Slashdot Mirror
New Video Shows Shot Down Drone Hovered For Only 22 Seconds
AmiMoJo writes: The saga of the drone shot down in Kentucky got a little bit longer today. A new video from the drone shot down by William Merideth shows that it only hovered over his property for 22 seconds, and was not "peeping". The video shows the drone hovering at altitude and surveying the area before falling out of the sky. Although the video jumps around a little, the drone's owner claims that it was not edited. The shooter says he did not know if the drone was being operated by a paedophile, criminal or ISIS terrorist before he opened fire.
The shooter says he did not know if the drone was being operated by a paedophile, criminal or ISIS terrorist before he opened fire.
While Dueling Banjos was playing in the background?
22 seconds is quite a long time to hover over private property. It is legal to shoot firearms in my neighborhood - I would have shot it down too.
Did it have their logo?
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
22 seconds? So the shooter was already outside in his own backyard with an appropriately loaded shotgun* just waiting for any old drone he had never seen to come by at random??
More likely scenario: Sure, on the FINAL FLIGHT over this guy's house the drone operator got 22 seconds. It was the repeated previous flights that almost certainly had to have happened that the drone operators don't want to talk about because it doesn't make them look good.
* For the ignorati, no self-respecting pro-gun redneck would keep a shotgun for personal protection loaded with #8 or #9 bird shot. If he was so wanting to shoot people as he is made out to be, there would be buckshot or even slugs in that shotgun. Hence, he was able to unload & reload in that 22 seconds... apparently.
I'd say that was 22 seconds too many.
The shooter says he did not know if the drone was being operated by a paedophile, criminal or ISIS terrorist before he opened fire.
Okay. This was in Kentucky, so I can imagine 2 out of those 3 as possibilities.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Discharge of a firearm in most rural areas is still illegal where your life isn't in danger. They'll probably confiscate all of his firearms for this incident.
I'd hate to live in this neighborhood after the legal fallout.
That the memory card was missing when he got it back? (Church Lady) "Well isn't that convenient....."
And for "Not edited" the video sure jumps around a lot.
Guys sees drone flying around; doesn't like it; shoots it down. To my knowledge gun ownership is legal there. So the only thing that happened was he destroyed other peoples property. So he needs to reimburse that person and any other harm done. Case closed. Why the whole arresting and crazy charges either way?
So what, nobody should have the right to fly a spying machine over your house.
Four more and Mr. Merideth is an ace . . .
That means we can all look through a stranger's windows for 22 seconds. The US secret service has been rather aggressive towards drones Do they agree? How does the one being surveilled instruct the drone to leave? The US FAA hasn't answered this question for civil air space. How can the government can the answer the problem of personal privacy?
Twenty-two seconds is a long time to be hovering in somebody's yard. Go ahead, count it out like an attorney would do in a courtroom so you can see just how long 22 seconds is. I can't remember seeing a hummingbird spend 22 whole seconds at my feeder and I want them in my backyard. I would have shot that drone down too, especially if my neighbor's kid was out sunbathing.
The shooter says he did not know if the drone was being operated by a paedophile, criminal or ISIS terrorist before he opened fire.
Okay. This was in Kentucky, so I can imagine 2 out of those 3 as possibilities.
ISIS is in Kentucky? Do they have something against the Wildcats?
That's actually a hell of a long time.
The shooter says he did not know if the drone was being operated by a paedophile, criminal or ISIS terrorist before he opened fire.
Translation: I've been just itching to Stand My Ground, and this was the best opportunity I've been presented with so far, so.
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
... just against bird shot or something. Its going to be annoying for Amazon etc if people are shooting delivery drones down. No one is likely to hit these drones at altitude with anything but bird shot. So if you can make the drone hardened against tiny pellets... they might just be fine.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
This is is what allows planes to fly over your property without paying you or getting your permission. What this guy did possibly doesn't even qualify as him defending his property rights.
Has the shooter never heard of the legendary Criminally Paedophilic ISIS Terrorist?
It's Boko Haram that's the criminally paedophilic terrorists. They are the ones who are raping preteen and young teen girls (and boys?) in their war in Africa.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
I don't think it would have been a problem if this man simply took down the drone with a giant fly swatter. Point being, folks have no way of knowing if it's an ISIS drone, or an alien coming from down from space to probe your family. Got a drone? Fly it over your own property, or some public space.
Not edited?
BULLSHIT.
The clouds moved and the sun is visibly lower - not much, but jump between 20 sec into the video and right before it was shot down.
Again:
BULLSHIT
In addition to what's stated above, the homeowner maybe doesn't even know the limitation of the drone. How close does it have to get? Where is the camera pointing? What power is the zoom?
I served a few weeks in grand jury in Monmouth County, New Jersey. I'm not an expert, but to indict for terrorist threat, it was enough to show that the victim felt threatened. It doesn't really matter, like in this case, that technically due to limitation of the device, he was not ever in danger. The owner just publicized the evidence that can be used against him.
0. spot flying thing-a-ma-jigger ... all in 22 seconds? Or did he just happen to be wandering around his property with a shotgun in hand when he happened to notice a drone overhead?
1. identify it as a threat
2. put down beer and struggle to get rise from lawnchair
3. run into house and grab (presumably loaded) shotgun
4. run back outside and shoot it out of the sky.
You are wrong. You have complete rights to the airspace above your property. But via federal law, planes and other air travel have been given an explicit right-of-way because the value of having the industry far exceeds the imposition on you from having air traffic overhead.
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
Only 22 seconds? Like that makes a difference? What is the suggested amount of time to allow a drone to hover over your party and spy? I can't believe this is even an issue. If you fly your drone over my property and hover around, it will be shot out of the sky. What right do you have to spy on your neighbors? None. This is total bullshit, and I can't believe /. is churning it. Except, yes, I can. Because, you know, drones are vaguely techie things. Ooh, shiny!
If this guy is worried about ISIS operating a drone on his property, he's a paranoid menace and should not be allowed anywhere near firearms and his access to sharp objects needs to be severely limited.
In Japan it would have been shot down with a ridiculous longbow where the top half was twice as big as the bottom half.
It is not the absolute time determined by some atomic clock that matters. It is the time perceived by the human observer that should be the significant factor.
When one is being eerily stalked, twenty-two seconds can seem a LOT longer.
Straw man. The primary purpose of commercial airliners is to transport people and goods. The primary purpose of a drone is to point a camera at things from locations in the air, nearby the target.
There are plenty of open spaces where a hobbyist can go to fly their drone without bothering people. Pick any county in the country and do some quick searching and you will find an amateur RC plane group that will hold regular meetings and events. Some areas even have a field designated for amateur flights so that no one interferes with regular flight patterns if they happen to stray above 500 ft.
End of the day, you wouldn't send an RC car out into public places with a video camera attached and expect it to come back unmolested, why would you think a drone is any safer?
I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
Right of way implies passing through, not staying there. And most air traffic flies too high to look at boobies.
Not a gun nut at all, but I move to dismiss.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Wrong. Airspace above 500 feet is considered an easement. Drones don't usually fly that high, so it doesn't apply, but a drone flying above 500 feet would not be trespassing on private property.
Arrant bullshit.
The asshole that flew the drone into someone's property was the criminal.
The 'air' over your backyard party, or looking into your bedroom window, is NOT public space, and you do not know what your are talking about.
You believe that you have a right to spy on your neighbors with a drone? You're delusional. Anyone can fly anything into0 your backyard and just hover there and evesdrop? Where does this way of thinking even come from. You are out of your mind.
You joke, but that is actually a very reasonable way to crack down on these low-lives. I bet it would work.
This is is what allows planes to fly over your property without paying you or getting your permission. What this guy did possibly doesn't even qualify as him defending his property rights.
First, airplanes are flying on average 30,000 feet above your house. They can't make anything out from that altitude and at that speed. They COULD fly as low as 500 feet, depending on the nature of airspace in the area, but they very likely would be flying much much higher.
Second, the airplanes are allowed to TRANSITION your airspace. They are not allowed to sit there in your airspace and record what you are doing.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
22 seconds to go into the house, get your shotgun, come back out and shoot down the drone? No way. He had the shotgun ready. Which means this isn't the first time Douchey McDronePilot had buzzed this guy's backyard. Ooooh, 22 seconds *this* time. But what about the minutes and hours before that? Hmmm?
Redneck farmers used to do that to real planes.
It might not be that straightforward. Just as using cameras in public places is legal, there are lots of places where public toplessness by both genders is also legal, with the caveat that the toplessness is not for prurient purposes. It already may not be illegal to have incidental nudity caught on camera in public places. Now, if the subject is where they have a reasonable right to privacy then the operator of the camera might be committing voyeurism, which is already illegal, or if the subject exposes themselves in a public place with prurient intent then the subject may be breaking the law. I suspect that in cases where a minor is recorded unclothed, even where the minor is uncovered for prurient purposes, where that minor has a reasonable expectation of privacy, that the charge will be voyeurism against the camera operator.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Why would he have to put down his beer or get out of his lawn chair? A friend of mine was out dove hunting when a flock (?) flew over camp. Sitting in his lawn chair he picked up his .410, took aim, fired, hit one, and it literally fell into his hand.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Regardless of what was in the guy's mind it was a criminal act and he should be charged, jailed, and required to pay damages.
I agree, but it looks like the police decided to charge the victim who was merely protecting his property instead of the criminal trespasser.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
No the air is not public space. If you think it is, I'll be hovering over the skylight in your daughter's bathroom at one foot over your roof tomorrow all day long.
You own the land and the air above it to infinity, the FAA just gets to borrow part of it.
Even if the camera in this drone was the kind used in Civil War photography, 22 seconds is still long enough to take at least half a dozen pictures of children for the drone operator to share with his enthusiast friends on 8chan.
Maybe it's better not to hover your drone over someone else's property unless you were invited. If you were parked in a car in front of my house taking photos, I'd probably at least tap on your window with the barrel of my shotgun to see what the fuck you were doing.
Just because you're using some new faddish technology does not mean you get to exist in some magical place where social norms and rules don't exist.
Drones are this year's Google Glass.
You are welcome on my lawn.
No matter what you believe to the contrary, the five hundred feet above your property is private airspace. Anyone in that space can be charged with trespassing.
This is an outright lie. You have exclusive control of air rights up to 500 feet. Beyond that the control is exclusive to the FAA by federal statute.
49 U.S.C. 180, 49 U.S.C.A. 18 , 40103 "use of airspace"
And because you don't know, the stuff that follows the quote is the section of US law that covers the quote.
There sure are a lot of paranoid dumbasses commenting here. Oh no, 22 seconds and it was high up in the air and not really focused on anything! Must be a pedo, lets shoot it down!!!!1
Well, that is not actually correct -
"In that case the court held that a plane flying just 83 feet in the air—the commotion was literally scaring the plaintiff’s chickens to death—represented an invasion of property. The justices declined to precisely define the height at which ownership rights end. Today, the federal government considers the area above 500 feet to be navigable airspace in uncongested areas. While the Supreme Court hasn’t explicitly accepted that as the upper limit of property ownership, it’s a useful guideline in trespass cases. Therefore, unless you own some very tall buildings, your private airspace probably ends somewhere between 80 and 500 feet above the ground."
Source:
http://www.slate.com/articles/...
Dummies Article on the Topic:
http://www.dummies.com/how-to/...
Google Search With Many Articles:
https://www.google.com/search?...
What does all of this say - the Supreme Court has ruled you own at least 83 feet above your property. So no, all airspace is definitely not public. Hopefully this will lead towards a new ruling which will legal define how much airspace you own; opposed to it being left in a legal grey area for heights between 83 feet and 500 feet.
The video seems to be heavily edited and there is no way to actually prove it's from the fateful flight. As others pointed out already, if that would be real, the pilot would have absolutely no idea who shot the drone down.
Furthermore, initial claims of missing the SDcard notwithstanding, the image quality is so poor that it's hard to believe it came from a 1.8k drone. No telemetry data or even a time stamp? Really suspicious.
The more the pilot is trying to justify himself (e.g. by "finding" the lost footage), the more he looks like a lying dick.
I see 49 U.S.C. 180, 49 U.S.C.A. 18 , 40103 "use of airspace" giving the FAA the auth. Where's the statue that says you have from 0' - 500'. You bought the land, and not even the mineral rights to it most likely. Does it say you own the air from 0-500" somewhere?
"The shooter says he did not know if the drone was being operated by a pedophile, criminal or ISIS terrorist before he opened fire."
So drug dealer was too outlandish a claim? For fuck's sake, of all the possible boogeymen, a friggin' ISIS TERRORIST??? If this bullshit argument gets to stand, I don't even want to know just how fucked up this country and its inhabitants is.
(for those that don't understand what I am referring to, you might want to read up on the Four horsemen of the infocalypse. Yes, this is not "on the internet", but he really nearly assembled all the straw men used there. Only the drug lord is missing)
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Not a commercial flight. Not a private plane following FAA rules. Over my property. Shoot it down for Criminal Trespass, Stalking and Harassment then file charges against the owner. Shoot him if necessary.
Just pass laws that state that any drone operating over residential property without either the owners consent or federal right of way, can be claimed by the property owner if they down them with methods that are respectively legal. Something that isn't potentially lethal, like a garden hose or a CO2 powered net gun.
Not that it applies in this particular case, but can someone flying a drone at 200 feet be expected to notice a No Trespassing sign on a tree 5 feet up from the ground?
I'm the king of my castle and my family are my subjects, sort of.
Anything that invades my Kingdom first gets a warning shot as a friendly gesture and, if that didn't work, a fatal shot.
Private airspace is currently a vague concept in this country. Until Congress defines it properly, and hopefully this case will prompt some decision, let's "comfort zone" serve as the appropriate limit.
So, in short, I agree with the shooter's stance against the invading device. The drone should be designed to be capable to receive and acknowledge a warning from property owners. This should be the technological requirement for drones to exit their owner's airspace and potentially enter someone else's.
Actually, per earlier reports he had been informed by a neighbor that somebody was snooping around with a drone. That probably primed the guy.
I don't read AC A human right
The law defines above 500' as public airspace regulated by the FAA. The use of Public in the statue indicates that it's owned by the public and regulated by the government with exclusive authority to regulate delegated by congress to the FAA. As there is no designation by congress on what happens below 500' it could be construed to be private, but could also be regulated by state law or individual federal jurisdictional rulings (as in each district court could have different precedent) or even FAA decisions.
As 0-500' isn't regulated by federal statute you would need a lawyer to tell you who owns what in those 500' that's specific to your jurisdiction. Depending on the state it may be well defined, as states like California have well defined laws in place regarding air space but other more rural states may have no legal definitions.
The main point is that at 500' and above you have no private property rights, the area above that is public airspace governed by the FAA. If someone gets FAA approval they could park a drone at 501' above your property and indefinitely monitor you and there isn't a damn thing you could do about it.
What does all of this say - the Supreme Court has ruled you own at least 83 feet above your property. So no, all airspace is definitely not public. Hopefully this will lead towards a new ruling which will legal define how much airspace you own; opposed to it being left in a legal grey area for heights between 83 feet and 500 feet.
This reminds me of ancient maritime law and how they defined 'territorial waters'. Today it's 12 nautical miles. Back in the 18th Century it was 3 miles. For several centuries it amounted to being the range of common ground-based cannon-shot. Basically, if they could shoot at you from shore, you were within their territorial waters.
It seems as good of a standard as any - if you can hit the drone with a standard 12 gauge using normal shot that's small enough to fall 'harmlessly' back to earth, then the drone is too low.
Depending on whether people pull the goose guns out, this seems
At 425 m/s, if it wasn't for atmosphere it'd make it out 9k feet. As is, air resistance is critical, and while I can get plenty of 'how far', 'how high' is tougher, but I'm getting a practical range of about 80-120 feet.
Reasonable enough.
I don't read AC A human right
Taking pictures of your daughter.
DON'T OPPRESS ME.
“It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.” Mark Twain
Was he a criminal trespasser?
Let's see (Everything direct from Kentucky crim code):
511.010 Definitions.
The following definitions apply in this chapter unless the context otherwise requires:
(1) "Building," in addition to its ordinary meaning, means any structure, vehicle,
watercraft or aircraft:
(a) Where any person lives; or
(b) Where people assemble for purposes of business, government, education,
religion, entertainment or public transportation.
Each unit of a building consisting of two (2) or more units separately secured or
occupied is a separate building.
(2) "Dwelling" means a building which is usually occupied by a person lodging therein.
(3) "Premises" includes the term "building" as defined herein and any real property.
Effective: July 15, 1980
History: Amended 1980 Ky. Acts ch. 376, sec. 1, effective July 15, 1980. -- Created
1974 Ky. Acts ch. 406, sec. 96, effective January 1, 1975.
511.060 Criminal trespass in the first degree.
(1) A person is guilty of criminal trespass in the first degree when he knowingly enters
or remains unlawfully in a dwelling.
(2) Criminal trespass in the first degree is a Class A misdemeanor.
Effective: January 1, 1975
History: Created 1974 Ky. Acts ch. 406, sec. 101, effective January 1, 1975
511.070 Criminal trespass in the second degree.
(1) A person is guilty of criminal trespass in the second degree when he knowingly
enters or remains unlawfully in a building or upon premises as to which notice
against trespass is given by fencing or other enclosure.
(2) Criminal trespass in the second degree is a Class B misdemeanor.
Effective: January 1, 1975
History: Created 1974 Ky. Acts ch. 406, sec. 102, effective January 1, 1975.
511.080 Criminal trespass in the third degree.
(1) A person is guilty of criminal trespass in the third degree when he knowingly enters
or remains unlawfully in or upon premises.
(2) Criminal trespass in the third degree is a violation.
Effective: January 1, 1975
History: Created 1974 Ky. Acts ch. 406, sec. 103, effective January 1, 1975
The only definition I could find for "real property" is "all lands within the state and improvements thereon."
Is the air space above one's property considered a dwelling, building, or considered to be part of the premises, that is "real property"?
One Mississippi, two Mississippi... twenty-one Mississippi, twenty-two Mississippi. That's a pretty long time if you've already got some adrenaline flowing from seeing this thing zip around your neighbors' yards.
As 0-500' isn't regulated by federal statute
There is an awful lot of airspace below 500' AGL that is controlled, which means it is regulated by federal statue. 14 CFR, if I recall the FAA section of the CFRs correctly.
What does all of this say - the Supreme Court has ruled you own at least 83 feet above your property.
No, they ruled that an aircraft at 83 feet above some property that was causing significant damage to the owner's use was in violation. It did not rule that every aircraft at that altitude is invading the property. I think it is reasonable to assume that had the aircraft in question been causing no disturbance at all the ruling would have been different.
The idea that drones are allowed to fly over your property and so whatever they want simply isn't true. You're not allowed to fly drones too close to buildings or people, and clearly the drone operator violated this rule. There are clear risks to people on the ground, especially if one of the motors fails or the drone runs out of battery power. While that doesn't make it legal to shoot down the drone, possibly creating an additional hazard, it shows that the drone operator had no business flying the drone in that area. The flight was pretty clearly illegal and the drone operator probably should be guilty of menacing or wanton endangerment according to Kentucky law. That ranges anywhere from a class B misdemeanor to a class D felony.
Here's what the FAA has to say about this:
https://www.faa.gov/uas/media/model_aircraft_spec_rule.pdf
For example, the FAA regulates low-altitude operations to protect people and property on the ground. The FAA permits aircraft operations below 500 feet when flown over open water and in sparsely populated areas. 14 CFR 91.119(c). Such operations may not be conducted “closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.”
Private property is called that for a specific reason.
Despite the fact that said resident may well have violated laws against Discharge Of A Firearm, I would unreservedly applaud the man should he have taken down the unwelcome electronic device with more direct physical means. (rake, high pressure hose, slingshot)
The Unrepentant Owner can quite happily GO SUCK ON IT.
Feel free to admit in court that you TRESPASSED ON MY PROPERTY while you try to claim against the damages I did to your piece of electronics.
For Clarity: personal drones are awesome, there should NOT be unreasonable and unfair regulation against people enjoying themselves, HOWEVER when people think that LAWS AGAINST TRESPASS can be ignored just because THEY themselves are not physically present deserve to be locked up FOR A LONG LONG TIME.
Have fun, respect the law, respect OTHER PEOPLES RIGHTS (privacy, peace, etc)
Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
Did anyone get a copy of it before it was marked private?
Well in Arizona that would not work. You would be charged with Shanon's law in a heartbeat. We take firing a gun in to the air very seriously.
> ... allowed to TRANSITION your airspace. They are not allowed to sit there in your airspace and record what you are doing.
[citation needed]
It is perfectly legal in the US to slowly fly over someone's house at 400 feet in a REAL helicopter...or, hover for 22 seconds. The control of the airspace is by the FAA. No local jurisdiction over anything in the "airspace".
Sig Return: 204 No Content
It was hovering over private property...which could be against the law in some jurisdictions.
"Implies" doesn't mean shit. Right-of-way means it can be used for this purpose - in other words, the airspace is public property for those who are flying.
That said, use of public airspace does not include use by drones. This has not been decided upon by a powerful enough court to make a precedent............but its coming. The fact that Amazon is allowed to do some deliveries shows that the government has accepted drones as a 'real' aircraft. Its only a matter of time.
This guy is not going to jail, but will get a ticket for improper discharge of a firearm. I doubt a lower court will want to start to rule on legality of drones......so if he appeals, expect a long loud mess.
> The shooter says he did not know if the drone was being operated by a paedophile, criminal or ISIS terrorist before he opened fire.
Whereas we know that the shotgun was being operated by a total fucking jackass. Who will hopefully be losing all of his guns and going to jail for a long time.
Good riddance, asshole.
This is Slashdot, so I understand that you didn't read the linked articles. Here is a more general summation from the articles I posted above.
An entry into anotherâ(TM)s airspace is a trespass even if the trespasser doesnâ(TM)t touch the surface of the earth. Airplanes may trespass by flying low over a personâ(TM)s property, for example. An airplane trespasses by flying low enough over the surface to interfere with the ownerâ(TM)s reasonable use and enjoyment of her surface.
The only way to guarantee that you are not trespassing is to be in public airspace which is determined to be 500ft.
And no, you do not have to cause damage to be trespassing.
You ask people to leave your property. Or "Gerroff moi laaaand!". You don't ask them "Leave my airspace". So the answer is "just above the ground" is where it becomes public.
This has never been a problem.
At what point can I suspect you of being ISIS or a paedo or terrorist? Is it shooting at my stuff? Or when you threaten me with shooting me down? Because if someone threatens me with violence for political reasons (e.g. 2nd amendment), then you're a terrorist and I can blow your house up, right?
I mean, if we're going to be able to go on gut feeling of what we THING the other person is bad for, why only this retarded redneck?
The FBI, probably.
The TSA would definitely approve as well, so long as the camera's pointed towards a bedroom.
The only missing operator's description was a drug dealer. It's sad when most citizens mistake everything not ordinary for them with something criminal.
Yes, the video might have run for 22 seconds, but that doesn't mean the drone wasn't already over the backyard, and 22 seconds is kinda long.
To me the owner of the drone should just cut his losses and leave it at that, as IMHO he shouldn't have flown/hoovered over someoneelses property.. Lesson learned the hard way.. Because you own a drone doesn't mean you can do whatever you want whereever you want.. To me the property owner was full in his rights to down the drone (shooting it with a shotgun might not have been the safest way for surrounding people)..
I hope you get beaten up by niggers
.... a white van with tinted windows so you don't know what's going on inside. Now let's say it does that repeatedly as is certainly the case with the drone.
What would you do?
Call the police? Confront the van and its occupants? Shoot at it?
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
Stop acting like it was some guy out flying his model plane. Attaching a camera to a drone changes how the laws apply almost as much as attaching a firearm to one.
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
Fly over, grab raw footage, extract juicy pics to jpgs.
This reminds me of ancient maritime law and how they defined 'territorial waters'. Today it's 12 nautical miles. Back in the 18th Century it was 3 miles. For several centuries it amounted to being the range of common ground-based cannon-shot. Basically, if they could shoot at you from shore, you were within their territorial waters.
It seems as good of a standard as any - if you can hit the drone with a standard 12 gauge using normal shot that's small enough to fall 'harmlessly' back to earth, then the drone is too low.
Depending on whether people pull the goose guns out, this seems
At 425 m/s, if it wasn't for atmosphere it'd make it out 9k feet. As is, air resistance is critical, and while I can get plenty of 'how far', 'how high' is tougher, but I'm getting a practical range of about 80-120 feet.
Reasonable enough.
I believe the drone in question was at ~200 feet when it was shot down. I personally don't want anyone shooting in the air in my neighborhood, though bird shot would be relatively safe at longer distances in rural areas. But anyway, you don't want to start an arms race on what is considered to be private airspace based on weapons. I could easily shoot down a drone at 200 yards if it were hovering in one spot and not being buffeted by the wind. Maybe not with bird shot, but I can guarantee you that some redneck would take it too far if you gave people a free pass to shoot things out of the sky above their property.
The word "drone" ... Oh, my... such evil connotations, no? We used to call them "radio controlled aircraft" and it was the kind of hobby that parents engaged in with their kids before cable TV, Minecraft, and mobile apps replaced family time. They weren't considered sinister. But then the media got you to start thinking of them as "drones" (which really just means "unmanned aircraft") and now you're thinking of nefarious spying machines like we've heard of in Iraq and Afghanistan, who's appearance over your home means that someone has taken interest in you and soon death will fall on you from the sky.
The hobby has enjoyed some incredible leaps in capabilities over the last few years. Multirotor aircraft are now practical to build and fly (helicopters were notoriously difficult and expensive to learn on). And, yes, they can carry payloads... like cameras.
I sometimes fly these things around. Mine are too small to reasonably carry a camera, so I'm flying by line of sight. Why would it hover for 20+ seconds in one place? If I'm having some sort of problem on the ground, I might put the aircraft into "loiter mode" where it holds altitude and position so I can put the remote down and deal with a problem on the ground, like maybe my kid got stung by a bee. Loiter mode can happen automatically, too, like if the aircraft moves out of range of the controller (though I'm more likely to pre-program mine to "Return To Land" in such an event).
"The camera is the new gun." - Judge Andrew Napolitano
This homeowner might have come out on top if he'd merely taken out his phone and recorded video of the aircraft hovering over his property. Bonus points if you can get a clear view of a camera pointing back at you. Send that to the sheriff, to the local paper, put it up on YouTube, draw some attention to it. In remote rural areas, if someone's got a hobby involving fancy semi-autonomous aircraft, the neighbors are going to know who it is. It won't take long at all to flush them out and sort out the concerns like decent human beings.
It took that long? this means this bozo had a loaded gun next to him (around his kids) and was able to pick it up , sight it in , and discharge his firearm (around his kids) rather quickly. Do not fly news helicopters anywhere near this dude. cue: dueling banjos
~corporate tool, but employed~
LOL America, the war on terror has you fighting the invisible bogey men.
Pack it up, the terrorists have won.
the video can't be viewed. it is "private" now
... then shoot down a drone ?
That dude wasnt in that good of shape.
Anyone got a mirror?
That is 22 seconds too long
I'm no fan of guns, but keep your expensive flying camera toys away from private property, or accept what might happen!
Just because it's kinda cool that everyone CAN control the position of their camera in 3-space now, doesn't mean that they should.
This is Slashdot, so I understand that you didn't read the linked articles. Here is a more general summation from the articles I posted above.
The material you quoted was rather specific. It dealt with the specific case where a drone was causing significant impact on the use of the property by the owner. Had that drone caused no damage, it is unlikely there would be a case, much less the same decision. You cannot extrapolate from that case that any drone flight at 83 feet AGL above someone else's property is illegal, because the impact on the chickens was a critical part.
Imagine this: I fly my drone in my own backyard at 83 feet, but it is gas powered, makes a lot of noise, and makes the same kind of disruption to your chickens in your yard nextdoor that happened in the case you quoted. Would I be immune from any action because I was over my backyard, or would the fact that my activity was impacting your use of your property create a cause for action? Since the latter is true, then it cannot be ignored in the case you cited.
The only way to guarantee that you are not trespassing is to be in public airspace which is determined to be 500ft.
Like I said, had the drone at 83 feet caused no damage, it would not have interfered. The court decision that was quoted did not define an altitude that was absolute, it was an altitude in conjunction with effects. And apparently, only women who own property are so protected, since the deliberate use of the feminine pronoun in place of the genderless pronoun when referring to the owner.
As for the "500' is public airspace" determination, it is based on FAA minimum safe altitude rules. Those rules were not written to determine what "public airspace" is, so using them as that is outside the scope of their intent. There are too many places where controlled airspace extends to the surface for anyone to claim that 500' is a hard deck. In fact, the existence of the FARs that prohibit flight below certain altitudes for fixed wing aircraft proves that the airspace below that altitude does not belong to the property owner under it; otherwise that property owner could fly his own airplanes below that altitude without violating any rules. Even so, the minimum safe altitude for rotary wing aircraft is below 500'. There goes the "public airspace" argument for quads.
And no, you do not have to cause damage to be trespassing.
I didn't say you did. I said that the damage was a critical and necessary part of the case you cited, and therefore an extrapolation from that case that ignores the effects is specious.
There's a difference between "stopping by your yard", and "stopping in your back yard while teenage girls are outside in swimsuits".
There are some people out there that are paranoid to the point that they report any and every suspicious vehicle to the police. I'd assume some of them are gun-toting rednecks and would confront whomever looked suspicious. I don't think many questions need to be asked if said white van had "FREE CANDY" spray painted on the side.
but I can guarantee you that some redneck would take it too far if you gave people a free pass to shoot things out of the sky above their property.
I didn't give them a free pass though. Note the number of restrictions - shot must 'harmlessly' fall back down, so no unloading with slugs or .50BMG rounds. 12 gauge shotgun, so no pulling out the punt guns.
As for the drone in question, well, I question everything.
Though looking at ranges, 200 feet UP might be doable, given a ~200-250 yard horizontal effective range.
Still gives drone operators the area between 250-500 feet for 'transit' operations where they don't 'need' to worry about getting permission from every land owner, but stay below FAA jurisdiction.
I don't read AC A human right
I have a phantom 3 pro and the video has always been smooth as butter with default settings. The shotgun blast and subsequent fall shouldn't damage the flash memory either. A choppy video would make me suspect that it was edited. The owner removing it is also suspicious. Even if it were 22 seconds, how long can someone legally take pictures of your private property from above before it becomes an issue? I do think it's a privacy and property violation.
> The police won't get there in time.
> Can't confront them because they can't hear you.
So sure, if it hovers over your property repeatedly at less than 500ft, yeah, shoot the trespasser.
If someone was following you around on a sidewalk for 22 seconds with a video camera, then you would become uncomfortable. I had to go around and take pictures of the neighborhood for a HOA meeting and was greeted by many angry looks and a couple of people questioned what the heck I was doing. And I was nowhere close to 22 seconds. And I wasn't over anyone's property. Especially over their back yard. Twice.
I live in the next city over from this whole thing, so it is has been played out on the local news for the past few weeks. When the shooter was arrested the toy and it's camera were returned to the guy who was holding the controller along with the video card and whatever else he was using to record. A few days later this guy reappears and suddenly makes the "unedited" video available to everyone....If I had a few days I'm sure I could alter the video sufficiently enough to make it look like I was Mother Theresa too. The shooter will get off with a fine for discharging his weapon in city limits (all 6-10 streets I can't remember now) because there are so many holes in this and such laughable 'investigation" by the cop, it will be a wonder if the shooter can't get the fine waived by a good lawyer. I'll start with this part...any police officer with a quarter of a brain would have retained the drone after extensive photography of it's location, as evidence, for damage, for forensics of the video, for evidence. As I understand it was handed back to the owner. Typical regretfully of these glorified rent a cops these small cities hire to "police protection" He really needs to go back to running radar on the main street through this subdivision, speed limit 20MPH, when outside the "city" it's 35MPH. Yes he is a revenue source, not law enforcement. Oh the police chief? http://www.wave3.com/story/235...
"If stupid things work...then they are not stupid."
I'm familiar with hobby "drones". I actually dislike the term "drone". Used to call them quad-copters. Used wire 4 (or 8) brushless motors with voltage control servos, a battery, and a receiver... We used them to film skateboard stuff. I'd blast one out of the sky of I saw one hovering above my property, filming my daughters especially. What's the difference between standing on a ladder and filming pool-side voyuerism of under aged girls versus doing the same thing with a flying camera? There isn't. It's invasion of privacy. Would it be legal to hover one near a bedroom window while my wife gets undressed? I sure hope it's illegal to do that.
If you fly drones, keep them over your property, public property, or gain permission. Oh wait, who owns the skies? Doesn't matter. Don't film my daughters. Also my wife sunbaths in the buff often. We have an 8 foot privacy fence around our above ground pool. She lays out on the deck. What if your neighbor was hovering a camera in their yard filming over the fence? Not cool. I'd probably shoot the camera regardless if its a drone or someone on a ladder.
Fuckard, you ever hear of private property? If a white van suddenly drove onto your property....
If I hop your privacy fence while your wife is nude sunbathing, it's still trespassing. There's no time limit on the law. WTF does it matter if it was 22 seconds or not? The law doesn't require me to accept a 22 second or even a 1 second invasion of my privacy.
At 260 feet / 80m high that would be one hell of a hose - the drone had a GPS altimeter.
Below the speed of light Special Relativity is one of the most accurate theories in physics - above the speed of light..
What exactly is the fucking point of putting a link to the video in the summary when the fucking video is private?
Perhaps it was not at the time of the summary? Then who's got a copy for the curious and interested to view? Put it up somewhere, mkay?
It would be comparable to someone stopping in your front yard to take pictures.
Another comment out of context. Stick to the subject and quit trying to make comparisons with something that is not even close to what this is about.
Cali passed a privacy law in January, the rest of the states will soon follow. Just don't use a shotgun.
http://leginfo.ca.gov/pub/13-14/bill/asm/ab_2301-2350/ab_2306_bill_20140930_chaptered.pdf
There are net guns, and air cannons that can legally take down trespassing drones safely, as well.
Drone have to stay under 400 feet, and above 83 feet at all times, plus never fly over people. With a camera, they are supposed to stay 500 feet away from anywhere that has 'a resonable expectation of privacy." , unless they have permission from EVERYONE being filmed.