3 ms·

You proved my point by bringing a second (more detailed) source into your argument. At the time I commented, there was no second source in any of the HN comment

by joemi 5y ago

You proved my point by bringing a second (more detailed) source into your argument. At the time I commented, there was no second source in any of the HN comments here.

caconym_ 5y ago
The "about to land" and "at Toronto Buttonville Municipal Airport" verbiage in OP's article is plenty damning, as it tells us that the police drone's operator(s) not only failed in their general duty to stay clear of and yield to manned aircraft, but did so in the vicinity of an active airport. My point (possibly not well made) was that "the cause of the collision is not known" is mostly irrelevant wrt. the culpability of the police, as in any incident like this there is a tiny keyhole of possible extenuating circumstances surrounded by an ocean of likely negligence. I brought in the other source to verify the claims in OP's article, but the fact that the manned aircraft was literally on short final makes this incident even worse than the first article implies. It escalates the police misconduct from serious, likely criminal (by "civilian" standards, at least) negligence to something so absurdly over the top that I'm not sure what to call it. There is no more dangerous place to operate a UAS than in the glide slope of an active runway. The term "reckless endangerment" comes to mind.
- joemi 5y ago
  I don't dispute that (now that we know more) the situation is pretty damning. But again, the original article (a local news article written by a "web content writer") was so light on facts and so short in general that there easily _could_ have been plenty that would have changed the situation when more info came from another source. The "about to land" phrase that you specifically point out really isn't all that specific. People say they're "about to" do something all the time when they're not actually very close to doing it. I don't know much about CTVNews specifically, but I hope we can both agree that especially in this day and age it's not uncommon for news organizations to use language in such a way to make an event seem more dramatic than it actually was, so I stand by my original statement that there wasn't enough info in that article to go on.

by joemi 5y ago

You proved my point by bringing a second (more detailed) source into your argument. At the time I commented, there was no second source in any of the HN comments here.

caconym_ 5y ago

The "about to land" and "at Toronto Buttonville Municipal Airport" verbiage in OP's article is plenty damning, as it tells us that the police drone's operator(s) not only failed in their general duty to stay clear of and yield to manned aircraft, but did so in the vicinity of an active airport. My point (possibly not well made) was that "the cause of the collision is not known" is mostly irrelevant wrt. the culpability of the police, as in any incident like this there is a tiny keyhole of possible extenuating circumstances surrounded by an ocean of likely negligence. I brought in the other source to verify the claims in OP's article, but the fact that the manned aircraft was literally on short final makes this incident even worse than the first article implies. It escalates the police misconduct from serious, likely criminal (by "civilian" standards, at least) negligence to something so absurdly over the top that I'm not sure what to call it. There is no more dangerous place to operate a UAS than in the glide slope of an active runway. The term "reckless endangerment" comes to mind.

joemi 5y ago
I don't dispute that (now that we know more) the situation is pretty damning. But again, the original article (a local news article written by a "web content writer") was so light on facts and so short in general that there easily _could_ have been plenty that would have changed the situation when more info came from another source. The "about to land" phrase that you specifically point out really isn't all that specific. People say they're "about to" do something all the time when they're not actually very close to doing it. I don't know much about CTVNews specifically, but I hope we can both agree that especially in this day and age it's not uncommon for news organizations to use language in such a way to make an event seem more dramatic than it actually was, so I stand by my original statement that there wasn't enough info in that article to go on.