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."
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!
It's painfully obvious, the property owner needs to get a lawyer that can persue the drone owner for criminal misconduct.
... 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.
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.
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.
Why is it the property owners reponsibility to go find and talk to the drone operator? The drone operator, on the other hand, knows where his toy is going so maybe HE should actually act like a responsible person and let the property owners know what he is doing ahead of time.
200 feet is still pretty close.
Yes, but if I shoot someone's car who parked is on the street 200 ft outside my property and assert it was my right because he was parked "too close" to my property, the law is not going to consider "pretty close" to be close enough.
Airspace in general is the public domain. At what point it above your property it becomes yours is a legal grey area.
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
Pretty much comes down to the privacy vs. security issue in the back of everyone's mind. No doubt people are a bit touchy over that with the changes in policy of our government. Perhaps remote voyeur isn't such a good idea if you have an expensive drone and an operator might just want to keep that in mind, drones themselves are likely a peeping tom's wet dream and that is actually a sickness as well as a crime, and the cure over the ages for that has often been a 12ga.
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
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's painfully obvious, the property owner needs to get a lawyer that can pursue the drone owner for criminal misconduct.
Actually, everyone should take a chill. All the charges should be dropped and these people should just work it out. The neighborly thing to do would have been to tell the neighbor not to fly over his property before shooting it out of the sky or anything like that. I think some partial compensation would be appropriate as a civil matter negotiated between the neighbors or in civil small claims court. The only reason that this is being given any attention is because "drone" has become the catch all word for a bunch of techno paranoia.
The neighborly thing to do would have been to tell the neighbor not to fly over his property before shooting it out of the sky or anything like that.
Exactly how would he have done that? It's not like he knew the drone owners and recognized their drone. Also, according to the shooter, he did wave it off initially, but they came back a little while later. That seems perfectly "neighborly" to me.
Finally, according to the initial report, when the shooter shot down the drone, four men drove up in a vehicle and jumped out, looking for a fight (with a man with a shotgun--smart move). How exactly are these people "neighbors" if they have to drive to his residence? It wasn't the guy's next-door neighbors who owned the drone.
I have read that link, and hundreds of pages of legal opinions, regulations, and related material. Unless, in this case, local municipal, county, or Kentucky state laws explicitly provides for trespass prosecution in the case of using air space that the federal agency with statutory authority in matter doesn't think is the least bit in control of the guy 200' below in his back yard... then there's no there, there. Again: what's the next crime you had in mind? The police on the spot didn't think there was anything approaching trespass involved.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
If the drone was under 500 ft, in the US there is a potential case for criminal trespass. It's not a slam dunk, because under 500 ft, AFAIK you're really dealing in the realm of common law and precedent. If the drone was over 500 ft, the landowner would be guilty of downing an aircraft flying in navigable public airspace. I believe that's taken pretty seriously.
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.