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.
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.
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.
Why is this an either/or situation? Has the shooter never heard of the legendary Criminally Paedophilic ISIS Terrorist?
You think you're being funny, but there are actually a lot of those.
So what, nobody should have the right to fly a spying machine over your house.
The criminal endangerment is most likely for discharging a firearm within city limits. These statues make no exceptions for firing upward with birdshot, they draw a line and say you can't fire a weapon in city unless you are at an approved firing range. It wouldn't have mattered if he was trying to shoot crows or rats, they still would have charged him. It's in everyone's interest to prevent the firing of guns in cities.
He'll be sued for reimbursement within small claims court. Given that his gunfire was illegal to begin with the drone owner will likely win.
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!
Typical prejudice. No better or worse than judging someone by the color of their skin. Ho, ho, ho. Redneck from Kentucky.
Well smartass, I'm from California and totally agree with his response. Yes, I own plenty of guns. I have a fishing boat and a couple of four wheel drives. And guess what? I've never voted for a Republican in my life and abhor most of the crap coming out of the NRA today. So open your eyes a little bit. I'd say the only person with a seriously misguided moral compass is the jerk who expects anyone to believe he wasn't flying over somebodies with the intention of spying on them.
How you got modded to funny instead of flamebait shows how widespread this type of prejudice is. Hey, I'm from Kentucky. I must be stupid. We're all just inbred hillbillies down here.Oh, except for the smart guy flying the drone.
F*cking idiotic attitude.
What does that have to do with anything? It's still shooting at something that's not causing any problems in spite of speculation. I don't go around smacking cell phones out of peoples hands because I think they're taking pictures of me. It's about the same thing.
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
"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.
Two things: 1. So one could shoot at anything hovering over one's house? A police helicopter looking in backyards for a running suspect? A medivac helicopter hovering while looking for a place to land to rescue someone? Even a drone while it's operator is checking his flight controls? That's an easy way to take up 22 seconds. 2. So I could walk down the street shooting anyone who I even had fantasy about that they might be an pedophile or an ISIS agent? After this guy is a convicted felon, which he should be after this, he won't be able to own guns anymore, and that's probably a good thing for the rest of us.