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."
I have been hit many, many times by birdshot that somebody fired 'up'. Duck tower, Metro Gun Club, Blaine Minnesota. When the shooters shoot at the clay targets (up) the shot is often sprinkled across the parking lot when it comes down. Now, this is usually 7-9 birdshot, so very small projectiles. I can see buck shot hurting, but not being very damaging.
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.
More like 50 meters. Past that, they're just BB's. Could put an eye out I suppose, but they don't have enough energy to do much else.
Oh, it WAS used in court. FTFA:
During Monday's hearing, Boggs testified that flight data showed the drone was flying higher than Meredith stated. 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.
The judge decided to use witness testimony over factual hard evidence that the drone was over 250 feet in the air, well above the tree line. GJ idiot judge, this should be appealed.
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.
He shot it with birdshot from a shotgun. If it was above the treeline its doubtful he would have been able to bring it down with such a shot. Hit it? Maybe. But the further the range the less damage and more spread out the birdshot is.
Since it was a group of houses 91.119b is more applicable so it would be 1000 ft.
I find being offended by me offensive.