops the parks commission from enforcing its ban on drones. He ruled the drone ban does not follow state and federal laws, which allow drones anywhere in Michigan as long as the pilot abides by federal regulations.

Pilots still must avoid flying drones in a manner that harasses the public, interferes with emergency services or for any nefarious purpose.

 

[RayOZ]

Sounds like adults acting like kids at the park.
Child A: You can’t fly your drone here.
Child B: Yes I can.
Child A: The rules says you can’t.
Child B: There’s no rules that says I can’t.
Child A writes own rules.
Child A: There, the rules says you can’t fly here.
Child B talks to an adult.
Adults talks to Child A: You can’t make your own rules. *rips rule*
Child A writes another rule.
Child A: Ok, you can fly there, there and there, but not here, here and here. Cool?

Did I sum it right?

 

[sar104]

It’s so very sad when you hear people in authority talk in terms of “We” and “They” such as was heard on the radio call. Clearly that conversation demonstrated these people are not fit to be public servants. Some sort of disciplinary action should be taken against them.

Agreed. And what is additionally disturbing is that rather than accepting that they were wrong and that there is no basis for the attempted bans, both LE and the county appear to treat this like some kind of vendetta against a section of the general public.

 

[Lapeer20m]

The entire process has been eye opening for me. I still believe that most people are good and want to do the right thing. which makes what happened here difficult to understand.

Also, this isn’t just some small park, at 11,000 acres and with over 100 different sites, this is the largest county park system in the state.

When this first started, I honestly thought there was some misunderstanding with the rangers and a simple email with administration would correct the issue.

instead, administration essentially said they don’t care what the law says, these parks belong to them (park officials), and we citizens should just do what they say.

most normal people would have probably walked away at this point but i am not wired that way.

later, when I’m having conversations with the officials I can’t even grasp what they are thinking. Every single commissioner, the chief of park police, and the director know and understand that their ordinance is in direct violation of state law, but they don’t care. They even admitted they were offended that some citizen would try to tell them what they can do with their parks.

it’s an issue they could not possibly win in the courts. They must have thought we were bluffing During the months of conversations we had.

Anybody who spent 5 minutes researching the issue would see that the county lacked the authority to regulate unmanned aircraft. It’s not as if there was any real controversy about the text or meaning of the law.

 

[sar104]

The entire process has been eye opening for me. I still believe that most people are good and want to do the right thing. which makes what happened here difficult to understand.

Also, this isn’t just some small park, at 11,000 acres and with over 100 different sites, this is the largest county park system in the state.

When this first started, I honestly thought there was some misunderstanding with the rangers and a simple email with administration would correct the issue.

instead, administration essentially said they don’t care what the law says, these parks belong to them (park officials), and we citizens should just do what they say.

most normal people would have probably walked away at this point but i am not wired that way.

later, when I’m having conversations with the officials I can’t even grasp what they are thinking. Every single commissioner, the chief of park police, and the director know and understand that their ordinance is in direct violation of state law, but they don’t care. They even admitted they were offended that some citizen would try to tell them what they can do with their parks.

it’s an issue they could not possibly win in the courts. They must have thought we were bluffing During the months of conversations we had.

Anybody who spent 5 minutes researching the issue would see that the county lacked the authority to regulate unmanned aircraft. It’s not as if there was any real controversy about the text or meaning of the law.

Was there anyone you dealt with during this process who took a reasonable approach? That mindset is bizarre.

 

[Lapeer20m]

Was there anyone you dealt with during this process who took a reasonable approach? That mindset is bizarre.

I’ve worked in public safety for more than 20 years. I know and understand how to work with others and have a vague understanding of how government works.

i talked one-on-one with a few different commissioners and they seemed very pleasant and relatively neutral on the subject. I get the feeling there is just one or two people really pushing the anti-drone agenda behind the scenes.

i also spoke privately with the chair of the county commissioners after the injunction. He was also very kind. He explained that they just take the recommendation from the park and essentially do what they ask. He also explained that the county, which is home of Flint, has some major issues they are dealing with and drones quite frankly are barely on the radar. I consider this to be well reasoned.

my opinion is that the rangers consider this park system their fiefdom and do not take kindly to anyone they perceive as not respecting their authority.

 

[Deleted member 93449]

I’ve worked in public safety for more than 20 years. I know and understand how to work with others and have a vague understanding of how government works.

i talked one-on-one with a few different commissioners and they seemed very pleasant and relatively neutral on the subject. I get the feeling there is just one or two people really pushing the anti-drone agenda behind the scenes.

i also spoke privately with the chair of the county commissioners after the injunction. He was also very kind. He explained that they just take the recommendation from the park and essentially do what they ask. He also explained that the county, which is home of Flint, has some major issues they are dealing with and drones quite frankly are barely on the radar. I consider this to be well reasoned.

my opinion is that the rangers consider this park system their fiefdom and do not take kindly to anyone they perceive as not respecting their authority.

Unfortunately I think in many cases they forget that they are public servants paid by the taxpayers.

 

[MAvic_South_Oz]

Was there anyone you dealt with during this process who took a reasonable approach? That mindset is bizarre.

Judge Joseph Farah it seems.

Good on you @Lapeer20m for taking this on, it must have been a weight on your shoulders just a little at times, even though you knew you were on the right side of the matter.
Let's hope another round isn't necessary, but it seems like the park authority are still trying the same old tricks ?

 

[Paulf10]

The entire process has been eye opening for me. I still believe that most people are good and want to do the right thing. which makes what happened here difficult to understand.

Also, this isn’t just some small park, at 11,000 acres and with over 100 different sites, this is the largest county park system in the state.

When this first started, I honestly thought there was some misunderstanding with the rangers and a simple email with administration would correct the issue.

instead, administration essentially said they don’t care what the law says, these parks belong to them (park officials), and we citizens should just do what they say.

most normal people would have probably walked away at this point but i am not wired that way.

later, when I’m having conversations with the officials I can’t even grasp what they are thinking. Every single commissioner, the chief of park police, and the director know and understand that their ordinance is in direct violation of state law, but they don’t care. They even admitted they were offended that some citizen would try to tell them what they can do with their parks.

it’s an issue they could not possibly win in the courts. They must have thought we were bluffing During the months of conversations we had.

Anybody who spent 5 minutes researching the issue would see that the county lacked the authority to regulate unmanned aircraft. It’s not as if there was any real controversy about the text or meaning of the law.

You have my deepest and sincere respect sir! Thank you for standing up for all of our rights!?

 

[Lapeer20m]

Judge Joseph Farah it seems.

This. Judge Farah was amazing. He told the court he read every document submitted and was well versed in the arguments before our first hearing began.
I think this is unusual for a judge.
He seemed legitimately interested in the case and also
Seems to understand that this is a first of its kind and wanted to make sure the us were dotted and ts were crossed

 

[old man mavic]

it seems to me that if you give" some" people a uniform and a badge,then any semblance of common sense goes out of the window

 

[sar104]

it seems to me that if you give people a uniform and a badge,then any semblance of common sense goes out of the window

Necessary but not sufficient. You also need to give them a gun.

 

[old man mavic]

my comments were not directed at LEOs i respect the work that they do often in very difficult circumstances the people in the video clearly thought they were superior,and overstepped their authority we have similar types in the UK only difference is they dont have guns

 

[MAvic_South_Oz]

Maybe "a uniform and badge" was more meant towards some in authority, be it 'wannabe' LEOs like overzealous security personnel, or some members of various levels of GOVCO.
Especially those in local city of * . . . what we call councils . . . they can be very authoritative with bylaws and such.
This is the case with this whole episode, some sort of local park rangers.

 

[xspwhite]

I'm guessing that if the new proposed laws ever go into effect we will see a lot more of this kind of stuff. You might just stop off the side of the road to snap a pic of an old barn or something. Next thing you know your sitting in the back of a squad car listening to police chatter over a radio with handcuffs on.

 

[sar104]

I'm guessing that if the new proposed laws ever go into effect we will see a lot more of this kind of stuff. You might just stop off the side of the road to snap a pic of an old barn or something. Next thing you know your sitting in the back of a squad car listening to police chatter over a radio with handcuffs on.

Why would the proposed FAA rule changes have any effect on this kind of thing?

 

[WobblingWillie]

I’ve worked in public safety for more than 20 years. I know and understand how to work with others and have a vague understanding of how government works.

i talked one-on-one with a few different commissioners and they seemed very pleasant and relatively neutral on the subject. I get the feeling there is just one or two people really pushing the anti-drone agenda behind the scenes.

i also spoke privately with the chair of the county commissioners after the injunction. He was also very kind. He explained that they just take the recommendation from the park and essentially do what they ask. He also explained that the county, which is home of Flint, has some major issues they are dealing with and drones quite frankly are barely on the radar. I consider this to be well reasoned.

my opinion is that the rangers consider this park system their fiefdom and do not take kindly to anyone they perceive as not respecting their authority.

Lapeer20m, you're guilty of breaking one of the oldest rules out there..... "Contempt of cop". Sadly there are too many of them out there that think this way. There are also many that don't, thankfully.