Slashdot Mirror
Kentucky Man Arrested After Shooting Down Drone
McGruber writes: Hillview, Kentucky resident William H. Merideth describes his weekend: "Sunday afternoon, the kids – my girls – were out on the back deck, and the neighbors were out in their yard. And they come in and said, 'Dad, there's a drone out here, flying over everybody's yard.'" Merideth's neighbors saw it too. "It was just hovering above our house and it stayed for a few moments and then she finally waved and it took off," said neighbor Kim VanMeter. Merideth grabbed his shotgun and waited to see if the drone crossed over his property. When it did, he took aim and shot it out of the sky.
The owners showed up shortly, and the police right after. He was arrested and charged with first degree criminal mischief and first degree wanton endangerment before being released the next day. Merideth says he will pursue legal action against the drone's owner: "He didn't just fly over. If he had been moving and just kept moving, that would have been one thing -- but when he come directly over our heads, and just hovered there, I felt like I had the right. You know, when you're in your own property, within a six-foot privacy fence, you have the expectation of privacy. We don't know if he was looking at the girls. We don't know if he was looking for something to steal. To me, it was the same as trespassing."
The owners showed up shortly, and the police right after. He was arrested and charged with first degree criminal mischief and first degree wanton endangerment before being released the next day. Merideth says he will pursue legal action against the drone's owner: "He didn't just fly over. If he had been moving and just kept moving, that would have been one thing -- but when he come directly over our heads, and just hovered there, I felt like I had the right. You know, when you're in your own property, within a six-foot privacy fence, you have the expectation of privacy. We don't know if he was looking at the girls. We don't know if he was looking for something to steal. To me, it was the same as trespassing."
In other words, if a stranger wanders onto your property, you shoot them and ask questions later.
In addition the shooter had no way to know with any reasonable degree of certainty that the 'drone' was unarmed. It could have been carrying an explosive device - and not just a gun as was recently seen, but actual c4 explosive.
Finally, even if it was only containing a camera, it was still illegal violation of the shooter's rights and the shooter had the right to destroy the object.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
And generally the police will look at the sky, see no object, and say, "If it happens again, call us," and will never do anything.
And what do you honestly expect the response from the nice policeman on the other end of the phone would be? Something along the lines of "Yeah? What do you expect US to do about it?".
Who do you complain against? The drone that will be gone well before the point it can be tracked by police? The owner, who you can't identify?
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
This is a universally a very bad idea.
Discharging any weapon in a populated area except at a proper range or in defense of your life is generally illegal and a very bad idea.
I suspect he would be facing the same charges if he were merely shooting crows in his backyard.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
The FAA is saying it's not safe but there's no law about shooting one down. The man was arrested because city ordinance against discharging firearms in the city. Should have used a paintball gun.
Legally? I have no idea. Here I believe he could possibly be charged with destruction of property, unless zoning laws stated that he could not fire a shotgun. A shotgun fired upwards is very safe, the risk of anybody being hurt by a few birdshot coming down is minimal, so endangerment is only possibly from somebody being hit by the falling drone. And if that is a danger, what the heck is the drone doing flying over people anyway?
Morally? It seems to me that a majority of the drone pilots are douche bags, completely ignoring other peoples right to privacy and even safety. Just because it is possible to fly their drones anywhere does not mean it is a good idea. If somebody flies their drone into my property, collecting video footage, I believe I have the moral right to do something about it. It is no different from if they started racing around a RC car with a video camera in my backyard. Sure, I could call the police, but the police is unlikely to show up in time. And what is the police supposed to do about a drone hovering over my house? Waste time around until they find the pilot? This is a perfect example of when a well aimed shotgun shot will help improve how people behave. If they don't want their drones shot down, they can fly them over their own property.
No you'd call the cops and have the guy arrested for being a peeping tom. It's not easy to ascertain who the snooper is with a UAV.
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
So below are all the rules for flying an RC plane. Why don't we simply apply the rules to drones? As a matter of fact, you have to explain to me why the don't automatically apply anyway?
Fly below 400 feet and remain clear of surrounding obstacles
Keep the aircraft within visual line of sight at all times
Remain well clear of and do not interfere with manned aircraft operations
Don't fly within 5 miles of an airport unless you contact the airport and control tower before flying
Don't fly near people or stadiums
Don't fly an aircraft that weighs more than 55 lbs
Don't be careless or reckless with your unmanned aircraft â" you could be fined for endangering people or other aircraft
Come the revolution, the Bourgeois, Capitalistic, "A PARKING STICKER HOLDERS", will be first against the wall!
Firing a weapon in a populated area except in defense of life and limb is a colossally stupid idea and patently against the law, just because your privacy is being violated is no excuse.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
up to the level allowed to commercial aircraft
That is too high.
But what can - say - Gisele Bündchen do if some obnoxious prat has a camera-carrying drone hovering over her home? No "Lex Bündchen" here, anyone else should have the same expectation of privacy at their home.
Drones have been adapted to carry firearms, how close should they be allowed to approach?
If people are telling the truth here, taking a shotgun to it was a fair response.
Mielipiteet omiani - Opinions personal, facts suspect.
Even if the shot hits a person, it will not do damage. getting hit with shotgun pellets is like being hit with hail of equivalent size. Terminal velocity and wind resistance is a bitch to your preconceived notions.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Of course he has the right to privacy in his own backyard. How on earth could anybody question that?
And yes, I personally also think that shooting down the drone was also justified. There should be jammers that bring down these things and it should be legal to possess and use them in the appropriate circumstances such as a drone hovering over your backyard.
I'm not sure what sort of shot the accused used, but if it was your typical bird shot or target load, shooting into the air is hardly more dangerous than being outside when it's hailing. Very different from, say, firing a 9mm up in the air.
Quoted from a recent Planet Money episode on this very question: "It's a question that goes back to the Middle Ages, to a Latin phrase that translates to "he owns the soil owns up to the heavens." In England, this phrase was the law of the land for centuries, and it worked well when disputes involved simple things like overhanging tree branches and lopsided buildings.
But once hot air balloons and airplanes came into the picture, things got a lot more complicated. In 1926, Congress created what we now call the FAA, and declared that the air above 500 feet is the public domain. But what about the air below that?
Thomas Causby was a chicken farmer in North Carolina who lived near a tiny airport. During World War II, the Army took over the airport, and suddenly big military planes were flying over Causby's chicken coops all the time. The planes scared Causby's chickens. They flew into the walls of the coop and died.
Causby sued the government, and the case went all the way to the Supreme Court. In the end, the court sided with Causby, ruling that landowners own the sky above their homes up to at least 83 feet."
ok that's very aggressive.
No, it's not. It would be aggressive if he began brandishing the weapon prior to them taking any action. However because they began advancing first, and he issued a warning afterwards without taking any action, that's being defensive. If anything, the other party was being aggressive, because they confronted him first.
No you'd call the cops and have the guy arrested for being a peeping tom. It's not easy to ascertain who the snooper is with a UAV.
Maybe you call the cops first, then shoot down the UAV. Apparently there's empirical evidence snooper will voluntarily identify himself in to the cops in this case...
You know, I generally don't agree with open carry ... most of the world cringes at that, and it's something Americans cherish.
But if your drone was hovering in my backyard looking at my teenage daughters for no good reason, and if I'd shot it down and you were about to come onto my property in a threatening manner without explanation, I can see the point.
The drone pilot was being an ass, and about to trespass in an aggressive manner.
I actually hope the guy who shot it down just gets a small fine and let go. Because the drone hovering in your backyard isn't the kind of shit we should be accepting.
It is entirely possible to think the Tea Party are loons and also think this guy has a point.
There simply can't be a free for all in which anybody for any reason can be going around peering into peoples private yards and houses just because they want to.
And, I'm sorry, but hovering over someone's backyard with a camera falls in the category of "no bloody way". Not for private citizens, corporations, or law enforcement without a warrant.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
But you have an expectation of safety. A lawnmower flying over your head deserves to be taken down, as it definitely constitutes a serious, and illegal, safety hazard. I predict, barring some kind of ordinance against firing weapons within some particular boundary, that this homeowner prevails -- against the city and the droning harasser.
That's with the more aerodynamic spin stabilized projectiles fired from rifled barrels(even handguns today are rifled). Unless he was stupid enough to shoot the drone with a slug or buckshot, the projectiles reach terminal velocity very rapidly compared to a rifle and *fall* at a velocity that will limit damage.
If he fired it at an angle much above 30 degrees the pellets are only dangerous on the upward part of the parabola.
Even buckshot is only dangerous a bit further, and slugs have the longest range but are still relatively short-ranged compared to a rifle round.
I don't read AC A human right
Bullets? Yes. Shotgun pellets? I doubt that's ever happened. They're too light and they spread too far. They're supposed to be shot in the air.
There's a risk of falling drone debris (which would be on him, as it was above him when he shot it, and I would assume he'd have told his kids to get out of the way), but there's zero chance of danger to anyone from the shotgun discharge.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
The four against one thing is kind of important too.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html