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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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]

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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]

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[Boronx]

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

Every single time.

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

[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

[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...

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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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:Drones might have weapons.

[Fwipp]

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

Re:Drones might have weapons.

[zlives]

if its on your property... sure.

Re:25 to 30 feet above the trees?

[zlives]

she got it with birdshot...

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

[ytene]

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

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

[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

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.

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: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: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.

[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: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: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:The Good Wife covered this issue

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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: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: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: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: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: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.

Trees look pretty tall to me

[JoeyRox]

Local TV news interview with woman:

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

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."

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:Laws lagging behind tech as usual

[TechyImmigrant]

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

Re:Drones might have weapons.

[CanadianMacFan]

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

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.

thanks, Captain Pedantic Man

[Uberbah]

Go light up a cigarette for a job well done.

Oops!

[SuperKendall]

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

And Robert Duvall commented:

[ctrl-alt-canc]

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