No but shouldn't the charges be similar for a normal student paying his way through compared to the four that shut down campus?
Wanton endangerment compared to a disorderly conduct (did they even drop those charges?).
OT: UK Law Student Charged in CWS Drone Crash
- Thread starter Smashcat
- Start date
No but shouldn't the charges be similar for a normal student paying his way through compared to the four that shut down campus?
Wanton endangerment compared to a disorderly conduct (did they even drop those charges?).
We can all debate the necessity/morality of the law, but that's not the issue at play here.
1. There is a law in place, the punishment has precedents to call upon, and the guy should be punished accordingly. It is very dangerous to pick and choose which laws to enforce.
2. This isn't likely the first time a student has been brought up on wanton endangerment charges. There should be precedent for that as well. If it is the policy for the university to kick him out, then so be it. Let him learn his lesson and go elsewhere for his degree.
3. Debating whether or not his crime is morally mild or severe is something that can be debated and changed at a later time. As of right now, the young man should be punished to the laws that are set right now.
1. There is a law in place, the punishment has precedents to call upon, and the guy should be punished accordingly. It is very dangerous to pick and choose which laws to enforce.
2. This isn't likely the first time a student has been brought up on wanton endangerment charges. There should be precedent for that as well. If it is the policy for the university to kick him out, then so be it. Let him learn his lesson and go elsewhere for his degree.
3. Debating whether or not his crime is morally mild or severe is something that can be debated and changed at a later time. As of right now, the young man should be punished to the laws that are set right now.
Ask the skydiver who had to adjust his descent into a packed football stadium to avoid the drone if he thought this was a problem. Too many people today have no respect for other people's rights or safety and yeah if someone were to injure one of my family with a pellet gun that would be a problem.
Why is this guy a 'kid' to too many? Why is every time people want sympathy for the perpetrator, they try to make him a 'kid' or a 'child'? Michael Brown and Treyvon Martin come to mind. This MAN (who has to be a minimum of 22 years old) was flying a remote control 'helicopter' over a crowded football stadium for his amusement. He was clearly irresponsible, and either so stupid that he was not aware of the dangers to others, or he didn't just didn't give a damn. IMHO, the former makes it a misdemeanor, and the latter makes it a willful felony.
So if this MAN was so stupid, and deserves a misdemeanor charge, why is he in law school at UK? Family pulled strings? My money says the Kentucky Bar gives this guy more hell than the University or the good ole boy penal system ever does. Though most Americans don't believe it, poor judgement is a big deal to Bar Associations in approving admissions. I also know a guy who was prohibited from admission in Kentucky because he was in a car where another guy had a joint in his pocket. The Florida Bar stalled my admission for 7 months, after I passed the exam, because I couldn't provide a street address of a summer job I worked in Indiana 25 years earlier. I am certain that this copter moron knows the stringent bar rules. He is in for a world of crap from them.
So if this MAN was so stupid, and deserves a misdemeanor charge, why is he in law school at UK? Family pulled strings? My money says the Kentucky Bar gives this guy more hell than the University or the good ole boy penal system ever does. Though most Americans don't believe it, poor judgement is a big deal to Bar Associations in approving admissions. I also know a guy who was prohibited from admission in Kentucky because he was in a car where another guy had a joint in his pocket. The Florida Bar stalled my admission for 7 months, after I passed the exam, because I couldn't provide a street address of a summer job I worked in Indiana 25 years earlier. I am certain that this copter moron knows the stringent bar rules. He is in for a world of crap from them.
Legally, he may be an adult. However, after 49 years of reflection, it is quite apparent to me that the average 22 or 23 year old is still very much a kid. Still a fair amount of growing up left to do. This is obvious; hence, the silly move of flying a drone above Commonwealth Stadium.
Agree....some sort of logical consequence such as lose the drone. Sometimes punishment is necessary to change behavior....at other times, discipline works fine. However, with this type thing becoming more of an issue, it might be good for our lawmakers to consider the issues related to the use of drones.
Always funny reading people who have no clue about Federal Air Regulations opine on the legality of flying drones or aircraft. This includes most journalists. First there are no "no fly zones" or airspace around helipads. Second TFRs (Temporary Flight Restrictions) only cover aircraft covered in the Federal Aviation Regulations. Drones weighing less than 55 lbs are not covered by the FARs. Further this was not a commercial operation so it was not covered either. Controlled airspace around Lexington starts at the surface within 5 nm of Bluegrass Field, and 700 Feet elsewhere. Commonwealth falls just outside the 5 nautical mile ring. If you are under visual flight rules, (VFR) you are required to "see and avoid" other traffic, including drones. Under the FARs this was a model aircraft, not a drone. The FAA won't do jack to this kid except send him a strongly worded letter telling him not to do it again. The worst they could do, if he had some kind of license issued under the FARs is suspend or revoke it. There are no civil penalties in the Federal Aviation Regulations other than fines for violations covered in the FARs, which this was not.
This model aircraft was so small it didn't threaten anyone. You see them in stores all the time. It couldn't lift an explosive big enough to do any damage. If it hit an aircraft it would barely blacken the paint. The only danger it may have posed is if it actually hit somebody which would result in minor injuries. The drones the FAA (and pilots) are worried about are much larger and used for largely commercial purposes (hence the 55 lbs limit).
The remarks from the parachutist are ironic, because I have had to dodge way more idiots in parachutes around airports than I ever have a drone.
Now what the civil authorities can do under wanton endangerment is another matter....
This model aircraft was so small it didn't threaten anyone. You see them in stores all the time. It couldn't lift an explosive big enough to do any damage. If it hit an aircraft it would barely blacken the paint. The only danger it may have posed is if it actually hit somebody which would result in minor injuries. The drones the FAA (and pilots) are worried about are much larger and used for largely commercial purposes (hence the 55 lbs limit).
The remarks from the parachutist are ironic, because I have had to dodge way more idiots in parachutes around airports than I ever have a drone.
Now what the civil authorities can do under wanton endangerment is another matter....
Last edited:
That's a whole lot of good info. If all you say is accurate then I would say the case of wanton endangerment just got a lot harder to prove. The truth is that nobody was at serious risk. However, anytime some kind of regulation is violated, judges will use that as justification that the accused acted recklessly. Wanton endangerment, much like disturbing the peace, is a catch all charge that is used when no specific law was broken but the authorities want to punish or prove a point.
