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."

Comments

"...the same as trespassing."

[JazzHarper]

In other words, if a stranger wanders onto your property, you shoot them and ask questions later.

Re: "...the same as trespassing."

[Anonymous Coward]

I know we'll be close within the next decade or two with drones but a remote controlled flying object with a camera is not human. So to answer your question, "no." Hell I'd shoot it too.

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[digsbo]

In some states, castle doctrine applies outside of the boundaries of the home. Also, if someone leaves a recording device on your property in an area where you have an expectation of privacy, you would generally be assumed to have a right to destroy it if it were on the ground.

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[bondsbw]

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.

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[hawguy]

In other words, if a stranger wanders onto your property, you shoot them and ask questions later.

That's not an unreasonable thing to do if he climbs over a 6' privacy fence to get onto your property.

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[TWX]

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.

Re: "...the same as trespassing."

[Anonymous Coward]

If the stranger is just standing there staring at my daughters I don't need to ask questions.

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[TheCarp]

Well he didn't shoot the man, he shot a mechanical proxy for the man, which is not the same at all. He attacked a piece of property which, under the direction of its operator, was being used to invade his privacy by invading the space over his property, and as he pointed out, not simply to transit the area.

Assuming the area was one where it would be generally safe otherwise to fire at a bird, then I have no issue with his reasoning, seems like he was in the right to me, even though I wouldn't agree if he had shot the operator; the two are not equivalent like that.

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[Joce640k]

Depends on what you shoot at it with.

Shooting at the sky is bad. Falling bullets can kill.

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[waldozer]

Or, did he ask the drone to leave? Or, did he warn the drone to leave or he would shoot?

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[Mr D from 63]

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.

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[hodet]

He used a shotgun, no worse than shooting a duck out of the sky, it's just pellets that would come down. It wasn't a rifle.

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[gstoddart]

If a human is in my backyard, I can say "what the hell are you doing in my backyard", and then tell them to get the hell out.

If a drone is hovering in my backyard, I have no such recourse and have to assume the worse.

This isn't like shooting people and asking questions later. Not even a little.

Not sure about the discharge of the firearm and where he was, but the drone had no business hovering over someone's yard.

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[LiENUS]

Shooting at the sky is bad. Falling bullets can kill.

This is a kind of overstated "fact" not really a myth but not wholly true. A bullet fired up at 90 degrees and then falling at terminal velocity is unlikely to kill a healthy adult. The problem is when they still have horizontal velocity as they fall that horizontal velocity can be quite substantial when the angle is 45 degrees or less. This man deserved his arrest, what he did was wholly irresponsible. Destroy the drone sure but firing a gun into the air without being certain of where the bullet, or shot in this case, will make its final impact is just irresponsible. Maybe someone should make a product that fires soft nets to capture these drones and bring them to the ground?

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[Deep Esophagus]

Yeah. While I agree with his sentiment, his response was a bit excessive.

Hmmm, sounds like a good application for some kind of EMP emitter.

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[JazzHarper]

Kentucky is a "Castle Doctrine" state. Under Kentucky law, to invoke the Castle Doctrine, an intruder must be making (or have made) an attempt to unlawfully and/or forcibly enter an occupied home, business or car; the occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to inflict serious bodily harm or death upon an occupant of the home; and/or the occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to commit some other felony, such as arson or burglary. There are other, more specific conditions and constraints. The law (in Kentucky) also includes a "duty to retreat". So, no, you can't simply shoot trespassers, even in Kentucky.

And yes, you have a right to privacy, but you don't enforce that by taking the law into your own hands.

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[Anonymous Coward]

You need to watch more mythbusters.

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[codeAlDente]

Except that you can't legally shoot ducks or anything else out of the sky in the city.

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[sribe]

This man deserved his arrest, what he did was wholly irresponsible.

Shotgun, not rifle. No bullet, just pellets. Huge difference.

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[codeAlDente]

Nope, it would have been illegal to fire at a bird.

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[liquid_schwartz]

From stories I've heard about Kentucky ... yes

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[Anonymous Coward]

Uninformed rubbish.

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[ibwolf]

No they can't. The pellets are accelerated out of the gun by the power an the explosive charge. They then loose velocity due to gravity and (far more importantly) air resistance. While the loss due to gravity is reversed once the pellets reach the top of their arc, the loss due to air resistance continues until they drop below their terminal velocity (the point at which air resistance and gravity cancel each other out).

Any sufficiently elevated shot will have the pellets reaching the earth at their terminal velocity (which is a fraction of the velocity that they leave the gun barrel at).

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[hodet]

Oh man are you serious? They are going much faster on the way up. So while yes they lose velocity on the way up they are still going at a speed that will penetrate skin. On the way down it's only gravity pulling them and they don't go that high. If you were sitting on the other side of the lake with a rain coat and pellets came down on you would hear them hit the coat before they fell to the ground, and that's it. You would wonder what that was.

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[TheCarp]

Hmmm then that is a different question.... but only one of whether the force was justified against the safety of others. The drone operator was still in the wrong and he was defending his privacy.

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[hodet]

Well it is Kentucky after all.

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[ceoyoyo]

I'm not American. Am I wrong that you aren't allowed to shoot ducks out of the sky in built-up areas?

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[hawguy]

If the pellets can penetrate a duck in the sky while loosing velocity, then they penetrate a person on the way back down gaining velocity.

Birdshot has a relatively low terminal velocity -- I've had bird shot rain down on me during duck hunting season, and it's literally feels like rain. It's probably an eye hazard, but bird shot isn't going to kill anyone when it falls from the sky. A slug or bullet on the other hand could be more deadly since it's going to have a higher terminal velocity, especially if on a more ballistic trajectory and is still spinning and not tumbling.

Re: "...the same as trespassing."

[O('_')O_Bush]

Pellets don't gain velocity when falling to earth...Have you ever even owned a firearm?

Shotgun shot (low mass spheres moving at the speed of sound) lose almost all of their velocity within 100 yards. By the time it falls to the ground, it is only moving at a fairly low terminal velocity.

I have been hit by bird shot, and one of the reasons why many places allow shotgun sports even near neighborhoods is that falling shot has about the same damage capacity as a sprinkling of rain (which is about what it feels like).

I am not sure if you were trolling or just talking completely out of ignorance, but you wasted people's time by posting.

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Just wait for little quiet dragonfly drones, which you won't notice, can't hear unless close, and ability to crawl into cracks.

I am sure government has these already, and not just at prototype stage we see on science articles from time to time.

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[ArcadeMan]

Hmmm, sounds like a good application for some kind of EMP emitter.

Until someone uses an anti-drone EMP and kills someone with a pacemaker nearby.

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[codeAlDente]

Yes, the guy seems to have a legitimate complaint that went uninvestigated. That is unfortunate.

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[codeAlDente]

city folk is city folk

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[Anonymous Coward]

you _do_ know that outside of physics class we take air resistance into account, right?

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[Anon-Admin]

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.

IANAL, however the fact that the drone was waved off and left then came back would indicate to me that the operator was aware that it was not welcome. I would construe the act of returning as a Criminal Trespass. I personally would have used a shotgun with bird shot to shoot it down. The bird shot reduces the danger to others when it comes down.

Then again, I have a shoulder launched surface to air rocket. Using that may work better, scare the crap out of the operator and is legal to shoot in town because it does not qualify as a "Gun" and with no explosive charge in the rocket it does not qualify as a destructive device.

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[The Grim Reefer]

I haven't gone hunting in several decades, but I did when I was younger. I've had pellets from careless people's shotgun rain down on me a couple times. No, they don't maintain their lethality It'll scare the hell out of you, but it's not even close to lethal.

It's not clear from TFA, but it does say that the drone crashed in a field behind his house and that he fired at the drone when it was over his property and that he did not fire over other residences.

I don't know the full details of the story, so I'll reserve judgment, but I'd be inclined to do the same myself, depending on the situation. I'd probably use rock salt rather than lead though.

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[StikyPad]

They have cities in Kentucky?

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[donaggie03]

Requiring a "duty to retreat" from the thief/murderer that came into your own home is not what most people think of as castle doctrine.

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[bhcompy]

KRS 503.080
Protection of property
(1) The use of physical force by a defendant upon another person is justifiable when the defendant believes that such force is immediately necessary to prevent: (a) The commission of criminal trespass, robbery, burglary, or other felony involving the use of force, or under those circumstances permitted pursuant to KRS 503.055, in a dwelling, building or upon real property in his possession or in the possession of another person for whose protection he acts

KRS 503.085
Justification and criminal and civil immunity for use of permitted force –Exceptions
(1) A person who uses force as permitted in KRS 503.050, 503.055, 503.070, and 503.080 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom the force was used is a peace officer, as defined in KRS 446.010, who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law, or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a peace officer. As used in this subsection, the term "criminal prosecution" includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[Bob the Super Hamste]

Having been hit by some bird shot that was on its way back down it is a little more than hard rain but less than small hail in how much it hurts. It was fired from some hunters on the other side of a reasonable stand of trees (about 100-150 meters wide) so it just arced over and rained down.

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[Noah Haders]

So he should have gotten a large net that is used to catch bats, wait for the owner to show up wanting it back to get their identification?

the summary doesn't say how high the drone was... I wonder if he could have pegged it with a football or a baseball. that probably would have done the trick. people in Kentucky have good throwing arms...

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[Bob the Super Hamste]

It was likely bird shot and that bleeds off energy fast. If it was a slug or buck shot it would much more problematic, but even shotgun slugs and buck shot lose energy pretty fast compared to a regular bullet. Not saying this guy was smart or did the right thing, but just don't believe what you see in movies.

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[codeAlDente]

Where do you think people in West Virginia go for fun?

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[Holi]

No, they can't.

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[Bob the Super Hamste]

The difference there is that I wouldn't shoot it with my shotgun or rifle but it likely would have a close encounter with my 8lb maul.

Re: "...the same as trespassing."

[Anonymous Coward]

I've had pellets hit me in the head a few times while hunting in an area with several hunters and I can attest that the pellets just bounce off. No pain or danger. Bird shot is much smaller than BB's from a red rider. Only danger would be if you're looking up and maybe get hit in the eye but even that I doubt would cause serious injury.

And if what he did isn't legal it should be with some limits. Any drone hovering low over your private areas clearly observing, should be in danger of being shot down.

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[Anonymous Coward]

* climbs over a 6' privacy fence

* refuses to answer or respond to questions

* inexplicably approaches you despite seeing your weapon pointed at him

yes, I would shoot under those circumstances

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[fustakrakich]

The FAA defines it. 500 feet. 1000 over urban areas. All perfectly reasonable. If a guy is taking pictures from that height or above, too bad. You are fair game.

Re: "...the same as trespassing."

[Coren22]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Does rain injure your head when it hits?

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[WinstonWolfIT]

Potato gun? I have one too.

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[Bob the Super Hamste]

You mean like these little guys that were reported on over 2 years ago.

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[Overzeetop]

Or the FCC finds out. They frown on such things, and their penalties start in the 5 figure range, or federal PMITA prison.

Re: "...the same as trespassing."

[Andy Dodd]

Have you ever heard of air resistance and terminal velocity?

Re: "...the same as trespassing."

[Dahan]

EVERYTHING gains velocity (9.8 m/s^2) when falling to earth...Have you ever even heard of Newton?

Even a guy with a parachute? If so, I'm amazed skydivers almost always survive their jumps...

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[JaredOfEuropa]

If the the burglar is in your home already, then it's safe to say that several of those requirements for the Castle Doctrine have been met. Blast away...

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[Calydor]

He took a shotgun and aimed it at a drone that clearly had a camera in order to be able to navigate.

Since drones don't have microphones, the shotgun should count as a warning that he will shoot.

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[tigersha]

You own a legal bazooka without a warhead? Cool!
Does it have an IR seeker?

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[Vlad_the_Inhaler]

a large net? you are joking?

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[Anonymous Coward]

its still murder, though.

He has to be an immediate life-threatening danger to your well being. If he hopped the fence and you shot him from a distance that is first degree murder.

Re: "...the same as trespassing."

[hawguy]

Pellets don't gain velocity when falling to earth...Have you ever even owned a firearm?

EVERYTHING gains velocity (9.8 m/s^2) when falling to earth...Have you ever even heard of Newton?

Check Newton's 3rd law and see if you can figure out how it might apply to this situation.

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[Vlad_the_Inhaler]

The rock salt approach would imply premeditation, or how long would it take *you* to refill a cartridge with the stuff? (oh, we're out, head off to the store to get some more)

Re: "...the same as trespassing."

[knightghost]

What frequency do drones use? Can it be jammed? If it falls on your property (like a frisbee or baseball) then is it yours to smash and throw away?

Personally I approve of the shotgun method as long as you know where the BBs are dropping and its safe.

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[digsbo]

IANAL. In Pennsylvania, the porch is considered part of the "castle". The drone left, then returned, indicating a persistent violation of the space. Not sure whether a drone over the porch qualifies. But, as the firearms safety instructor said, that is something the courts will likely decide.

Re: "...the same as trespassing."

[SydShamino]

Pellets don't gain velocity when falling to earth...Have you ever even owned a firearm?

EVERYTHING gains velocity (9.8 m/s^2) when falling to earth...Have you ever even heard of Newton?

Have you ever heard of terminal velocity?

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[MightyMartian]

So you regularly float at an altitude of 20 to 100 feet, do you?

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[bored_lurker]

No, you can't shoot in a built up area. To hunt ducks (or any other animal) you need a hunting license and you need to follow local ordinances. Almost every town or city has an ordinance about discharge of weapons within the city limits. But the question is what is "built up". Many people live in rural areas and can hunt on their property. Obviously there was an ordinance against this, hence why he was arrested. He said that he fired into a safe space (not across a road or towards a neighbor's home).

But really that is not the question. The operator took his camera equipped drone and flew it low enough to peer under a patio covering. While I would not have shot it out of the sky I would have grabbed a rake or shovel and knocked it down. And I would have been the one calling the police and filing charges - as I hope still happens in this case.

Privacy is always an issue discussed on Slashdot. A camera flying in my back yard over my privacy fence is worse than most the things complained about here. What's next? Peeping in my daughter's window? To put it mildly the person running the drone was a jerk and they should be going to jail too.

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[bigpat]

Depends on what you shoot at it with.

Shooting at the sky is bad. Falling bullets can kill.

And that was one of the charges. I think the facts of the particular case are important rather than the principles at stake. Of course he had an expectation of privacy and below a certain height (I think it is 500 feet or so) the other person was trespassing with the drone. Did shooting it out of the sky reasonably endanger anyone... How far from the property line was it? What direction did he shoot? This was a shotgun, so pellets generally have a shorter range than a rifle or hand gun. The fact that only the drone was damaged and no one was actually hurt should count for a lot.

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[Opportunist]

Their cousin?

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[swillden]

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.

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[FlyHelicopters]

its still murder, though.

No, it is homicide... if it is a criminal offense depends on a whole lot of factors, including where you live...

Murder is always a crime, homicide is not...

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[JaredOfEuropa]

Does flying a drone over someone's property constitute criminal trespass (in Kentucky)?

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[Opportunist]

You'd probably save that shot for when whoever installed it returns...

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[bigpat]

In other words, if a stranger wanders onto your property, you shoot them and ask questions later.

If a stranger wanders onto your property carried along on the back of a foot long drone, then I think any reasonable person would assume an alien invasion by really tiny people (or ants) is in progress and do their patriotic duty and start shooting.

In the words of the wise: "How can you be expected to teach children to read if they can't fit inside the building?"

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[The Grim Reefer]

I've known plenty of people who kept shotguns loaded with rocksalt shells for trespassers. I've also had them fired at me during my misguided youth. If having shells ready implied premeditation, then anyone who owns a baseball bat and not in a league could be also.

It's not difficult to take the pellets out of a shell and put rocksalt in. The end of the shell is simply folded plastic and is very easy to unfold. The pellets are directly underneath the plastic, no wadding either, so you can simply pour the pellets out. Using a funnel or even a folded peice of paper, you can dump the salt in and press the plastic ends together. I'd prefer to use one of my presses for this, but you can do so without if needed. With a butter knife, a peice of paper and a solid flat surface, I could do it in under 2 minutes.

Re: "...the same as trespassing."

[Culture20]

That's a force. Two opposing forces can result in a net acceleration of an object (and thus velocity as a component), but it can also result in zero acceleration, which is no gain in velocity. The opposing force in this case is friction with air molecules. The two forces eventually reach a point where there is no more acceleration known as "terminal velocity".

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[bigfinger76]

The person you're shooting at needs to be on your property - it's what the "castle" part refers to. I know guns are hard, along with understanding laws. Please try to keep up.

Re: "...the same as trespassing."

[Flentil]

If someone throws a ball onto (or over) your property, is that person tresspassing? I don't think that's how tresspassing works.

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[Bob the Super Hamste]

If their lucky. If not they get the same close encounter with the splitting maul as well.

Re: "...the same as trespassing."

[Aighearach]

Silly coward, it was a statement of opinion, not a question. Are you from the same neighborhood, or what?

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[FlyHelicopters]

Actually, those numbers are for airplanes...

Helicopters can fly lower than that... but there is a rule for them... The short version is, helicopters can fly at any altitude so long as they don't cause hazard to persons or property on the surface.

I asked my FAA rep about that once and the answer he gave me was this:

"If I get one phone call from one person claiming a helicopter is flying too low, I might give you a call and say 'hey, be careful out there'. If I get 5 phone calls from 5 people saying a helicopter is flying too low, then you're already guilty. Don't scare people on the ground."

And I've done plenty of aerial photography from below 500 feet, including over a major city (Dallas, TX). The key is to not linger anywhere and to not scare the crap out of people. If people come outside and wave you away or give mean looks, leave. They are right and we're wrong.

The irony is that I DID get a visit from DHS once. We were hired to take some aerial pictures of a building that just happened to be right next to a police station. This was in a commercial office area, no homes. The irony is that we were in fact at 500ft, but people on the ground can't always tell that. An over excited police officer decided we were terrorists and ran it up the chain of command. By the time we landed, 5 police cars were at the airport and we found out the military had been alerted to a possible hostile aircraft (they did not take off AFAIK). Once we provided our ID and explained what we were doing, they let us go. We got a follow up visit a week later from two men in suits who had some brief questions, but overall they were nice about it. It probably helped that we had a good relationship with the FAA and had years of experience doing this with a fixed base of operations that was well known. This was in 2007, for what it is worth.

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[Overzeetop]

"upon another person" - that will be a sticking point, and without case law to say that an owned device is a person it will likely fail on a techincality in civil court.

"A person is guilty of criminal trespass in the second degree when he knowingly
enters or remains unlawfully in a building or upon premises as to which notice
against trespass is given by fencing or other enclosure. "

The drone operator would have had to *known* that he was over that persons property to be in violation.

So the shooter will have to prove that the firing of his weapon was "immediately necessary" to prevent the trespass, and he would have to prove that the pilot *knew* he was trespassing.

One item you excluded is that "physical force" does *not* included deadly force. Deadly force is defined in 503.010 (1), and is distinct and separate from 503.010 (4) which defines physical force.

My money is on the pilot

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[Demonoid-Penguin]

The person you're shooting at needs to be on your property - it's what the "castle" part refers to. I know guns are hard, along with understanding laws. Please try to keep up.

You're an arseclown. Guns aren't hard. Neither is law. Nor is reading, or satire - but you seem to have trouble with those. Probably an organic reason. Try and keep up, you're holding everyone else back.

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[Overzeetop]

It might. It would be second degree criminal trespass if the prosecution can show that the drone was synonymous with the pilot. Trespass in KY requires that a person be present on the land or in the dwelling.

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[PenguinJeff]

A stranger, jumping over your 8 foot fence, twirling knifes just above your head. This could be looked at as a feeling of their life is endanger.

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[Aighearach]

Here in Oregon, where the law is a lot more "wild west" and there is no duty to retreat, ever, in any circumstance, (retreat is considered immoral, standing your ground - in the sense of neither attacking nor retreating - is considered the neutral act) we can shoot them as soon as they try to illegally enter the house. But never in the yard, that is regular "self defense" where you have to be in danger.

OTOH, outside city limits you can shoot somebody's property to stop it from damaging your own property, so there are words you could say in this situation to make shooting the drone legal; "they weren't in line of site, and the fire danger is too high to have that thing come down out of site. I wanted to get it down while we had eyes on it, and make sure there wasn't a fire." If it is under 50' then it isn't in airspace, it is just "in the air on private property."

But no, you can't destroy property in any state just because you think you have an "expectation of privacy" outdoors. You would have to consider it abandoned, then you can claim it. If you're worried they might come back for it, or is being used to spy on you, then you'd have to turn it in to police. If nobody claims it by the deadline, you can claim it and then destroy or recycle it, whatever. Some States allow you to keep what you find on private land without a waiting period, but that usually has restrictions so that it wouldn't apply to recently-left items.

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[Aighearach]

Sorry for spelling "sight" as "site," I'll read 10 dictionary pages as penance.

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

The next time you find a hidden camera in your bedroom, be sure to keep from harming the poor thing.

Yeah, you should fire your gun in the house, never mind the people nearby. Thanks for bringing the pertinent point into focus.

Re: "...the same as trespassing."

[fisted]

Can it be jammed? Certainly. Is it an allowed thing to do? Hrm, let's ask the FCC?

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[R3d M3rcury]

Maybe if we built a large wooden badger...

Re: "...the same as trespassing."

[Aighearach]

If you have even a basic understanding of the history of physics, and why we know the speed of falling objects, and how much disagreement there was over it before the experiment, then you could understand the complete idiocy of using "owning a firearm" as a metric for if somebody should know the speed of falling objects. Owning a gun will not do anything to get a person on the correct side of the debate. Only knowledge of experimental outcomes is going to do that.

Presumably, that is a waste of time, ignorance is as ignorants do.

Re: "...the same as trespassing."

[nehumanuscrede]

Birdshot is commonly used when firing into the air to take down flying game. It's potent at short distances, not so much afterwards.

Not nearly as dangerous coming down as a 3-5 pound drone that loses control over your property.

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[R3d M3rcury]

I think that's the point. If you're in your house and a burglar breaks in, that's one thing. If you're arriving home and find a burglar in your house, that's a bit of different situation.

Re: "...the same as trespassing."

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Not nearly as dangerous coming down as a 3-5 pound drone that loses control over your property.

That's part II of the problem, thanks for bringing it up.

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[LiENUS]

How do you know he wasn't using 00 buckshot? or lead slugs or even 3" 1oz copper slugs moving at 1550 feet per second?
Even if he is using birdshot (hopefully, but the police have no way of knowing that untill they've investigated) it's still irresponsible to fire it in a residential setting where kids play nearby.

Re: "...the same as trespassing."

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't fly your fucking spy drones over other people's property and this won't be a problem.

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[jedidiah]

Pretty much.

This is why you knock, announce yourself, and declare your intentions.

Why should any non-peasant tolerate the invasion of their home?

Re: "...the same as trespassing."

[Aighearach]

When it is large and frozen it is a known danger to life. You need the speed and the mass to calculate impact force. Not just the speed. And not everybody is equally durable. What about somebody sunbathing, who gets hit in the eye? Is the only danger to their eye, or might it in fact kill them? Has anybody ever died from a hailstorm?

But thank you for at least linking to the correct shit. A lot of these idiots are waving their hands like they thought that the speed of falling objects was intuitive! lol It only took a few thousand years to figure out the answer.

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[nehumanuscrede]

Don't want to get shot in Texas ?

Don't do stupid things on private property that doesn't belong to you. If you're trespassing on private property in the middle of the night, it's likely you're not there with good intentions. Probably shouldn't expect a warm reception ( unless I have a flamethrower ).

Besides, there are still rules that must be followed even in defense of property. It's not like it's a free for all the moment you step across some line. I would post the relevant Texas Code, but this is Slashdot and no one would read it anyway :D Just trust me when I say some very specific conditions have to be met before you can shoot.

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[ScentCone]

If a drone is hovering "in" your suburban back yard, then shooting it with a shotgun is wildly inappropriate, because you're shooting at an angle barely above the horizontal. We also have no idea if the guy's toy copter was hovering "over" his yard, or just near it. It's much more difficult than most people think to gauge a small quadcopter's actual position over objects on the ground. I've yet to meet anyone who hasn't personally operated a given machine for many, many hours who was ever correct about that sort of thing.

Re: "...the same as trespassing."

[Aighearach]

Yeah, since Newton was born the same year Galileo died, he most certainly would have been aware of it. Not because he was some famous smart guy, but just because he was educated in the physical sciences and would have known the results of Galileo's experiment.

Naming Newton is out of place here. What he did was take Galileo's work on falling objects, and apply it to orbiting bodies to get a single law. You don't need to do that to figure out the speed of a falling piece of lead, or to calculate the potential damage.

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[Anon-Admin]

No IR, but that does give me some ideas. It is a modded, spent launch tube with custom made Estes rockets. Wonder if I could put tracking into the rockets, arduino and a few parts could work. Ill have to play with that.

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[LiENUS]

all those little pellets are far too small on their own to accelerate back to anywhere near lethal speed by simply falling.

Unless you are firing directly upwards at 90 degrees from the ground plane then you dont just have terminal velocity to worry about, you also have the original momentum from the charge in the shotgun shell to worry about. Which can in fact reach lethal speeds, hence why shooting someone with a shotgun generally kills them. Given the hazard posed by the drone falling from the sky it seems safe to assume he did not stand directly underneath the drone to fire at it. Now, if he used bird shot yes it likely was quite safe (although likely still very illegal and irresponsible) if he used 00 buckshot then it was quite unsafe (140 ft/lbs can kill and theres 8-9 pellets there) if he used a slug then there's no way anyone in their right mind should be arguing that was safe to fire in a neighborhood.

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[Aighearach]

This is America! It doesn't matter if it is "built-up" or a swamp. What matters is if it is legally inside the City Limits or not. My city has one part of town with lots of libertarians, and they always oppose annexation (and the city services that come with it...) and so there are little pockets on that side of town where one house is in the City, the next isn't, all the way down the road. You can legally hunt in your backyard on one side of the fence, but not the other.

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[sribe]

Ah yes, just good ole .330" pellets moving at 1,600 fps perfectly harmless.

For a spherical pellet without spin, muzzle velocity is vastly higher than terminal velocity. So, no, 00 falling out of the sky is not much of a hazard at all. So, whether there was a real hazard, depends on angle and direction that he shot.

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[Aighearach]

The funniest part of the debate is the self-important people who think they know a lot about guns, and want to educate everybody down-nose from them, but then they don't know that the firearm being a "shotgun" doesn't tell you that it was firing "shot." Newsflash, shotguns fire bullets, too, except they're called "slugs."

If you read the story and it said they used shot, then that it said they used shot is why you would know it was pellets; not because they said "shotgun." Huge difference.

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[Aighearach]

You might not even need a gun to use the net. ;)

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[jedidiah]

Unless he was charged with illegally discharging a firearm specifically, I would not buy into any other charge of reckless endangerment.

Re: "...the same as trespassing."

[Aighearach]

Standing and staring are both legal. Even if you're standing in a place that is illegal, staring is still legal.

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Just wait for little quiet dragonfly drones, which you won't notice, can't hear unless close, and ability to crawl into cracks.

Just wait until drones start evading being shot, causing the frustrated property owner to take more than one carefully aimed shot with this gun.

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[LiENUS]

00 falling out of the sky not a hazard, but if he fired it at any sort of angle it likely was, if he fired it in a residential area (we know he did at least this) or a neighborhood the likelyhood of it being a risk goes up even higher

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[Aighearach]

Hmmm then that is a different question.... but only one of whether the force was justified against the safety of others. The drone operator was still in the wrong and he was defending his privacy.

No, this is well-examined already by the Court; there is no debate about it. Privacy has to be successfully achieved to be expected. Outdoors and uncovered on your property is not private; and you can never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever defend your privacy after somebody already saw you. If they violated the law, OK, they violated whatever law that is. Perhaps they even harmed you by removing your privacy. But you can't defend your privacy except by not being seen.

There is nothing about this situation that invokes privacy, because every airplane flying over can see the same things. Even if your neighbor climbs a tree to see over your fence and through your window, that is considered your own fault; you don't have any expectation of privacy if your neighbor can climb a tree on their own property and see you. And you don't control the commercial airspace above your property, so you can never claim that view-from-above might be private or had an expectation of it. Your yard, and your children playing in the yard, are also on Russian satellite photos! It is very far from private.

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[Aighearach]

Thankfully, "warnings" aren't invoked by any of the circumstances here, and this does not matter.

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[puppetman]

I'm Canadian, and fall about where you would expect on the "right to bear arms" (in general guns are bad because they kill people), but the thought of a drone hovering over my house and yard is highly offensive.

It invades privacy, my sense of well-being, and my gut instinct would be to classify it as a threat towards my children and family.

It's a threat because I don't know the intent behind the drone. Is someone using it to surveille my house or family, take voyeuristic pictures or images of my children, or is it just some idiot who doesn't understand how his or her actions could be interpreted?

Based on the article, I actually have a fair bit of sympathy for Mr. Merideth.at.

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[sribe]

Nonsense. I've been hit in the face by #8 birdshot used by a gunner over 200 yards away. If I didn't have field glasses on, I'd have lost an eye.

Well, first off, my post simply pointed out the difference between a bullet and shot, and claimed there was a huge difference. What exactly is nonsense about that? What do you suppose would have happened if you'd been hit by a rifle round from "over 200 yards away"? Your field glasses wouldn't have done a damn thing for you...

Second off, bird shot, 200 yards away, you're talking about a low-angle shot and residual horizontal velocity, *NOT* pellets falling. Of course we don't know angle and direction of this guy's shot, but the knee-jerk reaction that it was some kind of huge hazard is really uninformed.

We'd have to see a lot more detail about where the copter actually was, the angle at which Dad shot it, etc.

Exactly.

Separately from that: the FAA is quite clear that shooting at ANY aircraft is a crime. Big time.

OK. Let the schmuck who was flying the drone call in the FAA, and see who actually gets a fine. (Hint: also illegal to operate in close proximity to people, especially people who are on their own property, and don't want it there...)

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[Aighearach]

The difference there is that I wouldn't shoot it with my shotgun or rifle but it likely would have a close encounter with my 8lb maul.

That doesn't sound like a very good technical solution. How would you know it was the only one, if you didn't investigate it, or have a qualified authority do so? I assume the person smashing the first camera with a maul is still being recorded on all the other cameras. The person who makes sure not to touch it, and reports it instead, would have a chance of actually discovering how many there were, who placed them, and if that person is still free.

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[sribe]

Newsflash, shotguns fire bullets, too, except they're called "slugs."

While that's true, I find it highly unlikely that a slug was used. These drones are mostly airspace with some skinny arms. It would be very hard to shoot one down with a slug.

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[swamp boy]

You're a dumbass. When you don't know what you're talking about just shut up.

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[swamp boy]

Regarding the type of firearm used in this case. It's a shotgun, not anything firing a "bullet".

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[sribe]

00 falling out of the sky not a hazard, but if he fired it at any sort of angle it likely was, if he fired it in a residential area (we know he did at least this) or a neighborhood the likelyhood of it being a risk goes up even higher

Agreed. There is a possibility that I'd consider it a hazard, depending on how it was done, and what was downrange. I'm only arguing against the knee-jerk reaction that automatically assumes it was totally reckless.

For instance, I live in a "neighborhood" of sorts. I can see my neighbors. But we're far enough apart, and in an unincorporated area, that it's perfectly legal for us to go shooting on our own property--within certain restrictions about distance from roads and direction of shot and backstop. I know that for many people, the idea that I can throw clays and shoot them perfectly legally in my back yard is absolutely mind-blowing, but yep, I can. (Also varmints...)

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[ScentCone]

Except, they guy said he shot it while it was hovering IN his back yard. Not high overhead, not even high. "IN" his back yard.

Hint: also illegal to operate in close proximity to people, especially people who are on their own property, and don't want it there...)

Actually no, no it's not. Toy model aircraft aren't subject to any such law, FAA-wise. Yet, at least. If anything, we're talking about good old fashioned reckless endangerment, which has nothing to do with model aircraft in particular, but could be a charge in such a case (just like it would be if they were throwing lawn darts over the fence, or hit somebody in the head with a stray baseball).

The FAA has guidance about such matters. But flying a toy around like that has absolutely zero FAA restrictions in and of itself, with regard to people on the ground. It's likely to be a different story when such a machine is used commercially, but again, zero relevance in this case.

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

He mentioned nothing about shooting it. He just said "harming".

The word 'harming' was used as a substitute for was 'shoot'. Sorry.

Once again, it is so obviously pathetic how people twist arguments to fit some agenda of theirs, such as gun control.

Straw man. Here, I'll show you the bit from the article you're intentionally ignoring: "Merideth was arrested and charged with first degree criminal mischief and first degree wanton endangerment."

There's a law there, and there's a damned good reason that law is there. In fact if you read a little further...

It wasn't long before the drone's owners appeared.

"Four guys came over to confront me about it, and I happened to be armed, so that changed their minds," Merideth said.

"They asked me, 'Are you the S-O-B that shot my drone?' and I said, 'Yes I am,'" he said. "I had my 40mm Glock on me and they started toward me and I told them, 'If you cross my sidewalk, there's gonna be another shooting.'

Oh lookie at that, a clear example of why that law is in place, all neatly wrapped up in the topic at hand.

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[lgw]

IR seekers are really easy to make and it's a fun robotics project. Simple to do with analog controls even (the principle is so easy it was highly classified for years). Launch your rocket into the Sun every time.

Tracking a specific target instead of the brightest heat source is much, much harder, but if the drone is the only dark spot in the field of view of the camera, that should be do-able. Fun to try, anyhow.

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[wired_parrot]

This was already decided by the US supreme court as 500ft above your property. See Griggs v. Allegheny County (1962). Air rights over your property are a clearly defined and old concept - it was already established in medieval roman law. They're an established form of property rights, so much so that in many locales air rights over one's property can be sold for substantial sums. NYC developers in particular have been keen in acquiring property air rights.

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[lgw]

This is why there are different states! Intelligent people can disagree on such issues - go live in a state whose laws you agree with. Trying to force your personal idea of what's rght on everyone everywhere is totalitarianism (with a large dose of intellectual arrogance).

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[PraiseBob]

If a guy is stealing your car, would you just watch him and let him do it? Or, you could threaten him with the gun, but both you and him know that you can't legally pull the trigger? So he continues to steal your car, and you can't do anything at all to defend your property??

That's very strange to me. But, I live in Texas, and I fully support defending property with lethal force. In Texas, we teach kids at ages 2-4 the concept of mine and yours. There will always be some people who fail to grasp that concept, and they can legally be exterminated.

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[bored_lurker]

Are you sure about that? From the FAA website:

The FAA permits aircraft operations below 500 feet when flown over open water and in sparsely populated areas. 14 CFR 91.119(c). Such operations may not be conducted “closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.” Id. Therefore, although such low-altitude operations may pose a lower risk to aircraft flying much higher, the operation may still pose a risk to persons and property on the ground warranting enforcement action when conducted unsafely. See, e.g., Adm’r v. Kachalsky, NTSB Order No. EA-4847, 2000 WL 1072332 (July 24, 2000) (affirming a violation of 91.119(c) for operating within 500 feet of a dwelling in a sparsely populated area); Adm’r v. Beissel, NTSB Docket No. SE-19436, 2013 WL 7809754 (Dec. 11, 2014)

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[blang]

Eh, no, but if I found a spy cam in my shower, I would have no qualms against smashing it with a hammer and tossing it. Which would be the more appropriate analogy. The peeping Tom may bring the police for me destrying his property but I don't think I'm the one who would be going to jail. People with Drones need to be careful and respect other folks privacy, and failoing to do so, they shoud expect people to shoot them down, and consider themselves lucky not to be procecuted. It is enough with the NSA spying on everybody. Don't need a sky full of peeping tom drones.

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[MooseTick]

"Trying to force your personal idea of what's rght on everyone everywhere is totalitarianism "

Yeah, states should be able to decide for themselves whether discrimination, murder, owning personal nukes, selling meth to children, and rape are acceptable.

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[Mr D from 63]

I never said fire your gun. To a device, I don't think it matters if it is shot or bashed with a bat. It may make a difference if we were talking about a person though. I wouldn't bash a human trespasser with a bat either. I kind of differentiate between humans and devices when it comes to what crosses the line.

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[Joce640k]

I like your condition: "sufficiently elevated"

What if it's not?

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[Joce640k]

Sure, it was a shotgun *this* time. What about next time?

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[Joce640k]

How do you know it wasn't buckshot?

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[LiENUS]

They fly low to the ground and most of them move pretty slowly anything inside of a hundred yards will be pretty easy to hit with a slug.

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

I never said fire your gun. To a device, I don't think it matters if it is shot or bashed with a bat.

You are talking about discharging a firearm inside your home without thinking about who is in the next room.

This right here neatly sums up the issue I have with using guns to deal with drones: Lack of consideration about the environment you're in when firing a weapon. Everybody is annoyed with drones, and since they have proven to be physically dangerous they are rightfully so, but nobody around here is stopping to think: "Gee, I wonder if I'm really okay with a yokel from Kentucky running outside with his gun every time he sees something hovering?"

Honestly, I expected a lot better from this site.

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[Jason Levine]

I completely agree. A large net is completely unrealistic. Now, an incredibly huge flyswatter... that might work.

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[tompaulco]

deadly force should only be used to defend people, not stuff.

How come it is okay for criminals to use deadly force to take your stuff, but not okay for you to use deadly force to keep your stuff?
What about the fact that criminals will often kill you anyway even if you let them have your stuff? Do you wait until after they have killed you before shooting back?

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[tompaulco]

So he should have gotten a large net that is used to catch bats, wait for the owner to show up wanting it back to get their identification? The alternative is to call the cops and say there is a drone flying over your property. By the time they get out there, would it even be there, much less would they be able to do anything about it?

The police would say "stop wasting our time. Next time just shoot it down."

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[bhcompy]

One item you excluded is that "physical force" does *not* included deadly force. Deadly force is defined in 503.010 (1), and is distinct and separate from 503.010 (4) which defines physical force.

Except there can't be deadly force executed on something that can't be killed. I bet the courts will ultimately rule that the drone is a person by proxy in this regard. These are monumental violations of private property and privacy. I don't know if Kentucky has recording consent laws, but in many states you cannot be recorded in a place of expected privacy without explicit permission from both parties.

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[Mr D from 63]

You are so focused on the gun aspect, you completely fail to miss the point to which I was commenting, that is the comparison involving humans vs. devices as somehow being similar.

I see you are fixated on the gun. Once again, it is irrelevant to my point. Rant away.....

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[BronsCon]

Most Americans are rednecks like this, nor are most gun owners

I'm just guessing, based on the part after the comma, that you meant "Most Americans are not rednecks like this"?

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[BronsCon]

I think you fell victim to a typo. I'm pretty sure he meant "Most Americans are not rednecks like this"; the second clause in that sentence simply states that most gun owners are, likewise, not rednecks. I had to read it a few times to parse it properly, as well, because of the typo but, once you've done that, the meaning becomes quite clear.

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[Bob the Super Hamste]

That would be the correct parsing. Sometimes my brain gets ahead of my typing and I miss a word and even upon rereading I will read that word in where it doesn't exist.

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[tompaulco]

If a drone is hovering "in" your suburban back yard, then shooting it with a shotgun is wildly inappropriate, because you're shooting at an angle barely above the horizontal. We also have no idea if the guy's toy copter was hovering "over" his yard, or just near it. It's much more difficult than most people think to gauge a small quadcopter's actual position over objects on the ground. I've yet to meet anyone who hasn't personally operated a given machine for many, many hours who was ever correct about that sort of thing.

Well, the drone owner showed up at his house to retrieve it, so it was in the yard enough to fall in the yard when it got shot. I'm surprised the drone owner showed up. You would think he would take his lumps for his illegal spying and be thankful it only cost him a drone and not jail time.

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[tompaulco]

So the shooter will have to prove that the firing of his weapon was "immediately necessary" to prevent the trespass, and he would have to prove that the pilot *knew* he was trespassing.

How could he possibly NOT know that he was trespassing? As soon as his drone left his own yard he was trespassing. Is stupidity now an excuse for disobeying the law?

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

The gun is both a critical ingredient to this story and to the point that you specifically responded to. This is not craziness on my part, it is specifically why the man in Kentucky got into trouble.

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[bkr1_2k]

By definition it's not "OK for criminals to use deadly force to take your stuff". That makes it a crime.

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[bkr1_2k]

For the record, you can't generally do that in "neighborhoods" either. No state I know of allows legal discharge of firearms within 200 feet of a home (less than 2 acres in size) except in defense of your life. You can't just hunt ducks from your porch if you have neighbors within several hundred yards of you no matter what kind of ammo you use.

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[BronsCon]

Been there, done that. Even after proofreading several times, passing the text to my wife for proofreading and having her point out the missing word, and reading it again myself, I'll still "see" the word there until she literally points at where the missing word should be. Quite a number of times I've proofread a post before posting, only to read it a week later (after I've forgotten the exact wording I intended to use) and catch the missing word. The brain is funny like that.

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[BronsCon]

Wrong. You have no expectation of privacy from satellites in their planned orbits or aircraft flying their FAA-approved routes over your property, but you still have expectation of privacy from people and their toys that have no business being there.

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[BronsCon]

Indeed, and that would also have been the reasonable response to the drone had it been within that range, as well. Failing that, a longer-range approach is necessary.

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[irving47]

No, the closest analog to this would be the stranger *hopping a 6 foot privacy fence* and approaching the family members.
In this case, he circumvented reasonable privacy expectations with the 'copter.

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[Mr D from 63]

Again, it has nothing to do with my point, which was harming an object vs harming a person, which was central to the OPs point. The OPs point had nothing to do with where the gun was fired, or peripheral damage, neither did mine.

If it makes you feel better, I also recommend not shooting a gun indoors. But I think most folks already know that.

Re: "...the same as trespassing."

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Kentucky man knows buckshot is the wrong load for drone-hunting (there's a reason it's called "buck"-shot).

Unsubstantiated assumption. Honestly you don't really want to go into what Kentuckians do or don't know. If your argument only works if only the best most experienced shooters are the ones that step up and take out drones you're not on a particularly stable foundation.

There is no "reckless endangerment"

Really? Shooting your gun when you're not supposed to isn't reckless endangerment?

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[mbeckman]

Jazzharper,

But he wasn't shooting at a person, hence not using deadly force. He was protecting his family from n imminent threat, which a drone most certainly is. Drone blades have killed people. No different than pushing a falling tree out of the way. I think the charges will be dropped.

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Fair enough. We're fine on that part. I'm not against damaging the drone, though I will say I'm not a fan of an uncontrolled fall.

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[marvinglenn]

What if it's not?

Then it will be a velocity slower than terminal (falling) velocity.

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[lgw]

Wait, what's this slope I'm sliding down? Where did this come from? It sure is slippery!

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[thesupraman]

You come out after a night with some friends in town, its dark and you wander over to your car in teh parking lot. The key doesnt seem to work well, and you just cannot get the damn door to unlock!

Unknown to you, your car is actually one row over, this just happens to be the same colour/model.
The real owner, angry after a run-in earlier that evening, arrives behind you, sees you 'trying to steal his car' and shoots you. Dead.
Police are called, but several people saw you trying to break in to his car.. He kind of feels bad, but hell, you shouldnt have been trying
to steal his damn car!

Have a nice day.

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[thesupraman]

And if he climbed over that fence because some crazed nutter was chasing him with a gun and he was trying to run away?

Or perhaps he is the new neighbor and his kids favorite toy had got over the fence - he had tried to knock on your door (you didnt hear),
so he thought you were out and didnt want to cause a bother and just get it.

Dont worry, his wife and children should be quite happy after you explain it was just an accident.

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[KGIII]

In many rural areas they have an exception for a gun firing shot. They are much slower and heavier rounds or much smaller rounds and do not travel as far as those fired from a rifle. Handguns, also slower and sometimes heavier, are also prohibited but that is for a different reason I suspect.

Many areas no longer have this exemption but a number still do. As a bit of a hobbyist I have looked into the laws in a variety of places where I have spent time. They do not usually advertise this exemption any more but the exemption is *maybe* still on the books.

Re: "...the same as trespassing."

[wonkey_monkey]

Can it be jammed?

The legal answer to that, is, I believe, a resounding and near-universal "no," for any value of "it."

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[KGIII]

I do not have rock salt loads. If I shoot someone my goal is not to hurt them. No, that is not my goal at all. I would much rather not shoot anyone, however. Having been shot at and returned fire in an active combat zone was not something I enjoyed. I would take no pleasure in taking someone's life but, if I am shooting at someone my goal is certainly not to cause them pain.

My primary defensive weapon is just a Mark II in .22lr because I am more than comfortable firing more than once and will be willing to load an additional magazine if required. I really do not want to scare my neighbor's wife - she cleans my house. I also do not anticipate missing, life is not like movies where you dodge bullets. I am a fine shot because I practice regularly and maintain my skills.

Really though, it is like throwing rocks at an intruder. We have done so since age immemorial. Today we just throw rocks a little faster and a little more accurately.

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[KGIII]

I have seen the text we type here. The last thing I am doing is accepting porn advice from Slashdotters.

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[amicusNYCL]

How come it is okay for criminals to use deadly force to take your stuff

It's OK for criminals to use deadly force to take your stuff? Jesus Christ, we should pass a law making that illegal.

Re: "...the same as trespassing."

[Nethemas the Great]

You must be scared out of your mind when it rains or snows. How do you sleep at night? Do you have a hardened bunker for when it hails?

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[thegarbz]

Well yes, stop it. Hold it and turn it over to police. Do you often destroy evidence in a way that sees yourself up for property damage while at the same time removing your ability to prove the other part acted improperly?

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[Rick Zeman]

It wasn't long before the drone's owners appeared.

"Four guys came over to confront me about it, and I happened to be armed, so that changed their minds," Merideth said.

"They asked me, 'Are you the S-O-B that shot my drone?' and I said, 'Yes I am,'" he said. "I had my 40mm Glock on me and they started toward me and I told them, 'If you cross my sidewalk, there's gonna be another shooting.'

Oh lookie at that, a clear example of why that law is in place, all neatly wrapped up in the topic at hand.

That's not reckless endangerment. That's warning four miscreants to not trespass with the intent of doing bodily harm. Warnings like that are actually encouraged.

The reckless endangerment is from firing a shotgun in a residential neighborhood.

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[swillden]

They have the right. Doesn't mean they choose well.

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[swillden]

Most states allow deadly force for forcible felonies, and include burglary. The rationale there is that the house may not be empty, and so there may be human lives at risk. It's a reasonable choice.

So, in Missouri, not only can you shoot someone for simply breaking into your house while you're home, after January 1, 2017, you can also shoot them in the back as they run away.

This is even more wrong.

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[epyT-R]

A drone is not a person.

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[swillden]

If a guy is stealing your car, would you just watch him and let him do it? Or, you could threaten him with the gun, but both you and him know that you can't legally pull the trigger? So he continues to steal your car, and you can't do anything at all to defend your property??

I can use non-lethal force. There are lots of options available.

But, no, I will not kill a man to stop him from taking my stuff. I have insurance. The situation changes dramatically if my kid is in the back seat, of course.

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

I was explaining why, in context, the law matters. Not explaining why he was charged.

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[swillden]

Texans have the right to make their laws. But killing over replaceable stuff is morally reprehensible, and I have the right to say Texas is wrong.

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[swillden]

Not true, Indiana allows deadly force in defense of property, and there is no duty to retreat. And it includes your vehicle when away from home.

Cite?

I think you're talking about Indiana's Castle Doctrine law, which gives you the right to assume that you're threatened with death if someone breaks into your house or car (some states also include place of business). But the authorization is for self-defense, not defense of property. The Castle Doctrine just means that the law automatically assumes that you were at risk of death or serious injury in those locations, and you don't have to justify it.

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[swillden]

Post away, I'll read it, and argue with you about what it means.

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[Drakonblayde]

Idjuts who try to respond with non-lethal force often find that the other side isnt always that considerate.

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[Darinbob]

Except that this wasn't murder. It's more like the equivalent of pushing the stranger out of your yard against his will, maybe resorting to a few punches. But there's no way to push the drone away so you resort to some property damage to something that's on your own property.

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[swillden]

Idjuts who try to respond with non-lethal force often find that the other side isnt always that considerate.

I deploy pepper spray with my off hand, strong hand on my handgun.

Re: "...the same as trespassing."

[mysidia]

If someone throws a ball onto (or over) your property, is that person tresspassing?

If they intentionally threw it over, then it is an infringement. If they threw it over and they broke something, then they are responsible to pay for damages.

If they threw a ball onto your property then ran onto your property to attempt to go retrieve it, THEN they are trespassing, especially if they went over a fence or other obstructions at your perimeter to walk onto your property.

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[mysidia]

I can use non-lethal force. There are lots of options available.

If you use non-lethal force, then the criminal can respond with lethal force, OR force that would require you to use lethal force in order to defend your life.

A claim of Self-Defense does not protect you from criminal prosecution in that case ---- if you instigated the threat against yourself by attempting non-lethal force, Then the option of claiming self-defense is no longer available, So this is even worse.... you would be putting yourself in danger with no lawful option to use lethal force if the criminal changes his mind and decides to kill.

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[mysidia]

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.

Not really.....

An otherwise law abiding person who shoots an intruder/invader that is definitely a criminal thief/vandal who was wrecking their life or making it not possible for them to enjoy their property/life for fear of everything being taken away definitely doesn't belong in jail.

To say otherwise is valuing the criminal's living state above their victims' lives.

A huge percentage of the people who would be willing to confront you and you need to defend property against are people who are also likely to take somebody's life.

It's much better for the criminal's life to be in danger and victims in their own home to have all possible self-help options legal and available, as this provides a stronger deterrent against committing crimes in the first place.

Re: "...the same as trespassing."

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

And who said he's not supposed to?

The law.

When exactly is one "supposed" to shoot their gun?

When it is not against the law.

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[JazzHarper]

You're missing the point. His stated justification was that he dealt with the drone the same way that he would deal with a trespasser.

Re: "...the same as trespassing."

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

The law, specifically the one he violated.

Re: "...the same as trespassing."

[hambone142]

Using that logic, I guess a feather could kill us.

*In a vacuum", you idiot.

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[cas2000]

> If a guy is stealing your car, would you just watch him and let
> him do it?
you know what would be far more useful in that situation than a gun?

any reasonably modern phone with a camera. take a picture of the thief and call the police. the thief will probably give up and try to run away before the cops arrive.

> There will always be some people who fail to grasp that concept,
> and they can legally be exterminated.

fucking gun nuts always make up stupid excuses to "justify" their fantasy desire to murder other people.

creep back to your basement and masturbate over your gun-porn stash.

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[Joce640k]

We're supposed to take ballistics advice from somebody who can't spell "lose"?

What if my newborn baby is out on the porch? Do I really want the neighbors randomly shooting birdshot up in the sky?

Birdshot landing in my picnic? Don't want that, either.

In fact I don't want birdshot landing anywhere near me. Something doesn't have to be deadly for me to not want the neighbors firing it at me.

Re: "...the same as trespassing."

[ImprovOmega]

High powered laser to the camera. Burn the CCD into uselessness.

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[ImprovOmega]

Not from a shotgun, unless you were firing a slug or possibly buckshot. Birdshot fired up in the air will never ever be lethal when it falls back down.

Re: "...the same as trespassing."

[Stubbyfingers]

Have you BEEN to Kentucky? You'd know the answer to that rhetorical question.

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[rabun_bike]

You can shoot people in Georgia for entering your home but not just for crossing over your property line unless they are threatening you in some way with bodily harm.

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[cwsumner]

... But deadly force should only be used to defend people, not stuff.

That is a common philosophy, but it is philosophy not law or even morality.
Many people believe that deadly force is justified, morally at least, to protect property.
The alternative is to allow criminals to steal anything that they can escape quickly with, and there is no way to stop them.
That may not be practical.

Besides, I put part of my soul into much of what I have. The one who steals it steals part of me.

Re: "...the same as trespassing."

[baristabrian]

First of all, let me get this out of the way: Fuck you. Ok. Now, the nicer and more intelligent reasoning. First of all, *you* don't know some things. Like, what child molesters and perverts are like. Maybe some sick fucker wanking while watching *your* little girls doesn't bother *you.* And, I suppose, maybe, if the twisted bastard doesn't actually *touch* your daughters or expose himself while actually ejaculating, then I can see why *you* might feel no harm is done and, hence, it is in *your* mind a "victimless" crime---if at all. But, in which case, the protective dad (whom I support fully) just pays for the damage to the drone and, hence, no harm is done. And a message is sent: "violate *our* privacy and your fucking drone is going down." Just saying. Of course, having worked as a correctional officer (for 17 years at Walla Walla) and seeing my share of transcripts from trials (I doubt you, in your ignorance, have *any* clue how sick some of these sex offenders are and just how horribly some of their *very* young and vulnerable children have been violated), like I said, I can sympathize more with the man shooting the drone than the owner of the drone---who *might* not be a pedophile, but just "curious."

Re: "...the same as trespassing."

[baristabrian]

"Yeah, PEOPLE should be able to decide for themselves ..." FTFY. Yes, that was the other persons point. You disagree. So feel free to go hang out with *other* people who, similarly, don't want to recognize certain rights. I'm sure all of *your* kind will get along just peachy! ðY

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[markdavis]

>"But deadly force should only be used to defend people, not stuff."

What about pets? Seems to me there are more than just two categories. Would you consider them "stuff" or "people"?

I know if I believed someone were seriously threatening bodily harm for one of my cats in my house or on my property, I would view that as no different than a threatening a family member. It is a live entity that I love and cannot be replaced.

Just curious...

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[Swave An deBwoner]

Why would you want to destroy the evidence instead of using it to file criminal charges against whoever put it there?

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[lucien86]

At least one real problem with shooting a drone out of the sky is that if you penetrate the battery it could become a fire or explosion hazard.

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[lucien86]

Even if they were navigating by camera, those cameras tend to be wide angle and relatively low resolution and there's a heck of a lot of information to process at once... I highly doubt they even saw the shotgun..

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[lucien86]

Or an asshole takes one to an airport and brings down something like a 747 or just does tens of millions worth of property damage...

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[TheRealLifeboy]

No, dufus! A drone is not a person. If a stranger with a camera breaks into your property (since you have six foot fence to keep him out), you rip out the SD card or delete his pictures...

Re: "...the same as trespassing."

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

No, there isn't. Perhaps if the drone had a weapon of some sort self-defense might apply.

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[TheCarp]

Ok well, I support changing this expectation. I personally do feel a person has the basic right to protect his privacy and the courts have made a grievous error in this. In fact, I would go so far as to say if flying drones and satellites became impossible because of the required permissions from every possible effected person....then so be it....small price to pay for privacy.

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[TheCarp]

This. We are not talking about assaulting a person; we are talking about assaulting his property which he has placed in an area that clearly is invading your privacy. If he snuck into your yard and placed a camera on a tripod, would we have as much debate? I see no real difference between planting a camera with tripod in someone's yard, and hovering a camera overhead with fan blades.

I see no reason why such property deserves any such protection. He put his camera in their yard, they fucked up his camera. They were not wrong to do so in my eyes.

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[fuzzy2k]

No. This is why we have slingshots. Firearms are not really a wise choice in most residential neighborhoods. Dennis the Menace would have done this easily and skated almost any negative consequences. Firing a gun to deal with a drone seems plain stupid.

Re:"...the same as trespassing."

[Aighearach]

I would go so far as to say if flying drones and satellites became impossible because of the required permissions from every possible effected person....then so be it....small price to pay for privacy.

Sure, sure, take over the world, institute Global Government, and enforce that law.

There is no realistic way to stop satellites. And the resolution will improve.

Drones, well, in my State we have direct democracy and the people could change the rules if it becomes seen as a problem. I'm assuming it will come up soon as prices come down and flight control improves. But there won't be any way to stop people from flying vertically over their own property to film yours. Rights are a two way street, it isn't your business if your neighbor is into photography and likes to photograph what is visible from their property. But banning them from flying over residential fence lines is likely, at least in some places.

Tall hedges and plentiful shade trees might help with both problems. Prevention works whenever you can make it work. Privacy isn't expected, it is only achieved. Or not.

Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[McGruber]

Here's a key detail from the article:

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. VanMeter has a 16-year-old daughter who lays out at their pool. She says a drone hovering with a camera is creepy and weird. "I just think you should have privacy in your own backyard," she said.

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[Anonymous Coward]

What's unreasonable about expecting privacy when on your own property?

Are you suggesting that it's totally acceptable for somebody to fly a drone into your bathroom, where it then videos you urinating, defecating and showering?

Are you also suggesting that it's totally acceptable for somebody to fly a drone into your bedroom, where it then videos you engaging in sexual encounters?

I hope that is not what you are saying, because the idea of having one's privacy violated like that is disgusting.

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[s.petry]

Do we really have to explain to you the difference between a neighbor looking over a fence and a remote controlled camera (drone)in your yard? No, we don't and you can figure out the differences without help.

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[Virtucon]

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.

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[BronsCon]

A neighbor you can ask to respect your privacy, then escalate as necessary until they do (which, in most cases, means asking again a little more strongly, but sometimes means yelling, arguing, or calling the police; extremely rarely does it mean shooting them and, when it does, it usually and rightly means prison time for the shooter). A drone, not so much. Because you can't initiate civil discourse with a drone and escalate as necessary, it becomes acceptable to employ whatever measure is necessary to remove the unauthorized recording device from our property. If it is flying too high or darting around too much for you to swat it out of the sky, your only recourse is to shoot it down. With the added benefit that you know it won't be back.

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[Anonymous Coward]

You should really learn what shotgun shot will do before posting such a stupid assertion like that. At 100ft that shot has lost so much force that it wouldn't penetrate flesh. No way in hell it would hurt a house or person on it's return trip to the ground.

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[sycodon]

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.

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[Calydor]

But what if the drone has to go up over a six foot solid fence in order to get that view? Most people can't just look over a fence that high, so it would be the equivalent of propping a beer crate against the fence, stepping onto it, and looking over the fence. That is no longer clear view.

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[Noah Haders]

Here's a key detail from the article:

there are actually a number of juicy details in the article:

It wasn't long before the drone's owners appeared.

"Four guys came over to confront me about it, and I happened to be armed, so that changed their minds," Merideth said.

hmm, sounds a little aggressive...

"They asked me, 'Are you the S-O-B that shot my drone?' and I said, 'Yes I am,'" he said. "I had my 40mm Glock on me and they started toward me and I told them, 'If you cross my sidewalk, there's gonna be another shooting.'"

ok that's very aggressive.

"Because our rights are being trampled daily," he said. "Not on a local level only - but on a state and federal level."

why did he have to bring the tea party into this?

He was booked into the Bullitt County Detention Center, and released on Monday.

how appropriate!

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[Bob the Super Hamste]

No but that neighbor getting hit with a blast of water from the hose would be expected. Then again in my world the drone would have likely faced a similar fate from the garden hose.

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[Coren22]

Was the neighbor carrying a video camera and filming your daughters? Did the neighbor return after being waved off?

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[Anonymous Coward]

The "curtains" were drawn in this case: the guy had a fence, for crying out loud. Much like a curtain limits the visibility through a window, a fence limits the visibility of a portion of a yard.

By flying over the fence, the drone did the same as pulling back the curtain on a window prior to engaging in its filthy violation of privacy.

There is at least one video of a drone firing a handgun. If a drone can do that, then a drone could just as easily push aside a curtain over a window, and it could just as easily break the window, too. For all we know, it could even break through walls.

Being able to penetrate a curtain or a fence or walls or some other privacy measure does not mean that the act of violating one's privacy is now acceptable.

The fact that the drone flew over the fence that was meant to provide privacy in this case makes this violation of privacy so much worse.

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[Coren22]

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.

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[gstoddart]

Ignore the above, the Glock 40 is what he was open carrying, he did in fact use a shotgun on the drone.

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[aaaaaaargh!]

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.

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[countach74]

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.

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[gstoddart]

The article says 40mm Glock - that is a damn big pistol

Which could only be a typo, or a gun carrier who doesn't understand bullet sizing. And I'm going to assume the guy from Kentucky doing open carry knew what he had, in which case, just blame the reporter.

A 40mm bullet would be just over 1.5" in diameter... that would be an enormous round, and probably not something you could fire from a man-portable weapon.

A frigging .50 cal is a half inch in diameter, so that would be 3x the size.

A 40mm bullet? No way.

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[jellomizer]

So his mistake is he didn't arm himself with a pressure washer.

Of course that would be more of an interesting story, if he shot it with a pressure washer and took it out.

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[ArmoredDragon]

Firing a weapon in a populated area except in defense of life and limb is a colossally stupid idea

Shotgun pellets don't have a lethal return velocity, unlike a bullet. If he was firing upwards at a drone, then nobody else was in danger. I've been peppered by falling shotgun pellets while hunting once (many people have,) it's just like somebody dropped a bunch of BBs on your head from 10 feet up.

and patently against the law

No, it's not. It depends on where you live. Not every town has ordinances against that, and those that do have certain guidelines for where it is permissible (for example, an indoor or outdoor firing range that meets certain parameters.)

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[SecurityGuy]

Seriously. 40mm isn't a pistol, it's closer to artillery.

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[jimbolauski]

If he was shooting bird shot it certainly can't do much damage when it is falling down unless a person was looking up in the direction it landed and hit them in the eye. Buck shot is a little larger and would probably leave a bruise but I doubt it could penetrate the skin as it was falling down. That being said there are very good reasons why shooting firearms in residential areas is against the law.

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[ArmoredDragon]

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.

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[mpercy]

"Private landowners retain their right to exclusive use of the airspace for the reasonable enjoyment of their property up to 500 feet above their lands.[3]"

FAA airspace begins above 500 feet. No shotgun will knock down a drone at 500 ft, so the drone must have been below that, probably more like 50 feet, well within the "exclusive" zone.

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[slew]

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...

Re: Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[Opportunist]

You have a reasonable expectation that nobody but your second floor neighbors can watch you. That difference is important. You know your neighbors. And even if you don't know for sure that they won't stand at their window and masturbate to you lying next to your pool, it's fairly unlikely due to you easily being able to identify them and throw the book at them.

It's a bit different with random strangers walking by your property. Not only does it multiply the chance of getting a pervert, they are also fairly sure they can get away with perving on you if you don't happen to know them.

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[Opportunist]

No. Might be different with some stranger.

If you can't see the difference, I'm sorry for you. Get out of your basement from time to time.

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[menkhaura]

Are you this dumb on purpose?

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[FlyHelicopters]

Technology has made it less obtrusive than erecting a ladder to peek into an upper-story window or over a fence.

Actually, that is illegal most places, they are called peeping Tom laws.

No, you can't put up a ladder to look over a fence into someone's bedroom window.

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[FlyHelicopters]

they started toward me and I told them, 'If you cross my sidewalk, there's gonna be another shooting.'"

Bless him... Too many people think they can do whatever they want...

The drone operator was probably not even considering the risks of approaching a man who just used a gun to shoot his drone out of the sky. Idiot.

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[gstoddart]

"They asked me, 'Are you the S-O-B that shot my drone?' and I said, 'Yes I am,'" he said. "I had my 40mm Glock on me and they started toward me and I told them, 'If you cross my sidewalk, there's gonna be another shooting.'"

ok that's very aggressive.

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.

"Because our rights are being trampled daily," he said. "Not on a local level only - but on a state and federal level."

why did he have to bring the tea party into this?

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.

Re: Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[Overzeetop]

You think the pilot *wasn't* a neighbor?

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[citizenr]

16-year-old daughter

is a perfectly legal booty in MANY european countries, USians are just weird.

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[gweihir]

You can fire 40mm projectiles from a man-portable weapon, see for example grenade-launchers. Of course, the projectile-velocities are a bit different from ordinary bullets or firing these things would probably kill the shooter...

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[MBGMorden]

It says he shot it down with a shotgun. Unlike a bullet from a rifle or handgun, most small-diameter shotgun loads (ie, "birdshot") are designed to be fired into the air at flying targets - either birds or clay pigeons (skeet). Their mass is low enough that it doesn't hurt anything when it comes back down. I've been pelted by shot from other hunters while out hunting and while a bit disconcerting, it doesn't even sting.

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[EndlessNameless]

You're only right if hail and buckshot have the same density. And similar shapes. Different density, different shape = different terminal velocity. Their densities are different, therefore you are wrong.

Plus, it is possible for people or property to be struck before it slows to terminal velocity.

The combination of a fence line and ~5 neighbors seeing the drone mean he's in a developed residential area so he shouldn't be shooting unless there is a clear, urgent threat to his health and safety. A drone might be creepy and worrisome, but the correct response is not to start shooting.

Call the police or the FAA, and let them explain to the owner that drones are not supposed to be flown over buildings.

From TFA, the FAA says that drones cannot fly over buildings and that it's dangerous to shoot at them. So both parties are in the wrong---but only one guy acted dangerously, and that's the guy shooting things out of the sky in a residential area.

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[Virtucon]

Good point but then in thinking about it I would suggest NNS, Neighborhood Nuclear Superiority, to arbitrate these intrusions into personal space; especially in the back yard.

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[fahrbot-bot]

Ya, because if *anyone* is going to look at 16-year-old girls laying out by their backyard pools in Kentucky, it's going to be their dads with shotguns. 'Cause, that's not creepy at all.

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[taustin]

I actually hope the guy who shot it down just gets a small fine and let go.

I'd much rather see the jury demand to know why the victim, and not the four perps, is being prosecuted, with a not guilty verdict. Considering where this took place, it's possible.

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[Xenx]

"ready or likely to attack or confront;" or "pursuing one's aims and interests forcefully, sometimes unduly so." He directly threatened them with potentially lethal force if they stepped on his property. I'm not saying he was/wasn't within his rights, but he definitely was aggressive.

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[RingDev]

Or an under barrel mounted grenade launcher. check out the M-203 :)

-Rick

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[CrimsonAvenger]

Plus, it is possible for people or property to be struck before it slows to terminal velocity.

Not if you're aiming at a drone more or less directly overhead. It'll slow down on the way up, and then accelerate back up to...terminal velocity on the way back down.

Re: Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[Anonymous Coward]

And even if you don't know for sure that they won't stand at their window and masturbate to you lying next to your pool...

I'm an advocate for individual privacy and I support the shooter's actions in this story. However this fear of yours is a strange reason to defend privacy. In what way does this harm you? I suppose it would spoil the view, if they were in plain sight. But if they are discreet, who cares what other people look at or think about while they jerk-off?

Even if it bothers you, there isn't any practical way to stop it. Now if you will excuse me, I'm going to go spank it while reading the Opportunists posting history.

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[gfxguy]

So? That has nothing to do with it. You think it's less creepy for nerds to spy on a 17 or 18 year old with a drone?

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[Anonymous Coward]

40mm Glock? Surely he meant .40 S&W Glock? Or 40mm Bofors? Because I'd like a 40mm handgun but you know, the recoil...

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[nehumanuscrede]

So I'm curious what your approach would be.

Call the police ? Tell them a drone is flying over your home and won't leave ? What do you expect their response will be when you can't tell them who is piloting it ?

And like I stated in another response, firing on a drone over a populated area is no more / less stupid than FLYING said drone over the same populated area. Especially if you're using it to circumvent privacy laws and spy on others.

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[chilenexus]

The problem with jamming devices is that there is no way of restricting the area affected by them to the limits of your property. That's one of the reasons the FCC regulates stuff like that. You wouldn't be too happy if your neighbors installed cell phone jammers to protect themselves from phones' dangerous EM radiation, would you? In this case, I think a paintball gun or laser pointer would be more appropriate. Shooting off firearms in a residential area when there's otherwise no violent actions going on is a recipe for things escalating to Hatfield/McCoy levels.

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[musterion]

No, but a paintball gun might be apprpriopriate. Or a supersoaker.

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[RingDev]

Depending on state and local ordinances, it may also fall under Aerial Trespass, the laws typically used to force telephone/cable/power companies to run their lines under ground or around property lines.

-Rick

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[mwehle]

Anyone flies a drone over *my* house, I'm taking it out with an M203.

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[EndlessNameless]

The FAA said not to fly drones above buildings at all, so even above 500 feet their behavior was probably not legal.

The legality of their behavior, however, isn't the only factor in determining whether discharging a gun is appropriate or legal.

There are lots of laws that can be broken without authorizing the use of a weapon in response.

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[Firethorn]

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.

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[meta-monkey]

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.

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[jedidiah]

> So if your dog wanders on my yard, I can shoot it.

        Of course you can. Uncontrolled dogs are dangerous. They even get plenty of media coverage. They kill small children and other dogs and sometimes are rabid.

>
> Making up stuff must be awesome. Skip the law school, bro. Just tell the judge how YOU think it works.

        That's no problem as long as you bother to educate yourself regarding what the local law is.

      Assuming that you have to assume the fetal position and re-attach yourself to the state umbilical cord is not the only option.

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[Talderas]

For comparison.....

The US used a 57mm towed anti-tank gun in WW2.

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[jedidiah]

40mm is the size of tube launched grenade that a soldier might have attached to an M-16.

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[michaelwigle]

Glock 40 uses 10mm ammunition. https://us.glock.com/products/...

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[tomhath]

Glock 40 is a .40 caliber weapon, bore is 0.40 inches. Silly editor thinks measurements should be in metric - sheesh.

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[DarkOx]

Plus, it is possible for people or property to be struck before it slows to terminal velocity.

No unless those persons and property were directly in the line of fire between you and drone, its not. Hint the acceleration due to gravity will be reducing the upward velocity of the shot until it reaches zero. At which point it will begin accelerating to terminal velocity on its way back down. Provide the angle of the gun to the ground is sufficient that nothing will be in the path of shot until it reaches its maximum height, than nothing can possible be struck at greater than terminal velocity.

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[mpercy]

Wasn't making a determination on the use of the shotgun. That's immaterial to disagreeing with the comment: "If it didn't land, then it's not in your yard. If it is flying then it is in FAA airspace." That statement is false with or without the shotgun, except in so far as the shotgun was useful in determining the probable altitude of the drone as almost certainly being below 500 feet.

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[ememisya]

Worst part:

"They didn’t confiscate the drone. They gave the drone back to the individuals," he said. "They didn’t take the SIM card out of itbut we’ve gotfive houses here that everyone saw it – they saw what happened, including the neighbors that were sitting in their patio when he flew down low enough to see under the patio."

IANAL
Now how is he supposed to prove his reasoning was justified? If they gave the drone back, what's stopping the owners from altering the data on it? His lawyers should move to dismiss, and it will indeed succeed but nothing good will come out of the result, unless he counter sues after winning the case.

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[DarkOx]

The four against one thing is kind of important too.

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[ememisya]

You gotta play it smart. You cannot fire a projectile weapon within city limits, sure. But what if you had a really long stick with a giant Mickey Mouse hand glued to it and you whacked it out of the air? That would be perfectly within his legal limits.

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[Aighearach]

Here's a key detail from the article:

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. VanMeter has a 16-year-old daughter who lays out at their pool. She says a drone hovering with a camera is creepy and weird. "I just think you should have privacy in your own backyard," she said.

What would she think if she knew that the Russians and Chinese have pictures of her sunbathing? And that numerous geologists and other scientists have their pool in aerial photos? And that the police fly over and look at their yard to see if they're growing weed? People are sure idiots. Outdoors isn't private.

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[ciaran2014]

I actually hope the guy who shot it down just gets a small fine and let go.

I hope he gets no fine. And the drone operator gets investigated for trespass, peeping tommery, or whatever other offenses exist to protect people's privacy.

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[McGruber]

Can you provide a citation for the quote you provided?

Helicopters are allowed to fly below 500 ft, per the following:

91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.

Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:

a. Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.

b. Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.

c. Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.

d. Helicopters. Helicopters may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph B or C of this section if the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface.

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[Shakrai]

No, that would still be destruction of property. The fact that it's on your property does not give you the right to destroy it. If the neighbor's kid kicks a soccer ball over your fence does that give you the right to slash it with a knife before you return it to them? Of course not.

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[Aighearach]

There is long and solid legal precedent. It doesn't matter if the curtains are drawn; they have to successfully block the view. Having tried isn't good enough. The curtains can be drawn but leave a tiny opening, and there is no expectation of privacy. Not only butt-dialing, but even neighbors climbing trees to see over the top of a curtain that only covered the part of the window visible from ground level. It is only "peeping" if they're standing in a place they're not supposed to stand.

The phrasing of the local law, if the drone is over private land and looking into a window to see naked people, that would actually violate the peeping law, and would be a sex crime. That is probably the only law that would be violated. But looking at naked people outdoors never would be peeping, because it is visible from other aircraft.

The implication is that your neighbor can only legally drone-peep your window with a telephoto while hovering over their own land. So if you're flying two houses down, you can only peep at the pool party.

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[Aighearach]

That is exactly clear view.

The legal example is a neighbor climbing a tree to see over your fence, and over the curtain that protected the ground-level view. That is legal. You have to successfully protect your privacy by blocking whatever "clear view" they might find. Having tried doesn't count.

Now, in many States if that beer crate is on the sidewalk, not your own property, or if you're trespassing on their property because it extends past the fence, then it becomes illegal "peeping." But it is never peeping just to climb a tree or beer crate to see in your neighbors window.

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[Theaetetus]

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.

Do you really need an explanation, considering you just shot down their drone?

Re: Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[Aighearach]

And not all passers-by; if they're 9ft tall, or riding on their friend's shoulders, they can look at whatever is in view. They may or may not be allowed to loiter on the sidewalk to do it, of course, depending on local law. It might even be illegal "peeping" if they're already violating the loitering law, too.

They can absolutely look over your fence as they parachute down to their landing zone outside your property, or fly over looking for weed growing in your yard.

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[Rakarra]

The drone operator was probably not even considering the risks of approaching a man who just used a gun to shoot his drone out of the sky. Idiot.

Well, he approached the man in the company of police. I think he was pretty safe at that point.

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[Rakarra]

Ah, never mind. They arrived separately.

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[Aighearach]

If you try to understand legal issues, or issues where the community standards are embodied in law, then yes, you really do need to have found out the differences with some sort of help, either from lawyers or from books.

There are differences, but none of them involve privacy. ;) (no, you have no expectation of privacy outdoors)

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[Rakarra]

Do you really need an explanation, considering you just shot down their drone?

That explains their presence. However, advancing onto his property requires much further explanation.

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[Aighearach]

Under 50' on private land isn't even regulated. There were numerous laws violated by various involved parties, but I really doubt that was one. Check the wording of the law to discover the other reasons.

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[Kierthos]

Generally speaking, the window would have to be open for a drone to move the curtains.

Perhaps you're thinking of shutters.

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[Rakarra]

I think you mean "it should be ILLEGAL to possess and use them in the appropriate circumstances (inappropriate circumstances?) such as a drone hovering over your backyard"... but then, you ARE American, aren't you...
And doubtless you write "COULD care less", instead of "couldN'T care less", because you don't understand what the word "not" means. Fucking American idiot.

Hey buddy, this is the Internet. I realize being a douchebag is a popular thing to do, but in the interests of all, please tone it down a bit. Your shit-posting isn't as appreciated as you might think it is, though doubtless that rant made you feel better about yourself.

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[Aighearach]

With the added benefit, you know it might be back because after being arrested for shooting it, you had to buy him a new one.

If there is some "unauthorized recording device," that is a tort claim. Hire a lawyer, and file a lawsuit. Taking the law into your own hands will not end well for you.

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[Aighearach]

I tried to wave off the Russian satellite that is also photographing his daughters, but it is still up there, flying over again and again and again.

Maybe his daughters aren't invisible outdoors, even on privately-owned land.

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[Rakarra]

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.

Most cops have better things to do than chase down UAVs and try to find the controller. You can call them, most won't care.

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[BronsCon]

I believe I said:

If it is flying too high or darting around too much for you to swat it out of the sky, your only recourse is to shoot it down.

Oh, yes, there it is. Well, if you can't corral the dog in some other fashion or shoo it off your property because, for example, it is taking an aggressive posture and is about to attack, in most places yes, you can. You do have a responsibility to exhaust any less harmful means you have at your disposal before doing so.

In the case of the drone, if it were hovering in one place and low enough to swat it down with a broom, and stayed in that position while you did so, then swatting it with a broom would be the proper course of action. If, however, it is flying too high, or darting from your attempts to swat it, well, your options for recourse are limited, aren't they? Should you just accept some perv snapping pedo-pics of your young daughters because the only recourse you have left is to shoot the damn thing down? No, you should shoot the damn thing down.

Likewise, if you can grab hold of the dog's collar, you can take control of the animal and walk it back to its owner, or corral it somewhere safe until the authorities arrive. If you can't do that, if the dog is posing no threat you can let it be and call animal control to deal with it or, if you know who the owner is, a more civil response would be to contact the owner and tell them they need to come get their dog *before* you call animal control. If all else fails *and* the animal is posing a threat, yes, shoot it.

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[Aighearach]

Actually, no. Liberals support the clear view doctrine, because it is established legal precedent.

The people crying about the children are just idiots. Don't try to dump them on us. Liberals support the right of photographers to do whatever weird shit is legal, even when it is disgusting.

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[electrosoccertux]

aggressive

yes, much better to be passive-aggressive. If they wanted to see the 16 year old girl at the swimming pool, perhaps they should have just gone up and talked to her? 16 year olds are generally friendly to new faces when you say hi. That would have been aggressive though, much better to use a drone to do the sneaking so you can see her without having to say hi in person.

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[Aighearach]

"shotgun" doesn't mean, "shotgun shell loaded with birdshot." Man, people are sure ignorant.

Dictionaries, people. Dictionaries. I thought nerds had all read the whole thing multiple times?

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[Rakarra]

You have no reasonable expectation of privacy if you have a window into your home that is viewable from a public location, and the curtains are not drawn

Are you saying that drone operators are changing the rules? Because this means that the space viewable from a "public location" just changed. Don't expect those rule changes to be gleefully accepted; you can expect a LOT of pushback.

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[gstoddart]

Do you really need an explanation, considering you just shot down their drone?

Starting with WTF was your drone with a camera doing hovering over my backyard taking pictures of my daughters, and moving on to why in hell shouldn't I be punching you, and advancing to why the hell should you expect to come on my property without me shooting you ...

Yes, absolutely the person operating the drone owes an explanation. Rather a lot, actually.

They took pictures in his backyard with no explanation, and now without explanation they want to come onto his property to discuss this.

Identify yourself, state your purpose, and explain to me why I'm not going to hurt you if you keep walking onto my property. You don't get to act indignant when your shit was hovering over my yard taking pictures. Not even a little.

If I found you in my fenced backyard with a camera, I'm also going to hurt you.

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[Aighearach]

You don't actually even know the angle of fire, such is the depth of your ignorance.

If you knew the angle of fire, such comments might be worth considering. But since you don't, you can't even claim to think your comment is relevant.

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[BronsCon]

Actually, such devices have been classified under existing wiretap laws in many jurisdictions, making their use a criminal offense. Furthermore, if you leave your crap on my property without my permission, it is mine to do with as I see fit. Fly through my property? Fine, I might get annoyed, but whatever, you're passing through. Hover there taking pictures and video of my and mine? You're *on* my property. Rather, you've left your device on my property. Maybe I have a thing for putting holes in crap people leave on my lawn, and that's my right as it was left there, as a nuisance to me, without my permission.

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[Aighearach]

If you're surprised he was released the next business day, you probably don't read small-town newspapers. This sort of gun crime happens all the time in redneck towns. You also see lots of citations for "illegal burning" and "animal cruelty."

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[Aighearach]

Nope. The way "anybody" could question it is because you're simply wrong about what rights you have. My advice, learn about rights from books, not cable television.

You have no right to privacy, except where you maintained your privacy successfully. Or rather, you have a right to try to be private. Outdoors is not private. Never was. Never will be.

Yes, new laws will be written to regulate use of drones over private land, and they will require permission. But no, privacy won't be any part of it.

Your jammer idea is the pinnacle of idiocy. Yeah, just point electronic devices at the sky that you believe will cause small aircraft you don't like to fall from the sky! Nothing wrong there, that is safe enough to give to idiot rednecks that already discharge firearms in a city.

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[Khyber]

"No shotgun will knock down a drone at 500 ft"

Bullshit. I've seen 200+ yard shotgun slug shots, WITH ACCURACY, and you can find videos of them all over youtube.

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[Coren22]

Six foot privacy fence? There is an expectation of privacy on your own property when you make the effort to have a private property. The spy satellite is nowhere near the same thing as a drone that is hovering above your yard with a video camera.

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[Noah Haders]

typically one enters your property in order to be able to walk to the front door and ring your doorbell... normally a confrontation like this happens at the front door, not where your front lawn meets the sidewalk...

Re: Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[Rakarra]

Then what is the alternative to knocking it out of the sky then?

At the moment, there is none, thus the clash. The law has yet to catch up.

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[gstoddart]

Typically that doesn't happen after you've hovered a drone over someone's yard.

So the moment the ass with the drone said "are you the SOB who shot down my drone" it's pretty much a different thing ... because the confrontation started when you were hovering over his fenced yard filming his family.

I'm simply not buying the boo hoo argument of the guy with the drone. As TFA said .. flying past is one thing, coming back and hovering is going a little far.

This is like demanding to be allowed on my property to retrieve the camera you illegally placed in my yard.

"Well, I came out and it was down by the neighbor's house, about 10 feet off the ground, looking under their canopy that they've got under their back yard," Merideth said. "I went and got my shotgun and I said, 'I'm not going to do anything unless it's directly over my property.'"

That moment soon arrived, he said.

"Within a minute or so, here it came," he said. "It was hovering over top of my property, and I shot it out of the sky."

In this case, hovering 10 feet off the ground within the borders of his fence isn't some incidental flying overhead, it's pretty much entering your property and filming. And that should be a criminal act.

It's not like the guy was shooting down something 100 feet in the air or just flying past.

By the time the owner of the drone was about to indignantly enter the guy's property, he'd essentially trespassed once already, and knew the guy was armed. If that doesn't tell you to approach with caution you're an idiot.

This isn't random gun nut shoots shit for fun. This is someone responding to something which is flying so far into what is reasonably his private property as to be hard to accept any reason other than the guy running the drone is an ass and a peeping tom.

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[xenotransplant]

I love the sound of a spent tube in the morning.

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[Noah Haders]

If it was ten feet off the ground why didn't he just hit it with a golf club??? Regarding the safety of shotgun pellets remember the time Cheney shit somebody in the face? Good times. P

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[tompaulco]

That is exactly clear view.

The legal example is a neighbor climbing a tree to see over your fence, and over the curtain that protected the ground-level view. That is legal.

A drone is more like the neighbor installing a tree that wasn't there before so that they could climb it and look in your window. In fact, the drone is more like someone putting in a 12 foot stepladder so they can climb up and look in your window.

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[Anonymous Coward]

Which gives you the right to call the cops, who can ask the person to stop.

This is an attitude common among people like you who have never actually suffered a significant injustice and witnessed the self-righteous entitlement mentality of those who inflict them. It's not something you can reason with and authorities don't usually care until someone really gets hurt. Sometimes a "strongly worded letter" just doesn't cut it.

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[Required Snark]

The irony is making my head spin: a discussion about the possible unintended consequences of using a firearm on Slashdot. Never seen that before, ever.

Usually it's the John Wayne/Rambo/Chuck Norris 2nd Amendment rights chest thumping about the right to bear arms and the idea that a bullet has to stop somewhere never comes up. In the Slashdot pro-gun world no uninvolved person is ever hit by gunfire.

Of course were are talking about a drone here, not a mere human. So it's really important to consider every possible facet of gun use, with an emphasis on caliber and shot vs. bullet.

I have a radical thought: let's make this part of the discussion whenever someone starts advocating guns. Of course that would require consistency and logic, and it's foolish to expect that on Slashdot. Future discussions on Slashdot will be like every past discussion involving fire arms; the idea that anyone can end up in the line of fire will never be mentioned.

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[digsbo]

Correct. The .40 caliber is a common popular size for many handguns now that gives a little more punch than the slightly smaller 9mm. Not surprising someone in the press would get it wrong, or even that an upset person being interviewed would screw up the description.

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[EndlessNameless]

I missed the part in the article where he was shooting directly overhead. That is less stupid, but still pretty stupid.

If it's overhead and out of arms' reach, it's probably not posing a threat of personal harm or property damage---so why is he shooting in the first place?

Maybe if it's at/near ground level, the drone could conceivably strike and hurt someone. Higher than that, not so likely.

Firing at it is an overreaction at best. Plus, if it's illegal to fire a gun in residential areas then he should know it if he's a gun owner. He very obviously isn't going to get the self-defense exemption since there was no threat of harm.

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[Coren22]

It was up, the drone was overhead. Does it particularly matter what the angle was? Shot isn't particularly aerodynamic and slows quite rapidly as well as spreading out. The amount of damage it can do to anything on the ground is minuscule or people wouldn't be hunting birds all over the country.

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[Coren22]

Sure, you have the right to bear arms, it is getting them off the bear that is usually the issue.

I am against most forms of gun control. The gun control we currently have is generally suitable for purpose, though according to the constitution, "congress shall make no law" is pretty clear.

Having sensible restrictions (no felons, no serious mental illnesses) makes sense, also, requiring a safety course before the first purchase, and maybe every 5 years makes good sense. Beyond that, it is a constitutional issue, congress is legally not allowed to make ANY laws restricting gun ownership, so the Dems should be happy with what they have and that we don't take that away.

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[Shakrai]

That's not destruction of property, that's maintenance of property. Want a better analogy than the soccer ball? If your neighbor parks in your driveway without permission you can probably have him towed. What you can't do is take a 9 Iron to his headlights.

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[pubwvj]

"[open carry] most of the world cringes at that, and it's something Americans cherish."

Not really. Most of the world has open carry or wants it but can't have it because of totalitarian governments. They don't cringe about our having open carry they desire it.

Open carry is not a problem. Here in Vermont we have virtually no gun laws. The rule in Vermont is you can't buy a gun with the intent of doing bad. Everything else is fine. And yet, despite the anti-gun-nut claims to the contrary having guns doesn't cause problems. Vermont has a very low total and a very low per-capita rate of gun violence. In fact, a very large portion of our gun violence is being done by police against citizens. Jeezum!

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[pubwvj]

>>I actually hope the guy who shot it down just gets a small fine and let go.

>I'd much rather see the jury demand to know why the victim, and not the four perps, is being prosecuted, with a not guilty verdict. Considering where this took place, it's possible.

I would much rather see the drone operators treated as the trespass criminals that they are and convicted of trespassing. Time to get serious about personal arial space. They don't have the right to fly over other people's home and spy on them. If they want to fly a drone they need to do it over their own land, not over someone else's property. You can't snowmobile on my property. You can't dirt bike on my property. You can't walk on my property. You also should not be flying over it at low altitudes.

Another point - for those who don't understand - shotguns are specifically designed for safely shooting arial targets without having the 'bullet' - pellets as the case is really - come down and hurt someone. A bullet such as a .22 comes down a long ways away, a high speed and can still kill. Shotgun pellets come down at a short range and at a slow speed because they lose their energy to wind resistance very quickly. This is what makes shotguns safe to use for arial shooting - e.g., birds. It is not at all like in the movies. In fact, forget everything you've seen in the movies as that's virtually all faked with wires.

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[EndlessNameless]

I missed the part where he was shooting straight up.

If it's high enough that no one is going to run into it, he should have left it alone. It's not presenting any threat to him.

Self-defense is a right. Shooting at things that merely upset you is not.

Provide the angle of the gun to the ground is sufficient that nothing will be in the path of shot until it reaches its maximum height, than nothing can possible be struck at greater than terminal velocity.

Not strictly true. Two exceptions.

A shot fired parallel to the ground will have maximum velocity at its maximum height, and a shot fired at very slight elevation can have its vertical velocity cancelled while still remaining above terminal velocity. Granted, it would continue to slow while falling until it reached terminal velocity.

But for a guy shooting almost straight up---yeah.

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[Snufu]

"is like being hit with hail of equivalent size"

Given the choice between raining ice pellets and raining lead pellets, I choose the former.

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[nobuddy]

grenade launchers are 40mm, for a comparison.

M203 http://www.m203grip.com/0M4-M2...
M79 (Terminator for scale) http://i259.photobucket.com/al...

Re: Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[Opportunist]

Go ahead, I don't mind it. Hey, whatever floats your boat, who am I to judge someone's preferences?

But I'm also not insensitive to people not wanting others ogling them. I have to admit it would make me uneasy if someone kept staring at me. Not even in a sexual way, just staring. I do not like attention too much and I prefer not to be the center of it.

I guess not minding being ogled is something only really existing in natural exhibitionists and people who'd rather get paid to put some clothes on than to take them off and hence never experienced it first hand.

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[BronsCon]

You wouldn't be too happy if your neighbors installed cell phone jammers to protect themselves from phones' dangerous EM radiation, would you?

I wouldn't be happy because my phone wouldn't work near the jammers, but I'd be delighted in knowing how jammers actually work. I'd probably knock on their door, greet them with a smile, shake their hands, maybe even brink a cake, pan of brownies, plate of cookies, or fruit basket, and say something along the lines of "Way to amplify the problem you're trying to prevent, dumbasses."

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[TsuruchiBrian]

If you're going to be taking down an aircraft, you want the stopping power that a large caliber canon provides. How heavy was this drone? Somewhere in the neighborhood of 150,000 lbs?

The mig-15 and mig-17 had two 23mm cannons and one 37mm cannon. So a 40mm weapon is in the right ballpark to do the job of taking out a B-29 super fortress pretty efficiently.

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[TsuruchiBrian]

I think he was certainly justified to disable the drone in a way that doesn't endanger anyone else. I might be more worried about some lunatic shooting his shotgun at any passing RC aircraft more than the drones themselves.

I think the answer is to fight fire with fire. If drones are cheap and ubiquitous, we need to use that to our advantage and build drones that can take out other drones safely and efficiently. Even if it doesn't work, it sounds pretty fucking fun.

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[Aristos Mazer]

Where I live in Texas, that would be perfectly legal if you gave them time to withdraw after signaling you wanted them gone. They didn't, it becomes legit for you to remove it, even if that breaks whatever it is.

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[Aristos Mazer]

In Texas, you could completely dismantle the car as part of removing it from your property as long as you requested it to move and gave the person reasonable time to do so. The person signaled the drone to leave. It didn't. It gets squished. Legal here. Your laws may vary.

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[amicusNYCL]

the drone must have been below that, probably more like 50 feet

I'll never understand why people will decide to go and comment on something and then speculate about things that they could just read about, but it's pretty pointless to argue about stuff like that. The article contains all kinds of information that you might be interested in if you're commenting on this story, including things like this:

Well, I came out and it was down by the neighbor's house, about 10 feet off the ground, looking under their canopy that they've got under their back yard

I don't know how someone has a canopy *under* their back yard, but then again I don't live in Kentucky.

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[s.petry]

No, it was no longer the first owners property once in someone else' private property! There is a reason that we have the saying "Possession is 9/10ths of the Law."

Example: Kid hits a baseball and it goes into "that person's" yard. "That" person happens to see it and puts the ball in their house on the mantle. This is perfectly legal, even if it may be what we would call "dickish" behavior.

If the Drone remained on the original owners property, or we being flown in public property, destroying the drone might be illegal. As soon as the drone entered someone's private property the original owner lost their property. Willingly lost their property I'll add.

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[FlyHelicopters]

The law for Peeping Toms, I believe, is that you must take reasonable action to prevent someone from seeing you. Therefore if I'm on the sidewalk and you're in your own home, undressing in front of an open window, I cannot be charged as a Peep since you didn't take the reasonable measure of closing the drapes.

True, which is why the 6 foot privacy fence is the key. If you have to put up a ladder to see over my fence, then I took reasonable measures to NOT have you see me in my back yard, so going over my fence is breaking the law.

Without the fence, I'd have far less of a case.

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[FlyHelicopters]

Well, he approached the man in the company of police. I think he was pretty safe at that point.

Not the first time, but yes, the second time they did. Of course, they weren't going to try and beat the crap out of the home owner in the company of police either, so the home owner was pretty safe at that point as well.

If I'm by myself (or just with my wife and kids), and four people approach me and are clearly upset with me, a gun is the only thing that will even the situation out. Very, very few people could take on 4 people at once and come out on top of that fight.

I imagine that once he pointed out to the 4 men that if they came onto his property they were going to get shot, they had a healthy dose of reality, which is of course when they called the police.

The mistake the homeowner made was not calling the police first. If in doubt, call the cops. In my personal experience, whoever calls them first is the "victim". Not always of course, there are limits to that, but it helps to be the one to call them.

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[LessThanObvious]

This man's arrest is absurd. The arresting officers should be ashamed of themselves for trampling on his rights. Rights that cannot be defended with impunity and without apology are not rights at all.

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[Jack Griffin]

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.

I hope the case gets dismissed. I'm no fan of US gun laws, read my posting history, but this guy was on his own property defending his family from creepy behaviour.
This is actually one of the most valid reasons to own projectile weapon I can think of, which is why I support restrictions to drone use. I don't want to see increased gun ownership just to defend against this type of nuisance.

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[quenda]

This particular backyard is just a few blocks from the Blue Lick Airport.
Surely he can expect a little less privacy? The operator says he was photographing a friends house. Seems reasonable - you don't normally hover directly over your subject.

In any case, it is no excuse for firing a gun in a city.
In any (other) civilised country, he'd have a very hard time arguing why he should get to keep his gun license after that.
    No chance of a white guy losing his license in Kentucky, I suppose? (Why am I hearing banjos?)

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[jsepeta]

So basically robbers casing your house and child molesters casing your daughters are given a free ride? Fuck that.

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[MaxSmoke]

40mm is a pretty common caliber of air defense..

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[goose-incarnated]

"ready or likely to attack or confront;" or "pursuing one's aims and interests forcefully, sometimes unduly so." He directly threatened them with potentially lethal force if they stepped on his property. I'm not saying he was/wasn't within his rights, but he definitely was aggressive.

Nope. As far as I can tell, if you tell someone they are not allowed on your property, and they and three of their buddies make it clear they are going to ignore your wishes, then *they* are being aggressive, at which point it is self-defence if gang-of-four invades your property against your wishes - you have nowhere else to run to.

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[Stuarticus]

Given the temperament of the man in the article lets just imagine it was one of the neighbours shooting in the air and his daughters having buckshot falling on them as they "lay out by the pool", how do you think he would have responded?

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[meta-monkey]

Do they have a good reason to be firing the weapon?

"Justification" is a thing. You can argue in front of the jury that yes, you broke the law against firing weapons in city limits, but you were justified in doing so because reasons, and they may or may not agree with you.

So, are the neighbors just randomly firing their guns in their air for shits and giggles? If so, he would not respond favorably. If they're firing their shotguns in the air to defend their property and privacy from flying surveillance devices, he'd probably tell his daughter to go inside for a bit while he goes and helps his neighbors deal with a nuisance.

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[Stuarticus]

Is that what he did then? And also warned them to lookout for falling drones? Or are you just imagining it that way because you sympathise with this guys description of how things happened? And I would strongly emphasise it's a description and not necessarily the way it happened.

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[Charliemopps]

It's bird shot man. It can literally lad on your head and it wont hurt. I've done it.
People that don't shoot shouldn't talk about shooting.

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[meta-monkey]

"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.

So, he says it was over his yard, the kids say it was over their yard, the neighbor says it was over their yard. Does anyone, including the drone owners, dispute that? One would have a hard time arguing it wasn't over their yard.

"Within a minute or so, here it came," he said. "It was hovering over top of my property, and I shot it out of the sky."

"I didn't shoot across the road, I didn't shoot across my neighbor's fences, I shot directly into the air," he added.

That seems like something provable. He only fired one shot, correct? And we know where the drone crashed, and where he was, so we can probably determine if that's a false statement. It doesn't seem like it. He must have shot up in the air, because he hit the drone, and the drone was in the air. And it crashed in a field near his house, not in a neighbor's yard, so the statement that he did not fire over his neighbor's fence does not seem false on the face of it. I wonder if his neighbor actually saw the shot, too.

As for warning about a falling drone, don't know. And we don't know if it was necessary. We'd need a better look at his neighborhood, and the reasonable assumptions one could make (or not make out) about the trajectory of a crashing drone. It depends on how populated his neighborhood is. But nothing in the article indicated any possibility of it hitting someone while crashing. Possible, sure, but you'd think that issue would have been explored if it existed.

The article says he was charged under the Kentucky Revised Statutes with "wanton endangerment in the first degree" and "criminal mischief." Here's the wanton endangerment statute:

508.060 Wanton endangerment in the first degree.
(1) A person is guilty of wanton endangerment in the first degree when, under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life, he wantonly engages in conduct which creates a substantial danger of death or serious physical injury to an other person.

(2) Wanton endangerment in the first degree is a Class D felony.

Do you think he exhibited "extreme indifference to the value of human life" and created "a substantial danger of death or serious physical injury?" Clearly not from the shotgun blast. As every hunter and student of simple physics in this thread has already said, there's no danger from falling pellets. And if the direction of the blast checks out (not at anyone, not over his neighbor's fence, etc) then the blast itself did not create any danger to human life.

So how about the falling drone? If he shot the drone down in a crowded area, where it would almost certainly hit someone, then yes. That does not appear to be the case, though. Nothing from the story indicates there was any significant risk of it crashing into someone. If that had been the case, you'd think they'd put it in the story. Obviously that needs to be confirmed, but I think it's likely. If no reasonable person could believe the drone had a reasonable chance of crashing into someone, then I don't see how you can convict him of wanton endangerment.

So how about criminal mischief?

I'm assuming it's in the first degree, as the value of the drone was over $1,000.

512.020 Criminal mischief in the first degree.
(1) A person is guilty of criminal mischief in the first degree when, having no right to do so or any reasonable ground to believe that he has such right, he intentionally or wantonly defaces, destroys or damages any property causing pecuniary loss of $1,000 or more.

(2) Criminal mischief in the first degree is a Class D felony.

Well he did intentionally destroy property causing loss of more than $1,000. So the question is did he have a right to do so, or any reasonable ground to belie

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[ax_42]

shotguns are specifically designed for safely shooting arial targets.....

I didn't know you had to pick your gun based on the font used on the target. I take it water pistols are then the appropriate choice for Comic Sans?

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[Ol Olsoc]

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.

Those would probably not have taken down the drone, except by a very lucky hit.

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[pubwvj]

*grin*

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[cwsumner]

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.

A city person, no doubt...

We go target shooting in the back yard, here.

If a prowler was sneaking around people's property, looking over people's daughters. he would get shot with something a lot heavier than a bird-shot. They should expect no less for a drone...

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[hucker75]

Then you call the police, after videoing what it's doing, who may press charges IF they are snooping on you. You do not take the law into your own hands and shoot it down.

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[shutdown -p now]

Yes. With a sabot slug and a rifled barrel or choke, it's possible. Not with smoothbore & birdshot. And definitely not aiming up at a moving target.

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[Xenx]

Then I can only say you're an idiot. You can't just up and ignore the definition of the word and claim he isn't. It's not an argument, it's a fact.

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[Dahamma]

He may or may not be financially liable for the cost of the drone, and I can't fault him for wanting to take it down. But the real crime here wasn't shooting the drone - it was shooting a shotgun up in the air in a residential neighborhood.

"I didn't shoot across the road, I didn't shoot across my neighbor's fences, I shot directly into the air"

Yeah - because shooting buckshot into the air is MUCH safer, as long as you don't have the slightest grasp of the laws of GRAVITY.

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[Dahamma]

No, it's not. It depends on where you live. Not every town has ordinances against that, and those that do have certain guidelines for where it is permissible (for example, an indoor or outdoor firing range that meets certain parameters.)

Except if you actually RTFA, it was against the law in his town, and that was what he was arrested for.

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[Coren22]

So that makes it ok to fly a drone over a pool area where people are sunbathing? Just because the fence isn't 40 feet tall, and the pool not completely covered, it is presumed ok to spy on these people in their back yard?

You have to reach pretty damn far to justify that one.

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[BronsCon]

Of course he could have. And by the time he wrote all of that out and held it up, the perv with the drone has gotten his jollies off over the two young girls he was watching several times already. Better to just blast it out of the sky under the circumstances.

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[ememisya]

I dunno, I was practising this new game I'm inventing in the privacy of my back yard where I violently swing a giant stick with a hand, and out of nowhere this robot just pops in front of my swing. How very irresponsible of the drone pilot to just fly into people's yards without consent. I inform my neighbours if I'm going play loud music, this is a nice neighbourhood. I demand that I get a replacement stick and a new Mickey Mouse hand! I want justice!

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[gatkinso]

In the United States, it used to be that the default was you have a reasonable expectation of privacy if (insert situation here).

How things have changed, especially with citizens now adopting the arbitrary and baseless BS police quote of "you have no expectation of privacy."

Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard?

[gatkinso]

Looking over the fence, no. Climbing over the fence, yes.

Sounds like he was arrested for shooting.

[Mr D from 63]

Was he arrested, it appears simply for firing the gun. It isn't clear that the fact a drone was the target was a consideration.

We'll see what he is eventually convicted of.

Re:Sounds like he was arrested for shooting.

[Mr D from 63]

Upon re-reading, there is a statement regarding the drone becoming a danger after being shot.

Re:Sounds like he was arrested for shooting.

[smoothnorman]

If your theory is correct, then if he chose another means to bring down this drone he'd be in the clear? slingshot? bow and arrow? One of you tech bright-bulbs should really consider establishing a drone extermination service. "Let *us* handle your drone infestation: Drokin(tm): Armed with net guns and our patented seeker/killer drones our Drokin techs arrive within an hour of your text and quietly depart with the offending device."

Re:Sounds like he was arrested for shooting.

[oh_my_080980980]

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.

Re:Sounds like he was arrested for shooting.

[hawguy]

Upon re-reading, there is a statement regarding the drone becoming a danger after being shot.

But if that's what the government is worried about, the drone was a danger before it was shot too -- it doesn't take a shotgun shell to make a drone become a hazard.

Re:Sounds like he was arrested for shooting.

[Mr D from 63]

No, because I missed part of the article that says there was a danger presented by damaging the flying object while flying to people and property below. My error.

Re:Sounds like he was arrested for shooting.

[bledri]

Upon re-reading, there is a statement regarding the drone becoming a danger after being shot.

But if that's what the government is worried about, the drone was a danger before it was shot too -- it doesn't take a shotgun shell to make a drone become a hazard.

No government is worried about people shooting guns in populated areas. Drones are a hazard, but that is a separate issue.

Re:Sounds like he was arrested for shooting.

[kheldan]

Agreed; the only law the property owner whose space was violated here committed was discharging a firearm within city limits. Otherwise I'm 100% behind what the guy did. If he'd had a slingshot and took it down with a rock, or a something that shot a net or other propeller-entangling device at it to take it out of the air, we'd be having a different discussion completely, one about creepy, potentially pedophiliac drone pilots skeezing on 16-year-old girls in their own backyards. Seriously, if it had been someone in a 2nd-story window facing the backyard with a pair of binoculars, there wouldn't be a news story here, just a note on a police blotter about officers sent to investigate a peeping Tom/potential pedophile snooping on people in their backyard.

*********************
On a relevant subject to this discussion: When you purchase a piece of real estate, do you own any of the airspace above it? If so, up to how many feet? If not, perhaps, in the era of drones, there needs to be such a thing spelled out in the deed to your property?

Re:Sounds like he was arrested for shooting.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes you own your airspace up to 500 feet after that it's public space. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Causby

Re:Sounds like he was arrested for shooting.

[kheldan]

Thank you. That changes the discussion a little then, doesn't it? I guess the man in Kentucky would have had to have a sniper rifle with a scope, if the drone was at least 500 feet above his property, I'd think a shotgun blast would spread out and lose too much velocity at that distance to effectively take out a drone. :-) Seriously though this just strengthens my opinion that the only law the landowner broke in this case was the discharging of a firearm, otherwise he was well within his rights to deal with the drone. Personally I would have rather taken the thing down in one piece, then either waited to see if the owner showed up so I could 'deal with him' personally (or just prevent him from leaving until the police arrived) or just called the police, informing them I wanted to press whatever charges I could press against the owner, and let them deal with it.

Re:Sounds like he was arrested for shooting.

[Overzeetop]

No, they can't. They require a failure of either one critical component or two secondary ones. And there are drones which are one fault tolerant as well.

The shooter created the fault which made the craft unstable/dangerous to those around him. It would be like me cutting your break lines after you parked your POS car in front of my house for the 4th time this week. I mean, you could hit some 5 year old crossing the street to go to school in that thing. But if I make sure you crash it tomorrow morning on your way out of the neighborhood, I can effectively saved that poor 5 year old that could have died at any moment from your POS rattletrap of a vehicle? I don't think so.

Re:Sounds like he was arrested for shooting.

[fahrbot-bot]

No government is worried about people shooting guns in populated areas. Drones are a hazard, but that is a separate issue.

And here's where punctuation and a missing comma changes everything. I imagine you meant:

No, government is worried about people shooting guns in populated areas.

Re:Sounds like he was arrested for shooting.

[ancientt]

I think this is the best suggestion I've seen for dealing with a drone so far. A high power washer would be ideal. I wonder if I could go into business selling "drone killers" that are legal to use in city limits.

Re:Sounds like he was arrested for shooting.

[hey!]

In general anything that creates a hazard for bystanders would be a bad idea. So even if there isn't a specific ordinance against shooting bows-and-arrows in the city limits, I'm sure the authorities would take a dim view of your clout shooting into your neighbors' yards.

What there should be is a legally mandated remote radio kill switch anyone can trigger that will cause the drone to land, or in the case of the more sophisticated models to return to base. If the switch worked within say a 50' radius it'd pretty much only work on drones buzzing your residence.

Re:Sounds like he was arrested for shooting.

[hawguy]

Upon re-reading, there is a statement regarding the drone becoming a danger after being shot.

But if that's what the government is worried about, the drone was a danger before it was shot too -- it doesn't take a shotgun shell to make a drone become a hazard.

No government is worried about people shooting guns in populated areas. Drones are a hazard, but that is a separate issue.

Sure, I can understand laws against shooting, but to claim that he shouldn't have shot the drone because it could fall down and hurt someone ignores the problem that drones *already* fall from the sky even when people don't shoot them.

Re:Sounds like he was arrested for shooting.

[geekmux]

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.

Litmus test to validate civilian response here. Let me know how many police agencies would reach for their standard-issue paintball gun after you start flying drones over police headquarters that sits within city limits.

Yeah, I fucking thought so.

Re: Sounds like he was arrested for shooting.

[kheldan]

..or something that entangles it, like a net.

How about something more exotic, like a microwave beamer? Hit it with, say, a kilowatt beam of microwaves, fry it's control receiver, maybe fry all it's electronics? Could start a whole new industry: 'tools' to protect yourself and your property against drones.

Re:Sounds like he was arrested for shooting.

[nytes]

One of you tech bright-bulbs should really consider establishing a drone extermination service. "Let *us* handle your drone infestation:

Dronebusters!

Re:Sounds like he was arrested for shooting.

[david_thornley]

I think you'll find that hitting a fairly small airborne object gets real difficult pretty fast as it goes up. If it's out of shotgun range, you're very unlikely to hit it with a rifle, and falling rifle bullets are a real danger.

Re:Sounds like he was arrested for shooting.

[SirGeek]

If your theory is correct, then if he chose another means to bring down this drone he'd be in the clear? slingshot? bow and arrow? One of you tech bright-bulbs should really consider establishing a drone extermination service. "Let *us* handle your drone infestation: Drokin(tm): Armed with net guns and our patented seeker/killer drones our Drokin techs arrive within an hour of your text and quietly depart with the offending device."

Nah.. Drone Busters !

Something creepy in your neighborhood ? Call Drone Busters !

I agree with the shooter

[gurps_npc]

The drone person was illegally trespassing on the shooter's property.

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.

Re:I agree with the shooter

[digsbo]

Absolutely. And he used exactly the right kind of weapon, and I'll assume birdshot, which, as long as he was using non-lead shot, is safe enough in that scenario. I hope he's cleared of all charges.

Re:I agree with the shooter

[NoNonAlphaCharsHere]

The fact that the owner(s) showed up before the police did is proof that they knew where the drone was and what it was doing, and that they were in control of it: in other words, an admission of criminal trespassing.

Re:I agree with the shooter

[codeAlDente]

The shooter lives in a city where you can't legally fire guns into the air. Is that the law you'd like to see changed here?

Re:I agree with the shooter

[sizzzzlerz]

I doubt that owning property automatically implies ownership of the airspace above the property. Aircraft are constantly flying above private property but never has that resulted in trespassing charges. Nobody has file a lawsuit against Google for their property appearing in Google Earth. I'm not suggesting that a drone flying above one's house isn't a nuisance but it isn't trespassing nor can one be justified in blasting it out of the sky with a shotgun, irrespective of the danger of firing a gun in populated areas. Further, making assumptions that the drone may be carrying a dangerous payload is simply that, an assumption. Claiming that in a court of law will get you nowhere without evidence.

Re:I agree with the shooter

[SydShamino]

Fortunately there are laws and court rulings about this, and they define how low you can be without trespassing. The FAA considers anything above 500 feet to be navigable space, and a previous SCOTUS ruling allowed trespassing charges against a paraglider at 83 feet, so the limit is probably somewhere in that area. If he was able to shoot the drone down from the sky, it was most certainly below 83 feet. And of course airplanes and Google Earth examples are silly and meaningless.

Re:I agree with the shooter

[F.Ultra]

According to TFA it was flying well below any level ever though of as "airspace"

Re:I agree with the shooter

[Anonymous Coward]

His drone just got shot down, and his first thought was to go knock on the shotgun-toting property owner's door?! Brilliant.

Re:I agree with the shooter

[digsbo]

Generally those laws are not about safety from falling birdshot. Yes, I have no problem with birdshot (non-lead) being legal to fire from shotguns on my property in an otherwise safe manner. And birdshot is safe to shoot towards the sky in residential areas.

Re:I agree with the shooter

[codeAlDente]

Sure it's safe, but it's not legal. There was a complaint and the guy was cited for breaking the law. Perhaps this case will provide an impetus for legalizing the practice of shooting drones with shotguns. I appreciate the guy's civil disobedience, but it's hard to blame the cops for enforcing the law.

Re:I agree with the shooter

[Kagato]

I think at best the drone could be impounded. Actually arresting the operator seems unlikely given the current laws. States with hyper aggressive Castle Doctrine laws like AZ might allow you to blow the drone out of the sky though.

Re:I agree with the shooter

[citizenr]

You sound like a typical US "I shot him because it looked like he might have a gun and I was scared for my life" cop.

Re:I agree with the shooter

[babybird]

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.

Are you kidding? You can't possibly be serious with this. Either that or you don't live in the United States.

I can de facto be at least "reasonably certain" that a drone hovering over my yard is not armed and not carrying actual C4 explosive. I can do so because there are exactly zero incidences in all of human history of an armed drone-- particularly armed with C4 explosive-- hovering over someone's yard watching their 16 year old daughter in her bathing suit. To suggest that he couldn't know with any reasonable certainty is, frankly, insane. Of course he could know that with reasonable certainty. The likelihood that he'd be wrong is about as close to zero as you can get-- well beyond five nines of confidence.

I get that there's a strong Libertarian contingent on Slashdot, but you guys really need to join reality once in a while. You can do that without selling out on any Libertarian values. In fact, it'd probably benefit the Libertarian movement immensely if people would do that. Reality can actually be observed and measured and verified and validated, so there's no need to deal in delusion or fantasy in support of liberty.

Re:I agree with the shooter

[turp182]

Multiple counts as well, if every homeowner whose property was trespassed filed charges.

And if the drone owner was over 18 there could be other criminal charges, things associated with invading the privacy of a minor (peeping Tom stuff).

Re:I agree with the shooter

[Rockoon]

The shooter lives in a city where you can't legally fire guns into the air

Good thing that he fired his gun into a drone instead of into the air then.

Re:I agree with the shooter

[digsbo]

I don't have a problem with the cops doing their duty, which it appears they did. I hope the court recognizes that the guy doing the shooting didn't endanger anyone, and that the charges are hence dismissed with a warning. Since you asked would I like to see that law changed, I am definitely saying, "Yes, I'd like to be able to use a shotgun or other firearm legally if in a safe manner I am defending my property, life, or privacy, and if laws prevent that, I'd like to see them changed." As it happens I live near a prison facility in a suburban area and neighbors are aware of it. Also, neighbors occasionally use firearms as pest control and though it's technically against the law we want the right even in a non-survival scenario. Local customs, I supposed?

Re:I agree with the shooter

[mydn]

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.

Or a nuke! Or anthrax! Or ebola! Or even AIDS, god save us all!!!!!!!!

Re:I agree with the shooter

[silas_moeckel]

I hope the operator of the drone is charged and convicted, trespass and peeking tom laws seem to fit. Hell if that underage girl was topless get them for kiddie porn.

Re:I agree with the shooter

[sfcat]

Putting this dude in jail would be a waste of money, but I do hope he gets a fine equal to 1/4 to 1/2 his annual income.

You should be fined your entire annual income for posting something so inane.

Re:I agree with the shooter

[Obfuscant]

According to TFA it was flying well below any level ever though of as "airspace"

"Surface" is pretty low, and there are lots of places that controlled airspace extends that low. Somebody thought of that, and lots of other people know it.

Re:I agree with the shooter

[gurps_npc]

You are entirely incorrect.

Every day in the middle east, their are armed drones carrying explosives hovering over someone's yards watching young women.

Those young women are sometimes wearing clothing their particular culture feels is appropriate to go publicly swimming int.

The fact that those drones are owned by the US government and are looking for terrorists from high altitudes does not change the fact that is EXACTLY what they are doing.

Granted there has only been ONE case of a drone armed with a pistol, in the US, flown by a civilian, does not matter.

When someone illegally enters your property, and is carrying an unknown device, it is totally reasonable for the victim of the crime to assume the unknown device is a weapon. Police do it all the time. The same applies to an unaccompanied drone.

Re:I agree with the shooter

[codeAlDente]

Brilliant! Let's hope a jury will see it that way.

Re:I agree with the shooter

[codeAlDente]

Same here. I also hope that people will think of stuff like this when they're discussing new laws, and presupposing that, despite questionable language, they'll be enforced sensibly.

Re:I agree with the shooter

[digsbo]

Same here. I also hope that people will think of stuff like this when they're discussing new laws, and presupposing that, despite questionable language, they'll be enforced sensibly.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA! Would you like some Unicorns with that order of Hope & Change?

Re:I agree with the shooter

[F.Ultra]

If it's hovering around your head it's clearly no longer an airspace as defined by the FAA on where aeroplanes can fly without intruding on your property rights.

Re:I agree with the shooter

[dl_sledding]

Now you go off the rails:

You may, being that this is a civilized society, ask for the local authorities to prosecute the trespasser for any laws which are broken.

Please explain exactly how the trespasser is to be identified. The article doesn't elaborate, but I doubt the drone was dragging a sign with the pilot's name and physical location. By the time that an officer responds to this non-life-threatening complaint, the drone will be long gone, leaving absolutely no physical evidence of it's origin. Now you have wasted the time of an LEO who has a whole lot better things to do with his time than answer fruitless calls for help.

A property owner should, in cases like this, be allowed to disable and, if so desired, destroy the drone, or the onboard memory card. There is no reasonable way to assume that law enforcement will be able to help in any way, shape, or form, even if the drone is still in the area when they arrive! Because, just like this situation, how are THEY going to be able to track the drone back to the pilot? They can't! The only real recourse that a property owner has to retain his law given privacy is to take matters into his own hands and deal with the situation on his own at the time of the violation.

Shotgun? Shooting birdshot? OK, depending on where this takes place, that may or may not be legal. However, birdshot used in this manner is designed to be completely safe to anyone on the ground downrange, so public safety is NOT the real issue. And I would be more than happy to be the volunteer downrange to prove this point. So the "public safety" or "reckless endangerment" aspect is entirely bogus and trumped up.

Re:I agree with the shooter

[dl_sledding]

Hey A/C, if you're gonna attack the "guntards", grow some fucking balls and use your real account, you fucking coward.

Now that I have that off my chest, why don't you run for office and sponsor a bill that denies privacy for anyone and everyone, you liberal douchebag? Because that is exactly where this is heading; you might as well make it a legal point. A drone flying in the airspace of a private residence (500' in rural and 1000' in urban areas, according to the FAA) completely disregards and destroys the idea of personal privacy, and the property owner absolutely has the right to take his privacy back.

By the way, I do NOT have to be a soldier in order to own or operate a weapon. It is my Constitutional right to bear arms. And since you misspelled "neighborhood" (why waste the extra vowels???), you prove that you are not American, have no sense of American law or rights, and have absolutely NO RIGHT to speak to this situation, which happened in the US. If it happened in your shitty country, fine, talk all you want about the legalities and cultural implications, and you won't hear me talking about it, because I would extend the courtesy that you do not, as it doesn't pertain to me in my country.

So using the rules penned by the immortal George Carlin (another great American), "Fuck the fuck off, you fucking fuckhead!"

Re:I agree with the shooter

[Obfuscant]

Since FAR 1.1 has no definition of "surface", then "surface" has its standard English meaning. Therefore, yes indeedy, "hovering around your head" is a level that has been considered to be in controlled airspace. If you doubt this then you might wonder why airplanes that aren't even flying yet are under ATC control in some places. They're on the surface, not even hovering.

Re:I agree with the shooter

[F.Ultra]

Well, go ahead and fly your Chessna at head-level over somebodies backyard while they stand there and see if you violate any laws...

Re:I agree with the shooter

[Obfuscant]

Well, go ahead and fly your Chessna at head-level over somebodies backyard while they stand there and see if you violate any laws...

What an idiotic nonsequitor. I didn't claim it wasn't against the law to fly a manned aircraft at head level near people, I responded to your incorrect statement:

According to TFA it was flying well below any level ever though of as "airspace"

You made a patently absurd claim about what is considered "airspace", and I corrected you on it. The fact that some "airspace" extends to the surface (below "head level") doesn't make it legal for everyone to fly anything they want there. IN FACT, the fact that airspace extends to the surface is what gives the FAA the authority to regulate it, and to make flight within certain distances of people or structures illegal.

I'm sorry, but your claim that toy drones fly below any level that anyone ever thought of as airspace is just absurd.

Re:I agree with the shooter

[F.Ultra]

The discussion is not about "airspace" as such but about protected airspace. I.e when it can be seen as intruding on your property or not. The TS claim was that the drone was allowed to intrude on the man's property due to it flying in "airspace".

Kentucky Man

[PopeRatzo]

There has to be a better way to take down drones. Firing a shotgun in your backyard into the air is going to be some kind of misdemeanor, even in Kentucky. Something like "discharge of a firearm inside city limits" or something.

Can someone please start 3D-printing some silent drone-killing weapons? It would be so much more satisfying than clay pigeons and my neighbors cats. (Note to neighbor: I'm kidding. That wasn't me.)

Re:Kentucky Man

[JoeDuncan]

There has to be a better way to take down drones.

Sure, just toss a net over it.

Re:Kentucky Man

[jddj]

Paging Spiderman...

Re:Kentucky Man

[medv4380]

If it's close enough a tazer might work. Paint ball gun may work, and avoid some of the firearm laws for firing in city limits. If this were Idaho the drone pilot violated several peeping laws. He should be worried about being raided by the police. They should be working up a warrant to collect his video footage. It's reasonable to assume that he was spying on the girls since it flew off when they waved to it. At that point he could be the latest incarnation of a peeping tom, and if he has video of anyone in a state of undress when they have the reasonable expectation of privacy he could be in a lot of trouble.

Re:Kentucky Man

[QuietLagoon]

There should be a net-shooting gun that tangles the drone's props, causing it to fall the the ground. The owner would then have to ask for it back.

Re:Kentucky Man

[terrahertz]

That leaves more evidence and is less fun than something like http://fear-of-lightning.wonde...

Re:Kentucky Man

[hawguy]

There has to be a better way to take down drones. Firing a shotgun in your backyard into the air is going to be some kind of misdemeanor, even in Kentucky. Something like "discharge of a firearm inside city limits" or something.

Can someone please start 3D-printing some silent drone-killing weapons? It would be so much more satisfying than clay pigeons and my neighbors cats. (Note to neighbor: I'm kidding. That wasn't me.)

If he's a fly fisherman he might be able to cast a fishing line close enough to get tangled in the rotors.

Re:Kentucky Man

[OrangeTide]

hrrm. FCC prohibits jamming, and FAA prohibits interfering with aircraft. How many federal agencies do you want on you ass at once?

Maybe your drone should have stock tips for the SEC to join in, and deliver medicine and cigarettes so the paramilitary DEA and ATF can fill your house with flammable tear gas.

Re:Kentucky Man

[Jeremi]

Sure, just toss a net over it.

I was thinking more along the lines of sending up an anti-drone drone to grab it and drag it back down. After that you can rely on the legal precedent of "finders, keepers" to add it to your drone collection.

Re:Kentucky Man

[brunes69]

There are several ways

- Throw a baseball
- Throw a net
- Throw a rock

If it's within your personal airspace (500 feet) on your property you have right to do all of these things.

Re:Kentucky Man

[Anonymous Coward]

Garden hose. Super Soakers as we once knew them aren't sold anymore.

Re:Kentucky Man

[Mahldcat]

Paging Spiderman...

Trying to be funny, BUT since the actual charges levied against this guy was due to him discharging a firearm. What if instead he had something somewhat like Spiderman's web shooters---CO2 powered instead of gunpowder, and the payload is some sort of glue like "netting" with a tether attached to it. Idea being that you have something to gum up the flight systems (to bring it down), and then the tether would allow you to potentially recover the device itself. (Main thought on the tether--this would be an easy way to prove that the device was within a certain radius of your home when you took it down)....

Re:Kentucky Man

[Bob the Super Hamste]

What about spraying them with a garden hose on full blast?

Re:Kentucky Man

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

>>>> There has to be a better way to take down drones.
>> Sure, just toss a net over it.

With what - a drone?

Re:Kentucky Man

[jpc19573184]

Use another drone to take out a 'trespassing' drone. Get close, fire something to tangle up the other one. Add little vision software (or acoustical sensing) on the 'defensive' drone to help chase down and aim at the trespassing drone.

Re:Kentucky Man

[JoeDuncan]

Sorry, but you are wrong. That kind of microwave weapon will actually induce enough current in the device's circuits to fry them. The drone would be dead dead dead.

Re:Kentucky Man

[JoeDuncan]

Sure, but it's a whole lot easier and low-tech.

Re:Kentucky Man

[JoeDuncan]

Try your hands. Article said it was only hovering 10 feet in the air.

Re:Kentucky Man

[JoeDuncan]

Now I want a video of this!

Re:Kentucky Man

[JoeDuncan]

Aerial salvage?

Re:Kentucky Man

[gweihir]

Isn't it obvious? Drone-killer-drone! Just arm it with some explosives and even the FBI will be happy, as they will have their next "terrorist"!

Re:Kentucky Man

[NiteShaed]

Honestly, if this were me and the thing was being a nuisance I'd send my own quadcopter after it. Get above the thing, nice and close, cut the power, and presto - my drone's landing skids tangle in his props and they both come down fast. Mine is a fairly cheap and nearly indestructible little monster, so it'd probably be fine. Bonus points for a potentially fun aerial dogfight :)

Re:Kentucky Man

[ciaran2014]

Good luck with that! This is how drones fly:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

You're most likely to miss and end up as a youtube video titled "Wheezing middle-ager brings hose to a drone fight HAHAHA FAIL!!!"

Re:Kentucky Man

[digsbo]

No. A baseball or rock thrown is more likely to cause damage or injury on the way down than birdshot from a shotgun.

Re:Kentucky Man

[terrahertz]

Acquiring a drone-disrupting net is much easier than acquiring a drone-disrupting directional microwave weapon, BUT establishing plausible deniability and concealing responsibility for the drone's failure is much easier with the gun than with the net.

Re:Kentucky Man

[sfcat]

There are several ways

- Throw a baseball - Throw a net - Throw a rock

If it's within your personal airspace (500 feet) on your property you have right to do all of these things.

You do realize that throwing a rock at a drone is probably more dangerous than firing a shotgun at it right?

Re:Kentucky Man

[wonkey_monkey]

Then everyone'll just start flying anti-drone drones! You didn't think this through.

Re:Kentucky Man

[PopeRatzo]

I was thinking more along the lines of sending up an anti-drone drone to grab it and drag it back down.

Sounds good, but only if I can make a drone that looks like Snoopy on top of a flying dog house.

Re:Kentucky Man

[Noah Haders]

Or just spray a hose? Or pressure washer?

Re:Kentucky Man

[Obfuscant]

What if instead he had something somewhat like Spiderman's web shooters---CO2 powered instead of gunpowder,

I suspect that a lot of cities have copied the same ordinance that ours did. In our city, it is illegal to discharge any projectile weapon within city limits. Doesn't matter if it's gunpowder, CO2, air, or a big rubber band.

Re:Or... just hear me out here...

[Austerity Empowers]

I disagree, I think if you can calculate the area where the shot will land, accounting for wind and some unpredictable degree of scatter in the shot, and be sure that the area is clear of people or property, you should be able to shoot down a drone that flies over your backyard.

I'm sure this man did that first, of course and I look forward to his defense so that I may champion his cause.

SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid

[lesincompetent]

Ok now it would be great if everybody focused their need for privacy against the US government and the NSA. Just like this guy did.

Re:Or... just hear me out here...

[digsbo]

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.

Re:Or... just hear me out here...

[NoNonAlphaCharsHere]

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?".

Re:Or... just hear me out here...

[hawguy]

You could call the police and lodge a complaint like a civilized person instead grabbing your gun and shooting randomly at everything that you don't like.

Yeah, the drone pilot was probably being a douche. Does this give people free reign to go randomly shooting at things?

Or in other words do nothing? In my town the poilce won't even come out to investigate a car breakin, they surely aren't going to come out when I tell them someone is flying their toy helicopter over my yard.

Re:Or... just hear me out here...

[bondsbw]

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?

It IS trespassing.

[Anonymous Coward]

Drones have cameras to facilitate flying. They fly low due both to their limitations and legal restrictions. Unlike helicopters (which don't tend to hover a few tens of feet over a house unless it's official business / emergency / news incident), these are often flown by unknown / unknowable private individuals. The owner of that property, in my opinion, was well within his rights specifically BECAUSE of what he mentioned: his young girls / family and an obvious private area (with any legal definition of an obvious expectation of privacy) of his home were being watched by some asshole with a hovering camera. I'm hardly a redneck and I'm certainly not a crazy gun freak but I would totally have done the same thing in this situation (ie, some asshole with a hovering camera obviously spying on people's private back yards). As soon as it crossed over his property and engaged in the same spying he observed over others' yards, he put a stop to it. I see absolutely no obligation to allow a (non-living) unmarked spying machine to buzz around my own private property and, since it's out of reach, a projectile weapon is about the only choice. Don't want your drone shot down? Don't spy on someone else's fucking private back yard.

Re: Or... just hear me out here...

[bill_mcgonigle]

Your logic is not universal. Do people have a right to go shooting people on the street? Of course not. Do people have a right to shoot a home invader? Of course. If a creepy guy climbs your fence to take pictures of your teenage daughter in her bathing suit do you have a right to smash his camera? Many juries would say so. If he uses an RC drone camera instead? Same thing. Let's hear what's on the memory card.

Pervs new toy

[Virtucon]

Watch for the new video on Youporn

Re:Pervs new toy

[GNious]

Pretty sure there's already drone-based pr0n... No, I'm not going to bother checking.

Re:Or... just hear me out here...

[Bruha]

Shotgun shot is harmless when falling out of the sky after distance takes the speed down. I've been rained on by shot duck hunting from guns across a lake.

Were talking 12+ guage and not buckshot people. The small stuff just gets slowed down too much to do any real damage after a few hundred yards. Might get in your eye though that would suck.

Re: Or... just hear me out here...

[hawguy]

Your logic is not universal. Do people have a right to go shooting people on the street? Of course not. Do people have a right to shoot a home invader? Of course. If a creepy guy climbs your fence to take pictures of your teenage daughter in her bathing suit do you have a right to smash his camera? Many juries would say so. If he uses an RC drone camera instead? Same thing. Let's hear what's on the memory card.

You'll never hear what's on the memory card since the police gave the drone (or at least the remaining pieces) back to its owner.

Re:Or... just hear me out here...

[AbbyNormal]

If it is a potentially unknown threat to you and your family, while on your property, absolutely.

Re:Or... just hear me out here...

[MightyMartian]

I'd say if it's over my property at a low altitude, yes, I should have the right to shoot the thing out of the sky, and further, if I can determine who was flying it, I should have the right to sue them.

Drone operators are getting an incredible sense of entitlement out of playing with their toys. I think it's time for some serious and substantial financial penalties.

Keep your fucking toy way from my fucking property.

Shooting Guns into the Air in a Populated Area

[sycodon]

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.

Re:Shooting Guns into the Air in a Populated Area

[sycodon]

Baseballs, slingshots, yarn, hosing it down, etc. All fair game I bet.

Re:Shooting Guns into the Air in a Populated Area

[Coren22]

Shotgun. It can't hurt you unless pointed at you. The shot falls at terminal velocity, much like hail. It is not moving fast enough to hurt you.

Re:Shooting Guns into the Air in a Populated Area

[Bob the Super Hamste]

Depends on the local regulations. In the city I live in it is illegal to discharge a firearm within city limits but an air rifle is perfectly acceptable. So I can use my very high powered .22 cal air rifle within city limits, but I couldn't fire a subsonic .22 short from a rifle. They are both very comparable in power and will put a hole through the various yard rodents and are effective against the invasive possum.

Re:Shooting Guns into the Air in a Populated Area

[swillden]

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.

Often illegal, yes. Firing birdshot into the air is not dangerous. That's why we use shotguns and birdshot to shoot birds. From the air. Birdshot's terminal velocity is low enough that by the time the shot falls to the ground it's not dangerous.

Re:Shooting Guns into the Air in a Populated Area

[nehumanuscrede]

As opposed to flying a drone over the same populated areas ?

Re:Shooting Guns into the Air in a Populated Area

[Aighearach]

Baseballs, slingshots, yarn, hosing it down, etc. All fair game I bet.

In many, or even most, US States it would be legal to hose (or yarn) it down if you said it was endangering your property. If you said it was "violating your privacy," that is generally criminal destruction of property. You can't legally destroy anything that accidentally crosses a property line. You can sue them, or accuse them of trespassing, or whatever law might apply locally, but you probably can't destroy it legally without an education and a controlled communication strategy.

Re:Shooting Guns into the Air in a Populated Area

[pubwvj]

"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 have a strong suspicion you don't know anything about guns but are afraid of them, partially because you don't know anything about them. Please get educated. This was a shotgun. Shotguns are designed to be safe when fired __UP__ into the air because the pellets come down _slowly_ and are non-lethal.

"I suspect he would be facing the same charges if he were merely shooting crows in his backyard."

Ah, there, you just proved you know nothing about guns and hunting. Please read up on the laws about shooting crows. You deserve to be educated even if you have to do-it-yourself. Please.

Re:Shooting Guns into the Air in a Populated Area

[gregfortune]

And it very much depends on local regulations. If I wanted to shoot a rodent in my town, it is a misdemeanor to discharge a air rifle in city limits. It is also a misdemeanor to discharge a 30-06. Odd that I can make that choice without considering a difference in penalty...

But, even though I can't use Red Rider BB Gun, a 70 lb compound bow with hunting broadheads is perfectly acceptable. Crossbow is fair game too. Local regulations are often so strange.

Re:Shooting Guns into the Air in a Populated Area

[SuperDre]

Sure, accidentally, but a drone hovering over my property (and not in transit) is not accidentally, the drone owner had no business flying it over my property in the first place..
Drone owners shouldn't think they can fly the bugger anywhere they want without permission.. and especially with these drones having camera's on board, yeah, nice you want to have a hobby, but go fly over your own property, if you fly over mine, I'm gonna do whatever I please with it, which means bringing it down and keeping it for the electronic parts.. these days you'll need even a sign on the top of your house..
And as far as I know, you aren't even allowed to fly a drone over someone elses property without permission just like you are not allowed to use an RC plane/helicopter anywhere you want (and that's what a drone is, nothing more than a RC toy)..

Re:Shooting Guns into the Air in a Populated Area

[Bob the Super Hamste]

That they are. I think a lot of them while written with good intention were written by people who don't fully understand the topic they are legislating on.

The hunting regulations for what is acceptable ammunition is a rather odd one for example here in Minnesota. It use to be that there was a minimum caliber and and case length requirement that at least attempted to ensure that you were hunting with humane cartridge for big game with a few special exceptions for some abnormally powerful rounds at the bottom end though one of the things excluded was .223 (and 5.56x45) since it didn't meet the minimum caliber requirement (.25) and a lot of people apparently wanted to hunt with it. So a few years back instead of adding an exception for that ammo they redid the requirement so that it now reads that acceptable ammo must be at least .22 caliber and be of center fire ignition. So now it is legal to use all sorts of awful stuff for hunting that would be really ineffective. So now it would be perfectly legal to go elk or bear hunting here and use .380 ACP fired from a plastic gun or something chambered in .25 ACP.

Re:Shooting Guns into the Air in a Populated Area

[Xest]

To be fair, flying a drone in a populated area is also a very bad idea - you don't know if it's going to fail and fall on someone, have it's Li-Ion battery ignite and start a fire on a building or just general crash into someone or a helicopter because you're not paying attention.

I'd wager that pidgeon shot landing on someone and killing them from a discharged shotgun is less likely to kill someone than a drone incident is.

As such I think the situation is more nuanced, one could argue it's safer to bring down a dangerous drone.

Of course, ideally, no one would be an idiot and neither eventuality would need to occur, but unfortunately people are people and so sometimes we're stuck with the least bad option.

Re:Shooting Guns into the Air in a Populated Area

[Swave An deBwoner]

Maybe if he attacked it with his own fighter drone?

Re:Alternative Headline.

[oh_my_080980980]

Ignorant hick discharges firearm because another ignorant hick flies drone into his backyard. Fixed it for you.

Re:There is no privacy

[oh_my_080980980]

Because it flew into someone's backyard and was taking pictures as the owner admitted *eye roll*

Re:Or... just hear me out here...

[QuietLagoon]

Yeah, the drone pilot was probably being a douche. Does this give people free reign to go randomly shooting at things?

Yes.

Also, if the judge has to convict him..

[gurps_npc]

then the judge should order him to pay the drone owner the cost of the drone, then fine the drone owner 10x that amount for violating that man's privacy.

Is he in the right?

[pehrs]

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.

Re:Is he in the right?

[OrangeTide]

It's illegal to fire on aircraft. Even if all local charges are dropped, there is still federal law that defines what he did as a crime.

Re:Is he in the right?

[Tulsa_Time]

Its not an aircraft.... In my day this was an RC TOY. Is my $40 hobby drone an "aircraft" when flying in my living room, no.... ? If it moves outdoors it is ?

Re:Is he in the right?

[OrangeTide]

AMA and FAA currently define it under the special rule for model aircraft. If it's a toy, then you can't fly it outside. That's the law.

Make sure you sign up for the AMA before you fly your drone around outside. And it is preferable if you go to local AMA sanction fields to fly model aircraft, instead of harassing your neighbors.

Re:Is he in the right?

[BronsCon]

If they don't want their drones shot down, they can fly them over their own property.

While I agree with your sentiment, I think you might be being a bit extreme here. There shouldn't be anything wrong with simply flying over to get from point A to point B. Hovering, lingering, making repeated passes, and, especially, hanging around until acknowledged, then taking off? Yeah, time for your toy to get shot down.

Re:Is he in the right?

[metlin]

Gizmodo had an article a while back on this topic.

Is It OK to Shoot Down Your Neighbor's Drone?

Basically, under the law, the drone is the same as a full-fledged aircraft. Now, the other side of the equation is that you only own ~100 feet above your property. If it was flying higher, then it is legal.

If it was lower, then it's a different story. In any event, the most prudent course is to call the cops - anything else would just be an overkill, and even if you were in the right, it's just a pain.

You could probably still be subjected to civil suits and what not.

Re:Is he in the right?

[Jack Griffin]

There shouldn't be anything wrong with simply flying over to get from point A to point B.

FAA already has this covered. Public airspace starts at 500 feet, or 1000 feet over any building or antenna.

Re:Is he in the right?

[BronsCon]

Indeed, but let's be realistic, these craft can't reach that altitude. If the "pilot" isn't being a douche and hanging around your property or buzzing your head, don't be a douche and shoot down his drone. Let him pass over and expect to see him again on his return pass. Of course, if he's making laps around your property or repeatedly passing over, take whatever action is necessary to stop him, starting with trying to locate him and asking him to stop and escalating from there as necessary. But if that drone is being a nuisance by hovering over your property or getting dangerously close to you, by all means, take it out.

Re:Is he in the right?

[lucien86]

There is the question here of how big and expensive this drone was.. The $40 category really are toys and basically can only barely fly outside anyway - because their motors are not powerful enough. Proper midsized drones designed to fly outside and carry a camera and maybe with a camera gimbal start at about $200 - $800. The most advanced and powerful machines with things like stabilized gimbals and advanced cameras, video link, GPS control, and long range radio, can cost anything up to about $5,000 to $ 10,000..

I know I'd be plenty pissed if someone shot my $5k drone down. If shot down those bigger drones could injure or theoretically even kill someone and could also present a significant fire or explosion risk.. (the risk is exactly the same adjusted for scale as shooting the gas tank on a car or the battery on an electric car)

Re:Is he in the right?

[Jack Griffin]

Prior to the invention of aircraft a land owner used to own the airspace above their property all the way up to the stars. The FAA changed this for practical reasons, but I see no need to give away these rights just because you have a new toy and are too lazy to take it somewhere less annoying than where I live.

Re:Is he in the right?

[BronsCon]

We are in agreement on this point. Trespass laws should apply accordingly and, in most jurisdictions, passing through is not trespass. That said, I have a nice wide open space to fly in; if only I had a drone to fly.

Re:Is he in the right?

[BronsCon]

We are in agreement here, as is the law, as trespass laws do apply accordingly; in most jurisdictions, passing through is not trespass. On the other hand, I have a nice large open space to fly in, if only I had a drone.

Re:Or... just hear me out here...

[QuietLagoon]

Before I get jumped upon... I meant "yes" only to the context of shooting a drone that is hovering over one's yard, as in the main article.

Buy an rf jammer, become a drone collector

[bagboy]

1. Simply buy one of the many freq jammers amped up enough for about 200 feet and watch the drones fall out of the sky onto your property. 2. Become a drone collector and charge a property access fee for owners to retrieve their property. 3. Profit!

Re:Buy an rf jammer, become a drone collector

[grnbrg]

Nice line for a laugh, but this actually won't work.

GPS chips are cheap, and most of the drones beyond the very basic level have them. In the event of loss of signal (And it's a digital, frequency hopping signal that you *might* be able to jam, but you won't be able to take over.) most multicopters will ascend to ~100 feet, fly slowly to their launch point, then slowly land.

Re:Buy an rf jammer, become a drone collector

[Overzeetop]

Oh, the FCC would love to find out you're illegally transmitting in restricted spectrum. And you can pretty much guarantee if you take down a drone this way and the flier learns about it, you'll get a knock on your door.

Re:Buy an rf jammer, become a drone collector

[Ksevio]

4. Receive visit from FCC

Re:Buy an rf jammer, become a drone collector

[Muad'Dave]

... illegally transmitting in restricted spectrum.

2.4 GHz is some of the _least_ restricted RF spectrum, FWIW.

Too bad I can't charge for using Amateur radio - I can legally transmit up to 1500W into the antenna on that band (2300-2450 MHz) with no restriction on Effective Isotropic Radiated Power. Here's a 1.0x0.6 m somewhat paraboloid antenna that has 24 dB gain in a 10x14 degree pattern, making the EIRP 377kW. I bet that would pop the radios in that drone.

(Naturally I'd never do this - according to RF exposure limits, that setup would exceed the limits for uncontrolled human exposure out to 180 feet or so).

Re:Buy an rf jammer, become a drone collector

[gnu-sucks]

Then there's the water absorption problem. 2.4 GHz is used in microwave ovens for a reason. At a few KW, you'd basically cook the drone in the sky. Hope you don't have any SWR, it will be a complete disaster on your feed.

73.

Re:Buy an rf jammer, become a drone collector

[gnu-sucks]

Also, that would be willful interference.

  Section 97.101(d) of the Commission's Rules prohibits amateur operators from willfully or maliciously interfering with or causing interference to any radio communication or signal. 47 C.F.R. 97.101(d).

https://www.fcc.gov/guides/ama...

But hey, I think you can argue the situation calls for it anyway!

Re:Buy an rf jammer, become a drone collector

[Muad'Dave]

The whole 'water absorption' thing is mostly a myth. There is not a large absorption band at 2.4 GHz - that frequency was chosen specifically since it's in an ISM band where devices that generate and use RF for non-communications purposes are meant to live.

How about a really bright flashlight

[glucoseboy]

A really bright flashlight would be useful in "shooing" drones away... If the pilot is flying over to snoop, he's not going want to stay if there is blinding light shinning into the camera.

Re:How about a really bright flashlight

[nehumanuscrede]

Pfffff . . . . don't go there. Folks are already losing their minds that this guy shot the drone down with a shotgun.

If you start talking lasers, the same folks will want you in prison for putting commercial aircraft at risk by pointing your laser at the sky :|

Re:How about a really bright flashlight

[ImprovOmega]

Actually a 1 or 2 Watt laser would be ideal. If you hit the camera it's perma-fried. Good luck flying your drone back home blind asshole.

Re:How about a really bright flashlight

[lucien86]

Now that really is a good idea.. doesn't directly knock down the aircraft and sends a very definite message. ...

I felt like I had the right.

[OrangeTide]

"I felt like I had the right." .. The FAA's opinion differs.

Re:Sounds like two illegal acts

[OrangeTide]

The airspace above your property is public, and not an extension of your property.

It was trespassing so I shot it?

[RobinH]

If someone parked a car in your driveway and it had a dashboard camera, that doesn't give you the right to shoot at it with a shotgun. Plus there's the fact that shooting at a drone turns it from a not-very-dangerous object into a ballistic object (not to mention the projectile(s) you're shooting). A sane person would call the police rather than making a bad situation worse.

Re:It was trespassing so I shot it?

[SuiteSisterMary]

You are absolutely correct in exactly one respect: that two different situations don't always call for the same reaction.

Re:It was trespassing so I shot it?

[Tulsa_Time]

What if they drove a model car (RC car) into your bedroom ? Presumably with a camera since it would be impossible to navigate without one... Do you have the right to shoot it ? Or hit it with a hammer?

Re:It was trespassing so I shot it?

[Required Snark]

Let's try that again

If someone parked a car with a camera in you backyard/living room/outside your bathroom/in your bedroom....

Re:It was trespassing so I shot it?

[goose-incarnated]

If someone parked a car in your driveway and it had a dashboard camera, that doesn't give you the right to shoot at it with a shotgun.

This wasn't in his driveway. Technically, it went indoors (under the patio), so it wasn't even in his yard at all times - it was in his house!

Re:It was trespassing so I shot it?

[RobinH]

No, you obviously don't, and who would think it's a good idea to discharge a firearm in their home? The drywall isn't going to stop projectiles. The appropriate action if someone does that is still to call the police, and possibly throw a blanket over it, I guess. Since it's not airborne you could just walk up and disconnect the battery so it's hardly the same situation. A drone is dangerous to approach, and even more dangerous to shoot at. An R/C car is not dangerous to approach, and definitely more dangerous to shoot at. Plus you'd be destroying evidence. Better to pick it up and pull the battery, and call the police.

Re:It was trespassing so I shot it?

[RobinH]

Your analogy is falling apart. Even if they flew a drone into your house, discharging a firearm inside your house just makes a bad situation worse, when you could just throw a blanket over it at that point. A lot of people (police included) are just looking for an excuse to shoot something. Pathetic, really.

Re:Or... just hear me out here...

[swb]

At a shotgun range I've been to, they have a duck tower about 150 yards behind the clubhouse. It's surrounded by a fairly thick stand of tall trees, but a couple of the stations result in shooters shot trajectory going through the "hole" in the trees and raining down on the front porch of the clubhouse.

I've been standing there and gotten "hit" -- it actually feels no different than if you through a handful of coarse sand into the air and let it fall on you, actually less since you really only feel a small number of pellets because of dispersion.

Shooters are restricted to target loads of #7.5 shot or smaller, so its very light shot. So light that on their "hard" sporting clays course it's very difficult to hit the distant crossing and away clays in any wind. The #7.5 shot has so little inertia that it just gets blown off target.

Many pheasant hunters I've known have stories about getting hit with shot from people on the other side of a field or road hunting on roads adjacent to the field they were hunting on. It's like coarse sand, and pheasant hunting uses much heavier shot than target shot.

Forget the Drone

[O('_')O_Bush]

The drone just muddles the issue because nerds are passionate about them.

If a creep kept holding up a camera on a stick to videotape my daughters over my fence, I would put some bird shot in that camera as well.

Re:Forget the Drone

[quenda]

I think I'd prefer the weirdo with the camera to the weirdo with a gun as a neighbour, any day.

Its in the same category as punching someone because they "looked at you funny".

Re:Forget the Drone

[Revarg]

Idk, I think i'd aim at the pervert, not the camera.

Misleading headline

[HangingChad]

Hillview Police detective Charles McWhirter of says you can't fire your gun in the city.

He wasn't charged for shooting a drone, he was charged to discharging a gun within city limits. Reckless endangerment doesn't have anything to do with drones it means he was being a risk to public safety.

Re:Misleading headline

[StikyPad]

he was charged to discharging a gun within city limits

No he wasn't.

"Long story short, after that, they took me to jail for wanton endangerment first degree and criminal mischief...because I fired the shotgun into the air."

Hillview Police detective Charles McWhirter of says you can't fire your gun in the city.

"Well, we do have a city ordinance against discharging firearms in the city, but the officer made an arrest for a Kentucky Revised Statute violation," he said. (Emphasis mine.)

These are basically catchalls:

508.060 Wanton endangerment in the first degree.
(1) A person is guilty of wanton endangerment in the first degree when, under
circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life, he
wantonly engages in conduct which creates a substantial danger of death or serious
physical injury to another person.
(2) Wanton endangerment in the first degree is a Class D felony.

512.020 Criminal mischief in the first degree.
(1) A person is guilty of criminal mischief in the first degree when, having no right to
do so or any reasonable ground to believe that he has such right, he intentionally or
wantonly defaces, destroys or damages any property causing pecuniary loss of
$1,000 or more.
(2) Criminal mischief in the first degree is a Class D felony.

I suspect he will be able to argue a) that he did not create a substantial danger, and b) that he had a reasonable ground to believe he had a right to destroy the drone. In fact, his testimony stated as much, so I would bet the criminal mischief charge will probably be dropped.

Re:Misleading headline

[PraiseBob]

Can I discharge a gun within city limits if I am under assault on my own property? Or will I get charged with reckless endangerment when I shoot at a home intruder also?

Re:Misleading headline

[amicusNYCL]

He also stated that the cops agreed with him. It wouldn't surprise me if the cops gave him specific charges which they knew he would be able to beat.

Re:Misleading headline

[shutdown -p now]

Generally speaking, self-defense is specifically listed as a valid reason in laws pertaining to negligent or reckless discharge of firearms. But you'd need to prove that you specifically fired in self-defense, and show that the direction of the shot etc was conductive to that claim. Following Joe Biden's suggestion and discharging a shotgun in the air to scare off the intruder would likely get you charged, for example.

Third Dimension

[duckintheface]

We are accustomed to living in a 2D world (unless you live in a tall apartment in NY... and even then) but drones add a third dimension that we are not used to. I think the FAA has been far too lax in allowing drones to operate in unrestricted space and in not applying radio controlled airplane regulations to drones. Already we have drones crashing into buildings, falling on people, endangering commercial and emergency response airplanes etc, etc)

A good starting point would be to recognize the airspace above private property as part of the property, up to the level allowed to commercial aircraft. That would mean that drones could only fly above designated land surfaces.

Re:Third Dimension

[Alioth]

Drones are subject to the same rules that RC aircraft are subject to.

It is however extremely hard to enforce. RC users are generally pretty responsible - they've probably spent many hours building their aircraft, and during this time it has sunk in the dangers they can pose, and usually they've joined a local club to help them learn to fly their new expensive aircraft and the club will also coach them on safely operating their aircraft.

Drone users not so much. Many of the ready-to-fly drones require pretty much zero skill to operate, so people can take off and cause mischief pretty much straight away.

Re:Third Dimension

[Vlad_the_Inhaler]

up to the level allowed to commercial aircraft

That is too high.

• 1 - Passenger-carrying fixed-wing aircraft. They have no place being near the ground except for takeoff or landing, light aircraft obviously fly much lower than jets. It ain't broke, don't fix it.
• 2 - Helicopters. They fly a lot lower and make a lot of noise, at least they are expensive and dangerous enough that they are not ubiquitous.
• 3 - Drones. They should be below the helicopters.

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.

Re:Third Dimension

[rgbscan]

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."

Re:Third Dimension

[Aighearach]

The Court has long held that you do not have an expectation of privacy on private property unless you actually and successfully block the view. The classic example is a curtain that doesn't cover the whole window, but blocks everywhere they thought a person would be. Not good enough to expect privacy. If the person in the house on the hill can see in with a telescope, then you didn't have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

This would require some other specific state or local law, "expectation of privacy" would never cover outdoors, uncovered areas. You know about airplanes, right? That they fly overhead? And that lenses exist? OK, so the Court knows there is no expectation of privacy outdoors and uncovered. That it is legal to fly over private land already tells them that much, because it is legal to look around wherever you are, using whatever otherwise-legal viewing device you have handy.

If you want drone-perverts to go to jail, you'll need to pass a new law.

Re:Third Dimension

[ScentCone]

A good starting point would be to recognize the airspace above private property as part of the property, up to the level allowed to commercial aircraft. That would mean that drones could only fly above designated land surfaces.

Except there is ample precedent for that NOT being the case. Has nothing to do with neighbors flying toy copters around, or someone flying a Cessna at 500'.

Re:Third Dimension

[mbeckman]

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.

Re:Third Dimension

[Munchr]

Really? So, there's no expectation of privacy when wearing a skirt since it's completely open to any ground level upward facing camera? I don't see how that's different from a downward facing camera in the sky.

Re:Third Dimension

[Farmer Tim]

Actually, given a drone's capacity to record or transmit video it probably qualifies as a surveillance device, and there's plenty of case law which says using surveillance devices to circumvent what would otherwise be private is indeed illegal. I doubt new laws are necessary at all.

Re:Third Dimension

[BronsCon]

The photography laws you vaguely allude to have one simple requirement. You can shoot anything you can see from wherever you are authorized to be [1]. If you can't see what's going on on the other side of that 6ft fence and you are not authorized to be within the confines of that fence, then you cannot legally photograph anything within the confines of that fence; you are not your drone so, even if your drone can see within the confines of that fence, if you are not authorized to be there, you can not photograph there. A plane flying overhead does have authorization, their route was explicitly approved by the FAA, the governing body that controls the airspace above US soil. Your drone does not, unless you pre-arranged it with the property owner, in which case they wouldn't be shooting it down in the first place.

Follow?

[1]: On private property, the property owner can restrict photography.

Re:Third Dimension

[irving47]

They're not illegal. Not fully. (yet) It depends on location AND altitude AND purpose of flight. (commercial vs. non-commercial)

Re:Third Dimension

[irving47]

I've seen this first-hand. A guy locally was going around with an up-skirt camera rig in his duffle-bag. I saw what was going on and alerted security, they called the cops... They said it was a public place with "no reasonable expectation of privacy" so as much as they wanted to get him, they didn't think it would hold. (The guy was long-gone by the time the cops arrived)

Re:Third Dimension

[mbeckman]

This instance was illegal. I'm an RC modeler, a licensed helicopter pilot, and a drone builder. This drone was flying illegally by all existing laws.

Re:Third Dimension

[harvey the nerd]

When he shot the drone, he blocked the view. Which could also be considered a warning shot to dangerous, perv central.

Re:Third Dimension

[amicusNYCL]

But what can - say - Gisele Bündchen do if some obnoxious prat has a camera-carrying drone hovering over her home?

I suppose she could get Tom to deflate one of his balls and throw it at the drone.

Re:Third Dimension

[Darinbob]

There's no reasonable expectation that the guy won't get kicked in the balls either.

Re:Third Dimension

[mysidia]

That is too high.

Say instead: up to the level of commercial aircraft UNLESS the operator is a licensed airplane or helicopter pilot, or explicit permission is obtained from property owner in advance.

Also, the manufacturers should be required to adopt a standard that allows a property owner to place beacons at corners of their property and automatically deny entry to all automatic drones.

Re:Third Dimension

[david_thornley]

From the stuff I've seen, you have an expectation of privacy when you can't be seen by another person outside your property. In a flat area, a six-foot privacy fence should do that.

Re:Third Dimension

[cthulhu11]

Was the issue that he shot the drone, or that he shot a gun into the air in his yard?

Re:Third Dimension

[Amorymeltzer]

There's an interesting comparison here to the advent of airplanes. Lawrence Lessig goes into it a bit in Free Culture but the basic gist is that when you owned land and a house, you owned the land "up to God." Then airplanes came around and suddenly you didn't actually own all the area above your house, just a portion (relatively) near it. In large cities, you can even "sell" the air rights, so fancy buildings will buy the top whatever "floors" of neighboring buildings to keep them low and allow fancy tenants to keep their nice views.

Re: Third Dimension

[mbeckman]

You can't fly over people when below 1000' (and can't fly above 400'). . FAA RC statuary regulation and FAA FAR part 91. https://www.faa.gov/uas/media/...

Re: Third Dimension

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a link to an update on the original article... The drone pilot shows his flight path and altitude, the short of it...the drone was over 100' and not over his property line. What is illegal, and unsafe, discharging a firearm into the air in a residential area.

Re: Third Dimension

[Lisias]

Assuming, of course, that the info was not tampered.

The Police failed to confiscate the drone remains for investigation, so the drone owner can claim that he wants that doesn't matter, there's no chain of thrust to guarantee this data is intact.

Re:Third Dimension

[BronsCon]

Context. Photography. Shoot. Got it?

Re: Third Dimension

[BobJacobsen]

Then the info was doctored. There's no way a shotgun could have taken it down at that distance.

Re:Third Dimension

[ToasterMonkey]

I've seen this first-hand. A guy locally was going around with an up-skirt camera rig in his duffle-bag. I saw what was going on and alerted security, they called the cops... They said it was a public place with "no reasonable expectation of privacy" so as much as they wanted to get him, they didn't think it would hold. (The guy was long-gone by the time the cops arrived)

How could you NOT accidentally step on and kick a knee high camera that close? I'm really surprised nobody accidentally destroyed it and had to exchange information with the guy, you know, to replace it, or something.

Re: Third Dimension

[donscarletti]

100' is well within the effective range of a decent shotgun firing buckshot, even at 141' (100' horizontal, 100' vertical) it should be quite lethal to a deer or human, let alone a shitty plastic drone.

Re:Third Dimension

[Aighearach]

Really? So, there's no expectation of privacy when wearing a skirt since it's completely open to any ground level upward facing camera? I don't see how that's different from a downward facing camera in the sky.

Right, that is not enough to make that horrible thing illegal.

It doesn't take just one law to ban all the things you want to ban.

That people find upskirts without permission to be offensive and contrary to the public good doesn't mean that it therefore violates any law you wave your hands and recite. You need a law that actually bans the peeping of areas that people were trying to cover with clothing. "Privacy" is a very specific legal concept with broad implications. You can't invoke it just anywhere. You can't "expect" privacy just because it is in poor taste to look up your skirt. And if it is legal to look, then it is legal to take a picture, barring some specific law. It is known there are people with poor taste in the world, so it is just not valid as something to "expect." It is just what you want to happen. So the law instead bans photography in public of parts of the body people were attempting to cover with clothing, or that a reasonable person would expect to cover their body parts.

Expecting privacy is expecting success; the anti-upskirt laws instead measure having tried.

And indeed, longtime readers of this site (like the person you borrowed the account from) remember the stories from when they arrested perverts, and then had to let them go after the Courts explained that in many States the peeping laws just weren't written in a way that covered upskirts. And in other States, the hundred-year-old laws already did ban it.

Re:Third Dimension

[Aighearach]

You might want to lower your nose before you drown. I "follow," yes, you have some information but don't entirely understand the context of your words.

If there is an angle where visibility is legal, then you do not have an expectation of privacy. An expectation of privacy isn't based on who is looking, it is based on having completely blocked all the angles of view, generally by being indoors with completely covered and secured windows. Outdoors, you would need to be under a cover, or you don't have any expectation of privacy, because those airplanes are authorized. The analysis is of the expectation of the person desiring privacy, not the actual location of a specific viewer. The location of the viewer becomes important when they could actually see, because it disqualifies any claim of expectation of privacy. And the person who couldn't see doesn't matter either, because you don't benefit by demonstrating a negative. You have to have a reasonable expectation that any hypothetical viewer that you don't know about cannot see you from any legal place, including that airplane. Then you can expect the result "privacy."

That does not mean that photography is allowed. There are other laws, other precedents. And in most cases, physical presence in such a location, such as reaching over a fence with a camera, is criminal trespassing. The photograph itself though might not be "illegal;" you might simply not be authorized to show anybody, because it depicts a famous person and was not taken in public or with permission. See, it is actually rather complicated. Unless the person is actually caught trespassing, it is probably a legal photograph that can't be displayed in public.

Re:Third Dimension

[BronsCon]

Outdoors, you would need to be under a cover, or you don't have any expectation of privacy, because those airplanes are authorized.

Well hmm, that sounds familiar, almost as though one of us already said it... Oh, that's right! It was ME!

A plane flying overhead does have authorization, their route was explicitly approved by the FAA, the governing body that controls the airspace above US soil.

You're right that you don't have an expectation of privacy from planes flying their FAA-approved flight paths in your privacy-fenced-but-not-covered back yard; however, a plane deviating from that flight path without FCC authorization (e.g. due to an emergency) is no longer in legal airspace and you do have an expectation of privacy from those craft, along with any other craft not flying either an FAA-approved flight path or over the pilot's own property.

You may also not have an expectation of privacy from your neighbor looking out their 2nd story window, or up a tree or on a ladder (not leaning on your fence, as that is your property) on their own property, or even from their drone flying above your fenceline on their property, but once that craft leaves the airspace over their property, a likely interpretation of FAA regulations reads such that the craft is no longer flying legally and, therefore, one should have a reasonable expectation of privacy from that craft. I'm pretty sure I covered that with this line:

If you can't see what's going on on the other side of that 6ft fence and you are not authorized to be within the confines of that fence, then you cannot legally photograph anything within the confines of that fence

That is to say, if you can see it from a tree, ladder, or window on your property, well, you can see it.

The bar isn't so high that if anyone can legally see it, everyone can. You said it yourself, and I said it previously, the reasonable expectation is of privacy from those not legally allowed to be there. That would include, in your own words...

And in most cases, physical presence in such a location, such as reaching over a fence with a camera, is criminal trespassing.

...a drone with a camera.

Re:Third Dimension

[Aighearach]

I'm only going in as far as to say, I mentioned the airplane thing in the post you were replying to. That is where you got it. L O L *ROFLCOPTER*

You're simply wrong in trying to turn all the regulations into modifications of an expectation of privacy. You don't have an expectation of privacy anywhere that a drone would be unless it is flying indoors. Yes, there are still rules. No, the existence of those rules don't create an expectation of privacy even where you might feel like your neighborhood is more "private" if people follow those rules. It is not actually difficult to comprehend the language used.

Re:Third Dimension

[BronsCon]

You did not mention where the plane gets its authorization to fly over private property. In fact, you did not mention at all that they even were authorized, just stated their existence as a natural fact. Beyond that, yes, the rules and laws do create a legal expectation of privacy. Of course anyone who can see, legally or not, can see. If they have to put their camera over your fence to see, as you said yourself, that is most likely illegal.

If you want to test that in court, go ahead and fly your drone over my fence without permission. Anyone else who asks will have said permission; you, never. Let's see how it plays out.

Re:Or... just hear me out here...

[ArcadeMan]

Mod up +1 million

Re:Drones

[OrangeTide]

Ban satellites too, surveyors can go back to the good old days of taking poles and sights out into the field. And ban cars that take pictures for Google maps. And ban tourists from taking pictures in front of my apartment. Technology bad, boooo.

Sorry, but there is no Constitutional right to live as a reclusive hermit that is never seen or photographed. Your right to privacy seems to only extend to situations where the courts determine it interferes with the Fourth Amendment, and that's on a good day.

Start

[Widowwolf]

Freezing up Paintball Balls No discharge of firearms, and Drone be gone! Or you can play super Lawn darts and just go get yourself a Spear Gun..They are in Kentucky! That should do the trick against a drone

Re:Or... just hear me out here...

[turp182]

If you knew who was flying it that would work.

Business opportunity

[FerociousFerret]

I see a business opportunity in drone snagging net cannons just for this purpose.

Faa rules for RC planes

[thbigr]

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

Re:Faa rules for RC planes

[Andy Dodd]

I don't see a single one of these that the pilot definitively violated. "Don't fly near people or stadiums" is the only thing he might have violated, depending on where in this guy's yard it was. (I don't consider shotgun range to be "near enough to be dangerous" - well for danger to people from the aircraft. Obviously the shotgun is dangerous).

What if he was taking pictures of the neighbor's house, at the request of the neighbor? (In fact this is what he claims he was doing.)

Re:Faa rules for RC planes

[SydShamino]

The thing that actually does make a drone a drone is the presence of a camera and the ability to operate out of line of sight. Saying that you can't basically says you can't fly drones, which probably wouldn't work because if drones were a crime then only criminals would have drones or something like that.

(I think half the public and half the laws already confuse "drone" with "rc plane", where rc planes are now being called drones even when operated within line of sight. So the same FAA rule that banned drones would probably end up getting RC pilots arrested.)

Re:Faa rules for RC planes

[tlhIngan]

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 Ã" you could be fined for endangering people or other aircraft

They're not rules, they're just guidelines.

I repeat, they are not rules, they are guidelines.

All things in the air are classified under the FAA jurisdiction, including those little toy hobby drones you fly in your backyard.

The reason the FAA released the advisory circular (it's not official law or anything) is because the FAA recognizes the silliness of trying to enforce rules for "normal" aircraft on those who want to fly little models for recreation.

So they released a set of guidelines that generally will keep you safe from the FAA, but not always - the NTSB has ruled that the FAA has the right to charge hobbyists with dangerous flying. (A drone pilot was observed dodging and weaving their drone in a public park at people, buzzing them and flying through an underpass tunnel with people in them. The FAA pressed charges, the initial NTSB official ruled against the FAA (per the advisory circular), and the FAA appealed to the NTSB board saying despite the circular, it's still an aircraft under their jurisdiction and they did have the right to prosecute the owner. The FAA won.).

Anyhow, the guy probably should've swung at the drone - they still are vulnerable beasts and if you can disable a rotor, most will be uncontrollable. Whacking it with a stick is sufficient.

And yeah, I too would like to see the drone owner charged.

Re:Faa rules for RC planes

[sbrown7792]

Why don't we simply apply the rules to drones?

Those rules do apply to drones, as they apply to any UAS.
Some dumbasses just don't follow the rules.
News at 11.

Re:Faa rules for RC planes

[thbigr]

From what I recall in my RC Club days, that if you follow those guidelines you are not going to get prosecuted.

I would have to look it up later, but I am pretty sure you can get prosecuted by the FAA

Re:Faa rules for RC planes

[R3d M3rcury]

Consider the ground example: If you were a photographer taking pictures of my neighbor's house and you decided the best shot required going onto my property, would you ask first?

Same principle applies.

Re:Faa rules for RC planes

[recharged95]

Those are great rules for a AMA field... and that's all.

Drones are being flown mainly in non-AMA fields with inexperienced pilots and require a different set of rules, hopefully simplified. Why? because....

400ft? How can you tell visually that you're above 400ft unless you have wireless telemetry (uncommon actually). Heck most AMA field hobbyists typically lose LOS before hitting 400ft.
Visual LOS? really, I can't recognize a drone 50ft away since it's a symmetrical frame. LEDs at 100ft are nothing....
manned operations? really no one (even the ATC in some ways) has good ADB-S yet.
5miles of an airport? I live 3.5 miles from one & can't fly in my own back yard?
people or stadiums? problem here is enforcement too many folks willing to take HUGE risks (idiots) out there
55lbs? off the shelf drone motors can't even carry 20lbs.
careless or reckless? obviously a lot of folks are ignoring this one.

The only reason manned flight works is air traffic lanes, it's a real highway system up there for the manned guys. And the guys that fly "off-road" (some manned Cessna and tv copter pilots fly over my house! And I found is a big no-no & should be fined) are penalized if caught and yes do create potential dangers. Drones are likely going the same direction unless tech is used, i.e. Require connected ground station telemetry & internet distribution of your location (sphere of influence). Flying around your house is cool, but be prepared on the risks (fly aways) and really be more conservative on space use as people see hovering over one's place leans towards intrusion than friendly.

Re:Faa rules for RC planes

[tomhath]

It was clearly under 400 feet. First - a shotgun wouldn't take it down from a range of over 100 yards. Second - the neighbor said it dropped low enough to peek under the patio roof.

The drone operator's claim that he was taking pictures of a buddy's house is total BS, he was spying on people in their backyards

Re:Faa rules for RC planes

[captaindomon]

These rules DO apply to drones. In fact, the FAA talks about them all the time, and even has an informational website to explain it to drone users: http://knowbeforeyoufly.org/fo...

Re:Faa rules for RC planes

[Obfuscant]

The only reason manned flight works is air traffic lanes, it's a real highway system up there for the manned guys.

That is simply untrue. The reason manned flight works, and the basis for the system, is the concept of "see and avoid". The only time that "see and avoid" is not rule number 1 is if you are flying in the clouds. If you are doing that, then it has become ATC responsibility for "separation" -- i.e. keeping other people flying in the clouds from running into you and vice versa. If you aren't operating on an IFR clearance, then there are rules about how close to the clouds you can go which are based on giving you and the guy who pops out of a cloud time to see and avoid each other.

Otherwise, "see and avoid", wherever you happen to be.

Now, there are "airways" that are defined routes, but there is no requirement to actually fly on them (unless you've received an ATC instruction to do so), and even large airliners don't need to fly on them. They'll often get instructions like "direct XYZ direct ABC" which bypass those airways. And the FAA Next-Gen concept is to do away with such airways and operate mostly direct. That's because there will be better tracking of aircraft enroute.

And the guys that fly "off-road" (some manned Cessna and tv copter pilots fly over my house! And I found is a big no-no & should be fined) are penalized if caught and yes do create potential dangers.

It is not a danger nor is it illegal to fly "off-road". You are quite incorrect in your belief that it is a "big no-no". It IS a no-no to fly closer than a certain distance from people or structures, or below certain altitudes (1000' over a populated area, unless in the process of landing or taking off), but "off-road" is quite common and quite safe. And that 1000' restriction doesn't apply to helicopters. Their rule says they have to fly at or above a level from which a safe landing can be made in an emergency.

5miles of an airport? I live 3.5 miles from one & can't fly in my own back yard?

Life sucks, but yes. Many airports have controlled airspace from ground to 3000' AGL in a 5 mile radius, specifically to protect aircraft operations into, out of, and in the vicinity of the airport. That's the general boundary of control of ATC at a towered airport, and it is mirrored in uncontrolled fields.

manned operations? really no one (even the ATC in some ways) has good ADB-S yet.

ADS-B has nothing to do with a prohibition on interfering with manned flights. If you can see your toy, then you really ought to be able to see that much larger manned aircraft that is passing by. You don't need radar or transponders.

Re:Faa rules for RC planes

[Jack Griffin]

I don't see a single one of these that the pilot definitively violated. "Don't fly near people or stadiums" is the only thing he might have violated,

So you don't see any violations apart from the violations? Sweet.
And there's no might about it. Flying near people definitely breaches the don't fly near people rule.

Below 500' it probably is

[Overzeetop]

Air rights, unless previously given away, are up to 500' above your land or structure. It's as much trespass as the 5 year old who runs across your front lawn to get home for dinner after playing in the park.

Re:Below 500' it probably is

[Overzeetop]

In KY, a fence is a sufficient notice against trespass (class 2 criminal trespass)

Re:Below 500' it probably is

[Obfuscant]

Air rights, unless previously given away, are up to 500' above your land or structure.

Given the amount of airspace in the US that is controlled from surface to some specified altitude, I think I need a citation for that claim. You can't seriously claim that the US government got waivers from all the people who live under such airspace before they could create it.

It's as much trespass as the 5 year old who runs across your front lawn to get home for dinner after playing in the park.

Is the correct solution to that trespass to shoot the five year old? That would certainly send a message to all the other neighborhood kids.

Re:Below 500' it probably is

[Obfuscant]

511.070 Criminal trespass in the second degree.
(1) A person is guilty of criminal trespass in the second degree when he knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in a building or upon premises as to which notice against trespass is given by fencing or other enclosure.

"He" didn't enter until after the drone was shot down. Would you claim it was criminal trespass if your neighbor's child kicked his soccer ball into your yard and didn't come get it right away? That's "knowingly enters" (kick a ball that hard in that direction, guess where it will land) and "remains" (he didn't come get it right away). The only thing that would keep that from being a crime is ... the ball is not a "he". I suppose you could argue the ball is guilty, but it is hard to prove the guilty intent on the part of the ball -- or of the drone.

Drone fear - Baker Beach

[chewie2010]

I was at Baker beach on a Sunday when a family was flying a Quad Copter. A Dad and his kids having fun. Most people could see it was a family having a nice day out; but let me tell you - Some folks freaked the hell out and started accusing the Dad guy of filming them, etc. Some of it seemed like using the "drone" as an excuse to be belligerent in public.

Re:Drone fear - Baker Beach

[JaredOfEuropa]

It's kind of the same reaction that Glass wearers got. People object to being filmed in certain places like bars or beaches. If I went round the beach taking pictures of random people, I would be expecting some strongly worded objections as well. And even if the family was clearly flying the drone for fun, those people would still object to the footage being posted to YouTube as "Our outing at Baker beach".

Personally, I don't want to be filmed either... but I don't think it's necessary to be an a-hole about it.

Re:Drone fear - Baker Beach

[aaaaaaargh!]

Well, the point is that you cannot see or know whether they film you or not. That alone should be reason enough to ban them.

Re:Drone fear - Baker Beach

[jd.schmidt]

Factually I think the height the drone is flying at makes a big difference also. If you take a picture of someone from a few feet away clearly pointing at them, kind of like google glasses do, yeah, that is annoying. If however they take a photo of the beach, and you happen to be in the photo over a hundred feet from the camera and you object, well, you should probably avoid ever going out in public if that is too much intrusion for you. So yeah, closely hovering over a specific group of people is one thing, but taking broad pictures of the beach and the people on it is clearly legal and ethical. If the drone is so far away you can't tell for sure if it has a camera, on public property no less, you should learn to deal with it.

Re:Drone fear - Baker Beach

[PIBM]

I've been a fan of photography for 17 years, and I've taken countless pictures on beaches (and quite a lot of other places!). The reaction all depends on how you approach both the subject and locations. I've seen photographer be roughly handled but it appears I've been doing it well since that never happened to me. Always respect the privacy of the people and they will respect you. Quite often people will even come and ask to have their picture taken, in which case I simply email a link to their private copy.

Sometimes you get a nice shot of a non-descript couple or something, in which case if I get the chance I'll go meet them and present the result, and ask if they want it (free of charge) and everyone has been happy so far.

I recently started playing with a quadcopter, and the result is the same, except that I have much more inquiries and people want me to video them and give them the youtube link. A lot of people where very happy to get to see the world from an higher point and I've received countless thanks for this already.

Also, keep in mind that most drones have a very wide field of view, so you are very small in the video when the drone is still pretty close. About the girl waving, it's entirely possible he was taking pictures of the house/property around, and when he noticed someone he flew out, since you must take all precautions not to fly too near to people.

I've also met other people flying their drones, either custom made, new products being developed or commercial ones and everyone I've met so far were nice people. I find it nice that people get together and talk because of this new subject rather than each of them taking selfies / ignoring everything around. Oh well, your mileage may vary :)

Re:Drone fear - Baker Beach

[Jack Griffin]

Some of it seemed like using the "drone" as an excuse to be belligerent in public.

Are you talking about the owner or the other people? It seems to work both ways.

Re:Drone fear - Baker Beach

[Grishnakh]

There's a difference here. A public beach is a public area, by definition, and you don't really have any expectation of privacy there (beyond, say, being stalked or harassed). A private residence's back yard with a 6-foot fence is a totally different matter. You can legally film people in a public area in most places (though the stalking/harassment stuff still applies, so don't focus too much on any one person without permission), but you cannot film people in a private area without permission.

Also, a house's front yard and back yard are very different, especially if the back yard is fenced. People are allowed to walk into your front yard and knock on your front door, though they have to leave the premises if ordered to by the resident. They're not allowed to wander into your fenced-off back yard. They're also allowed to photograph your front yard (within reason: the Google car is OK, stopping for a long time and taking zoom shots in one house's window is not). Photographing a fenced-in back yard is not allowed, and falls under peeping tom laws.

We have a new sport

[fustakrakich]

A variation of skeet shooting. Seems like you gotta be pretty good to hit one of these things. Well, the guy is right. Thing like that buzzing around my head, I'll take a swat at it, too.The FAA has rules for flying machines, no reason not to apply them here.

I wonder, if drones, controlled by fast computers and all, could ever be able to detect and avoid rapidly approaching projectiles (bullet, buck shot).

Re:There is no privacy

[MtnDeusExMachina]

If there is no privacy, then why are you posting as AC?

Residential area?

[xenotransplant]

I don't know the law in Kentucky, but here in NY
It is illegal to discharge a firearm, longbow or crossbow:

• so that the load or arrow passes over any part of a public highway,
• within 500 feet (for a firearm), 250 feet (for a crossbow) or 150 feet (for a longbow) of any school, playground, or an occupied factory or church,
• within 500 feet (for a firearm), 250 feet (for a crossbow) or 150 feet (for a longbow) of a dwelling, farm building or structure in occupation or use unless you own it, lease it, are an immediate member of the family, an employee, or have the owner's consent.

Re:Residential area?

[nehumanuscrede]

No problem.

As a high powered air-rifle does not qualify as a firearm, that device can be used to take down a flying drone while following the letter of the law :D

Re:Residential area?

[jd.schmidt]

I was unaware destruction of property was legal, where do you live exactly?

Not quite that trivial.

[Chirs]

As others have said, calling the police is not going to help. They can't exactly roll out a pair of RF direction-finding vans and triangulate the position of the drone operator. They might if you're lucky send some officers by in a few hours to take a complaint, and then most likely not do anything with it unless they get dozens of other complaints in the same area.

What we need is a net gun that will disable drones without endangering people.

Re:Not quite that trivial.

[Overzeetop]

You don't think that, in a neighborhood, someone would know who has a drone like this? That a photo and affidavit would be sufficient to get the pilot a call from the local PD or prosecutors office reminding him/her that he could be called into court and a misdemeanor conviction put on his record?

Re:Not quite that trivial.

[SuricouRaven]

"What we need is a net gun that will disable drones without endangering people."

What you need is some string and a bunch of balloons.
  - A British Person.

Re:Not quite that trivial.

[Overzeetop]

When seconds count, a clown with a balloon is just minutes away.

Re:Not quite that trivial.

[SuricouRaven]

This is more a preemptive measure. We used it on a larger scale to keep Nazi bombers away. It worked reasonably well - forced them to fly high, or risk hitting a cable and destroying their plane.

Re:Not quite that trivial.

[Firethorn]

You don't think that, in a neighborhood, someone would know who has a drone like this?

Given that the drone operator was there to 'photograph a friend's house', I'm taking it as that he's not local. I could park a van a block or so away, launch the drone from the roof, and never be seen in person operating it.

Re:Not quite that trivial.

[dpidcoe]

What we need is a net gun that will disable drones without endangering people.

A net gun fired into the air at a drone won't be any less dangerous than #7 birdshot fired at a drone in the air.

Re:Not quite that trivial.

[nytes]

The possibility existed that it wasn't owned by anyone in his neighborhood.

The police in my area have alerted us that drones are apparently being used to case houses for break-ins.

While I don't believe that justified an illegal discharge of firearms, I do believe he was justified in knocking it out of the sky even if it resulted in the destruction of someone's drone.

Meredith was totally within his rights

[sgage]

Meredith was totally within his rights - his private property was being invaded. Fuck the owners of the drone - they are idiots, and the true criminals in this case. If someone flies a drone over my property, it's toast. And I'll fight any legal nonsense that ensues right on up to the Supreme Court (for what that's worth). This has to be gotten under control, now. People have NO RIGHT to fly their drones over private property. They could be recording video, they could even be toting firearms. Shoot first, ask questions later.

Re:Meredith was totally within his rights

[fuzznutz]

Meredith was totally within his rights - his private property was being invaded. Fuck the owners of the drone - they are idiots, and the true criminals in this case. If someone flies a drone over my property, it's toast. And I'll fight any legal nonsense that ensues right on up to the Supreme Court (for what that's worth). This has to be gotten under control, now. People have NO RIGHT to fly their drones over private property. They could be recording video, they could even be toting firearms. Shoot first, ask questions later.

And frothing-at-the-mouth authoritarians like you are the reason we have cops killing people left and right for nonsense reasons and people are shooting each other for perceived slights. This past week in Cincinnati, a College cop put a slug in a guys brain because he didn't have front license plates. In Florida, some nutcase blew away a guy in front of his family because he was driving aggressively and followed him. People are too quick to anger and dispense vigilante justice without thinking about the consequences.

Re:Meredith was totally within his rights

[wonkey_monkey]

No, he wasn't within his rights. Having your privacy violated doesn't give you the right to, for example, discharge a firearm within city limits.

People have NO RIGHT to fly their drones over private property.

That doesn't automatically grant you EVERY RIGHT to end the violation.

Re:Meredith was totally within his rights

[wonkey_monkey]

I just looked up the Cincinnati case. Seems the cop's lawyer doesn't think it was murder:

"Murder is the purposeful killing of another," [the cop's laywer] said. "There wasn't any purpose to kill this fella."

Some excellent lawyer logic.

Re:Sounds like two illegal acts

[sgage]

There are altitude limits on this - not sure what they are, but I'll bet they're beyond shotgun range.

Airspace rights

[bradley13]

It obviously depends on local laws, however: generally speaking you have full rights and control over the airspace immediately above your property. This may be 10 feet, 20 feet, whatever you might reasonably use and/or access from the ground or your buildings. If this drone was ducking under people's patios, then it is a clear trespass into airspace that he and his neighbors have full rights to. Add to trespassing whatever charges apply to "peeping toms".

From it's actions, and from the prompt arrival of the owners, it is also entirely clear that the drone had a camera. The police failure to confiscate the drone for evidence is stupid, as that would be important proof in whatever charges are brought: either the shooting or the trespassing.

I'd have shot it too.

Re:Airspace rights

[Obfuscant]

It obviously depends on local laws, however: generally speaking you have full rights and control over the airspace immediately above your property.

Generally speaking, in the US, that's false.

Just to name a few "rights" you do not have:

1. You cannot tell the FAA to move the final approach course for an instrument approach from over your house. You cannot tell them not to vector aircraft over your house.

2. If you build an antenna greater than a certain height in "your" airspace, you must install anti-collision lights.

Two examples.

From it's actions, and from the prompt arrival of the owners, it is also entirely clear that the drone had a camera.

From the fact that the drone was being used to take photographs of a friend's house, I think we can assume it had a camera.

I'd have shot it too.

Do you shoot at all aircraft that pass over your private property, or just those that you think you can get away with because it amuses you to destroy other people's stuff?

Re:Airspace rights

[dl_sledding]

This may be 10 feet, 20 feet, whatever you might reasonably use and/or access from the ground or your buildings.

The FAA already defines this: 500 feet in a rural area and 1000 feet in an urban area. He was well within his rights.

Re:Airspace rights

[Obfuscant]

The FAA already defines this: 500 feet in a rural area and 1000 feet in an urban area. He was well within his rights.

Citation required. The rules for minimum altitudes (which do not mention "urban" or "rural", btw) are not rules that define the upper extent of "private property", they define the lower extent of flight operations. And the rules for helicopters are much different.

Even so, please also cite a reference that says you have the right to shoot an aircraft out of the sky just because you believe it is flying too low.

Re:Why do you hate America?

[StikyPad]

When seconds count, police are only minutes away.

Is a UAV an "aircraft"?

[Chirs]

Just curious...is a small radio-controlled toy considered an "aircraft" for the purposes of that law? I wouldn't think so, since as far as I know "aircraft" need to do things like file flight plans and such.

Re:Is a UAV an "aircraft"?

[OrangeTide]

It's the special rule for model aircraft. The FAA puts some limits and exemptions on them, but they still don't permit you to fire on model aircraft.

Also, you don't have to file a flight plan for sport flight of full size aircraft. So your assumption is not entirely correct.

FAA's regulations are a maze of classes and exceptions, and I'm not an air lawyer, so I could be entirely wrong about everything I've said today on the subject.

Re:Is a UAV an "aircraft"?

[Obfuscant]

I wouldn't think so, since as far as I know "aircraft" need to do things like file flight plans and such.

You know wrong. Aircraft don't file flight plans, pilots (or their dispatchers) do. And there is no blanket requirement to file one. The only three requirements I ca think of right now are 1) if you are going to ask for or need an IFR clearance, 2) you are going to cross or enter an ADIZ, or 3) you are crossing into the US and need to deal with ICE. And even for (1) you can file an abbreviated plan at the time you need a pop-up clearance, such as when you've realized the airport you are going to has gone IMC and you need an IFR clearance to get in.

No, "aircraft" is defined by its intended use, from here: "Aircraft means a device that is used or intended to be used for flight in the air." Note that this is not specific to lighter or heavier than air flight, so balloons are also aircraft.

I actually agree with him

[davesque]

People shouldn't fly their drones around and trespass into other people's "airspace." Not only is it rude, I could see it also being considered illegal in short order if it isn't already. I agree with this guy.

Re:Drones

[sgage]

Oh come on. A drone buzzing around your backyard recording your private doings is not analogous to a satellite. As for banning cars that take pictures for Google, that's not remotely analogous or applicable, nor the case of tourists taking a picture in front of your house. And it's not a matter of 'technology, boo'. It's a matter of civility, and as a matter of fact you do have certain rights and expectations of privacy.

No one is going to fly a drone over my property, recording what I'm doing, possibly carrying a gun, and who knows what else. It's private spying and snooping, pernicious and threatening. No one has a right to do that, and I have a right to blast it out of the sky. A right that I will cheerfully exercise should some idiot send one over my way.

I would've done the same.

[TigerPlish]

Hovering over my property without my invite? Expect to be blown out of the sky.. if I determine I can get the shot without having the wreck come down on top of my house.

Alternatively, we can develop counter-drone drones, whose job would be to seek out unwanted drones and shoot them out of the sky.

Or how about a net-gun? Throw a net at the offending drone, capture it, and if it survives, sell the shit on ebay.

Brave new world, this one.

Re:I would've done the same.

[Anonymous Coward]

actually Kentucky law is quite specific in this case:
Filming a 16 year old girl without her consent is "creating child pornography" depending on the intent of the one filming.

"Kentucky’s castle law authorizes the use of physical or deadly force when a person is confronted by a criminal attempting to commit a felony by use of force."

Source:
http://civilliberty.about.com/od/guncontrol/a/Kentucky-Gun-Laws.htm

Re:I would've done the same.

[Drethon]

Same approach as capturing bats. Since it was only about 10 ft up at times, toss a blanket over it and bring it down. Hey, look what I found on my property!

Re:I would've done the same.

[meta-monkey]

Somebody else in the comments had a good idea...garden hose on full blast. Consider it a warning shot. Yes, I think Meredith was justified in what he did, but I like the hose idea, as you're less likely to wind up arrested.

Re:I would've done the same.

[ImprovOmega]

High powered lasers are basically the answer here. Burn out the CCD sensor and the drone is blind. Silent, no danger to others (because it never comes back down anyway) and it solves the whole peeping tom issue.

Never taken a gun safety course, eh?

[Overzeetop]

I have. Even when firing into the sky, the first rule is to ensure that there are no hazards down range regardless of your firing trajectory. If you trip or get startled there is a finite probability that you will fire downrange at an angle that will put anyone that direction at risk. Have you never take a gun safety course?

Air rights

[sjbe]

I doubt that owning property automatically implies ownership of the airspace above the property.

Property owners generally DO own the airspace below navigable airspace which in the US is generally considered to be around 500 feet as I understand it. Airspace above that limit is controlled by the FAA. Unfortunately the regulations regarding low flying drones are still being worked out so there is little clear precedent or statute here.

Re:Is It OK to Shoot Down Your Neighbor's Drone?

[thbigr]

The FAAs own rules also prohibit flying RC Aircraft in close proximity to buildings.

Prosecute BOTH parties and its a just situation.

Re:Or... just hear me out here...

[Andy Dodd]

To play devil's advocate:

The drone pilot claims he was asked by one of the people in the neighborhood to take some pictures. I've done this before.

In the case of the guy with the shotgun - can he confirm that the camera was indeed pointed towards him, as opposed to someone else's house (that someone else who could have given permission and possibly even requested the photography)? Same for the 16 year old who waved at it - did she know for sure that she was seen on camera, or was the camera aimed elsewhere and it's just coincidence the pilot moved the thing for a different camera angle after a bit?

That said, if you're trying to take pictures of friend A's house, and want to get an oblique (from the side view) shot which requires you to be over the neighbor's property but with the camera aimed at A's property - you should probably chat with A's neighbors just to give them a heads up what you're doing.

Re:Or... just hear me out here...

[blue9steel]

You could call the police and lodge a complaint like a civilized person instead grabbing your gun and shooting randomly at everything that you don't like.

Yes, and I'm sure they'll get right on that. His reaction was overkill but his expectation of privacy was reasonable.

Re:Drones

[OrangeTide]

You may not find it socially acceptable, but it appears legal from the brief review of regulations and code I could find. But it's always up to court interpretations and established precedent.

IANAL of course, but I'm not charging for my legal 'advice" so we're even there.

Re: Or... just hear me out here...

[UnknownSoldier]

Speaking of the memory card .. there is a rather novel "approach" ...

The underage girl should have "accidentally" flashed her boobs ... that way the drone operator would be possession of child pornography.

Re:Or... just hear me out here...

[SuricouRaven]

It would be easy enough to introduce anti-drone defenses. Nothing too fancy is needed: A simple net, thin as thread, strung from fencetop to poles or nearby buildings. Small drones bounce off, large ones get their blades entangled. Free drone!

Truly Trespassing?

[Overzeetop]

Many states require that a No Trespassing sign be posted for criminal trespass to occur. Kentucky does not require such a notice, but it DOES define trespassing in the first and third degress as being ulawfully *in a dwelling*. Second degree trespass is as close as he might get. I quoteth the law:

A person is guilty of criminal trespass in the second degree when he knowingly
enters or remains unlawfully in a building or upon premises as to which notice
against trespass is given by fencing or other enclosure.
(2) Criminal trespass in the second degree is a Class B misdemeanor.

Emphasis is mine. As to whether a telepresence (drone) constitutes a "person...upon the premises" will no doubt be the subject for his lawyer and the prosecution to discuss. At several hundred dollars an hour.

The drone may not have been tresspassing

[jd.schmidt]

It is a currently unresolved legal issue I understand, but if the drone was over 80 feet up, it *may* not have been trespassing. Owning a drone myself, I am well aware of the temptation for misuse (you need to get on good terms with your neighbors, pro tip: boys love drone and often act as great ambassadors to the parents), still they are expensive and frankly likely the drone couldn't have been hovering for a really long time due to battery life. That said, I do look forward to better defined rules and regulations so everyone knows what to do and expect.

Re:The drone may not have been tresspassing

[jjhues7676]

Fly over is one thing, Hovering is staring and to me, in my backyard, that is trespassing!

Re:The drone may not have been tresspassing

[jd.schmidt]

Right now, I don't think the law addresses that issue. In this specific case, according to the guy who shot the drone, he was waiting with shotgun ready in case the drone did pass over his property. I doubt he waited long before firing. It isn't clear if the "peeping tom" angle is legit or a smokescreen, drones aren't exactly stealthy and due to battery limitations can't really loiter that long.

Re:The drone may not have been tresspassing

[Jack Griffin]

pro tip: boys love drone and often act as great ambassadors to the parents.

I only have daughters, and I have my own protip, they don't like being spied on while sunbathing in bikinis in their own fenced backyard by men with flying cameras.
Second protip, a father will go to jail to protect his daughters.

My neighbour is a film producer, he has an industrial sized hexcopter for professional filming, and I've never seen him use it in our neighbourhood other than for test flights within his own yard. So I know it is possible to own a drone and not be a jerk about it.

Re: Or... just hear me out here...

[SuricouRaven]

"Do people have a right to shoot a home invader? Of course."

That actually varies by state. Not all consider trespass a crime worthy of execution

Re:Or... just hear me out here...

[Bob the Super Hamste]

I use #3 or #4 steel shot (3" magnum 12 gauge) for pheasant. When hit after it has traveled a couple hundred yards it hurts a little more than heavy rain but less than small (pea sized) hail. I've had it rain down a couple of times from people who were on the other side of a reasonable size stand of trees who shot over them.

Re:Sounds like two illegal acts

[Qzukk]

The airspace above your property is public, and not an extension of your property.

Only above X feet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Yes it is an aircraft

[sjbe]

Its not an aircraft

It is an aircraft according to the FAA.

In my day this was an RC TOY.

Those are not mutually exclusive categories. It is legally and functionally both an RC toy and an aircraft.

Re:Why do you hate America?

[StikyPad]

Guns don't kill people; people kill people.

Re:Or... just hear me out here...

[njnnja]

your daughter should better learn to find out and fight back for herself.

And the best way to teach kids is to show them, just like this father was doing.

Re:Or... just hear me out here...

[digsbo]

I would argue that there still exists some danger for personal injury or property damage wherever they land.

Many municipalities not run by pansies understand what birdshot is and permit its use from shotguns. The reasons for outlawing it have nothing to do with safety issues and everything to do with people being afraid of guns.

Re:Or... just hear me out here...

[UnknownSoldier]

/sarcasm What? Communicate and work with the people in the neighbor? Next you'll be suggesting that assumptions are the root cause of most conflict. Heaven forbid someone actually do some proactive work! to _avoid_ this situations after the fact in the firs place ;-)

the drone was a gift

[doug]

If someone puts stuff in your yard, it is yours to dispose of as you see fit. This covers trash like drink cups and what not. Anything mailed to you becomes yours, even if it was mailed by accident. I think this pattern implies that owner of the drone flew it to the shooters yard, and then the drone becomes the property of the shooter. It was a gift. I'm not sure about firing a weapon in city limits, but shooting your own stuff seems legal.

Re:the drone was a gift

[Obfuscant]

If someone puts stuff in your yard, it is yours to dispose of as you see fit. This covers trash like drink cups and what not. Anything mailed to you becomes yours, even if it was mailed by accident. I think this pattern implies that owner of the drone flew it to the shooters yard, and then the drone becomes the property of the shooter.

Unfortunately, your pattern doesn't exist. Inconsequential things like drink cups may perhaps become yours to do with as you please (because there is a valid assumption that it is abandoned property), but if someone drops a bag of money while walking past your house and it falls on your lawn, it doesn't suddenly become your money. I came home one night to find a box of stuff next to my garage. It was a UPS delivery that was stolen from a neighbor's front step, left behind by the thief when he found out it was cheap Specialty Merchandise Corporation gimcracks. That box didn't become mine.

Nor does anything mailed to you become yours even if it was sent by accident. There is a requirement (at least in all the laws I know) that you make a good-faith attempt at returning the object. That good-faith attempt requires you to notify the sender and make the thing available for return (at their expense), and only if they fail to take advantage of that does it become yours.

And your pattern falls completely apart when you talk about things flying through what you think is your personal airspace. Try arguing that the police helicopter that was assisting in an arrest in your neighborhood becomes your property if it hovers over your house and see how far you get.

I'm not sure about firing a weapon in city limits, but shooting your own stuff seems legal.

The laws against discharge of projectile weapons in city limits do not differentiate based on ownership of target. You can't "shoot your own stuff" legally if you can't "shoot" legally.

I play a Drone Pilot on TV

[Anonymous Coward]

I fly a drone all over the place. I build "long-distance" autonomous missions (1.5 miles average) and send the thing off over the horizon to fly around. Occasionally, its path leads it over other peoples' property, but I try to ensure that property only includes things like farm fields, pastures, etc. If I do end up flying over someone's yard, I try to ensure it's high enough it can't see them, and also to make sure it's pointed in a direction that doesn't imply I'm coming toward something like their deck, front porch, or patio. And I sure as hell don't stop and hover over them. I live in an area where people are likely to pull out a gun and blow something out of the sky if they think it's "spying" on them.

I can see the shooter's point. Some drone pilots are assholes. I had a neighbor across the street until about 6 months ago. He was an old/bored/single/lonely old fart who seemed to have nothing to do but cause trouble (call the cops if an unfamiliar dog showed up in someone's yard). We weren't on speaking terms because as a rule, I generally don't make time for annoying pricks. He bought a DJI Phantom with a camera/gimbal and FPV, and would occasionally hover over my yard. I could see the camera moving to keep me, my wife, or my daughter in focus. He would follow us around the corner of the house if we moved locations within my yard. Without bothering to speak to him, I tried a few things. First, I launched my Iris (bigger, faster drone) and rushed him a few times. He kept it up, so I shot it with my garden hose at one point. The next step was to kill it with a wrist rocket, but he apparently sold it sometime shortly before he moved. I never got the chance.

Re:Or... just hear me out here...

[aaaaaaargh!]

The problem with drones is that until the police arrives they are often gone already, and it's generally hard to identify their owners. It's better to shoot them down.

Re:Or... just hear me out here...

[Hotawa Hawk-eye]

So you follow the drone, remaining on public property and filming with your phone. If it lands on private property, like someone's yard, you call the cops to come to that location. If it lands on public property, like a park, you film the person or people that recover it and call the cops to come to that location.

Re:Or... just hear me out here...

[imatter]

Merideth should have called the police right after he shot it down, and said he just shot a peeping tom's drone out of the sky.
Also, I would not call his shot random, it was intentional and he hit his target.

Re:Sounds like two illegal acts

[Demonoid-Penguin]

Dear coward

Both parties committed a crime.

Sounds like the guy shooting the drone did something illegal (despite reasonable motivations), but the drone owner also did something I would consider criminal (illegal trespass, illegal surveillance).

How come both did not get arrested?

Don't go bringing reason to a discussion involving shooting stuff. You're trespassing. And now you'll send the thread onto a tangent about the appropriate ammunition and weapons to deal with it.

And they'll be morally right to do so - as clearly you are defending paedophiles. You bastard! Destroyer of justice.

Stay in school, don't do dope

[Overzeetop]

If you shoot and injure (or kill) a 15 year old running across your lawn to get to his house, even if he stopped to look at your prized rose collection - or your daughter sunbathing - you will be charged and most likely convicted.

If you shoot and injure (or kill) a 15 year old who has walked in your back door in the middle of the night, but is otherwise unarmed and not a direct threat, you will be charged. Whether you go to jail or not will depend on a lot of factors, but you will probably also be a defendant in a civil suit which, if case law is any guide, you *will* lose.

If you shoot and injure (or kill) a 15 year old who is running at you with a knife and appears intent on causing you bodily harm, you will be charged. But you will also be allowed to argue that you were acting in self-defense. If the jury believes you, you will go free.

It's how the legal system in the US works. If you didn't learn this in high school, you simply didn't listen to what was taught to you in the most basic of civics classes.

Re:Stay in school, don't do dope

[nehumanuscrede]

"If you shoot and injure (or kill) a 15 year old who has walked in your back door in the middle of the night, but is otherwise unarmed and not a direct threat, you will be charged. Whether you go to jail or not will depend on a lot of factors, but you will probably also be a defendant in a civil suit which, if case law is any guide, you *will* lose."

Potentially incorrect depending on where you live and the State Laws that govern such actions. Especially considering these factors:

1) Trespassing during the night
2) Back door vs front ( means you intentionally had to climb my fence to get there )
3) Unarmed is irrelevant based on # 1
4) Especially if they walked through the door and entered the home

Re:Stay in school, don't do dope

[PraiseBob]

It's how the legal system in the US works. If you didn't learn this in high school, you simply didn't listen to what was taught to you in the most basic of civics classes.

You are wrong. Maybe these rules apply in your state, but I live in Texas which respects the rights of property owners. I paid attention during my civics classes, thank you very much.

Case 1 - kid running in the yard - Probably not legal to shoot the kid, unless I can prove that I was afraid of him, or that he was some kind of threat to my sunbathing daughter.
Case 2 - False. In Texas, it is completely legal to shoot and kill the intruder, even if they are unarmed. There is no requirement to attempt to retreat. I know this firsthand. FURTHER, I am specifically protected against Civil lawsuits in defense of my home, and such a civil suit would automatically fail.
Case 3 - False - If I kill an armed (or unarmed) intruder, a grand jury would be summoned to look at the evidence, and determine whether I should be charged. In most cases, there would be no indictment and no trial, and likely not a conviction by jury even if there is a trial.

I also have anecdotal evidence to backup these statements- My brother in law shot at a trespasser (example 1), and was not charged. I've attacked an unarmed intruder (example 2), He lived, I was not charged, and I was not sued. My neighbour a street over shot and killed an unarmed man crawling through his window (another example 2). He was not indicted, this is completely legal to kill unarmed intruders in texas. My coworker shot 2 armed men who were trying to break into his house. (Example 3) He was obviously not charged or sued. The notion is ridiculous.

Your state law is not my state law. In my state, the Great State of Texas, I can shoot anybody who comes onto my property and threatens me, or my possessions, in any way.

Re:Stay in school, don't do dope

[Jack Griffin]

It's how the legal system in the US works. If you didn't learn this in high school, you simply didn't listen to what was taught to you in the most basic of civics classes.

I never went to school in the US. Can you tell me the outcome if a Peeping Tom mounts a video camera to a pole and hangs it over my yard directly at my teenage daughter?
For bonus points, what if I throw a bunch of ball bearings really hard and fast at the camera causing it to smash and drop on the ground?

Re:Stay in school, don't do dope

[Overzeetop]

Your peeping Tom might be violating a law, it depends on the state.

You may be the subject of a civil suit if Tom wasn't breaking the law, and you'll probably lose on the merits. (you did willfully damage someone else's property).

Now, if you were to fire a weapon containing ball bearings and the area downrange of your weapon was not known to be free of all persons; or if your municipality specifically forbids firing a weapon* within the municipal limits, then you are violating the law.

*self-defense in the presence of a bodily threat does not make it legal, but it is a valid and positive defense to such an action.

Note: in a civil society with laws when your rights are violated and except in the case of an emergency related to bodily harm or death you are required to report the violation and a court determines the responsible and/or injured party. In an uncivil society, you simply kill / maim /destroy those things which you don't like to don't approve of. This is not Lord of the Flies nor are you the judge, jury and executioner in all disputes with your neighbors.

Re:Stay in school, don't do dope

[Grishnakh]

If you shoot and injure (or kill) a 15 year old who is running at you with a knife and appears intent on causing you bodily harm, you will be charged. But you will also be allowed to argue that you were acting in self-defense. If the jury believes you, you will go free.

This isn't universally true, it depends on state laws.

In some states, the decision of whether to charge someone for a crime rests with a Grand Jury (Texas is one state like this). The facts are presented to them and they decide whether to charge or not. If they don't think it's a chargeable offense, then you don't even get charged, much less go to trial.

I have no idea what the law in Kentucky is.

Don't fly over people's property.

[AndyKron]

Don't fly over people's property. Fuck!

Re:Or... just hear me out here...

[aaaaaaargh!]

Say that again after you have been filmed by a drone in your living room. It happened to me, and there is ordinary no line of sight into my room. The experience is very unpleasant and intrusive, because you don't know how long you've been filmed, who has been filming you and why.

Missed opportunity

[Overzeetop]

Guns don't kill people; drones kill people.

Re:Missed opportunity

[StikyPad]

If you outlaw drones, only outlaws will have drones.

Re:Or... just hear me out here...

[ArmoredDragon]

You could still poke an eye out, ruin the neighbors flower bed, or otherwise just be destructive.

LOL, under what basis would ANY of this happen from falling bird shot? Do show your math here.

Re:Or... just hear me out here...

[Guspaz]

Idiot drone pilot flying around other people's property a mere 10 feet off the ground? Damn straight you should have the right to take that thing out. But it should still be illegal to shoot it down with a gun. That's just a public safety hazard far worse than the drone. Saying that it should be safe because shot is small and doesn't hurt when falling is like saying that it's safe to point a gun at somebody and pull the trigger because you think the chamber is empty. Some idiot is going to eventually make a mistake and shoot at a drone with something he shouldn't, something that isn't going to be as harmless as birdshot.

My suggestion for dealing with low-flying drones: pool skimmer. If it's just hovering there 10 feet off the ground, just grab the thing out of the air (or smack it hard enough to down it). If it's flying low enough over your property for the pole to reach it, then it's flying low enough that you should be allowed to take it out.

Re: Or... just hear me out here...

[ArmoredDragon]

That depends on the city, as they all have their own ordinances stipulating where, when, and with what manner you can fire weapons. Most rural towns won't care if it's just birdshot (which won't even hurt a fly on its way down.)

EMP-based defenses?

[fishb0ne]

Ok, so you can't fire a gun in the air, I am OK with that, it makes sense. Would it legally be permissible to fire an EMP pulse at the craft, disabling it, assuming this was done in a moment the drone did not poze a hazard by becoming a falling object? I'd be interested to see whether or not EMP-gun DIY guides will emerge eventually as a response to more drones popping up. If your drone is on my property, flying low, it's mine.

Re: Or... just hear me out here...

[ArmoredDragon]

Let's see where the shot that missed the drone would have/did land.

Are you dumb? When birdshot lands, it won't even so much as disturb the ground it hits. I've been rained on by birdshot before, it just feels like somebody is dropping warm BBs on your head from 10 feet above.

Re:Or... just hear me out here...

[Overzeetop]

Shotgun shot is harmless

Tell that to Harry Whittington.

Re:Or... just hear me out here...

[Stormshadow]

TL;DR;
You shoot upward, the bullet comes down with next to no lethal force. You shoot parallel to the ground, it's another matter.

Detailed:
Simple kinematic projectile motion dictates otherwise in the majority of use cases. Given that a drone is flying overhead, thus the vector has most of its force directed upward and a minority lateral. Terminal velocity/atmospheric efficiency combined with simple momentum dictates the exact energy the pellets may or may not have when they land, and given their surface area is a known quantity, one could easily calculate all the necessary points and come to the conclusion that any shot taken with an inclination exceeding a certain degree will result in the landing projectiles having a trivial amount of energy on impact. Lethal force depends on lateral/parallel motion, not vertical... Dot product, not cross product with gravity. This is a function of flight time, as longer time devolves horizontal movement while gravity nullifies vertical upward movement... and then downward movement is limited by drag.

There have been multiple studies on the subject, both formal and informal, that have concluded what I've outlined here.

Fun related fact: Boxed ammunition is essentially harmless in a fire. Bullets rely on contained gas reactions to obtain lethal energy levels. Boxed ammunition is not sufficiently contained to obtain those energy levels. Studies exist on this as well.

Re:Or... just hear me out here...

[Austerity Empowers]

Throwing things, including boogers, off tall buildings is a crime in many places for this reason. I don't imagine a booger could hurt someone, no matter how it lands, but I think a BB would. My calculations suggest a standard BB would land at around 20mph, assuming it was fired straight up. However if you were firing at say, a 45 degree angle to hit that drone, it's not clear to me that terminal velocity would be the dominant threat and someone could be seriously hurt.

There are plenty of stories of hunters talking about being rained on my falling bird shot, and they definitely felt it. It's a ridiculous and unnecessary risk you shouldn't do it in a residential neighborhood. Call the damn cops, if it's a crime they'll deal with it.

Re:Drones

[aaaaaaargh!]

You miss an important point that the original poster understands: Laws are made by lawmakers who need to be elected.

Re:Or... just hear me out here...

[Stormshadow]

Meh, there are some inaccuracies in the actual math. Had the dot/cross reversed. I've been cramming for a physics final today, so I think that might be forgivable.

Re: Or... just hear me out here...

[codeAlDente]

Those were the ordinances that the guy was charged with violating.

What elevation do you own?

[slashmydots]

I don't recall what elevation your property is considered to be up to but I think it's like 200 feet or something. Or some level above your roof or...I forget. Either way, I support it shooting it down regardless.

Re:Or... just hear me out here...

[MBGMorden]

No, it wouldn't. Birdshot is INTENDED to be fired into the air - at - you guessed it: birds. Completely different situation versus a bullet. Anybody who has hunted upland birds or waterfowl in an area with many hunters has been pelted by falling shot before. By the time it comes back down its not going fast enough to hurt anything.

Re:Or... just hear me out here...

[fightinfilipino]

people are afraid of guns because they hurt and sometimes kill people. ugh.

Re:Or... just hear me out here...

[MBGMorden]

That was a direct hit - not falling shot. Completely different situation.

Re: Or... just hear me out here...

[alvieboy]

Do people have a right to shoot a home invader? Of course.

Of course not. At least not where I live (Europe)

You can shoot someone if it presents a threat to your (or our family) life - and only if that someone is armed (and even then it may not be acceptable). But make sure you are entitled to own and operate a gun.

Shooting someone just because he invaded your home is not acceptable at all. Not even cops can shoot him unless he poses a threat to their life.

Re:Why do you hate America?

[Dog-Cow]

Growing up, I lived in the same house for 30 years. I never knew most of my neighbors, never mind the families one or two streets over.

The idea that people would know who owns a drone is so beyond moronic that it's a wonder you could even form the thought.

I probably would have done the same thing

[LaurenCates]

And would have taken the arrest in stride.

Yeah, I know, he's laying on the heavy appeal to emotion of "b-b-but my SIXTEEN YEAR OLD DAUGHTER!!!!", when really it should be the privacy of his entire family that's at stake here.

The law hasn't caught up with technology, and knowing a few things about how the government works, it's not going to for another few years.

But there are a few things about common decency that need to be acknowledged here.

One is that if a drone of unknown origin is hovering over your house, as is alleged here, it very likely has a camera and is watching something.

Another is while there's no absolute right to privacy that's can delineate whether or not privacy is being violated, I think we can agree that if a drone is flying over head and stops over your house, it should be perfectly fine to assume that if you don't know the origin, there's ill intent involved.

A third is if some person who is unknown to you is hanging around your house and looking in the windows, you do your damndest to make sure they don't do it anymore.

A fourth is coming to the reasonable assumption that the drone pilot knows what he/she is doing.

And finally, since the law isn't really clear on what drones can/will do, you can be pretty damned sure the police can do virtually nothing about said drone.

Therefore, I'd fucking shoot the thing to make sure that the owner of said drone understands that the protection of my home and property is serious fucking business to me.

Re:Why do you hate America?

[Overzeetop]

Mom still keeps you locked in the basement, huh?

Really - get out more. I know everyone on my street, at least by sight if not all by name. I know almost everyone on the next street down, at least for a block in each direction. Then again, I don't walk around with a shotgun on my shoulder so I guess I tend to be more approachable than the typical NRA fuckwad.

Ah more drones headlines....

[recharged95]

Lots of negative news on drone lately, our we hitting the peak of the hype curve?

As a drone researcher, I find that drones are the marijuana of technology:

• Everyone wants it (lots of uses)
• No one wants to regulate it (per se)
• If mentioned, no one admits they like it or are 'users'.
• Highly controversial topic (heck it's a nice topic of discussion)
• And once you take a 'hit' (i.e. fly one), you're hooked.

Re: Or... just hear me out here...

[gfxguy]

You forgot the word "fortunately." I don't see how it's "fortunate" (in the post you're responding to) that most of Europe is not allowed to defend themselves from home invaders.

yes

[nten]

On your property you should be able to shoot a surveillance drone that does not have a warrant that you have been notified of. Unless you are inside the limits of a municipality that decides that the discharge of a firearm is illegal inside city limits, which is pretty much all of them. Sounds like this guy was. If it was my daughter getting creeped I would be willing to eat the charges, but I would probably look into a more technical solution that would be legal.

Ideally you'd want to bring the drone down on your own property with plausible deniability that it was malfunction. You cannot legally search the contents of the drone's camera in many jurisdictions, and some of them do not even record locally. But when the controller shows up to claim it, you can ask for access to the video to verify that the drone is actually owned by that person and went down in your yard, being polite about it, just don't want to give it back to the wrong person you know. If they act shifty you know they were creeping, and if they give access and it is all staring at your swimsuited daughter you A.) call the police right then and there or B.) cause grave harm and then call the police.

The devices to bring down drones would probably be considered to violate the FCC, but it would be very hard to prove that you used one, and they will be popping up soon because of things like this. Running a microwave with the door off and the interlock disabled while pointing it at the drone would my first effort. But if that didn't work, some effort with an SDR would be needed and that would be late to need, so green laser pointer (probably even more illegal than a shotgun at this point), would be the next route. Shotguns are pretty safe when pointed up, they just don't have enough energy to do any damage on the way down if you use birdshot.

Re:Or... just hear me out here...

[EndlessNameless]

There already is a rule. It's 500 feet.

Above 500 feet, it's treated like a public highway. Basically, you're allowed to be there as long as you're following the applicable regulations. There are a lot of rules, including extensive training requirements for pilots, but anyone can fly there as long as they follow the rules.

Below 500 feet, the air is yours. The Causby ruling stated there is both a public and a private airspace, and the FAA decides what happens above the boundary. The government can take easements like they can on the ground, and they have to pay for it when they do.

Obviously, FAA regulations require aircraft to give a certain amount of clearance to obstacles---this is why, for instance, a plane could never fly into your 501-foot building and claim it had the right of way. If the FAA decides to treat drones like all other aircraft, they wouldn't be allowed below 500 feet and would have to fly at least 500 feet above any obstacles.

So there have already been laws and court rulings on the matter. It's a question of the FAA stepping up and doing something with the power that has been delegated to the agency.

Re:Or... just hear me out here...

[nehumanuscrede]

Assuming they even bother to show up at all after you tell them there is a small drone flying over your property. :|

False arrest

[Cacadril]

What nobody discusses is this: Why was he arrested? The police should not arrest people randomly. This arrest was not necessary to achieve any justified goal. It only served as punishment, but punishments should be metered by courts, not by police. The case of Sandra Bland shows that false arrests is a much larger danger to the life and well being of the citizens that the danger of most of the pretextes. This man was not likely to keep shooting. Keeping him over night solved no problem whatsoever.

illegal but safe

[nten]

Birdshot doesn't hurt people on the way down. It wouldn't even mar paint on cars. It has a surface area to mass ratio that makes it have very poor velocity retention. That said, you are completely correct about the legal ramifications. In almost any municipality in the US discharging a firearm, airgun, or bow is quite illegal. Blow darts seem to be an often overlooked category but they would probably call it an air rifle. If you are outside an incorporated municipality, such as when the burbs spread faster than they are annexed, you can shoot all you want in most counties, as long as the projectile does not cross a roadway, so shoot almost straight up and you would be fine.

Interesting

[StrangeBrew]

I'd be curious if the 'mischief' was related to the destruction of the drone, or the willful firing of a firearm in a non-life threatening situation that could potentially endanger those nearby, or cause dispatch of emergency services due to 'shots fired'. Had he thrown a baseball and knocked it out of the air would this have resulted in an arrest?

Re: Or... just hear me out here...

[hawguy]

Those were the ordinances that the guy was charged with violating.

Being charged is not the same as being found guilty.

Re:Or... just hear me out here...

[jedidiah]

That's part of the reason that we have civil courts and Tort law. Quite often the law won't adequately pursue wrongdoers. Then it's up to you to prosecute the perpetrator. Except that's a very expensive prospect. Most people don't have the resources to do this.

It's much more effective to just shoot hovering trespassers out of the sky. It will be interesting to see what a jury does with this.

Re:Why do you hate America?

[rogoshen1]

guns don't kill people, they kill drones.

Re:Or... just hear me out here...

[meta-monkey]

Would have been nice if the police had confiscated the media card from the drone.

Re:Or... just hear me out here...

[Firethorn]

but I think a BB would.

And you're ignoring all the personal experiences posted in this thread by people who have actually been peppered by falling shot why? You even acknowledge that people 'felt it' but our sense of touch is sensitive - I can feel a sheet of paper falling onto me, it's going to take quite a bit more force to actually hurt me.

Now, it's certainly not identical, but I'm reminded of the Mythbuster's 'penny off the Empire State Building' where they determined that a falling penny from that height(assuming it didn't get blown back onto the building like most do), would only sting a bit when it hits.

And a penny is less aerodynamic but much more massive than a birdshot BB. A number of the finer grades look almost like sand.

And a source on the differences between rifle rounds and birdshot.
AK round: 124 grains, TV 265 fps, 23 ft-lbs of force
5.56 round: 62 grains, 245fps, 8 ft-lbs
9mm: 115 gr, 195 fps, 10 ftlbs
00 buck: 54 grains, 130fps, 2 ft-lbs (it's TV is much lower than the rifle round because a sphere is less aerodynamic than the cone of a bullet)
#8 birdshot: 1.3gr, 76 fps, 1 ft-lb (Too low for writer's ballistic calculator).

Re: Or... just hear me out here...

[jedidiah]

Nope.

The summary mentioned no firearms offenses, just two catchall offenses for crimes that don't have their own category.

He was basically charged with "disturbing the peace".

Re:Sounds like two illegal acts

[OrangeTide]

Or you could call the cops instead of firing your gun at anything you see. If you're not in immediate danger, not the imaginary sort you suggest of a drone dipping down and poking your eye out or something. Go inside, and call the police, simple. Is it annoying in convenient? Yes. But that's kind of why one ought to file a police report, to make a record of such a nuisance.

Should the model operator be fined by the FAA? I think so. It can't be open season on model aircraft.

Is it illegal to fire at a model aircraft? Definitely

Is it possible that it is illegal trespass? Under 400ft, and not necessarily a right of way issue, so maybe. Hard to say since none of us appear to be actual lawyers that specialize in FAA regulation or property rights.

Re:Or... just hear me out here...

[jomama717]

"Because the cops don't need you and man they expect the same" - Bob Dylan, Just Like Tom Thumb's Blues

Shooting down drones

[Firethorn]

This reminds me of the last drone I read about being taken out by gunfire. It was some PETA people using a quadracoptor to harass some hunters - it was really an obscenely loud whiny thing, and their goal was to scare game and such.

They complained to the cops that had shown up that their drone had been shot. The cops looked at them like 'so what'?

The PETA types tried 'but that was dangerous!' Keep in mind that, unlike this case, said hunters were in an area where firearm use was legal.

Re: Or... just hear me out here...

[Anubis IV]

You can't fire guns into the air in the city. At anything.

Not so. It depends on the circumstances and local laws.

In many states, the question of whether or not it's legal to discharge a firearm within city limits is left up to the cities themselves to decide (and we don't know whether the homeowner was even within city limits, since he could be living in an unincorporated part of town outside the city limits, for all we know). And even in cities where discharging a firearm within city limits is unlawful, almost all of them would carve out an exception (whether written or unwritten) for a homeowner defending their own home. Moreover, in most (all?) states, firing a weapon into the air is not, in and of itself, illegal. After all, that'd make quail hunting, duck hunting, skeet shooting, and other similar activities illegal too. It's generally "random" or "celebratory" gunfire into the air that's illegal.

All of which is to say, shooting into the air is not necessarily illegal, and it's entirely possible that the contents of that card may provide evidence to support his case.

Re:Or... just hear me out here...

[stonefoz]

I am fine with the given risk. Many places it's permited to play baseball. There is a risk of damaging windows, property and inflicting injury on anyone withing several hundred feet. The risk is low, and damnages are expected to be paid for anyone outside of the event. It's still allowed, not because it's safe, because the risk damange is low.

Re:Or... just hear me out here...

[ciaran2014]

So you follow the drone, remaining on public property and filming with your phone.

I might have agreed with you until I saw how fast and long range drones fly: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8p5uDf9i_Yc

And as for taking it down, suggestions of using a hose or a pool scraper or thread are non-starters. Even with a gun, you'll only get one shot.

Mixed Opinion

[Drethon]

The article says they have laws against firing guns in the city so there is a point behind arresting him for that.

The drone owner was definitely acting improperly but I also don't think fire first and ask questions later is the correct approach. I'd try to get the drones attention with a gun to let it know this is unacceptable, then if it sticks around it is time for some drone skeet shooting.

I think he should get whatever the typical penalty firing a gun in the city is, otherwise just a slap on the wrist. The drone owners should have gotten hit harder by the police though.

Today I learned...

[electrosoccertux]

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.

Today I learned that Hillview, Kentucky is a populated area.

Re:Today I learned...

[wonkey_monkey]

Today I learned that Kentucky is a populated area. Who knew?

Re: Or... just hear me out here...

[electrosoccertux]

modern drones don't use a memory card, they stream via an ad hoc connection or as a wifi host to your cellphone. But every once in a while...the drone is actually a dildo...

of course, it's Hillview PD Policy to never imply ownership of said drone...

which is why you basically have to shoot it down if you want something done.

Re:Or... just hear me out here...

[dpidcoe]

Falling birdshot isn't any more dangerous than hail of a similar size, no matter how hard you believe that that isn't the case.

Additionally, falling bullets actually aren't all that dangerous either if shot straight up (Mythbusters has tested this). They lose their spin and begin to tumble on the way down, drastically lowering the terminal velocity. The people who are killed or injured by falling bullets are generally hit by bullets that were fired into the air at a significant angle.

Re:I hope he wins in court

[Firethorn]

Discharging a weapon in a populated area is unsafe in nearly every circumstance.

Except in this case he managed to check off a number of 'safe' boxes. The described fence would stop the ammunition of choice from the weapon, and the ammunition fired at a relatively high angle would come down safely as well.

That being said, I don't want regular gunfire just because of the noise.

I would have told the drone owners that they can take their broken drone or they can press charges for destruction of property in exchange for the homeowner pressing trespassing/peeping charges on them.

Better capture it

[blang]

With a net or something.

If the drone pilots show up looking for their precious treasure, say they can have it back after some things have happened, They must bring you to their home so that you can gawk to your hearts desire at their family for a day. install a spy cam to check out their mom or wife or sister, etc. The creepier the better. They must [ay a 10% finders fee to get it back, and also sign a contract agreeing to pay some large sum if they ever are caught flying over your property again.

Firearms are dangerous

[Spazmania]

He'll plead to negligent discharge of a firearm. Shooting into the air in a suburban neighborhood is dangerous. When you miss, the bullet comes back down somewhere, possibly at speed.

Would be legal where I live

[hambone142]

In my unincorporated county, it is legal to discharge firearms if done in a safe manner.

As mentioned, shotgun pellets would not be dangerous upon return (terminal velocity situation).

If someone were hovering over my place with one of these things, I'd give it a dose of bird shot.

It's just plain rude. Additionally, this guy's neighbors were assholes, coming over in number and threatening him.

It's also legal to carry without a concealed carry permit on private property where I live (not that I go around with a firearm on me).

In a city, this is a whole 'nuther situation.

Airmanship

[Max_W]

I am a quadrocopter builder and pilot myself. I would agree that it is wrong to fly a quad above people, houses or cars.

An experienced pilot usually can plan a flight in a safe way.

One of the most efficient security measures is flying early in the morning, just when sun begins to rise (at about 6 o'clock). There are less people around, and rising sun makes aerial images better.

WHY property?

[blang]

What is this american obsession with property.
Privacy is someting you can expect, regardless of property. It in fact has nothing to do with property.
Privacy is something you can excpect even in a public place.
Even at the beach. Someone talking a picture of you without permission can not publish that.
Whether you own thy beach or not.

Re:WHY property?

[Some_Llama]

What is this american obsession with property.
Privacy is someting you can expect, regardless of property. It in fact has nothing to do with property.
Privacy is something you can excpect even in a public place.
Even at the beach. Someone talking a picture of you without permission can not publish that.
Whether you own thy beach or not.

Are you sure about that? We have a local news segment here in silicon valley on channel 4 (nbc?) called people behaving badly, and because he films people in public spaces, he does NOT need you to sign a waiver to use your image on TV, the guy who does the segment held a little ama on the news channel on the weekend where he discussed in length how public pictures are not prohibited by privacy laws.

this included places like crosswalks, front yards, side of the freeway, people in their cars, etc.. i haven't seen any open air place yet that he has had to blur images of people.

Re:Or... just hear me out here...

[dissy]

Unless you can show that there actually was no danger to people or property, and you knew that at the time of firing. Which short of being some form of android or having very specific knowledge ahead of time, is not easy to do

How is that not easy to do?

"[Man] Kids, get in the house."

Now only one person remains in danger of a drone falling on him, zero people are in danger of the shotgun pellets coming down, and as the one main remaining is also the land owner, you clearly have the land owners permission to act as well as already accepting the risk of damage to their own property.

Easy Peasy

Re: Or... just hear me out here...

[hawguy]

modern drones don't use a memory card, they stream via an ad hoc connection or as a wifi host to your cellphone.

I think drones with HD cameras do both -- stream a low-def stream to your phone so you can see what the camera sees, while saving the high quality video on local storage.

Re:Or... just hear me out here...

[Moof123]

Was the drone black?

Re: Or... just hear me out here...

[Anubis IV]

I don't know that I'd call it "inexcusable". Maybe "ill-advised". He was using a shotgun, and given that he was almost certainly shooting at a steep angle with a line of fire that was clear of any targets that could suffer collateral damage, by the time the pellets would have landed, they'd be no more harmful than hail the size of shot pellets. Which is to say, not dangerous.

For some additional facts regarding shotguns, the effective range for most sizes of shot is just a few dozen yards, since at 50 yards out, the pellets will have lost over 3/4 of their energy and over half their velocity. Again, given that he had a privacy fence and waited until it was over his property, we can assume a steep angle, meaning that they'd basically go straight up and then just fall back down harmlessly, but even if we assume that he aimed just barely high enough to clear the neighboring house, shot pellets are unlike bullets in that they don't have spin from barrel rifling to keep them from tumbling out of control, so they lose the VAST majority of their energy to wind resistance. By the time they'd have fallen enough to actually hit a rooftop or window, they'd have spent almost all of their energy, rendering them harmless.

I'd actually be more concerned about any pellets that ricocheted off the drone, since they would have the potential to be significantly more dangerous than the ones that missed the drone.

Re: Or... just hear me out here...

[electrosoccertux]

the streaming feed is HD...HD doesn't require that much bandwidth

Re:robot confounds local hilbilly

[sizzzzlerz]

You mean other than shooting a shotgun in a populated area without concern for others or for their property?

Oh, just for grins, how about following the fucking drone back to its controller. The control signal must be line-of-sight and it has a fairly limited range, that wouldn't be too hard.

Re:I hope he wins in court

[sizzzzlerz]

So it's trespassing to fly something over another person's property but firing a shotgun in the air where the pellets can land who-knows-where but probably onto someone else's property or their person is not?

Re: Or... just hear me out here...

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Are you allowed to shoot the camera out of his hand?

Re:Or... just hear me out here...

[tompaulco]

Exactly. Everybody here is all about how you have no privacy in your back yard, and you should never expect to have any privacy, etc. But the DRONE operator, oh, he still gets to have privacy. We can't know who a drone is registered to or where they live. That is an invasion of privacy . It's okay for a drone owner to invade YOUR privacy, but drone owners need to have their privacy protected.
B.S. My hats off to the hero that shot down the drone. Hope they throw the pilot in prison after he pays the bail for the falsely arrested hero of this story.

You know you're in America when...

[sizzzzlerz]

every problem or confrontation, minor or major, ends with a firearm being pulled.

Re:You know you're in America when...

[iggymanz]

some things are worth the use of firearms. This man's actions were correct. If the courts don't rule the right way then just keep a mask handy to use when shooting drones that are trespassing and peeping

Re:Or... just hear me out here...

[tompaulco]

So you follow the drone, remaining on public property and filming with your phone. If it lands on private property, like someone's yard, you call the cops to come to that location. If it lands on public property, like a park, you film the person or people that recover it and call the cops to come to that location.

Yeah, that is the annoying thing. The drone operator thinks it is fine to fly over private property and film whatever he wants to film, but when chasing it down, you can't go on private property because it is trespassing when non-drone owners do it.

Begun, the Drone War has!

[seoras]

Open season.

I hope a Go-Fund-Me is started

[jjhues7676]

If this guy needs financial help to defend his actions, I hope there is a Go-Fund-Me account started. I would have done the same thing to protect my privacy as well as my daughters!!!

A reasonable expectation of . . .Kentucky

[Latent Heat]

You would think that law enforcement people in the Commonwealth summoned for some guy buzzing another guy's yard with a drone, and guy-with-yard reaching for his varmint gun . . .

Doesn't the law make any allowance for "community standards" anymore?

I mean, what would Sheriff Andy Taylor do? (OK, OK, a different state, but you get the idea.) Sure, Barney would reach for the cuffs, but Andy would try to mediate this dispute, no?

"They"

[careysb]

I love how people quickly lump everyone together as "they". This pilot sounds like an idiot (I have no proof either way). This pilot is one out of hundreds of thousands, almost all of which manage to stay out of the news. This article attracts a lot of attention because "drones" tend to push people's paranoid buttons (occasionally, rightly so). You do not own the airspace over your house, though an intelligent pilot would keep a respectful distance. I belong to a multi-rotor club and guidelines are often discussed for safety and co-existing in society in addition to actual regulations. None of us want to see safe and courteous use of our copters curtailed by one or two idiots. Two facts will remain: drones are here to stay, and there will always be an idiot somewhere. (Sometimes people with guns can be idiots too.)

Re: Or... just hear me out here...

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Apparently, in Germany, you are legally allowed to even defend yourself from a police raid if you believe it's a home invasion.

Re:I hope he wins in court

[gnu-sucks]

Hmm... let's re-word that a bit and see how you feel from the other side:

Flying a drone in a populated area is unsafe in nearly every circumstance. Just because there's no malfunction doesn't mean there couldn't be. If the done had suddenly dropped altitude, would the pilot have tracked it like a skilled operator to land it? Would that have brought the craft down to a point where the pilot could have endangered neighbors? What if the drone landed in the pool? Was the pilot certain that in all cases his flight-range was clear before flying? These are all things which a responsible drone owner thinks about.

I hope the pilot gets a big-ass fine (I'd hate to pay for his jail food out of taxes). I also hope the flier gets a fine for trespassing - or even just gets called into court and let of with a warning. The lawyers fees will probably be 10x what the drone cost to begin with.

Re: Or... just hear me out here...

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Oh, sorry, responded to the wrong comment...

Re: Or... just hear me out here...

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Apparently, in Germany, you are legally allowed to even defend yourself from a police raid if you believe it's a home invasion.

Re:Or... just hear me out here...

[zugmeister]

You could call the police and lodge a complaint...

Where do you live that you have any expectation this would be a constructive course of action? Have you ever called the police for a non-emergency issue? Let's say they immediately show up (hold your breath). If the drone's there what will they do about it? Tase it? Hit it with pepper spray? Verbally order it to stop looking around your back yard? If it's gone, they'll be even LESS effective. Yeah, that hand written incident report will sure stop the drone operator next time. This guy sent a very clear message to the drone operator about weather watching his daughters in his backyard via proxy was OK. He solved the problem quickly, cleanly, and without endangering anyone.

Re:Why do you hate America?

[Noah Haders]

+1 awesome.

for me the lesson here is that everybody is upset that he shot the drone with a gun. nobody's upset that he destroyed the drone. lesson learned, next time use a football or a golf club. those things are horribly unstable, and you tap one blade then boom.

Re:Or... just hear me out here...

[aevan]

And so the ban on elastic bands starts anew.

How did it take this long?

[Snufu]

Drones and The South do not mix.

Re:Or... just hear me out here...

[pubwvj]

The police won't do anything.

Instead of firing the gun - firing a gun within the city limits seems to be the real issue - the property owner perhaps could have used a slingshot or stone. I can throw a rock accurately about 70' up. I can use a slingshot for far greater distances. The shotgun was a safe weapon to choose although apparently illegal in that location. So let that be a lesson to us all. Plan how you are going to deal with drones and have your slingshots ready.

A more interesting question is going to be: "what is on the memory card?" Since this is a criminal case the police should have take the drone and card as evidence. The defense for the homeowner can demand to see them. If they show photos targeting people, looking in windows then the stick may turn around and hit the drone owners hard up the side of the head.

What I really hope is this whole case goes to the Supreme Court and resolves a lot of these pending issues.

Re:Why do you hate America?

[aevan]

Of course everyone in the neighbourhood knows whose drone it is. Just like they knew the guy had a shotgun and shorter trigger. This was all a setup by the antigun prodrone lobby to make a

Meh. Point of seconds to minutes is police would prioritise, so if seconds are minutes then minutes are hours? Can you now prove conclusively that that was the drone that was in the area "Zoom, Enhance. Uncrop. Aha! The serial number!" ? Is "oh yeah, he owns a drone" enough to convict? What if more than one person has a drone in that city! Or maybe was a passerby, a serial droner. Any proof after the drone is all nicely stashed away? "Going by engine temp, this drone was used in the last 10 hours Jethro. I'm afraid it appears our perp is a peep".

More than enough real crimes out there, this seems to have pretty much self-resolved. Police involvement seems silly, and showing up to reclaim the drone smacks of "Officer! This is the thief that stole my cocaine".

Naturally the guy overreacted though, it's not like anyone has ever been hurt or killed by a drone. We should all let them fly overhead without concern.

Talk to the neighbors???

[moosehooey]

But, stranger danger. Stranger Danger!!!!!

Wondering

[WillRobinson]

How big of a net you could stuff in a shotgun shell, I smell money here ....

Try again

[s.petry]

I demonstrated that you were wrong attempting to equate to unequal objects, so you move the goal post. Not surprising, this tactic is common with irrational and/or unreasonable people.

Your move attempts to incorrectly paint a picture of a person firing a weapon in a crowded area. It is not against the law to defend your property, in fact this is a fundamental right given to us by the Constitution. Read it, understand it, and enjoy it. If you dislike the Constitution you are free to leave the country and find somewhere else to live. Start your own Utopia, but don't try to convert everyone else to a system which is impossible to achieve.

Re: Or... just hear me out here...

[Aristos Mazer]

This isn't a "home invader" in the traditional sense of being a person. This is a device. Totally different category. This is not a use of deadly force case. This is a case of shutting down an invading device.

Re:Or... just hear me out here...

[wonkey_monkey]

Yes.

You say that as if it's an obvious and objective truth.

Even if a right of yours is being unquestionably infringed upon, that doesn't mean you have the automatic right to take any action whatsoever.

The guy was apparently arrested for discharging a firearm within city limits - not for shooting down a drone, specifically.

Re:Or... just hear me out here...

[amicusNYCL]

instead grabbing your gun and shooting randomly at everything that you don't like.

Is that what he did? Shot randomly at everything he didn't like?

Does this give people free reign to go randomly shooting at things?

What's with "randomly"? The guy hit his fucking target. That's hardly a random shot.

Also, replace "being a douche" with "breaking the law". The drone pilot was breaking the law. The homeowner stated that he thought the 4 men on the other side of the drone could have been checking out his teenage daughters, or the 16 year old sunbathing neighbor, or maybe casing the place looking for things to steal. All of those are possibilities. So, yeah, the guy was kind of within his rights to shoot the drone which was also technically flying in his exclusive airspace that extends 500 feet above his land as defined by the FAA. Calling the police would not have necessarily allowed anyone to determine who was operating the drone. Now everyone knows who was checking out all of the houses and other private property from the air.

Complete BS

[Thisstatementisfalse]

Doesn't matter what some BS law says regarding drones over private property, you are well within your rights to shoot the drone out of the sky if it is invading your privacy and on your property. In this instance, the man acted appropriately and used birdshot to knock it out of the sky. This man is being illegally charged for a nonexistent crime, I smell a major lawsuit in the making against the asshats who ILLEGALLY CHARGED HIM.

Re:Or... just hear me out here...

[amicusNYCL]

Saying that it should be safe because shot is small and doesn't hurt when falling is like saying that it's safe to point a gun at somebody and pull the trigger because you think the chamber is empty.

Granted I've only gone about a quarter of the way through the comments, but so far this is the most stupid statement I've seen. Well done.

My suggestion for dealing with low-flying drones: pool skimmer.

Good idea. It's a well-known fact that every home in the country is equipped with a pool skimmer.

You're on a roll here.

Better idea: use a water gun?

[nobodyknowsimageek]

Just have a high power water gun handy; if you start soaking the drone I bet the operator will clear out. If not then maybe you can knock it down :)

Re:Or... just hear me out here...

[KGIII]

You're like the fifth person to state this. Who the hell are you hunting with? I would be unhappy on General Principle (and his army of ants) and not hunt with them again. No! Even if "safe" you do not fire over my fucking head. (It is pretty safe though. I am still not okay with it.)

Re:Or... just hear me out here...

[Oligonicella]

"No one was threatened" - Yes they were.

"no one was spying" - Yes they were.

" there was no damage" - Not the only prerequisite in determining intrusion.

Re:Or... just hear me out here...

[KGIII]

I kind of hope this goes to SCOTUS. We could use a precedent and sooner rather than later.

Re: Or... just hear me out here...

[codeAlDente]

From TFA: "Hillview Police detective Charles McWhirter says you can't fire your gun in the city"

Re:Or... just hear me out here...

[Oligonicella]

Funny... not... is...

Re:first degree wanton

[KGIII]

There is this nice Chinese diner, looks like hell, right off the rip in Terre Haute, Indiana. The food is awesome. I did get food poisoning (or something else) that kept me in a hotel room for three days. It was worth it.

If the US had the NZ drone laws...

[mikaere]

The homeowner would be able to call the authorities and they would prosecute the drone operator. As a kiwi, I'm very happy to have the Rule Of Law protecting my privacy. Given that the US isn't likely to get such a statute in the near future, is there are legal way to disable a drone that is spying on you ?

Kentucky: Actually, it was just out of season

[Applehu Akbar]

Besides, I've never come across a drone recipe that was at all edible.

Re:Or... just hear me out here...

[matfud]

If he could just ask the kids to get inside the house then he has no reason to shoot the drone (apart from being pissed off). And the article said that the hovery thing did not crash in his yard. So there was a small risk it could fail and crash and hurt someone. There was a vastly greater probability of it crashing and possibly hurting someone once he shot it.

Re:Or... just hear me out here...

[jsepeta]

What about disabling the drone with water from a hose?

Re: Or... just hear me out here...

[goose-incarnated]

From TFA: "Hillview Police detective Charles McWhirter says you can't fire your gun in the city"

TFA and your quote doesn't say he was charged with firing a gun. TFA says he was charged with what amounts to disturbing the peace.

Re: Or... just hear me out here...

[goose-incarnated]

Even if it were proven that the drone was being operated by a perv looking to oogle his daughters, firing into the air in a residential area because of a drone is inexcusable. Let's see where the shot that missed the drone would have/did land.

Are you really that slow a learner? Multiple times you were told that birdshot would come down safely, yet here you are continuing to parrot that incorrect line.

Judge, Jury, Executioner

[Overzeetop]

In the redneck form of government, you take the law into your own hands for even the most petty of offenses. There's no need for lawyers, cops, judges or any of the like. See two men holding hands? Beat the fuck out of them. That will let them know that gay marriage isn't allowed - if you see them together again, you kill one of them and the marriage problem is solved. Don't like black people? Burn a cross on their front lawn as a warning sign if you're one of those "soft" rednecks, but the proper punishment for having dark skin is hanging. Neighbors dog is barking in the middle of the night. A couple of rounds from your .30-06 will shut that mutherfucker up and let you get a good night's sleep.

It's so much easier and safer when we all have guns and are willing to use them to solve any dispute. Just ask the NRA - they'll concur.

Re:Drones

[Overzeetop]

I hope you never learn about spotting scopes.That will scare the living fuck out of you.

Re:Or... just hear me out here...

[Charliemopps]

Right, the shooters problem is that he talked to them or the police. He should have shot it out of the sky, disposed of the shell, not answered the door and called his lawyer. Never talk to the police, never admit guilt.

Re: Or... just hear me out here...

[ImprovOmega]

It varies much more by scenario. Drunk guy passed out on your couch? Not worthy of execution. Call the cops, have the cart him away. Guy grabbing your stuff, terrorizing your family and trying to make off with your valuables? Dangerous criminal. Execute away.

Re:Drones

[david_thornley]

It's perfectly legal to take photographs from a public place. Google cars normally stay on public roads, so their operations are legal. Google has had legal problems when the cars left public roadways and drove onto driveways and the like. There are limits on what somebody can do to observe; courts have held, for example, that police can't use things like infrared imaging to tell what's going on inside a dwelling without a warrant.

The air above my back yard up to at least 83 feet is not a public place.

There is no Constitutional right to privacy against a private party, but there's nothing against a government passing laws against invading privacy.

Re: Or... just hear me out here...

[codeAlDente]

Well if you piss on a cop, you don't get charged with "urinating on a peace officer" or similar.

Re:Or... just hear me out here...

[Guspaz]

I bet more homes are equipped with pool skimmers than shotguns, but then, I live in a country where almost no homes are equipped with shotguns, and firing one off in a residential area for any reason (even self-defence) would result in jail time.

Toss a Net

[aurizon]

I wonder if it would be possible to fabricate a compressed net that could be shot from a bow for 25-30 feet that would open up and foul the propellers, which would ground the drone with minimal destruction.
I agree with the property owners aggravation, but the use of a gunshot to deal with it is excessive.

Using google shows I am not alone.

https://www.google.ca/search?q...

Best Buy sells drones now

[ToddInSF]

And any idiot with money can buy one.

Honestly, if your drone is in my yard I am defiantly going to make a pinata of it at the first opportunity. You will not be getting it back.

Sheesh

[Ol Olsoc]

As much as it's oh so fashionalbe to break into hysteria "Them Drowne ownas iz flaan ovah MA Prawperdy, and iz lookin at my loveley teenage dawder!" and rabid slashdotters are at the ready to go apeshit about it - it might be handy to watch the drone owner's video of the tracking of the drone.

http://www.wdrb.com/story/2967...

At that height, I doubt the drone owner would be able to have seen the shooter's lovely teenage daughter. It was certainly interesting to see how the tracker folloed the drone as it lost altitude and crashed.

So I suspect in the end, I think the Shooter was just trying to prove his point and have something to talk about at the local bar. He'll be a legend to the terminally fearful, protecting hiz dawder from drowne flyin' preverts. At around 200 feet. I have a drone, and they just aren't designed to spy on people like that.

It's a good thing he didn't shoot down that pistol packin' drone we heard about the other day - that would have violated someone's second amendment rights, and started a 21st century Hatfield/McCoy war.

wanton endangerment?

[bcoker]

Prosecutors are way out line with a wanton endangerment charge. I would be suing the city on that alone. There is no longer any legal bounds much less bounds of reason expected or enforced any more.

Re: Alternative Headline.

[dl_sledding]

Why did you A/C???? That deserves to be modded up!

Your right to drive your car ends on my property

[WillAffleckUW]

The same goes for your drone.

Pull!

reckless

[tebjmd]

I don't think many adults don't know of someone who lost an eye from a bb gun. In the old days 300 fps was fast. Double ought buck will fall about 250 feet per second. Your mother was right, you could put your eye out with that. Maybe Chicken Little was right? I don't doubt the evil intentions of the drone owner photographing scantily clad maturing children, but as a gun lover life member of the NRA, That was a really stupid thing to do, Mr Merideth, Ha ha if he called 911 and told the dispatcher (usually a young mother) The neighbor is secretly taking pictures of my young girls in my private back yard in their bikinis. It might have brought the drone down faster than the gun(-:

Note what he wasn't charged with.

[stoatwblr]

No criminal damage, no theft, nothing related to the confrontation with the drone owner.

Discharging a firearm within the city limits (not at a range) is a stupid thing to do regardless of the circumstances. What goes up, must come down - and stray bullets are a major source of death and injury in the USA thanks to feckless gun owners who take no account of trajectories before pulling the trigger.

I know shotguns use pellets but being rained on with birdshot still isn't nice and it can damage paintwork on cars, etc. Buckshot still has enough kinetic energy on the way down to cause substantial injuries at a couple of hundred feet

Had he used a butterfly net, I think the police would have left him alone.

Re:You are mistaken

[BronsCon]

Altitude dependent. Bigot.

Two wrongs don't make a right

[Jimmy D Geek]

From what I understand, this occurred in a populated area. There should be two separate appearances before the judge over this. For the homeowner: Illegal discharge of a firearm... period. For the drone operator: Invasion of privacy and creating a public nuisance. I'm no lawyer, but this seems fairly common sense. I tend to side with the homeowner. Here in Los Angeles irresponsible drone operators have been responsible for all kinds of (probably unintended) actions, from grounding aircraft to causing bodily injury of innocent bystanders. One cannot just go around flying at low altitude over a populated area without putting others in danger. The laws better start catching up with technology, but in the meantime people need to exercise better judgement (I know the latter is unlikely).

40mm?

[sound vision]

40mm? I didn't know Glock made artillery pieces.

What about the government 'drones'?

[martinfb]

It is a pretty sure thing that the government is spying on us, too. Right? Remember the Snowden revelations? Don't you think that certain government agencies might be looking into our private lives from above as well? (Even though they are supposed to not do that?) Should we be able to shoot down any device invading our privacy? What is the height limit on spy devices that we are allowed to protect ourselves from? Seems to me that citizens of the American Constitution have the right to protect our own privacy. The Constitution gives us the right, and needs to be updated to clarify this for modern times (and thus consider modern technologies). How about this: If you come into my house and threaten me, I can shoot you to protect (me). If your drone flies into my space and appears to threaten me and my rights, I should be able to shoot it.

Don't use a shotgun

[gatkinso]

Depending on the range, pressure washers and garden hoses work quite well. Paintball guns, not so much.