Slashdot Mirror
65-Year-Old Woman Shoots Down Drone Over Her Virginia Property With One Shot (arstechnica.com)
An anonymous reader writes from a report via Ars Technica: Jennifer Youngman, a 65-year-old woman living in rural northern Virginia shot down a drone flying over her property with a single shotgun blast. Ars Technica reports: "Youngman told Ars that she had just returned from church one Sunday morning and was cleaning her two shotguns -- .410 and a .20 gauge -- on her porch. She had a clear view of the Blue Ridge Mountains and neighbor Robert Duvall's property (yes, the same Robert Duvall from The Godfather). Youngman had seen two men set up a card table on what she described as a 'turnaround place' on a country road adjacent to her house. 'I go on minding my business, working on my .410 shotgun and the next thing I know I hear bzzzzz,' she said. 'This thing is going down through the field, and they're buzzing like you would scaring the cows.' Youngman explained that she grew up hunting and fishing in Virginia, and she was well-practiced at skeet and deer shooting. 'This drone disappeared over the trees and I was cleaning away, there must have been a five- or six-minute lapse, and I heard the bzzzzz,' she said, noting that she specifically used 7.5 birdshot. 'I loaded my shotgun and took the safety off, and this thing came flying over my trees. I don't know if they lost command or if they didn't have good command, but the wind had picked up. It came over my airspace, 25 or 30 feet above my trees, and hovered for a second. I blasted it to smithereens.'" Ars goes on to explain that aerial trespassing isn't currently recognized under American law. "The Supreme Court ruled in a case known as United States v. Causby that a farmer in North Carolina could assert property rights up to 83 feet in the air. There is a case still pending on whether or not Kentucky drone pilot, David Boggs, was trespassing when he flew his drone over somebody else's property. "Broggs asked the court to rule that there was no trespassing and that he is therefor entitled to damages of $1,500 for the destroyed drone."
If you look at this from another perspective, Jennifer Youngman was just in the process of test-firing one of her just-cleaned shotguns, when a drone, flying dangerously low over her property, was unfortunate enough to stray into the line of fire.
I fail to see how this is Jennifer Youngman's problem. Had the drone operator been sensible enough to fly their drone in a public recreation area, or drone park, instead of over private property, their loss could have been avoided.
In a kind-of unrelated comment, how can it be illegal and tresspassing to stand on private land belonging to another, yet legal and OK to be hovering an unspecified distance above the same piece of land? "No, Your Honor, I was *not* tresspassing, I was levitating..."
Hard for me to be critical of this woman. I would do the same thing, if I owned both a house and a gun.
Someone once predicted that drone deliveries are going to devolve into "skeet shooting with prizes."
The neighbor a couple of doors down has a drone that he likes to fly up and down the street looking in the second-story windows of the houses. I doubt he's seen anything interesting because those things are LOUD! Hard to sneak up on someone with a flying leaf blower.
-- I'm old enough to have lived through six different meanings of the word "hacker."
If it is the size of a car and makes helicopter noises, then I wouldn't recommend shooting it. Someone would make a federal case out of it, which is probably going to be split from the separate issue of the state's castle doctrine and stand your ground laws. You theoretically could be found justified in killing the helicopter pilot, but get 20 years for shooting down an aircraft.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
(paraphrasing)
Zoë: Preacher, don't the Bible have some pretty specific things to say about killin'?
Book: Quite specific. It is, however, somewhat fuzzier on the subject of drones.
Just use nondestructive countermeasures.
Compressed air and sillystring, or something similar.
(I am thinking a pvc pipe with a venturi constriction, attached to an air compressor, with a can of silly string feeding in through the venturi hole. Should be able to get really good distance on the silly string by having really good compression in the pipe.)
Get enough of that junk in the air, it will tangle the prop rotors, and down the drone without seriously damaging it, and raining silly string poses little harm to nearby humans. Drone down, drone undamaged, nobody hurt. Does not involve firearms of any kind. Win win win win.
Bonus if you use rainbow colors and glitter.
Obligatory disclaimer: I am not a lawyer and the following is merely opinion that does not constitute legal advice.
From what I can gather, and anyone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, Virginia's castle doctrine is kind of convoluted and doesn't allow you to use lethal force against trespassers and you have a duty to retreat unless the invader is in your home and the threat is immediate to life and limb.
Now further south the law in North Carolina is that you have the right of stand-your-ground and in the home invasion scenario you can use lethal force against any invader trying to force their way into the "curtilage" of your home but you cannot use lethal force in the protection of property or against aggressors who are fleeing from you. In other words the law is designed to give you the tools necessary to neutralize a legitimate threat but once the threat ceases to be (either because, for example; the aggressor is fleeing or is incapacitated) the use of lethal force no longer becomes legal.
My guess is, if anything, the woman in the article might be found liable for property damage but nothing more. Also hitting a target with a shotgun loaded with birdshot is not as an amazing feat as the article would make it seem.
tl;dr: Castle doctrine and stand-your-ground is not as clear-cut as people think it is.
The pistol holds 10 rounds in the magzine + 1 in the chamber.
Even I, a person who's never even held a gun, knows this is a fucking stupid thing to do.
Shotguns, in modern usage are spec-ed out in the following sizes: 12 gauge, 20 gauge, 28 gauge, and
Note there are two UOMs here "gauge" and "bore"..
I don't know the conversion from gauge to inches
Well.. again.. and as I said earlier, gauge isn't a measurement of inches. It is a measurement of how many lead balls of the size of the bore would go into a pound (I double checked, it is a pound).. .410 bore would be a 67 "gauge"...
Now, naturally, given the density of lead this can be (and has been for modern manufacturing) standardized to a given diameter.
So that is how gauge and bore works..
PS: You can also go the other way if you want to be silly, a
shot sizes, like #4 bird, or #4 buck, or #8 bird, or BBB, or T, or F is measured differently, a different conversation...
There was also a law in the early history of the U.S. which required people to register with the government if they owned a firearm. That way the government knew who they could call upon in times of insurrection or invasion to defend the country and those who would need to be given a weapon in such times.
Of course you'll never hear any of this from the NRA.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Texas and ISIS are the only places in the world where you can just shoot down anybody who enters "your" property.
Except that an aircraft flying over your property is not entering your property.
If I fly at 1500ft over your property, I'm not entering your property. In fact, the FARs allow for me to get to 500ft over your property. Below that I'm violating minimum altitude rules.
My point is that the FAA governs airspace and airplanes. Any craft that flies on its own power is an aircraft, remotely piloted or not. And the FAA governs all of that, not the individual states. A state cannot legally prohibit me from flying anywhere, only the FAA can.
I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
The pistol holds 10 rounds in the magzine + 1 in the chamber. The first round is for the dog, the other 10 are for the dog's owner. Haven't had to shoot one yet, but any day now . . . .
Except that your self-image of yourself as some Rambo or John McLane character is your fantasy, the way it will really go down is that you will fumble around and probably shoot yourself in the leg whilst simultaneously shitting your pants just before you get mauled. Hasn't happened yet, but any day now . . . .
The speed is less important than energy delivered at site of impact. If the energy delivered is sufficient that the mechanical strain on the string snaps it on contact, rather than tangling on it, then there is a problem with using silly string on the faster moving but less massive drone rotor blades.
Fan rotors move slower, but are more massive, and have more total energy behind them.
You dont need something to be sharp or fast moving to cut you in half; it just needs to exert enough energy over a small area to cause mechanical shear of your body. Getting a loop of wire from a wench wrapped around a leg and slowly slooped up will chop it off just as surely as if the wire was moving fast but at less torque.
The same is true of the silly string vs the fan. If the blade impact is of appropriate energy/volume, regardless of the speed, it will sever the silly string. The fan blade actually has more energy than the rotor prop does. People have had their hands mangled by metal fan blades since at least the 30s, because metal blades are heavy, and when spun up, deliver a lot of kinetic energy on a small area if they encounter living flesh. Thas why the housings on metal bladed fans have suchanged tight wire mesh on them. It's to keep kids from putting fingers in and losing them.
To be a proper experiment, it needs to be a high speed metal bladed fan, with big heavy blades. I can probably find one if I look hard enough.
...while posing no collateral risk to your own forces...
My money is on the shotgun being far safer in every way, as well as more readily available and inexpensive.
shotgun: about $200 - $300
shotgun shells: 100 for around $20
not only takes down drone, but may make the pieces smaller and less dangerous to those on the ground when it falls from the air
mass produced, tested, standard, safeties in place, well known interface and readily available training for those that don't know it
has other legitimate uses, like defending ones self from the drone owner when he comes to pick up the bits (see the case from TFS)
Silly string: $1.60 - $2.50 per can
Silly string is flammable**: https://www.youtube.com/result...
Compressed air solution:
* compressor: expensive and not portable (luggable maybe)
* co2 cartridges: not enough capacity at normal sizes
* compressed air cylinders: good luck lugging those around for long (or for many shots)
Safety systems on your homemade PoS potato gun: none
If you manage to hit anything with this, and if it works (which is unlikely), the whole thing is going to fall into your people while some rotors are probably still spinning savagely.
If it comes down, it's probably going to be severely damaged by the fall.
Single taskers are bad, just ask Alton Brown.
Hopefully you just have a case of NIH syndrome, and not some silly fear of 165+yr old tech.
** they make non-flammable ones these days too, but someone will put the wrong stuff in your home made gun
If I fly at 1500ft over your property, I'm not entering your property. In fact, the FARs allow for me to get to 500ft over your property. Below that I'm violating minimum altitude rules. Any craft that flies on its own power is an aircraft, remotely piloted or not. And the FAA governs all of that, not the individual states. A state cannot legally prohibit me from flying anywhere, only the FAA can.
So does that mean if I have a hovercraft with a fan powerful enough that I don't have to have the skirt touching the ground, I'm under FAA regs? And I can hover a few inches over anyone's property without being a trespasser in the eyes of the law?
I mention this just to point out that the existing laws seem to be, ummm... 'incomplete', even with regard to pre-drone technology; so they sure as hell aren't up to snuff when it comes to camera-laden RC craft. A whole new set of laws needs to be developed, preferably at the federal level. Otherwise a gust of wind blowing a craft over state lines might get the operator in hot water. Then there's the jurisdictional issue; which state's laws would apply, the one the operator is standing in, or the one the drone is flying over?
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
I'm okay with shooting them if they break in but not if they're in the process of running away. There is no way to consider them a threat at that point, it's just retaliation. I had someone break into my home years ago when I lived in a rough part of town. My wife woke me when she heard a noise in the other room. I reached under the bed and pulled my 12 gauge out and went to the bedroom door and listened and sure enough I heard someone rummaging around in my living room. I jacked a shell into the chamber and the guy instantly started running and tripped over the coffee table. By the time I moved down the hall he was out the door and tearing ass down the road. It looked like a teen that lived down the block but I couldn't be sure. I was only 20 at the time and I was pretty blase about crap like that. I didn't even bother calling the cops. I lived there another year but never had another problem. I could have lit him up but I really just wanted him to leave. Number 6 shot makes a mess and I didn't need blood everywhere not to mention all the questions and shit.