NYPD Helicopter / Multirotor "Near Miss" Claims Unraveling Fast

It appears that the charges against the radio control multirotor in New York are starting to unravel.

Now those of us with actual POST certified formal LEO training right away laughed at the initial report...we used to call that "creative report writing" which to everyone else means: "lying".

To claim that they had to take evasive action when the model aircraft came at them and it almost crashed into them is the same pablum where cops jump in front of cars deliberately, so they can then claim they were in fear of being run over and killed, or they beat people mercilessly, and when they recoil in pain, they claim that such constitutes resisting, all so more fake charges can be added to potentiate the plea bargain process. Police pilots rarely get an opportunity to pad their barren felony pinch stats as they are, well, not on the ground, so a little bit of creativity is needed to justify their actions. In this case, a lot of creativity was used.

Well, the official false narrative is already starting to unravel as we knew it would.

The helicopter radio transmissions were recorded by some hobbyists. The actual transmission recordings can be heard here

Nowhere is there any mention of near misses, evasive action, or such. The cops even admit they have no idea if they actually have any crime.

From Forbes:

"Remy Castro, 23 and Wilkins Mendoza, 34 were charged in Manhattan Criminal Court with felony reckless endangerment. That law states:

A person is guilty of reckless endangerment in the first degree when, under circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life, he recklessly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to another person.

Reckless endangerment statutes don’t require a particular resulting outcome or injuries, rather what they criminalize is the risks created by the actor’s conduct. In the case of felony reckless endangerment, the New York courts have noted that the statute is intended to criminalize:

"those criminal acts perpetrated not against specific persons but evincing wanton and reckless conduct towards unspecified persons by reason of a depraved indifference to human life in general."

That is a high standard, and each element of that statute will need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Felony reckless endangerment requires a disregard for the value of human life.
Per New York case law, depraved indifference to human life:

"as required to support conviction for first-degree reckless endangerment, is best understood as an utter disregard for the value of human life, a willingness to act not because one intends harm, but because one simply does not care whether harm results or not."

Remy Castro, 23 and Wilkins Mendoza, 34 were charged in Manhattan Criminal Court with felony reckless endangerment. That law states:

A person is guilty of reckless endangerment in the first degree when, under circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life, he recklessly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to another person.

"Reckless endangerment" statutes don’t require a particular resulting outcome or injuries, rather what they criminalize is the risks created by the actor’s conduct. In the case of felony reckless endangerment, the New York courts have noted that the statute is intended to criminalize:

those criminal acts perpetrated not against specific persons but evincing wanton and reckless conduct towards unspecified persons by reason of a depraved indifference to human life in general.

That is a high standard, and each element of that statute will need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Felony reckless endangerment requires a disregard for the value of human life.
Per New York case law, depraved indifference to human life:

"as required to support conviction for first-degree reckless endangerment, is best understood as an utter disregard for the value of human life, a willingness to act not because one intends harm, but because one simply does not care whether harm results or not."

end

Both defendants claim it was the police that endangered themselves via their actions, and they say they have the video evidence to prove it. It would be a cold day in hell before the government could meet all these exceptionally high evidentiary burdens, so it's why the defendants are being overcharged, the usual MO of corrupt government prosecutors to get people to plea bargain to misdemeanors.

Some of my favorite laughable claims made by the police is an altitude change by the DJI Phantom of 0 feet AGL to 2000 feet AGL in 2 seconds. There are 5280 ft. in a mile, there are 3600 seconds in an hour, so:

1000/5280 = 0.18939 miles per second

0.18939 X 3600 = 681.8 mph, just below Mach 1 supersonic at seal level. Wow, that's either some fast model multirotor or some even faster creative police reporting!

These types of overblown interactions by abusive law enforcement with radio control hobbyists are becoming more frequent, so the outcome of this is of interests to the aerial film making community.


Far below is the actual transcript of the radio transmission, and I urge readers to review it before commenting.

NYPD—What kind of contact do you have … at this time.
Tower—What do you mean, what kind of contact?
NYPD—I don’t know. We just had an aircraft do vertical climbs pretty fast.
Tower—I don’t see anything on the radar. About how high would you say it went?
NYPD—I'd say 0 to about 2,000 [feet] in less than two seconds. And he's got green and red now. He's going up Spuyten Duyval [bridge], northbound at this time.
Tower—Really? I don’t see anything on the radar. Im not seeing anything like that.
NYPD—He has to be military. He's moving. He's right over top of us right now, LaGuardia. He did a 180 really quick. Going down the east river at this time. I just want to make sure its not a drone.
Tower—I’ll look out the window.
NYPD—LaGuardia we are 800 feet and he is level with us at this time.
Tower—He's level.
NYPD—Going Spuyten Duyval to the [George Washington Bridge]. He's got to be a drone.
Tower—Roger that.
NYPD—He's got red and green lights. Hes trucking, hes moving fast. LaGuardia, definitely a drone. Hes going up the streets now between buildings.
Tower—Ok, all right. Man, theres really gotta be a better way to maybe disable these guys.
NYPD—We are going to stay here and figure out where he puts it.
Tower—Take your time, you’re the only ones in the air.
NYPD—Will do. Yeah, we got drone activity at the GW Bridge. We are trying to walk an RMP [remote mobile patrol] into it. We got the guys operating it on the ground. Hopefully we can get these guys collared up.
Tower—In the vicinity of the GW? They were at the GW. Now I got three, four, coming up to Fairview and 193, vicinity of.
Tower—All right, you want me to do anything from here.
NYPD—Nope, just letting you know.
NYPD—Ok we got these guys are saying these are just toys but these drones were flying in vicinity of [George Washington Bridge]. They buzz around us as well.
Tower—All right what altitude were you guys at.
NYPD—These things were well over 2,000 feet. They were above us at 1,000.
Tower—You still have a visual.
NYPD—No, we've got custody, we've locked the [radio mobile patrol police cars] into them. You know, we have the guys who were operating them. We really don’t know exactly what we have, maybe a reckless. Not sure what exactly we got.
Tower—All right 10-4.
NYPD—Just so you know there was a class given to lt perez, I don’t know if you want to disturb him or not, but he had all the info on that.
Tower—All right 10-4 thank you.
NYPD—Tiny little, we got them on the ground now. Tiny little drones with four blades on it. But, yeah, It was all the way over the GW. Now we are all the way over at Spuyten Duyval flying two miles away to 2,000 feet.
NYPD—They are with them right now, but we don’t even know what we have.
NYPD—Definitely, we just don’t know what kind of crime we have right now.
NYPD—Seems to me, if they were at 1,000 feet, they'd have to be operating that thing recklessly, regardless of whether or not it was a toy.



Please avoid political commentary in replies, thanks.
 
I don't think flying a Phantom 2000 feet up at night is a particularly clever idea so whilst I suspect no crime has been committed and there was likely no real danger to the police helicopter it's still behaviour by the lads flying the Phantom that yet again puts multicopters into the news for all the wrong reasons.
 
something obviously doesn't match up. now, i've stood next to a cop who lied out of his arse against me, but this could be multiple cases, they saw one drone, lost it for a minute, then saw these guys and figured it to be the same one. It doesn't make sense for them to blow the flight that much out of proportion unless they are really, really, i mean really effin dumb as a broken stick
 
Since when is an RC aircraft called a drone? Even the guys who own the quadcopter referred to it as a drone. Do they just think it's cool to use the word?

Is a DJI Phantom really the image conjured up when you hear the word drone mentioned in world news reports?
 
Since when is an RC aircraft called a drone? Even the guys who own the quadcopter referred to it as a drone. Do they just think it's cool to use the word?

Is a DJI Phantom really the image conjured up when you hear the word drone mentioned in world news reports?

For me, I hear UAV for most things like this:

1254338201475.jpg

And Drone for things like this:

MQ-9_Reaper_CBP.jpg

For things smaller than the above... 'toys' comes to mind... but I may be prejudiced...
 
Back
Top