What do you think of this drone/multi-rotor accident ? 30 days jail + 5K fine
- Thread starter SPP
- Start date
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2016
- Messages
- 203
- Reaction score
- 28
- Age
- 66
Yes I realized that I was being selfish and that I should live my life for the betterment of my fellow man. I'm on my way to the Prius dealership!
well thats just the issue. not according to this City Attorney’s Office prevails in drone case
So “witch” story is correct? the so called press is used as a tool not for news but for control, another word for it is propaganda. Used to achieve an agenda. In a court of law contradictory statements by the same person counts against that persons very character yet the press lie and fabricate rubbish and the public still view them in high regard. Just how bad does the deceit have to become for people to see it as a tool used for manipulation. In the one account it says that a witness saw the pilot retrieve the drone….how’s that work in a court of law? The same witness must have been present to see the drone “strike..... is the word used" and be present when the pilot collected the drone….REALLY! the witness then can identify the exact drone….how’s that work? did the drone have BS written on it? look before I did not own a drone so I did not care what the press said about drone pilots…now that I am one and the press who have no integrity or honesty in them paint me to look like a criminal …well I will not accept it. It’s a disgrace that way the press behave. Any person with just two brain cells when reading the so called story can see the contradictions with only one of those working brain cells while the other brain cell is moving that persons eyes over the text. the press is a joke and only a clown takes jokers seriously.
So “witch” story is correct? the so called press is used as a tool not for news but for control, another word for it is propaganda. Used to achieve an agenda. In a court of law contradictory statements by the same person counts against that persons very character yet the press lie and fabricate rubbish and the public still view them in high regard. Just how bad does the deceit have to become for people to see it as a tool used for manipulation. In the one account it says that a witness saw the pilot retrieve the drone….how’s that work in a court of law? The same witness must have been present to see the drone “strike..... is the word used" and be present when the pilot collected the drone….REALLY! the witness then can identify the exact drone….how’s that work? did the drone have BS written on it? look before I did not own a drone so I did not care what the press said about drone pilots…now that I am one and the press who have no integrity or honesty in them paint me to look like a criminal …well I will not accept it. It’s a disgrace that way the press behave. Any person with just two brain cells when reading the so called story can see the contradictions with only one of those working brain cells while the other brain cell is moving that persons eyes over the text. the press is a joke and only a clown takes jokers seriously.
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2016
- Messages
- 203
- Reaction score
- 28
- Age
- 66
In a court of law contradictory statements by the same person counts against that persons very character yet the press lie and fabricate rubbish and the public still view them in high regard.
The press sensationalized this drone case and mixed up some facts but gist of story reported on local TV seems to have been reasonably accurate. Id say the same thing about child thrown off bridge case.
In the one account it says that a witness saw the pilot retrieve the drone….how’s that work in a court of law? The same witness must have been present to see the drone “strike..... is the word used" and be present when the pilot collected the drone….REALLY!
There is no question that guy ran up and asked for the drone back but witness said no and held it for police. This is corroborated by multiple people who took photos and by a video which appears to have been taken by a security camera or cell phone looking down on the scene from above. Youre right though that no one at scene could know who was piloting drone when it crashed except the woman described below who saw it take off.
the witness then can identify the exact drone….how’s that work? did the drone have BS written on it?
The drone crashed into a group of spectators. One of them picked it up off ground and held it for the police. Police then examined video and data recovered from the drone which allowed them to trace the flight and ID an eyewitness who was looking directly into the camera when the drone took off. The police knew she must have seen the pilot and used reverse imaging to ID her on social media.
In addition, a lawyer called the SPD and admitted his client was the owner (but not pilot) of the drone. The micro disc had video showing defendant operating same drone on several prior occasions. I think admitting defendant was owner but arguing insufficient proof he was pilot at time of crash is tough sell in light of the circumstances including fleeing the scene.
The transcript of the expert’s testimony will be released soon and may yield additional insights.
look before I did not own a drone so I did not care what the press said about drone pilots…now that I am one and the press who have no integrity or honesty in them paint me to look like a criminal …well I will not accept it.
Well you see this was the concern I had with the love everybody and everything will work out philosophy. It sounds great on paper but…
the press is a joke and only a clown takes jokers seriously.
Yes, we are just stuck in the middle.
The press sensationalized this drone case and mixed up some facts but gist of story reported on local TV seems to have been reasonably accurate. Id say the same thing about child thrown off bridge case.
In the one account it says that a witness saw the pilot retrieve the drone….how’s that work in a court of law? The same witness must have been present to see the drone “strike..... is the word used" and be present when the pilot collected the drone….REALLY!
There is no question that guy ran up and asked for the drone back but witness said no and held it for police. This is corroborated by multiple people who took photos and by a video which appears to have been taken by a security camera or cell phone looking down on the scene from above. Youre right though that no one at scene could know who was piloting drone when it crashed except the woman described below who saw it take off.
the witness then can identify the exact drone….how’s that work? did the drone have BS written on it?
The drone crashed into a group of spectators. One of them picked it up off ground and held it for the police. Police then examined video and data recovered from the drone which allowed them to trace the flight and ID an eyewitness who was looking directly into the camera when the drone took off. The police knew she must have seen the pilot and used reverse imaging to ID her on social media.
In addition, a lawyer called the SPD and admitted his client was the owner (but not pilot) of the drone. The micro disc had video showing defendant operating same drone on several prior occasions. I think admitting defendant was owner but arguing insufficient proof he was pilot at time of crash is tough sell in light of the circumstances including fleeing the scene.
The transcript of the expert’s testimony will be released soon and may yield additional insights.
look before I did not own a drone so I did not care what the press said about drone pilots…now that I am one and the press who have no integrity or honesty in them paint me to look like a criminal …well I will not accept it.
Well you see this was the concern I had with the love everybody and everything will work out philosophy. It sounds great on paper but…
the press is a joke and only a clown takes jokers seriously.
Yes, we are just stuck in the middle.
Attachments
New Posts
-
-
-
Free Music / SFX Resource for Your Videos - Over 2000 Tracks- Latest: Eric Matyas
-
-
Members online
No members online now.