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.

Comments

Only?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Only?

[Mr D from 63]

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.

That is a long time. It certainly is not just a fly over. If I am in my yard and a drone comes and hovers with a camera on me for 20 seconds, I would not be happy.

Re:Only?

[AmiMoJo]

Even if it is 60m/200ft above you where it would need expensive optics to make you look like more than a blob three pixels high?

I'm all for privacy when a drone is right in your back yard or outside your window, but realistically there are a lot of aircraft going overhead, right up to satellites with cameras on LEO. Also, drones sometimes stop to get bearings and decide on the next move. I think you need to give them the benefit of the doubt when they are 60m up, or document the incident and see what it does before opening fire.

Re:Only?

[mcl630]

So if someone is fiddling with their smartphone for more than 20 seconds, do you shoot them? They could be filming you after all.

Re:Only?

[farble1670]

So if someone is fiddling with their smartphone for more than 20 seconds, do you shoot them? They could be filming you after all.

ask some of the early adopters of google glass.

Re:Only?

[Dashiva Dan]

Even if it is 60m/200ft above you where it would need expensive optics to make you look like more than a blob three pixels high?

I'm all for privacy when a drone is right in your back yard or outside your window, but realistically there are a lot of aircraft going overhead, right up to satellites with cameras on LEO. Also, drones sometimes stop to get bearings and decide on the next move. I think you need to give them the benefit of the doubt when they are 60m up, or document the incident and see what it does before opening fire.

Seriously?

You seriously think that it's unlikely for a drone to be able to take a decent quality photo from 200 feet away?

No, I can't even begin to put together a reply to this level of ignorance.

Re:Only?

[goose-incarnated]

Even if it is 60m/200ft above you where it would need expensive optics to make you look like more than a blob three pixels high?

"I couldn't see anything through her bathroom window, your worship, even though I tried really really hard. Hence, I'm not guilty."

Being unsuccessful in the execution of a crime does not in any way make you less guilty

I'm all for privacy when a drone is right in your back yard or outside your window, but realistically there are a lot of aircraft going overhead, right up to satellites with cameras on LEO. Also, drones sometimes stop to get bearings and decide on the next move. I think you need to give them the benefit of the doubt when they are 60m up, or document the incident and see what it does before opening fire.

If they're within range of birdshot then they're too close. If they're there long enough for you to fetch, unload and reload a gun, then they're there too long.

Yeah 22 seconds?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Yeah 22 seconds?

[ColdWetDog]

* 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.

Not necessarily true. For the discriminating pro-gun redneck, birdshot is a excellent choice. It's likely lethal at close range - where you need it to be - you just can't trust any old pizza delivery guy these days. At longer range it sends a clear signal - don't fuck with me, I'm crazy. Your typical terrorist/pedophile is going to go home and have a couple of unpleasant hours pulling those little pellets out of his ass. And no pesky murder charges.

And it seems to be just the ticket for the new threat on the block - quadcopters.

Add some camo and the drone operator will never see you. No, this guy was perfectly attuned to the current threat matrix.

Re: Yeah 22 seconds?

[mcl630]

Except this drone was neither violating the law nor common sense.

Re:Deliverance?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Hovered over property for only 22 seconds ..

[nickweller]

So what, nobody should have the right to fly a spying machine over your house.

Re:Why are people going to jail for this?

[rahvin112]

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.

Re:Deliverance?

[arkane1234]

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.

Oh boy, almost all strawmen combined

[Opportunist]

"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)