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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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!
His drone just got shot down, and his first thought was to go knock on the shotgun-toting property owner's door?! Brilliant.
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.
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.