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."

Comments

Next Phase

[SuperKendall]

If it's not legal to shoot down drones flying over your property, then people will take the next logical step of simply shooting the drone operators so there is no-one to complain... which is what I expected to happen when a bunch of morons started yelling at an armed 83 year old woman who had already demonstrated herself to be a crack shot at long distance.

Re:Next Phase

[AF_Cheddar_Head]

Were you using a .410 because that is a mighty small gun and pattern to shoot skeet with? You were probably using a 20 Gauge or 12 gauge with a modified choke optimized to give you a wide pattern suitable for clay pigeons. Yeah, I know technical terms but hey you started it.

Re:Next Phase

[Opportunist]

If he's stupid enough to set foot on your property, in many states that would be well within your rights.

Re:Next Phase

[CrimsonAvenger]

She is 83, not crazy.

Who is 83? The woman in TFA is 65. The only place I saw "83"mentioned was the distance....

Note that both my mother-in-law and my both my grandmothers could have made that shot. The one shot skeet with her husband till his friends complained that she always won the pot (they generally bet the price of the range-time, I understand), and the other two shot for the pot....

Re:Next Phase

[Reaperducer]

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.

Re:Next Phase

[Anonymous Coward]

Texas and ISIS are the only places in the world where you can just shoot down anybody who enters "your" property.

Re:Next Phase

[NicknameUnavailable]

Texas and ISIS are the only places in the world where you can just shoot down anybody who enters "your" property.

Depends how good you are at disposing of the body after.

Re:Next Phase

[haruchai]

Amen! A shotgun can hold more than one shell. Use the first to shoot down the drone and the others (preferably slugs) to shoot the operator.

I carry a .45 on my job, mainly for protection from vicious dogs. 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 . . . .

Sounds like there's a vicious dog with an itchy trigger finger

Re:Next Phase

[Anonymous Coward]

Not true.

Missouri is a quieter, scarier version of Texas.

RSMO 563.031: http://www.moga.mo.gov/mostatutes/stathtml/56300000311.HTML
RSMO 563.041: http://www.moga.mo.gov/mostatutes/stathtml/56300000411.html
RSMO 563.074: http://www.moga.mo.gov/mostatutes/stathtml/56300000741.html

It's interesting to note that the crime of burglary in Missouri includes the escape of the burglars. In light of this, it is completely legal to combine the burglary statute and the castle doctrine statute to justify shooting a burglar in the back as they flee the scene.

Re:Next Phase

[wierd_w]

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.

Re:Next Phase

[ProzacPatient]

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.

Re:Next Phase

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Next Phase

[SCPaPaJoe]

In some states, shooting the drone operator would be the best option.

Re:Next Phase

[Mr D from 63]

Here's a novel idea. How about a drone operator inform a property owner that he or she would like to fly the drone over the property, and explain why in advance?

Re:Next Phase

[drinkypoo]

Even I, a person who's never even held a gun, knows this is a fucking stupid thing to do.

Even you, a person who's never even held a gun, should shut the fuck up until he learns how firearms work. There are lots of pistols which are designed to be carried with a round in the chamber, probably most notably including 1911-pattern handguns.

People like you are the reason why people think anti-gun activists are morons.

Re:Next Phase

[demonlapin]

No, it's not; it's standard practice. Try again?

Re:Next Phase

[drinkypoo]

So, the question is, will silly string actually take down a drone? The rotors will cut the shit out of a cactus for example, so I would be shocked if it actually did anything whatsoever.

Re:Next Phase

[wierd_w]

Get enough of that stuff falling on you, and I doubt you would be all that effective in your dreamy, flagrantly wish-fulfillment fantasy of being an urban assault storm trooper.

There's a reason that drones are scary in urban settings, they can indeed be flying guns, and make it impossible to have valid collateral losses, meaning they are highly desirable to deploy. Making them into ineffectual weapons while posing no collateral risk to your own forces is the appropriate response. Be it just an annoying neighbor hoping for some boobie cam footage, or a weapon iced strike craft, nonlethal neutralizaton from a remote operated position is the way to go. Sillystring is reasonably safe, cheap, and in large quantities, effective even against high powered rotors. (When it gums up the rotor shaft, it causes it to be off balance, which throws off navigation and targetting, even if it does not completely down the craft. Keep spraying, anx it will eventually down the rotors, if they are even just a little exposed. I can think of more exotic, but still easily dispersed countermeasures for fairing protected rotors. )

Re:Next Phase

[sabri]

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.

Re:Next Phase

[demonlapin]

A modified choke is not a wide pattern except by comparison to full choke...

Re:Next Phase

[AK Marc]

So when carrying a revolver, would you keep the current chamber empty? Or the next one that comes on an errant trigger pull? That leaves 2/5-2/6 of the capacity unused. Nobody ever did it that way. Why would you assume differently with a more modern, "safer" firearm?

Re:Next Phase

[Anonymous Coward]

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 . . . .

Re:Next Phase

[wierd_w]

The fact that the silly string is light and airy, and somewhat sticky shortly after spraying, means it will cling to rotors, and thus get wrapped up around them, reducing thier lifting power. Get enough wrapped around the rotor, and it will lose all lifiting capacity. Drone falls with engines on full.

I agree that it needs testing. I might try it some time to see how much is needed to clog and down a drone.

Re:Next Phase

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank god somewhere has sensible laws for law abiding human beings.

There is never a reason to burgle someone. Just like there is never a reason to violently assault someone. Nor is there a reason for someone to murder you, unless you are burgling someone or assaulting someone. A polite society doesn't do these things, furthermore and a polite society does not let these things pass without, in return, passing proper judgement.

Re:Next Phase

[wierd_w]

A thought occurs to me. Functionally, a desk fan with metal blades is an appropriate analog for a drone rotor if the housing is removed.

I may buy the appropriate testin supplies tonight. If silly string can work on something with way more torque force than a drone rotor, like a desk fan, it would be viable softkill material for most drones on the market.

Re:Next Phase

[AK Marc]

"those things" aren't loud. "that thing" may have been. A battery-powered quadcopter shouldn't be any louder than a large insect.

The loud ones are fuel-powered, and they are not designed for stealth. When he's peeking in the window, it's not to see stuff, but to show off his new toy. Had he wanted to spy on you, he'd have gotten one of the quiet ones.

Re:Next Phase

[Swave An deBwoner]

I'm guessing that he sells bibles door to door.

Re:Next Phase

[Pseudonym]

There is never a reason to burgle someone.

You be sure to tell the judge that when it's a cop who stole your money.

(Yes, that's the more likely scenario.)

Re:Next Phase

[jshackney]

1500 feet? Do you have a mode C transponder?

Re:Next Phase

[Anonymous Coward]

You realize that an AR-15 is just a semiautomatic rifle, with a manufacturer-stated rate of fire of ~45-60 rounds per minute, yes? And that a semiautomatic pistol can fire just as quickly, and in some cases, faster?

But yeah, keep on pretending that an AR-15 is just a slight bit less deadly than a fucking atomic bomb. Because OOOOH a rifle is scary!

Look, I'm not averse to more gun control laws being put on the books - I think we're too permissive and there are a lot of sensible steps we could take that would prevent guns from falling into the wrong hands. But you dipshit activists who sit there whining about rifles while ignoring the fact that something like 80% of gun deaths are caused by handguns are absolutely hilarious. Do you hate AR-15's because they're big and black? Or is it just what the good folks on MSNBC told you to think?

Re:Next Phase

[Anonymous Coward]

If she had shot a black man, this would not be news. Although, I have to admit, if I saw a black guy hovering 25 ft. above me, I'm shooting... Or Anthony Weiner, that guy is weird.

Re:Next Phase

[Applehu Akbar]

"It's interesting to note that the crime of burglary in Missouri includes the escape of the burglars. In light of this, it is completely legal to combine the burglary statute and the castle doctrine statute to justify shooting a burglar in the back as they flee the scene."

Homeowners here in Arizona have the same right. The SCOTUS has ruled that police, being held to professional rules of engagement, may not shoot a fleeing suspect. Homeowners are not deemed to be law enforcement professionals.

Re:Next Phase

[drinkypoo]

A thought occurs to me. Functionally, a desk fan with metal blades is an appropriate analog for a drone rotor if the housing is removed.

Aside from the speed not even being in the same ballpark, sure. If that doesn't work, then it certainly won't work on a drone. If that does work, it might work on a drone, or at least, one which is only hovering and not actually going places.

Re:Next Phase

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

I suspect that if someone manages to shoot down your drone with a shotgun (which has an effective range of at most 300ft or so), you are violating minimum altitude rules from a FARs (Federal Aviation Regulations) perspective. Besides, the whole FARs point is a bit moot because the new *maximum* altitude allowed for a drone is 500ft (presumably to avoid interference with aircraft at minimum FARs altitude)...

Not that I condone shooting drones...

FAR Sec. 91.119 — Minimum safe altitudes: General.

Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:
(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.

(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.

(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.

Re:Next Phase

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes -- but pretty much only if you're carrying an archaic revolver. Actual cowboy revolvers (like a 19th century Colt) would allow the hammer to move enough to potentially discharge -- leaving an empty chamber was common back then. As far as I know every modern revolver (including cowboy action / SASS models) use a transfer bar safety to ensure the hammer won't fall unless the trigger is pulled, so it's not an issue anymore, and hasn't been for a long time.

Re:Next Phase

[wierd_w]

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.

Re:Next Phase

[unrtst]

...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

Re:Next Phase

[rfengr]

You mean +1 in the chamber? Yeah, dumb thing to do. Usually down-load hand guns by one, AR-15 30 round mags by two.

Re: Next Phase

[Anonymous Coward]

Last I checked, shooting a drone wasn't homicide, Mr. GED In Law.

Re:Next Phase

[rfengr]

But what you really mean is carrying one in the chamber is stupid thing to do. No, it's smart to do.

Re:Next Phase

[slew]

A thought occurs to me. Functionally, a desk fan with metal blades is an appropriate analog for a drone rotor if the housing is removed.

I may buy the appropriate testin supplies tonight. If silly string can work on something with way more torque force than a drone rotor, like a desk fan, it would be viable softkill material for most drones on the market.

FWIW, I think you would have more luck downing a drone with a super soaker (maybe filled with salt water for "extra-damage")...
The trajectory leaving a silly string spray can isn't the most stable thing to aim with.

Re: Next Phase

[viperidaenz]

No, that would imply the burglar has left your property, been caught and then killed.
When they're trespassing on your property, that's a home invasion in progress.

Re:Next Phase

[wierd_w]

That's what the venturi pipe is for.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

The Inet on, or just after the constriction will literally suck the dispensed silly string down the pipe. The narrower diameter of the shooting end of the pipe increases air velocity. The string will be pushed out of the apart us with much more force, and be carried along with the escaping jet of air, reducing its drag in the air between source and target. This lets the string fly further, and faster than it ever could with just the aerosol can.

Ideally, you would want it to shoot over the top of the drone, and be impelled into the rotors from the top as the string falls. You would want good coverage, so wagging the sprayer should result in a wavy motion of the string, making ai.ING easier, and increasing chances of getting pulled into the rotors.

Re:Next Phase

[wierd_w]

Shotgun places a human operator inot an exposed line of fire against the drone. If the drone is weaponized, there is an imbalance of risk; the drone operator is unharmed if the drone is destroyed. The shotgunner is harmed or killed should the drone be able to react first. If the drone misfires, it won't harm it's operator, and ideally, the drone is deployed instead of exposing ground troops as a first assault device. That means it can spray bullets, and not strike friendly forces (just noncombattants.) The same cannot be said for discharging a shotgun.

The idea is to remove the advantage of using a drone. A shotgun does lots of damage and requires little aiming, yes. It also still requires a human operator, and is likely to hit friendlies nearby. The silly string can hit you at point blank, and not hurt you, making it safe to use near friendlies.

As for portability: see above. Not the intended type of installation. This is an automated point defense system, or a remote operated fixed point defense. The same platform could easily dispense other products, like aluminum dust (and an incindiary flame), or flechette darts, or even Geneva banned chemical substances.

It's not some fear of guns I have, I assure you. It is more being analytical of why drones are attractive to military leaders. If you make them into costly ordinance with a low return on investment, you make them less desirable to deploy. THAT is the point here.

Re:Next Phase

[Anonymous Coward]

that is a damn good idea - start the communication and speak to your neighbours even if you dont live right next to them

Re:Next Phase

[SumDog]

Um...Florida? Stand your ground remember?

Re:Next Phase

[AK Marc]

I was gifted a cheap quadcopter for christmas. It was so quiet that I could sneak it up on people and land it on their head. The air movement gave it away before the sound did. The $1500 monsters are louder, but not so loud that they'd disturb someone inside a house if someone outside was playing with one.

Re: Next Phase

[jackspenn]

I carry a XD9 or S&W Shield daily (depends on my clothing that day) and I always have one in the chamber.

Re:Next Phase

[Areyoukiddingme]

You would want good coverage, so wagging the sprayer should result in a wavy motion of the string, making ai.ING easier, and increasing chances of getting pulled into the rotors.

Will you stop posting on your damn phone? It's mangling the shit out of your text.

Re:Next Phase

[jenningsthecat]

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?

Re: Next Phase

[amiga3D]

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.

Re:Next Phase

[wierd_w]

Deal with it. Maybe tell Samsung to stop trying to make me sound like a qr year old girl. I AM NOT going to use the tracked corporate workstation to post on Slashdot during business hours, no matter how much it makes your eyes bleed, or how much you complain about it.

The text mangling is not my fault, so just get over it. Not everything is going to go the way you want. This is one of them. (I would rather my messages not get mangled either, but I prefer not being brought into an office to explain misuse of company resources more.)

Re:Next Phase

[amiga3D]

Effective range of 300 feet? No. Half that at best. She was using number 7.5 and it was either a .410 or 20 gauge shotgun so probably much less than that.

Re:Next Phase

[amiga3D]

I really think it depends on the situation. For sure if someone breaks in and intends violence then kill them dead. Someone who sneaks in trying to steal your shit? I don't know man, I don't think I could kill someone over a fucking TV. If he's running then let him run. At least make sure you know your target. Too many times family members have gotten shot coming in late at night.

Re:Next Phase

[Pseudonym]

So you think the 1.7 billion that Burnie Madoff defrauded people out of, and then had seized by the FBI [...]

That is a fair point, and it does go to the fact that we don't measure these things well. That $1.7 billion was a technically a "seizure", but it was actually a settlement with JPMorgan Chase. A fairer comparison would only count assets seized without an accompanying criminal conviction.

Still, the mere fact that they're in the same ballpark is a problem. Where I live, non-contraband assets may be frozen prior to a conviction, but they may not be seized until after.

Re:Next Phase

[MBGMorden]

Stand your ground has little to do with trespassing.

Stand your ground is simply a legal alternative to the concept of "duty to retreat". Basically in a "duty to retreat" situation if your life is threatened you are legally required to leave the area, and if followed leave that area, and so on until you can no longer leave the area.

In a "stand your ground" jurisdiction, any place where you have the legal right to be, you don't have to ever leave. If your safety is threatened you can legally defend yourself without having to retreat.

In MOST jurisdictions though (even SYG ones), a trespasser just being on open property would not legally constitute a threat to your safety. They have to be actively either attacking you, have a weapon obviously at their disposal, or otherwise making credible threats.

In a castle doctrine state though, if they actually enter your RESIDENCE (not simply property), then their mere presence is considered to be a threat to your safety and in general you are free to defend yourself with deadly force. Or more simply - you enter someone's home uninvited and they can legally shoot you.

Even that though has not provided protection in the most obvious of abuse (ie, walking up and shooting someone point-blank execution style after they've already been shot and disabled, or "baiting" someone in by leaving a door open with valuables clearly visible to entice them to enter).

Re:Next Phase

[AchilleTalon]

Ever try a drug cartel's property in Mexico or Columbia?

Re:Next Phase

[MBGMorden]

Also hitting a target with a shotgun loaded with birdshot is not as an amazing feat as the article would make it seem.

With a .410 shotgun it is. Compared to your average 12 gauge the pattern on a .410 is pretty darned sparse.

Re:Next Phase

[MBGMorden]

Um, nearly every person carrying a gun carries one in the chamber - including pretty much all cops (I avoid saying "all" because I know there's probably that ONE guy out there that makes "All" incorrect, but it's damned nearly "all").

If you need to use the gun you don't want to be fumbling around trying to rack the slide. A good quality holster the covers the trigger guard is the most important recipe in carrying a gun safely. Leaving the chamber empty is just stupid.

Re:Next Phase

[Applehu Akbar]

It's not that you can shoot someone you really believe is running away, but that you think you are still in danger. You might tell the court that it was too dark to clearly see what he was doing, or you had reason to think he would bring reinforcements, etc.

Re:Next Phase

[K. S. Kyosuke]

If it's not legal to shoot down drones flying over your property, then people will take the next logical step of simply shooting the drone operators so there is no-one to complain

You mean like the MH-17? That didn't work out so well...

Re:Next Phase

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Effective range for what exactly? What happens when a fast-moving blade hits even a stationary pellet in the air?

Re:Next Phase

[SuperKendall]

How about a drone operator inform a property owner that he or she would like to fly the drone over the property, and explain why in advance?

I have a friend who has a drone he uses for photography... guess what, he does exactly that!

How many people would not yet you fly for a few beers and some cool aerial photos of their land? And even if they didn't want to let you at least you'd still have a working drone.

Re: Next Phase

[Anonymous Coward]

A pistol is not the same thing as a rifle. A semi auto is not the same as a bolt action. A .223 is not the same as a .22.
That's why you don't see massacres using hunting rifles or low mag pistols. Combine a fast firing high powered weapon with rifle accuracy an large capacity clip and you can't tell me it's just a 'scary looking rifle.' It's a military weapon with a specific application and that is to mow down and suppress enemy soldiers. Against unarmed civilians it's a meat grinder. There is no reason for it to be sold to the public and the argument that 'they don't like it because it looks scary' doesn't hold weight against second graders and mall goers and club dancers getting sawn in half by something made specifically to incur horrific fatal wounds to people.

Re:Next Phase

[wierd_w]

Nope. Not a direct. ;)

Re:Next Phase

[rtb61]

The most logical safe capture method would be a somewhat heavy foam core with a strong trailing capture line and trailing high tensile net, think of it trailing behind fixed to the foam head. When the head strikes the target, the trailing net accelerate past it flaring out based upon aerodynamic design of the trailing edges of the net. As an automated system it should be possible to pull tight the capture line, just prior to impact to promote optimum net flare. Think of it all as being an umbrella like missile with an over extending skirt. Spend big bucks and it can be terminally guided, pretty much guaranteeing a take down and capture back to the retrieval point (pretty high speed retrieval as you don't want the drone to hit the ground, except at the retrieval point). Benefit, hit a person and they'll get a fairly tough bump but no severe injuries, unless you try to retrieve the missile, that could be quite problematic depending upon which human protuberance it becomes tangle. Compressed air used to fire the thing off, perhaps even a tad more in the central spine for extra range.

Re:Next Phase

[cdwiegand]

Sadly this is where Federal and State laws *combine*. For example, by law only the FCC can regulate radio, so as a licensed radio operator, in theory only the FCC may tell me I can't use my radio. But I guarantee the State and local laws that restrict where I may take my radio apply as well. I can't say "you're not the FCC so nyah nyah". Doesn't work like that. If you fly a drone in my property, which is not a 2 dimensional property plot but includes vertical space as well, then yes, you are in MY property and you are trespassing. You need to be aware of what your local and State laws state for property space and their defense.

Re:Next Phase

[ArmoredDragon]

Definitely not 12 gauge. Why on earth would you use 12 gauge for skeet shooting? It's a clay pigeon, not a crazy next-door neighbor. It was some kind of birdshot, I don't recall the exact spec, but it had barely any recoil, which means that even if it wasn't .410, then it was pretty close. Nonetheless, in most cases a quadcopter doesn't move nearly as quickly as a clay pigeon, and if you can't down a quadcopter that's anywhere within the effective range of birdshot then you're kind of a bad shot.

Re:Next Phase

[K. S. Kyosuke]

a lot of those incorrect "redundant" mods lately

So...they're redundant "redundant" mods?

Re: Next Phase

[Bartles]

I'm assuming you are referring to the Martin/Zimmerman case in Florida. You might want to read up on that. Stand your ground laws had nothing to do with it. When someone is sitting on your chest and slamming the back of your head into the sidewalk, you can shoot him in any State, stand your ground or otherwise.

Re: Next Phase

[Anonymous Coward]

Or... you can tell the truth...
oftentimes the threat "running away" only means running for cover behind a nearby car or other structure in order to return fire. That happens very often.
And, even MORE often, the attacker shoots behind, while running away.
There are many reasons a threat may continue to be perceived as a threat even as they are running away.
Pretty simple...

Re: Next Phase

[Bartles]

Most skeet shooters use a 12 gauge, simply because it fires a higher volume of shot. More pellets=better chance of hitting the bird.

Re: Next Phase

[Bartles]

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Re:Next Phase

[OverlordQ]

> A state cannot legally prohibit me from flying anywhere, only the FAA can.

Oh aren't you precious. FAA only controls public airspace. There's not currently a definition of the boundary of where public airspace begins over private land.

Re:Next Phase

[slowdeath]

In some unnamed southern states shooting the drone operator would be LEGAL, but shooting the drone would not be.

Re: Next Phase

[ravenshrike]

Well, probably not California or Massachusetts.

Re:Next Phase

[RubberDogBone]

Agree totally, airspace over a property does not belong to the property owner. It 'belongs' to the Federal Government and is managed and otherwise supervised by the FAA. Property owners can no more shoot at drones than they can shoot down airliners or shoot at cars passing on roads next to their property. Can't do any of those things.

However states ARE passing laws regarding airspace use, in what seems to be clear violation of FAA jurisdiction. For example, the State of Georgia has designated six-mile no-fly zones around the state capitol building and governor's mansion residence. This means most of downtown Atlanta is in a no-fly zone and this impacts various users including all sorts of legitimate motion picture or TV productions, at least four colleges which might have drones in their course work, and of course any private citizens who might want to fly one on their own yards.

The mansion sits in the middle of a heavily residential area surrounded by some of the wealthiest homes in the area, which means those residents are more likely to have high end drones fully capable of performance flying, but the state says no. There is no justification given for this; the state simply doesn't want anyone flying near these places. It scares them. Terrifies them.

With several airports also scattered around Atlanta, the two zones marked off limits by the state add to a huge area where drones aren't allowed, and virtually guarantee people are going to fly anyway because such a huge area leaves few options for drone users except to break the laws.

Re:Next Phase

[drinkypoo]

The speed is less important than energy delivered at site of impact. [...] 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.

Okay, let's try to stay on topic.

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.

Unless the wire catches on a bone, and the wire is thin enough to snap there. But let's fucking stay on topic. We don't need ridiculous examples designed to distract people because they contain an injury to discuss the topic at hand, you sensationalist nutter.

In fact, there are multiple factors involved in determining how much force it's going to require to break the silly string, and in how much force is being delivered. One of the factors is the force applied, one of the factors is the time in which the force is applied and how that affects the material in question, one of the factors is the quantity of material the force is being spread out across. And in spite of being a lot smaller and less massive, the tip of a quadcopter blade is going to impart a lot more energy to a much smaller section of silly string than a metal fan blade is, because the fan blade is squared off (being stamped from a piece of metal) while the tip of a rotor is very sharp, and the rotor is moving much much faster and F=MA. There's a lot more A in the quadcopter system. But wait, there's more; you only have to consider the effect of its mass until the string breaks. If the string breaks at a level of force which can be achieved with the current acceleration at lower than the actual mass, then the additional mass of the rotor is irrelevant here.

There are lots of other factors, but these are the ones that we've been talking about in this discussion already.

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.

Only the speed is likely to be relevant, and it will still have a dramatically lower tip velocity than a quadcopter doing anything but hovering.

Re:Next Phase

[stealth_finger]

You sound like the world would be losing something in an owner who does not control their dog.

It wont...

You sound like the type of person who thinks you should be able to kill any one for just about anything, even looking at you funny. The world would be better off without you.

Re:Next Phase

[AmiMoJo]

The drones that Amazon demonstrated seem to fly fairly high, then stop and descend vertically over the target property. So it looks like they designed them to stay out of range of shooters until the final landing phase over someone else's property.

Of course GPS and mapping aren't perfect, but they must have some kind of secondary guidance to help land in the right back yard with the package so they don't mis-deliver it.

People could still shoot at their drones as they land, but the "prize" would fall into their neighbour's garden and it would be much harder to legally justify destruction of Amazon's property.

Re:Next Phase

[stealth_finger]

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 . . . .

Is that because you know any decent dog owner is going to be all over you if you even think about drawing on their dog, god help you if they have a gun aswell.

Or is your plan to shoot a dog once, (does it matter if you kill it?) then go find the owner who is probably not with the dog in your ideal scenario so you can then murder them in cold blood by shooting them ten times?

Re:Next Phase

[AmiMoJo]

This all seems very over-complicated and over-engineered for taking out a simple drone. Just crank your wifi's power up to max, bond all available channels and watch it fall out of the sky as the 2.4GHz interference kicks in.

Or just install a microwave oven on your roof, either will work.

Re:Next Phase

[Gamasta]

It's 65 years in the metric system; that's 83 years in US.

Re:Next Phase

[ThatsNotPudding]

No, the next phase will be allowing drones - by extension of their white American owners - the right to Concealed Carry.

Re:Next Phase

[jafiwam]

So when carrying a revolver, would you keep the current chamber empty? Or the next one that comes on an errant trigger pull? That leaves 2/5-2/6 of the capacity unused. Nobody ever did it that way. Why would you assume differently with a more modern, "safer" firearm?

You would leave the chamber empty for storage (say, a safe) at least because a round can "cook off" in a fire. Don't need to be shooting firefighters accidentally.

In cases other than fire... Modern firearms, even with exposed hammers have ways of blocking it from going off unless the trigger is pulled. You wouldn't need to have an empty chamber on a revolver or semiautomatic unless the firearm was made before 1900 AND it was malfunctioning. Around 1870 or so, they invented revolvers that won't go off even if you smack the dropped hammer.

In other words, you are thinking of cowboy movies.

Generally now days, a firearm you are "ready" to use will have one in the chamber. (Hint: treat them as such until you know otherwise)

Re:Next Phase

[Bob the Super Hamste]

My experience is that the difference in the amount of kick from a .410 and a 20 gauge isn't much while there is a substantial difference between a 20 gauge and a 12 gauge.

Re:Next Phase

[Gonoff]

Doesn't sound like he has read one though.

Re:Next Phase

[mattwarden]

Why is "your" in quotation marks? Does this mean you have no respect for property rights?

Re:Next Phase

[Gonoff]

Armed civilians are the stupidest idea humanity has had since someone said "If we give those vikings some money, they will go away.".

The first thing I was expected to do when the instructor handed me a weapon was to make sure that there was not one in the chamber. I didn't have to just cause the eject mechanism to work. I had to actually look too. Yes, if I went somewhere nasty people were perhaps trying to hurt me, I would have one in ready.As soon as I came back, I had to "make safe" since that is distinctly unsafe.

Are you a postal worker in Baghdad or Kabul? Perhaps you should get an M60 or do you need something heavier? You will probably need some friends to help you with that M1. What type of munitions would you like to keep up the spout?

Re:Next Phase

[myth24601]

Any drone over flying within shotgun range should be considered fair game.

Re: Next Phase

[Chas]

What? The penalty for burgling is death? And without due process? What king of fucked up view of "a polite society" do you have, anyway?

If you're stupid enough to burgle someone without checking to make sure that they're heavily armed?

HELL THE FUCK YEAH!

The gene pool has enough idiocy floating to the top already. We don't need any more. And getting shot to death is a fairly effective chlorination technique.

It's the same order of stupidity as some drunk dumbass trying to be Evel Knievel and spattering himself all over every available local surface.

Re: Next Phase

[cayenne8]

What? The penalty for burgling is death? And without due process? What king of fucked up view of "a polite society" do you have, anyway?

There is never a legitimate reason for someone to be breaking into your home. You should always assume they mean you harm (physcal damage, property damage/theft).

You are 101% justified in blowing away someone that breaks into your home illegally, ESPECIALLY if you and loved ones are in the home at the same time.

You should defend yourself, and this isn't the "Lone Ranger" tv show....when you pull a gun, you shoot to kill and eliminate the danger.

I have no problem with that....

Re:Next Phase

[Holi]

The article does go into that,

"For that reason, the net assets of the funds are usually seen as a more stable indicator — those numbers show how much money is left over in the funds each year after the federal government takes care of various obligations, like payments to victims. Since this number can reflect monies taken over multiple calendar years, it's less comparable to the annual burglary statistics.

Still, even this more stable indicator hit $4.5 billion in 2014, according to the Institute for Justice — higher again than the burglary losses that year."

And that is just federal as the states suck at keeping records of abusing their citizens.

Re: Next Phase

[Holi]

I don't know about "legal", but something that feels so good can't really be wrong now can it?

Re:Next Phase

[cayenne8]

Texas and ISIS are the only places in the world where you can just shoot down anybody who enters "your" property.

Depends how good you are at disposing of the body after.

In New Orleans, if you shoot an intruder in your home and he somehow makes it out the door....the cops will generally help drag the body back across the threshold for you, so that the court case doesn't get "messy" for the home owner.

Very nice of them!!

;)

Re:Next Phase

[bigpat]

Who is 83? The woman in TFA is 65. The only place I saw "83"mentioned was the distance....

I believe the 83 was just the reference to the Supreme Court case (UNITED STATES v. CAUSBY http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-...) that recognized property rights could extend at least 83 feet into the air. Because a landowner near a new airport successfully sued the government to claim that the flight path over their home constituted a "taking" that required compensation.

So the use of airspace over someone's home up to 83 feet could certainly be considered a trespass under state law at least up to 83 feet under Supreme Court precedent.

Re:Next Phase

[Holi]

You think it's alright to shoot someone for the simple act of stepping on your property? That is not your right in ANY state.

Re:Next Phase

[internerdj]

All respect to Alton Brown, but my BBQ claws for shredding pulled pork are 10 times more efficient than either eating or serving forks. Although I will not deny pretending to be Wolverine for my children.

Re:Next Phase

[JimSadler]

Actually Texas restricts the use of deadly force a great deal more than we do in Florida. For example, in Texas the degree of economic harm is weighed according to the size of a potential loss and the wealth of the property owner. For example if a poor man noticed a thief stealing $5,000 worth of awnings off of his home, deadly force would be acceptable. Whereas if a rich man who could easily afford a $5,000 loss could be convicted as lethal force would not be justified. On the other hand, in Florida protection from loss is almost sacred and the exact point at which deadly force is used can be a very trivial threat of loss. And this is more than just a castle doctrine issue. It is also a legal minefield as our current laws have not yet been clarified and judges have quite a bit of leeway. For example one young fellow had a car radio stolen and was told that some jerk was trying to sell a car radio a couple of hundred feet up the street. The fellow grabbed a kitchen knife ran up the street and killed the thief, taking back his radio. He was found not guilty in court. The judge simply could not tell whether our stand your ground laws covered that behavior or not. My feeling is that our stand your ground laws are making people toe the line quite a bit.

Re:Next Phase

[bellers]

>> 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.

Drones are limited to under 400ft AGL, though.

Re: Next Phase

[Boronx]

My god you gun nerds are the worst. "You used a different word than me! You don't know anything!"

Every single time.

Re:Next Phase

[tbannist]

Well to be fair, he got bored part way through Genesis, but he's pretty sure that he already knows how it ends.

Re:Next Phase

[ArgonautThief]

Ok, forget about the semantics of FAA / State controlled etcetera etcetera airspace and all the legal implications.

How about, as a drone operator, having the common decency to not fly it over someone's property without their permission? If you don't possess that common decency / respect / common sense in fact then you can expect that you will possibly annoy someone enough to shoot down your toy.

Re:Next Phase

[harl]

Wisconsin has a very strong Caste Doctrine law. If someone forces entry to your home you can kill them.

Re:Next Phase

[harl]

attached to an air compressor

Fatal flaw.

Re: Next Phase

[internerdj]

I'd agree, being a grammar-nazi about clip is pretty useless, but being precise with automatic versus semi-automatic is important. Semi-automatic includes a huge swath of hunting rifles and shotguns that look like hunting rifles that a whole lot of gun-control voters aren't really that enthusiastic about controlling.

Re:Next Phase

[gosand]

I'm rooting for the dog then.

Re:Next Phase

[secret_squirrel_99]

Except that an aircraft flying over your property is not entering your property.
In point of fact it is. I own the airspace above, as well as the mineral rights below my property. This is baked into the laws concerning real property. You may not enter those spaces without permission, either granted or contractual.
There is an implied right of way given to aircraft which is arbitrated by the FAA. This does not in any way imply a transfer of title to that airspace.

Re:Next Phase

[secret_squirrel_99]

Effective range of 300 feet? No. Half that at best. She was using number 7.5 and it was either a .410 or 20 gauge shotgun so probably much less than that.

300 is pushing it, but certainly more than half that. I can routinely hit birds at the clay course at 75 yards with a 20GA and a full choke shooting #7.5 or #8. I have friends (who are admittedly much better shooters than I) who can do it with a 28GA.

Re: Next Phase

[MercTech]

Since it is unlawful to fly a hobby drone over private property that is not your own why would it not be lawful to knock one out of the sky if it can safely be done?
    Check FAA regs on hobby aircraft. No flights over others property without permission. No flying over 400 ft. Not within 2 miles of airport. Not over public areas where people congregate.
    Licensed drones require licensed pilot who is trained on legal flight rules and can fly more places.
        Joe nimrod breaks the law when he flies over your property. If a paparazzi enters your property trying to get photos you can shoot the trespasser. Why not shoot tech doing the same thing.

Re:Next Phase

[Carewolf]

Sounds like the standard self-defense clause would cover it then. No point in adding bullshit on top.

Re: Next Phase

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

No military on the planet uses the AR-15. Some militaries use the related - and more versatile - M-16, this is true. But the AR-15 is not a military weapon. You also do see massacres with handguns; at close range there's really not much difference.

Re: Next Phase

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

It's something actually pretty important in this context - the AR-15 can't do fully automatic fire unless you go through a lot of work with the ATF. The M16, which is what the military uses, can do fully automatic. Anyone who was actually in the military and used a rifle should know the difference. In this case, the AC not knowing the proper terminology and getting facts wrong is important.

Re:Next Phase

[wierd_w]

It's just a pipe with a 3d printed abs or nylon diameter reducer with a 45 degree angled inlet the size of the silly string straw. Not complicated at all. The only part you need to print is the venturi inlet diameter adapter. Everything else is off the shelf.

Basically, the parts list looks like this:

(1) air compressor with quick disconnect hose.
(1) threaded quick disconnect connector
(1) 5in long, 1in Dia threaded pvc pipe
(1) 3d printed venturi coupler
(1) 36in long, 1/4in dia threaded pvc pipe
(1) roll Teflon tape
(1) can silly string

Attach 1in dia pipe to the threaded side of the discconnect connector, after wrapping the threads in teflon tape.

Attach the the venturi adapter to the other side of the 1in dia pipe using teflon tape.

Attach the 1/4 dia pipe to the small end of the adapter using teflon tape.

Insert silly string straw into inlet hole.

Insert other side of silly string straw into the sprayer head of the can of silly string.

Attach the assembled venturi pipe to the air compressor hose.

Turn on the air compressor and fill the tank.

Open the valve on the hose to let air through.

Point the narrow end in the direction you want to spray silly string.

Depress the sprayer head to dispense silly string into the venturi.

To make it automatic, you need a simple 3 axis armature, and a solonoid plunger to push the sprayhead down. Maybe an electrically controlled valve to turn air on and off down the pipe, and of course, the camera to track with. (Machine vision is no picnic, but there are fairly mature foss modules out there for doing this.)

A beaglebone black with the camera shield, a single bit gpio for the solonoid, 6 pwm gpios to drive the armature stepper motors, and a suitable power supply would satisfy nicely.

If you want to get fancy, you could make a multi-barrel version that pulses the pipes and cans to increase string delivery yield.

I have all the stuff needed to make the simple venturi pipe already, including the 3d printer. This is a holiday weekend, i think i will build it.

Re:Next Phase

[amiga3D]

Yes, down range maybe. Try shooting a drone straight up overhead. I've shot plenty of skeet and I've also done a good bit of dove and quail hunting. I mostly use modified choke for quail and full choke on dove. I know I've been hit at a dove shoot at 100 yards by a 12 gauge and it stung pretty bad but I didn't have to pick any out. I cussed that son of a bitch for all I was worth.

Re: Next Phase

[amiga3D]

I can't condemn him but it's not funny. There's nothing funny about killing someone. I hope I never have the need but I certainly would if I felt my life threatened.

Re:Next Phase

[unixisc]

Who said anything about America? I just talked about property rights!

Re:Next Phase

[Pseudonym]

If the laws worry you, you can always write checks rather than walk around with $10,000 in cash.

I don't think a $10,000 check is enough of a bribe (err... sorry, campaign contribution) to get the laws overturned.

Re: Next Phase

[Mr. Slippery]

When someone is sitting on your chest and slamming the back of your head into the sidewalk, you can shoot him in any State, stand your ground or otherwise.

Not when that someone is defending themselves against your assault, no. You cannot attack someone and then claim self-defense. It was Trayvon Martin who had the legal and moral right to stand his ground that night; it's unfortunate that the bad guy was armed and got away with it.

Re: Next Phase

[Bartles]

Lol. So when did Zimmerman attack Martin? You need to go read the actual facts of the case that came out at trial.

Re:Next Phase

[Agripa]

But here we are talking about someone flying a drone within range of a shotgun loaded with birdshot.

Is the standard they can fly the drone anywhere unless it hits her nose?

Re:Next Phase

[Coren22]

If a dog attacks him, and he shoots it, he is within his rights. If the dog owner then attacks him, he is also within his rights to defend himself there too. The first responders would be dealing with the idiot that attacked reboot, not reboot himself except to figure out if it was self defence.

Re: Next Phase

[NotAPK]

"There is never a legitimate reason for someone to be breaking into your home. You should always assume they mean you harm (physcal damage, property damage/theft)."

Teenage daughter sneaking in after a night out with her boyfriend.

Said boyfriend trying to sneak in to meet with daughter.

House mate lost keys and is trying to climb through window.

Best friend with spare key gets kicked out by wife and needs to crash: no answer when he rings the front door, or it's 3am and he didn't want to wake you, just snuck in to get some kip on the couch before talking it over with you in the morning.

Family member wandering around sleep walking, general confusion, poor visibility, mistaken for intruder.

All of these scenarios are possible and would result in a tragic situation if you responded with lethal force. The question then is one of probability: do you think these scenarios are more or less likely compared to an armed intruder breaking into your house and stealing your shit and posing a threat to your safety? Where do you live? Port Moresby?

Re:Next Phase

[NotAPK]

I thought that's why revolvers had a heavy trigger pull, or a two-weight pull system? I'm no expert, but firing for the first time requires a very heavy pull, which while not a true safety makes the weapon much safer with a bullet in the revolver's current chamber. After each shot the pull is much less, as the hammer "self-cocks" due to the revolver action. To get the same effect on the first shot the operator can cock the pistol and apply the extra pull directly to the hammer with their thumb: which is the classic scene shown in many many movies. Once the arm is cocked in that fashion the trigger pull required to fire is significantly less.

Am I right about this? I live in a gun-free jurisdiction and can only remember what I learnt on a firearms course I took when I visited the USA.

Re:Next Phase

[AK Marc]

The thumb-cock in movies is a dramatic feature. They'll show a Glock, without an external hammer, then in the closeup, show a hammer cock. And a revolver with a hard pull will need just as much every time. Fanning the gun is real (cocking the hammer with the palm of the off-hand for rapid revolver fire), but so inaccurate it's something you'll only see in movies.

Re: Next Phase

[HornWumpus]

They look at you like a nut when you show up with a 10 gauge though.

Re: Next Phase

[ProzacPatient]

I was responding to the parent post insinuation that use of lethal force is justified under any circumstance involving trespass and so I was saying that castle doctrine likely wouldn't cover this even if the drone could be somehow perceived as a threat; you can't just shoot anyone/anything that; walks, drives or flies onto your property and that Virginia has a stricter criteria to justify lethal force to boot. If the case were otherwise you could shoot away at any car that pulls in your driveway which obviously isn't legal nor rational. I can't speak for Virginia but I do know here in North Carolina there is a separate statute covering trespass with a vehicle in which case your only recourse is to call the sheriff's department and let them handle it, anything more and you're putting yourself in seriously questionable, if not outright illegal, territory. Except in the most extreme circumstances, as provided for in law, property rights do not outweigh the rights of others such as not having holes in their bodies or their property.

Source: Licensed concealed carrier. A course on the legal aspects of lethal force are mandatory in my state in order to be licensed, furthermore licensees are responsible for keeping themselves up to date on the law.

Re: Next Phase

[Chas]

Oh boo fucking hoo on you.

Sorry, but it's a commonly accepted social precept that you shouldn't steal from others.

And, in an armed society, doing so CAN GET YOU SHOT.

Get over it.

No such thing as a .20 gauge

[damn_registrars]

The .410 bore is a size of shotgun shell, as is the 20 gauge. There is no decimal in the 20.

Re:No such thing as a .20 gauge

[Anonymous Coward]

The 20-gauge shotgun is a type of smoothbore shotgun shell that is smaller in caliber (.615) than a 12 gauge (.729). It is often used as a beginning shooter's practice round and is noted by its yellow hull.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/20-gauge_shotgun

Re:No such thing as a .20 gauge

[s122604]

.410 is a measurement of the diameter of the bore.
"gauge" is a measurement how many lead balls, cast into balls the size of the bore, you would need to equal some weight ( a pound I think, I refuse to google it...).

Re:No such thing as a .20 gauge

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is this modded informative? If anything it should be modded misinformative as none of the information short of ".410 is a measurement of diameter of the bore." .410 means it's .410 inches across. I don't know the conversion from gauge to inches, but the smaller the number, the bigger the bore. 12 gauge is somewhere between .75 and 1 inch across. As for the balls, that's the shot number, where again, bigger number means smaller shot size. #8 shot being quite small and fairly standard for trap shooting. But shot size is independent from gauge. You put #8 in both 12 gauge and 20 gauge and it doesn't affect the size of the shot.

Re:No such thing as a .20 gauge

[Anubis IV]

The OP is correct in saying that the ".20 gauge" mentioned in the summary makes no sense, since it would suggest a shotgun large enough to fire lead balls that each weighed 5 pounds. We'd practically be talking about small cannonballs at that point.

Both ".410" and "20-gauge" (with no decimal) are valid ways to refer to a shotgun. The former does so directly by telling you that the bore size is .410, as you said. The latter does so indirectly, since you can use the gauge to calculate the caliber (as you alluded to, shotgun gauges tell you how many lead balls you'd need at that caliber to equal one pound). In the case of a 20-gauge shotgun (i.e. a shotgun that has a caliber the size of a lead ball that is 1/20th a pound), it's a .615 caliber. But few people refer to 20-gauges that way, so far as I know.

All of which is to say, while ".410" and "20-gauge" are valid ways to refer to shotguns, ".410-gauge" is not (because .410 is a bore size, not a gauge) nor is ".20-gauge" (because it's supposed to be "20-gauge", not ".20-gauge").

Re:No such thing as a .20 gauge

[s122604]

Well, I'm not going to say it deserves a +5, because it's my comment, but you are confusing some things here, namely how shotguns are sized (bore or gauge), and how the shot within shotgun shells is sized :
Shotguns, in modern usage are spec-ed out in the following sizes: 12 gauge, 20 gauge, 28 gauge, and .410 bore (yes I know there are others, but this is what you'll find at your local walmart)
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)..
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 .410 bore would be a 67 "gauge"...

shot sizes, like #4 bird, or #4 buck, or #8 bird, or BBB, or T, or F is measured differently, a different conversation...

Re:No such thing as a .20 gauge

[laughingskeptic]

Wrong. Gauge means diameter. The term you are referring to is "load". http://www.nssfblog.com/firsts...

Re: No such thing as a .20 gauge

[Bartles]

There could be a decimal in the gauge. It just means the shotgun would big enough to be capable of shooting a 5lb lead ball.

Re:No such thing as a .20 gauge

[maz2331]

A .20 gauge (with the decimal) would need a bore diameter around 70mm. That would be a cannon or mortar.

I know what happened next

[portwojc]

She got to clean the shotgun again.

Re:I know what happened next

[coolmoe2]

Yep time to start all over. Damn kids and their high tech toys.

America in one sentence

[Anonymous Coward]

"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"

Yeesh.

Re:America in one sentence

[wonkey_monkey]

Hey, there's nothing in the bible against guns.

Re:America in one sentence

[Reaperducer]

Yes, she has a different lifestyle than yours. She must be mocked and ridiculed.

Way to celebrate diversity there, homie.

Re:America in one sentence

[Anonymous Coward]

(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.

Re:America in one sentence

[I75BJC]

If fact, there are verses in the Bible that are pro-gun (in a general sense) and pro-self-defense. Jesus Christ told his followers to sell their extra cloak and buy a sword. Many people, especially those unfamiliar with the Gospels, don't know this.

Re:America in one sentence

[lgw]

In the early days of America, most of the colonies had a law requiring you to bring your gun to church, at least for men, in case something/someone needed shooting that week. Similar laws predate guns, going back, well, as far as we have written records of laws . Many cultures, perhaps most, have required citizens to keep arms in good condition. Heck, mostly what defined a "knight" from roman times to medieval was that your could brings better weapons to the fight.

Re:America in one sentence

[penguinoid]

"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"

Yeesh.

Uh, "Cleanliness is next to Godliness."

Re:America in one sentence

[gtall]

She was filled with the Love of Jesus Christ.

Re:America in one sentence

[Anonymous Coward]

so that they could defend themselves from wild animals on their ministry...

not for use on other people...

Re:America in one sentence

[gtall]

Yeah, nice to think we have not progressed since then, eh?

Re:America in one sentence

[smooth wombat]

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.

Re:America in one sentence

[HornWumpus]

Never did make a lot of sense to me.

What kind of fancy cloak or rusty broken sword would that trade imply? This is the year 30 AD...

I suspect they translated 'knife' into 'sword', but don't read enough greek or Aramaic to check.

My favorite new testament verse: 'If someone won't work, they shall not eat' (para).

Re:America in one sentence

[Dread_ed]

Self and other defense, judicial punishment, war. These are the justifiable reasons for homicide in the Bible.

Re:America in one sentence

[Dread_ed]

We haven't changed our bodies or minds out for anything newer since then, so the fundamentals would still apply. When you have a shiny metallic ass to bite we can talk about progress in this area. Until then, the basic principles of "delicate meat sacks with opinions" will always apply. Progress will be measured in terms of who forgets this first and, as a result, dies at the hands of another less "progressive" person.

Re:America in one sentence

[sjames]

My favorite new testament verse: 'If someone won't work, they shall not eat' (para).

Given that at that time, the poor were permitted to help themselves to the edges of the fields, that made sense. If you couldn't even be bothered to go harvest what you needed (assuming you were able), then yeah.

Of course, too many confuse won't work with can't work and no employment available that pays more than it costs.

Re:America in one sentence

[HornWumpus]

That was specifically in context of people in a community expecting to be served but not work.

Nobodies first job is a good one, but it's a necessary first step.

Re:America in one sentence

[legRoom]

so that they could defend themselves from wild animals

Swords have never been the weapon of choice for hunting or defence against dangerous animals; people wanted something that would allow them to keep the animal at a distance, like a bow, spear/javelin, sling, or some kind of trap.

As a weapon, swords were almost exclusively for fighting people.

Re:America in one sentence

[sjames]

That was specifically in context of people in a community expecting to be served but not work.

Yes, in other words people who actually couldn't be bothered to go get food.

Re: America in one sentence

[lgw]

Knighthood only overlapped with religion in a few times and places - it was really just cavalry. "Chivalry" meant "horsemanship" for most of the time the word was current, and only came to mean "and other things knights should do" towards the end.

Human nature doesn't change, nor does the need to protect civilization from assholes. However, combat robots will fundamentally redefine "arms" in the coming decades, and there's no telling what that looks like.

Re:America in one sentence

[legRoom]

context

That line is from the end of 2nd Thessalonians. Paul tended to organize his letters (loosely) into two parts: theory, followed by application.

The theory part of 2nd Thessalonians corrects a misconception which had arisen: some were saying that Jesus would return to judge the world very soon - so soon, in fact, that some people decided to ignore everyday concerns and just focus on being spiritual (or pretending to be).

"For we hear that there are some who walk disorderly among you, not working at all, but being busybodies." 2nd Thessalonians 3:11

Paul corrects this by saying, in the theory part, that certain visible, earthly events must take place before Jesus comes back - notably, the appearance of a powerful new world leader in the Middle East who will blaspheme the God of the Bible and instead claim that he himself is a god, demanding (under penalty of death) to be worshipped. Until various such end-times prophecies begin to be fulfilled in earnest (which hasn't happened yet), Christians are not to suppose that Jesus is coming back tomorrow, or anything like that:

"Now we beseech you, my brothers, with regard to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, that you should not be soon shaken in mind or troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word or letter, as through us, as if the Day of Christ is at hand. Let not anyone deceive you by any means. For that Day shall not come unless there first comes a falling away, and the man of sin shall be revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God, or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, setting himself forth, that he is God." 2nd Thessalonians 2:1-4

In the application part, Paul basically says, "Therefore, stop being lazy and go earn your bread, like everyone else!" (That being my interpretation of 2nd Thessalonians 3:6-15 in context, not his actual words).

This instruction was necessary because Jesus and the Apostles taught that providing for the physical needs of fellow Christians was an essential duty of the church, and so those who chose not to work were able to free-load off of those who did work. But, that generosity was always intended for those who were disabled, elderly, sick, or shut out of the workplace by persecution - not for self-appointed monks and nuns.

"Then the King shall say to those on His right hand, Come, blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry, and you gave me food; I was thirsty, and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger, and you took Me in; I was naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me.

"Then the righteous shall answer Him, saying, Lord, when did we see You hungry, and fed You? Or thirsty, and gave You drink? When did we see You a stranger, and took You in? Or naked, and clothed You? Or when did we see You sick, or in prison, and came to You?

"And the King shall answer and say to them, Truly I say to you, Inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brothers, you have done it to Me." Matthew 25:34-40

So, it really has nothing to do with class wars one way or the other, in the ordinary sense - although the Bible does have quite a lot to say about the structure of a just economy in other places.

Re:America in one sentence

[HornWumpus]

People who's jobs likely had nothing to do with food. But who didn't want to work.

Work is beneath some people. If they can't be rock/rap stars they'll do nothing. Likely claim the work 'costs more than it pays', those jobs would have no employees if they existed.

Re:America in one sentence

[argStyopa]

And it's American journalism in one sentence to call a shotgun a ".20 gauge".
Morons.

Re:America in one sentence

[legRoom]

What kind of fancy cloak or rusty broken sword would that trade imply? This is the year 30 AD...

The price ranges for a real hand-made, genuine wool cloak versus a hand-forged carbon steel short-sword appear to overlap substantially today. Although the technology has changed somewhat in both cases, I don't see any fundamental reason to think the relative price difference would have been tremendously different back then.

I suspect they translated 'knife' into 'sword', but don't read enough greek or Aramaic to check.

The Greek word in Luke 22:36 is "machaira" (Strong's G3162), which in the New Testament is only ever used in reference to a weapon. Despite the widespread controversy (even among Christians) as to the moral intent of the verse, people who are actually qualified to translate Biblical Greek have consistently chosen "sword" as the best English word to represent it.

(Here's the complete list of verses, for anyone who wants to verify this: Matthew 10:34, 26:47, 26:52, 26:55, Mark 14:43, 14:48, Luke 21:24, 22:36, 22:38, 22:49, 22:52, John 18:10, Acts 12:2, 16:27, Romans 8:35, Hebrews 4:12, 11:34, 11:37, Revelation 6:4, 13:10)

Never did make a lot of sense to me.

There is a common misconception - one that I held to myself, for several years - that Jesus taught his followers to be pacifists. This really was not the case though. Briefly:

Jesus and the Apostles were very consistent in their teaching that Christianity is the continuation and fulfilment of the message of Moses and the Old Testament prophets, including warriors like Joshua and David. The ceremony, circumstances, and calling of the New Testament Church are different than that of the Old Testament nation of Israel, but the fundamental morality and theology is not.

"Do not think that I have come to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to destroy but to fulfill." Matthew 5:17

"For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh; so that the righteousness of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit." Romans 8:3-4

So, any interpretation of the New Testament which makes its morality obviously and wildly inconsistent with that of the Old cannot represent the true intent of the writers. As I see it, there are two main sources of the legitimate confusion about Jesus' teachings on violence:

1) Unlike the nation of Israel, the Christian Church was not commissioned as an earthly government.

Both the New and the Old Testament consistently uphold the right of the State to enforce the law and defend its independence through violence. For example: "For the rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the bad. And do you desire to be not afraid of the authority? Do the good, and you shall have praise from it. For it is a servant of God to you for good. For if you practice evil, be afraid, for it does not bear the sword in vain; for it is a servant of God, a revenger for wrath on him who does evil. Therefore you must be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience' sake." Romans 13:3-5

The Old Testament generals, like Joshua and King David were the government, and so leading armies into battle was a part of their duties. On the other hand, when (before he was king) David found himself being unjustly hunted by the mad King Saul, he was very reluctant to fight back, even to save his life: "And he said to his men, Far be it from me, by the LORD, if I will do this thing to my lord, the LORD's anointed, to stretch forth my hand against him, since he is the anointed of the LORD." 1st Samuel 24:6.

In the New Testament, when Jesus famously said, "put up your sword again into its place; for all who take the sword shall peri

Re:America in one sentence

[amiga3D]

Oh come on, you know it's funny. Old lady comes home from church and sets out on the porch cleaning her guns. A drone comes by and she pops it. That shit is funny, I don't care who you are.

Re:America in one sentence

[amiga3D]

I don't see it as stupid or dangerous in particular. She used a shotgun with bird shot. A light shotgun at that. If she had shot the pilot that would have been a different matter.

Re:America in one sentence

[sjames]

Those jobs mostly exist for people bad at math. Kinda like sometimes a business will make a desperate play of selling below cost as a desperate ploy to make payroll one more month. It usually doesn't work out.

There are people that incredibly lazy, but there's less of them than you might think.

Re:America in one sentence

[excelsior_gr]

She's being ridiculed not because her lifestyle is different, but because it combines practicing a religion that is pacifist and teaches to "turn the other cheek" with the maintenance and usage of lethal weaponry.

Re:America in one sentence

[Anonymous Coward]

"You're right, people who destroy other people's property without cause don't desever to be mocked and ridiculed. They deserve to be put away for the greater good." Are you talking about the woman who shot the drone, or the men who were getting their jollies chasing livestock with a flying robot?

Re:America in one sentence

[tazan]

Around here .410 and 20 gauge are not considered lethal weapons. It's what you would give your kid to play with out in the woods.

Re:America in one sentence

[meta-monkey]

Probably because a modern gun registration system would not be used for the same purposes. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Re:America in one sentence

[nealric]

And many people who are familiar with the gospels don't understand that much of what Jesus said was not intended to be taken literally.

Re:America in one sentence

[HornWumpus]

Even people bad a math quit those jobs in a week, maybe two if they are really tards.

If such a job existed it would have no employees, the employer would be broke.

You are most likely referring to pure commish type work. which isn't profitable for most, but for sales weasels it is.

Re:America in one sentence

[sjames]

Have you seen the turnover rates?

Re:America in one sentence

[internerdj]

Odds are you will hand your child at 16 a item that they are 4 times as likely to kill someone else with than a firearm. You'll pretend it is fine because it is a necessity of our society, but really it is a social status, convenience, and pleasure thing. Really, it would really be far safer to delay until they were more mature and weren't dealing with the early adulthood hormonal changes, further if we could find a better way it would be even better if we kept everyone from doing it period. You'll also pretend it is fine because you've trained your kid, you've had professionals train your kid, and frankly your kid is just a little better than everyone else. You'll be a little apprehensive of the danger and for a while you will worry every time they are out with it. You're nerves will calm some as they get experience, but you will still warn them until you die to be safe when using it. Don't worry though, we don't have to call it a weapon despite how very likely it is to kill someone, we can call it a vehicle. Also don't worry about your convictions on lethal weapons because it is inconceivable that anyone who would hand their children any other potentially dangerous thing would go through any sort of similar process: tablesaws, lawnmowers, firearms, clorox, etc.

Re:America in one sentence

[HornWumpus]

For what?

Employers don't make money from 1 week employees.

Re:America in one sentence

[sjames]

There are plenty of soul sucking jobs that slowly damage your mental and physical health. They may seem (barely) gainful until you have to pay the piper (doctor).

But about those boiler rooms, there are one or two that just don't get the message to quit calling. They seem pretty shady, so are likely frauds. Each time, the caller sounds like they couldn't have been at it for more than a week or two. That's because they burn 'em and churn 'em.

Re:America in one sentence

[HornWumpus]

People make livings in boiler rooms. Not good livings, but they typically made a bunch of bad decisions that put them in the boiler room chair in the first place. It can be their best alternative.

I once worked on software used to script calls and collect data. It was a shit job, but I wasn't above it.

Re:America in one sentence

[cwsumner]

"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"

Yeesh.

Uh, "Cleanliness is next to Godliness."

Where I live, no one would think that was unusual... 8-)

Re:America in one sentence

[sjames]

Some people eke out a crappy living in boiler rooms. Others spend more on gas getting to work than they make while at work. Still more discover there's no paycheck due to some imagined infraction (by design).

Re:America in one sentence

[Coren22]

The bible has issues with murdering. However, killing in defence of home or country is perfectly allowed.

Re:America in one sentence

[Coren22]

You must be posting this from Europe, it seems many Europeans have no idea what parts of the US are like. Very likely, this lady lives in the Appalachian mountains, which is an area of the US well known for still containing wild animals, such as brown bears, cougars, likely wolves (as they have been making a comeback). This lady likely has very good reason for her ownership of firearms. Trying to condemn a freedom we as Americans decided 240 years ago to give to every person in the US, because you don't agree with it, is silly beyond belief. Perhaps we should start telling you how to run your country next?

Re:America in one sentence

[Coren22]

Name the law, otherwise it can be assumed you are making it up.

Re:America in one sentence

[HornWumpus]

Taking a 4 year old to the gun range on the same day the 'bunched panty brigade' were protesting.

When he told them they would get his AIR-15 from his 'cold dead hands' I had to laugh.

All I can say is

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice shot.

Good for the Goose

[Tulsa_Time]

Ask "the same Robert Duvall from The Godfather" if he would be ok with one of those hovering over his home.... I am sure he is fine with the press/paparazzi using those. If it was scaring her cows and invading her privacy... all I can say is "good shot".

Re:Good for the Goose

[penguinoid]

I bet she could save a whole lot of money on lawyers if she bought some drones and had them hover around his property until he either shot one or went insane.

Re:Drones might have weapons.

[Fwipp]

An abandoned stroller could be a bomb. Better blow it up, just to be safe.

25 to 30 feet above the trees?

[JoeyRox]

Seems pretty high up in the sky to claim the drone was trespassing. I hope none of the local news helicopters happen to fly over her house.

Re:25 to 30 feet above the trees?

[zlives]

she got it with birdshot...

Re:25 to 30 feet above the trees?

[OrangeTide]

If you fire on an FAA registered aircraft, you will find yourself in a world of hurt. And that's even if that helicopter made an emergency landing on your property. (so 0 feet)

Re:25 to 30 feet above the trees?

[asylumx]

If news helicopters are flying that low, they are violating FAA minimum altitude regulations anyway (91.119).

(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.

(d) Helicopters, powered parachutes, and weight-shift-control aircraft. If the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface—

(1) A helicopter may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, provided each person operating the helicopter complies with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the FAA; and

(2) A powered parachute or weight-shift-control aircraft may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (c) of this section.

Re:25 to 30 feet above the trees?

[Tulsa_Time]

How would anyone know that? Like saying shooting home invader... that had a gun permit.

Re:25 to 30 feet above the trees?

[Obfuscant]

... they are violating FAA minimum altitude regulations ... (1) A helicopter may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, provided each person operating the helicopter complies with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the FAA

Were there any FAA routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for that location? No? Then they aren't violating the FAA minimum altitude restrictions.

Re:25 to 30 feet above the trees?

[ColdWetDog]

Depends on how tall those trees were. If the trees were 50 feet tall, +20-30 would be 80 feet, which is below the 83 feet the Supreme Court specified.

The FAA needs to fix its regs because I don't think people have a right to send drones into my personal space (say, right up against the windows of my house).

The FAA doesn't have any regs. That was a Supreme Court decision and it wasn't about shooting anything down, it was about getting compensation for some chickens with PTSD.

Re:25 to 30 feet above the trees?

[godrik]

I am no fan of shooting drones and no legal expert. But a 3 story house would be roughly of that height. It is a pretty good height to snap pictures through your last floor windows.

Re:25 to 30 feet above the trees?

[OrangeTide]

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.

Re:25 to 30 feet above the trees?

[drinkypoo]

I am no fan of shooting drones and no legal expert. But a 3 story house would be roughly of that height.

Uh no. Only flying houses are commonly located 25 to 30 feet above the trees.

Re:25 to 30 feet above the trees?

[narcc]

A three-story house would be about 45 feet tall. If you're peeping in to windows 25-30 feet above the trees, those would be some very short trees! Something on the order of a Dogwood or Cherry tree.

NBC Washington has a picture, looks like she has oak & maple, which grow to ~60 feet. The article also puts the drone at around 75 feet in the air.

Re:25 to 30 feet above the trees?

[godrik]

Uh no. Only flying houses are commonly located 25 to 30 feet above the trees.

hum. that is what I missed. Depending on the trees, it may not be that unreasonable.

Re:25 to 30 feet above the trees?

[godrik]

Oh, "above the tree" is what I missed. Depending on the tree it may not be that unreasonable.

I think that opens lots of questions. 75 feet is high enough for it to probably be harmless in term of privacy. But at the same time, it is low enough that I would feel uncomfortable about the drone. Depending on the size of the property and the distance to the house, there are weird angles through windows possible. The presence of drones change the "expectation of privacy".

I feel legislation is going to be necessary.

Re:25 to 30 feet above the trees?

[amiga3D]

Helicopters have people in them. Drones are just little flying robots. Very important difference. At most she should have to buy the jackass a new drone.

Re:25 to 30 feet above the trees?

[OverlordQ]

That's not how that works.

Re:25 to 30 feet above the trees?

[JeffOwl]

Actually, in this case, it is.

Re:25 to 30 feet above the trees?

[Coren22]

or sparsely populated areas.

FTFA:

With a single shotgun blast, a 65-year-old woman in rural northern Virginia recently shot down a drone flying over her property.

Sparsely populated would apply.

Re:Drones might have weapons.

[zlives]

if its on your property... sure.

Case Backwards

[ytene]

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..."

Re:Case Backwards

[Hope Thelps]

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.

No. She wasn't test firing and it didn't stray into her line of fire. She aimed at it, shot at it and hit it. Unless you think she's lying about what happened, but I don't see how that's "a matter of perspective".

Re: Case Backwards

[ytene]

Apparently mild sarcasm as an attempt at humour doesn't work on slash dot. Duly noted.

Re:Case Backwards

[Obfuscant]

Further, this argument that claims that it was the fault of the drone pilot for being "on private property" can be used to support the shooting death of any person who happens to wander onto your private property, for any reason. "If only they hadn't been there, my discharge of a lethal weapon wouldn't have killed them ..."

Re:Case Backwards

[vux984]

It's mainly trespassing only if you're told not to do it

So you have to yell at the drone first? That's kind of pointless.

Its one thing if your hiking in a public park and wander into a part of adjoining woods that's actually private property. No fence, and there can't be a sign on every tree... so yeah now your tresspassing; but almost nobody would fault you for it; and certainly not 'criminally charge you with it', so long as you immediately left after being told.

Warned the operators then shot?

How do you warn the operators? Maybe in some cases you can see them standing there. But as often as not you cannot locate or identify the operators nevermind warn them.

I'm certainly not in favor of shooting first ask questions later, but I don't see much choice. Its unmanned, unmarked, unregistered...

She couldn't have known it wasn't transporting life-saving meds to someone or trying to find someone lost in the woods. Easy to guess it wasn't, but guessing isn't being positive.

Quite so. But we live in a world mostly without absolutes. People are imprisoned for life based on a judgement 'beyond a reasonable doubt'; so I'm pretty sure the threshold for shooting down a trespassing drone can be less than absolute certainty.

Re: Case Backwards

[Obfuscant]

Apparently mild sarcasm as an attempt at humour doesn't work on slash dot. Duly noted.

When you make the same argument as sarcasm that other people make seriously every time this topic comes up, expect it not to be treated as sarcasm. Duly noted.

Re: Case Backwards

[haruchai]

Apparently mild sarcasm as an attempt at humour doesn't work on slash dot. Duly noted.

Poe's Law covers this for a lot more places than Slashdot

Re:Case Backwards

[HideyoshiJP]

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?

Might I suggest you revisit the landmark case United States v. Aladdin?

Re:Case Backwards

[penguinoid]

Is it trespassing if you drive a hovercraft?

Re:Case Backwards

[lgw]

In some states, it is perfectly legal to shoot someone on your property as long as you say the magic words "I was in fear for my life". Of course, it would be awkward if your target survived the shot and told a different story, but that problem has a straightforward solution.

True story from Texas: my mother bought a gun after a couple of break-ins. She asked the cops what the rules were. The explained that she should make sure he "falls inside the house *wink*" and that he doesn't survive.

Re:Case Backwards

[drinkypoo]

So you have to yell at the drone first? That's kind of pointless.

It doesn't matter. You can never legally shoot down a drone. It's considered an aircraft, and shooting down an aircraft is not the kind of thing that the FAA wants people to get away with. But also, that's how trespass law commonly works. It's certainly how it works in California. Signs mean fuck-all, unless there is a fence with a locked gate. Once I encounter you on my property and tell you to leave, if you resist I can execute a citizen's arrest for trespassing. That's how security guards function in California; they have no powers that you don't whatsoever, although some counties have set up the potential for armed security guards to carry a firearm openly.

Re:Case Backwards

[Reaperducer]

It's mainly trespassing only if you're told not to do it, else it's assumed you're allowed to pass through.

Guess how we know you're not a lawyer.

Re:Case Backwards

[Mr D from 63]

Further, this argument that claims that it was the fault of the drone pilot for being "on private property" can be used to support the shooting death of any person who happens to wander onto your private property, for any reason. "If only they hadn't been there, my discharge of a lethal weapon wouldn't have killed them ..."

Someone might make such an argument if they did not realize that there are a very different set of laws when it comes to injuring or killing people than there are for property damage. Fortunately, folks here are smarter than that.

Re:Case Backwards

[somenickname]

A better analogy is if these guys had come at night, put a camera on a tree and pointed it at her house. Would it be legal for her to take down that camera and destroy it? Presumably, yes.

Re:Case Backwards

[demonlapin]

Yeah, I've had cops tell me more-or-less that the corpse should end up inside the house, and that they would ignore any blood trails that suggested otherwise. Suburban environment, though, not casually-strayed-ten-feet-from-border-of-national-forest-into-private-property.

Re:Case Backwards

[vux984]

It doesn't matter. You can never legally shoot down a drone

I have an RC model i can fly around my kitchen. The FAA doesn't give a lick whether I crash it into the couch, the kids shoot it down with water pistols, or the dog chomps it right out of the air.

But also, that's how trespass law commonly works. [...] Once I encounter you on my property and tell you to leave, if you resist I can execute a citizen's arrest for trespassing.

That is how trespassing is applied to PEOPLE. Objects are more complicated.

Let's say you aren't home for the afternoon... and then I
- park a bicycle on your front lawn and then leave.
- park a car on your front lawn and then leave.
- crash a kite into your yard, and then leave.

These are also all trespasses.

And in general the law copes with all of these quite well; albeit differently from how it copes with with people. IF you know whose it is you can write them a letter asking them to remove it; and if they don't you can press charges for trespass, and also sue them for any costs associated with having it removed.

In the case of a vehicle in particular, because its large, heavy, usually valuable, and registered to someone this is always possible; and you can also call the police and have the vehicle towed; or even just call the towing company directly -- as this is common enough; they can escalate it to the police if they need to.

In principle you can call the police and have the bike and kite removed as well and the owner can then claim it from them, but in practice as the dollar value of the property goes down the police become less interested, and it becomes more permissible to just dispose of it. (But the property never actually becomes yours unless a court awards it to you, so if the original owner comes looking for it can become nasty if you disposed of something valuable that they left on your property.

Now drones are a bit more unique, because its still trespass; and the property owners, in principle have the right to collect the object on the property, and they can then call the police to turn it in and file a report that they want to press charges against the owner for tresspass, etc. Consider someone playing with an RC car on your property for example, but standing on the other side of the property line -- or perhaps the RC car was programmed like a drone (relying on cameras, gps, programmed routes etc so the operator could be completely out of site / far away.

You would absolutely be in your rights to catch the RC car, turn it in, call the police, and press charge for trespass if the owners show up to claim it.

While the property owner cannot simply destroy the car; if the car were damaged in the process of seizing it, I would expect the courts to side with the trespassee over liability for any damage caused incidental to recovering it.

However, aircraft drones by their nature are much harder to collect, and they can 'remove themselves from your property' without the owner having to physically show up to collect them. They are also noisy. They are usually equipped with cameras and other surveillance equipment so instead of being merely a passive object 'left' on your property; they are actively violating the owners property to much greater degree. That should not be allowed to occur with impunity.

I'm not sure what the solution here really is. In the absence of an obvious operator to complain to, by shooting it down, the property owner has, *in my opinion* taken a reasonable step to collect the unwanted drone on his property; so that it can be recovered and turned in to the police.

If the FAA wants a different solution then I propose clearly visible call letters and a radio identity beacon a smartphone app could read would need to be on any drone, so that I could easily call the police and report the trespass. Drone operators would need to register their drones, and report and record flight plans.

And any drone that wasn't

Re:Case Backwards

[GrayWizard]

Only if it's full of eels.

Re:Case Backwards

[slew]

You can never legally shoot down a drone.

You might think/wish that is true, but the legal precedence is a bit mixed in this department. Consider the case of William Merideth of Kentucky...
Perhaps eventually this will be decided (in this case or perhaps another), but it is currently a bit of legal grey area...

As for trespass, there are basically two types of criminal trespass. One type of criminal trespass is that if you have *intent* when you trespass to damage, occupy or interfere with business (even if there was no sign, nor a physical barrier), you can be charged with criminal trespass even if nobody tells you to leave. Of course if you inadvertently stumble on someone else's property w/o such intent and never actually caused damage, nor interference, you could not be charged with criminal trespass until someone actually asked you to leave. At that point, defying their order to leave, you will have committed the other type of criminal trespass: willfully entering or occupying a property w/o consent (which would of course also be true if you overcame a physical barrier to enter the property such as a locked gate).

On the other hand you could just lie and say you didn't see the sign (which is probably what your lawyer would have you say) and wait until someone tells you to leave. But if by your actions, the property owner could prove some sort of *intent* to damage, occupy or interfere, you will likely be standing on thin ice saying you simply didn't see a sign...

Re:Case Backwards

[Obfuscant]

Someone might make such an argument if they did not realize that there are a very different set of laws when it comes to injuring or killing people than there are for property damage. Fortunately, folks here are smarter than that.

Are they smart enough to see the words "used to support" an argument and not assume it means "fully justify in the eyes of the law?" And the words "for any reason" allude to situations much less serious than someone breaking into your house or threatening you with a weapon ("I was afraid for my life"), such as "a five year old girl standing next to your mailbox at the end of your driveway 200 feet away from you."

Re:Case Backwards

[AK Marc]

Enable HA failed.Update object 44 failed, stale object state.

A drone can't trespass. A person can, a device can't. If you come home and find someone else parked their car in your yard, you can't yell "trespass" and shoot it. A drone would be treated like an unattended vehicle. You must use appropriate care, or you are liable.

Re:Case Backwards

[quenda]

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,

Ah, the "Its coming right for us" defense. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

to fly their drone in a public recreation area, or drone park, instead of over private property, their loss could have been avoided.

The gunman even admitted it was blown onto her property by a strong wind. So no.

 

Re:Case Backwards

[vux984]

A drone can't trespass.

The drone isn't trespassing. The owner of the drone is trespassing. But you can't apprehend or warn someone that isn't there, but you can seize the property and turn it into police.

You must use appropriate care, or you are liable.

Agreed. What then is the appropriate care to bring down an unmanned unattended object hovering over your property out of arms reach?

Re:Case Backwards

[Mr D from 63]

Not sure, but if one drifts from shooting drones to make some point about shooting people, I have to wonder.

Re:Case Backwards

[AK Marc]

What then is the appropriate care to bring down an unmanned unattended object hovering over your property out of arms reach?

There is none. The proper legal remedy is to follow it "home" and sue the owner. You have no right to damage someone else's property, just because you feel like it, even if it's on your property. This is solidified in the case law around owned objects left on your property, such as someone illegally parking on your lawn. You aren't allowed to slash all 4 tires to ensure it's immobile until you can call a tow truck to haul it away.

Perhaps throwing small rocks at the drone, or turning a hose on it would be appropriate. Something to indicate it's unwanted, but causes little to no direct damage (though may cause a crash, which would cause more damage). Similar to a boot on a car, which causes no direct damage, but could damage the car if it's driven off, and could cause minor unintended damage, such as scratches on the wheels.

Re:Case Backwards

[vux984]

You aren't allowed to slash all 4 tires to ensure it's immobile until you can call a tow truck to haul it away.

You can take its license plate down, record its VIN, take a few pics, etc. Also, the car isn't going to just up and leave unless the owner shows up. There is no need to 'immobilize' the car.

Now, 10 years from now when some kids hack an empty uber and set it to driving around in circles a farmers fields, you think it won't be stopped with force?

Perhaps throwing small rocks at the drone, or turning a hose on it would be appropriate. Something to indicate it's unwanted, but causes little to no direct damage (though may cause a crash, which would cause more damage).

So... birdshot a 30-50' is ok then?

The proper legal remedy is to follow it "home" and sue the owner.

How does that work? It moves faster than you, and isn't limited to passable terrain, fences, creeks, rivers, buildings...

Re:Case Backwards

[AK Marc]

You can take its license plate down, record its VIN, take a few pics, etc.

The shooter claimed to see the owners of the drone show up, park, and launch it, and you are telling me it's 100% impossible for her to find the license plate of the car she saw? Walk up to it while it was there and write down the license plate?

How does that work? It moves faster than you, and isn't limited to passable terrain, fences, creeks, rivers, buildings...

Why does your need for revenge trump the rights of everyone else?

Re:Case Backwards

[Bob the Super Hamste]

But the property never actually becomes yours unless a court awards it to you, so if the original owner comes looking for it can become nasty if you disposed of something valuable that they left on your property

Not entirely true. There are various abandon property laws where if it is left unattended for some span of time (several days to a few weeks typically) you would be free to claim it.

Re:Case Backwards

[vux984]

In this case the shooter should have recorded the license plate etc and called the police.

But that is obviously not a general solution; since there is no general assurance that someone is going to see the drone.

Why does your need for revenge trump the rights of everyone else?

a) The rights of everyone else to fly a camera around my yard? I don't recognize that being anyone's right.

b) Its not a need for 'revenge' it is a need to stop the violation. I am NOT actually in favor of shooting them down; but I don't really see a better option out there. If you can capture the drone without shooting it great. If you can accost the operators fantastic. But if you can't... ??

c) These people drove out to Robert Duvalls house in the country set up a card table on a turnaround... to fly a drone, because what? They really wanted to play with their toy, and they couldn't find a public space? And it never occurred to them to just ask the owner of a farm if they could fly around? Give me a break. They were being offensive in their behavior; and were showing total lack of regard for others. They were not innocent victims.

Re:Case Backwards

[vux984]

You are right.

There are various scenarios where it becomes 'abandoned' and you can claim it. But its not as simple as wait 3 weeks and its yours.

Often you have to show good faith effort to notify the owner to pick it up; and failure to dot the i's and cross the t's in your jurisdiction for the precise circumstances of the abandonment it can bite you in the ass.

Re:Case Backwards

[AK Marc]

b) Its not a need for 'revenge' it is a need to stop the violation. I am NOT actually in favor of shooting them down; but I don't really see a better option out there. If you can capture the drone without shooting it great. If you can accost the operators fantastic. But if you can't... ??

c) These people drove out to Robert Duvalls house in the country set up a card table on a turnaround... to fly a drone, because what? They really wanted to play with their toy, and they couldn't find a public space? And it never occurred to them to just ask the owner of a farm if they could fly around? Give me a break. They were being offensive in their behavior; and were showing total lack of regard for others. They were not innocent victims.

Sounds like it was a revenge shooting. Revenge on someone willing to "spy" on Robert's house.

Stopping the violation in progress.

What violation? No really. I've seen it called "trespass" but it isn't, by any law. If two kids playing throw a ball over a fence, the owner of the house can't shoot the ball, or the kids if they try to get it. But OMFG, a drone! Shoot it down!!! Legally, it's essentially a ball, thrown over a fence, that's bouncing across your yard. You have to shoot it quick, because it might stop violating you!

Nope. No logical argument in there. Legally, it's a temporary "violation" at worst. And a permenant solution to a temporary problem is generally not allowed.

I feel like the Oklahoma judge. I'm not saying rape is right. I'm saying that the law, as written, makes rape legal.

I'm not saying nobody should ever stop any "violation" in progress. I'm saying that the law, as written, makes her actions more clearly illegal than theirs. Though, since the law "shouldn't" be that way, it'll likely end up where both parties aren't prosecuted.

Note, if what the drown fliers did was illegal, why are there no legal actions against them? The only legal action is against the shooter.

The law makes her actions illegal, and not theirs.

Yes, I know, many people here don't like that. But not liking something doesn't mean it's wrong. I don't write the laws, so I'm the wrong person to argue with that reality isn't what it should be. I'm just pointing out reality.

Re:Case Backwards

[vux984]

I've seen it called "trespass" but it isn't, by any law.

It really is. Read the law.

Anytime someone causes a person or object to enter onto the property of another its trespass.

If your neighbor throws his empty beer bottles over the fence into your yard, he would be charged with trespassing.

Two kids throwing a ball and it accidentally landing in your yard is also a trespass. No prosecutor would ever charge them with trespassing; they're kids and they didn't intend to do it.

But age them up a few years, and have the neighborhood thugs on each side of you deliberately harassing you by throwing a football over your back yard... then yeah, they'd get charged with trespassing too. Even though they never set foot in the yard.

A drone is no different. Its trespassing. The only difference is that the operator isn't necessarily anywhere around. (And there is a grey area as to where your airspace rights begin; but there are some precedents establishing some rights for property owners at low altitudes.)

. If two kids playing throw a ball over a fence, the owner of the house can't shoot the ball, or the kids if they try to get it.

Of course you are right. But why would they have any need to shoot the ball? It lands in your yard, rolls to a stop, and then its pretty easy to retrieve. What possible reason would you have for shooting it.

Likewise, when the kids come to retrieve it; obviously you can't shoot them for simply trespassing, without warning, and even 'self defense' wouldn't stand up to scrutiny vs a couple unarmed 8 year old neighbor kids dressed in swim trunks retrieving their ball in broad daylight.

I'm not advocating shooting the drone drone for any reason *except as necessary to retrieve it*; so that it can be turned into the police. The shooting is not necessary to retreive the kids ball so its not permitted, but it IS necessary to retrieve the drone, so it should be permitted in that context.

And a permenant solution to a temporary problem is generally not allowed.

Basically, I am defending the owners right to seize the object, turn it into the police, and complain to the police about the incident. I think we mostly agree this is reasonable. And if the owner could seize the object without shooting at it, we'd probably be on the same page, more or less.

The sticking point is that without shooting it they can't retrieve it. I agree with you that shooting it is ... overkill. But if the alternative is "do nothing" and suffer the violation while the trespasser trespasses with impunity and without the ability for recourse -- that's not acceptable either. Thus overkill (especially since its an inanimate object) seems more reasonable than the alternative. Ultimately the object shouldn't be over the property, and if the owners can't be identified and the drone can't simply be grabbed, then bringing it down with the minimum damage and force possible... should be allowed.

Shooting it down, represents those minimums, unless you can think of something else. A garden hose might work in some circumstances, and would be preferable, but its doesn't have the range unless, and I doubt you could bring one down with a hose unless you could get within 15'. For an object whizzing along the top of your tree lines... or on a large country acreage... get real.

I'm just pointing out reality.

The reality is that a trespass really has occurred, AND its also illegal to destroy someone else's property.

And in general the courts have ruled that someones property trespass doesn't entitle you to cause needless damage to their property. (You cannot shoot someones car if they park it on your yard.) But, the argument here is that shooting it down is not 'needless' or 'vindictive' damage to the drone; it is incidental damage caused by retrieving the drone the only way that it can be realistically retrieved.

Re:Case Backwards

[AK Marc]

It really is. Read the law. Anytime someone causes a person or object to enter onto the property of another its trespass.

Where I went to law school, it isn't. Have you read the law?

http://www.statutes.legis.stat...
TX Penal Code Sec. 30.05. CRIMINAL TRESPASS. (a) A person commits an offense if the person enters or remains on or in property of another,

Note, it's not a "trespass" under Texas law to cause something else to enter or remain on or in the property of another. Objects can't "trespass". Only people can.

There. I've quoted my law. Care to quote the law you've based your opinion on?

Re:Case Backwards

[vux984]

There. I've quoted my law. Care to quote the law you've based your opinion on?

Heh, my opinion is based on the same law actually. Lets look at how lawyers, courts, and the legal system actually treat it...

http://nationalparalegal.edu/p...

excerpt:

For example:

Tiger, an avid golfer, goes down to the local course and begins to play. He intends for his first shot to land on the fairway and the shot lands perfectly in the middle of the fairway. Unfortunately, and unbeknownst to Tiger, the land that the fairway is on does not belong to the golf course. It belongs to Arnold. Tiger will be liable here because he intended for the ball to land on Arnoldâ(TM)s property. It is true that Tiger did not know that the fairway was on Arnoldâ(TM)s property but, for purposes of intent, Tiger did intend to hit the ball onto Arnoldâ(TM)s property. Therefore, he is liable.

As you can see from this example, the intrusion onto the plaintiffâ(TM)s land can be committed by personal entry onto the property, or it can be committed by causing some object (or another person) to enter the property. See Rogers v. Board of Road Commissioners 30 N.W.2d 358 (Mich. 1948).

http://www.lawteacher.net/lect...

TRESPASS TO LAND
DEFINITION

Trespass to land occurs where a person directly enters upon another's land without permission, or remains upon the land, or places or projects any object upon the land.

Here's another... this time an actual appeals case:

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ma-...

Since 1981, the defendants have owned and operated a private golf course in Rehoboth known as the Middlebrook Country Club (Middlebrook). â In the late 1990's, the plaintiffs moved into newly constructed homes adjacent to the ninth hole of the course. â After moving into their homes, both plaintiffs discovered that errant golf balls struck by golfers playing the course came onto their properties with alarming frequency, and after unsuccessfully attempting to negotiate a mutually acceptable resolution with the defendants, the plaintiffs âsought injunctive relief and damages in the Superior Court. â After a trial without a jury, a judge of that court concluded that the defendants' operation of the golf course did not support the plaintiffs' nuisance claim, denied the requested relief, and directed entry of judgment dismissing the complaint.3 âBecause the recurrent entry by golf balls onto the plaintiffs' properties constitutes a continuing trespass, we conclude that the trial judge erred in denying injunctive relief âSee Hennessy v. Boston, 265 Mass. 559, 561, 164 N.E. 470 (1929); âFenton v. Quaboag Country Club, Inc., 353 Mass. 534, 538, 233 N.E.2d 216 (1968).

emphasis mine... plenty of others.

The criminal code as written has LONG been interpreted by the courts to treat a 'the person enters or remains on or in property of another' as including invasions by objects that the person controls.

At this point, I think you've got to agree with me that the drone can absolutely be ruled a trespass to land if it is low enough to violate the property owners airspace. What exactly that height is, is up in the air, but court precedent including one to the supremes give us property rights to at least 80'

Re:Case Backwards

[AK Marc]

http://vincenzeslaw.com/virgin...

Since you didn't address the law I posted, nor the initial Virginia location, I went back to Virginia. Unless told to stop, one hasn't committed trespass, even when knowingly going on to someone else's land.

I know there are places (especially the UK, as you noted in one of your cites) with much stricter trespass laws. But most of the US has very lenient trespass laws.

At this point, I think you've got to agree with me that the drone can absolutely be ruled a trespass to land if it is low enough to violate the property owners airspace. What exactly that height is, is up in the air, but court precedent including one to the supremes give us property rights to at least 80'

Not in VA. In VA, this doesn't appear to violate the law at all. If you disagree with the law, then the resolution is to change the law in VA. If you disagree with me, feel free to post *relevant* case law (i.e. from VA, not UK or a jurisdiction-less law school generalization).

Re:Case Backwards

[vux984]

FFS dude, they're all derived from common law; you realize you are grasping at straws here by trying to limit this now to Virginia... but ok fine... let's play your little game:

http://www.courts.state.va.us/...

----

We have previously recognized that an action for common law trespass to land derives from the "general principle of law [that] every person is entitled to the exclusive and peaceful enjoyment of his own land, and to redress if such enjoyment shall be wrongfully interrupted by another.

Tate v. Ogg, 170 Va. 95, 99, 195 S.E. 496, 498 (1938).

We have also recognized:
[A] trespass is an unauthorized entry onto property which results in interference with the property owner's possessory interest therein. Thus, in order to maintain a cause of action for trespass to land, the plaintiff must have had possession of the land, either actual or constructive, at the time the trespass was committed. In addition, to recover for trespass to land, a plaintiff must prove an invasion that interfered with the right of exclusive possession of the land, and that was a direct result of some act committed by the defendant. Any physical entry upon the surface of the land constitutes such an invasion, whether the entry is a walking upon it, flooding it with water, casting objects upon it, or otherwise.
Cooper v. Horn, 248 Va. 417, 423, 448 S.E.2d 403, 406 (1994) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

Significantly, for the purposes of this case, Virginia applies the modified common law rule applicable to surface water. Mullins, 226 Va. at 589, 311 S.E.2d at 112. Under this rule, "surface water is a common enemy, and each landowner may fight it off as best he can, provided he does so reasonably and in good faith and not wantonly, unnecessarily or carelessly." Id. (emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted).
We observed in McGehee v. Tidewater Railway Co.:
Two general rules prevail in the United States with

emphasis mine. But let me repeat it here again for you:

"Any physical entry upon the surface of the land constitutes such an invasion, whether the entry is a walking upon it, flooding it with water, casting objects upon it, or otherwise."

Are we done yet?

If I recall correctly, you earlier cited criminal code as the law which may require the stricter test for the defendant to get jailtime over it, but trespass is also a civil matter; and he can definitely be subject to a lawsuit based on it.

Drone use may also fall under the nuisance law. I read another virginia opinion where 'dust and noise' from a neighboring property under construction was rejected as a trespass suit, but the plaintiff was invited to refile it as a nuisance suit. That said, I think drones still fall under trespass as the operator is in much more direct control over what the drone does, and the drone represents a real physical invasion in a way dust particulates don't. Of course, until someone actually takes one to court in virginia it will be an open question. But as a legal theory it is pretty sound.

Re:Case Backwards

[HornWumpus]

In many states it's any tree or post painted with a band the same yellow as the standard 'no trespassing' sign.

Purple is news to me.

FAA fines

[OrangeTide]

I wonder if the $1500 in damages would even begin to cover his FAA fines.

I suspect the legal gray area for RC aircraft is going to be fixed, and not in the favor of hobbyists. We can thank the many jackass drone pilots for the bad PR that is turning popular opinion against us.

Re:FAA fines

[OrangeTide]

I think there is still a bit of a grey area around model aircraft that are under 55 lbs and below 400 ft altitude. There are many FAA rules that apply for aircraft that do not apply to model aircraft.

PS - I do know the reverse is very illegal with the FAA (and BATF), having a model aircraft that fires a weapon is a serious crime.

Re:FAA fines

[lgw]

I wouldn't be worried about his fines, I'd be more worried about the consequences of shooting at an aircraft in federal airspace.

That's a federal crime that could net you up to 20 years in jail.

It depends on the state, but somewhere around 50 feet it stops being "airspace" and starts being "your property". Much like you're still trespassing if you climb a tree.

Re:FAA fines

[drinkypoo]

I think there is still a bit of a grey area around model aircraft that are under 55 lbs and below 400 ft altitude. There are many FAA rules that apply for aircraft that do not apply to model aircraft.

And yet, they are still considered "aircraft", which is the only way the FAA is able to exercise any authority over them whatsoever. And they look down on people shooting down aircraft. As long as they want to continue their power grab (they're not supposed to be regulating model aircraft to begin with) they have to come on like a hard-on any time someone shoots down a drone.

Re:FAA fines

[HornWumpus]

Drone hobbyists did fine for decades. It's just this CB like craze for quads that brought millions of newbees in.

If they had a million new, stupid people flying high powered model rockets, there would already have been thousands of deaths.

Re:FAA fines

[Bob the Super Hamste]

It's just this CB like craze for quads that brought millions of newbees in.

This a thousand times. When there was some barrier to entry for minimum skill it tended to keep the really dumb ones out or at least have an expensive consequence. Now with how simple it is to operate a quad copter any idiot can get one and fly it. I had a few of the old style RC helicopters and those took a fair amount of practice to master. Then again I would go and fly them out in the park behind my house in the baseball field area as there really isn't anything for them to crash into there.

Re:FAA fines

[maz2331]

I'd say the proper standard for minimum altitude should be "shotgun range" - ie where birdshot can have a reasonable chance of shooting down the drone. After all, birdshot is pretty ineffectual beyond an absolute maximum of ~60-70 yards or so.

better quotes form the linked article(s)

[tomhath]

Youngman said the intruding pair quickly brought attention to themselves when they exited their SUV, parked in front of Duvall's residence.

Youngman said a series of burglaries in the area a few years ago, coupled with sightseers, has caused an increase in neighborhood awareness, as well as action by Duvall's security team.

Youngman said she believed in 2nd Amendment rights and also was irritated that people would try to disturb Duvall.

“The man is a national treasure and they should leave him the fuck alone,” she said.

The Fauquier County Sheriff’s Office said it had no record of anyone formally complaining about this incident.

Sounds like a good neighbor.

Re:better quotes form the linked article(s)

[redcliffe]

Sounds like a nutcase.

Re:better quotes form the linked article(s)

[Oligonicella]

Not mutually exclusive.

Re:better quotes form the linked article(s)

[JustNiz]

I'd much prefer her living next to me than some peecee freak like you.

Re:better quotes form the linked article(s)

[dbIII]

Youngman said she believed in 2nd Amendment rights

That's one of the truly funny things about this.
As a person over 45, and being a woman, the second amendment does not apply to her at all - she's excluded twice.
When are you people going to wake up that your gun rights are there because they were not taken away and that the second amendment has nothing at all to do with it?

Re:better quotes form the linked article(s)

[dunkelfalke]

Well, birds of a feather flock together.

Re:better quotes form the linked article(s)

[Holi]

When did the 2nd Amendment have an age restriction.
No where is the right to bear arms restricted to militia aged men in the wording ( the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed ). I won't even argue with you about the militia requirement, but no where in the wording could it be construed to only apply to 18 - 45 year old men.

Re:better quotes form the linked article(s)

[dbIII]

It's about a militia so all within applies to 18 - 45 year old men.
Somewhere out there your high school English teacher is crying.

Re:better quotes form the linked article(s)

[HornWumpus]

Better find your high school teacher and apologize.

The right of the people shall not be infringed.

If they had meant militia they would have written militia. They clearly knew the word, having used it earlier in the sentence.

Don't know why I'm posting this, you clearly already know you are wrong, but don't care. Just repeating the derp.

Re:better quotes form the linked article(s)

[dbIII]

I suppose with a sig like yours I really should expect a post like that.
Yes, yes - right to revolt, commit arson on federal property and a million other things instead of WHAT IT ACTUALLY SAYS - how fucking convenient.

Re:better quotes form the linked article(s)

[HornWumpus]

Does the text say 'right of the militia' yet? No? You remain wrong.

Re:better quotes form the linked article(s)

[dbIII]

Does the text say 'right of the militia'

"Tis what it 'tis about and not arson on federal property or arming ladies against drones.
I really do not get this shit of pretending the founding fathers are idiots just to make a fuss about a right you already have and more from just being a citizen.

Whitehouse

[Anonymous Coward]

If they won't let you fly a drone over the white house without permissions, then it shouldn't be allowed over my house either without my permission. I think ruling in favor of damages is a terrible precedent.

Re:Whitehouse

[Anonymous Coward]

If she's successfully prosecuted, I'm flying drones over the prosecuting attorney's house 24x7 for at least a month.

Re:Whitehouse

[jabuzz]

I am quite sure satellites "fly" over the white house every day, it's just a matter of height.

She better call her NRA rep to get an lawyer on

[Joe_Dragon]

She better call her NRA rep to get an lawyer on retainer just in case.

Re:Laws lagging behind tech as usual

[TechyImmigrant]

Give it a few more years, maybe a person or two killed or maimed by an out of control drone at a sporting/large event,

Give it a few more minutes and a person or two will be killed or maimed by an out of control gun toting idiot.

More power to her.

[kheldan]

Someone has to take a stand against these rude people with their privacy-invading toys. I look forward to more property owners protecting their right to privacy on the property they own. The more it happens, the more controversy it'll stir up, and the sooner there will be legislation protecting people's privacy from this airborne menace.

Re:More power to her.

[haruchai]

Someone has to take a stand against these rude people with their privacy-invading toys.

I suppose laws could have written allowing you to shoot people off of your property looking through your windows.
But someone invented curtains instead

Re:More power to her.

[Oligonicella]

How sad you equate shooting a toy with shooting a human. Or did you purposely conflate those two things in attempt to make a point?

Re:More power to her.

[JustNiz]

If someone is stupid enough to be on my property and looking through my windows in the first place, they deserve everything nasty that they might get. Lets call it "natural selection in action".

Other than risking a 9mm bullet between the eyes, one of the other (probably worse) fates they might suffer is being mentally scarred for life by seeing me jumping around my lounge/"roomscale area" dressed only in my underpants and my VR helmet, because even with the AC on, its HOT here in Phoenix in the summer..

Re:More power to her.

[kheldan]

Let's see how you feel about this when you look out your window one day and see a drone hovering there, looking right back at you with it's camera. Or maybe it's looking at your young daughter in your backyard. Yeah sure thing buddy we'll see how liberal you feel about hobby drones when some creep is spying on you and your family going fap fap fap.

Re:More power to her.

[JustNiz]

I don't know what your slimy passive-agressive peecee attack is all about but I was responding to this:

> I suppose laws could have written allowing you to shoot people off of your property looking through your windows.

Re:More power to her.

[legRoom]

But someone invented curtains instead

Fences used to provide a decent amount of privacy, while allowing people the benefits of natural lighting and a view of the outside world. Low-flying camera drones are problematic because they can see into houses from angles that were previously inaccessible.

Still, shooting down trespassing drones really isn't a good solution, mostly because it's only sort-of reasonable for people who live in rural areas. Allowing people to fire guns into the air, without a proper backstop, is a really bad idea in more densely populated (sub)urban areas.

If the drone privacy problem isn't solved through regulation, perhaps we'll see a trend toward architectural mitigation - tinted windows and the like.

Re:More power to her.

[haruchai]

Let me guess: You were bullied all the time in school, and instead of even trying to fight back, you'd just curl up into a ball on the ground and wait until they stopped kicking and hitting you, right? Did you actually feel safer when they finally jammed you into a locker and closed the door? Some people don't just sit back and take shit from people, they fight back. Jackasses with their toy drones need to be taught some manners, and shotgun shells are cheaper than drone-toys. They have to go buy new ones a few times and maybe they'll learn to keep their quadcopter noses off people's property and out of other people's business. If not, then I guess it's target shooting practice. Meanwhile like the OP said the more this happens so much the better, we'll get our lawmakers to make new laws to keep these jerks out of our business.

I fought back plenty but I also learned how to pick my battles. Direct force is not the solution to every problem but not everyone is able to see that.
As for new laws, that's just more interference by the state which doesn't go over well in many places and since laws are written quite broadly, I'd beware of unintended consequences.

Re:More power to her.

[haruchai]

I'm about to tell you something that'll cause your hair to fall out: long-range spying has been available for a LONG time, with binoculars, telescopes, telephoto lenses, etc.
Not to mention webcam hacking and there are sites that'll give instant access to tens of thousands of those, all over the world.

Those nosey drones are doing you a favor, making you feel powerful, blasting that pest out of the sky. But your womenfolk's tits & asses have been photographed and fapped to for a very long time and you were none the wiser.

So sorry if that upsets you

Re:More power to her.

[kheldan]

..long-range spying BLAH BLAH BLAH WORDS

So the fuck what? If you're so OK with being spied on, then please post your address so I can drop by with a box full of cameras to install in and around your house so I can watch you and your family, Mister Jackass. Oh, what's that? You're NOT OK with that plan? Why not? You just implied you're OK with being spied on from both LEO and from a drone right outside your window, why would you not be OK with cameras all over your property, so I can fap fap fap properly to your wife and daughter(s) (or son(s), never know who might be on the other end of those cameras, LOL!)? I assume you're an exhibitionist, aren't you? Please post your address, I'm sure I can find lots of people who would just love to watch you 24/7/365. Especially your bathroom and bedroom. Oh, and you don't mind microphones too, do you? The sounds make the experience so much more rich.

Re:More power to her.

[TangoMargarine]

It's not just the spying; if the operator were to decide to "land" the thing on you, it could do some major harm, depending on the size of the drone.

Re:More power to her.

[haruchai]

Pull your shit back in - you're in serious danger of losing it.
Oh wait, too late.
Did you miss the part where I mentioned curtains? If your privacy matters so much, there are easier ways to protect it than standing guard packing heat.
Of course laws can be passed and egregious offences dealt with but loudly proclaiming your right to open fire on any perceived incursion just makes you a gun-sucking nutcase.

Does your house have doors & windows with locks?
I bet they do - or are you going to try to convince us they're wide open but with tripwires attached to shotguns?

Re:More power to her.

[haruchai]

It's not just the spying; if the operator were to decide to "land" the thing on you, it could do some major harm, depending on the size of the drone.

I suppose so but so could the police or even civilian helicopters - would you open fire on them?

Re:More power to her.

[TangoMargarine]

Helicopters are not drones. Drones don't have people inside.

And even if somebody was remote-controlling a full-size helicopter, which was flying 30 feet over your yard (!), you couldn't shoot it down safely if you wanted to.

Stop making obtuse comparisons.

Re:More power to her.

[haruchai]

Look through the comments; you'll find plenty obtuse remarks by gun nuts

Re:More power to her.

[kheldan]

Listen, fuckwit: Why should anyone be legally allowed to be flying little cameras around your house and yard? Why should you have to hide behind curtains? Why can't people respect other people's privacy and stay out of your yard and away from your house with their stupid little drones? More to the point: Why are you so submissive about it? Why are you not standing up for your rights? Do you actually believe somehow that these people with their drones have the right to be flying around your house and looking in your windows, or looking at you and your family in your yard?

If someone was parked on the other side of the street from your house and was watching you and your family in your yard, would you just let them keep doing that? Would you even walk over there and tell them to stop? If they didn't stop, then what do you do? Nothing? Put up with it? Or do you call the cops and report it? Why should idiots and their drones be any different? Invasion of privacy is invasion of privacy.

Re:More power to her.

[TangoMargarine]

You're really using the argument "maybe I am wrong but there are a lot more people on the other side of the argument who are also wrong"?

Way to take the high road there, buddy.

Re:More power to her.

[haruchai]

.....
I believe that many of the same people who would resort to shooting down a drone as their 1st reaction wouldn't hesitate to do the same to a person at the slightest provocation. And those people are far more dangerous than suspected peepers. They end up being the ones who shoot strangers for playing their music too loud or for some other trivial slight. It starts with my castle, my property, my car and eventually becomes my world.

I've had this discussion on other sites before and didn't have to belabor the point this much.
I really expected better here but, well......

Re:More power to her.

[TangoMargarine]

I believe that many of the same people who would resort to shooting down a drone as their 1st reaction wouldn't hesitate to do the same to a person at the slightest provocation.

Well, that's a rather pessimistic view. I'm sure some would, but I would hope not many.

And those people are far more dangerous than suspected peepers.

Fair enough. Which kind of raises the point that without the drone, said peepers probably wouldn't be bold enough to be physically looking in their windows. And if they had access to a good telescope angle, why bother with the drone either.

It's like the Greater Internet Fuckwit Rule: anonymity emboldens the behavior. To which a prompt retort of buckshot that hurts nothing except the drone...well, you could do a lot worse as far as responses go. And it's effective.

Re:More power to her.

[TangoMargarine]

Admittedly the specific case in this article, shooting the drone was a bit of a dick maneuver.

Re:More power to her.

[haruchai]

"anonymity emboldens the behavior."
But so too does solidarity

"To which a prompt retort of buckshot that hurts nothing except the drone"
I don't really have a beef with Granny unloading her shotgun instead of waiting for Jethro to spray some Texas Tea and gum it up good.

It's the fellas like the commenter some ways up in the discussion who says the pistol he takes to work holds 11 bullets - one for the vicious dog that he thinks he'll run into any day now and TEN for the owner

Re:More power to her.

[haruchai]

Calm down, khelly, your panties are bunched too tightly.
Where did I ever say not to report it if you have concerns? It's the omigod-where's-my-gun mentality and the complete lack of a reasonable understanding of escalation of force. There are far too many twits who'll do all of the over-reactionary things and when all *those* aren't enough, only *then* will they look for more reasonable solutions.

That's how we ended up with millions of lunatics that have enough firepower, dried eggs & canned beans to wait out a Klingon invasion.

Re:More power to her.

[haruchai]

"Why are you not standing up for your rights? Do you actually believe somehow that these people with their drones have the right to be flying around your house and looking in your windows, or looking at you and your family in your yard?"

I've been standing up for my right to not be surrounded by millions of trigger-happy, open-carry idiots who think their 3ft-wide flabby asses are all that's standing between me and Obama's Muslim Kenyan Army. So far, I ain't winning.

Re:More power to her.

[haruchai]

Here's an example of the people we need protecting from - Matthew Desha shot Deborah Pearl several times with a rifle while she had her hands in the air.
Reason for the altercation? She'd just crawled out of a rollover wreck of her car that HE CAUSED.
http://www.nydailynews.com/new...
This was in Solon, OH - by all reports a pretty nice place to live

Re:Drones might have weapons.

[Opportunist]

Umm... you really think shooting at a flying bomb overhead is a GOOD idea? If so, remind me to steer clear of you.

Re:Not a drone...

[wonkey_monkey]

Oh, give it up. You've lost that one.

Things are called what people call them.

Gun Control

[sycodon]

Now THAT'S what Gun Control is all about...hitting your target on the first shot, and a kill shot to boot.

Re:Gun Control

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

"Assault weapon" is a ridiculous phrase. If you can't assault someone with it, it's not a weapon.

Re:Gun Control

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

What would you say qualifies as a defensive weapon? Because all I can think of are things that are more practical for defense than offense, but could still be used to assault someone.

Re:Not a drone...

[Opportunist]

Would you mind defining "drone" for us?

The Good Wife covered this issue

[NaiveBayes]

There's a whole episode in The Good Wife about this, apparently people have a right to the space above their land to about 71 feet, and higher than 500 feet is covered by regulation. The area between those two areas is "the Wild West".

Re:The Good Wife covered this issue

[Anonymous Coward]

Glad to see that /. gets educated on the law via fictional television shows...

Re:The Good Wife covered this issue

[ColdWetDog]

Not really. It's 83 feet as decided in 1946 by a US Supreme Court decision of extraordinarily questionable relevance. The FAA has stated they control from the tips of the lawn to the bottom of space (wherever that happens to be). There is no formal law stating this and various lawyers, oddly enough, law claim to different interpretations of various rules and statutes.

Re:Try it in the big city...

[NicknameUnavailable]

City-dwellers are non-people and therefore cannot "own" land.

Reenactor his Drone with Spear

[Anonymous Coward]

Some medieval reenactor successful hit a drone with a spear. It must have been flying pretty low.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhbuEUoxntQ

Re:Drones might have weapons.

[Mr D from 63]

So, you cannot distinguish any differences at all between an airliner passing overhead and a drone, with a camera, hovering low over your back yard?

Maybe your property right extends further upward than you think it does.

Re:Laws lagging behind tech as usual

[Anonymous Coward]

Like all those NRA members shooting each other over gang turf in Chicago, Baltimore, and Detroit?

Re:Drones might have weapons.

[PIBM]

Too poor to own a drone, so you hate on all owners / advocates ?

Punctured lawn tractor?

[ItsJustAPseudonym]

"Youngman said that she recycled the drone but managed to still be irritated by the debris left behind. 'I’ve had two punctures in my lawn tractor,' she said."

Um, I'm guessing the 'punctures' did not come from the drone.

Re:Laws lagging behind tech as usual

[ColdWetDog]

Give it a few more years, maybe a person or two killed or maimed by an out of control drone at a sporting/large event, and you will see a federal law extending your property rights into the airspace 5000 feet up or so, with easements for commercial and private aircraft that file flight plans. The drones should (and probably will) be regulated with some caveats. National forest, parks with designated areas, the ocean (not the beach, but 50 yards and out) or your personal property are the only places for hobbiest drones. This is just common sense and will happen eventually.

Drones flown for profit or outside those areas should require a simple license similar to a drivers license or hunting license where you take a weekend class and a test. The drone would have to have a license tag as well, something easily visible from 50ft or less (combination of a few letters, numbers in a color), so you can snap a picture and they can lose their drone and license and be charged for misbehavior. Any drone flying over my property should be at least 500ft up and not able to record zoomed in or high resolution photos or video unless I have given written permission.

Idiots buzzing people, their pets, livestock etc. will only hasten and make the laws more restrictive. If the industry were smart they would start an association and privately license all of those who buy their drones and educate them on sensible behavior.

There already are laws on the books about reckless endangerment, public nuisance and most of your other rants. You lost the argument about having markings visible at 50 feet although I think the city of Hollywood was trying to go that route before the FAA told them that itty bitty cities don't get to make laws about airspace.

If you are in the US, you are already supposed to have registered yourself as an Evil Drone Flying Precriminal and attached said number to the drone although you can use 10 point type. That's so that when they glue the remains of your baby drone together, they know where to send the bill.

If you are doing anything commercial with a drone in the US, you have to pass a test that includes much of a regular pilot license ground school.

Please try to keep up.

Re:Drones might have weapons.

[Mr D from 63]

An abandoned stroller could be a bomb. Better blow it up, just to be safe.

If it is in my yard, and I was certain there was no baby in it ( as I am with a drone), it would probably be perfectly OK.

Re:good

[Eunuchswear]

Good on her,just a pity she wasn't fireing something a bit heavier,like a 12 gauge Browning 2000,

God, but you Americans are such pussies.

Should have used a Starstreak.

Photo in the studio!

[Max_W]

She owns two guns and does not have a photo-camera? Not even on a phone? It seems to be a lovely old woman seeking for an attention to her and her wonderful guns. A photo could be at least some proof of that incident.

I remember something similar happened in Rio recently.

Re:Photo in the studio!

[JustNiz]

Here's a thought, maybe she's not a techy geek hipster millenial who thinks that the worst thing that could ever happen to them is to be temporarily disconnected from TwitterBook.

Re:Laws lagging behind tech as usual

[PIBM]

How many people were affected by hydraulic fracturing ? I'm pretty sure it cause much more harm that drone ever had, yet our property in the ground under our houses and land only goes a few feet down. If only that reasoning would apply that way too!

Story reads like someone's not a shooter

[pubwvj]

"shot down a drone flying over her property with a single shotgun blast."

That line makes me think the writer doesn't shoot.

A single shotgun blast is par normal.

Trees look pretty tall to me

[JoeyRox]

Local TV news interview with woman:

http://www.wusa9.com/news/loca...

Re:Trees look pretty tall to me

[unrtst]

This link should really be in TFS

Re:Trees look pretty tall to me

[quenda]

How disappointing. Did not sound at all like a redneck hillbilly.

But how can someone be so casual about using a gun to destroy property?
Any harm by the drone would seem to be trivial in comparison. It was not hovering by a window.
She could easily have complained to the operators, or police as she could get their vehicle registration.

She really is not fit to own a gun and should have her license revoked before she kills someone for ignoring the "no junk mail" sign on her mailbox.
  What? She doesn't need a license? Only in America.

Re:Trees look pretty tall to me

[quenda]

That's so sad. You make Virginia sound like some violence-plagued 3rd world hell-hole.
It must be awful to live in fear every time you see a stranger.
Would it really be too dangerous for a 65yo lady in Virginia to go and tell them off (after phoning the police) ?

Why would police rush ? You phone in a report, they look up the plates.
If the car is stolen they rush out, but most likely they knock on their home door in a few days. That's how it works in the civilised world.

Re:Trees look pretty tall to me

[Coren22]

Maybe 20 feet, hard to tell though, the only camera angle was from far away.

varmint

[PopeRatzo]

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.

She was later quoted as saying, "And I boilt that dern thing for nearly two hours and it never did get tender none. My husband, Cousin Carl, damn near broke a tooth."

Re:Drones might have weapons.

[haruchai]

I'm betting that there have been more strollers rigged as bombs than non-military drones - but if you see one of the latter, go ahead and unload your shotgun at it and let us know how that worked out.

Re:Not a drone...

[coolmoe2]

Okay but to a non dork they are typically referred to as drones. Any AUV regardless of its specific design is lumped into that category. To make the obligatory car reference its like saying "its not a motor vehicle its a truck".

please

[Anonymous Coward]

As long as you keep insisting that superstition "is perfectly okay" in various forms of unscientific and bewildered rhetoric, you and yours and everyone else will continue to suffer at the hands of its dogma.

Call theism what it is: superstition. Treat it the way it should be treated: as garbage thinking. Precisely the same amount of evidence exists for "gods" as exist for magical pink unicorns. Which is to say, none.

Re: please

[Coren22]

I can do that too.

People who post AC to Slashdot should not have legal access to weapons.

In the US, the first amendment guarentees everyone the right to practice their religion. You can mock those who believe differently all you like, something also guaranteed by the first amendment, but that does not give you the right to take the rights of other people away from them because you don't believe the same as them. The second amendment which protects the freedom of everyone in the US to own a firearm (bear arms), is not something that can be, or should be, taken away from people because you disagree with their beliefs.

Irony

[Anonymous Coward]

There seems to be significant overlap between people who think that gun ownership should be endlessly regulated and restricted, and dipshit drone operators who resist any attempt to impose controls on their precious hobby of invading other people's property.

How interesting.

Re:Drones might have weapons.

[DaHat]

Your sarcasm detector seems to be broken, you may want to have it checked.

Re:Drones might have weapons.

[PIBM]

Most of them ? I've been flying for a while and encountered a lot of other flyers, but I've yet to see one of those shitbags you are referring to. I do agree some exists from videos I've seen shared, but the regulations are also much more complex than just 'not over my property'. I've flown both in the US (California) and Canada. No national parks is the only regulation I'm sad about, but I understand that this is needed for now.

Oh well, we will see how that goes :)

Re:Not a drone...

[chadenright]

Just on the offchance that you're asking in good faith, a drone is an unmanned aerial vehicle. The FAA is generally looking at regulating the larger ones (I don't recall offhand what the cutoff size is). If you make a paper airplane and chuck it over someone's fence, that's a drone but it's not big enough to interest the FAA. If you add a camera and a couple motors to your paper airplane it continues to be a drone. If you buy a $1500 quad-copter, that's also a drone and you may need to fill out paperwork with the FAA. If you take a standard 2-seater helicopter, and rig a robot pilot for it with no passengers, that is also a drone. I have no idea whether it's still a drone if a passenger gets in but I suspect it is.

Hope that helps.

Re:Drones might have weapons.

[PIBM]

Yeah, I might have misunderstood the depth of his comment - I took the meaning of someone commenting favorably to be instantly setting the bucket to be categorized in. His (?) reply seems to be in that direction too.

Re:Drones might have weapons.

[lgw]

How high it extends is defined by law (state by state), but is something like "the higher of 50 feet or the tallest nearby building". TFS says this drone was under 30 feet, which is just obnoxious (especially near livestock).

Re:Drones might have weapons.

[Enigma2175]

TFS says this drone was under 30 feet

No it doesn't, it says "25 or 30 feet above my trees". Not knowing the height of the trees, we have no way of knowing the drone's altitude.

Re:Not a drone...

[drinkypoo]

If you make a paper airplane and chuck it over someone's fence, that's a drone but it's not big enough to interest the FAA

No, no it is not. Not only is it not a drone by any definition at all, but it's definitely not a drone by the FAA's definition.

Wait, what?

[kuzb]

So a buzzing drone scares cows but a shotgun blast doesn't?

Re:Wait, what?

[tomhath]

Where I live gunshots don't bother them at all. They're used to people shooting at woodchucks, crows, etc. Something they've never seen or heard before might spook them.

Re:Wait, what?

[ArtemaOne]

Have you ever seen animals before they were turned into packages of meat at the grocery store?

Re:Wait, what?

[kuzb]

Yes, but clearly you haven't.

Re:Wait, what?

[ArtemaOne]

The other guy covered that a single shotgun blast at a distance without walls around you to capture the sound isn't quite enough to terrify most farm animals all that much. A drone could be far more scary to them.

Re:Drones might have weapons.

[drinkypoo]

Umm... you really think shooting at a flying bomb overhead is a GOOD idea? If so, remind me to steer clear of you.

Bomb is extremely hyperbolic. "Incendiary device" is the term you're looking for there. Unless, of course, it runs on compressed hydrogen (or another flammable gas) with a fuel cell.

Courtesy?

[nealric]

Legal issues aside, if she was aware of the operator's location, it was a dick move to destroy the drone without simply talking to the operator first. Half the drones I see are being operated by kids with their parents standing by as a fun hobby. There's not always nearby or sufficient public land for the activity, and it's normal to want to try out new flying locations. If she had a problem with operating a drone in the area, she could have told them so. 99% of drone operators are going to comply in that sort of situation. If they were rude after being asked to leave, then I can see justification for shooting the drone down.

Re:Courtesy?

[somenickname]

If there isn't enough nearly public land for the activity then don't buy a drone. If you don't live near lakes that allow boats, you don't buy one anyway, use it where it doesn't belong and then shrug and say, "Sorry, no other place to use my boat".

Re:Courtesy?

[Solandri]

it was a dick move to destroy the drone without simply talking to the operator first.

It was a dick move for them to fly the drone over private property without simply talking to the property owner first. The drone operators were the first to fail to extend a simple courtesy. I'm not at all surprised nor sympathetic that their lack of courtesy was returned in kind.

If she had a problem with operating a drone in the area, she could have told them so.

The drone operators were the instigator. They took the first action which precipitated the incident (flew the drone over her property). The onus was on them to ask/inform her first. Not for her to ask them to leave first.

C'mon people. Talk to each other. It's called being a good neighbor. If I'm going to take photos of private property, despite the law giving me the right to do it, I will still ask the property owner as a courtesy. Yes there's a chance the property owner might be a jerk and refuse. But guess what - there are about a hundred million property owners in the U.S. Just move on and find a different property which suits your needs and ask again. Just because you have the legal right doesn't mean you have to exercise that right there if you can just as easily exercise it elsewhere where it doesn't piss somebody else off. Most of the time the property owner is eager to talk, and I learn some interesting things about the property. And they learn some interesting things about photography.

Re:Courtesy?

[Nassai]

Doesn't courtesy go both ways? Had they walked up to her house, and asked for permission to fly on their property, she may have given it.

Re:Courtesy?

[Swave An deBwoner]

Not kids with their parents standing by, according to the original report; probably page six "journalists" trying for video of Duvall and/or his house (not that there's anything wrong with that):

http://www.fauquier.com/news/neighbor-shoots-down-drone-near-robert-duvall-s-property/article_f1e81ac8-68bf-11e6-8df0-973717fade5f.html

Youngman said the men began yelling at her, but fled in a black Range Rover when she threatened to call the police.

Re:Courtesy?

[Anonymous Coward]

For fuck's sake, you great knob, two adults in an SUV deliberately park outside her and Duvall's gate, and don't bother to ask permission from anyone, including the nice old lady on the porch yonder. Set up a table, cause they're going to make multiple runs. They are paparazzi, pure and simple, and that means their sole intention is to be obnoxious. Sorry, "rude". She should've shot the fucking SUV tires out as well.

Re:Courtesy?

[thegarbz]

Yes kids a dicks. Let me get my shotgun in case one kicks a stray ball in my yard while playing.

Re:Courtesy?

[nealric]

Sure. But one persons's discourtesy is not automatic license to escalate the situation.

Re:Courtesy?

[SNRatio]

I'm going to take photos of private property, despite the law giving me the right to do it, I will still ask the property owner as a courtesy.

You can take pictures of private property, but you can't take pictures of people where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Seeing as in this case the drone operator was probably paparazzii (them leaving the scene when told the police were coming and never filing a complaint certainly fits with that possibility) that was probably the goal and it's doubtful any courtesy was ever in the offing.

Re:Drones might have weapons.

[lgw]

All who fly them low enough deserve the hate. You don't see many people upset about drones flying high enough that you can't see them, or they're just a dot. It's the assholes who buzz animals, peek into upper story windows, disturb your family in your back yard, that sort of thing.that draws the hate.

Re:Drones might have weapons.

[Dread_ed]

You seem intelligent and reasonable. Would you do what the drone operators in the article are accused of doing?

Re:Laws lagging behind tech as usual

[TechyImmigrant]

I wasn't aware they were NRA members. But I didn't suggest they were.

Re:Not a drone...

[tomhath]

That's one definition, but there are other definitions in common use.

An unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), commonly known as a drone, as an unmanned aircraft system (UAS), or by several other names, is an aircraft without a human pilot aboard. The flight of UAVs may operate with various degrees of autonomy: either under remote control by a human operator, or fully or intermittently autonomously, by onboard computers.

American story drinking game.

[youngone]

Youngman told Ars that she had just returned from church one Sunday morning

DRINK!

and was cleaning her two shotguns

DRINK!

She had a clear view of the Blue Ridge Mountains

DRINK!

Youngman explained that she grew up hunting and fishing in Virginia...

DRINK!

Good for her.

[Anonymous Coward]

Good for her. I totally understand and think people absolutely have a right to protect their homes and privacy.
My neighborhood is in a high-burglary area and there's been a VERY suspicious-looking individual flying a camera drone over homes and in their back yards almost every day for several weeks now. There's a large park right down the street but he isn't going/flying there so my guess is that he's probably found a great way to case potential houses to burgle. Several people in our neighborhood watch have reported that he's crash-landed it in their back yards then he feels free to climb their fence or whatever to get it back.
The cops have been notified several times but they continue to do nothing.
If we weren't inside city limits where there's a no gunfire ordnance I'd have probably already done a very similar thing to his drone.

Re:Good for her.

[Swave An deBwoner]

If we weren't inside city limits where there's a no gunfire ordnance I'd have probably already done a very similar thing to his drone.

Keep it clean now :-)

http://www.lowes.com/c/Pressure-washers-Outdoor-tools-equipment-Outdoors

Re:Drones might have weapons.

[PIBM]

I don't know about were you live, but trees here are commonly 60-80 feet high ( which is low compared to what they are in other places). Reported height over the trees was 30 feet, and people are very often under-estimating the height the object they see are at. Thus, I'd expect 100+ feet for that drone (which is very easy to hit with birdshots). I do not know about the exact rules in Northern Virginia since I've not flown down there, but in a lot of places that would be totally fine. We do not know the other side of the story either. Also, depending on regulations, it might depend on the drone and camera use. With what I'm flying, I see almost nothing down there at 100 feet when I'm looking forward (you would not recognize someone), so by itself it would be enough to be protected against the most common complaints that can be used around here.

Also, the correct thing to do is certainly not to shoot it off the sky. Call the cops and track down the guy flying. There has been many judgments against people flying without following the regulations, and they are being hit with large fines when found guilty, while you don't risk being in trouble yourself.

Re:Drones might have weapons.

[CanadianMacFan]

It was probably left unattended on a park bench and someone shot it.

Re:Drones might have weapons.

[unrtst]

https://www.google.com/search?...
If you see something, say something, right?

Re:Guns are not the problem...

[OrangeTide]

The castle doctrine is very simple. First you start by examining the race of each party ...

In Roman times there were Romans

[dbIII]

A Gladius from that era is no joke.

Re:Drones might have weapons.

[AK Marc]

Drone haters pre-date drones. "drone" isn't even a very good word for it. RC airplanes have been around for many years. I remember waking up to them on weekend mornings, flying from the school near me (two soccer fields in an "L" shape, space for maneuvers, but in the middle of a residential area.

Today, many smaller drones are insect-quiet battery powered units, but "in the day" all the "drones" were fuel powered. and noisy. I can't say gasoline, or IC, because there were gasoline jet drones, and ones that ran on non-gasoline fuels.

The drone operators deserved the hate they attracted. Then the next generation suffered from it. But it wasn't unearned.

not a single shot

[slashmydots]

A shotgun fires "shot" as in plural. 2 3/4" #4 buckshot typically has 27 shots in it. So she quite literally did not shoot it down with "1 shot" and I don't mean that as a play on words. It's just headline bait garbage. A chimpanzee could have shot down that drone if you have him a wide-spread shotgun.

Re:not a single shot

[cwsumner]

A shotgun fires "shot" as in plural. 2 3/4" #4 buckshot typically has 27 shots in it. So she quite literally did not shoot it down with "1 shot" and I don't mean that as a play on words. It's just headline bait garbage. A chimpanzee could have shot down that drone if you have him a wide-spread shotgun.

Actually, that -is- a good shot. And it is considered one shot. Even that close, it is far enough to be very difficult.

Shot pellets from a shotgun don't spread as far as people think. At that range it would be only a foot or two across, more than a single bullet but hardly more than the drone. Closer the pattern is smaller than your fist, farther there is lots of open space in the pattern to miss.

Inside a room, birdshot is not noticably different from a solid slug. ;-)
(Except it does not go though as many walls.)

Ride of the Valkries

[Babel-17]

Have the drone play Flight of the Valkrie to ensure a response. :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

thanks, Captain Pedantic Man

[Uberbah]

Go light up a cigarette for a job well done.

Ah yes, bigotry by leftists is fine.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah yes, bigotry by leftists is fine. Especially against those dirty, nasty, incestuous southerners.

As Lynyrd Skynyrd was too polite to say to Neil Young, "Fuck off."

Re:Not a drone...

[frnic]

A drone is a musical tone played by some musicians while practicing to improve intonation.

http://www.dronetonetool.com/

Re:I shot my laptop with a 22

[Swave An deBwoner]

So, Texas?

Oops!

[SuperKendall]

You are right, I mixed up the distance and her age!

Re:Oops!

[LegionX]

You should be very careful with this in other aspects of life.

Re:Oops!

[wonkey_monkey]

...officer.

And Robert Duvall commented:

[ctrl-alt-canc]

"I love the smell of 7.5 birdshot in the morning".

Re:Not a drone...

[Opportunist]

I was asking in good faith, because that's the definition that I know and GP said it doesn't apply, so I was a bit confused.

Dog Bites Man...

[AnonymousCoward67]

... or the present and future version: "Retired Person Shoots Drone"

Good..

[SuperDre]

Just stay the F away from properties or get their owners permission.. How would you like it if I flew a drone over your property and film you running around naked in your home.. I have no problems with property owners shooting down drones if they are over their property, I also don't have any problems with laser protectors which blind camera's that are pointed at your property/home.. People should just respect other people's privacy (and that also goes for famous people, paparazzi should not photograph people on private property, the famous people don't owe you a thing..

The real story here

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that this woman didn't shoot like a girl, she shoots like a Youngman.

Re:Drones might have weapons.

[AmiMoJo]

Legal question. Is it okay to blow stuff up on your property in the US? I guess it varies from state to state, and there is probably some limit to allow for accidentally exploding cans of soda etc, but let's for the sake of argument say a suspicious perambulator/stroller and whatever you need to safely destroy the IED that might be hidden in it.

ha ha ha

[p51d007]

RESPECT other peoples property. All OUTSIDE the property line, YOURS. All INSIDE the property line, MINE. Good shot lady!

Phone typing solutions

[DrYak]

I am actually following the "silly wire drone interceptor" discussion (a.k.a: admit you always wanted to build yourself a "Spiderman Gun" !)

If you have problems typing your story on the phone, try using a keyboard (I have an original Think Outside keyboard left from my PalmOS days, that still works perfectly with my current Jolla Phone - Nowadays, the foldable you get from Geyes on Amazon are of slightly less good quality).

externally-powered microUSB OTG hub is another solution that works with any USB keyboard you have around.

Spiderman Gun

[DrYak]

Common, this guy is basically inventing a "Spiderman Gun".
Think of the the views his demo could get on Youtube !!!

Re:Guns are not the problem...

[Anonymous Coward]

Democrats: White
Republicans: White

What's the next step?

Common Sense

[Anonymous Coward]

Think of it this way. A shotgun with normal single 0 buck shot is good for about 200 feet. Typical tree line is about 250'. If you fly the tops of the tree line and NO LOWER I don't see you invading peoples space. If you drop below the tree line and your not doing it for commercial use over somebody elses back yard YOUR CREEPING. At 250' an HD cam will take a decent shot of something but you wont be zooming in to count the stitching on a persons swimsuit. As a dad, with a drone I keep mine above the tree line and don't purposely send it into other peoples yards. Now if its for commercial use ie Land surveys and such you really have no need to be below 250'. Point is don't be a freaking creep and you wont loose your nice drones. You CAN NOT justify to me flying low enough to take HD shots of my swimming pool close enough to make out faces when I didn't invite you or give you permission. Use some sense people. You don't like the government spying on you so don't be like them.

http://www.chirurgies-esthetique-tunisie.fr

[walidelhajji]

Notre agence de tourisme médical en destination de la Tunisie, propose ici, d’obtenir gratuitement son devis pour une chirurgie esthétique en Tunisie. Ce site comprend d’ailleurs les tarifs de chaque intervention qui y est effectuée. Ce tarif est celui du séjour médical et du séjour touristique. Ce qui signifie que le montant indiqué pour une blépharoplastie implique aussi pour lui l’hébergement à l’hôtel pendant la période indiquée. En effet, pour accomplir toutes nos prestations vis-à-vis des patients étrangers qui immigrent en Tunisie dans le cadre du tourisme médical, nous avons entamé des collaborations avec des cliniques et des hôtels sur place, afin que leur séjour médical se déroule dans des meilleures conditions. Aussi, nous leur proposons ici, de prendre connaissance des interventions qui se font au sein de cette clinique dont la réputation transcende par sa qualité, les frontières nationales désormais. Parmi ces interventions, toutes les chirurgies courantes, celles du visage, celles de la silhouette ou celles des seins. Mais pour compléter l’offre esthétique pour ces patients qui veulent des techniques non invasives, c’est-à-dire, qui veulent une augmentation mammaire, une augmentation des fesses, sans se faire opérer, notre Clinique leur propose la médecine esthétique comme une solution efficace à leur demande. Ils peuvent se débarrasser des rides du visage, se faire une épilation, éliminer les tâches et les cicatrices sur la peau, par des méthodes simples comme l’acide hyaluronique, le botox ou le laser.

We have enough noise pollution as it is already

[lamer01]

Imagine many of these 'drones' zig zagging' through suburban airspace to deliver whatever it is they are delivering? The noise pollution would be unbearable. Legislators need to take that into account.

UNITED STATES v. CAUSBY

[bigpat]

From UNITED STATES v. CAUSBY, (1946):
"We have said that the airspace is a public highway. Yet it is obvious that if the landowner is to have full enjoyment of the land, he must have exclusive control of the immediate reaches of the enveloping atmosphere. Otherwise buildings could not be erected, trees could not be planted, and even fences could not be run. The principle is recognized when the law gives a remedy in case overhanging structures are erected on adjoining land. 9 The landowner owns at least as much of the space above the ground as they can occupy or use in connection with the land."

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-...

Re:Laws lagging behind tech as usual

[Holi]

Not all "gun toting idiots" belong to the NRA. But the NRA does have many in their rolls.

Re:Laws lagging behind tech as usual

[Holi]

So I keep hearing, yet I don't think I have ever seen a report of this actually happening.

Re:Laws lagging behind tech as usual

[Holi]

Gun grabbers? At what point while the rights paranoia subside and they finally realize that no one is trying to take their guns.

Re:Not a drone...

[Holi]

An autonomous unmanned vehicle.

And the GP is wrong, because while these are mostly remote controlled, they do have autonomous capabilities.

Re:Not a drone...

[Holi]

While I agree with your definition, show me an outdoor quad copter that does not have autonomous capabilities.

Re:Not a drone...

[Holi]

That makes every remote controlled aircraft a drone, it also removes any non flying vehicle from being called a drone, yet we have under water drones (http://electronics360.globalspec.com/article/6756/six-underwater-drones-making-a-technology-splash) we have wheeled drones (http://weburbanist.com/2015/11/19/robotic-delivery-6-wheeled-drones-set-to-roll-out-in-london/). So in that way Wikipedia's definition is severely lacking. I believe the autonomous capabilities are required to move from rc device to drone.

Re:Not a drone...

[Holi]

So what your saying is drone only means an unmanned flying vehicle.

I disagree. http://electronics360.globalsp...

Re:But then

[Holi]

It's been done, it is also extremely illegal

Re:Guns are not the problem...

[eam]

It's not quite as insane as you would like to suggest. If you read the summary below, and apply it to the examples you offered, you'll see that none would be examples in which you'd be legally justified in using deadly force.

Laws vary by state. In Pennsylvania (From http://www.pennlago.com/justif...):

Summary of The Castle Doctrine:

• You must not be the initial aggressor. You have to come to the situation free of any provocation. You have to come to the situation with "clean hands."
• There is no duty to retreat at home or at work (remember the co-worker exception).
• There is a presumption that you reasonably believed deadly force was necessary to avoid death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping, or sexual intercourse by force or threat, IF:
• Somebody is in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering your dwelling, residence or car (provided you're in the car);

• Somebody has unlawfully and forcefully entered your dwelling, residence or car (provided you're in the car); or

• Somebody is or is attempting to unlawfully and forcefully remove you or somebody else, against the will of the individual being removed, from your dwelling, residence or car (if they're removing you or trying to, it's safe to say you're in the car).
• The person has to be someone who has no right to be there. So, it is always best to identify your target. You cannot claim the Castle Doctrine protections if your teenager is sneaking back into the house and you tragically and mistakenly think it is an intruder.
• You cannot invite the intruder into the house or car just to get a free shot at him. The entry has to be forceful and unlawful, unless we are dealing with a kidnapping or removal scenario.
• If you are in your dwelling or residence, and all of the above are met, you are presumed to act reasonably in the eyes of the law in the use of deadly force.
• If you are in your car, and all of the above are met, you are presumed to act reasonably in the eyes of the law in the use of deadly force.

Summary of Stand Your Ground:

• Be aware that the law is not as extensive as many suggest.
• If you have no legal right to be where you are, are engaged in criminal activity, or are in illegal possession of a firearm, the protections do not apply.
• If your attacker does not display what is or appears to be a deadly weapon, the protections do not apply (you must retreat if it can be done with complete safety).
• You must reasonably believe deadly force is immediately necessary to do so to protect yourself against death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping, or sexual intercourse by force or threat.
• Stand Your Ground does not protect uses of force against known law enforcement officers.
• If all of the above requirements are met, the law eliminates the duty to retreat, and the use of deadly force is permitted.

Re:Get a signal jammer

[Holi]

And pay the FCC a hefty fine for intentionally causing signal interference on frequencies you are not licensed to use, or even if they are in the unlicensed frequencies it is illegal to intentionally interfere with others use.

Re:Laws lagging behind tech as usual

[TechyImmigrant]

So I keep hearing, yet I don't think I have ever seen a report of this actually happening.

The gun violence archive lists deaths by gunshot in 2016 at 37041 so far.
We're 242 days in, so that's about 153 per day. So 9.4 minutes per gun death in the US.

I couldn't find the explosive drone violence archive to compare.

 

Why

[vandamme]

... is the age and gender of the shooter noteworthy?

Re:Drones might have weapons.

[Fwipp]

I have no desire to own or operate a drone. But in the same way I'm not gonna shoot down a kid's kite for flying over my property (or the soccer ball that got kicked into my yard), I don't think that "Maybe it had a weapon on it!!!" is a good reason to shoot down somebody else's drone.

Please note

[cwsumner]

Please note that it takes an astounding amount of paperwork to stop a bullet.

The law might help you in the days after something happens, but it is not much help at the time.

Re:Guns are not the problem...

[cwsumner]

... Must be one hell of a friendly place, what with everyone barricaded in their little castles, shooting at anything that moves.

The country people are a lot more friendly than the city people, and more reasonable.
Where I live it is very peaceful and quiet, and people are very helpful.
Not everyone has guns, but people that don't own one in case of need are considered a bit strange.
Don't believe what the news media say... 8-)

Re:Guns are not the problem...

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

No. In no state are you legally allowed to shoot someone who is on your land (but not in a building) and not threatening to commit a felony - generally assault, murder, arson, rape, etc. In some states, if they forcibly break into your dwelling, you can use whatever force you think is needed without warning or a duty to retreat. In other states, you have to try to get away unless there's an immediate threat of violence to you or someone else who is not an aggressor.

At any rate, just walking onto your yard is not grounds for shooting someone without warning. If they're also yelling about how they're going to rape/attack/kill you, or burn your house down, then it might be, depending on the state, but if a reasonable person would not feel that they are in immediate danger, you have to tell them to leave first.

Re:Get a signal jammer

[braindrainbahrain]

But it would be worth it to have the drone operators (very politely) ask and armed woman if they can have their drone back.

Re:Drones might have weapons.

[HornWumpus]

You hate harley riders (fags) as well?

Re:Not a drone...

[HornWumpus]

Any of them less than $1k. Which is 90% of the market.

Re:Get a signal jammer

[HornWumpus]

Let me guess. You've never filed a complaint with uncle Charlie?

Re:Drones might have weapons.

[AK Marc]

Anyone with a vehicle deliberately modified to be louder than stock is hated. I don't care if they are on a Harley, or in a Honda.

Re:Drones might have weapons.

[HornWumpus]

Fair enough.

My car is modified to breath better, louder is just a side effect. ;-)

I run mufflers on my glow engine planes and fly at a designated field.

We're not going to speak of the pulse jet though. Even I will acknowledge that's as inappropriate as a GWAR concert at Liberty university. If you lived close, I'd arrange a 5AM low pass for you...kidding.

Now - what's best ammo to shoot drones?

[DaBigMan]

Some other report told, that Jennifer Youngman complained afterwards about all the tiny debris from the drone scattered over her place, she had to pick up and that some parts of it gave her flat tires on her lawn tractor. Which leads to the obvivous question, whether Jennifer Youngman would take 7.5 birdshot next time again - what would she now propose as best ammo? Apparently even given similar appearance in the sky: drones seem to differ *significantly* from similar sized birds - at least with respect to structural integrity after suffering a shotgun blast. So slashdotters - if you ever go to *pleassssse* invite that awesome lady to an interview don't forget to ask. BTW: given the appearance of Robert Duvall in 2012's movie "Jack Reacher" as owner of a long distance (750 yard) gun range - he might have taken a rifle instead of a shotgun, what'd you think... ;-)