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.
He used a shotgun, not a 9mm.
however his privacy and property was threatened
His privacy was no more threatened than it is by aviation; anyone who files a flight plan can legally overfly him, and nothing prevents them from taking pictures as they go. And his property was not threatened; he shot down the drone, it was not revealed to be a firebomb.
Now if there was a person who got shot the justice system may have tilted the other direction.
There is a public interest in restricting the use of firearms within city limits and the like to actual emergencies. This wasn't one of those.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
however his privacy and property was threatened
His privacy was no more threatened than it is by aviation; anyone who files a flight plan can legally overfly him, and nothing prevents them from taking pictures as they go.
They cannot legally fly below the treeline, which, if you read even the summary, you'll find was a major point of the judgement.
And his property was not threatened; he shot down the drone, it was not revealed to be a firebomb.
Whether it was threatening or not is irrelevant. You don't get to invade my backyard and then cry about how you aren't threatening.
Now if there was a person who got shot the justice system may have tilted the other direction.
There is a public interest in restricting the use of firearms within city limits and the like to actual emergencies. This wasn't one of those.
Unfortunately for you you're wrong: it was found that the downside of firing birdshot into the air is less than the downside of allowing drone operators to film someone else's backyard. Both are downsides but a court felt that the value of having one outweighed the value of having the other.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
No, +1 for property rights. Something for which drone operators have no respect. This isn't hard, fly where you are allowed, don't fly where you aren't.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
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.
I hope that wasn't what happened in this case. If the law says firing a gun within the city is illegal then it should be illegal regardless of other criminality in the vicinity. If defending your property is a clear exception to the law then what happened here is that it was decided that this shooting fell within that definition.
OK then, never mind the shovel. How about the car. As we just saw the other day: crazy woman decides to cause some mayhem, and with the twitch of her foot and her hands, kills multiple people and injures dozens in seconds at a parade site. Are cars evil? No. It's still about the person, not the tool.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
If the law says firing a gun within the city is illegal then it should be illegal regardless of other criminality in the vicinity.
People like you are why a law making it illegal to yell, "fire!" in a crowded theater actually has to spell out that it's legal when there is a fire. Because if it didn't, you would find yourself unable to apply common sense to the situation and find some poor sap guilty of the crime when he was really doing everyone a service. I'm not sure what causes it, but the inability to evaluate rules in context is a plague on our society. It leads to zero tolerance policies where kids get expelled for taking bites out of a Pop Tart in the wrong order. IMHO people who make rules like that are a threat to society orders of magnitude worse than the people their rules are supposed to effect.
The militia part is not modifying the right to bear arms. The quote reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
For those with reading comprehension, there are two statements in this sentence. 1) that a militia that is well regulated is necessary to keep a free state secure and 2) that the people have a right to keep and bear arms that the government cannot infringe upon.
I will note that your statement of there being no militia is part of the problem. As the founding fathers warned, our free state isn't secure and one of the reasons is because the militias went away. Instead we have a standing army that is continuously operating and while not mentioned in the Constitution, many of the federalist papers discussed in depth the problems with a powerful central government having a powerful military in times of peace.
I'm in agreement that we have far too many laws and we can throw out most of the federal code of regulations. However, the Constitution is a pretty small, easy to read, reasonable document that has been ripped to shreds by attempts to interpret it with a context of the modern world. However, there is a convenient part built in that allows it to be modified. But long ago the government figured out it was far easier to ignore it than go through the modification process.
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
Why do YOU people always leave out the militia part? A little inconvenient?? There is no militia now, so you don't need any guns.
The Supreme Court has already ruled that the right to be arms is an individual right, not the right of the militia. It merely facilitates the formation of a militia when needed.
Claiming that 2nd amendment only applies to the militia would have made about as much sense as claiming that the 1st amendment only applies to the press.
Sweden destroys their constitution every 10 years, and re-writes it from the ground up. This eliminates the issue of a 325,000 page federal code, and ridiculous shit like Alabama having a law against playing naked ping-ping, or a woman in California from riding a horse wearing shorts, etc.
The constitution isn't "325,000" pages. As a matter of fact the constitution fits on less than 10 pages. All the crazy laws that we have are the laws beyond the constitution that have been later added. The constitution itself is a document that explicitly is intended to be timeless. Only the most basic of concepts are addressed there, and its been working for us just fine for well over 2 centuries.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
You have to interpret "well regulated militia" in the context of which the 2nd amendment was written.
"Regulate" in this case means to "make regular", or to "facilitate" -- ie. government must promote an environment in which a militia can can exist and operate.
Firearm ownership was "obvious" to anyone living in the 18th century as a means of procuring food and defending against indian attacks. There was no need to explicitly enumerate this as an individual right.
The militia part is not modifying the right to bear arms. The quote reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
For those with reading comprehension, there are two statements in this sentence. 1) that a militia that is well regulated is necessary to keep a free state secure and 2) that the people have a right to keep and bear arms that the government cannot infringe upon.
There's one more thing that's important to note -- (3) these two things are combined in the same sentence because (1) is **a** justification for (2). Some interpret the sentence to mean that (1) is the only justification for (2), but the history of these types of clauses in, say, state constitutions from the same time does not really support such a reading.
Anyhow, the more useful aid I find in interpreting these things is to transfer the statement to something less controversial:
"A well educated electorate, being necessary to the democratic function of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed."
If the Constitution said that, would we infer that only registered voters (part of the "electorate") should get to keep and read books? If you're a kid or you don't vote, you don't get to read?
OR... do we interpret it to mean that the first part of the sentence is ONE important reason why "the people" in general should get to read books -- but it only applies to a subset of "the people," namely the "electorate." There may be other good reasons why other people may benefit from books, and hence the right is granted to "the people" later in the sentence (rather than a repetition of "the electorate" only) but the Constitution (which is a fairly terse document in general) doesn't list all of them.
Personally, I find the latter interpretation (i.e., a general right for "the people") to be much more compelling when we transfer the logic to a sentence on a less controversial topic.
(By the way, I'm actually in favor of much greater regulations on guns, perhaps even beyond what the 2nd amendment implies. But I refuse to twist the meaning of this sentence to accord with my personal belief.)
And ACs like you aren't worth shit, grow some balls and get some manners then we can talk.
You say an AC isn't "worth shit", and then tell him to get some manners. He didn't insult you personally, he didn't call you names, and he didn't use foul language. He simply placed your comment into context, with relation to a problem he sees with society. For that you respond like a child.
Grow up.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
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.
Why do YOU people always leave out the militia part? A little inconvenient?? There is no militia now, so you don't need any guns.
I wouldn't expect someone participating in a gun-control discussion to be informed about reality, but according to the US federal law, there is a militia, even today. Of particular relevance here might be the part about the unorganized militia.
10 U.S. Code 311 - Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.