Вся инф-ия
← Back to Squawk list
Quadrocopter pilot attacked by drone-hating woman
A Connecticut man was assaulted for flying a video-enabled quadrocopter on a public beach. Calling him a “pervert” after calling police to report him for “taking pictures of people with a helicopter plane” and "trying to upload them," the woman, 23-year old Andrea Mears, lashed out at the pilot as he was putting his quadrocopter away, knocking him to the ground and tearing his shirt. (arstechnica.com) Ещё...
Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
As they say on People's Court, "Don't take the law into your own hands. You take 'em to court."
[This comment was deleted.]
This has nothing to do with the current article or topic.
If you dislike the current administration so vehemently, run for office and do something about it instead of just whining about it.
Well, November is coming.
[This comment was deleted.]
Okay. So let me get your idea straight: The fact that a single person was assaulted on a public beach based on another person's gross misinterpretation of laws and decision to attack another person constitutes proof that the current President of the United States of America is an outlaw. Is that right? I'm trying to "engage in a discussion of the merits" of your disagreement here.
Anyways, even if the conclusion were true, it doesn't even come close to following from the initial facts. It's like if I said the following: "Yesterday I rode my bike 50 miles, therefore bicycles are factually a superior mode of conveyance over automobiles and we should ban private automobiles." The first statement may be factually true (fun fact: it is!), but it it has almost nothing to do with the latter, and even if the latter were true (I'm NOT here to get into that discussion - I'm pointing out how logic works, not how cars work), it still doesn't even come close to following from the initial claim.
Additionally, given your insistence that preacher1 and AWAAlum are somehow making personal attacks, you're the one who is calling the current presidential administration an "outlaw regime", lumping the "elites of the ruling class" together, and so on. Regardless, this amounts to one big red herring fallacy - it's unrelated to the point you'd need to prove, namely that the assault in question has a connection to corruption within the Obama Administration.
Anyways, even if the conclusion were true, it doesn't even come close to following from the initial facts. It's like if I said the following: "Yesterday I rode my bike 50 miles, therefore bicycles are factually a superior mode of conveyance over automobiles and we should ban private automobiles." The first statement may be factually true (fun fact: it is!), but it it has almost nothing to do with the latter, and even if the latter were true (I'm NOT here to get into that discussion - I'm pointing out how logic works, not how cars work), it still doesn't even come close to following from the initial claim.
Additionally, given your insistence that preacher1 and AWAAlum are somehow making personal attacks, you're the one who is calling the current presidential administration an "outlaw regime", lumping the "elites of the ruling class" together, and so on. Regardless, this amounts to one big red herring fallacy - it's unrelated to the point you'd need to prove, namely that the assault in question has a connection to corruption within the Obama Administration.
You have no expectation of privacy when you are at a public beach. She would have had a reasonable expectation if she was sunbathing in a fenced yard at her private property.