P4 owner in trouble with the law......

[Melvoid]

Interesting way to handle this by the police dept. View attachment 70170

Not to mention the noise. Funny thing, when I tell people about mine, usually the first question is whether I used it to spy on my neighbors sunbathing in the back yard. My reply, "Uhhhh, you haven't seen my neighbors..."

 

[Melvoid]

Catch this dumb*** and shut him down. This is not uncommon and has a lot to do with negative public opinion about drones and those who fly them.

Not sure about illegal search laws as applies to equipment.


Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots

It's just like a gun. The GUN didn't to it, the owner did. What about the hundreds of thousands of us that just use them normally and have fun with them?

 

[Tenly]

So LE doesn't have to prove a crime existed just that he had things he could have used in a crime. Yeah, that is a dark path I would prefer we don't go down.

Besides prior restraint has been ruled unconstitutional and it brings in 14th amendment issues as well.

If he is doing illegal things then he should be in jail. Then he can't have those items. If he is walking around then he should have the same rights to have those items that anyone else does.

Its not a dark path at all. If convicted once - in lieu of throwing him in jail and having the taxpayers support him - he's released "conditionally" and to avoid incarceration - he voluntarily gives up some of his rights.

If he's caught with any of those items in his possession - while on probation - he's broken his agreement and it's off to jail.

It's not a dark path to offer a compromise. There are (rightfully) a million things in between "in jail" and "completely free" and it's not at all a dark path.


Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots

 

[GadgetGuy]

It's just like a gun. The GUN didn't to it, the owner did. What about the hundreds of thousands of us that just use them normally and have fun with them?

SUV's kill thousands every year! Except it was the driver who drove the SUV that was the problem! The SUV's are innocent!

 

[42FrankZ]

Its not a dark path at all. If convicted once - in lieu of throwing him in jail and having the taxpayers support him - he's released "conditionally" and to avoid incarceration - he voluntarily gives up some of his rights.

If he's caught with any of those items in his possession - while on probation - he's broken his agreement and it's off to jail.

It's not a dark path to offer a compromise. There are (rightfully) a million things in between "in jail" and "completely free" and it's not at all a dark path.


Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots

As far as I know there has not been a sentencing hearing that would have disallowed him possession of photographic and telescopic equipment, so you have changed the premise.

It was stated "he should be banned" from possession of such things. Since he hasn't had due process, he is still innocent of the charges despite the Internet's rush to find him guilty, banning him from possession would violate that due process. That is a dark path. If you don't believe that then we really will never agree.

If he is found guilty then I have no issues with burning his life to the ground.

 

[Klaus_Klavier]

The cops know who he is guys. They said "were you convicted of voyerism in the past" obviously meaning this guy has priors and they recognized him

All they had to do was run people with priors pertaining to voyerism in the area and the mug shots would show up and they obviously saw them. That was the cops saying "give up, we know you already, don't make us work harder than we have to"


Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots

 

[GadgetGuy]

All these armchair defense lawyers and cops and prosecutors speculating over what is most likely a hoax. Great plot for a new reality show!

 

[GT500BILL]

Can you say......Pervert?


Sent from my iPad using PhantomPilots

 

[MikeyP]

NOw Yer talkin' !! A reality show, sponsored by that green lizard. (didn't want to use their name) Insure your multirotors with them. I can just see the ads.

 

[Tenly]

As far as I know there has not been a sentencing hearing that would have disallowed him possession of photographic and telescopic equipment, so you have changed the premise.

It was stated "he should be banned" from possession of such things. Since he hasn't had due process, he is still innocent of the charges despite the Internet's rush to find him guilty, banning him from possession would violate that due process. That is a dark path. If you don't believe that then we really will never agree.

If he is found guilty then I have no issues with burning his life to the ground.

In the statement "he should be banned", I thought it was pretty obvious that by "he", the poster meant "the perpetrator" - not "the suspect".


Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots

 

[Mr. Salty]

Update: Orem police finally arrested a couple for the alleged peeping: Orem drone pilot, girlfriend charged with voyeurism

 

[Desoto Drone]

What on earth detailed data old he possibly be getting? A wide angle video of a house/window? Serously??

 

[GadgetGuy]

I guess they don't have internet, with free porn in Utah...

 

[Matchlock]

No matter what that individual has done, the officers must have proof of a crime before they can arrest and charge him with anything.

Bud

The cops know who he is guys. They said "were you convicted of voyerism in the past" obviously meaning this guy has priors and they recognized him

All they had to do was run people with priors pertaining to voyerism in the area and the mug shots would show up and they obviously saw them. That was the cops saying "give up, we know you already, don't make us work harder than we have to"


Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots

 

[bluntnose]

Looks like he really put his Foote in it this time.
Wondering how they charged the girl. Is she guilty by being in the truck with him or sumpin?


Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots

 

[Matchlock]

Hi GadgetGuy;

That's really interesting. I'm in Law Enforcement and since that would be public knowledge, could you point me in the direction where I could find this data or perhaps provide a link to where you found this data? I'l like to have a look at some of those stats.

Thanks

While we are digressing, first an arrest does not necessarily equal a conviction in a criminal case. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, to a moral certainty, often does not exist, and CSI has polluted the juries with unrealistic expectations of proof. I'll cite some of my own statistcs gathered over the years in a limited area. By the time a person is arrested and first charged with DUI, they have driven under the influence an average of 500 times! The vast majority of crimes go unsolved or remain unproven. Now, back to our regularly scheduled programming.

It's kind of like when someone drinks, drives and hits someone. Do people blame the vehicle and other vehicle drivers? Of course not. But in this case people are lead by the media to think that this is some huge ongoing problem with drone use. In this case it was one person with a mental issue. He'd been convicted before of this offense without the use of a drone. He could have been using a DSLR or binoculars.

It's kind of like when someone drinks, drives and hits someone. Do people blame the vehicle and other vehicle drivers? Of course not. But in this case people are lead by the media to think that this is some huge ongoing problem with drone use. In this case it was one person with a mental issue. He'd been convicted before of this offense without the use of a drone. He could have been using a DSLR or binoculars.

 

[Matchlock]

If the government doesn't want us to paint all Muslims as terrorists because of the actions of a few, then why do they paint all gun owners as killers because of the action of a few? Now, apply that same logic to Drone owners and it's no different.

The government has a bad habit of making laws against everyone in a particular hobby instead of just arresting and prosecuting the guilty parties and leaving it at that.

........... if
All guns are bad, and
All Drones are bad, then
Why aren't all cars bad?

Bud

Here it comes, Background checks required before the purchase of a drone. Although I am being somewhat light-hearted here, It is people who abuse privileges, that project a "bad rap" for the drone hobbyist and those who try to do the right thing. I have always been of the opinion that my personal rights are valid so long as they do not infringe upon someone else's. Like many other products, when placed in the wrong hands, bad things can happen. IMHO, we need to be careful that it is not the case of a drone being in the wrong place, but a "pervert using an instrument of convenience to carry out his sick mission". Guns don't kill people - people with guns kill people.

 

[Matchlock]

Hi GadgetGuy;

Here's the crime stats for our area that indicate that the vast majority of crimes do not go unproven. That's also a National number as well.

The number you cited about a person has driven under the influence an average 500 times before being caught for the first time. I cannot find on any existing crime stats, anywhere for that issue. Again, can you provide a link or point me in the right direction to those numbers please? I would be very interested in reviewing them.

Many thanks

While we are digressing, first an arrest does not necessarily equal a conviction in a criminal case. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, to a moral certainty, often does not exist, and CSI has polluted the juries with unrealistic expectations of proof. I'll cite some of my own statistcs gathered over the years in a limited area. By the time a person is arrested and first charged with DUI, they have driven under the influence an average of 500 times! The vast majority of crimes go unsolved or remain unproven. Now, back to our regularly scheduled programming.

 

[NewMexicoFlyer]

If the government doesn't want us to paint all Muslims as terrorists because of the actions of a few, then why do they paint all gun owners as killers because of the action of a few? Now, apply that same logic to Drone owners and it's no different.

The government has a bad habit of making laws against everyone in a particular hobby instead of just arresting and prosecuting the guilty parties and leaving it at that.

........... if
All guns are bad, and
All Drones are bad, then
Why aren't all cars bad?

Bud

Listen too long to the far left and they will tell you cars are bad......


Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots

 

[GadgetGuy]

View attachment 77398 Hi GadgetGuy;

Here's the crime stats for our area that indicate that the vast majority of crimes do not go unproven. That's also a National number as well.

The number you cited about a person has driven under the influence an average 500 times before being caught for the first time. I cannot find on any existing crime stats, anywhere for that issue. Again, can you provide a link or point me in the right direction to those numbers please? I would be very interested in reviewing them.

Many thanks

Thanks for your service, but your own table refutes your claim. Property crimes make up the vast bulk of all crimes (almost half in your own table), and their best year "clearance rate" was only 31%, even in your small town. Your small town total clearance rate of all 2013 crimes was 49.2% which is still not a majority. This doesn't include the even larger number of crimes that were never reported. In large urban cities, the "clearance" stats are far lower than those in small towns, such as yours, where everyone knows everyone else. Also, what is the definition of "cleared" in your table? What if LE knows who did it, but can't prove it with admissable evidence, is it still classified as "cleared"? What if the DA won't waste scarce resources prosecuting the proveable case because it doesn't meet their threshold? What if the jury won't convict because they have unrealistic expectations from watching too many CSI shows?

The DUI stats that a first time DUI had driven under the influence 500 times before being arrested was from law enforcement studies back when the presumptive DUI level was .10% BAC. With the lowering of presumptive levels to .08% BAC and even lower, based upon symptomology of being under the influence, the figure may even be higher today. Statistically, after midnight, depending upon the hour, one fourth to one half of all drivers on the road are legally DUI! Accident probability is up to 500x higher at .10% BAC and higher! Watch out for the other guy, and don't drink and drive! Oh, and texting and driving is the statistical equivalent of driving DUI! Don't do it, either!