I don’t think he was drunk. He didn’t walk like it and he had no problem swatting that invasion of privacy. He was dressed like lots of people who live on the beach in SoCal, not what you call a hobo. He distinctly said, “You put that thing over my house and I’ll be pissed”. So would I. Maybe “what the hell guy” has already or maybe others have. Whatever. Why didn’t “WTHG” take it down to the beach? Lots of people consider them a threat to privacy and rightly so. Once they’re off their own property and literally in other peoples’ space it’s a public nuisance.
1 Like
You can tell he’s scottish by the casual racist remarks made about him. 
1 Like
In fact, governmental agencies are looking at Burning Man’s experience in formulating their regulations: Article from Fast Company
I’m kind of flabbergasted at the level of “OMG THOSE GUYS WERE SUCH JERKS FOR HOVERING THEIR DRONE FOUR FEET ABOVE THE STREET” in this thread. I’m half surprised nobody has suggested that the drone could have been used to paint the cars with a laser and guide in a missile, because you know that’s what drones do.
The guys decided to fly their drone in a public street, where engine noise is expected and tolerated. Yeah, it was near cars. Zero cars were damaged in the film. If a car had been damaged, then the guys flying the drone would have been liable for damaging the car. If they’d caused a problem with traffic, they could be given a ticket for causing a problem with traffic.
Huntington Beach isn’t Burning Man. People on the street in Huntington Beach probably haven’t spent as much time artistically decorating their vehicles, temporary residences, or persons as people on the playa. The difference in risk is “If this thing flies off course, it’ll put a dent in an eight-year-old Honda Civic’s door panel” vs. “If this thing flies off course, it could smash a hole in somebody’s hand-painted papier mache dragon bicycle.” We don’t need the same rules to apply to both situations, any more than we need to say bicyclists have to keep off any and all paved surfaces because cars drive 70 miles per hour on highways, which are paved surfaces, and it’s not safe for bicycles to be on highways.
Unless it comes out that the guys with the drone were using it to assault the shirtless dude, they were the wronged parties here.
5 Likes
Sure, they were the wronged parties. They also were exposing their expensive, delicate toy to whatever dangers lurked in the street, in this case a drunk asshole. Drones are expected to crash, so replacing props is not a big deal. The lens cover, well, that is open to question. Would it have broken if they were lousy pilots or some mechanical mishap befell the craft? Who knows. Whatever, police and lawsuits are a rather extreme reaction to an event causing about $50 worth of actual damage.
Reminds me of cops smashing cell phones because they are annoying with their privacy violating entitled hipster cameras.
5 Likes
Ah, a Godwin’s law for the intersectional age: As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a white person referring to another white person as a “white person” in order to imply privilege or entitlement over yet another white person approaches 1.
3 Likes
What a polarising subject!!
Everyone is at fault here. I have clocked many hours flying RC models and we always did it away from the public, they tend to walk into flight paths, trip over or stand on models and are a major distraction.
Also large open areas are great for test flying and “calibration” .
I’m massively interested in these new contraptions but have enough hobbies to see me to my grave as it is 
The drunk was just a drunk, an arsehole if you like! if you play near them they get to interact with your toys…
2 Likes
Not with the starter motor they can’t.
2 Likes
Which itself might be the mose impressive trick out of the two.
1 Like
Hey - he could take an eye out with that thing. That’s only like a buck fifty in damages.
Na, just the big hairy chest. I’m a Scotsman meself.
1 Like
Think many in our society are not happy with these drones. Once the drone would had reached a few feet higher it would had been flying over his head which is now illegal. He did not have a right to destroy it but he looked to be homeless and the operator would get no where if he wanted to sue. The operator should not had been flying so close to the cars on the street. I think the bigger issue is people feel their privacy is being violated by these. This looks to be a DJ Phantom entry level drone that can fly with a Go Pro camera. Cost about 1300,00.
DJ Phantom entry level is $383.96
Isn’t this basically the “She was asking for it, dressed like that!” defense? Exposing yourself to the risk of foreseeable injury that is outside your or anyone else’s control is not the same as exposing yourself to the risk that somebody else will act intentionally to injure you. In the first case, it’s your fault. In the second, it’s the other guy’s.
Why’s that? It’s honest work for the cops, and the drunk asshole should pay for the damage he caused, regardless of how much it is. If he refuses to do that, and the $50 (or whatever) is actually worth the hassle to you, you take him to small claims court. If nothing else the inconvenience of being a defendant might make him think twice about being an asshole in the future.
2 Likes
He has a case. The proximate cause of the crash was the guy swinging at it with intent. I would be surprised if he didn’t recover damages, in fact. I think it might actually be a no-brainer.
3 Likes
Yes, but it’s not It’s not a Phantom 1. It’s a phantom 3.
http://www.dji.com/product/phantom-3/spec
The Phantom3 is faster, has better hover accuracy, and quite possibly has a better gimbal.
And the 4k camera adds $200 over the 1080p model.
The gentleman could liquidate his pants, for instance. Oh, dear…
