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 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.
If you would explain to me why such a drone would need to flow so low through the entire neighbourhood as in this case, I would be tempted to believe your comments are valid.
A friend of mine who grew up on a farm was caught by his father playing with a shotgun. His dad told him to start running because he was going to shoot at him after he counted to ten. He did in fact shoot his son, who experienced pain but no real injury. I would not endorse this method of parenting, but it does illustrate that shotguns have a very limited lethal range, at least with whatever load it had.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
You are engaging in "slippery slope" arguments.You may as well argue that we should not allow people to defend themselves with guns because someone might interpret that as a right to shoot anyone they want.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
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.
I can tell you from experience that the people on the ground win that one every time.
I've done a lot of flying in helicopters over the years, we are allowed to fly lower than airplanes, even in cities. In fact, we have no published minimum altitude, other than to "not fly at an altitude that causes hazard to persons or property on the surface".
What does that mean? I'll tell you... my FAA inspector once gave me his answer, and since he has authority over my flying, his word counts (in so much as he is the one who can put a stop to my flying).
He said, "if I get a phone call from one person saying you're flying too low, I might call around, ask you to be careful and avoid that area. if I get multiple calls from multiple people saying you're flying too low, I'm going to get into my car and come see you, and you're already guilty. if you're scaring people on the ground, you're at fault, regardless of your altitude, fly accordingly."
Why do we care about "not harming the pervert?"
Because in our modern society we feel more empathy for criminals than we do for their victims. We feel that criminals have chosen a profession and they should be able to perform that profession in relative safety, without fear of their victims fighting back at all, and certainly not with a gun. You don't go into your IT job and have to fear every day that somebody might hit you upside the head with a baseball bat. So why should a rapist have to worry that a woman might scratch him with her fingernails, or a burglar have to worry about getting hit with a baseball bat, or a murder have to worry about getting shot? It's their chosen profession, and in today's society, we apparently want them to feel safe in their chosen profession.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.