Police aiming laser/rifle at drone

[Hoverhigh]

That photo looks zoomed in and pixelated. Show the original shot to give a realistic view.

Here you go, I was zoomed in 2x when the laser was pointed. I also added a pic before I zoomed

 

[Hoverhigh]

Too close, you need the 7x of the M3 to comfortably watch unseen and stay beyond the audible area, which is around 250-300m of the scene or more, depending on the surrounding noise.

Drones are intimidating by nature, so if you get noticed by cops, you'll have problems, that's for sure, unless you are just flying by.

I wouldn't recommend hovering near cops or people in general.

Thank you for the Advice!

 

[TonyPHX]

What was the criminal act you believe was committed by the police?

IF the device producing the red color in the photo was a rifle, what was the crime? Was there a muzzle flash on the video near the time where the red color appeared?

(Anyone who ever used a scoped rifle has used it to look at things without firing on them.)

The poster said they were shooting at it. That's pretty criminal.

 

[Daytona500]

Back in the day I'd have no trouble hitting a drone at 350 ft or more for that matter. Especially if it was Hovering just sayin a cop with a rifle if he was a trained marksmen it would be an easy shot.

 

[AMann]

You better keep all your complete flight records from takeoff to landing. (Edit): Some state laws grant immunity to first responders if they destroy a drone that is interfering with their work, so if yours is one of those states that do, the officers could justify pointing a laser and even shooting at yours (not the Idiocracy of shooting in the air ) if they testify they felt like it was interfering with them.

It looks like you were within your first amendment rights with that one photo to film them with a drone as it appears you were far enough away to not to be interfering with them at all. But as we or they don’t know about the rest of your flight, they could make it an even bigger problem if you do anything about it. Personally, it looks like you got away with it so I wouldn’t make it a big deal as they can make it an even bigger deal for you to the point of requiring you to get a lawyer. It looks like they were just messing around, but I’d suggest going silent, and that includes not posting about it in public.

 

[BigAl07]

Ok my 2 cents (and they are NOT going to be popular here)

Point #1:
It's an absolutely HORRIBLE idea to fly over any type of LEO scene and even more so when you realize it's serious enough to have SWAT/SRT. Those officers on the ground have no idea WHO you are, what you're flying, WHY you're flying, or WHO/WHAT you are sharing that data with. You could be surveilling THEM and giving the location of officers to the PERP inside. In this case, this would be absolutely an EXIGENT situation in which they would be within their rights to remove the threat.

Point #2:
Shooting at the drone, IF that did happen, probably isn't the ideal solution but if they felt threatened (and I can fully understand how/why they would) they were most likely well within the law.

Point #3:
It's amazing how many different sounds "SOUND LIKE" gunshots when you are looking for/expecting gunshots. Odds are no shots were fired but if you GENUINELY believe they were, go to the POLICE station and file an official REPORT.

Point #4:
If your drone was fairly stationary (from that picture it appears you were stationary), and someone from the SWAT/SRT took a shot at it, it would most likely be suffering from LEAD POSIONING!

Point #5:
How many Rifle Owners with an optic on it, have used that OPTIC to look at something long range and never fired a round? I know I have probably thousands of times. Odds are they heard your drone, located it, and used the OPTIC to try and get a better idea of what they were looking at without firing a single round at it.

 

[Cafguy]

I agree with everything you state except for

Point #2:
Shooting at the drone, IF that did happen, probably isn't the ideal solution but if they felt threatened (and I can fully understand how/why they would) they were most likely well within the law.

There is no way I believe this officer shot at that Drone.... NO WAY! so the rest of this is just kinda for discussion.
I would ask how the police would feel threatened enough for their lives to shoot at the Drone?
I can not see how it would be in any way legal for an officer to shoot into the air. That is not a "safe" shot. and could easily harm or kill anyone in its path back to the ground.

 

[AMann]

I agree with everything you state except for

There is no way I believe this officer shot at that Drone.... NO WAY! so the rest of this is just kinda for discussion.
I would ask how the police would feel threatened enough for their lives to shoot at the Drone?
I can not see how it would be in any way legal for an officer to shoot into the air. That is not a "safe" shot. and could easily harm or kill anyone in its path back to the ground.

I don’t think the officer took a shot either. I also implied it would not have been a safe shot saying it would have been an idiotic thing to do. I think the OP should just take it as a lesson about how people and police don’t like having drones (or any public with cameras) watching or filming them work, and that the officers can probably get away with doing something about it if they want.

 

[mavic3usa]

The point is that first responders can take down drones they feel are interfering with their work, so I think the OP should just take it as a lesson about how people and police don’t like having drones (or any public with cameras) watching or filming them work, and that the officers can probably get away with doing something about it if they want.

We are going to change that, for sure.

 

[MA2 317]

The point is that first responders can take down drones they feel are interfering with their work,

It's an oldie but a goody about nine years ago.

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

.

 

[MS Coast]

The poster said they were shooting at it. That's pretty criminal.

No. He said that two people heard a sound that might have been faint gunshots. If there were shots fired, the muzzle blast would be visible in his video.

 

[Cafguy]

I think there would be alot more interest in the other officers if one was shooting or about to shoot The officer looks to me like he is just pointing at the drone with his scope . (still in no way legal)
BUT the drone operator is way to close and could have been fined or arrested.

 

[Cafguy]

The FAA allows first responders to be immune from responsibility if they destroy a drone

NO they don't..
In fact I would think anyone,{ Including an officer that is not in fear for their lives } shooting down a drone would face the same criminal charges as you would. and if that Officer caused that Drone to fall out of the sky and hit someone................

 

[mavic3usa]

It's an oldie but a goody about nine years ago.



.

Another older but good video (not me, not mine, no comment) and here is the ARS: View Document

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

 

[AMann]

NO they don't..
In fact I would think anyone,{ Including an officer that is not in fear for their lives } shooting down a drone would face the same criminal charges as you would. and if that Officer caused that Drone to fall out of the sky and hit someone................

You are right- that’s a state law in various places, not FAA’s.

 

[TonyPHX]

No. He said that two people heard a sound that might have been faint gunshots. If there were shots fired, the muzzle blast would be visible in his video.

Ok, I'm wrong on all counts. Anyways, the cop was at the very least being a jerk. I would still get it handled.

 

[Etbrown4]

As Amann suggested, there are laws in every state against interfering with a police officer in the performance of his duties.

I'm not on the policeman's side but I do know for sure that if you tug on Superman's cape, you'll likely regret it.

Being perhaps technically right is one thing, but if you get arrested over this, you will very quickly realize that silence on your part is by far the wiser choice.

I know a fellow who attempted a petty theft from a car, while police watched, a misdemeanor. He later complained to the district attorney, and the cops returned and charged him this time with a felony for possession of pliers, which became "burglars tools" in the warrant. He did a year of hard time.

 

[Daytona500]

Flying a drone over police is not interfering
Interfering with police, also known as obstructing a law enforcement officer, is when someone intentionally hinders or delays a police officer's ability to perform their duties. This can include:

• Lying to the police
• Providing a false name or ID
• Misusing 911
• Resisting arrest
• Fleeing
• Interfering with another person's arrest
• Refusing to comply with a lawful order
• Warning a criminal to escape detection
  

 

[mavic3usa]

Flying a drone over police is not interfering
Interfering with police, also known as obstructing a law enforcement officer, is when someone intentionally hinders or delays a police officer's ability to perform their duties. This can include:

• Lying to the police
• Providing a false name or ID
• Misusing 911
• Resisting arrest
• Fleeing
• Interfering with another person's arrest
• Refusing to comply with a lawful order
• Warning a criminal to escape detection

You forgot a bulletpoint, one of the most important ones:

• Anything else the police consider "intefering" including distracting them, recording them, interrupting them, or annoying them.

Anyone who tells you the police will not accuse you of "interfering" if you they don't want you around is fooling themselves. Perhaps they may or may not end up detaining you or arresting you but it's enough that they confront you and inform you that you are "intefering" and most people will just back down even if their rights are being trampled on. Why? Because they don't want to get handcuffed or arrested only to be let go later or charges dropped or found not guilty and the officer may or may not get in trouble. In the video I posted, the police told that young man that because he was flying his drone in the area, he was intefering with a police operation because if the police wanted to launch their own drone, they couldn't. Nothing about that statement is correct. So your definition of intefering is basically meaningless if it doesn't cover someone acting legally even if they are engaged in a constitutionally protected activity.

 

[Etbrown4]

I'm on the side of the drone pilot, however any officer can tell you that in his view, you are interfering. Sure you can bring up the constitution and you'd probably be right.

In the meantime is it worth being "right" and getting arrested, because then you may be going to jail, and you might need F. Lee Bailey to defend yourself. Is it worth it? Some will say yes, some will say no.

As a young man i would have said yes. At 73, I personally would say no.
It's up to the individual to figure that out and assert his rights as he sees fit.

We all know that Patrick Henry said give me liberty or give me death.