If You Crash A Drone You Might Land Yourself In Jail

[rydfree]

Ya know, I don't disagree, but it brings up a great thought that's slightly off-topic, but related.

You described the act of critical battery auto-landing as reckless and dangerous. And yet that's a standard, intentional feature of DJI drones. And yet I only see a few folks actually pitching a fit about it.

Yes it is reckless when he was flying over people while continuously getting the low battery warning from the drone , even flying higher to get a shot until the drone went into critical battery level . What part of that is hard to understand as reckless ?

 

[TheRoach]

I'd have to seriously consider DJI's co-responsibility in this case as well. The fact the video stops after 55 seconds of flight may indicate a manufacturer defect. It's a known issue with the P3s that poor chip welds on the power distribution board can be compromised by heat expansion causing the drone to lose power mid flight. DJI makes incredible leaps and bounds to ensure it's business isn't interrupted by new regulations meaning they should step up when a product failure causes an accident. But I agree, the guy had no common sense flying over a crowd.

 

[dewster]

If you crash your car you might end up in jail.

Negligence can cause a lot of trouble especially civil court cases.

I certainly feel more comfortable flying the Mavic than any other drone. Small, lightweight in comparison, redundancy of flight systems etc. I've flown 7 pound hexes and it's not pretty when they come crashing down. You'll understand safe flying after experiencing an unexpected loss of power crash. It's those times when you are thankful that your in an open area free of people.

 

[frogs]

Questions more than comments....
* doesn't AMA insurance apply?
* if the drone is in the air, what angle constitutes "over" people?
* since Washington State has colloquial laws about law suits, are you sure you understand what's happening? (Washington law is not the same as normal US law, I've got experience with that)

 

[Marko9219]

IT'S THIS SIMPLE: If your actions, or neglect, contribute to the injury or death of another or the damage or destruction of their property, you can (and absolutely should) be liable.
This obviously includes your drone dropping on someone or their personal property.
No surprises, no controversy.

 

[danman999]

Flying directly over someone is something nobody should do. But, if you crash your drone and the only property damage is to the drone, then you wont go to jail.

Crashing your drone could not only cause damage to people, but private property as well. If you crashed into somebody's car and put a dent in it, you are responsible regardless of the damage to your drone.

 

[Robbyg]

It's this simple: If your actions, or neglect, contribute to the injury, or death of another, or the damage or destruction of property, you can (and should) be liable.
This obviously includes your drone dropping on someone. No surprises, no controversy.

I agree with someone being liable, they should pay fines and compensation but jail time is something I will never agree with. You send a normal person to jail for 2 years and what you get coming out is probably a real criminal.

The American prison system is a joke! Prisoners getting to watch TV, use libraries and live in fairly sanitary conditions, then we feed them three squares a day and we even give them Gyms so they can come out even stronger than when they went in. I would estimate that 60% of the human population tries very hard to eek out a living yet they do not live in the same comfort as a murderer in an American prison. BTW it costs tax payers over $31,000 per year to hold an average prisoner. With some states like NY paying $60,000 per year per prisoner.

Rob

 

[cderoche]

It really blows my mind how people seem to base many of their decisions on fear, not facts.

Consider this -- I know a woman who KILLED another person with her car. When she was a teenager, she ran a stop sign (accidentally, according to her). The result was a crash that killed a driver in another car.

This was, of course, just an "accident", so the woman faced NO criminal charges. Oddly, she was never even sued in civil court....I guess maybe the person she killed didn't have any family or survivors who could have filed a wrongful death lawsuit, so the whole thing carried no consequences legally or financially for the person who caused it.

Bottom line -- this lady was extremely careless and she took the life of an innocent person. Yet society treats this like it's not that serious because, after all, cars are common and we accept that accidents happen (personally, I think this is BS -- I think anyone who causes a crash that results in death should face severe consequences, even if it was "just an accident").

Anyway, just something to think about -- does it really make sense to throw criminal charges at someone for crashing a drone that results in accidental injury, but if you smash your car into someone and kill them, that usually does not result in criminal charges unless the driver was drunk/texting/etc.

I personally think all consequences should be treated the same, regardless of the cause. If hurting/killing another person is something we want to prevent, then we should have equal punishment for ALL people who hurt/kill others, even if it was "just an accident".

This is why in most all if not all states they changed the nomenclature to "crash" reports from "accident" reports. In the vast majority of crashes someone is put at fault. It doesn't always mean they did it on purpose, but typically someone did something they shouldn't have. A true accident would be an intersection with a green light for both streets and two cars crash. Then you have to look at the highway dept. Even then, someone might still be at fault. Maybe the last guy who worked on the light screwed it up. I agree, drones are relatively new and it seems like anything negative gets far more attention than things much more serious. People drive around in 6000lb SUVs all day long looking down texting while driving 80mph down the highway but let your drone leave your line of sight for a millisecond and let something happen....

 

[MoonstruckView]

Crashing your drone could not only cause damage to people, but private property as well. If you crashed into somebody's car and put a dent in it, you are responsible regardless of the damage to your drone.

Of course, but you missed my point. Crashing alone wont land you in jail.

 

[Strafe1]

I personally think all consequences should be treated the same, regardless of the cause. If hurting/killing another person is something we want to prevent, then we should have equal punishment for ALL people who hurt/kill others, even if it was "just an accident".

Yikes. This is very disconcerting post. Being in the medical field, I have seen or heard of accidents (too many to mention) where serious injury or fatalities occurred, with no reckless behavior, intent or foreseeable danger was present. The fact that this sounds like a core belief is disturbing to me. Having said that, you are entitled to your own opinion.

 

[djaco]

It really blows my mind how people seem to base many of their decisions on fear, not facts.

Consider this -- I know a woman who KILLED another person with her car. When she was a teenager, she ran a stop sign (accidentally, according to her). The result was a crash that killed a driver in another car.

This was, of course, just an "accident", so the woman faced NO criminal charges. Oddly, she was never even sued in civil court....I guess maybe the person she killed didn't have any family or survivors who could have filed a wrongful death lawsuit, so the whole thing carried no consequences legally or financially for the person who caused it.

Bottom line -- this lady was extremely careless and she took the life of an innocent person. Yet society treats this like it's not that serious because, after all, cars are common and we accept that accidents happen (personally, I think this is BS -- I think anyone who causes a crash that results in death should face severe consequences, even if it was "just an accident").

Anyway, just something to think about -- does it really make sense to throw criminal charges at someone for crashing a drone that results in accidental injury, but if you smash your car into someone and kill them, that usually does not result in criminal charges unless the driver was drunk/texting/etc.

I personally think all consequences should be treated the same, regardless of the cause. If hurting/killing another person is something we want to prevent, then we should have equal punishment for ALL people who hurt/kill others, even if it was "just an accident".

I agree with you, society has gone crazy when it comes to drones, (a label that I hate). I am not anti-guns, but just look at the numbers of people killed by guns, with no changes in the laws, yet they are passing more and more laws concerning plastic flying quadcopters with cameras, it just doesn't make any sense.

 

[StanTGM]

How many drones have crashed into people?

...don't forget the incident in western Mongolia in late 2014: a Spark plowed into a crowd at a horse race and injured over 900 (including 8 horses)

 

[Zoro]

The reason people have gone bat-shite crazy about drones is the government does not want the public to go into competition with them. How many times have you see a video where a cop tells someone to turn off their camera (iPhone) even though it’s perfectly legal to film cops?

There was some drone footage of the Santa Rosa fires afterwards. What the drone footage showed was very alarming, houses burnt to the ground but trees all around the houses untouched. The Gov. Doesn’t want that stuff out to the public because once that happens they no longer have control of the narrative.

 

[Mr. Salty]

There was some drone footage of the Santa Rosa fires afterwards. What the drone footage showed was very alarming, houses burnt to the ground but trees all around the houses untouched. The Gov. Doesn’t want that stuff out to the public because once that happens they no longer have control of the narrative.

Paranoid much? The "government" doesn't want drones flying over wildfires while firefighting airplanes and helicopters are in the area dropping water from low altitudes. That's it.

What "narrative" exactly do you thing the gubmint wants to control about the devastation of a wildfire? Do you think news of the fire won't get out because you aren't allowed to fly your Mavic over it, like that's the only source of information? And how does the drone footage you cite exist if the government isn't letting it get out there?

The drone video you mention shows plenty of torched trees. Some have less than total damage, but fires are funny like that. Are you suggesting there wasn't a wildfire and the government, for some reason, moved tens of thousands of people out of their homes and then burned them for no reason? Here's the video:

 

[Zoro]

Yea, to tell you the truth I am paranoid about the NSA, CIA, FBI, and other three letter agencies. You pretty much have to be brain-dead not to be in this day and age. Not for myself, but for the manipulation of society in general.

That is NOT the video I was talking about. I've linked it here. How do these structures in the middle of parking lot malls incinerate themselves..... trees all survived within feet of the buildings.

There is an interview with a retired Fire-chief in Santa Rosa, and if you think I'm paranoid then don't listen to his interview. I would link the interview but that might be going to far off topic.

BTW, no one is talking about flying a Mavic around while planes are fighting the fires..... get real dude!

The narrative could be many things..... that's beyond my pay-grade. But something is not right here.

The Governments secret weapon was the drone back during the first Gulf war. Since then the tech has gone mainstream. Now your average kid has access to this tech.

https://streamable.com/d7j6t

 

[ftttu]

I’m a retired LEO in Texas. Criminal offenses in Texas, like other states, require a culpable mantle state. The culpable mental states are: intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, and with criminal negligence. Different criminal laws have different culpable mental states, and a prosecutor needs to prove a defendant’s culpable mental state of a certain law to get a conviction.

Also, an officer can take you to jail if he has probable cause to belive you committed a criminal offense, and he doesn’t have to prove the offense’s culpable mental state. So, you may go to jail for injuring a person, damaging property, flying in a NFZ, etc, but that doesn’t mean you will be convicted. (For those who don’t know, a jail is basically for detaining someone arrested for a crime to wait for trial and a place you can be sentenced to for misdemeanor criminal offenses once a person is convicted.)

 

[Qoncussion]

The fires in the video you posted could very well be spot fires. Thermal winds over a large fire are tremendous. Embers rise and get carried away ~ often times miles away. I work in a fire lookout tower. Part of what we do is to watch for spot fires during major fire events. This type of burning is totally feasible. I'm not saying that's what happened - just that it's feasible.

.
Wildfire 2017 California-Drone footage-KMart Burned -Trees Untouched!!!!Officials Asked about DEW - Part 1 - Streamable

I

 

[BerndM]

Based solely on the very last paragraph of the article, this guy NEEDS to be taught a VERY potent lesson and be forbidden to ever fly a drone again. Zooming over a crowd of students while your controller is screaming LOW and CRITICAL battery warnings is nothing short of an act of criminal endangering and ought to be rewarded accordingly.