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.
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!
... 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.
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.
That would mean that 200ft was actually 250ft. (0 would have been 50ft) More likely: the altimeter wasn't calibrated. I haven't seen the video yet, but it would be interesting to see what the height registered when it was at human head-height (5-7 ft).
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.
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?
When you have children, then you will understand.
Bullshit I have both.
The drone owner is lucky to be alive.
That say it all. Sir - there is something seriously seriously wrong with you.
That someone would rationalize murder because of a toy drone is just completely unhinged. You have arrived.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
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.
When the toy hits the ground, his 'telemetry' says -45.9ft.
The altitude is relative to the take off position. We don't know the topography of the area around. If the drone took off from an elevated from normal height, that doesn't make his actual altitude lower. It means it is higher
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.
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.
You fail basic math; the difference between 200 and -45.9 is 245.9.
Also, it was well over 200ft at the start. I didn't go frame by frame, but I did manage to pause at very close to the right point and it appears to read 262ft when shot. That would suggest a fall of over 300ft if the -45ft at the end is taken seriously, but I suspect it might just be damaged at that point...
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
Damn them for insisting that the Constitution safeguards their rights as well as yours.
Why do you think it only protects your rights, and not theirs?
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
Self defense isn't murder. That you think people are allowed to spy on your children and you have no recourse other than hiding inside your house says all we need to know about you as well.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
Just because someone is paranoid doesn't mean that people are not spying on him with toy helicopters with cameras strapped to them.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
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.
It is not self defense because neither life nor property was in any danger. It is self defense, though, if the drone owner is threatened by an armed wacko and shoots him. It is maybe even a good idea to arm drones so they can defend themselves.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
Don't we need to see a photo?
He was referring to the drone owner trespassing in person after trespassing with his drone.
Personally, I think a garden hose would be a better solution both for the drone and the guy.
Using the 2nd Amendment, as written, I think we could make that argument logically. Obviously it is not logical to allow it BUT if we use the 2nd, as written and intended, we could actually argue that. Mind you that this has nothing to do with how it is interpreted and I am not, by any means, suggesting we use SAMs (or any weapon of mass destruction) but, in order to defend ourselves from invaders or from a tyranny we should be allowed to arm ourselves with weapons that are capable of doing so. So, yeah, we could actually get a good legal team on it but it is not going anywhere - ever - as no sane judges would even accept the case as it fails at face value. Well, someone would hear it but it would likely be in Texas and not actually make it past a circuit judge. The supremes would just refuse to hear it no matter how good the argument is. Quite frankly, this is one of the rare cases where I agree that we probably should err on the side of caution as opposed to the spirit of the law or the letter of the law.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
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.
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.
It was vertically above him when shot, otherwise how did he end up with it in his hands?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
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.
He didn't. It crashed in a field near his house.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
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.
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.
Damn them for insisting that the Constitution safeguards their rights as well as yours.
Why do you think it only protects your rights, and not theirs?
Oh slag off with your asshole second amendment fearblather.
I own, enjoy, and use firearms. I find especially target shooting, very relaxing. I would have made a damn good sniper.
But the difference between myself and you gun kooks is that I am not at my core, a fearful child who cannot imagine themselves a man without their gun.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Self defense isn't murder. That you think people are allowed to spy on your children and you have no recourse other than hiding inside your house says all we need to know about you as well.
Are you having some kind of imaginary conversation with some imaginary person ?
The guy who had his drone shot down wasn't spying on anyone's children. Just because you are afraid of everything in the world doesn't mean you are allowed to shoot everything you are afraid of.
If a person drives by your house, do you have the right to just say he's spying on your daughter, so you pop a few rounds at him?
Growing evidence is pointing to the shooter as merely trying to protect himself post crime, and you kooks are defending his criminal actions. Owning a firearm is a second amendment right. Committing crimes with it is not.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Don't we need to see a photo?
It's an interesting concept. If the drone owner can produce video of his flight, that might knock the perp's final claim out of the water.
As we can see, there are a lot of terribly insecure and fearful people in here who have some issues who would likewise shoot a drone down because of that fear.
But let's take a typical toy drone. At 200 feet, if it crosses over some young lady sunbathing, you have some issues with the camaera.
First issue is that these cameras are usually pretty wide angle. So even if a downwad facing camera is selected, the sunbather at 200 feet is going to show up very very small on the video. Plus the forward camera, usually the better of the two (if there is two cameras. would have to be pointed down at an almost vertical angle from 200 feet. Or even 100 feet for that matter. Simple trig. Anyone want to calculte what speed and prop jiggling is needed for the drone to approximate an airplane, and the shutter speed effects that condition would incur?
. Now of course, it's possible that the victim spoofed (dictionary definition) his GPS and date/time and route he took with the drone. How likely is that? not terribly, and the facts in the case would have to have shown what appears to be some close cooperation between the victim and the perp. with both being experts in not only operating drones, but the software running them.
Or did you mean a photo of what she looked like?
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
He was referring to the drone owner trespassing in person after trespassing with his drone.
Personally, I think a garden hose would be a better solution both for the drone and the guy.
Yes, your solution is better. Problem is though, these folks have more than just drone fear going on. . If for some reason I wanted to spy on sunbathing teenagers. A drone ain't the way to go.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
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.
Another interesting thing I noticed watching the video. The video starts at 1:18, it takes about 5 seconds to fly to the shooter's house and stops almost over the swimming pool for about 30 seconds, then starts to move again and is shot down a few seconds later at 1:56. It clearly hovered over the pool for quite a while.
If someone broke into your house, barges into your bathroom and pulls up a chair to watch your daughter take a shower, snapping photos as he's doing it, would you think that throwing him out would be a form of defense?
Harm was being caused to his daughters, and he used the minimum amount of force possible to stop the harm. I call that self defense (as "self defense" is the proper term for defending others).
Learn to love Alaska
You should worry about what you have going on, because you seem to be both bigoted and ignorant.
You do sound like a crazy person there, btw.
Where did I say I have a gun? I haven't owned a gun since I was a farmkid 30 years ago. In the military I had range qualification once a year, and since then I've fired a friend's gun a couple times. Between the two of us, you are the gun nut for even owning one, much less claiming you could have been a sniper.
So please go shove your fearful child nonsense up your self-righteous ass. While you are at it, make sure the anti-gun-nuts don't find out you have those Constitutionally-protected devices around, or they'll lynch you while you try to explain how you are really on their side.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
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?
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 is perfectly logical allow. No nation has ever become a democracy in an environment where the few did not need to fear the many. There is absolutely no reason to believe a democracy can remain free while the few do not fear the many. And with our laws as they stand the few most definitely do not fear the many.
.50 caliber so the list now effectively includes every firearm. Note the military does not typically use semi-automatic weapons and by far the largest use of arms under .50 caliber is by civilians. All rifles, shotguns, and handguns are considered small arms by the military. Every "gun manufacturer" (anyone who slides on a scope) must now register with ITAR, pay several thousand dollars, and comply with regulations intended for manufacturers contracting with the US Military and building missiles. That is, assuming ITAR would ever approve that registration.
First of all, something like surface to air missiles of any notable power and sophistication are outside the reach of most if totally legalized. Only the wealthy who can have whatever they want now and large groups could get them even all the red tape were dropped. Even if people had them 99.999% of people would never use them because they aren't looking to kill someone. If you are mentally ill you can easily cobble together an explosive and a surface to air missile isn't exactly impossible to make.
But I think most people don't understand the state we are in with regard to the second amendment. Fully automatic and explosive devices aren't illegal but they do require federal licensing, and that is expensive. Most people think fully automatic means machine guns and all military rifles (except sniper rifles) qualify as fully automatic. But that isn't true. You can actually modify a civilian arm to fire rapidly like a machine gun trivially without qualifying as a fully automatic weapon.
The ATF rules are actually written in such a way that you can't design any kind of gun that doesn't work the way guns did 100 years ago. A rail gun? That isn't a gun. Make an electronic gun. Not a gun or qualifies as fully automatic. Any of these thing would fall under far more restrictive a classification or be completely outlawed per ATF regulations.
But more recently a number of executive orders have resulted in the ATF reclassifying just about everything one does with an existing gun as no longer being considered "gunsmithing" but now being classified as gun manufacturing. For example, if one puts a scope on an existing rifle that has already been legally manufactured with a serial number according to ATF regulations, that used to be "gunsmithing" which was already silly since it's external but now is manufacturing. Never mind that you started with an existing gun and ended with only one gun and didn't even so much as modify that gun.
This ties together which a second tactic used by the administration. ITAR is a government organization for regulating international military exports and imports. The President was empowered to keep the list of military articles covered and delegated to secretary of state (Hillary Clinton). Military articles specifically excludes items in common civilian use or manufactured for civilian use. Hillary ignored this restriction and updated the list to include shotguns and small rifles and handguns under
What does all that amount to? It restricts all gun manufacturing and gunsmithing to a few massive manufacturers who contract with the military and can easily be monitored with their sales and inventory tracked electronically. Manufacturers who can be effectively federally regulated by the executive via threats to their lucrative military contracts.
Either that or you have to do it one off by yourself... but nobody is allowed to let you use their tools or help you either.
Do your daughters usually play in the yard naked? If so, have you considered that one day your neighbours might want to fix their roof? Really, do your daughters normally wear less in the yard than they would wear at a beach or public pool? If your daughters have ever swum at a beach or public pool, did you take a shotgun in case anyone saw (so you could defend them from harm with minimal force)? I'm not decided either way on the larger argument, but this "self defence" argument isn't doing it for me.
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).
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! --
Do your daughters usually play in the yard naked?
So your answer is "yes" and we are now just arguing over the shade of grey?
Learn to love Alaska
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."
Was the drone taking pictures of the girl or not?
Interesting read - thanks. I may be in violation actually. I am unlikely to change that, however. I am subject to being accountable, at any time and without notice, because I own a fully automatic weapon. (I own an AK-47. Yes, it is legal. I bring it to the "Machinegun Shoot" every year for the vets to fire. It is the only automatic weapon I own - it was expensive and put me into a strange regulatory condition. So, now I have a giant safe in my basement.
However, I have added scopes to a number of rifles that did not come with them. I wonder what the take is on add-on laser scopes? How about if you have rails and attach a scope? Is a pointing device a scope?
I have never had them come in and do a count, I have never had to report a break-in either, and I am not going to remove my scopes from the rifles that I have modified. I doubt they will do much as I attract little attention and am, mostly, an acceptable citizen by most rules. We shall see.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
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.
And your first 6 words already run contrary to what I have written. Breaking into my house is damaging my property. The drone never did that. What happened was more akin to a peeping Tom climbing a public road tree with a pair of binoculars (think back to the future 1). While unpleasant, but I don't think self defense is really in order.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
Breaking into my house is damaging my property.
Nope. "Breaking" in the "breaking and entering" is about breaking the plane of ownership. It's a form of trespass, unrelated to any damage done to enter. Flying a drone into/over property is a form of trespass, and people have been convicted for less.
An erected privacy fence, with no pre-existing feature visible from inside it, is legally the same as installing an opaque dome. Someone would have to go to unusual lengths to see inside, and that level of unusual activity to breach the privacy is almost always a crime. Regardless of whether it's done with drone or binoculars.
Learn to love Alaska
Okay. I'm not sure what your situation is, but in every house I've ever lived in, people could see into the yard if repairing or painting a roof, repairing or installing an aerial or satellite dish, clearing guttering, or using a ladder to trim a hedge or a tree (and possibly other cases I've missed). People we know will come around the back if they drop by and there's no answer at the front door. I've also seen a quadcopter used to take images of the roof of a property neighbouring our local kindergarten, prior to repairs (from within the property), and I expect this sort of thing will become more common.
When I was young, my parents expected us to wear clothes outside, and I expect the same of my children. Even around the house, except the bedrooms and bathroom, we usually wear clothes. To me, someone flying a quatcopter seems very different from someone breaking into my house, barging into the bathroom, and pulling up a chair to watch one of my children take a shower, snapping photos as they're doing it. Sort of like eggshell compared to charcoal, although I guess you could call that shades of grey.
Flying over a property is only trespassing below a certain altitude. If the drone flies higher than 150 metres above the property then it is in public airspace.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
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.
"However, I have added scopes to a number of rifles that did not come with them. I wonder what the take is on add-on laser scopes? How about if you have rails and attach a scope? Is a pointing device a scope?"
You are probably fine. You can still "manufacture" by yourself for personal use. In practice this mostly impacts those with an FFL who do what was "gunsmithing" but is now called "gun manufacturing". Most FFL 01's are individuals without shops who just source from wholesalers and can legally receive transfers for people shopping online. Maybe you clean it up to get shavings out and check it over. Possibly do some minor trigger cleanup and that kind of thing. The FFL isn't what makes you subject to the requirement but it is what makes you easy to find.
At first people jumped to the FFL 07 which is double the cost but covers "manufacturing". Plus they could pick up a couple hundred bucks here and there drilling out an AR lower, stamping with a serial (logging of course) and building a custom rifle out of it for someone. Then ITAR starting cracking down on people with the 07 who weren't registered with them. As far as I know this is the only place it's been enforced so far.
It would legally kick in if you helped a buddy who was just getting in to shooting put on a quad rail, drill out an AR lower, or even install a scope.
Note, the ATF (and I guess now ITAR) is who determines if what you are doing constitutes "for personal use" on a case-by-case basis.
Basically, you run in to the problem as a drug user who stocks up to minimize his risk. If you have too much they could decide it automatically proves your intention to distribute with no additional evidence.
So you agree and are arguing about where to draw the line?
Learn to love Alaska
To me, someone flying a quatcopter seems very different from someone breaking into my house, barging into the bathroom, and pulling up a chair to watch one of my children take a shower, snapping photos as they're doing it.
Then what about a drone the size of an insect? Flying the drone into your house, rather than just over your land?
Learn to love Alaska
Not quite. In many countries the amount of force used in self defense must be proportional to the threat and I agree with that. Shooting down an RC toy helicopter is, in my opinion, overly excessive even if it is trespassing. Using your example, it would be like shooting somebody standing on my lawn watching me, but not threatening me otherwise. I'd ask the person to leave and call the police in a case of a failure to comply with it. If just invading my privacy from public space, violence is even less called for.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
And I disagree. Shooting down a drone is proportional. And your example agrees with me.
Your answer is 1) ask them. 2) have them forcebly removed under threat of death (the police).
The drone is unable to enter into conversation with you, so you skip straight to #2. Forcably removed under threat of death.
From what I've seen posted here, it was mentioned that it took multiple shots before the drone was damaged. I have no idea if that's true, or something someone made up. If true, then the first shots were warnings. The last shot was the minimum force possible that removes the "intruder", as the intruder was unwilling to move based on increasing force to remove it.
Learn to love Alaska
The police is certainly not a threat of death, not in my country. Here the coppers aren't nearly as trigger happy and well trained in unarmed combat (I have seen some violent arrests, they were very efficient). When police actually shoots someone it is always in the news - it happens maybe 6 or 8 times a year in a country of 80 millions. I definitely don't want to live in a country where the police is a threat of death.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
This incident is in the US, where the police do everything under threat of death. There are hundreds of videos of cops pulling guns on quiet, complying unarmed citizens, using threat of death to extract people from cars, order them to the ground for arrest, and all that. Calling the cops in this case, is a use of deadly force, as this happened in the US. So his use of "deadly force" was no greater than calling 911. Though, as you are not in the US, 999? 112? whatever it is, though 911 works almost universally, even when the official emergency number is something different.
Based on mention of 80M people, I'll assume 112 in Germany. But in Germany, would everyone be armed to shoot down drones?
Learn to love Alaska
Yep. And this is my point - in the USA people apparently tend to live in the permanent state of fear and thus escalate trifles to deadly force. It is not how the things are supposed to be.
Some people are armed here, but not that many. I actually used to do target shooting and to own a rifle, but not anymore - shooting became boring with years.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
It is not how the things are supposed to be.
I don't disagree, but it sounds like your argument is that reality is wrong because that reality is undesirable. Reality is reality, and applying German laws and conventions to a US action doesn't work.
Learn to love Alaska
Okay, I can better see where you're coming from. I can't think of any such blind spots anywhere I've lived, but I guess I never looked.
When you say "unless they were flying" though, is this flying above that property specifically, or does it include flying above a neighbour's property or public land? If it does, do you object to people flying drones above their own property or public land? Approaching this from the perspective of trespass, the same rule that determines how high upwards your property extends surely also applies to your neighbour.
Re: "extraordinary steps", I'm sure this was true in the past, perhaps even as recently as last year, but I don't think it's true any more. Apparently you can get one for under US$100 now 17 Cheap Drones for Beginners (Under $100). I believe that's cheaper than the popular game consoles, and within the reach of a kid saving money from a decent after-school job. On that basis, I think it's fair to say that the prospect of owning a drone is no longer extraordinary.
Yes, I'd consider that trespass. I'm not sure where you're taking this, but for what it's worth, if I built a Buckminster Fuller style dome over my property, just out of poles (no glass or mesh or anything between them), I'd consider it trespass if a drone flew inside.
Fences serve to mark property boundaries, and sometimes do little else. Some front-yard fences in my neighbourhood are short enough that I could step over them, and sometimes there's no gate, just a hole in the fence. They delineate where I shouldn't walk, even if they don't really prevent me from walking there, but they don't delineate a height (other than the top of the fence, I guess), some kind of 3D structure would do that (including houses).
I'm still not sure where I stand on this case. It seems reasonable to suppose that property boundaries extend upward more than 0 and less than infinity (in whatever unit). I understand that in the USA at least, this has been narrowed down to 83-500 feet (except where more is used, i.e. taller buildings). Exactly where the line is between that, I don't know. I think it would surely have to be based on some sort of societal agreement, but I don't think there is one. I guess people's opinions are likely to be based on whether they're more interested in sunbathing in the yard or flying drones. I wouldn't want to be the judge in this case.