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.
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. . . .
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.
So what, nobody should have the right to fly a spying machine over your house.
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?
He was arrested for first degree criminal mischief and first degree wanton endangerment. Probably for using a firearm to vandalize private property. When you vandalize someone's stuff, you don't just get to reimburse them and everyone walks away. There are almost always criminal charges involved.
"Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
... 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.
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.
Drone operators view spying on other people as a civil liberty, and if you complain, you're some sort of evil bastard.
Go read some drone forums. You'll see every manner of justification for being a perverted peeping Tom.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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.
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.
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.
Troll or not the poster is probably right about the confiscation. Sadly.
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.
Was he within city limits? I didn't dig far enough to find out.
"Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
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!
Then you're a racist idiot.
Trespassing is also illegal, and since the drone's owner was not present to confront regarding the trespassing, the act of downing the drone may not be a problem, even if the means by which it was downed is.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
It wouldn't have mattered if he was trying to shoot crows or rats, they still would have charged him
Actually, they wouldn't have because nobody would have cared if he was shooting crows or rats. Only one person cared that he was shooting drones, and that person was involved in criminal trespass so if I was a cop I wouldn't be putting much credibility in his position.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
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
He should have just kept his damn mouth shut and declined to make a statement.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Drone operators view spying on other people as a civil liberty, and if you complain, you're some sort of evil bastard.
Go read some drone forums. You'll see every manner of justification for being a perverted peeping Tom.
Yes, and then suggest drone registration and watch as they go "But...but...but...my PRIVACY!?!"
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
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."
You have a cite for this? I live in Northern California. I can say this is absolutely not true here.
Rural, as zoning defines it where I live, is no more than one residence per 20 acres. In some areas of steep terrain, the density is even less.
There's a guy who lives not very far away who gives handgun safety courses. On Saturdays, except during the dry season, the firing goes on for hours. I have fired hundreds of rounds at a time whenever I find myself owning a new weapon.
I think perhaps you're thinking of the act of dangerous discharging a firearm. Without further knowledge of the area where this incident happened, that would be impossible to
determine.
If this particular incident occurred in a rural area in only reinforces my opinion that the pilot was intent on spying on someone.
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.
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?
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.
You can speculate all you want but one of the points of these regulations is to make gunfire apparent so people call it in. There are very high odds any firearm discharge would have resulted in a call to the authorities to report it. It would have been significantly harder for them to prove it was him if he had shot vermin, without witness by a neighbor, but odds are one of his neighbors would have called in about the gun shot.
It's called being a self-entitled ass clown. It's the same kind of marginal intellect with narcissistic tendencies who likes to do road shows on residential streets at 2am or makes their motorbike idle at 200 decibels. You know, the kind of person who views the rest of the world and everyone in it as a sort of amusement park.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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.
"Discharge of a firearm in most rural areas is still illegal where your life isn't in danger."
Wrong. Clearly you're an urbanite or suburbanite. In rural areas we can fire off our guns any time we like. We can point them up in the sky too. The point of having a shotgun is specifically to shoot ariel targets without having the bullets go too far. Instead the shot slows down and drops safely without hurting people if you miss your target. But then you're too ignorant and uneducated about firearms and laws to know this.
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.
yea its kinda a blanket charge and likly will be dropped due to the trespassing as we have very solid trespassing laws hear.
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?
you mean the kind of idiot that fires off a shotgun in a city because he doesn't like what someone else is doing?
Trespassing is also illegal, and since the drone's owner was not present to confront regarding the trespassing, the act of downing the drone may not be a problem, even if the means by which it was downed is.
Except that it is not clear if overflying property at low altitudes is trespassing; it's been established a property owner does not have exclusive control over the airspace above their property.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
Drones are just a rename of remote controlled helicopters (or quadcopters), the only thing new is the attachment of cameras for consumer grade versions, along with better control features. I don't see them going away anytime in the near future. Changed, yes, but not going away.
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
Inanimate objects don't commit trespass. The neighbor kids' football, when it lands in your yard, is not trespassing. Even the neighbor's dog is not trespassing when it pees on your bushes.
Except that it is not clear if overflying property at low altitudes is trespassing; it's been established a property owner does not have exclusive control over the airspace above their property.
But the public navigateable public airspace doesn't start until 500'. And air planes aren't allowed below 1000 feet over populated areas.
You are right of course that its well established we don't have exclusive control over the airspace out into the jetstream or anything, but what about at 10', 50', 100', 200' ...400' ? Who has the airspace rights there?
So its not clear to me at all that they have the right to fly them over other peoples property at that height. None of the regular aircraft exemptions apply since they are for higher altitudes.
This drone was obviously (from the video) well below that. (And even the owner is only claiming 200' which seems plausible from the video... but I think it was somewhat lower.)
"Discharge of a firearm in most rural areas is still illegal where your life isn't in danger."
Where in the world did you ever pick up this notion? What about hunting - are those deer, as pesky as they can be, a threat to your life? In most rural areas, we discharge firearms for any number of reasons, least of which is 'life in danger'. Hunting, target practice, varmint control, whatever. You so utterly do not have clue one as to what you are talking about.
Heh. Take that shit to trial in Kentucky. You won't be able to find enough jury members who wouldn't acquit. Hell, if I were sitting on that jury, I wouldn't convict the guy, and I'm decidedly anti-gun in my politics as of late.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
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.
That attached camera is a pretty major upgrade over old RC helicopters, no? With the old remote aircraft, you'd fly them and look at them. With the new drones, you fly them and they look at you.
Well, the one that Kentucky Man blew outta the sky with birdshot certainly went away, even if only momentarily.
You are welcome on my lawn.
But the drone was probably not legally allowed to fly at low altitude over private property. Homeowner does have exclusive control of airspace for some number of feet (100 maybe, depends on what courts would accept or whether there was interference in the homeowner's use of the property).
Way back in the 70's I was peppered with birdshot that bounced of an internal wall (wooden panel), the pellets travelled less than 10 meters in total, they had lost so much energy by the time they got to me that they didn't even break the skin. Outside a shotgun is lethal under ~50 meters, a .22 rifle 100-150 meters, a 303 ~5km. My own experience living in the Aussie bush (where shooting rabbits for dog food was the norm) says that with a bit of common sense you really only need worry about high power rifles hitting something you can't already see.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Does he, though?
IANAL, nor do I play one on television, but last I knew, if you throw your baseball onto my property, you must ask me for permission to go get it. Otherwise, it's trespassing--even though you are retrieving your property.
The question I don't know the answer to is if you throw the baseball onto my land and I refuse to allow you to retrieve it, does that baseball become mine?
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
That attached camera is a pretty major upgrade over old RC helicopters, no?
No. Before there were multicopters, there were people putting cameras on R/C helis, even with pan&tilt rigs.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
“It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.” Mark Twain
Wish I had mod points.
Which statute do you believe makes flying a drone over property without permission trespassing? Typically it has a fairly specific definition involving a person, which is what the legal system calls a human.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
"people putting cameras on R/C" is not the same as every drone on the shelf at Wal-Mart having a ready-to-go high def camera. For your basic lazy skeeve, the fact that the new drones have everything you need in one neat package is a big selling point.
You are welcome on my lawn.
I completely agree with what you say. Just can't help but point out the fact that because this happened in the U.S., "person" would include a corporation (according to SCOTUS) but as far as I know "human" does not include corporations.
From my point of view, being human should involve being humane. To me that doesn't describe a corporation. Unfortunately there seem to be too many humans who don't seem to fit that description either.
But the public navigateable public airspace doesn't start until 500'.
Wrong.
And air planes aren't allowed below 1000 feet over populated areas.
This wasn't an airplane, it was a helicopter. Helicopters do not have the 1000' foot floor.
None of the regular aircraft exemptions apply since they are for higher altitudes.
Exemptions from what? The FAR? Helicopters don't need exemptions from the FAR for low altitude work because the FAR allows it.
This drone was obviously (from the video) well below that.
It was within navigable airspace at an altitude that it could make a safe landing without undue hazard to people on the ground. That's what the law requires.
Only one person cared that he was shooting drones, and that person was involved in criminal trespass
The drone owner did not set foot on the shooter's property until after the drone had been shot down. You're using a later act as justification for one that came earlier? No, you don't get to do that.
The definition of criminal trespass involves a person being someplace they are not allowed, not an aircraft.
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.
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.
The drone owner did not set foot on the shooter's property until after the drone had been shot down. You're using a later act as justification for one that came earlier? No, you don't get to do that.
No, I am not. I am saying his drone was trespassing on the property.
The definition of criminal trespass involves a person being someplace they are not allowed, not an aircraft.
That depends on where you are. In some places, it is trespass if an inanimate object under a persons control is present on another's property without permission.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
No, I am not. I am saying his drone was trespassing on the property.
Drones cannot commit criminal trespass. From Kentucky law:
A quad-copter is not a person, and the person who flew it did not enter until after the quad was shot down.
That depends on where you are.
That's why I quoted Kentucky law.
It was within navigable airspace at an altitude that it could make a safe landing without undue hazard to people on the ground. That's what the law requires.
It was also in the immediate airspace above a property, where its presence was preventing the owner from full enjoyment of his property, which is a tresspass.
The law also recognizes that.
This wasn't an airplane, it was a helicopter. Helicopters do not have the 1000' foot floor.
So what is the helicpoter floor exactly? Can I hover a helicopter 5 yards over your backyard for an hour? At 50' for 30 minutes? What is the limit? Is it 100' for 1 minute? How long / how close to you have to be to my property before its a trespass?
You do not own the airspace above your home. This has been long established. The Prudential Building in Chicago was literally built ABOVE the railroad's private property on a huge platform, and there wasn't a thing they could do about it (everyone hated the railroads by 1950, and even the courts are not above being petty little children).
The cops are videoing the countryside with unbelievably high megapixel cameras on aircraft - you are on Candid Camera now, and I expect someday troublemakers will get cameras on their noggins along with a tracker on their ankle. Worse is coming, as the drones will shrink and interferometric arrays of tiny gnat-like flying cameras will take to the skies. You could fry them with lasers- oh, waitaminute, they've done the groundwork and terrorized everyone about terroristic laser-flashing the skies, so that's out. Best hide inside. Oh, that's right, they can see through walls with that radio gadget...
You're right, it's not clear WHERE public airspace begins, but according to the Supreme Court, at 83 feet above the ground it definitely IS trespassing. They declined to define an upper limit, and the FAA has not defined a lower limit below the public but controlled airspace above 500 feet, so we can infer that it must be somewhere between 83 and 500 feet. It's never been that frequent or big an issue but now is probably the time to set in writing where that lower limit is that defines "trespassing" vs "not trespassing".
At 10' and 50', the airspace is definitely the private property of the property owner and flying in that space is definitely trespassing. (In fact the Supreme Court ruled that 83' was definitely trespassing.) Above that is an unknown grey area, because the Supreme Court has not ruled on an upper limit to private property and the FAA has not set a lower limit to public airspace either (aside from the 500' limit where regulated, navigable airspace begins).
> ... 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.
I can help you with that. The answer is no.
Umm... They are quoting the person they are replying to.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
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.
If the cops were called every time I touched off a few rounds they would just rent a room. I tend to go out and fire a number of rounds (usually a few magazines) almost daily. I do not actually want to shoot a human (or a drone) or anything but I do like to keep my skills sharp. At my age I am still steady enough to stand-and-fire at 500 yards with iron sites. I stay this way because I practice.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Supreme court actually refused to set a ceiling in their ruling. 83 feet was a guideline, and the FAA keeps changing it. Recently the guideline was 10 feet for Helicopters (and other flying objects)
This would be a great place for a law that varies based on the heights of the structures. Something to the effect of "unmanned aircraft must stay at an altitude between 4 times the height of the tallest inhabited structure on a property, and the beginning of controlled airspace at 500 feet, in the absence of permission from the property owner". (Although in this particular case, even assuming the shotgun owner had a 5-story mansion, flying at 200 feet would still be above the trespassing line with that formula.)
What is new is:
1. Auto-stabilisation, so it does not require as much skill to handle as before.
2. Realtime video feed, so you won't need to keep the helicopter in your line of sight at all times.
3. High-quality cameras are cheap and light: lighter weight means cheaper helicopter. Back 15-20 years ago, the kind of model helicopter that could carry a reasonably good camera had to be larger than the hobbyist norm just to be able to carry the weight.
I have an early, cheap quadcopter without auto-stabilisation and video feed. It takes hours to learn how to fly one of those things and still after you have learned how it requires your complete concentration to do it.
With one of the new breed of drones, you can buy it at the local gadget store and be filming nude children in an hour with no previous skill.
"We mustn't be caught by surprise by our own advancing technology" -- Aldous Huxley
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)..
.... 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.
Seriously... the shooter has done nothing but lie about all this.
First the memory card goes missing from the drone after it crashes on his property. Then he said it was just a a couple feet in the air spying on his daughter, and now we have video of it's flight.
As a kid, I used to shoot my .22 on my grandparents property. There were roughly a hundred homes within 500 yards. Nobody ever called the police.
Just another day in Paradise
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.
We only have the operators' word and choppy video as evidence of the 22 second claim, but for the sake of argument, assume it's true.
Watch a clock for 22 seconds and imagine a drone hovering over your back yard while your daughter is outside in a bikini. What would you be thinking?
"Terrorist" would certainly not occur to me, but I'd immediately think some creep was filming my daughter. Are you saying that's "tinfoil hat" reasoning? Bullshit! Most rational people would have the same thought and I suspect that's exactly what was happening. "Dude! There's a girl with a bikini, check it out!"
I don't know what you call "high in the air" but it couldn't have been very high if it was destroyed with #8 birdshot fired vertically.
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~
There is no way that #8 birdshot took out that drone at 270+ feet. So either the shotgun is a liar or the telemetry was fudged.
No, you are wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"In the United States, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has the sole authority to control all public airspace, exclusively determining the rules and requirements for its use. Public air space is classified as the 'navigable' airspace above 500 feet."
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
... then shoot down a drone ?
That dude wasnt in that good of shape.
From previous descriptions, I believe that this guy lived in more of the suburbs than a rural area. There was talk about the drone flying over houses, which with the range of most drones would be unlikely in a rural area. Also, in rural, you are more likely to be able to identify the drone's owner so that it could be solved with heated words rather than bird shot.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Outside a shotgun is lethal under ~50 meters
It depends on the load, in this case bird shot which is only lethal within a few meters. Though shooting a drone down that is 60m up is pretty impressive with bird shot.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
A gun shot in a city sure, but I place this as either suburban or rural, and I will tell you, I haven't heard of anyone calling in gunshots even in suburban environments. I heard one the other day in suburban, and just commented on it and moved on, never saw any police patrolling to find the offender.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
No one's lives were put in danger. You have to be some kind of special to be implying that bird shot discharged in any direction would harm someone more than 20 feet away. The drone was allegedly flying at between 40 and 200 feet (depending on who you ask), so was not an issue as possible harm in the direction of fire.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Especially since this weekend a black teenager shot at a cop car and was shot in Ferguson.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Anyone got a mirror?
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.
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
So what is the helicpoter floor exactly? Can I hover a helicopter 5 yards over your backyard for an hour? At 50' for 30 minutes? What is the limit? Is it 100' for 1 minute? How long / how close to you have to be to my property before its a trespass?
Well, if we're speaking in terms of "how long before you get to use lethal force", I suspect it's a lot longer than you'd like.
First, what if he'd taken it down with a garden hose pressure washer? Or a butterfly net? Or a toy bow and arrow with rubber suction cup arrow heads? Or he threw a rock at it? Or he knocked it out with a stunt kite... or just got it tangled in a kite line. Or he forced it down with another drone.
Second, I'm curious how exactly you define lethal force vs an unmanned, inananimate object?
First, what if he'd taken it down with a garden hose pressure washer? Or a butterfly net? Or a toy bow and arrow with rubber suction cup arrow heads? Or he threw a rock at it? Or he knocked it out with a stunt kite... or just got it tangled in a kite line. Or he forced it down with another drone.
I would suspect he would get a lot more leeway, if he can at least claim with a straight face that he got it off his property with a minimum of force.
Second, I'm curious how exactly you define lethal force vs an unmanned, inananimate object?
By making the obvious comparison. He's playing the "won't you think of the children" card (even though there is no evidence to date that Mr. Drone Pilot was actually perving). So what if we use a more plausible scenario - a teenage boy is walking by, and decides to gawk over the fence at the teenage girls. Do we applaud this gent for immediately shooting the kid with a shotgun for trespassing?
This is a gent whose first reaction to "hey, there's something on my land" was "I'm gonna shoot it". I would not be thrilled to have this guy as my neighbor, because who knows when he's going to decide that a kid jumping the fence to retrieve a ball is a Deadly Terrorist Intruder?
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."
So what if we use a more plausible scenario - a teenage boy is walking by, and decides to gawk over the fence at the teenage girls.
Sorry, No. Just no.
That's NOT a suitable comparison. A teenager gawking over the fence can be confronted in a large variety of non-violent ways... starting with "Hey! You! Beat it!"
because who knows when he's going to decide that a kid jumping the fence to retrieve a ball is a Deadly Terrorist Intruder?
Because he can't tell the difference between an 7 year old child and a toy robot helicopter? Or you can't?
They aren't remotely the same thing. You are making a strawman argument trying to argue that if he shoots at one he'll shoot at the other. He didn't shoot at a person. He shot at a toy.
Further he elected to shoot at it because the usual obvious things one would do to a person or object in ones yard were not options. He could not ask it to leave. He could not ask the owner to desist. He could not simply grab it, drop into a bag, and take it to the police. It was out of reach and could not be confronted in a way that child climbing over a fence could be.
This situation needs to be considered on its own merits rather than comparing it to a child climbing the fence.
That's like saying that a gun can't commit murder. It may even be true (depending on where you are), but it's not the issue in question - the drone can definitely be used by a person to commit an illegal act.
Well, if you're concerned about a camera (and assuming that it's watching you), you *can* gesture to the camera - and thus the operator - to indicate you want it gone. Or, while you wait for the police to arrive to deal with your trespasser, you could GO INSIDE THE HOUSE if you're worried about tiny terrorists infiltrating your pool. Or, as others had mentioned, if it's really so close that it's trespassing, you could hit it with a water hose or a baseball. But no, he decided to discharge a firearm, into the air, in a residential neighborhood.
And you're ignoring the key point - his FIRST choice was to pull out a lethal weapon and destroy it. So now, as his neighbor, the data point I have to work with is that this guy can, will, and HAS fired a shotgun in a residential neighorhood, and then threatened lethal force when the owner came to retrieve his property. And then refused to relinguish said property until the police came and made him give it back. These are not the habits of a reasonable person.
So, to answer your point, I'm sure he knows the difference between a toy and a kid. But given he had no problems threatening four people that same day, I don't think he cares about the difference.
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..
That's like saying that a gun can't commit murder.
That's true. Murder requires intent, and an inanimate object cannot have intent. That you think it depends on where you are is interesting, but wrong. A drone cannot trespass. Period.
but it's not the issue in question - the drone can definitely be used by a person to commit an illegal act.
Yes, of course it can. Nobody said it can't. Unfortunately for the argument that the drone was committing criminal trespass, the criminal trespass laws in Kentucky require that the person (not drone) actually enter the property. "A person commits ... when he enters ...".
In that case the person is still trespassing, using their agency over the drone. If you combine these examples and put the gun on the drone, a person using the gun with the drone to kill somebody is still committing murder.
The murder statutes don't need to say "a person with their bare hands, and/or a hammer, and/or an axe, and/or a piano wire, and/or a USB cable... " just as the trespass statutes don't need to specify "a person, or a remote-controlled vehicle, or a fibre-optic camera, ..."
Watch Alaska State Troppers sometime.
They get calls from people 30 miles outside Fairbanks over gunshots.
Shooting a drone that was operating legally, in a residential area, is common sense to you?