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."
Can you ask a drone questions? Can the drone respond? Can you determine the owner of the drone in order to ask the owner directly?
Even if you consider shooting a trespassing person "wrong" because you may kill them, shooting a drone would only result in property damage and not harm to any person.
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
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.
Except that you can't ask a drone questions.
I expect this to be a legal mess for a long time. This will probably come down to property rights.
The area above the property is private, but the extent of that ownership is not entirely defined. Cases like this will probably define it.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
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.
In other words, if a stranger wanders onto your property, you shoot them and ask questions later.
The next time you find a hidden camera in your bedroom, be sure to keep from harming the poor thing.
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.
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!
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.
I dont know about Kentucky, however in Texas you can shoot people for Criminal Trespass. You can use deadly force to protect your self and your property.
Texas is the only state that allows deadly force to be used in defense of property. This is a case where Texas is wrong and the rest of the country is right. I'm all for the right to keep and bear arms, I carry daily and am a certified concealed weapons instructor. But deadly force should only be used to defend people, not stuff.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
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.
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.
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.