Slashdot Mirror
New Telemetry Suggests Shot-Down Drone Was Higher Than Alleged
AmiMoJo writes: The pilot of the drone shot down Sunday evening over a Kentucky property has now come forward with video seemingly showing that the drone wasn't nearly as close as the property owner made it out to be. The data also shows that it was well over 200 feet above the ground before the fatal shots fired. The shooter, meanwhile, continues to maintain that the drone flew 20 feet over a neighbour's house before ascending to "60 to 80 [feet] above me."
That really does not change my opinion. I would shoot it down too. Of course, yeah, I live miles from people so they would have to be deliberately spying on me. There is no rational reason for me to not shoot it down. I might get a civil offense for it. Meh... I can pay the fine. I will sue them in civil court for duress, not for any money but to keep them from suing me. I *have* a lawyer on retainer. I am a good shot.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
You would have trouble seeing such a drone at 'well over 200 feet above ground' let alone shooting it down with a shotgun.
In the end, this is just another case of fearful kooks looking for an excuse to shoot something.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
The 200 ft displayed on video is based on position where drone was turned on and calibrated, based on a barometric altimeter.
Was the house on a hill or small rise i comparison to where the flght started? Then yes, drone was lower.
This took only a few minutes research of the drone manuals and the tech support forums.
Is why a long list of seemingly obvious criminal charges hasn't been brought against the drone operator.
I'd start with whatever laws relate to peeping Toms, disturbing the peace, and perhaps harassment.
Umm, no. Doesn't really change anything.
You are all drones. Drones make Rrrrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrr. What do drones make? Rrrrrrrrrrr rrrrrr rrrrrrr make the drones. YOU DRONES!
Telemetry Data not is.
I'm sorry but if the whole flight was only two minutes how would it be possible for the shooter to go get a gun and take it out? This may be from thefatal pass but doesn't necessarily tell us what was happening before that.
Once the drone is on the ground, altitude says -45~ so, you can subtract that from the height they said they were going.
... simply put at that range ( 200 ft ) any pellets the size of #6 or smaller would simply not have the ballistic energy.
2 ply cardboard wouldnt be penetrated at 200 feet.
Source : Years of hunting and shooting with 12 guages
Is it a drone, capable of flying by itself, or is it a radio controlled vehicle that must be piloted?
Was it lingering over the guy's property or passing through his airspace?
Clearly the pilot did not take evasive action. Being able to shoot it makes it seem like he was pestering the homeowner.
Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
Where is the video from the drone itself? If you know the angle of view of the camera, and can measure the distance between actual points on the ground, you can PRECISELY calculate the height of the drone from that video. Telemetry data can be faked. The live video of the incident itself couldn't be nearly as easily.
I used to have a sig, but I set it free and it never came back.
So when it hits the ground, telemetry shows -45.9ft which means he was actually over the neighbor's house at 154ft and not the 200ft he claims.
Also, what's the chance of this being a re-recorded flight with another rc helicopter to re-enforce his story?
Lastly, I notice the shooter was shooting in the direction of the woods and NOT over the neighborhood.
It's the *sky*. Arguing that someone lied about their perception when distance becomes very subjective is a fool's errand. 200 feet is still pretty close. Close enough to shoot down with a shotgun apparently.
As GP said.. "because math is hard" It converts to 160 feet, or 80% of what the drone owner claimed he was flying when his drone was shot.
When the toy hits the ground, his 'telemetry' says -45.9ft. So, If this was really the flight (and not a re-recording to bolster the flyer's story), he was really flying it at 154ft and not the 200ft he claimed.
I also noted that the shooter shot over the woods and not the neighborhood (which some have claimed).
In addition, this fear is too fearful to even look like fear - it's masked with goofy bravado. It's like the friend's husband who sleeps with a .45 under the pillow, no safety engaged. (takes time to take it off yaknow) Brags about it. The friend who keeps one in every room, and vehicle and a shorty strapped to his ankle. That's fear
This Tennessee case is just anther example of that fear. "Oh a Drone! Must be th' Guvmint spying on me, or maybe a homo looking for a place to marry his boyfriend! Quick, shoot that fucker down! Not on my property? Well it could fly over my property if it flew over my property - that's all the reason I need"
Lest liberal kooks think I'm just picking on the right wing kooks, your own version of this fear is your ADT protected house in your gated community with your safe room in it. You put yourself in a prison, yet you still don't feel safe.
But right wing kooks - you have a real problem coming up.....
When law abiding gun owners exercise their second amendment rights to weaponize their drones.
Your own divide by zero moment.
How you gonna protect yourself from illegal aliens and skittle brandishing chocolate people if you aren't allowed to have your Parrot packin'?
Fear is the mind killer. And it's doing a hellava job.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
First, like so many people, he has trouble judging distances in "open sky". This is related to why people also perceive a full moon along the horizon as "bigger" than one in the sky... Second, is that he is a great shot!
Seriously, just check your paranoid ass into the nearest mental hospital.
Maybe the property owner doesn't have a good sense of distance for aircraft and doesn't know it.
I can pay the fine
Federal Law does not put drones in a special category. They are just another aircraft. The penalty is up to 20 years in federal prison, and a $250,000 fine. That's in addition to the charges this individual has already faced for discharging a fire arm in the city he lived in, as they make that illegal there.
More interestingly, there is a line here that is not well defined. What's the difference between:
I think most people would say the first is fine, and it's not legal to try and shoot down the google satellite. Similarly, I think most people would be ok with taking action against the last one to protect privacy (even if that isn't legal per the federal law I cited above). This technology is so new, we simply haven't decided as a society where the line should be drawn, and our old laws probably don't work well.
It's not just personal houses either. What about the drones used by activists to fly over industrial operations breaking the law and get footage of it? Can the industrial operations shoot them down? If they do the same thing with a Cessna at 3,000 feet everyone would say no. What makes a drone at 400 any different?
I wonder that the video and data didn't go up immediately. A couple of days is enough to edit the telemetry and video. Maybe they're honest, maybe they're not. However, it seems really unlikely that someone would be massively offended by a drone 70 meters up.
If they were going to file charges against anyone, it was really stupid for the police not to impound the drone as evidence.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
I own and fly quads. I'm usually flying to get images/video of buildings, architecture, and land. Large object that film very well. Not people.
hobbyist "drones" are loud and are not good at spying on people.
If the shooter had gone and talked to the drone owner, he would have seen what limited view the owner has.
In general, the shooter is in trouble for shooting a gun, not damaging the drone. If the drone was down at 10 feet, then you would be within your rights on your own property to toss a net onto the drone. Maybe you could use one of those air cannons that shoot shirts. Again, if the drone is within range of that, then I highly doubt you will be arrested and/or charged for firing it.
There have been studies done before asking average people to estimate how high an object is in the sky (generally balloons or kites) and the estimates were generally awful. Even judging the difference between 60 and 200 feet is generally beyond the range of what most humans can comprehend in vertical distance.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Do the drone operators not worry about trees?
If a drone fly's over your airspace, you have the right to shoot it down. You have your right to privacy. This was a property owner who was exercising his right to it. Whether or not this was 20 or 200 or 2000 feet, it was obviously close enough warrant action to shoot it down.
And how do they know the telemetry hasn't been altered - it might be trivial to do.
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
Why was this as whole flying over the person's property other than the lamest of answers, because..
So, if it was so darn high, how did this yokel hit it?
That an asshole who invoked Stand Your Ground when the drone owners came to collect would be making shit up
This is possibly the most useless set of comments I've ever read on slashdot, and that is saying something.
Probably the best solution to this is to get a drone yourself for your home and equip it in a way in which it can take down other drones. It shouldn't take much: a trailing net, a trailing string, or even just dropping something.
Buckshot does not melt steel beams!
You are welcome on my lawn.
He had enough time to go inside, get his shotgun, load it, come back outside and then shoot the drone.
There is good science that will allow exact measurement of the height from the video. Photogrammetry. Stop the "eyeball norm" or "opinion-based-measurement". It is likely that the owner of the drone will "doctor" the video to exclude anything incriminating. The entire and unedited video must be made available. It should also be compared with time-stamps for the 911 calls, and the official statements of timelines.
Bird shot has a max range of 40 yards. That means that if the redneck was a really good shot then the maximum range he could hit it is about 120 ft. The thing wasn't vertically above him when shot, so it was substantially less than 120 up. If it was a 45 degree angle (pretty adverse) and the guy was shooting and hitting at the absolute maximum range of the gun, then it was on the order of 84 feet above the ground. The drone-owner is going to assert that it was at the physical edge of maximum possibility, the man with the gun at the minimum. If we evenly split the difference, then the height was 40 feet up and 40 feet away from the shooter.
Public airspace is 500 to 1000 feet above the home. Below that, according to the FAA, except for takeoff or landing, it is illegal to fly aircraft. They were far below that limit.
I know a few hundred thousand gun-owners who think that they have to buy more guns to protect their private property from drones because of this case. It is good for gun-sales.
200 feet up is a LONG way for most bird loads in a shotgun, even straight up with no extra slant distance. I can't think of any goose loads that would carry enough energy to drop a metal and plastic drone at that distance. They struggle to take down a soft-skinned animal at 150 feet.
First time this year I've read about Americans shooting something that wasn't
- Their children
- Each other
- Endangered Wildlife
Somebody shot a couple hundred dollar drone, great its good news! Progress.
The only surprise the world has, is there is no call for drones to be armed to protect against it happening again..
The contour map says different, the drone pilot who likely spent all his gun money on the drone needs to flip burgers - watch the ground speed of his logs and how is is hovering over the location.
The pilot should just stick to making shine and frying chicken.
Let's test drone owner claim - put drone moving at 200 ft and give him a shotgun.
If it was so high - it should be almost impossible to hit.
Some guidance to keep owners of remote aircraft etc from breaking the law. The Drone was within 50 metres of a person/building/vehicle not also in the pilots control or the operator had lost site of it then I would deem it out of control and brought it down on safety grounds.(I think the distance may be reduced to 30m if the drone has a camera to aid it however it then must comply with Data protection act and privacy regulations). I looked this up a couple of months ago when a drone was hovering (about 30ft) over my max kids (one toddler, one at primary school) in a trampoline in my back garden, it flew off pretty quick when I came outside to see what the noise was. I would loved to have had something to have dragged it out of the sky and put notes up in the area reminding every body of the law and allowing the owner to come and retrieve his possibly very broken property. I don't see any difference between flying one of these things over other peoples property and peeking over their fence. Both will be met with the same response, illegal or not.
^^ This ^^ The longest range I have ever killed a bird with a 12 gauge was about 40 meters, and that was using Winchester Blind Side 3-1 3/8-BB steel hex shot. That's a very hot round.
Even with a goose load, I wouldn't bother firing at a goose unless it was within 60-70 feet.
As many others have pointed out quite effectively, at least consult a firearms expert or someone who has the slightest clue before making claims that make you look like an idiot.
At first when they said "data available that contradicts.." I thought, "oh..it was on some 3rd party's radar or tracking system", then this clown breaks out his ipad or whatever and says "See!". Yeah nice try. I can guarantee you that whatever the package he is using can have it's gps/tracking data modified with less than no problem.
What a friggin clown...
200' is too low and an invasion of privacy. They should not fly over other people's property lower than the height that aircraft are allowed which is far higher. The drone operators were at fault for flying low and spying on people. Time to put forth clear rules on this. It should be fine to fly a drone in a public park where it is expressly permitted or over your own land but not over someone else's land. Simple trespassing.
The final altitude was -45 feet. I can expect some error, but I don't think that the drone made that deep of a crater.
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
Doesn't 200+ feet seem awfully far for pelleted shot with any accuracy ?
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free airspace, the right of the people to keep and bear ZSU-23-4 Shilka shall not be infringed (except in cases they are offered a free upgrade to a 2K-22M Tunguska).
those DJI's measure altitude is with pressure and temperature sensors, and it can drift A LOT, so it is very possible that the true height was much higher or lower.
On the other hand, fly a drone over a police station or fly a drone close to a court of law and watch the police or judge take immediate action against the drone operator.
In like manner as well all should know judges have made it legal all across the nation for incredibly offensive-smelling homeless or mentally ill people to sit all day in places like libraries making them impossible to use by ordinary citizens unless they are wearing gas masks, but let an incredibly offensive-smelling homeless or mentally ill person set foot in a court room and not only will he get escorted out, but if he returns he'll likely be jailed on contempt-of-court charges.
This is called a double standard.
Seriously, why wouldn't a nut not lie about the distance to a drone? It's not like he's reliable either, is it.
THIS drone was not ARMED, just a HD webcam BUT less then a year away I bet when an armed one does damage and mega outrage. Wht then?
I would have tried to destroy it if I could if it went over a place i was at. specially repeatedly. Thats just on the principle of privacy.
If you disagree then snowden is a traitor.
Ill shoot if its a clear shot. or water house or brick. No recording me thx!
NOW and when they become flying stickup men.
lolol just wait and see it NOT like the Zombie Apocalypse at all....it WILL happen very soon unfortunately.
The video released by the drone operator starts with the drone halfway to the property owner's house at what appears to be a reasonable altitude. Why doesn't he show the altitude at launch? Unless he can show otherwise, it's fair to assume it was showing anywhere from -50 feet to almost 200 feet when it took off.
Since some posters have tried to turn into amateur lawyers, here's a section from Lawyers.com
http://communications-media.lawyers.com/privacy-law/videotaping-and-photography-on-private-property.html
Videotaping and Photography on Private Property
Posted In Privacy Law By Lawyers.comSM
Things you should know about trespass:
Extending a camera over a fence may be a trespass
Flying over a property for the purpose of taking photos may be a trespass
“No Trespassing” signs are not required
If you have permission, don’t abuse the permission
Exceptions to ordinary trespass laws:
Taking photographs to document or lessen a disaster
Taking photographs to document a crime
You may take photographs or shoot video from your own property, onto private property
You have permission to be on the property for other purposes
We all know GPS is not very accurate with altitude in consumer electronics.
Just look at the crash landing position -45 feet, that is 45 feet below starting position.
I dont know much about the geography of the USA, but I find it hard to believe it refers to feet above sea level, as the pilot implies they crossed at 272 feet above the property.
So even if it was inaccurate by 50 feet, its still 150 feet above the guys property.
An RF jammer would be much more effective. Just as illegal, but the FCC is much nicer than the FAA and the BATF in general. And it's damn hard to prove with manual intermittent use. Some drones can auto-home when they lose signal, but I bet the local pervs aren't using anything that expensive or sophisticated.
why has no one asked why the drone pilot has not shown the photos or video recorded with the drone. But instead shows a video of the gps data Tracker of the drone. If he was not using it to take pictures of the girls sunbathing in the back yard then the drone pilot would be in the clear.
I don't want people to shoot down my drone. If someone parks in your driveway and you blow up their car you still owe them damages.
But how tall are the tallest buildings? If you can legally build that high on your property than you should own the air that high. It should make no difference if I build a fifth story on my house or build a floating platform that hovers stationary over my house at the same height.
If I build a 200ft tower to put radio antennas on I might need a permit and to stick some lights on it. If I build a blimp that uses solar to maintain the same height and position and is equipped with antennas why do I need anything more or less than that?
200 ft (2/3 the way down the football field if he shot straight up - 280ft+ if he shot at a 45deg angle).... with birdshot... and downing it.... not likely..... very unlikely... possible? maybe - but the probability is the altitude claimed is false.
No one should be flying drones over other people's property. period. If you think it is ok to fly a drone over other people's property (potentially with cameras with zoom lenses)... may you have children that are spied on by pedaphiles...
Now, if flying a drone over other people's property is not allowed -- shooting over other people's property (unlikely the birdshot will obey property boundaries).... but firing up at a target is highly unlikely to be dangerous to anyone on the ground (see Mythbusters) -- wind resistance would make it annoying at best if hit.
If shooting a drone out of the sky and having it fall on someone is dangerous.... then just flying the drone and potentially crashing it (without shooting it out of the sky) is also dangerous....
If you fine the shooter for shooting it down, then the flyer should also pay a fine as well..... and forget about damages... since he should not have been flying it there anyways.
"servicable" to most shooters means able to drop an animal. Tossing a dime at a drone from 10m would drop one if you hit it because it would lose flight stability.
Bird shot would be more effective against a target this weak. It'd make for a nice light cloud and would twice the opportunity since even the minimal force of the terminal velocity of the pellets coming back down would probably be enough to crash a consumer quad copter.
Still I'd say damages are owed. If you blow up my car rather than having it towed when I leave it in your drive way you still legally owe me damages. If I move out and leave my stuff at your place and you leave the window open causing it to get rained on and destroyed I can sue you for damages and win in most places.
Why exactly should it be legal to destroy my harmless RC toy?
https://youtu.be/G--EsibXYkA?t=80
While many are dubious of the ability of a shotgun to bring down a drone at over 200ft, they are solely relying on the word of the shooter for their details of the 'bird shot' and weapon used. Deciding which ammo to load - in a hurry - is simply a matter of judging distance to the target and reaching the next box of ammo. Even if bird ammo was pre-loaded, slipping a different cartridge in is trivial.
The amount of energy required to bring a drone like that out of the sky is NIL - a stationary object can easily bring it down by getting directly hit by the spinning rotors. A single lead shot of ANY size merely covering the distance of 200ft is capable of bringing the drone down - let alone more than one travelling at over 100+fps.
This is not a valid debate.
Soft skinned animals don't typically have exposed vital spots made of thin, brittle plastic spinning at thousands of RPM. I can't kill a rabbit with a gently lobbed golf ball either, but I'm willing to bet it'd be pretty effective against at least some quadcopters.
weinersmith
@mythbusters: this thread.
"lt;dr" is the correct response to most of my posts.
it's not exactly as good accuracy in the vertical direction. If they saved the VDOP, perhaps we'd know if it was likely.
I don't care who you are, you fly a drone over my air space I will shoot it down, run over it with my car, chop it up with my lawn mower and then I'll get nasty.
Die drone DIE!
Fucker didn't have permission to fly his drone over someone elses property. As such, it deserved to be shot down.
I'd have shot it down too.
The people who are doing the flying near planes are going to ruin it for the rest of us. If you want to have to get a permit to own a drone or quad copter, etc then keep it up , the government is looking for a reason to put a ban or licensing on the entire hobby and these people are providing it !
For the love of God, Myth Busters need to test this type of scenario to put an end to the infighting.
The internet has both convicted and cleared this man of any charges (both the shooter and the operator).
Which, correct me if I am wrong, is 300 feet. So you can definitely see a quadcopter at 200+ feet, considering it has bright LED's, and the body is bright white.
The amateur hour BS being spouted and upvoted is laughable.
As someone who has fired thousands of rounds through multiple shotguns, with anything from #00 to #8 dove shot, in both hunting and trap/skeet situations, AND, a quadcopter owner and enthusiast, I can say with assertion, that many of the upvoted comments here are just complete rubbish and know-nothing speculation, at best.
Drone implies autonomous or semi-autonomous operation. Hobby level quadcopters and the like are NOT DRONES. They do not have LIDAR or RADAR or other obstacle avoidance, cannot avoid obstacles on their own, and at best, can follow GPS waypoints to return home, or fly a pre-planned pre-set route, without operator intervention.
First, #8 birdshot is more than capable of taking out a bird/quadcopter at 200+ feet. Much of that can depend on if you are using chokes in your shotgun. Chokes are exactly what they sound like, they modify the spread/pattern of the shot. Full, improved, modified, among others.
Second, this guy let his inner Bubba get the best of him, because he thought a little white lie about the altitude of the quadcopter, a thinly veiled attempt at making it appear the quadcopter operator was being a pervert (of course using an underage minor in a bikini as part of the assertions), and public opinion, would put him in the right. This guy is a non-thinker... he was going with all the hot-button points he reads in the media about hobby quadcopter operators, and thinking everyone would instantly villify the operator, since the court of public opinion usually sways that way. Video, oh sweet video, proves the guy, and his statements, are trash. If not flat out lies, then heavy embellishment. He was already doing the mental gymnastics in his head to put himself in the right, before he ever pulled the trigger.
Third, it only takes a single pellet to bring down a quadcopter. Out of all those little pellets, it takes exactly one, to penetrate the plastic shell that houses all the electronics and battery. One BB from that shotgun blast, through a single ECB board, a single battery contact or wire, or any other number of critical parts that are not shotgun friendly, would bring the quad down. It does not take an entire pattern of shotgun BB's to down any quadcopter, period. The plastic housings on quadcopters are typically pretty thin to save weight, so it is not like the quadcopter is armored against vigilante gunshots.
Fourth and last point. If you have allowed yourself to be sucked so far into the media vortex, that you have lost your research and critical thinking skills, than shame on you. The assertion that the guy flying the quadcopter hacked the telemetry data, altered the video, or any other nonsense like that, is just doing the mental gymnastics to bow to your media masters, and public opinion. They control your brain now, keep believing the shit they are shoveling to you.
I will point to an instance of a lady attacking a kid (Austin Haughwout, google it) operating a quad over the beach. After physically assaulting him, and trying to break his equipment, she calls the cops, then flat out lies that she was the one assaulted, then tells the cops he was flying over people at the beach filming them. If it wasn't for the video of her assaulting him, that the kid had, he would have gone to jail, solely because a woman lied. She, of course, tried to use the hot-button "pervert quadcopter operator" lie, thinking police would side with her. When the video from the quadcopter was shown to police, it shows an altitude so high, that you cannot even distiguish gender of anyone on the beach, AND, the quad was zipping along at a good clip, not hovering. She was arrested on the spot, and the crazy bitch was convicted and had to complete a fast-track first offenders program. Interestingly enough, this same kid, who is now legally an adult, recently got himself in trouble with the ATF for attaching a gun to a drone and then filming it, and, of course, you-tubing it. Not too bright.
Americans and their guns!
If you are going to compare, at least mention the huge difference in goose loads versus other bird loads.
Folks, goose loads are steel shot... Have been for some time. Other bird shot is lead. Do I even need to say more here?
Which is 300 feet. So you can definitely see a quadcopter at 200+ feet, considering it has bright LED's, and the body is bright white.
The amateur hour BS being spouted and upvoted is laughable.
As someone who has fired thousands of rounds through multiple shotguns, with anything from #00 to #8 dove shot, in both hunting and trap/skeet situations, AND, a quadcopter owner and enthusiast, I can say with assertion, that many of the upvoted comments here are just complete rubbish and know-nothing speculation, at best.
Drone implies autonomous or semi-autonomous operation. Hobby level quadcopters and the like are NOT DRONES. They do not have LIDAR or RADAR or other obstacle avoidance, cannot avoid obstacles on their own, and at best, can follow GPS waypoints to return home, or fly a pre-planned pre-set route, without operator intervention.
First, #8 birdshot is more than capable of taking out a bird/quadcopter at 200+ feet. Much of that can depend on if you are using chokes in your shotgun. Chokes are exactly what they sound like, they modify the spread/pattern of the shot. Full, improved, modified, among others.
Second, this guy let his inner Bubba get the best of him, because he thought a little white lie about the altitude of the quadcopter, a thinly veiled attempt at making it appear the quadcopter operator was being a pervert (of course using an underage minor in a bikini as part of the assertions), and public opinion, would put him in the right. This guy is a non-thinker... he was going with all the hot-button points he reads in the media about hobby quadcopter operators, and thinking everyone would instantly villify the operator, since the court of public opinion usually sways that way. Video, oh sweet video, proves the guy, and his statements, are trash. If not flat out lies, then heavy embellishment. He was already doing the mental gymnastics in his head to put himself in the right, before he ever pulled the trigger.
Third, it only takes a single pellet to bring down a quadcopter. Out of all those little pellets, it takes exactly one, to penetrate the plastic shell that houses all the electronics and battery. One BB from that shotgun blast, through a single ECB board, a single battery contact or wire, or any other number of critical parts that are not shotgun friendly, would bring the quad down. It does not take an entire pattern of shotgun BB's to down any quadcopter, period. The plastic housings on quadcopters are typically pretty thin to save weight, so it is not like the quadcopter is armored against vigilante gunshots.
Fourth and last point. If you have allowed yourself to be sucked so far into the media vortex, that you have lost your research and critical thinking skills, than shame on you. The assertion that the guy flying the quadcopter hacked the telemetry data, altered the video, or any other nonsense like that, is just doing the mental gymnastics to bow to your media masters, and public opinion. They control your brain now, keep believing the shit they are shoveling to you.
I will point to an instance of a lady attacking a kid (Austin Haughwout, google it) operating a quad over the beach. After physically assaulting him, and trying to break his equipment, she calls the cops, then flat out lies that she was the one assaulted, then tells the cops he was flying over people at the beach filming them. If it wasn't for the video of her assaulting him, that the kid had, he would have gone to jail, solely because a woman lied. She, of course, tried to use the hot-button "pervert quadcopter operator" lie, thinking police would side with her. When the video from the quadcopter was shown to police, it shows an altitude so high, that you cannot even distiguish gender of anyone on the beach, AND, the quad was zipping along at a good clip, not hovering. She was arrested on the spot, and the crazy bitch was convicted and had to complete a fast-track first offenders program. Interestingly enough, this same kid, who is now legally an adult, recently got himself in trouble with the ATF for attaching a gun to a drone and then filming it, and, of course, you-tubing it. Not too bright.
Seems an odd choice of words. No one died. Should it have been "fateful"?
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Telemetry can be faked.
Downed drones on one's property can't be.
Pull!
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Can we all agree that firing the weapon in the air was a bad move? He should receive and pay the fine for that. Then he should be informed that next time he should invite the person into his backyard and shoot the pilot there! Plant a small bag of gun powder on the drone and claim the pilot was threating to harm him and his property with it.
Seriously if I was on a jury for this guy the real issue I have is the right to the expectation of privacy; if you just fly by no harm, if you stop and hover expect a response no matter how far the drone was up there. The same goes if you drive by my house, if you stop and pull out binoculars from a block away expect a response!
Also if the drone is being considered a plane, can the pilot show a filed flight plan with the FAA and that they followed it? No flight plan, well then its just a toy and the pilot broke his toy, too bad.
For those metrically oriented, think of meters instead of yards, a meter is about 10% longer than a yard.
That means 'normal folk' do sport shooting 60 to 100' away without much problem with a 'choke' on their shotgun to keep the pattern clustered. 200 yards would be 600', so anywhere in the legal flying range, they are susceptible to shotguns. Even though I would have trouble hitting the broad side of the barn from the inside. --grin--
Yes, I don't like the attitude that has been started, so, if you fly, fly in YOUR authorized area, and stay on good terms with your neighbors. Let them know what you are doing (invite them to join in!). It is much easier to deal with friends than folks that think you are just trying to take pictures of their daughters!
... "When you pry the source from my cold dead hands."
Looks like the 'drone' was only in the vicinity of his house for about 25 seconds before being shot down. That doesn't allow much time for him to react and shoot it down. Seems likely that there was probably an earlier flight, seen by his kids, giving him time to prepare for the next pass.
Was the drone taking pictures of the girl or not?
How soon before someone brings one of these drones to a MLB or NFL game. Then what? They'll be ok with it? Yea, right. They may not shoot it down, however I bet they send goons out to find the guy running it and beat them severely.
Everybody likes to make car analogies. However, that doesn't work here. CARS have well established, documented legal procedures for having them removed. (I know them all too well.) An un-tagged, un-titled car.. I most certainly can destroy it. (in fact, the police/dmv won't touch it.)
Moving out and leaving your stuff also has mountains of legal backing. YOUR. PROPERTY. IS. ABANDONED. As such, it's no longer "your property". It can be disposed of, or publicly auctioned -- legally. (I can't keep it, but I can throw it away or put it on eBay!) As for entrusting your stuff to a friend, no contract exists; if it's damaged or lost it's entirely between you and your friend.
I think people are missing the point. 20 feet or 200' above him it doesnt matter, it was above his property and he's a G-D legend for blowing it out of the sky. He would have got extra points if it was a govt/spy drone, but if it was 200' he then gets extra 'good shot' points, given what he shot it with.
You are naming off a few very specific circumstance exceptions. These won't even necessarily be the same in two different counties let alone two different states. They wouldn't apply pretty much anywhere if a tag where put on the car, a "I'll be back for this stuff later" uttered, or any form of meeting of minds regarding the safe return of property entrusted to the friend.
The point is not whether there are circumstances under which you can dispose of someones property when it's on your property. The point is that something being on your property does not automatically entitle you to do what you wish with it by virtue of that fact alone. Even when you do have the right to dispose of the property, doing so in a way that intentionally reduces it's value can incur civil damages that can be recouped in small claims court.
A toy RC copter being interactively and legally flown in air space that happens to be over your property is definitely not abandoned or entrusted without contract. You aren't entitled to cause several hundred dollars in property damage to it for shits and giggles.