Police Detectives Mistake Camera-Stabilizing Rig For A Drone; Warn Crew Not To Fly It

Nov 16, 2015

Liron Samuels

Liron Samuels is a wildlife and commercial photographer based in Israel. When he isn’t waking up at 4am to take photos of nature, he stays awake until 4am taking photos of the night skies or time lapses. You can see more of his work on his website or follow him on Facebook.

Police Detectives Mistake Camera-Stabilizing Rig For A Drone; Warn Crew Not To Fly It

Nov 16, 2015

Liron Samuels

Liron Samuels is a wildlife and commercial photographer based in Israel. When he isn’t waking up at 4am to take photos of nature, he stays awake until 4am taking photos of the night skies or time lapses. You can see more of his work on his website or follow him on Facebook.

Join the Discussion

Share on:

Source: YouTube/ TheShowmebby
Source: YouTube/ TheShowmebby

A rather funny, and perhaps somewhat worrying, video shows an encounter between Dallas Police detectives and a camera crew that took place a couple of days ago.

As we’ve seen too often lately, police are quick on the scene once a drone is around and in this case they were making sure the team wasn’t flying the device near the airport.

That would all be perfectly fine, except the ‘drone’ in this case wasn’t flying anywhere, with our without the FAA’s approval.

The police approached the camera crew after one of the detectives said she saw them with a drone. For the same reason Dallas police contacted the FAA to find out what the law says about flying drones.

While the cameraman pleaded the Fifth and refused to answer whether or not he had a drone, the head detective informed him that the FAA stated that drones are not allowed to fly within 5 miles of an airport. The detective then stated that their location has been verified to be within that radius so flying the drone is not allowed.

As pleasing as it was to see such a courteous encounter between police and civilians, this won’t be remembered as one of the local police department’s finest moments. Unluckily for them the ‘drone’ the detective saw was actually a camera-stabilizing rig and what would usually be considered a friendly clarification of the rules was as irrelevant as it gets.

Usually I’d say the police did the right thing since the guy wouldn’t confirm that he had a drone with him, but the rig the detective previously identified as a drone was in clear sight in the back of vehicle the whole time.

As you’d expect, the camera crew had a good laugh as soon as the detectives left and obviously the first thing they did was to fly their ‘drone’.

If only all drones sounded the same as this one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tJ_7Q6gM4Y&feature=youtu.be

This incident went down a lot smoother than when the NY State Trooper stopped an aerial photographer for flying over a police station, but I bet it wouldn’t have happened at all if police still created instructional videos training its staff on the latest photographic equipment.

Filed Under:

Tagged With:

Find this interesting? Share it with your friends!

Liron Samuels

Liron Samuels

Liron Samuels is a wildlife and commercial photographer based in Israel. When he isn’t waking up at 4am to take photos of nature, he stays awake until 4am taking photos of the night skies or time lapses. You can see more of his work on his website or follow him on Facebook.

Join the Discussion

DIYP Comment Policy
Be nice, be on-topic, no personal information or flames.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

21 responses to “Police Detectives Mistake Camera-Stabilizing Rig For A Drone; Warn Crew Not To Fly It”

    1. Dan Avatar
      Dan

      that is borderline libel :)

  1. Richard Tack Avatar
    Richard Tack

    Yuk it up photo “professionals.” You’re within 5 miles of an airport and the cops aren’t that well informed as to what a drone actually is, but…. they’re trying to do their jobs. And I can almost guarantee they have almost zero knowledge of stabilizing rigs.

    There are idiot drone users out there that are careless and dangerous. Instead of being a bunch of pompous jerks, the community would be better served by perhaps you “pros” giving the police some friendly instruction on what is and isn’t a drone. You think McNally, Grimes, Hill, Kelby or Jarvin would laughing it up like you clowns?

    1. RJH Avatar
      RJH

      In their defense, this officer was too pompous to seek or accept that knowledge. He made the assumption that they had a drone, ran with it, and gave them no respect whatsoever. The guy told him they didn’t have a drone, and with multiple detectives on scene, no one bothered to discern the facts. “Don’t fly your drone here” is an asinine statement to someone who doesn’t have a drone. Also, HAVING a drone is not illegal there, so why talk to them like they’ve done something wrong when they haven’t. I deal with officers like this everyday, and it drives me nuts. When you’re talking about a camera, and not a gun, it doesn’t hurt to give someone the benefit of the doubt. When you act like a pompous ass, you will be laughed at.

      1. Richard Tack Avatar
        Richard Tack

        Oh, hell, I forgot… No one ever lies to the police. To “discern the facts,” the police would have to conduct a search. I would imagine that the camera rig guys wouldn’t have given their consent.

        In any event, there was no reason for a search to “discern the facts.” Instead of going to the extra can of worms to determine whether there was actually a drone or not, the supervisor simply gave them the legalities for flying a drone. He thanked them and departed.

        Suppose the crew spokesman lied and actually had a drone and ultimately operated it dangerously causing some problem or damage. You can see the supervisors dilemma had he just walked away on the crew’s declaration of no drone. His boss would ask, “And you took their word for it?” Now, what about the drone operator? His only defense would be, “Uh, gee, I didn’t know there was an airport there.” But he can’t use that one anymore and he’s trapped, which is the exact reason the supervisor gave him that specific information.

        The cop didn’t care whether they had a drone or not, his duty was to cover all possibilities in an efficient and polite manner, and he did just that in 1 minute and 14 seconds.

        1. RJH Avatar
          RJH

          What search? The “drone” was right behind the guy in the open. Appropriate way of handling this: “My detective said he saw you with a drone; do you have a drone?” “No. It was this drone-looking stabilizer”. “Oh…that thing is pretty neat, and looks like a drone. Okay, well if you do happen to have a drone, you can’t fly it here.” Instead, he opened with, “I’ve already contacted the FAA, and it’s illegal to fly your drone here.” That’s the difference between a good cop, and a self-important ass.

          1. Richard Tack Avatar
            Richard Tack

            So, the bottom line is you are concerned that the camera crew’s feeling might have been hurt. And you conveniently write a script with both parts of your wishful cop/crew conversation as a solution as to what should have happened.

            After reviewing the video again, the actual interaction on the recording with the police was 32 seconds. Wow, 32 seconds of “police brutality.”

          2. RJH Avatar
            RJH

            I said nothing of police brutality. I said he was an ass that was operating under the assumption that the crew was going to commit some future crime. It’s not a good way to carry yourself. It was an unnecessary confrontation. It should have started with a question and not an accusation based on false information.

          3. Richard Tack Avatar
            Richard Tack

            OMG! Yes! What a TERRIBLE CONFRONTATION. Latest news is the cop is getting fired for saying “Thank you” at the end of the terrible confrontation. And they took away his retirement money because the confrontation didn’t last long enough, it was only THIRTY-TWO SECONDS and that didn’t meet department quotas.

          4. RJH Avatar
            RJH

            Obviously you and I are having two different discussions here. You act like I’m saying the officer did something horrific. I’m just saying he did it wrong. If this had resulted in a complaint (or a video) in MY agency, that complaint would have been substantiated. There’s a little thing called due diligence, and if he would’ve use a little bit of it he would’ve found that there was no drone. Instead, he approached with a somewhat combative attitude, as if this person was committing a crime, and did not care to hear otherwise. This officer may very well be a great detective, but he certainly needs some refresher training on field contacts.

          5. Richard Tack Avatar
            Richard Tack

            Once again, you’re absolutely right (I bet that’s an ongoing pattern in your life). I re-read the news story and I got it completely reversed, my bad! The firing wasn’t for the “Thank you” possibly being a sincere thank you, it was because the Police Department termed the “Thank you” as being a reflection of a combative attitude. What really irked the Review Board was the fact that he politely asked the crew spokesman if he had any questions and the Board concluded that the lack of aggressive tone must have been veiled sarcasm.

          6. RJH Avatar
            RJH

            Spoken like someone who has no idea of basic police procedure. And yes, asking someone if they have any questions when you’ve just accused them of something they haven’t done IS sarcastic and translates to “Just do as I say”. He’s an ass and you’re wrong (I bet that’s an ongoing pattern in your life). I’m done with you. Good day sir.

          7. Richard Tack Avatar
            Richard Tack

            RJH says: “…you’re wrong (I bet that’s an ongoing pattern in your life). ”

            It is, but only when conversing with you.

            Mr. RJH apparently has no concept of conducting a debate using logical arguments; to wit, some quotes atypical of Mr. RJH’s “logic”:

            Typical pompous troll.

            I’ve come to the conclusion that the term “half-wit” is underused.

            she’s not real bright.

            Yup….you’re a brainwashed moron.

            you are, in fact, wrong.

            you are simply regurgitating BS that you’ve been fed

            You really are a moron.

            Now, get some sleep…I’m sure you have to get up for your indoctrinating college class in the morning.

            Seems you are the one buying into, and spewing, nonsense.

            Thinking otherwise is just asinine…as is your attempt to attack my reasoning when you know damned well it’s true.

            Um…..the first lady pays for nothing, moron.

            the police WILL drag you away

          8. RJH Avatar
            RJH

            lol…you call me a troll, and then troll every thread I’ve ever commented on. Has no bearing and changes nothing. I remained polite with you; I tried to make it at least somewhat apparent that I was speaking from inside the business, so your arguing was just silly…unless you happen to have 20 in law enforcement…?

          9. Richard Tack Avatar
            Richard Tack

            Look, your job as a rent-a-cop at the strip mall doesn’t qualify you as “inside the business” of law enforcement.

          10. RJH Avatar
            RJH

            And there it is. The reason so many threads end with “you’re an idiot”. You’re an idiot.

          11. Richard Tack Avatar
            Richard Tack

            Well, go ahead and prove your law enforcement, inside the business 20 year experience. None of your previous commentary lends any credence to your claim.

  2. anoutherusername Avatar
    anoutherusername

    I am concerned that he hurt their feelings very much so. Police now a days seem to think they don’t need to RESPECT CITIZENS. and they also forget that people are innocent UNTIL PROVEN guilty. SO many police officers I have run into take the attitude that they can be as rude and to the point as they want. This is what leads to people running from them….and then getting shot in the back. Fact is, even to criminals you should so respect you are supposed to be HIGHER then they are, more enlightened, educated, trained, a beacon of hope in a world of madness. Instead you act like every is guilty and if someone “talks back” or GOD FORBID….CITES THE LAW TO A COP….then all hell breaks loose. RJH is right on in the way it should have been handed……Question 1 from the cops: “Do you guys have a drone?” would have made the entire situation much less inflammatory.

    And your point is ridiculous that they “could have lied”……fact is, the cops never saw a drone in the air!

  3. anoutherusername Avatar
    anoutherusername

    AND….last time I checked, if the cops had actually missed the fact they had a drone and it got flown in restricted space, and they failed to get it…..my guess is they would get a SUSPENSION—- WITH PAY….or does that only happen when they kill unarmed civilians? God knows police RARLEY… if EVER… get fired….especially for getting thwarted by scofflaws.

  • Steven August Avatar
    Steven August

    Lots of police are not that bright.

  • CHRISMDAY Avatar
    CHRISMDAY

    While it is certainly not a drone, we have to remember that to the police (or a person that does not know about photography or video) the rig is not something they would usually see. Outsiders could see this as a half assembled drone. I am no car person and when one of my friends shows me a part he is working on I am totally clueless so keep that in mind.