2 ms·

An entire replacement system? No, not off the top off my head, lol. But vague ideas? Sure. Some sort of more "restorative justice" approach, e.g. make the pers

An entire replacement system? No, not off the top off my head, lol. But vague ideas? Sure. Some sort of more "restorative justice" approach, e.g. make the person attend an educational workshop about why drones aren't allowed, then make him do a few hours of community service for his local parks/hunting grounds. Don't give him a criminal record for something like this. I don't think law enforcement should always be a binary, adversarial system, especially when it's the state against a lone individual for some victimless crime (or where the harm is so spread out that the victim is just a vague "everyone" rather than specific named individuals). > But to your point, yes, a lot of this is common knowledge amongst hunters. I believe you. It is surprising, then, that this drone operator just advertises his services online.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
s1artibartfast 3y ago
I think there is some room for what you describe in areas of low impact general law where a good faith attempt to comply and ignorance is plausible. However, I think activities that are specifically licensed are clearly different. When you get a hunter's license, driver's license, or business license, you are certifying that you understand is that a body of law exists around that activity, and you are responsible for knowing it. Another problem is that giving essentially one free pass for low detection events effectively invalidates the law. For example, things like poaching and game violations, lawbreakers might have a lifetime detection rate of 1% . Knowing you get one warning means many people will only consider compliance after that warning. >I believe you. It is surprising, then, that this drone operator just advertises his services online IMO, One brazen operator is less surprising when you consider the 10s of thousands of hunters that dont do this. I can call up hundreds of unlicensed caterers online, but I expect every one of them knows their status relative to the law. I can only speculate about this guy. If they had honest intent and actually unsure, the wardens are always 1 phone call away to clarify their understanding of the law. Maybe they thought wardens had bigger fish to fry, maybe they were making a ideological statement. I think it is even possible that the thought it was legally ambiguous and willing to risk it. I just don't think it is realistic to think they were completely ignorant in this case. If they were some recreational drone operator providing impromptu aid, and unaffiliated with a hunting business, that would be a different case (and I hope that wardens and judges would take this into consideration).

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

s1artibartfast 3y ago

I think there is some room for what you describe in areas of low impact general law where a good faith attempt to comply and ignorance is plausible. However, I think activities that are specifically licensed are clearly different. When you get a hunter's license, driver's license, or business license, you are certifying that you understand is that a body of law exists around that activity, and you are responsible for knowing it. Another problem is that giving essentially one free pass for low detection events effectively invalidates the law. For example, things like poaching and game violations, lawbreakers might have a lifetime detection rate of 1% . Knowing you get one warning means many people will only consider compliance after that warning. >I believe you. It is surprising, then, that this drone operator just advertises his services online IMO, One brazen operator is less surprising when you consider the 10s of thousands of hunters that dont do this. I can call up hundreds of unlicensed caterers online, but I expect every one of them knows their status relative to the law. I can only speculate about this guy. If they had honest intent and actually unsure, the wardens are always 1 phone call away to clarify their understanding of the law. Maybe they thought wardens had bigger fish to fry, maybe they were making a ideological statement. I think it is even possible that the thought it was legally ambiguous and willing to risk it. I just don't think it is realistic to think they were completely ignorant in this case. If they were some recreational drone operator providing impromptu aid, and unaffiliated with a hunting business, that would be a different case (and I hope that wardens and judges would take this into consideration).