Incident archive

Newest first. Select an incident to open its dossier.

DOSSIER · USPermanent page

Public safety

Drone crash injures spectators at Seattle Pride parade

Seattle, United States28 Jun 2015 · event dateapproximate location

Story timeline

Published revisions; dates are revision dates, not event dates.

Revision 1 · Current dossier · 16 Oct 2026
Drone presence: Confirmed · Impact: Confirmed · Attribution: Convicted
Curated dossier created after checking the cited sources line by line.

Current dossier

Approximate: region level
Reference marker and schematic precision area; not an incident position or measured error radius. Natural Earth boundaries; reference cities: GeoNames, CC BY 4.0.

Embed this dossier

No cookies, tracking or scripts. Reader browsers request this card from DroneLedger; standard server logs may record requests. This card updates with the next site release; reload to see changes.

<iframe src="https://droneincidents.com/embed/dossier/seattle-pride-parade-drone-injury-2015-06-28/en/" title="Embed this dossier" width="100%" height="320" loading="lazy" referrerpolicy="no-referrer"></iframe>

A drone crashed during Seattle Pride on 28 June 2015 and injured spectators. Police recovered the damaged aircraft. The city later reported a jury conviction for reckless endangerment, with testimony describing a concussion and a separate minor bruise.

Drone presenceConfirmed[1][2][3]

ImpactConfirmed[1][2][3]

AttributionConvicted[3]

Claims and evidence

3 sources · 2 original statements

Sources that repeat the same original statement count once: a number of articles is not a number of independent confirmations.

Claim	Original source	Assessment
Drone Police received the damaged drone as evidence. Source passage [1] “handed over the damaged drone” Passage checked word for word against the source on 16 Oct 2026.	Seattle Police Department via Seattle Police	supports Short literal passage read on the public source page; reported drone presence is not technical identification.
Impact The prosecution described concussion testimony. Source passage [3] “woman who suffered a concussion” Passage checked word for word against the source on 16 Oct 2026.	Seattle City Attorney trial account via Seattle City Attorney	supports Short literal passage read on the public source page; reported drone presence is not technical identification.
Attribution The official verdict statement reports a jury conviction. Source passage [3] “jury on Friday convicted” Passage checked word for word against the source on 16 Oct 2026.	Seattle City Attorney via Seattle City Attorney	supports Short literal passage read on the public source page; reported drone presence is not technical identification.

Source genealogy

Grouped by recorded original statement, not by publisher. Unmapped sources have unknown dependency; linked statements may also share an earlier origin. This is not an independence score.

Seattle Police Department
- Seattle Police: recovered drone and initial injury investigation [1] · Relayed statement
Seattle City Attorney / Seattle City Attorney trial account
- Seattle City Attorney: jury verdict and trial testimony [3] · Relayed statement
Unknown dependency
- GeekWire: court-document reporting and conviction follow-up [2]

Show source graph

Left: publishers; right: recorded original statement. Converging lines show shared origin, not publication order. Dashed nodes have unknown dependency.

Drones involved

The cited sources do not name the type of drone.

What we know

Police initially reported one spectator knocked unconscious. The later prosecution account describes a concussion and a second spectator with a minor bruise. These are reports from different stages of the same case, not separate events or cumulative counts of three victims.

The initial police investigation and later City Attorney verdict report are original records from the same municipality and count as one publisher family. GeekWire provides separate court-document reporting but also uses the city prosecution account. Shared case evidence is explicit: these are not independent investigations. Recovery of the aircraft and the trial account support confirmed drone involvement.

What remains unknown

The event date is the Sunday preceding the police article of Monday29June2015; conviction follow-up is January2017, not a new incident. The selected verdict statement gives maximum statutory penalties, not an imposed sentence; no sentence length is asserted. No claim about later appeal outcomes, device model or responsible organisation. Private names, victim ages, street addresses and airborne positions are omitted.

Operator attribution: Convicted. The City Attorney reported a jury conviction for reckless endangerment in this incident. A private operator is not named; no organisational or state attribution established. [3]

How the story changed

28 Jun 2015
Drone crashes at Seattle Pride; spectators injured and damaged drone later taken into police evidence. [1]
13 Jan 2017
City Attorney reports jury conviction and injury testimony from the trial. [3]

Original sources (3)

2 source families · a count of sources is not a verification score

1Seattle Police: recovered drone and initial injury investigation29 Jun 2015 · source family: city-of-seattle 2GeekWire: court-document reporting and conviction follow-up16 Jan 2017 · source family: geekwire 3Seattle City Attorney: jury verdict and trial testimony13 Jan 2017 · source family: city-of-seattle

Editorial changes

Revision 1 · 16 Oct 2026Curated dossier created after checking the cited sources line by line.

Cite this dossier

Permanent page · Revision 1

Chicago

DroneLedger. “Drone crash injures spectators at Seattle Pride parade.” Dossier seattle-pride-parade-drone-injury-2015-06-28, revision 1, updated 16 Oct 2026. https://droneincidents.com/incident/seattle-pride-parade-drone-injury-2015-06-28/v1/

APA

DroneLedger. (16 Oct 2026). Drone crash injures spectators at Seattle Pride parade (Dossier seattle-pride-parade-drone-injury-2015-06-28, revision 1). https://droneincidents.com/incident/seattle-pride-parade-drone-injury-2015-06-28/v1/

Dataset DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.23345422

Cite the revision you used: later revisions may change evidence states.

Download dossier JSON

Curated dossier · sources checked line by line on 15 Oct 2026
Dossier updated 16 Oct 2026

Editorial pack (print / PDF)Follow this dossier (feed)Earlier versions

Global drone incident observatory

What happened.What we actually know.

Drone incidents worldwide, each traced to its original sources. We keep what was reported apart from what is confirmed, and show how the story changed.

133dossiers

32countries

15with drone presence confirmed

Curated dossiers and automatic reports · no live detectionLatest source check 16 Oct 2026

Shape: dossier category. Colour and fill: drone evidence. White outer ring: confirmed impact; this does not confirm a drone or an operator.

Airport disruption
Maritime attack
Critical infrastructure
Military site
Armed conflict
Public safety
Reported sightings

Latest incidents

Full archive ↓

RO15 Oct 2026Wine Trader hit off Romania; president says drones struck the shipDrone ReportedImpact Reported UA14 Oct 2026Regional authorities report three dead and six injured after drone attack in KropyvnytskyiDrone ReportedImpact Reported RO14 Oct 2026Yara J hit off Romania; president says drones struck the shipDrone ReportedImpact Reported OM14 Oct 2026GFS Giselle damaged in attack; drone involvement unclearDrone InconclusiveImpact Reported

How to read a dossier

Every incident is judged on three separate questions. An airport can be confirmed closed while it is still unclear whether a drone was involved at all.

Was there a drone?

Drone presence: reported by a source, confirmed by explicit evidence, inconclusive after investigation, or debunked.

ConfirmedReportedInconclusiveDebunked

What was the impact?

Closures, diversions, damage or injuries, with their own evidence state. “Not established” means no source reports an impact.

ConfirmedReportedNot established

Who is responsible?

Attribution is never inferred. A party’s claim, a charge and a court finding are shown as different things.

Not establishedClaimedChargedConvicted

Incident archive

No matching dossiers