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.
... 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)
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
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.
Not much surprised here.h
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
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.
Put your drone in your ass next time.
see subject
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?
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?
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
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
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..
If you live in a free fire zone, then, like ole Jeb says, shit happens.
http://img.ifcdn.com/images/c9...
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.