How flying a drone led to an arrest....

[mavic3usa]

Standing up for your rights isn't always easy to do. You have a high pressure situation and you are being confronted by armed men with gun who have the right to use force against you pretty much for any reason. Even if you plan to remain silent, you just never know where the situation might turn and it could be pretty stressful for some people. Having your rights and exercising your rights should not be based on whether you can control your tongue or your attitude while you are being violated but it only should matter when it's legal. It's exactly why we have concepts like fruit of the poisonous tree and in this case, his statement about upgrading his drone is totally irrelevant from a legal standpoint; the prosecutor doesn't care about any of that, and he dropped the charges basically saying it doesn't matter what he said.

Citizens have rights, they aren't victims where they can be ambushed, seized, and coerced to buckle under pressure so law enforcement can take advantage of their lack of control or knowledge of the law or see what they can get them to do. No longer, that's changing and anything short of that poor guy getting killed because he said the wrong thing or made the wrong, who are we to judge? Some will claim he should have given up his details to avoid being hot boxed. Not something I would do or say but I don't look back in the mirror and critique how someone else handled being abused because that's what happened here; the law enforcement violated his rights. None of us really know how we'll perform in any given situation. It's a police tactic to tell someone (or imply) they are free to go to get them to drop their guard and then turn about and detain them to see if you get a different outcome. "If you just tell us who you are, you can be on your way. I need your name for my report." We have learned that actually means "give us your positive details and if later in a year or two we decide to press charges, you'll get a summons in the mail or we'll get an arrest warrant and visit you at your workplace."

 

[mavic3usa]

It's sad to see sheepeople who don't understand that "We the People" are the masters and the government is our servant, not the other way around. Police are public servants. They forgot their place and will likely pay financially for violating the Constitution they swore to uphold. When they violate someone's rights, qualified immunity goes out the window.

You know we are going in the wrong direction when the government is no longer fearful of the people and the people are afraid of their government.

 

[Meta4]

My understanding is you don't have to give police ID if you've done nothing wrong.

Try that out sometime as see if the police agree with your "understanding".

 

[TheGrandPoohBah]

Try that out sometime as see if the police agree with your "understanding".

It's called the 4th ammendment.
Your ID is like crack to the police. They will, and can, lie to you and tell you that you are required to give them your ID if they talk with you. Unless they have a Reasonable Articuable Suspension that you have or are about to commit a crime, the 4th ammendment gives you the right to tell them to go pound sand.

 

[Meta4]

It's called the 4th ammendment.
Your ID is like crack to the police. They will, and can, lie to you and tell you that you are required to give them your ID if they talk with you. Unless they have a Reasonable Articuable Suspension that you have or are about to commit a crime, the 4th ammendment gives you the right to tell them to go pound sand.

That sounds like every sovereign citizen video.
The ones that always end up with the proponent in the back of a police cruiser.
I favour a less confrontational and more cooperative approach.

 

[mavic3usa]

That sounds like every sovereign citizen video.
The ones that always end up with the proponent in the back of a police cruiser.
I favour a less confrontational and more cooperative approach.

For sure, you are allowed to bend the knee and consent; citizens can waive their rights at any point during the interaction. It is entirely your decision if you feel you need to cooperate with whatever is asked of you; that's fine. But please don't think that others have to follow your methods since it might not work for them. People take advice from their lawyers, not from someone in other countries on the internet who don't understand the freedoms we have in our country especially when they have little to none in their own country. Specifically telling people they might be a sovereign citizens and may end up placed in a police car sounds like Russia or East Germany and we don't condone that in America when someone exercises their rights which have been affirmed by our highest Supreme Court. We need people to agree with this mentality, not work against it especially when it comes to flying drones. Otherwise you end up with a massive rights violations like this (we will never allow this ridiculous nonsense in America):

(not me, not my video)
It's long but the first 10-15 min (or the last 10-15 min) should be sufficient:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[msinger]

For sure, you are allowed to bend the knee and consent

No one is suggesting that people should "bend the knee" or surrender their rights. The point is, the pilot might have been able to avoid legal trouble altogether if he had approached the situation with a bit more composure. Instead, he chose to play the "sovereign citizen" card, likely thinking it would work in his favor. Maybe he had watched one too many YouTube videos.

What might have happened if he had taken a different approach and not deliberately provoked the police? We'll never know for sure.

 

[MS Coast]

My understanding is you don't have to give police ID if you've done nothing wrong.

The fellow is a Part 107 pilot and is required to show his identification and aircraft registration upon request by any law enforcement officer.

He was in violation of federal law. That seems like an extremely bad situation in which to choose to conduct a little personal demonstration or protest.

 

[mavic3usa]

No one is suggesting that people should "bend the knee" or surrender their rights. The point is, the pilot might have been able to avoid legal trouble altogether if he had approached the situation with a bit more composure. Instead, he chose to play the "sovereign citizen" card, likely thinking it would work in his favor. Maybe he had watched one too many YouTube videos.

A sovereign citizen does not possess a part 107 license, does not obey TFRs, and doing not apply for LAANC. The whole point of being a sovereign citizen is to reject the government laws and rules and their power to enforce them over you. He is hardly playing the "sovereign citizen" card and what you witnessed was actually a patriot exercising his rights and doing everything he could to obey the law. However, I can't say the same for the others on that scene.

 

[msinger]

what you witnessed was actually a patriot exercising his rights and doing everything he could to obey the law. However, I can't say the same for the others on that scene.

It's difficult to say with certainty what we actually witnessed in that video. It was created by a YouTuber who appears to have strong negative feelings toward law enforcement. Additionally, the full police footage wasn’t included, which raises concerns about context. For all we know, the video may have been carefully edited to support a particular narrative.

 

[MS Coast]

... what you witnessed was actually a patriot exercising his rights and doing everything he could to obey the law.

How is it patriotic to violate the federal laws that govern his operation as a Part 107 pilot?

Did he attempt to obey the law requiring him to show his registration and ID to the officers?

What was accomplished by his actions? What positive result did he achieve? Is he somehow more "free" now?

 

[mavic3usa]

How is it patriotic to violate the federal laws that govern his operation as a Part 107 pilot?

I said he was a patriot exercising his rights, not a patriot flying his drone. Patriots are not perfect and sometimes they break the law.

Did he attempt to obey the law requiring him to show his registration and ID to the officers?

I've already explained this. He doesn't have to show his ID to FL peace officers unless he is legally detained and the officers have RAS. He attempted to provide the details from his flight to the officers and they were satisfied and they let him go. The local prosecutor agrees with me, not you.

What was accomplished by his actions? What positive result did he achieve? Is he somehow more "free" now?

I'll let him educate you on what was accomplished. Bad things almost always happen when you have negative contact with law enforcement especially when they are not well-trained, don't honor their oath the Constitution, or simply don't bother to follow the law. The letter from the prosecutor speaks volumes and I guess I can agree with the sentiment of your comments that nothing was learned by the officers (no positive result achieved) from the encounter since they'll probably try to detain the next drone flyer and force him to ID.

I hope the actions lead the University to train their officers better on how to properly handle the next encounter with a drone flyer but sadly that is probably not the case. Based on other similar rights and situations, it usually takes a decade or more and thousands of hours of re-training and litigation and administrative action and millions of dollars in taxpayers money from lawsuits and education and a bunch of complaints and firings and maybe even a few injuries or fatalities (like they apparently almost killed this guy in a hot car) for the message to get thru. So NO we are not yet "more free" but we are getting there. I realize some are done with this and satisfied with the little bit of freedom they already have and want others to just let it go but not me and I won't rest as an activist until everyone is free and our rights are respected.

I'm almost sure this flyer will learn from his encounter and the next time (unless he has already quit the hobby/job) he might do something differently; I dunno. I'm sure he will end up "more free" the next time when he learns to walk always when he is told he is free to go; he probably thought he had to stop when the police said "wait a second." Not everyone knows how to exercise their rights perfectly under all conditions (and the officers know that).

If I am wrong and you find out the FAA agrees with you and has contacted this pilot over multiple violations from failure to ID to flying during a TFR to failure to show his drone to officers, please let us know. Until then, I'm going with at a minimum....the FAA doesn't care (about what they saw in this video) just like they don't care when states start passing laws to regulate drones and drone flights. It's on paper but that's about it, until their rights start get infringed on.

 

[Meta4]

For sure, you are allowed to bend the knee and consent; citizens can waive their rights at any point during the interaction. It is entirely your decision if you feel you need to cooperate with whatever is asked of you; that's fine. But please don't think that others have to follow your methods since it might not work for them. People take advice from their lawyers, not from someone in other countries on the internet who don't understand the freedoms we have in our country especially when they have little to none in their own country. Specifically telling people they might be a sovereign citizens and may end up placed in a police car sounds like Russia or East Germany and we don't condone that in America when someone exercises their rights which have been affirmed by our highest Supreme Court. We need people to agree with this mentality, not work against it especially when it comes to flying drones.

You sure like to use a lot of sovereign citizen type language.

Otherwise you end up with a massive rights violations like this (we will never allow this ridiculous nonsense in America):

Two minutes into that nonsense video was more than enough to see that it's creator was just another idiot who wanted to provoke a confrontation.
Youtube has far too many morons like that.

 

[mavic3usa]

You sure like to use a lot of sovereign citizen type language.

Two minutes into that nonsense video was more than enough to see that it's creator was just another idiot who wanted to provoke a confrontation.
Youtube has far too many morons like that.

Yes, I am quite familiar with the sovereign citizen. They absolutely hate the Constitution and that really bugs me.

I wouldn't pay attention to the pilot, I would focus on what the police are telling him. But I understand you don't want to hear that because it back up exactly what I say about them and your country. They told him he was flying his drone in restricted airspace and as a result, they were allowed to search him and his property for other drones; is that true?

 

[msinger]

Two minutes into that nonsense video was more than enough to see that it's creator was just another idiot who wanted to provoke a confrontation.

Check out his background. He’s really a piece of work.

 

[Meta4]

Yes, I am quite familiar with the sovereign citizen. They absolutely hate the Constitution and that really bugs me.

I wouldn't pay attention to the pilot, I would focus on what the police are telling him. But I understand you don't want to hear that because it back up exactly what I say about them and your country.

You have no idea at all what country I live in (it's not the country that video came from).

They told him he was flying his drone in restricted airspace and as a result, they were allowed to search him and his property for other drones; is that true?

I don't know and I don't care.
All I need to know is that he's the equivalent of a 1st amendment "auditor", the lowest Youtube lifeform.
He's an unpleasant individual with a personality disorder and spends his life trying to provoke confrontation.

 

[mavic3usa]

Check out his background. He’s really a piece of work.

The individual in the US drone video is not "James Madison audits." He does a lot of hosting of other people's videos and their situations including this part 107 pilot.

The individual in the UK drone video also is not "James Madison audits." He is what I call an agitator who is an activist that goes out and purposely and sometimes aggressively stress tests the laws legally.

I get it, people don't like agitators. The overriding sentiment is protest the law quietly and don't seek justice, wait for it to be handed to you....if ever. Unfortunately most Americans don't feel that way which is why we did what we did in the late 1700s. I would even go so far as saying throughout our rich history, without agitators we wouldn't be where we are today. I'm not there yet but maybe one day I'll be an "agitator." Exercising your rights isn't pretty and there's a lot of criticism coming your way if you do but as long as the law is on your side, it's all good. We get it, people will not like us (activists and agitators alike) and our background (which often includes many run in's with the law). I can tell you it has almost zero effect on the works because there is so much widespread support.

I am somewhat familiar with James Madison audits and he does good work.

 

[jwilson]

Try that out sometime as see if the police agree with your "understanding".

Well, I saw it once on YouTube. I guy was at a police station. He might of been taking pictures. A cop came over to him, and asked him what he was doing. The guy said none of your buisness. Then the cop asked to see his ID. The guy said he didn't have to show ID. So that was the end of it. So I'm not a lawyer, but it makes sense to me.

 

[MS Coast]

I said he was a patriot exercising his rights, not a patriot flying his drone. Patriots are not perfect and sometimes they break the law.

I've already explained this. He doesn't have to show his ID to FL peace officers unless he is legally detained and the officers have RAS. He attempted to provide the details from his flight to the officers and they were satisfied and they let him go. The local prosecutor agrees with me, not you.


I'll let him educate you on what was accomplished. Bad things almost always happen when you have negative contact with law enforcement especially when they are not well-trained, don't honor their oath the Constitution, or simply don't bother to follow the law. The letter from the prosecutor speaks volumes and I guess I can agree with the sentiment of your comments that nothing was learned by the officers (no positive result achieved) from the encounter since they'll probably try to detain the next drone flyer and force him to ID.

I hope the actions lead the University to train their officers better on how to properly handle the next encounter with a drone flyer but sadly that is probably not the case. Based on other similar rights and situations, it usually takes a decade or more and thousands of hours of re-training and litigation and administrative action and millions of dollars in taxpayers money from lawsuits and education and a bunch of complaints and firings and maybe even a few injuries or fatalities (like they apparently almost killed this guy in a hot car) for the message to get thru. So NO we are not yet "more free" but we are getting there. I realize some are done with this and satisfied with the little bit of freedom they already have and want others to just let it go but not me and I won't rest as an activist until everyone is free and our rights are respected.

I'm almost sure this flyer will learn from his encounter and the next time (unless he has already quit the hobby/job) he might do something differently; I dunno. I'm sure he will end up "more free" the next time when he learns to walk always when he is told he is free to go; he probably thought he had to stop when the police said "wait a second." Not everyone knows how to exercise their rights perfectly under all conditions (and the officers know that).

If I am wrong and you find out the FAA agrees with you and has contacted this pilot over multiple violations from failure to ID to flying during a TFR to failure to show his drone to officers, please let us know. Until then, I'm going with at a minimum....the FAA doesn't care (about what they saw in this video) just like they don't care when states start passing laws to regulate drones and drone flights. It's on paper but that's about it, until their rights start get infringed on.

So, no tangible positive outcome from his actions in this incident.

Federal law does require Part 107 pilots, like him, to show their registration and identification to local law enforcement officers upon request. I'm not making any point other than that the regulation exists and that he was in violation of it.

 

[mavic3usa]

So, no tangible positive outcome from his actions in this incident.

Remains to be seen. If we believe what we see in the video, the video itself has quite a bit of positive impact on the drone community (for those that can appreciate the outcome) and everyone watching it and if anything, we are closer to having the conversation that so many would rather avoid. Publishing the outcome of the incident (including the prosecutors thoughts) is huge but again, I realize those words mean little to nothing to the police and the pilot's detractors. However, they're real words and they have real meaning and feel free to use them should you find yourself on the other end against your will (if you don't need them, that's great too); we don't mind, we do this for everyone.

Federal law does require Part 107 pilots, like him, to show their registration and identification to local law enforcement officers upon request. I'm not making any point other than that the regulation exists and that he was in violation of it.

Got it. He's not in violation of it until the FAA says so; not when the local police say so. Just so you know, I know you are not arguing this point, but we believe that part of the federal law is invalid and unenforceable.

I think in another thread, you also mentioned it is a violation of federal law not to keep your drone's software current, no? Such laws are ineffective where there is little hope of legally enforcing them so will you partner with me to remove this requirement and focus on federal laws that really matter for safety such as:

It's also a violation of federal law to attempt to take off in a commercial airliner full of people on the taxiway instead of the runway and its also a violation of federal law to cross an active runaway without getting clearance while another aircraft is landing and it also a violation of federal law to interfere with an aircraft on approach by flying a kit into the path and causing a collision.