Teenager attacked by a woman for flying a "drone" over a beach; called a "pervert"

[Willinium]

So let me get this straight. The teen was using a what was essentially a RC Helicopter with a camera on to film the landscape, and instead of asking the young man what he was filming she just attacked him? The **** sense does that make? Thankfully though she is being held accountable for her assault.

 

[Lightknight]

However if she made it clear what she thought about this then him not stopping could just as well pass for harassment.

I actually went ahead and researched this as a point of curiosity, and it looks like that wouldn't actually work as a charge. In order for something to count as harassment, you need to do it to a person or group specifically, repeatedly, intentionally with your actions not serving some legitimate goal or purpose.

The distinction on that last one, I think, is the idea that those high pitched bleeping things they attach to doors in some places are annoying (duh), targeted at a group (mallgoers), repeated (every time the door is opened), intentionally annoying (that's how they work), BUT they serve purpose outside the annoyance of humans (scare away pigeons). So even though those beepers fulfill almost all of the criteria, they don't count as harassment because they provide a legitimate and intentional service to the mall and mallgoers.

So although the 'beachgoers' could be considered a group, we would need some sort of proof that the boy had flown his drone with the purpose of being intentionally annoying and for no other reason multiple times before it actually counts as harassment. Even if we construed continuing his actions despite requests to the contrary in the same day/hour as 'multiple', his landscape filming and the lack of other noted complaints from the group 'beachgoers' implies that not only did he have a legitimate purpose outside of being annoying, but he wasn't being all that annoying.

An extra note here - it seems that if you are suspected of attempting to harass a group, then most of-or a recognized spokesperson for-the group needs to complain about it. One person can't name them self spokesperson unilaterally and make demands or claim harassment on behalf of a group with their prior OK. This is interesting because while you could accuse this kid of repeated annoyance of the group of beachgoers pretty easily (he was in the area many days in a row doing stuff), it wouldn't work that way for an individual person. You would need proof that the person was attempting to target you specifically, while the automatic defense to that is "I come to this beach to film scenery even when that person isn't here" or for the more overt pervert "I film topless women here whether or not she shows up".

Even if he was trying to get video of a specific person, I'm not sure harassment could be claimed unless they interrupted the person in some way. I mean, for example, if you repeatedly look up a specific person's photo's online all day every day, you are targeting that person but you aren't harassing them. It isn't impacting them in any way.

 

[Tien Shen]

Great foresight on the part of the guy to film the altercation on his phone. Without the video evidence, it would have easily turned into,"Woman beats up geek pervert filming beachgoers at beach with high tech drone! Restrains him till police arrive."

I hope she serves time in jail.

 

[Lightknight]

So let me get this straight. The teen was using a what was essentially a RC Helicopter with a camera on to film the landscape, and instead of asking the young man what he was filming she just attacked him? The **** sense does that make? Thankfully though she is being held accountable for her assault.

Assault (up to 1 year in prison and $2k in fines) and disturbing the peace (up to 6 months in prison and $1k in fines). I don't think this deserves a year or more of her life to disappear but I certainly hope fines and community service play a big role. Oh, and that he gets to film her performing community service any time he wants.

 

[Yopaz]

However if she made it clear what she thought about this then him not stopping could just as well pass for harassment.

I actually went ahead and researched this as a point of curiosity, and it looks like that wouldn't actually work as a charge. In order for something to count as harassment, you need to do it to a person or group specifically, repeatedly, intentionally with your actions not serving some legitimate goal or purpose.

The distinction on that last one, I think, is the idea that those high pitched bleeping things they attach to doors in some places are annoying (duh), targeted at a group (mallgoers), repeated (every time the door is opened), intentionally annoying (that's how they work), BUT they serve purpose outside the annoyance of humans (scare away pigeons). So even though those beepers fulfill almost all of the criteria, they don't count as harassment because they provide a legitimate and intentional service to the mall and mallgoers.

So although the 'beachgoers' could be considered a group, we would need some sort of proof that the boy had flown his drone with the purpose of being intentionally annoying and for no other reason multiple times before it actually counts as harassment. Even if we construed continuing his actions despite requests to the contrary in the same day/hour as 'multiple', his landscape filming and the lack of other noted complaints from the group 'beachgoers' implies that not only did he have a legitimate purpose outside of being annoying, but he wasn't being all that annoying.

An extra note here - it seems that if you are suspected of attempting to harass a group, then most of-or a recognized spokesperson for-the group needs to complain about it. One person can't name them self spokesperson unilaterally and make demands or claim harassment on behalf of a group with their prior OK. This is interesting because while you could accuse this kid of repeated annoyance of the group of beachgoers pretty easily (he was in the area many days in a row doing stuff), it wouldn't work that way for an individual person. You would need proof that the person was attempting to target you specifically, while the automatic defense to that is "I come to this beach to film scenery even when that person isn't here" or for the more overt pervert "I film topless women here whether or not she shows up".

I will ask you the same thing In asked the 3 others who quoted me. Did I defend her actions? Did I say she was in the right? Don't quote laws or sources, just answer me that simple question. Because I am fairly certain I didn't. You quoted me out of context and just added your own perception of my opinion. Why can't I simply be neutral?

 

[mistahzig1]

Did I defend what she did? Did I say I approve? I am fairly certain I said I don't side with either of them. Fairly certain I said I disliked both of them. How does that make it look like I am defending her? Explain how you reached that conclusion because I am baffled by this conclusion of yours.

"However if she made it clear what she thought about this then him not stopping could just as well pass for harassment."

To which I answered that:

1) she was accusing him of filming ALL women in bikinis, which refutes your presmise (and the video footage of the drone flight does too btw)

2) who care about HER perception of a crime when the law says otherwise, which refutes your conclusion.


"Kid sounds like a dick, she sounds like a dick. Let the dicks fight each other and not stick up for either side."

To which I pointed out that an assault occured against a MINOR, which I'm against. That's pretty black and white to me as regards to "taking sides". Minor that did no crime VS adult who assaulted a minor. Sorry, but I'll take a side on this one.


SoO to answer your question, I attempted to refute what you said and in NO WAY equated this to you being on her side. That's a reaction that sounds like that Amy's Bakery lady imo

 

[mistahzig1]

Assault (up to 1 year in prison and $2k in fines) and disturbing the peace (up to 6 months in prison and $1k in fines). I don't think this deserves a year or more of her life to disappear but I certainly hope fines and community service play a big role. Oh, and that he gets to film her performing community service any time he wants.

Wouldn't it be funny though that while she is picking trash frm the side of a highway... there's a drone flying nearby? ;oP

 

[Schadrach]

hilarious that she has the nerve to call him a pervert while shes tearing his shirt off, grabbing at his chest and sticking her fingers in his mouth

Wait, I didn't read the article, did that actually happen? As I understand it, unwillful penetration of any orifice with any object constitutes rape. Granted, that includes Wet-Willys, which is why the law is kinda poorly worded, but fingers in the mouth should put HER on the pervert list.

https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/notice

There's the video of the assault. Fingers did indeed go in the mouth.

 

[Lightknight]

Assault (up to 1 year in prison and $2k in fines) and disturbing the peace (up to 6 months in prison and $1k in fines). I don't think this deserves a year or more of her life to disappear but I certainly hope fines and community service play a big role. Oh, and that he gets to film her performing community service any time he wants.

Wouldn't it be funny though that while she is picking trash frm the side of a highway... there's a drone flying nearby? ;oP

Maybe get a bunch of drone enthusiasts together and litter the sky with them?

hilarious that she has the nerve to call him a pervert while shes tearing his shirt off, grabbing at his chest and sticking her fingers in his mouth

Wait, I didn't read the article, did that actually happen? As I understand it, unwillful penetration of any orifice with any object constitutes rape. Granted, that includes Wet-Willys, which is why the law is kinda poorly worded, but fingers in the mouth should put HER on the pervert list.

https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/notice

There's the video of the assault. Fingers did indeed go in the mouth.

Yep, it's called a fish hook.

 

[EvilRoy]

snip

Even if he was trying to get video of a specific person, I'm not sure harassment could be claimed unless they interrupted the person in some way. I mean, for example, if you repeatedly look up a specific person's photo's online all day every day, you are targeting that person but you aren't harassing them. It isn't impacting them in any way.

Right, but that is why there is multiple criteria that needs to be fulfilled here. I can't just be 'generally annoying to everyone' for it to be harassment, nor can I refresh an OKcupid account page over and over and have that count as harassment. But if I were to follow a person around all day for a week for no purpose but to irritate them, that would be harassment - even if my actions in following them in no way impacted their day to day life.

There is actually wording specific to that example in one of the laws I looked at. Following a person to be annoying actually has legal precedent apparently.

snip

I will ask you the same thing In asked the 3 others who quoted me. Did I defend her actions? Did I say she was in the right? Don't quote laws or sources, just answer me that simple question. Because I am fairly certain I didn't. You quoted me out of context and just added your own perception of my opinion. Why can't I simply be neutral?

I think you're misunderstanding me here - I'm not commenting on your opinion, I'm simply responding to your supposition. Basically I looked at the sentence that I quoted specifically and thought "hmm I wonder if it actually would count as harassment". And then I reported my findings. It isn't intended to be a counter to your opinion, its just elucidation on the concept of harassment in general based on a thought experiment.

 

[Yopaz]

snip

I will ask you the same thing In asked the 3 others who quoted me. Did I defend her actions? Did I say she was in the right? Don't quote laws or sources, just answer me that simple question. Because I am fairly certain I didn't. You quoted me out of context and just added your own perception of my opinion. Why can't I simply be neutral?

I think you're misunderstanding me here - I'm not commenting on your opinion, I'm simply responding to your supposition. Basically I looked at the sentence that I quoted specifically and thought "hmm I wonder if it actually would count as harassment". And then I reported my findings. It isn't intended to be a counter to your opinion, its just elucidation on the concept of harassment in general based on a thought experiment.

OK, fair enough, thank you for a mature response and I appreciate the effort into doing some actual research before responding. Sorry for overreacting, I was quite pissed off at the first 3 responders who just pounced on me enforcing their own delusions of what I actually said. I am sincerely sorry for taking it out on you.

Did I defend what she did? Did I say I approve? I am fairly certain I said I don't side with either of them. Fairly certain I said I disliked both of them. How does that make it look like I am defending her? Explain how you reached that conclusion because I am baffled by this conclusion of yours.

"However if she made it clear what she thought about this then him not stopping could just as well pass for harassment."

To which I answered that:

1) she was accusing him of filming ALL women in bikinis, which refutes your presmise (and the video footage of the drone flight does too btw)

2) who care about HER perception of a crime when the law says otherwise, which refutes your conclusion.


"Kid sounds like a dick, she sounds like a dick. Let the dicks fight each other and not stick up for either side."

To which I pointed out that an assault occured against a MINOR, which I'm against. That's pretty black and white to me as regards to "taking sides". Minor that did no crime VS adult who assaulted a minor. Sorry, but I'll take a side on this one.


SoO to answer your question, I attempted to refute what you said and in NO WAY equated this to you being on her side. That's a reaction that sounds like that Amy's Bakery lady imo

You would have had a point if I said her perception made it right or legal. I did not. If she ends up in prison for this? Well, it's what she deserves.

Also is your world really this simple? This is legal= this is right? Companies firing employees moving to third world countries where they don't have to care about work ethics is legal, thus it's right. Pharmaceutical companies withholding information that might possible cause thousands of death is technically legal. Is it right? EA buying companies, running beloved franchises into the ground is legal. Thus we have no right to complain because it is the right thing to do. If I ever see you complain about a game being bad I am going to call you out on it. It is perfectly legal to make a bad or disappointing game, thus it is the right thing to do and no-one has the right to get upset over it.

 

[michael87cn]

Looks like a lot of things happened here off camera. I bet that he said some pretty infuriating comments to make her fly into a rage like that. He probably said things like "fuck off, i can do whatever I want!" etc.

Of course, it's possible that she just flew into a rage for -no- reason... but... I guess we'll never know.

Personally, I think that a beach is not the best place to do that kind of thing. A flying camera at a place where people go to relax and sunbathe. HMmmmm... not a great idea. Even if you just want to take pictures of the landscape, he pretty clearly DID do fly-bys directly along the beach where all you see is just a 'road' of sand, and, of course, people. I'm pretty sure he wanted the people to see what he was doing.

I can see how people would be upset with a buzzing, flying, camera going overhead as they try to enjoy their vacations.

However, that doesn't justify what that lady did, she attacked someone, and then tried to lie and use her gender to get him in legal trouble. Pretttttty screwed up.

All in all, a good case of humanity showing its ugly side:

selfish people doing whatever they want

angry people attacking other people, because anger

 

[Majinash]

He wasn't filming. Well that's strange. If he wasn't filming how come he filmed the assault?

Also this goes for you too. How did you reach the conclusion that I was defending what she did? I said I am not picking sides because both of these people strike me as rather unpleasant. Seriously, why can't you understand the fact that there are opinions other than extreme this or extreme that? There are nuances and I am not picking a side? Do you understand the concept? More colours than black and white?

She had no idea his cell phone was filming her, it had nothing to do with the drone "filming" her. Its obvious that you didn't read the article or watch the video before coming to the conclusion that the kid was a dick.

When did I say you were defending her? Let me make this a bit more simple.

You said the kid seemed like a Dick. I expressed that I thought the view that "the kid was a dick" seems incredibly farfetched based on the events surrounding this report. Kid plays with toy on beach = kid is a dick. That kind of logic seems silly to me.

I guess the real issue here is that you came into this discussion without actually reading the article we are discussing. Made 1 comment about harassment (other people have already commented on how silly that part was), and then labeled both parties as "dicks". I can't imagine why you seem to be getting so upset that people think your view on the situation is uninformed.

 

[Yopaz]

He wasn't filming. Well that's strange. If he wasn't filming how come he filmed the assault?

Also this goes for you too. How did you reach the conclusion that I was defending what she did? I said I am not picking sides because both of these people strike me as rather unpleasant. Seriously, why can't you understand the fact that there are opinions other than extreme this or extreme that? There are nuances and I am not picking a side? Do you understand the concept? More colours than black and white?

She had no idea his cell phone was filming her, it had nothing to do with the drone "filming" her. Its obvious that you didn't read the article or watch the video before coming to the conclusion that the kid was a dick.

When did I say you were defending her? Let me make this a bit more simple.

You said the kid seemed like a Dick. I expressed that I thought the view that "the kid was a dick" seems incredibly farfetched based on the events surrounding this report. Kid plays with toy on beach = kid is a dick. That kind of logic seems silly to me.

I guess the real issue here is that you came into this discussion without actually reading the article we are discussing. Made 1 comment about harassment (other people have already commented on how silly that part was), and then labeled both parties as "dicks". I can't imagine why you seem to be getting so upset that people think your view on the situation is uninformed.

I didn't claim that she actually had legal ground for claiming harassment, I said she could easily feel like she was being harassed. I have also said that her perception doesn't defend her actions. I am not sure what you want me to say here. You're right that I didn't read the article. The thread title says he was attacked because he was flying a drone over the beach. I assumed he was attacked for flying a drone over he beach. Why the fuck don't you take it up with the OP for making a misleading thread title? He decided to make it sound like he was attacked over the drone. I decided this wasn't a case worth bothering further with because as I said, dicks all around. He deliberately made this thread a click bait by choosing that headline for the thread and I just chose not to bother with it. There's too many unlikeable people in the news, why read about them all just to make sure I know the full story? So excuse me if I don't want to discuss this further with you because I just don't like you. I don't like that you need to push me into your world picture of monochromes and extremes. So I am going to ignore you from now on.

 

[Panzer Camper]

That video made my blood boil. That poor kid man. A grown ass woman (23) comes up to him (17) and proceeds to try and steal his stuff, beat the shit out of him, and then put him jail. I hope she goes to jail, I really really do because after that video I think she is really the worst kind of person.

 

[generals3]

So, we have a case of assault + false accusation? Well, i do hope he sues her. People shouldn't get away with such offenses. I would also say kudos on him for remaining quite calm, I don't think I could have resisted punching her in the face in self defense.

 

[Gronk]

Well imho, if you use a drone at a public beach, you deserve to have the drone fed to you. Seriously, just because you can do something, it doesn't mean you should. There is something called "other people" and "respect", something many people need to learn. I know, I know, you bought that shiny flying gadget and now you want to try it out, and i know there are people everywhere, so what are you gonna do? But, no. Seriously, you cannot film people on the beach without their consent. What are you going to do with that footage? Put it on youtube? Because.. you know, everyone does. And the gadget is really shiny.. and it was pretty expensive?

Here's the thing.. People film other people with their phones and put them on youtube without their consent, i know. But that does NOT make it right! And you should know better. And another thing, If you film them with your phone or camera or just stare at them, they can see you. With a drone, you have the opportunity to be totally anonymous, seeing how those drones have quite some range and you can control it with your phone. And you can keep the drone at an altitude so they can't reach it. Fot these reasons alone, drones need to be regulated, and you will probably think so too, when one of them hangs around outside your bedroom window and you have no idea who the hell controls it.

But since the gadget is really shiny, keep going and just disrespect everyone around you. And have it fly around a daycare center or a playground and you just might have a federal problem on your hands.

 

[mistahzig1]

You would have had a point if I said her perception made it right or legal. I did not. If she ends up in prison for this? Well, it's what she deserves.

Not at all, since I never addressed your strawman, but rather the substance of your arguments

[snip]

I'll stop right there. You have the same problem as with others in this thread, which is you take things personal when none of us were adressing your posiiton, but your arguments.

There's a reason I go here and not on Tumblr, so I'll drop right out with you, sorry.

 

[Phasmal]

Women lying to police to get their way? No, that never happens.

Cheers, mate. That kind of comment is totes necessary and not at all carrying insulting tones to it.


OT: I can see the tone in this thread has already sunk way way down.

This woman was obviously in the wrong, and she got arrested. That's good.
I think it's sad that people seem so quick to get violent in situations like this. Even if she thought he was being a creep, just call the police and leave it to them. Feel sorry for the teenager in this situation.