I was bang next door to there yesterday at wellington, not that it helps.
2 Likes
It’s not stolen goods.
Theft by finding (if he has indeed found it)
1 Like
Theft by finding is a common law offence which only applies when, in the circumstances, the owner was obvious or present or it was otherwise reasonable to assume someone present was the likely owner.
Since it’s a legal requirement to keep VLOS in the UK then an abandoned drone is unlikely to fall under theft by finding unless the owner is nearby.
Not a crime.
Disclaimer: Circumstances may vary. I’m a lawyer but I’m not your lawyer. Always seek independent legal advice.
Or lost it the day before
Whatever, I dont care about the semantics. If you find a drone lying around and try to sell it on ebay for 400 quid then you know it wasnt just abandoned, you know its been lost. Whatever the law says youre still a thieving scumbag wanker, in my honest opinion.
What that ebay seller was doing was dishonest at best.
3 Likes
VLOS applies while in flight. The drone may have been 30 metres high, 30 metres away clearly visible to the pilot until it fell behind a thick fence or in the middle of forest.
So the owner was nearby, he saw someone near the place where he assumed the drone fell, leaning down. The pilot called the person who then ran away. There was a stream between the place where the drone fell and the pilot therefore he was forced to make a 500 metre detour to the bridge to cross to the other side.
By the time he arrived to the area, the person he saw was gone and so was the drone.
So, was the drone abandoned or stolen?
1 Like
This
Same as if it was a diamond ring, Rolex or a prosthetic leg. It’s someone’s property
Everything lost is someone’s property. But under the law, the finder has the strongest claim to it, above everyone else except the true owner.
Totally agree. Absolute scumbag. But it’s not a crime.
2 Likes
In the case you present? Definitely stolen.
1 Like
At least the prosthetic leg would make a good Christmas present.
It’s a nice stocking filler.
1 Like
That maybe true of many things. But in this context:
- it has a serial number
- it was registered to the owner’s DJI account
- it may have had an operator ID
- it no doubt had an SD card with the owners videos/photos
- it was bound to the controller and goggles which owner still has
In these circumstances, the owner has the strongest claim.
2 Likes
Actually, it is.
It’s not about selling, it’s about handling. If it was legal for him to take and claim ownership of, then it’s legal for him to sell. But he doesn’t have a legal right to claim ownership of it, because has no idea of how long it has been there, thus the ‘abandonment’ clause of the 1968 Theft Act doesn’t apply.
Therefore, it should be handed into the police.
2 Likes
1 Like
Is that the one where Jesus says “let he who is without sin cast the 1st stone”
At which the old lady in the crowd hurls a bloody great rock at full pelt catching the victim square on the bonce. After which Jesus says… "Mother sometimes you p*ss me off."
All he did was say jehovah
