Kentucky Man Arrested After Shooting Down Drone 1197
McGruber writes: Hillview, Kentucky resident William H. Merideth describes his weekend: "Sunday afternoon, the kids – my girls – were out on the back deck, and the neighbors were out in their yard. And they come in and said, 'Dad, there's a drone out here, flying over everybody's yard.'" Merideth's neighbors saw it too. "It was just hovering above our house and it stayed for a few moments and then she finally waved and it took off," said neighbor Kim VanMeter. Merideth grabbed his shotgun and waited to see if the drone crossed over his property. When it did, he took aim and shot it out of the sky.
The owners showed up shortly, and the police right after. He was arrested and charged with first degree criminal mischief and first degree wanton endangerment before being released the next day. Merideth says he will pursue legal action against the drone's owner: "He didn't just fly over. If he had been moving and just kept moving, that would have been one thing -- but when he come directly over our heads, and just hovered there, I felt like I had the right. You know, when you're in your own property, within a six-foot privacy fence, you have the expectation of privacy. We don't know if he was looking at the girls. We don't know if he was looking for something to steal. To me, it was the same as trespassing."
The owners showed up shortly, and the police right after. He was arrested and charged with first degree criminal mischief and first degree wanton endangerment before being released the next day. Merideth says he will pursue legal action against the drone's owner: "He didn't just fly over. If he had been moving and just kept moving, that would have been one thing -- but when he come directly over our heads, and just hovered there, I felt like I had the right. You know, when you're in your own property, within a six-foot privacy fence, you have the expectation of privacy. We don't know if he was looking at the girls. We don't know if he was looking for something to steal. To me, it was the same as trespassing."
Right to Privacy in One's Backyard? (Score:5, Informative)
Merideth's neighbors saw it too. "It was just hovering above our house and it stayed for a few moments and then she finally waved and it took off," said neighbor Kim VanMeter. VanMeter has a 16-year-old daughter who lays out at their pool. She says a drone hovering with a camera is creepy and weird. "I just think you should have privacy in your own backyard," she said.
Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard? (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course he has the right to privacy in his own backyard. How on earth could anybody question that?
And yes, I personally also think that shooting down the drone was also justified. There should be jammers that bring down these things and it should be legal to possess and use them in the appropriate circumstances such as a drone hovering over your backyard.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard? (Score:4, Insightful)
Firing a weapon in a populated area except in defense of life and limb is a colossally stupid idea and patently against the law, just because your privacy is being violated is no excuse.
Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard? (Score:5, Informative)
Firing a weapon in a populated area except in defense of life and limb is a colossally stupid idea
Shotgun pellets don't have a lethal return velocity, unlike a bullet. If he was firing upwards at a drone, then nobody else was in danger. I've been peppered by falling shotgun pellets while hunting once (many people have,) it's just like somebody dropped a bunch of BBs on your head from 10 feet up.
and patently against the law
No, it's not. It depends on where you live. Not every town has ordinances against that, and those that do have certain guidelines for where it is permissible (for example, an indoor or outdoor firing range that meets certain parameters.)
Today I learned... (Score:5, Funny)
Firing a weapon in a populated area except in defense of life and limb is a colossally stupid idea and patently against the law, just because your privacy is being violated is no excuse.
Today I learned that Hillview, Kentucky is a populated area.
Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard? (Score:5, Informative)
"Private landowners retain their right to exclusive use of the airspace for the reasonable enjoyment of their property up to 500 feet above their lands.[3]"
FAA airspace begins above 500 feet. No shotgun will knock down a drone at 500 ft, so the drone must have been below that, probably more like 50 feet, well within the "exclusive" zone.
Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard? (Score:4, Insightful)
No you'd call the cops and have the guy arrested for being a peeping tom. It's not easy to ascertain who the snooper is with a UAV.
Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard? (Score:4, Insightful)
No you'd call the cops and have the guy arrested for being a peeping tom. It's not easy to ascertain who the snooper is with a UAV.
Maybe you call the cops first, then shoot down the UAV. Apparently there's empirical evidence snooper will voluntarily identify himself in to the cops in this case...
Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
So his mistake is he didn't arm himself with a pressure washer.
Of course that would be more of an interesting story, if he shot it with a pressure washer and took it out.
Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard? (Score:4, Insightful)
Even if the shot hits a person, it will not do damage. getting hit with shotgun pellets is like being hit with hail of equivalent size. Terminal velocity and wind resistance is a bitch to your preconceived notions.
Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard? (Score:5, Informative)
Not if you're aiming at a drone more or less directly overhead. It'll slow down on the way up, and then accelerate back up to...terminal velocity on the way back down.
Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard? (Score:4, Insightful)
That's with the more aerodynamic spin stabilized projectiles fired from rifled barrels(even handguns today are rifled). Unless he was stupid enough to shoot the drone with a slug or buckshot, the projectiles reach terminal velocity very rapidly compared to a rifle and *fall* at a velocity that will limit damage.
If he fired it at an angle much above 30 degrees the pellets are only dangerous on the upward part of the parabola.
Even buckshot is only dangerous a bit further, and slugs have the longest range but are still relatively short-ranged compared to a rifle round.
Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard? (Score:5, Insightful)
Bullets? Yes. Shotgun pellets? I doubt that's ever happened. They're too light and they spread too far. They're supposed to be shot in the air.
There's a risk of falling drone debris (which would be on him, as it was above him when he shot it, and I would assume he'd have told his kids to get out of the way), but there's zero chance of danger to anyone from the shotgun discharge.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard? (Score:4, Interesting)
Ignore the above, the Glock 40 is what he was open carrying, he did in fact use a shotgun on the drone.
Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard? (Score:5, Insightful)
ok that's very aggressive.
No, it's not. It would be aggressive if he began brandishing the weapon prior to them taking any action. However because they began advancing first, and he issued a warning afterwards without taking any action, that's being defensive. If anything, the other party was being aggressive, because they confronted him first.
Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard? (Score:4, Insightful)
The four against one thing is kind of important too.
Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard? (Score:5, Insightful)
You know, I generally don't agree with open carry ... most of the world cringes at that, and it's something Americans cherish.
But if your drone was hovering in my backyard looking at my teenage daughters for no good reason, and if I'd shot it down and you were about to come onto my property in a threatening manner without explanation, I can see the point.
The drone pilot was being an ass, and about to trespass in an aggressive manner.
I actually hope the guy who shot it down just gets a small fine and let go. Because the drone hovering in your backyard isn't the kind of shit we should be accepting.
It is entirely possible to think the Tea Party are loons and also think this guy has a point.
There simply can't be a free for all in which anybody for any reason can be going around peering into peoples private yards and houses just because they want to.
And, I'm sorry, but hovering over someone's backyard with a camera falls in the category of "no bloody way". Not for private citizens, corporations, or law enforcement without a warrant.
Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard? (Score:5, Interesting)
I actually hope the guy who shot it down just gets a small fine and let go.
I'd much rather see the jury demand to know why the victim, and not the four perps, is being prosecuted, with a not guilty verdict. Considering where this took place, it's possible.
Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard? (Score:4, Interesting)
I actually hope the guy who shot it down just gets a small fine and let go.
I hope he gets no fine. And the drone operator gets investigated for trespass, peeping tommery, or whatever other offenses exist to protect people's privacy.
Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard? (Score:4, Informative)
Starting with WTF was your drone with a camera doing hovering over my backyard taking pictures of my daughters, and moving on to why in hell shouldn't I be punching you, and advancing to why the hell should you expect to come on my property without me shooting you ...
Yes, absolutely the person operating the drone owes an explanation. Rather a lot, actually.
They took pictures in his backyard with no explanation, and now without explanation they want to come onto his property to discuss this.
Identify yourself, state your purpose, and explain to me why I'm not going to hurt you if you keep walking onto my property. You don't get to act indignant when your shit was hovering over my yard taking pictures. Not even a little.
If I found you in my fenced backyard with a camera, I'm also going to hurt you.
Sounds like he was arrested for shooting. (Score:3)
We'll see what he is eventually convicted of.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Sounds like he was arrested for shooting. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I agree with the shooter (Score:4, Insightful)
In addition the shooter had no way to know with any reasonable degree of certainty that the 'drone' was unarmed. It could have been carrying an explosive device - and not just a gun as was recently seen, but actual c4 explosive.
Finally, even if it was only containing a camera, it was still illegal violation of the shooter's rights and the shooter had the right to destroy the object.
Re:I agree with the shooter (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I agree with the shooter (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I agree with the shooter (Score:5, Funny)
His drone just got shot down, and his first thought was to go knock on the shotgun-toting property owner's door?! Brilliant.
Re:I agree with the shooter (Score:4, Insightful)
Kentucky Man (Score:4, Funny)
There has to be a better way to take down drones. Firing a shotgun in your backyard into the air is going to be some kind of misdemeanor, even in Kentucky. Something like "discharge of a firearm inside city limits" or something.
Can someone please start 3D-printing some silent drone-killing weapons? It would be so much more satisfying than clay pigeons and my neighbors cats. (Note to neighbor: I'm kidding. That wasn't me.)
Re:Kentucky Man (Score:4, Interesting)
There has to be a better way to take down drones.
Sure, just toss a net over it.
Re:Kentucky Man (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Also, if the judge has to convict him.. (Score:3)
Is he in the right? (Score:4, Insightful)
Legally? I have no idea. Here I believe he could possibly be charged with destruction of property, unless zoning laws stated that he could not fire a shotgun. A shotgun fired upwards is very safe, the risk of anybody being hurt by a few birdshot coming down is minimal, so endangerment is only possibly from somebody being hit by the falling drone. And if that is a danger, what the heck is the drone doing flying over people anyway?
Morally? It seems to me that a majority of the drone pilots are douche bags, completely ignoring other peoples right to privacy and even safety. Just because it is possible to fly their drones anywhere does not mean it is a good idea. If somebody flies their drone into my property, collecting video footage, I believe I have the moral right to do something about it. It is no different from if they started racing around a RC car with a video camera in my backyard. Sure, I could call the police, but the police is unlikely to show up in time. And what is the police supposed to do about a drone hovering over my house? Waste time around until they find the pilot? This is a perfect example of when a well aimed shotgun shot will help improve how people behave. If they don't want their drones shot down, they can fly them over their own property.
Re: (Score:3)
If they don't want their drones shot down, they can fly them over their own property.
While I agree with your sentiment, I think you might be being a bit extreme here. There shouldn't be anything wrong with simply flying over to get from point A to point B. Hovering, lingering, making repeated passes, and, especially, hanging around until acknowledged, then taking off? Yeah, time for your toy to get shot down.
Buy an rf jammer, become a drone collector (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Buy an rf jammer, become a drone collector (Score:4, Informative)
Nice line for a laugh, but this actually won't work.
GPS chips are cheap, and most of the drones beyond the very basic level have them. In the event of loss of signal (And it's a digital, frequency hopping signal that you *might* be able to jam, but you won't be able to take over.) most multicopters will ascend to ~100 feet, fly slowly to their launch point, then slowly land.
Forget the Drone (Score:4, Informative)
If a creep kept holding up a camera on a stick to videotape my daughters over my fence, I would put some bird shot in that camera as well.
Misleading headline (Score:5, Informative)
Hillview Police detective Charles McWhirter of says you can't fire your gun in the city.
He wasn't charged for shooting a drone, he was charged to discharging a gun within city limits. Reckless endangerment doesn't have anything to do with drones it means he was being a risk to public safety.
Re: (Score:3)
No he wasn't.
These are basically catcha
Faa rules for RC planes (Score:5, Insightful)
So below are all the rules for flying an RC plane. Why don't we simply apply the rules to drones? As a matter of fact, you have to explain to me why the don't automatically apply anyway?
Fly below 400 feet and remain clear of surrounding obstacles
Keep the aircraft within visual line of sight at all times
Remain well clear of and do not interfere with manned aircraft operations
Don't fly within 5 miles of an airport unless you contact the airport and control tower before flying
Don't fly near people or stadiums
Don't fly an aircraft that weighs more than 55 lbs
Don't be careless or reckless with your unmanned aircraft â" you could be fined for endangering people or other aircraft
Re: (Score:3)
Meredith was totally within his rights (Score:3)
Meredith was totally within his rights - his private property was being invaded. Fuck the owners of the drone - they are idiots, and the true criminals in this case. If someone flies a drone over my property, it's toast. And I'll fight any legal nonsense that ensues right on up to the Supreme Court (for what that's worth). This has to be gotten under control, now. People have NO RIGHT to fly their drones over private property. They could be recording video, they could even be toting firearms. Shoot first, ask questions later.
I would've done the same. (Score:3)
Hovering over my property without my invite? Expect to be blown out of the sky.. if I determine I can get the shot without having the wreck come down on top of my house.
Alternatively, we can develop counter-drone drones, whose job would be to seek out unwanted drones and shoot them out of the sky.
Or how about a net-gun? Throw a net at the offending drone, capture it, and if it survives, sell the shit on ebay.
Brave new world, this one.
Truly Trespassing? (Score:4, Informative)
Many states require that a No Trespassing sign be posted for criminal trespass to occur. Kentucky does not require such a notice, but it DOES define trespassing in the first and third degress as being ulawfully *in a dwelling*. Second degree trespass is as close as he might get. I quoteth the law:
A person is guilty of criminal trespass in the second degree when he knowingly
enters or remains unlawfully in a building or upon premises as to which notice
against trespass is given by fencing or other enclosure.
(2) Criminal trespass in the second degree is a Class B misdemeanor.
Emphasis is mine. As to whether a telepresence (drone) constitutes a "person...upon the premises" will no doubt be the subject for his lawyer and the prosecution to discuss. At several hundred dollars an hour.
Re: "...the same as trespassing." (Score:3, Interesting)
I know we'll be close within the next decade or two with drones but a remote controlled flying object with a camera is not human. So to answer your question, "no." Hell I'd shoot it too.
Third Dimension (Score:5, Interesting)
We are accustomed to living in a 2D world (unless you live in a tall apartment in NY... and even then) but drones add a third dimension that we are not used to. I think the FAA has been far too lax in allowing drones to operate in unrestricted space and in not applying radio controlled airplane regulations to drones. Already we have drones crashing into buildings, falling on people, endangering commercial and emergency response airplanes etc, etc)
A good starting point would be to recognize the airspace above private property as part of the property, up to the level allowed to commercial aircraft. That would mean that drones could only fly above designated land surfaces.
Re:Third Dimension (Score:5, Interesting)
Drones are subject to the same rules that RC aircraft are subject to.
It is however extremely hard to enforce. RC users are generally pretty responsible - they've probably spent many hours building their aircraft, and during this time it has sunk in the dangers they can pose, and usually they've joined a local club to help them learn to fly their new expensive aircraft and the club will also coach them on safely operating their aircraft.
Drone users not so much. Many of the ready-to-fly drones require pretty much zero skill to operate, so people can take off and cause mischief pretty much straight away.
Re:Third Dimension (Score:5, Insightful)
up to the level allowed to commercial aircraft
That is too high.
But what can - say - Gisele Bündchen do if some obnoxious prat has a camera-carrying drone hovering over her home? No "Lex Bündchen" here, anyone else should have the same expectation of privacy at their home.
Drones have been adapted to carry firearms, how close should they be allowed to approach?
If people are telling the truth here, taking a shotgun to it was a fair response.
Re:Third Dimension (Score:4)
The Court has long held that you do not have an expectation of privacy on private property unless you actually and successfully block the view. The classic example is a curtain that doesn't cover the whole window, but blocks everywhere they thought a person would be. Not good enough to expect privacy. If the person in the house on the hill can see in with a telescope, then you didn't have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
This would require some other specific state or local law, "expectation of privacy" would never cover outdoors, uncovered areas. You know about airplanes, right? That they fly overhead? And that lenses exist? OK, so the Court knows there is no expectation of privacy outdoors and uncovered. That it is legal to fly over private land already tells them that much, because it is legal to look around wherever you are, using whatever otherwise-legal viewing device you have handy.
If you want drone-perverts to go to jail, you'll need to pass a new law.
Re:Third Dimension (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Third Dimension (Score:5, Informative)
Re: Third Dimension (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Third Dimension (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, given a drone's capacity to record or transmit video it probably qualifies as a surveillance device, and there's plenty of case law which says using surveillance devices to circumvent what would otherwise be private is indeed illegal. I doubt new laws are necessary at all.
Re:Third Dimension (Score:4, Interesting)
Follow?
[1]: On private property, the property owner can restrict photography.
Re:Third Dimension (Score:4, Funny)
But what can - say - Gisele Bündchen do if some obnoxious prat has a camera-carrying drone hovering over her home?
I suppose she could get Tom to deflate one of his balls and throw it at the drone.
Re:Third Dimension (Score:5, Insightful)
Quoted from a recent Planet Money episode on this very question: "It's a question that goes back to the Middle Ages, to a Latin phrase that translates to "he owns the soil owns up to the heavens." In England, this phrase was the law of the land for centuries, and it worked well when disputes involved simple things like overhanging tree branches and lopsided buildings.
But once hot air balloons and airplanes came into the picture, things got a lot more complicated. In 1926, Congress created what we now call the FAA, and declared that the air above 500 feet is the public domain. But what about the air below that?
Thomas Causby was a chicken farmer in North Carolina who lived near a tiny airport. During World War II, the Army took over the airport, and suddenly big military planes were flying over Causby's chicken coops all the time. The planes scared Causby's chickens. They flew into the walls of the coop and died.
Causby sued the government, and the case went all the way to the Supreme Court. In the end, the court sided with Causby, ruling that landowners own the sky above their homes up to at least 83 feet."
Re: (Score:3)
What frequency do drones use? Can it be jammed? If it falls on your property (like a frisbee or baseball) then is it yours to smash and throw away?
Personally I approve of the shotgun method as long as you know where the BBs are dropping and its safe.
Re:"...the same as trespassing." (Score:5, Informative)
Re:"...the same as trespassing." (Score:5, Informative)
Kentucky is a "Castle Doctrine" state. Under Kentucky law, to invoke the Castle Doctrine, an intruder must be making (or have made) an attempt to unlawfully and/or forcibly enter an occupied home, business or car; the occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to inflict serious bodily harm or death upon an occupant of the home; and/or the occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to commit some other felony, such as arson or burglary. There are other, more specific conditions and constraints. The law (in Kentucky) also includes a "duty to retreat". So, no, you can't simply shoot trespassers, even in Kentucky.
And yes, you have a right to privacy, but you don't enforce that by taking the law into your own hands.
Re:"...the same as trespassing." (Score:5, Insightful)
I dont know about Kentucky, however in Texas you can shoot people for Criminal Trespass. You can use deadly force to protect your self and your property.
Texas is the only state that allows deadly force to be used in defense of property. This is a case where Texas is wrong and the rest of the country is right. I'm all for the right to keep and bear arms, I carry daily and am a certified concealed weapons instructor. But deadly force should only be used to defend people, not stuff.
Re:"...the same as trespassing." (Score:5, Insightful)
Can you ask a drone questions? Can the drone respond? Can you determine the owner of the drone in order to ask the owner directly?
Even if you consider shooting a trespassing person "wrong" because you may kill them, shooting a drone would only result in property damage and not harm to any person.
Re:"...the same as trespassing." (Score:4, Insightful)
Depends on what you shoot at it with.
Shooting at the sky is bad. Falling bullets can kill.
Re:"...the same as trespassing." (Score:5, Interesting)
He used a shotgun, no worse than shooting a duck out of the sky, it's just pellets that would come down. It wasn't a rifle.
Re:"...the same as trespassing." (Score:5, Informative)
No they can't. The pellets are accelerated out of the gun by the power an the explosive charge. They then loose velocity due to gravity and (far more importantly) air resistance. While the loss due to gravity is reversed once the pellets reach the top of their arc, the loss due to air resistance continues until they drop below their terminal velocity (the point at which air resistance and gravity cancel each other out).
Any sufficiently elevated shot will have the pellets reaching the earth at their terminal velocity (which is a fraction of the velocity that they leave the gun barrel at).
Re:"...the same as trespassing." (Score:4, Informative)
If the pellets can penetrate a duck in the sky while loosing velocity, then they penetrate a person on the way back down gaining velocity.
Birdshot has a relatively low terminal velocity -- I've had bird shot rain down on me during duck hunting season, and it's literally feels like rain. It's probably an eye hazard, but bird shot isn't going to kill anyone when it falls from the sky. A slug or bullet on the other hand could be more deadly since it's going to have a higher terminal velocity, especially if on a more ballistic trajectory and is still spinning and not tumbling.
Re:"...the same as trespassing." (Score:4, Funny)
They have cities in Kentucky?
Re:"...the same as trespassing." (Score:4, Funny)
Their cousin?
Re: (Score:3)
This man deserved his arrest, what he did was wholly irresponsible.
Shotgun, not rifle. No bullet, just pellets. Huge difference.
Re:"...the same as trespassing." (Score:5, Funny)
you _do_ know that outside of physics class we take air resistance into account, right?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I haven't gone hunting in several decades, but I did when I was younger. I've had pellets from careless people's shotgun rain down on me a couple times. No, they don't maintain their lethality It'll scare the hell out of you, but it's not even close to lethal.
It's not clear from TFA, but it does say that the drone crashed in a field behind his house and that he fired at the drone when it was over his property and that he did not fire over other residences.
I don't know the full details of the story,
Re:"...the same as trespassing." (Score:4, Insightful)
In other words, if a stranger wanders onto your property, you shoot them and ask questions later.
That's not an unreasonable thing to do if he climbs over a 6' privacy fence to get onto your property.
Re: (Score:3)
its still murder, though.
No, it is homicide... if it is a criminal offense depends on a whole lot of factors, including where you live...
Murder is always a crime, homicide is not...
Re:"...the same as trespassing." (Score:5, Insightful)
I expect this to be a legal mess for a long time. This will probably come down to property rights.
The area above the property is private, but the extent of that ownership is not entirely defined. [slate.com] Cases like this will probably define it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The FAA defines it. 500 feet. 1000 over urban areas. All perfectly reasonable. If a guy is taking pictures from that height or above, too bad. You are fair game.
Re:"...the same as trespassing." (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually, those numbers are for airplanes...
Helicopters can fly lower than that... but there is a rule for them... The short version is, helicopters can fly at any altitude so long as they don't cause hazard to persons or property on the surface.
I asked my FAA rep about that once and the answer he gave me was this:
"If I get one phone call from one person claiming a helicopter is flying too low, I might give you a call and say 'hey, be careful out there'. If I get 5 phone calls from 5 people saying a helicopter is flying too low, then you're already guilty. Don't scare people on the ground."
And I've done plenty of aerial photography from below 500 feet, including over a major city (Dallas, TX). The key is to not linger anywhere and to not scare the crap out of people. If people come outside and wave you away or give mean looks, leave. They are right and we're wrong.
The irony is that I DID get a visit from DHS once. We were hired to take some aerial pictures of a building that just happened to be right next to a police station. This was in a commercial office area, no homes. The irony is that we were in fact at 500ft, but people on the ground can't always tell that. An over excited police officer decided we were terrorists and ran it up the chain of command. By the time we landed, 5 police cars were at the airport and we found out the military had been alerted to a possible hostile aircraft (they did not take off AFAIK). Once we provided our ID and explained what we were doing, they let us go. We got a follow up visit a week later from two men in suits who had some brief questions, but overall they were nice about it. It probably helped that we had a good relationship with the FAA and had years of experience doing this with a fixed base of operations that was well known. This was in 2007, for what it is worth.
Re:"...the same as trespassing." (Score:5, Interesting)
Well he didn't shoot the man, he shot a mechanical proxy for the man, which is not the same at all. He attacked a piece of property which, under the direction of its operator, was being used to invade his privacy by invading the space over his property, and as he pointed out, not simply to transit the area.
Assuming the area was one where it would be generally safe otherwise to fire at a bird, then I have no issue with his reasoning, seems like he was in the right to me, even though I wouldn't agree if he had shot the operator; the two are not equivalent like that.
Re:"...the same as trespassing." (Score:5, Insightful)
In other words, if a stranger wanders onto your property, you shoot them and ask questions later.
The next time you find a hidden camera in your bedroom, be sure to keep from harming the poor thing.
Shooting Guns into the Air in a Populated Area (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a universally a very bad idea.
Discharging any weapon in a populated area except at a proper range or in defense of your life is generally illegal and a very bad idea.
I suspect he would be facing the same charges if he were merely shooting crows in his backyard.
Re: (Score:3)
Shotgun. It can't hurt you unless pointed at you. The shot falls at terminal velocity, much like hail. It is not moving fast enough to hurt you.
Re:"...the same as trespassing." (Score:4, Informative)
Protection of property
(1) The use of physical force by a defendant upon another person is justifiable when the defendant believes that such force is immediately necessary to prevent: (a) The commission of criminal trespass, robbery, burglary, or other felony involving the use of force, or under those circumstances permitted pursuant to KRS 503.055, in a dwelling, building or upon real property in his possession or in the possession of another person for whose protection he acts
KRS 503.085
Justification and criminal and civil immunity for use of permitted force –Exceptions
(1) A person who uses force as permitted in KRS 503.050, 503.055, 503.070, and 503.080 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom the force was used is a peace officer, as defined in KRS 446.010, who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law, or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a peace officer. As used in this subsection, the term "criminal prosecution" includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
Re:Or... just hear me out here... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Mod up +1 million
Re:Or... just hear me out here... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You could call the police and lodge a complaint like a civilized person instead grabbing your gun and shooting randomly at everything that you don't like.
Yeah, the drone pilot was probably being a douche. Does this give people free reign to go randomly shooting at things?
Or in other words do nothing? In my town the poilce won't even come out to investigate a car breakin, they surely aren't going to come out when I tell them someone is flying their toy helicopter over my yard.
Re:Or... just hear me out here... (Score:5, Insightful)
Who do you complain against? The drone that will be gone well before the point it can be tracked by police? The owner, who you can't identify?
Re: Or... just hear me out here... (Score:5, Interesting)
Your logic is not universal. Do people have a right to go shooting people on the street? Of course not. Do people have a right to shoot a home invader? Of course. If a creepy guy climbs your fence to take pictures of your teenage daughter in her bathing suit do you have a right to smash his camera? Many juries would say so. If he uses an RC drone camera instead? Same thing. Let's hear what's on the memory card.
Re:Or... just hear me out here... (Score:4, Informative)
Shotgun shot is harmless when falling out of the sky after distance takes the speed down. I've been rained on by shot duck hunting from guns across a lake.
Were talking 12+ guage and not buckshot people. The small stuff just gets slowed down too much to do any real damage after a few hundred yards. Might get in your eye though that would suck.
Re:Or... just hear me out here... (Score:4, Informative)
At a shotgun range I've been to, they have a duck tower about 150 yards behind the clubhouse. It's surrounded by a fairly thick stand of tall trees, but a couple of the stations result in shooters shot trajectory going through the "hole" in the trees and raining down on the front porch of the clubhouse.
I've been standing there and gotten "hit" -- it actually feels no different than if you through a handful of coarse sand into the air and let it fall on you, actually less since you really only feel a small number of pellets because of dispersion.
Shooters are restricted to target loads of #7.5 shot or smaller, so its very light shot. So light that on their "hard" sporting clays course it's very difficult to hit the distant crossing and away clays in any wind. The #7.5 shot has so little inertia that it just gets blown off target.
Many pheasant hunters I've known have stories about getting hit with shot from people on the other side of a field or road hunting on roads adjacent to the field they were hunting on. It's like coarse sand, and pheasant hunting uses much heavier shot than target shot.
Re:Or... just hear me out here... (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd say if it's over my property at a low altitude, yes, I should have the right to shoot the thing out of the sky, and further, if I can determine who was flying it, I should have the right to sue them.
Drone operators are getting an incredible sense of entitlement out of playing with their toys. I think it's time for some serious and substantial financial penalties.
Keep your fucking toy way from my fucking property.
Re:Or... just hear me out here... (Score:4, Interesting)
Idiot drone pilot flying around other people's property a mere 10 feet off the ground? Damn straight you should have the right to take that thing out. But it should still be illegal to shoot it down with a gun. That's just a public safety hazard far worse than the drone. Saying that it should be safe because shot is small and doesn't hurt when falling is like saying that it's safe to point a gun at somebody and pull the trigger because you think the chamber is empty. Some idiot is going to eventually make a mistake and shoot at a drone with something he shouldn't, something that isn't going to be as harmless as birdshot.
My suggestion for dealing with low-flying drones: pool skimmer. If it's just hovering there 10 feet off the ground, just grab the thing out of the air (or smack it hard enough to down it). If it's flying low enough over your property for the pole to reach it, then it's flying low enough that you should be allowed to take it out.
Re: (Score:3)
To play devil's advocate:
The drone pilot claims he was asked by one of the people in the neighborhood to take some pictures. I've done this before.
In the case of the guy with the shotgun - can he confirm that the camera was indeed pointed towards him, as opposed to someone else's house (that someone else who could have given permission and possibly even requested the photography)? Same for the 16 year old who waved at it - did she know for sure that she was seen on camera, or was the camera aimed elsewher
Re: (Score:3)
Say that again after you have been filmed by a drone in your living room. It happened to me, and there is ordinary no line of sight into my room. The experience is very unpleasant and intrusive, because you don't know how long you've been filmed, who has been filming you and why.
Re: (Score:3)
You could call the police and lodge a complaint like a civilized person instead grabbing your gun and shooting randomly at everything that you don't like.
Yes, and I'm sure they'll get right on that. His reaction was overkill but his expectation of privacy was reasonable.
Re: (Score:3)
It would be easy enough to introduce anti-drone defenses. Nothing too fancy is needed: A simple net, thin as thread, strung from fencetop to poles or nearby buildings. Small drones bounce off, large ones get their blades entangled. Free drone!