Slashdot Mirror
Judge: Defendant 'Had a Right' To Shoot Down Drone (wdrb.com)
EzInKy writes: Back in July, Kentucky resident William Merideth was arrested after he shot down a drone flying near his property. The arrest wasn't because of the destroyed drone, but because Merideth fired a gun within the city limits. Now, after a two-hour hearing in Bullitt District Court, a judge has dismissed all charges against Merideth. The owner of the drone, David Boggs, has always contested Merideth's claim that it was hovering over his yard. "But Judge Rebecca Ward says that since at least two witnesses could see the drone below the tree line, it was an invasion of privacy." Ward further said that Merideth "had a right to shoot at this drone."
Even from a hand gun like a 9mm, you are talking over a mile when shot upwards at the wrong angle. Forward velocity does not drop below killing velocity before downwards acceleration causes the bullet to hit the ground or some low object.
This was a very dangerous action.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
That's some mighty fine jurisprudence, pardner!
I think part of the problem with justice is it doesn't fit neatly in people's ideas on how things should work politically.
Guns are bad, however his privacy and property was threatened and the causality was not a life.
He used a gun as a tool to solve a problem.
Now if there was a person who got shot the justice system may have tilted the other direction.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Now let's hope they don't fight back.
He used a shotgun, not a 9mm.
Yes, I know there are many here who want to diminish the definition of just what is our property whether it be 1ft or 500 ft, but whatever that definition ends up being it cannot be denied that we have a right to defend it. There exists regulated and controlled lanes for free transport and there exist no reason to allow drones to violate them.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
I pilot fixed-wing and multi-rotor RPAS (remotely piloted aircraft system). I never encountered shooting so far, thanks god, but several times my RPASs were attacked by large birds.
This was where I understood the importance of a sport flying, and especially the knowledge of the Basic fighter maneuvers (BFM) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Knowing and practicing the basic defensive piloting is very useful in order not to hurt a bird and not to damage an expensive RPAS. It is practically impossible for a bird to catch an experienced pilot in the air, I would guess it is about the same for a gunner on the ground with a usual shotgun.
You're goddam right I'm going to shoot down a drone over my property.
I'm in Texas, not London. I don't care if Mother Theresa is flying love-encrusted Play-Doh over my property. That drone is coming down and you can't do shit about it.
This is a terrible decision. The judge should have kept the charges for firing a gun in city limits because firing a gun upwards is the dumbest shit I've heard a gun user do in the last couple years that didn't involve a fatality. Now everyone in town is going to feel justified when they open fire on drones until someone misses and shoots someone.
...who post negative comments about preserving private property rights. It's as if you want to give the government the power take from the individual to benefit the majority. Why aren't you all up in arms against this obvious usurpation of private property rights. Certainly few believe in taking from those who have and giving to those who need.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
... as if million of douchebag hipsters cried out all at once and were suddenly silenced.
(Yeah, birdshot is safe to fire into the air, so there goes *that* argument)
None of the linked articles actually seem to mention if he used birdshot or not (atleast not by searching 'bird' in said articles)
Would you be against this ruling if he had used a 40mm Bofors anti-aircraft/multi-purpose auto-cannon (assuming the projectile didn't hit anything important on the other side of the city)? Since apparently there are civilian legal 40mm Bofors in the US.
Not much surprised here.h
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
Yeah, birdshot is safe to fire into the air...
Unless you're a bird, I guess.
(or a drone, apparently)
Who cares about that argument? I'm more interested in the case where willful damage of another person's property is justified because someone makes an assumption that it infringes their right to privacy.
An assumption that was later found to be correct. You seem to be under the belief that it's all still "assumed" or "alleged"; it's not - there's a judgement. A court found that there was a privacy invasion. *You* are saying that there is an *assumed* privacy invasion while a court has decided that there is no "assumed" about it.
Normally when someone invades your privacy you call the police, take them to court, get a restraining order, etc.
"Normally", yes. It appears though that in this case the shooting and destruction of property was justified, and a court judgement backs that up.
In my view the correct justice would have been the person doing the shooting have to pay for the damage to the drone. Then the person infringing the privacy get hit with a fine for doing so.
That is far more consistent than having a "right to shoo a drone"
A court agreed that it was the "right" thing to do - get over it. The "right" to trespass via remote control is not a right that anyone should ever get: if you willingly invade someones privacy *repeatedly* and intentionally then expect to lose your remote control viewing privileges.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
Oh so he just used a tool (shotgun) to disable (obliterate) another tool. Sounds pretty reasonable...in America.
A tool, while could be also a weapon is not in its sole purpose a weapon. If he missed or caused other harm but I digress...a wise person (judge) found that it was reasonable.
What I'm very curious about is the precedent. So a drone above the property is fair game for a shotgun, how far above? how close? what if you only thought it was a drone but actually it was some other RC toy? -what if you mount the gun on a drone to shoot another drone?
As we are headed towards autonomous cars and most likely aircraft soon - what if the drone was the size of an aircraft?
A 'singular oddity' is an event that cannot be explained and only happens when you are alone.
If you dump shit in my property, I get to do what I want with it: several jurisdictions have this principle. If you took pictures of me a thousand feet up, I certainly don't get to interfere during the act - the specific issue in the judgment was the closeness of the drone.
It's no different from you driving an RC car into my living room through an open door with a webcam attached and whining because I struck it with a bat. Your stuff wilfully placed on my property becomes my stuff.
As for going to court, yeah, I might do that the second time, but why waste the court's time unless you didn't get the message the first time?
Posting Anon because I am modding.
Anything over 50cal (12.5mm) is considered a destructive device and required Class 3 registration in the US. All Automatic weapons require Class 3 registration. That requires submission of fingerprints, A photo, full background check, as well a local law enforcement approval, before transfer of the weapon and owner ship. Automatic weapons require that they were registered into the database before 1986.
It also requires that the Sate that the person is in allows the ownership of Class 3 weapons, many dont.
I dont know about the 40mm Bofors but a 20mm anti-aircraft gun is a very rare and expensive item. I was looking at one a couple of years ago as an investment and you are talking about a weapon that is north of $50,000 with bullets that run $3 to $10 each.
No one who invests that kind of money into a weapon is going to use it to shoot down a drone!
Put your drone in your ass next time.
If the drone was armed does it have the right to defend itself? :)
the "right to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" do you not understand?
Yeah, birdshot is safe to fire into the air, so there goes *that* argument)
Ever caught some birdshot in the face, after someone fired it up (above a treeline)? No? I have, from over 100 yards away. If I hadn't been wearing eye protection, I'd be blind right now. This is not as cut and dry as you're making it out to be. Not even close.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Cut and DRIED.
You can be an idiotic moron all you want, but at least TRY to get your idioms correct.
Posting Anon because I am modding.
Anything over 50cal (12.5mm) is considered a destructive device and required Class 3 registration in the US. All Automatic weapons require Class 3 registration. That requires submission of fingerprints, A photo, full background check, as well a local law enforcement approval, before transfer of the weapon and owner ship. Automatic weapons require that they were registered into the database before 1986.
It also requires that the Sate that the person is in allows the ownership of Class 3 weapons, many dont.
I dont know about the 40mm Bofors but a 20mm anti-aircraft gun is a very rare and expensive item. I was looking at one a couple of years ago as an investment and you are talking about a weapon that is north of $50,000 with bullets that run $3 to $10 each.
No one who invests that kind of money into a weapon is going to use it to shoot down a drone!
Come to Texas. We clean out termite infestations with Ma Deuce and hornet nests with 40MM.
Seems like it's your world view that's mistaken. You can defend yourself and that includes your privacy. The tool available was a shotgun, the invasion was the drone. It's settled. You lost. Get over it. Liberal tears are so delicate and tasty.
I posted the one you are replying to.
I live in Texas, I am a weapons collector, and have a Type 3 FFL.
Yup. Don't run with scissors too. But, you're more likely to get hurt falling off your bike than by birdshot at 100+ yards.
Just another day in Paradise
Nice anecdote, that'll surely convince him!
Shoot down my drone?
The next thing flying into your property will be a grenade.
She must of been a Hottie, who had creeps around her growing up.
She has no sympathy for the creep that wants to watch young girls and is too much of a coward to actually climb the fence.
I have daughters and no sympathy for creeps either.
Actually, that'd make it too much fun!
The guy's teenage daughter was not brought up as part of this... but I would imagine it plays a part in the "invasion of privacy" part.
Are we all forgetting the video of the shot down drone? https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
It's clearly well above the tree line. Why was this not used in court?
Would you go blind after falling off of your bike?
The interesting question, to me, is whether or not it was actually flying below the treeline. From TFA, the drone's owner presented flight data showing that the drone was not below the treeline, but the man who shot the drone down had two eyewitnesses saying it was lower. If we have altitude readings and video footage, it seems to me those should be able to trump eyewitnesses (assuming that data is complete and not suspect). That's why people are pushing to put bodycams on police, for example.
Actually, today I can honestly say it:
America, fuck yeah!
It's nice to have a little justice here and there.
YADONTSAY.JPEG
I wish that were true. Unfortunately, in many states like mine, you cannot defend property with deadly force. You have a "duty to run away." We have no "Castle Doctrine."
Merideth and Boggs are aliases for Hatfield and McCoy.
30 years ago I wouldn't have expected someone to blast away at an R/C aircraft just because it was over their property. Next year will it be acceptable to do that if the neighbor's jetpack hovers over?
Would you go blind after falling off of your bike?
Its possible, although I think the possibility of dieing trumps it.
Headwind? Tailwind? Did you get pellets directly in the eye? Plenty of anecdotes to go around. #8 shot certainly does slow down more quickly than, say #6.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
You're right. That typo definitely nullifies the point I was making. I appreciate your thoughtful discussion of the actual substance of the matter at hand.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Being from Michigan, we would have shot these fucking things out of the sky anytime we felt they invaded our privacy whether or not it was "legal". Most likely the Police wouldn't have done a damn thing because they also have the Michigan attitude also. But it's nice to see something fall on the side of privacy for a change. Drones and copters and remote control flying things of all types are absolutely great fun. Go have that fun with your drones in public places (safely), but don't ever think you have the right to fly over private property in this state unless you're drone is high enough it can't be shot down...
I am fine with guns and drones, though I own neither. I am all for privacy rights and taking out nuisance drones. However randomly firing guns at anything that annoys you is the reason we need gun control in this country.
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
Except if you run with scissors you can only really hurt yourself.
You randomly fire a gun into the air, and you can only really hurt others.
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
If you show up in my back yard and cop this attitude about not threatening me on my own property you will wish that you were merely a drone.
...and WTF fscked up the comments section of /.?
WTF are my sliders to show/hide posts by score?!
What if I am legally flying my sUAS collecting FLIR electrical transmission line hot spots or taking real estate photos of a neighbors house? Can anyone seeing the sUAS, whip out a shot gun and start firing away?
Is using a weapon to destroy an aircraft over your property the best and safest way to protect a possible invasion of privacy? How low is too low?
How does one measure altitude? By polling local people viewing the drone and asking them how high they think that is? Line of sight eyeball estimates of altitude is the worse way to gauge altitude. I only trust my on board telemetry and a forestry laser range finder to measure altitude clearance of objects below the flight path.
Often times my sUAS flies over areas transitioning to the next point of interest without recording any images or video. It often will hover briefly over one property while framing a photo of the target property. Sometimes this is pretty far away depending on what is needed in the back ground. For instance a home set against a beautiful view of a mountain range or ocean beach cove.
Real estate photo jobs are often very brief, under 15 minutes and usually no one knows the drone is there. I am always courteous and try to educate anyone with concerns and if possible land additional jobs. I do not attempt to ask for unneeded permission from every possible owner that may think I am flying near their property. Most people are not home and I cannot spend hours on a 30 minute job.
Yeah, birdshot is safe to fire into the air, so there goes *that* argument)
Ever caught some birdshot in the face, after someone fired it up (above a treeline)? No? I have, from over 100 yards away. If I hadn't been wearing eye protection, I'd be blind right now. This is not as cut and dry as you're making it out to be. Not even close.
How many times do people have to be reminded not to go hunting with Dick Cheney?
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
While technically true, the United States is a Common Law nation, which means that the rulings of a court have the force of law and are binding on all courts beneath them. And while not binding on courts in parallel jurisdictions (say, state courts in two separate states) the previous judgements are given deference and due consideration when deciding the outcome of a case in another jurisdiction.
The only way for these "made up laws" to be changed is for a higher court to overturn the judgement or for the legislature to pass a law stating a different outcome.
How many times do people have to be reminded not to go hunting with Dick Cheney?
Actually, the person who delivered that birdshot to MY face was a patrician-type Boston-ite. More of a John Kerry, only more liberal still, politically.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Thats an upper end projection I've read. While that is only 1:30 males age 12 to 40, thats is still a large number. We'll be reading about drone incidents for eyars.
Cut and DRIED.
You can be an idiotic moron all you want, but at least TRY to get your idioms correct.
Both forms of the idiom ("cut and dry" as well as "cut and dried") are correct according to the Merriam-Webster and several other dictionaries. You can be a grammar Nazi all you want, but at least TRY to get your corrections correct.
Feel free to sue the asshole flying the drone
>80 column hard wrapped e-mail is not a sign of intelligent
>life
An assumption that was later found to be correct. You seem to be under the belief that it's all still "assumed" or "alleged"; it's not - there's a judgement. A court found that there was a privacy invasion.
No I'm talking about the general case, you're talking about the specific case. The court ruled in this specific case and that should not be confused with giving people a carte blanche right to go sniping at drones entering the property.
A court agreed that it was the "right" thing to do - get over it.
Yep just like the supreme court ruled that your 4th amendment rights don't exist within 200km of the nation border, and just like no court case every gets challenged or appealed. The court agreed and they are {menacing voice}INFALLIBLE{/menacing voice}.
y u mad, bro?
I am sorry for your loss.
No you're not and no you don't or you would not have spouted the bullshit about the 50 cal. Why lie? You can be honest here and nobody will know the difference.
Shooting a drone that is fifty feet above a property is no different than shooting down an airplane at 5,000 feet that might be looking down or taking photographs. If it can be seen by others there is absolutely nothing private about it. The guy that shot at that drone needs to be locked up. And we do not need individuals deciding when it is or is not safe to fire a gun of any type in an area with other people or homes near by. Not every gun owner will make reasonable decisions about where he can fire a gun with the exception of stopping a serious attacker or thief.
It says at the end of the article that the drone owner plans to ask the prosecutor to convene a grand jury over this. I did a little reading and it looks like these were misdemeanor charges. I would assume that the drone's owner is looking to have felony charges brought against him, which would put this back into criminal court at a higher level.
As far as all the complaints about how safe it is to shoot a shotgun in town, the greater worry is where the drone landed after being damaged and that is where the shooter is more in the wrong than the drone operator. Letting him off the hook is setting a bad precedence IMHO.
There in no religion higher than truth.
Getting ready to hijack Amazon drones with a drone capture device. Shoot a rocket/missle containing a net, once near target deploy the net, the props get tangled and the drone drops from the sky. it was succussfull on a small scale. I captured a hubson drone throwning a net wrapped in a ball. now the ball containing the net needs to be shot out of a butane/hair spray fired PVC canon for the next step..
Normally when someone invades your privacy you call the police, take them to court, get a restraining order, etc.In my view the correct justice would have been the person doing the shooting have to pay for the damage to the drone. Then the person infringing the privacy get hit with a fine for doing so.
Except you can't do that when the person who is infringing on your privacy is enforcing their own privacy while trampling all over yours by being blocks away where you cannot track them down.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Back (way back) in the day I was a Corpsman, and many of my colleagues transitioned into Paramedics / Ambulance drivers.
It is certainly not cut-and-dry. Occasionally you'll get deaths due to BB gun. Not very often, but if a BB gets lodged in the right place, well the body is like most other things, with strong points and weak points.
http://img.ifcdn.com/images/c9...
Yeah, birdshot is safe to fire into the air, so there goes *that* argument)
Ever caught some birdshot in the face, after someone fired it up (above a treeline)? No? I have, from over 100 yards away. If I hadn't been wearing eye protection, I'd be blind right now. This is not as cut and dry as you're making it out to be. Not even close.
Which is why you wear safety glasses if you plan to be scouring the skies in an area where there may be hunting, or put on a helmet when you ride your motorbike, or put floaties on your kid when they're learning to swim, or.... I mean, what's your point? "Buckshot won't hurt you significantly if fired up" ... "Yeah it will, I was hit by some and, oh wait, no I wasn't hurt, you're right.... but perhaps if I wasn't wearing glasses and a ton of other small variables that noone can know, I mighta been... scratched/have a tiny bruise/lose some sight in an eye/etc... just like everyone everywhere can get potentially hurt by a billion other things outside their control.
Now go ahead and convince me that a) You would definitely be blind now if you weren't wearing glasses then, and then how not wearing glasses would have been a sensible thing for where you were, and.... all the other little bits that might actually give your post some substance. And at the end of it you might convince us all that you still have nothing to add to this conversation.
How the hell does this get a +5 informative?
An assumption that was later found to be correct. You seem to be under the belief that it's all still "assumed" or "alleged"; it's not - there's a judgement. A court found that there was a privacy invasion.
No I'm talking about the general case, you're talking about the specific case. The court ruled in this specific case and that should not be confused with giving people a carte blanche right to go sniping at drones entering the property.
A court agreed that it was the "right" thing to do - get over it.
Yep just like the supreme court ruled that your 4th amendment rights don't exist within 200km of the nation border, and just like no court case every gets challenged or appealed. The court agreed and they are {menacing voice}INFALLIBLE{/menacing voice}.
And now we have slashdotters trying to make their argument's by using {truth voice}drama{/truth voice}
Yep just like the supreme court ruled that your 4th amendment rights don't exist within 200km of the nation border,
What court case was that? According to the aclu the supreme court ruled the exact opposite.
Type 3 FFL holder out of Louisiana here, just checked my ATF regs manual, what do you know the AC claiming to be a type 3 FFL holder (registered firearms collector) is telling the truth.
Muzzle loaders are exempt from most of the federal firearms regulations. hence why convicted felons are allowed to purchase them, at least under federal law. Generally larger diameter than .50 is regulated, there are a few exemptions, shot guns come to mind, but those are limited to specific guns which generally carry other regulations (sporting requirements on imported shotguns). No there isn't a special license required for any firearm under federal law afaik, there is however a special tax stamp and registration which includes an extended background check and extra paperwork requirements.
Now go ahead and convince me that a) You would definitely be blind now if you weren't wearing glasses then, and then how not wearing glasses would have been a sensible thing for where you were, and.... all the other little bits that might actually give your post some substance.
Acceleration due to gravity. When the shot is fired up, the slowing of it will be much more due to gravity than air resistance. Then as the shot falls, it will increase velocity due to gravity. Even accounting for air resistance, the shot's velocity when it impacts a person on the ground will still be a very significant percentage of the muzzle velocity.
Don't try to out wierd me, three-eyes. I get stranger things than you, free with my breakfast cereal. --Zaphod Beeblebr
This judge is a total asshat. Since the FAA has decided to treat quadrotors and their ilk as "aircraft" (wrongly, IMO, but that's another post), this pinhead of a jurist just set a precedent that it's OK to shoot at aircraft if you feel your privacy is threatened. Well, let's just scale that right on up to LEO satellites while we're at it! I doubt the FAA will let this go un-appealed.
Shut up and eat your vegetables!!!
God bless that judge! I look for more drones being shot of the sky - its time to take back our privacy.