Drone Pilot Arrested After Flying Over Two Stadiums, Dropping Leaflets (cbslocal.com) 108
"A man with an anti-media agenda was arrested in Oakland after he flew a drone over two different stadiums to drop leaflets" last Sunday, writes Slashdot reader execthis. A local CBS station reports:
According to investigators, [55-year-old Tracy] Mapes piloted his drone over Levi's Stadium during the second quarter of the 49ers-Seattle game and released a load of pamphlets. He then quickly landed the drone, loaded it up and drove over to Oakland. He flew a similar mission over the Raiders-Broncos game. Santa Clara Police Lt. Dan Moreno said after Mapes was apprehended he defended the illegal action as a form of free speech.
USA Today reports there's now also an ongoing federal investigation "because the Federal Aviation Administration prohibits the flying of drones within five miles of an airport. Both Levi's Stadium and Oakland Coliseum are within that range."
"The San Francisco Chronicle added that the drone was a relatively ineffective messenger because 'most of the drone-dropped leaflets were carried away by the wind.'"
USA Today reports there's now also an ongoing federal investigation "because the Federal Aviation Administration prohibits the flying of drones within five miles of an airport. Both Levi's Stadium and Oakland Coliseum are within that range."
"The San Francisco Chronicle added that the drone was a relatively ineffective messenger because 'most of the drone-dropped leaflets were carried away by the wind.'"
Free speech does not exclude laws (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes you can have free speech but you cannot break laws in expressing that. Are people really this stupid these days?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That phrase does not mean what you think it does.
It means that you can't be arrested for talking trash about the government.
Re: (Score:1)
Television stations can be corrupt without any government implications.
Also, I wonder if Lt. Dan Moreno owns any Monero.
Re: (Score:1)
Assuming that AC and you are both referring to the First Amendment to the US Constitution (and that you are not being snarky), AC is closer to correct than you.
Re: (Score:3)
No, it doesn't. It means government can't make any laws that would prevent you from exercising free speech.
But free speech doesn't mean you get to break other laws while exercising your free speech.
Re: (Score:2)
No. Let me put it in terms you can understand. Think of it like this. You can hire a big truck with a sign on it that says, "Whites are Superior". That's legal. But if you run that truck over a bunch of mud people, you have broken the law, even though you were exercising your free speech at the time. Just because you were in the act of exercising free speech doesn't mean you can break the law.
Re: (Score:2)
What are mud people? Are they the Louisiana alternative to a snowmen, because they're short on snow but have lots of mud?
I agree, running over the figures created by children is cruel, but is it against the law? Maybe vandalism?
Re: (Score:2)
That's racist. The reason why is because you simply could have said "Think of it like this. You can hire a big truck with a sign on it that says, "Whites are Superior". That's legal. But if you run that truck over a bunch of people". Unfortunately you chose to let your true colors show. You've been doing that a lot lately, yet you're the same person that yells "racist" at anybody that disagrees with you. This is why you people keep losing traction.
Re: (Score:2)
Would you prefer mud monkey as in ie earth primate. From a galactic point of view you could be racist against all humans, let's not be bigoted, OK (not a white power sign on earth or any other planet in the galaxy).
Typical examples of free speech that is most emphatically illegal, fraud and in the US where money is speech, trying to hire an assassin. Free speech is really the right to freely express your opinion and not an open right to make false claim of fact or to actively incite conflict or in a democra
Re: (Score:1)
I wanted to put it in terms the average Slashdot AC could understand.
I probably should have mentioned SJWs and virtue-signaling, too.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe you should mention how mentioning virtue signalling or SJWs is virtue signalling...
Re: (Score:1)
That phrase does not mean what you think it does.
It means that you can't be arrested for talking trash about the government.
If you're being sarcastic, then dilly dilly!
Else, no, it doesn't mean what YOU think it does.
The first amendment has nothing to do with "trash talking the government", egads, man...
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, asshole. Read this. *emphasis mine)
CONGRESS shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Re: (Score:1)
Hey, asshole. Read this. *emphasis mine)
CONGRESS shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Wow... Hilarious that your rude response proves MY point and opposes your own.
Let's see if you can follow this. I'll try one more time. More slowly this time... See if you can keep up.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes you can have free speech but you cannot break laws in expressing that. Are people really this stupid these days?
I think freedom of the press would be more on target; but, you still can be arrested for breaking the law while using the freedom of the press. Tim S.
Re: (Score:3)
But would he have been arrested for flying the drone if he had not dropped leaflets? It is likely that hundreds of people fly drones within 5 miles of SFO or OAK everyday. How many of them are arrested? Selective enforcement of the law can be a form of oppression.
Re: Free speech does not exclude laws (Score:2)
Youâ(TM)re absolutely right. Ideally weâ(TM)d arrest all drone operators and string em up, but until weâ(TM)re able to do that, weâ(TM)ll have to settle for selective enforcement.
Re: (Score:2)
"Selective enforcement" can be a form of oppression, but when they are "selectively" doing enforcement against the people whose crime attracts the most attention, then it isn't. It just means he was an idiot for brazenly doing something that you have to do quietly to get away with.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
No, he would be arrested because he flew into a no-fly zone. Stadiums are restricted airspace (from ground to 3000 feet above ground) - you are absolutely not allowed to fly in restricted airspace (except in emergencies). This applies whether we're
Re: (Score:2)
Stadiums are restricted airspace (from ground to 3000 feet above ground)
No they are not. Get your facts straight.
At this time, there is not a single permanent restriction on flying over any stadium in the U.S.Only Disneyland and Disneyworld have permanent restrictions.
Temporary Flight Restrictions (TFRs) are enacted by the FAA during events only. And even then, the TFRs are in some cases very conditional. Levi's Stadium for example, was somehow approved directly under the flight path for KSJC. Depending on the wind, arriving or departing traffic will have to overfly the sta
Re: (Score:1)
> Are people really this stupid these days?
Have you seen who was elected president?
What did the leaflets say? (Score:1)
What did the leaflets say?
Re: (Score:3)
The leaflets asked people to deposit them in a recycling bin.
Re:What did the leaflets say? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Most media outlets aren't reporting the content of the leaflets, probably to avoid promoting this sort of thing
It might have something to do with the fact that the leaflets accused the media (the ones hiding this part of the story) of launching a coup d'etat against the United States, that the media are complicit in a fear-based propaganda war to enhance the power of the deep state and deprive citizens of their liberties.
Re: (Score:2)
Or it might be because they are the deranged rantings of POTUS.
Re: (Score:2)
Or it might be because they are the deranged rantings of POTUS.
That's what he said.
Re: (Score:1)
How dare they slander the POTUS by quoting him verbatim and providing the actual context!
Re: (Score:2)
Could be. Nothing would surprise me anymore.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
CBS have declined to explain but a bit of searching turns up this
https://www.facebook.com/RedXS... [facebook.com]
https://archive.fo/eoZiN [archive.fo]
https://www.facebook.com/Tracy... [facebook.com]
https://archive.fo/IcXKV [archive.fo]
https://www.facebook.com/notes... [facebook.com]
https://archive.fo/ywhAk [archive.fo]
tl;dr - nothing particularly interesting. Archive links because FB will probably pull his account to protect us all from reading his rather empty, but basically harmless rants.
Re: (Score:3)
Never mind the illegal flying (Score:5, Insightful)
Charge him with littering.
Re: (Score:2)
I came here to say this, it's pretty obvious really.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually littering might get thrown out as speech, in this case the handing out of pamplets overrides this. This is why people who throw newspapers on your lawn can't be charged with littering, and that's your house.
There could be a danger violation here, but not a mundane littering charge.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd argue that if you're not giving the leaflet to someone directly then it is littering. Also if it's not being dropped within the vicinity of a persons door / mailbox / front lawn. And 1 leaflet might be ok but not 100.
In the UK we don't have free speech laws AFAIK and you'd get slapped with a fine for littering pretty fast I expect (I'm not a lawyer). The newspaper on a lawn thing doesn't happen here, it rains too much and you'd risk having someone throwing it straight back at you!
Re: (Score:2)
It is the same here in the US, the dropping of it on the ground isn't speech, so it doesn't matter what the content of the pamphlet is.
Freedom of the Press, which is how our free speech is actually worded, prevents the government from measuring the content of the speech of the item dropped on the ground; they're required to solely assess if you abandoned it in public in violation of the littering law. They can't look at it and respond differently based on what it says unless it contains threats, evidence of
Re: (Score:2)
Oh??
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
FAA still to speak (Score:5, Interesting)
You're not supposed to fly directly over crowds.
I always maintain a horizontal offset while trolling crowds of paranoids with my model predator drone. Protip: Put a plant into the crowd to 'spot the drone' or 90% of flights are wasted.
TFR (Score:5, Informative)
Regardless of the proximity to the airport, all stadiums are under a TFR up to 3000 AGL above and around a stadium during NFL games. See https://www.faa.gov/uas/where_... [faa.gov]
so anachronistic! (Score:4, Funny)
all stadiums are under a TFR up to 3000 AGL above and around a stadium during NFL games.
It's been my experience that transferors usually have less than 3000 agility points but I don't see what this has to do with Newfoundland's games. ;)
Re: (Score:3)
Regardless of the proximity to the airport, all stadiums are under a TFR up to 3000 AGL above and around a stadium during NFL games.
And that's what's actually relevant here, since you only have an obligation to notify an airport if you're going to fly within five miles. You're still not allowed to ever fly your drone actually over the airport, or usually a small border around it, but it's not five miles. Some airports have a web form you can fill out to provide notification, others expect it in writing, some will take a phone call. This notion that you are prohibited from flying a drone within five miles of an airport is bollocks.
Another spoiled citizen. (Score:2)
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the first amendment because it exists to ensure that political dissent cannot be silenced. However, this is a good example of another citizen who has been spoiled by the first amendment. While some may call his views as "opinions" the reality is that some people subscribe to factually incorrect narratives. Sadly our own president has been pushing these false narratives which only encourages more extreme behavior. The freedom of speech is not unlimited like some people (e.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Factually incorrect narratives? You mean like ABC News did just today? [pjmedia.com] The Dow plunged 350 points after the false report.
It's pretty hard to defend anyone for attacking the media when they do such a good job at either lying or being totally incompetent at their job. Remember how they showed why they're so mistrusted when they lied about Trump and the koi pond? [thehill.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're either deliberately being malicious, or you have a screw loose. I don't know which it is, but again, if ytou're being deliberately malicious, again, go fuck yourself. If you're nuts, then I hope you get help.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The media is lying to you. Are you seriously saying we should trust them? WTF? It's like the character in the first five minutes of a dystopia film. The one who shortly gets disappeared.
CNN on family leave before and after Trump backed it [imgoat.com]
Julie Pace of the AP calls Trump a liar about media conspiracy while she was actively conspiring to promote Clinton. [imgur.com]
https://www.cheatsheet.com/culture/trump-keeps-claiming-fake-news-and-these-media-mistakes-make-his-case.html/6/
Paul Krugman Lies. Gets 8k+ retweet [msmlies.com]
Good for him (Score:4)
At least they caught the guy... (Score:2)
My biggest concern with drone is that they will be used for anonymous crimes. Hopefully this story is an indication that we will be able to track down the owners.
Re: (Score:3)
Check out DJI's Aeroscope. It's now almost trivial to track errant drones and their owners.
Carefully ignoring what he said (Score:4)
I can't help but notice that the content of the leaflets is not spoken of. Only "anti-media", which we all know is Wrongthink[tm]. We all should believe the media, they wouldn't lie or shelter sex offenders. Or have dead people show up in their offices like MSNBC's Joe Scarborough. A fucking female intern died in his office and he got off scot-free.
No, the story is about how he did wrong. This kind of crap is why nobody trusts the mainstream media any more. If they say the sky is blue you go outside and check.
Re: (Score:2)
OK, defender of truth and fighter of Wrongthing(TM):
http://www.politifact.com/trut... [politifact.com]
My goodness, with a neckbeard that thick I'm surprised you haven't been kidnapped and sold to Bukharan markhor smugglers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
George Takei is accused of: Being friends with people at bars ; taking one of those friends home intending sex after that person had a breakup. The only problem is that the other person says he was removing that person's pants when that person awoke from having briefly passed out.
That is not a serious accusation of misconduct. They were both drunk, and it is pretty normal in that situation for both people to want sex. People do not perceive the passage of time when they're passed out; there is no way to kno
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We
OK, I looked it up and you're still not the Queen. So therefore, no we don't.
Re: (Score:1)
ANY accident in an "important" place deserves more scrutiny, but the original poster wrote it as if it's a sure conspiracy or proven coverup. If you have more evidence, bring it forth. Otherwise, STFU.
Re: (Score:2)
Alledgedy, the leaflet reads "Don't believe everything you read."
Allegedly.
Re: (Score:2)
Sooner than you think... [digitaltrends.com]
I Suppose We Should Be Grateful? (Score:2)
He could have used artillery... [psywarrior.com]
Bad reporting (Score:3)
Almost every report I've read about this has a comment that it is illegal to fly within 5 miles of an airport which is simply untrue. You can fly within 5 miles of any airport. If the airport is not in Class B airspace then you are required to *notify* the operator and, if there is a control tower, the tower of your operational plans. Within Class B airspace, which does not cover either stadium as they are not within 5 miles of San Francisco International, you need permission and must coordinate with the controllers.
But it *is* illegal to fly within 3 miles of a NFL stadium from one hour before to one hour after a scheduled game. Similar restrictions apply to certain other sporting events like NASCAR and NCAA division one football.
And the miles are *nautical* miles which are roughly 15% greater than statute miles. The reporters never make that distinction, either.
https://www.faa.gov/uas/where_... [faa.gov]