Austin Haughwout, the Central Connecticut State University engineering student who was expelled last October for building a gun-firing drone, has filed a lawsuit against the university. The lawsuit, filed in New Britain Superior Court, alleges that Haughwout, of 7 Egypt Lane in Clinton, was expelled unlawfully by university officials.
The lawsuit names as the defendants Laura Tordenti, CCSU’s vice-president of student affairs; Christopher Dukes, the judicial director within the university’s Office of Student Conduct; Ramon Hernandez, CCSU’s associate dean for student affairs; and Densil Samuda, a CCSU Police Department detective.
In a disciplinary hearing held Oct. 14 at CCSU, no witnesses were called by the defendants to testify against Haughwout, the lawsuit states. During the hearing, Haughwout denied “each and every allegation made by the defendants,” according to the lawsuit.
The lawsuit alleges that the hearing was prompted by a letter, written by a CCSU engineering professor, that accused Haughwout of ‘“immoral and extremely dangerous’ activity by creating the UAS (Unmanned Aircraft Systems) and speculated that the plaintiff could involve other students and use of facilities within CCSU’s Engineering Department.”
The suit states that Haughwout had never met the professor who wrote the letter; nor had he taken any classes taught by him. The lawsuit also seeks monetary damages.
“The defendants failed to offer a modicum of evidence to support the allegations, resulting in a denial of fundamental fairness, notice and the right to contest charges, and willfully made false and misleading representations to the plaintiff concerning the nature and substance of any accusations,” the lawsuit continues, “so as to preclude his ability to meet and respond to the charges.”
Haughwout was expelled on Oct. 19, five days after the hearing.
“The main issue now is the injunction to get him back in school and declare their act of expelling him as unconstitutional and unlawful,” Houghwout’s attorney, Jon L. Schoenhorn, said Monday.
“There was a sham of a hearing at CCSU,” he added. “No witnesses whatsoever were called. Nothing that was brought up was not constitutionally protected speech.”
Last July, Haughwout made national headlines after posting a video of his gun-firing drone on YouTube.
“Austin emphasized that by learning the basic mechanical engineering skills that he obtained as a student at Central, he was able to construct various unmanned aircraft systems with different abilities, including one that could fire a weapon,” said Schoenhorn. “He did that because it was lawful to do so, and to show how easy it was. He did this in his backyard and posted it on YouTube to encourage discussion about the multiple and unlimited utilities of quadrocopters.”
Janice Palmer, media relations officer at CCSU, declined comment on the matter citing the pending litigation.
Source: The Bristol Press
First, be clear that I hate the idea of guns. I do not own one and never want to. And, yes, I have shot a few different guns when a friend took me to a range. My first time with clay-pigeons I hit 23 of 25 pulls. (I am told that this is a good score).
Here’s the typical knee-jerk.
A kid with an engineering proclivity does something no one else has done, and because of the ridiculous drone hysteria permeating the country, IT MUST BE BANNED!
If the gun was legal to shoot in that location, then WHAT DIFFERENCE does it make that it was handheld by an individual or attached to a model aircraft. It could have as well been hanging below a balloon or kite, or on a test bench. But that would have never made the news. But attach it to a drone and the response is “IT’S A DRONE, WE’RE ALL GOING TO DIE”.
This drone hysteria is getting out of hand. There is absolutely no factual evidence to support the fear and ignorance around small personal drones.
There have been more than a million hours of flight of small drones, yet there is not one verifiable report of a drone crash in the US that resulted in a serious injury as defined by the NTSB* to someone not connected to the flight. Not one. It is a safety rate that all other segments of aviation would be jealous to have. There is also not one verifiable report of a collision between a small drone and a manned aircraft. Not one. When it happens, the aircraft crew is probably not going to be aware of it, and the drone pieces will be scattered over a square mile.
Keep the risk of personal drones in perspective.
Today (if this is an average day in the USA):
1560 people will die from Cancer
268 people in US hospitals will die because of medical mistakes.
162 people will be wounded by firearms in the US.
117 Americans will die in an automobile accident.
98 people in the US will die from the flu.
53 people will kill themselves with a firearm.
46 children will suffer eye injuries.
37 will die from AIDS.
30 people will die in gun-related murders.
18 pilots will report a Laser Incident
3 General Aviation airplanes will crash in the US.
0 people will be seriously injured or killed by a small drone accident.*
Zero. Why are so many supposedly rational people so terrified of zero?
* A band-aid is not a serious injury. CFR 49 ยง830.2 contains the definition of “Serious Injury” that the FAA and NTSB use in their aircraft and vehicular accident statistics. It is important to hold small UAS accidents to the same metric, otherwise comparisons are meaningless.