Slashdot Mirror
Kentucky Man Arrested After Shooting Down Drone
McGruber writes: Hillview, Kentucky resident William H. Merideth describes his weekend: "Sunday afternoon, the kids – my girls – were out on the back deck, and the neighbors were out in their yard. And they come in and said, 'Dad, there's a drone out here, flying over everybody's yard.'" Merideth's neighbors saw it too. "It was just hovering above our house and it stayed for a few moments and then she finally waved and it took off," said neighbor Kim VanMeter. Merideth grabbed his shotgun and waited to see if the drone crossed over his property. When it did, he took aim and shot it out of the sky.
The owners showed up shortly, and the police right after. He was arrested and charged with first degree criminal mischief and first degree wanton endangerment before being released the next day. Merideth says he will pursue legal action against the drone's owner: "He didn't just fly over. If he had been moving and just kept moving, that would have been one thing -- but when he come directly over our heads, and just hovered there, I felt like I had the right. You know, when you're in your own property, within a six-foot privacy fence, you have the expectation of privacy. We don't know if he was looking at the girls. We don't know if he was looking for something to steal. To me, it was the same as trespassing."
The owners showed up shortly, and the police right after. He was arrested and charged with first degree criminal mischief and first degree wanton endangerment before being released the next day. Merideth says he will pursue legal action against the drone's owner: "He didn't just fly over. If he had been moving and just kept moving, that would have been one thing -- but when he come directly over our heads, and just hovered there, I felt like I had the right. You know, when you're in your own property, within a six-foot privacy fence, you have the expectation of privacy. We don't know if he was looking at the girls. We don't know if he was looking for something to steal. To me, it was the same as trespassing."
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.
In addition the shooter had no way to know with any reasonable degree of certainty that the 'drone' was unarmed. It could have been carrying an explosive device - and not just a gun as was recently seen, but actual c4 explosive.
Finally, even if it was only containing a camera, it was still illegal violation of the shooter's rights and the shooter had the right to destroy the object.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
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.)
You are welcome on my lawn.
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.
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.
Can you ask a drone questions? Can the drone respond? Can you determine the owner of the drone in order to ask the owner directly?
Even if you consider shooting a trespassing person "wrong" because you may kill them, shooting a drone would only result in property damage and not harm to any person.
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
And generally the police will look at the sky, see no object, and say, "If it happens again, call us," and will never do anything.
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.
Except that you can't ask a drone questions.
I expect this to be a legal mess for a long time. This will probably come down to property rights.
The area above the property is private, but the extent of that ownership is not entirely defined. Cases like this will probably define it.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
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?".
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.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Who do you complain against? The drone that will be gone well before the point it can be tracked by police? The owner, who you can't identify?
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
Depends on what you shoot at it with.
Shooting at the sky is bad. Falling bullets can kill.
No sig today...
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.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
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.
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.
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.
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.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
This is a universally a very bad idea.
Discharging any weapon in a populated area except at a proper range or in defense of your life is generally illegal and a very bad idea.
I suspect he would be facing the same charges if he were merely shooting crows in his backyard.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
The FAA is saying it's not safe but there's no law about shooting one down. The man was arrested because city ordinance against discharging firearms in the city. Should have used a paintball gun.
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.
Legally? I have no idea. Here I believe he could possibly be charged with destruction of property, unless zoning laws stated that he could not fire a shotgun. A shotgun fired upwards is very safe, the risk of anybody being hurt by a few birdshot coming down is minimal, so endangerment is only possibly from somebody being hit by the falling drone. And if that is a danger, what the heck is the drone doing flying over people anyway?
Morally? It seems to me that a majority of the drone pilots are douche bags, completely ignoring other peoples right to privacy and even safety. Just because it is possible to fly their drones anywhere does not mean it is a good idea. If somebody flies their drone into my property, collecting video footage, I believe I have the moral right to do something about it. It is no different from if they started racing around a RC car with a video camera in my backyard. Sure, I could call the police, but the police is unlikely to show up in time. And what is the police supposed to do about a drone hovering over my house? Waste time around until they find the pilot? This is a perfect example of when a well aimed shotgun shot will help improve how people behave. If they don't want their drones shot down, they can fly them over their own property.
No 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).
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!
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.
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.
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.
while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
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.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
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.
"He took a duck in the face at 250 knots." -- William Gibson, Pattern Recognition
you _do_ know that outside of physics class we take air resistance into account, right?
So below are all the rules for flying an RC plane. Why don't we simply apply the rules to drones? As a matter of fact, you have to explain to me why the don't automatically apply anyway?
Fly below 400 feet and remain clear of surrounding obstacles
Keep the aircraft within visual line of sight at all times
Remain well clear of and do not interfere with manned aircraft operations
Don't fly within 5 miles of an airport unless you contact the airport and control tower before flying
Don't fly near people or stadiums
Don't fly an aircraft that weighs more than 55 lbs
Don't be careless or reckless with your unmanned aircraft â" you could be fined for endangering people or other aircraft
Come the revolution, the Bourgeois, Capitalistic, "A PARKING STICKER HOLDERS", will be first against the wall!
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.
They have cities in Kentucky?
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
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.
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.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
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.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Their cousin?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I dont know about Kentucky, however in Texas you can shoot people for Criminal Trespass. You can use deadly force to protect your self and your property.
Texas is the only state that allows deadly force to be used in defense of property. This is a case where Texas is wrong and the rest of the country is right. I'm all for the right to keep and bear arms, I carry daily and am a certified concealed weapons instructor. But deadly force should only be used to defend people, not stuff.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
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.
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.
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.