On the lighter side of today's news...

On the lighter side of today's news... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

sloguy02246 -> On the lighter side of today's news... (7/4/2016 7:20:09 AM)
Dad, son fight FAA over gun-firing, flame-throwing drones 07/04/16 9:07 AM ET HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) — A Connecticut father and son are headed for a court showdown with the Federal Aviation Administration over whether the agency can force them to disclose information about drones shown in two YouTube videos firing a gun and deploying a flame thrower in their backyard. Austin Haughwout, 19, of Clinton, and his father, Bret Haughwout, are refusing to comply with subpoenas issued by the U.S. attorney's office on behalf of the FAA, saying the subpoenas violate their constitutional right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures and questioning the agency's authority to regulate recreational drones. A hearing on whether the Haughwouts have to comply with the subpoenas is set for Wednesday before U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Meyer in New Haven. The case potentially has national significance because it would set a precedent on how much authority the FAA has over recreational drone use, said the Haughwouts' lawyer, Mario Cerame. Austin Haughwout uploaded the videos to his YouTube channel last year. One video, viewed more than 3.7 million times, shows a flying drone equipped with a handgun firing rounds. Another video, viewed nearly 600,000 times, shows a flying drone with a flamethrower lighting up a spit-roasting Thanksgiving turkey. Both videos were recorded in the family's yard in Clinton. The father and son have refused to comply with subpoenas issued in November and December seeking their depositions and information about the drone used in the videos. Federal prosecutors say in court documents that the subpoenas were issued in connection with an investigation being conducted for the legitimate purpose of ensuring the safe operation of "aircraft" and under the FAA's authority to investigate potential violations of its regulations banning people from operating aircraft in a careless or reckless manner. "Based on media reports, the FAA believes that the respondents have built and/or operated at least two (drones) carrying weapons with the capability of causing serious injury to a person or property," Assistant U.S. Attorney John Larson wrote in a court filing. The FAA in June proposed its first set of regulations for the commercial use of drones, but not recreational use. The agency says there are some requirements for recreational use, including having to register any unmanned aircraft weighing more than 0.55 pounds and notifying airport operators before flying drones within 5 miles of airports. Cerame said the FAA is wrong to rely on aircraft regulations to try to subpoena his clients about their recreational use of drones. Win or lose, he believes, the case will affect recreational drone operators nationwide. "They shouldn't use airplane regulations," he said. "They should go get the authority from Congress. It's about keeping the government in check as to what Congress said they can do. "This is a kid playing in his backyard," Cerame added. Officials with the FAA and the U.S. attorney's office declined to comment on the subpoenas. The Haughwouts didn't return messages seeking comment. Austin Haughwout claims in a state lawsuit that he was expelled from Central Connecticut State University on bogus threatening allegations by school officials who were really concerned about the drone videos. The lawsuit seeks his reinstatement to the school. School officials deny the allegations and say Haughwout was expelled for making threatening statements and gestures toward other people on campus. Austin Haughwout has been in and out of the news over the past two years. On Thursday, Clinton police announced they charged him with enticing a minor with a computer, attempted sexual assault and possession of child pornography after police say they found child porn on his cellphone. Last year, Clinton police charged him with assaulting officers. The case remains pending. In 2014, a woman was charged with assaulting Haughwout because she was upset he was using a drone to film above a state beach in Madison. Haughwout posted a video of the confrontation on YouTube that has been viewed more than 500,000 times. Copyright 2016 The Associated Press. "This is a kid playing in his backyard." Only a lawyer could say that with a straight face. Better yet, the lawyer should have no objections if the kid deploys the gun-firing drone in the lawyer's backyard since the kid is only "playing." Idiots.

DesideriScuri -> RE: On the lighter side of today's news... (7/4/2016 9:39:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sloguy02246 "This is a kid playing in his backyard." Only a lawyer could say that with a straight face. Better yet, the lawyer should have no objections if the kid deploys the gun-firing drone in the lawyer's backyard since the kid is only "playing." Idiots. There's a difference between a kid playing with armed drones with permission in his residence's backyard, and a kid playing with armed drones in someone else's backyard, but that probably doesn't matter to you. Towards the situation: This is going to be quite interesting, imo. There are regulations about flying drones over someone else's property (which he wasn't doing), and flying drones above a certain height (which I assume he wasn't doing since that'd be a slam dunk for law enforcement). If there are no reg's about flying an armed drone, then as long as the kid was flying within the regulations on the books, then law enforcement has nothing it can say about the drone, itself. As far as it being an armed drone, that's where things get mucky. I honestly don't know what I believe as far as a person's right to fire "real" weapons from a drone. Spring-propelled plastic/foam darts are one thing, but a handgun and "flamethrower" are another. Here's a news video about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-I088QS6yM It seems the crux of the issue is if the kid was flying the drone in 'a reckless manner that could endanger the lives or property of others' (not sure if that's the exact or just a paraphrase, so only the single quotes).

Termyn8or -> RE: On the lighter side of today's news... (7/4/2016 3:55:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: sloguy02246 "This is a kid playing in his backyard." Only a lawyer could say that with a straight face. Better yet, the lawyer should have no objections if the kid deploys the gun-firing drone in the lawyer's backyard since the kid is only "playing." Idiots. There's a difference between a kid playing with armed drones with permission in his residence's backyard, and a kid playing with armed drones in someone else's backyard, but that probably doesn't matter to you. Towards the situation: This is going to be quite interesting, imo. There are regulations about flying drones over someone else's property (which he wasn't doing), and flying drones above a certain height (which I assume he wasn't doing since that'd be a slam dunk for law enforcement). If there are no reg's about flying an armed drone, then as long as the kid was flying within the regulations on the books, then law enforcement has nothing it can say about the drone, itself. As far as it being an armed drone, that's where things get mucky. I honestly don't know what I believe as far as a person's right to fire "real" weapons from a drone. Spring-propelled plastic/foam darts are one thing, but a handgun and "flamethrower" are another. Here's a news video about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-I088QS6yM It seems the crux of the issue is if the kid was flying the drone in 'a reckless manner that could endanger the lives or property of others' (not sure if that's the exact or just a paraphrase, so only the single quotes). I think it is a matter of asking the right questions but first, address the subpena. I think they just want the design, unpatented so they can use it. Number one, how did they even find out about it ? And what, the Dad is an engineer or something ? Most people cannot build something like that. They should probably just tell the court they intend to sell it to the US military and be done with it, but if that is not true, alot of people won't say that. Did any fire or projectiles leave the property ? If you take a gun and shoot out a neighbor's window, you are liable for that. But if you shoot out your own window, no. Well actually you are but they have nothing to do with it. If the drone stayed on their PRIVATE property and did not emit anything dangerous to anything or anyone outside their property, I fully support them defying the order. If my neighbor was doing that I would walk over there and ask if I could try flying the thing. Sounds like a blast, better than any toy I ever had. Damn. Apparently they got some paranoid assholes for neighbors. And some people are trained to call the cops. I have shot guns off in the backyard and the cops never came. But then I remember that buddy of mine told me their neighbors called the cops because of a a jetski in the driveway. A JETSKI ! The name of the city is ironically - Independence. Only city in Ohio still has a mayor's court, which is illegal now. They're not doing it right. T^T

Wayward5oul -> RE: On the lighter side of today's news... (7/4/2016 5:42:14 PM)
They posted the videos on YouTube.

Edwird -> RE: On the lighter side of today's news... (7/4/2016 6:03:20 PM)
Well, with all the available guns in this country I'm happy to see at least one of them put to good use: http://www.wave3.com/story/29660127/man-charged-with-shooting-down-drone Fortunately he had a sane judge at his trial and the charges were dismissed: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/case-dismissed-against-william-h-merideth-kentucky-man-arrested-shooting-n452281 Meanwhile, as one mental cretin drone operator is trying to start a forest fire: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmD3rXUR1Tw other mental cretin drone operators in CA halted firefighters dealing with a serious forest fire on several occasions: http://www.nbcnews.com/tech/innovation/california-officials-offer-75k-bounty-drones-n401021 Edit; that was supposed to be in response to the OP (which post I hit "reply" for) but it somehow went as reply to another person. Sorry.

DesideriScuri -> RE: On the lighter side of today's news... (7/4/2016 6:31:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Towards the situation: This is going to be quite interesting, imo. There are regulations about flying drones over someone else's property (which he wasn't doing), and flying drones above a certain height (which I assume he wasn't doing since that'd be a slam dunk for law enforcement). If there are no reg's about flying an armed drone, then as long as the kid was flying within the regulations on the books, then law enforcement has nothing it can say about the drone, itself. As far as it being an armed drone, that's where things get mucky. I honestly don't know what I believe as far as a person's right to fire "real" weapons from a drone. Spring-propelled plastic/foam darts are one thing, but a handgun and "flamethrower" are another. Here's a news video about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-I088QS6yM It seems the crux of the issue is if the kid was flying the drone in 'a reckless manner that could endanger the lives or property of others' (not sure if that's the exact or just a paraphrase, so only the single quotes). I think it is a matter of asking the right questions but first, address the subpena. I think they just want the design, unpatented so they can use it. Number one, how did they even find out about it ? And what, the Dad is an engineer or something ? Most people cannot build something like that. They should probably just tell the court they intend to sell it to the US military and be done with it, but if that is not true, alot of people won't say that. Did any fire or projectiles leave the property ? If you take a gun and shoot out a neighbor's window, you are liable for that. But if you shoot out your own window, no. Well actually you are but they have nothing to do with it. If the drone stayed on their PRIVATE property and did not emit anything dangerous to anything or anyone outside their property, I fully support them defying the order. If my neighbor was doing that I would walk over there and ask if I could try flying the thing. Sounds like a blast, better than any toy I ever had. Damn. Apparently they got some paranoid assholes for neighbors. And some people are trained to call the cops. I have shot guns off in the backyard and the cops never came. But then I remember that buddy of mine told me their neighbors called the cops because of a a jetski in the driveway. A JETSKI ! The name of the city is ironically - Independence. Only city in Ohio still has a mayor's court, which is illegal now. They're not doing it right. T^T Actually, it depends on the wording of the law. If it's 'reckless operation that could endanger the life or property of another, then they might have something on the kid and his dad.

sloguy02246 -> RE: On the lighter side of today's news... (7/4/2016 10:50:18 PM)
FR Not sure about anyone else's situation, but in my town you cannot cause the discharge of any firearm in a residential zone unless you are doing so to defend life or property. You cannot do target shooting or hunting in a residential area.

DesideriScuri -> RE: On the lighter side of today's news... (7/5/2016 12:58:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sloguy02246 FR Not sure about anyone else's situation, but in my town you cannot cause the discharge of any firearm in a residential zone unless you are doing so to defend life or property. You cannot do target shooting or hunting in a residential area. What about flamethrowers? lol I don't know what the firearm discharge laws are where I am. I'm zoned Rural-2 (I think it's 2, might be 1). I don't have a gun, at this time, so I'm not likely to break any gun laws, either. lol I'm going to hazard a guess and say that the gun laws where this kid lives are either not like yours, or they are, but the family lives outside a residential zone.

Termyn8or -> RE: On the lighter side of today's news... (7/5/2016 4:03:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: sloguy02246 FR Not sure about anyone else's situation, but in my town you cannot cause the discharge of any firearm in a residential zone unless you are doing so to defend life or property. You cannot do target shooting or hunting in a residential area. What about flamethrowers? lol I don't know what the firearm discharge laws are where I am. I'm zoned Rural-2 (I think it's 2, might be 1). I don't have a gun, at this time, so I'm not likely to break any gun laws, either. lol I'm going to hazard a guess and say that the gun laws where this kid lives are either not like yours, or they are, but the family lives outside a residential zone. I would say if you have enough land to fly a drone around, you are not in an urban area. Now out in the stix you got racoon, all kinds of vermin you might need to shoot. But generally if you are on your own property it is OK. And of course you do not want to shoot your neighbors. If you do, you want to make it look like an accident. In the city people are too close together. That is why I got rid of my SKS in favor of a little .38 and a shotgun. I don't want a bullet going through the wall and killing the neighbor. But out there the houses are alot farther apart and the odds of accidentally killing someone are astronomical. But the laws about drones need development. First of all, as far as I am concerned if the government will use them domestically they become categorized as arms as defined in the second amendment which means we can have then. Because of the nature of the device, some reasonable regulation is called for. Exactly what that should be, I do not know. I figure if you live on the 13th floor of an apartment building in NYC you probably should not be flying one around. It is just too easy to cause harm which you did not intend. Like we don't want land mines, high explosives and chemical weapons in our neighborhoods. I fully support people having machine guns, whatever, but there is a limit. And people have o idea of how a revolution in this country should be conducted. At all. You do not do a frontal assault, you make them come to you. Look at the success in Nam. Look at the success in Korea. Look at the success in Iraq. T^T

WickedsDesire -> RE: On the lighter side of today's news... (7/5/2016 6:51:34 AM)
Ah, drones and the ever increasing availability and relaxing of aviation rules in all countries sliipernote what I have always loved about collarspace is they, oh i mean he, allow swear words (when used correctly and insults- yes i am fine with that too) and actually debate Ah, drones and the ever increasing availability and relaxing of aviation rules in all countries - utter fuking madness Now who to blame with this: 1. Idiots 2. Amazon google etc 3. Poor, poor armless bears...although I have no idea why 4. Weaponising a drone, or flying it into pretty much anything, ends in darkness, madness and chaos and mayhem, not light (oh tech that is incorrect). Thing is if the kid can fire a Gatling gun off in his back garden then this case should be thrown out..and that is lunacy. I found the second amendment has gotten away with (actual)murder - the total I am not sure - a good few million Americans anyway. But this amendment, murder of millions of souls, will be pitted against some of your others which are worthless - interesting to see how that develops Now, take the flying of a kite I forget what the laws are in the UK probably about 100 feet. And that is all that kid should be flying without the armaments.

tj444 -> RE: On the lighter side of today's news... (7/5/2016 1:47:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or And what, the Dad is an engineer or something ? Most people cannot build something like that. T^T There are books on how to build yer own drones and robots and stuff like that (I expect simply modifying the plans to fire a gun instead) would be easy enough for a mechanically inclined person.. heck.. even on an old Columbo show there was a story line of 2 uni students who set up a remote control gun to fire, a camera using radio waves and a car remote thingie.. If that can be done hidden in the engine/grill of a vehicle then it can be done on a drone.. The episode was Columbo Goes to College from 1990, just fyi..

Termyn8or -> RE: On the lighter side of today's news... (7/5/2016 8:03:20 PM)
Yes, but you have to have all kinds of tools. I used to, but nearing the end here I have gotten rid of alot. You have to know how to read micrometers, calipers, run a lathe and/or milling machine. You have to make a drawing to know what you're doing unless you're REALLY good and can keep all the dimensions in your head. The easiest way is a simple two stroke engine that they've had for a long time but you'll need to upscale it or use multiple cylinders. With long term running, cooling becomes a big problem. Plus your fuel evaporates and your oil turns to glue. So now you need a cooling system. You could go with an electronic system but weight by power it is not as good. Plus batteries are ridiculously heavy if you use the good ones. If they totally built the thing on their own I would be highly impressed, but I doubt they did. Even the best engineers in the world will use an off the shelf solution if it is cost effective and gets the job done. And that kid's Father did not get the money for all this flipping burgers. All I know is they better keep that thing on their property if the value it. They fly it here, from what I know I can shoot the thing to smithreens with impunity. I read that UPS or someone wanted to do deliveries to the door with drones. I wonder how that would work out. Sounds like a big mess to me, not only the legality but the logistics. I guess the best bet is to just use them for killing, which is what we are best at. T^T

Wayward5oul -> RE: On the lighter side of today's news... (7/5/2016 9:00:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or I read that UPS or someone wanted to do deliveries to the door with drones. I wonder how that would work out. Sounds like a big mess to me, not only the legality but the logistics. I guess the best bet is to just use them for killing, which is what we are best at. T^T Walmart and Amazon say it is coming, but here are some article with more info. Drone delivery is already here — and it works http://www.marketwatch.com/story/drone-delivery-is-already-here-and-it-works-2015-11-30 http://www.fastcompany.com/3048827/fast-feed/first-legal-drone-delivery-takes-flight-beats-out-amazon And here are the two YouTube videos of the drone with the gun and flamethrower. And I'm sorry, but that's some scary shit. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqHrTtvFFIs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmD3rXUR1Tw

tj444 -> RE: On the lighter side of today's news... (7/11/2016 7:25:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or I read that UPS or someone wanted to do deliveries to the door with drones. I wonder how that would work out. Sounds like a big mess to me, not only the legality but the logistics. I guess the best bet is to just use them for killing, which is what we are best at. T^T Walmart and Amazon say it is coming, but here are some article with more info. Drone delivery is already here — and it works http://www.marketwatch.com/story/drone-delivery-is-already-here-and-it-works-2015-11-30 http://www.fastcompany.com/3048827/fast-feed/first-legal-drone-delivery-takes-flight-beats-out-amazon yup.. more Americans losing their job to robots/drones soon.. Just sayin'

RottenJohnny -> RE: On the lighter side of today's news... (7/11/2016 7:40:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 yup.. more Americans losing their job to robots/drones soon.. Just sayin' And more jobs for designing, building, and programming drones being created. Just sayin'

tj444 -> RE: On the lighter side of today's news... (7/11/2016 7:45:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 yup.. more Americans losing their job to robots/drones soon.. Just sayin' And more jobs for designing, building, and programming drones being created. Just sayin' not at the same pace as those jobs being lost.. no where near..

jlf1961 -> RE: On the lighter side of today's news... (7/11/2016 7:47:55 PM)
Gee, a father and son build a drone with guns and a flamethrower, and the local sheriff gets an attitude when I file the required paperwork for a M1919 belt fed 30 cal machine gun. And he is a freaking republican!!!! God I wonder what these folks would do if I could scrap up the money to purchase a slightly used but fliable HIND? Hey, since I do not have a pilots license, could a HIND be modified to be used like a drone?

RottenJohnny -> RE: On the lighter side of today's news... (7/11/2016 8:13:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 quote: ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 yup.. more Americans losing their job to robots/drones soon.. Just sayin' And more jobs for designing, building, and programming drones being created. Just sayin' not at the same pace as those jobs being lost.. no where near.. I'd like to see your numbers on that because according to this website http://www.uavglobal.com/list-of-manufacturers/ there are nearly 100 companies in the US involved in manufacturing drones.

RottenJohnny -> RE: On the lighter side of today's news... (7/11/2016 8:25:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Hey, since I do not have a pilots license, could a HIND be modified to be used like a drone? I'm sure it can...but I doubt it's cheap. [:)]

DesideriScuri -> RE: On the lighter side of today's news... (7/12/2016 1:28:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 quote: ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 yup.. more Americans losing their job to robots/drones soon.. Just sayin' And more jobs for designing, building, and programming drones being created. Just sayin' not at the same pace as those jobs being lost.. no where near.. There is no requirement (thankfully) that a business that automates has to create as many jobs as the automation replaces. And, with a minimum wage (especially as it gets increased), you are going to be less likely to create as many jobs as you replace with automation. Automation tends to create a more reliable process with less waste. I was in a discussion with a guy who had been hired to be a production supervisor where I work. He was only there for a couple weeks, as he was offered the same position, with better hours and better pay (but with a worse commute). Many of the operators on the production floor are poor workers, as in, they do a crappy job. His comment was that you can attract better workers if you paid a higher wage. While that may be true, what happens to the crappy workers? If we attract better workers with a higher wage, we'll likely do so by replacing crappy workers. What happens to them? If they can't do a technically simple job that only isn't very physically demanding, what the fuck are these people going to do? Operators are covered by a Union, and start out at $13/hr.

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.09375