Sidebar Sidebar
  • You can now help support WorldwideDX when you shop on Amazon at no additional cost to you! Simply follow this Shop on Amazon link first and a portion of any purchase is sent to WorldwideDX to help with site costs.

Can this really happen?

It's amazing how many armchair lawyers there are on internet forums. :whistle: Even more amazing how people fail to understand just what falls under federal, state, and local jurisdiction. Radio may be federal but destruction of property is local. Where the line gets drawn is up to the courts.
 
Captain Kilowatt said:
It's amazing how many armchair lawyers there are on internet forums. :whistle: Even more amazing how people fail to understand just what falls under federal, state, and local jurisdiction. Radio may be federal but destruction of property is local. Where the line gets drawn is up to the courts.
Click to expand...

Whatever negative results come form the Fed court and the Municipal court; that will play into the civil action directly with either one. The Municipal court actions will be played out first, as he has his 30 days from the citation date to appear. No malice = no criminal malicious intent. No willful destruction of private property either. Doesn't mean that the Feds won't win; but they do have proof problems - especially if they haven't checked out his gear yet. If both the Municipal court and the Fed court exonerate him; then the civil action is out the window. No case. They might try, but little to no chance for a win without anything of substance to work with. The other court dismissals clearly mean no support for a civil action.

Let's see how that stacks up in the final analysis . . .
 
Last edited:
m42duster said:
Everyone is treating as a criminal case...

He could sue... Whole different ballgame.
Click to expand...
Not unless the Feds OR the Municipal court finds him guilty first.

It is all three. Criminal, Civil, and Federal. Federal because the plaintiff claims that the radio is illegal and interfered with his copter. Criminal because if they can prove malice - the willful/forethought to do copter dude damage - then it can get two separate charges. One is malicious mischief and the other is destruction of private property. The law suit/Civil court action can only get ground IF BammBamm is found guilty in either/or both Fed and Muni court.

:whistle:
 
Anyone who would install the cheapest 27 MHz. radio equipment in an RC model that flies is plain stupid or uninformed. One might think the VP of the RC club would know this after accumulating three law suits over the matter. Tell him to spend a lot less money on lawyers and just a few more dollars on 72 MHz. equipment. Otherwise the next problem is just waiting to take its toll on him. Save the 27 MHz. RC radio equipment for the cars and boats. Never use it in a cases where keeping the model intact requires you to maintain remote control continuously. The 11 meter RC or "A" channels are a joke for this type of application. The strong skywave signals that are a daily occurrence on this band have the "A" channels jumping with full strength signals from DX. He's probably totally unaware that someone from 6 states away or even in Europe could crash his model just as quickly and inadvertently.

I also find the way this officer handled the situation to be completely inappropriate and biased. This line says it all "Intended radio interference which resulted in personal property damage to said complainant." Where the hell is the word "alleged" in this sentence? My guess is the officer probably knew he couldn't file the complaint if he were honest and mentioned this was an alleged complaint in which he was able to find no evidence that it was intentional or malicious during his investigation. Much less that it was actually caused by your transmitter. I don't think I would have allowed Barney Fifth to leave the scene with such gross inaccuracies in his report. At least not before pointing out his mistakes to Andy Taylor first.
 
I have still heard nothing on this from anyone so I'm guessing he gave up or his lawyer told him he is wasting his time. I have no clue but I am hoping I hear nothing.
 
Almost everyone here is assuming the RC helo was on 27 MHz and are blaming the RC guy for using that band. Please show me where in this thread it was clearly stated that this was the case. Unless your browser is showing more lines in some posts than mine is it has not been stated. AFAIK it has not been determined yet what band the RC unit was using.
 
Robb said:
Not unless the Feds OR the Municipal court finds him guilty first.

It is all three. Criminal, Civil, and Federal. Federal because the plaintiff claims that the radio is illegal and interfered with his copter. Criminal because if they can prove malice - the willful/forethought to do copter dude damage - then it can get two separate charges. One is malicious mischief and the other is destruction of private property. The law suit/Civil court action can only get ground IF BammBamm is found guilty in either/or both Fed and Muni court.

:whistle:
Click to expand...

That's not how it works. A conviction on criminal charges is based on showing a lack of reasonable doubt. Civil cases have a much lighter burden of proof.

Remember, OJ was found not guilty in his criminal case and then immediately lost in civil court when Nicole Simpson's family sued him.
 
Captain Kilowatt said:
Almost everyone here is assuming the RC helo was on 27 MHz and are blaming the RC guy for using that band. Please show me where in this thread it was clearly stated that this was the case. Unless your browser is showing more lines in some posts than mine is it has not been stated. AFAIK it has not been determined yet what band the RC unit was using.
Click to expand...

This is a fairly safe assumption if the RC device really did receive interference. It is one of the most popular RC bands and the only one that readily experiences interference from CB. The next most popular RC frequencies are in the 72 MHz. band. The harmonics from 27 MHz. could not possibly land on 72 MHz. Furthermore, if the RC device was not being operated on 27 MHz. the pilot needs to learn how to fly and stop blaming others for his failures.
 
Moleculo said:
That's not how it works. A conviction on criminal charges is based on showing a lack of reasonable doubt. Civil cases have a much lighter burden of proof.

Remember, OJ was found not guilty in his criminal case and then immediately lost in civil court when Nicole Simpson's family sued him.
Click to expand...

Contrary to your suggestion, this isn't an issue of differing burdens of proof. This is a question of whether there is evidence to support a lawsuit.

The evidence of civil liability is slim to none. At a minimum, proof of liability means there is evidence of a negligent breach of some recognized duty under the law. A person is not negligent, and cannot be held liable for the destruction of a RC helicopter, just because he is operating a CB as he drives by the location where the RC helicopter is being operated. There must be something negligent about the operation of the CB that would make the destruction of the RC helicopter foreseeable. The idea of civil liability on these sparse facts is ludicrous on its face. In short, the helicopter owner may file a lawsuit, but there is no guarantee that he will win on those facts.

HOWEVER, if the state and/or federal courts take action first, and find the CB operator guilty of a crime, the RC helicopter owner wouldn't need any further proof. The prior criminal judgment in either a federal or state court works as a substitute for proof in a later civil action. I'm not saying this is likely. I'm saying that much stronger proof as reflected in a judgment would be required to make out this case.
:cool:
 
Robb, I'm not disagreeing that any of the claims made by the RC owner are a big stretch. If he's going to pursue any legal course of action, he has a big uphill battle ahead, IMO.

The law suit/Civil court action can only get ground IF BammBamm is found guilty in either/or both Fed and Muni court.
Click to expand...

This is the part that I was disagreeing with you about. The RC owner can file whatever type of frivolous civil suite he wants, regardless of any criminal proceedings. Let's suppose for a minute that the FCC does decide to take up a criminal case because they feel some law was violated (not gonna happen, btw). BammBamm could be found not guilty at trial and then the RC owner could STILL file a civil suit. Because the burden of proof is so much lighter in a civil case, BammBamm could still lose the civil suit.

I don't know what evidence exists neither does anyone else except for the OP. To me, it seems like a big stretch that anything is going to come of this, regardless of what the RC owner does. This whole thing sounds like posturing by the RC owner in an attempt to get someone else to pay for a new plane by threatening a suit.
 
Moleculo said:
Robb, I'm not disagreeing that any of the claims made by the RC owner are a big stretch. If he's going to pursue any legal course of action, he has a big uphill battle ahead, IMO.



This is the part that I was disagreeing with you about. The RC owner can file whatever type of frivolous civil suite he wants, regardless of any criminal proceedings. Let's suppose for a minute that the FCC does decide to take up a criminal case because they feel some law was violated (not gonna happen, btw). BammBamm could be found not guilty at trial and then the RC owner could STILL file a civil suit. Because the burden of proof is so much lighter in a civil case, BammBamm could still lose the civil suit.

I don't know what evidence exists neither does anyone else except for the OP. To me, it seems like a big stretch that anything is going to come of this, regardless of what the RC owner does. This whole thing sounds like posturing by the RC owner in an attempt to get someone else to pay for a new plane by threatening a suit.
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree with you more since you put it that way.
I think that the first real battle that BammBamm faces, is not to treat the criminal matter lightly. i.e. - As coming to court prepared to entirely prove his story and force the prosecution to prove that he was talking on the radio. That is anecdotal and without any physical proof/witnesses. Our Defendant claims he wasn't talking on the radio, and didn't have it on. Doubtful that that they law suit has a leg to stand on. They must attach more than he claims to make that kind of win. Youu can file all of the claims you want, doesn't mean a guaranteed win at all.

This first court action will have an immediate effect on the civil action. In other words: BammBamm; your attorney better not drop the ball here. Shouldn't be that difficult for him to do, as the prosecution has huge proof issues. But come prepared to do battle. Make your case and stick to the facts.
;)

EDIT:
I think the info on the 'copter dude' three previous attempts to sue others can be brought in at that time.
 
Last edited:
pro151 said:
We all know what you would tell the guy with the copter.

Only problem is that if you or I posted it here we would probably get put in the penalty box for 3 days. :laugh:
Click to expand...


I would tell him to eat a dick. At first I considered "kiss my ass" but "eat a dick" has a nice beat and you can dance to it.
 

dxChat
Help Users
  • No one is chatting at the moment.


      Top Bottom
      Back