I'm honestly amazed they arrested him for that. If you're allowed to fire a weapon where you live (I can) and it was clearly on his property I don't see the issue. If he could take it down with bird shot it must have been pretty damned close to where he was.
In the case of United States v. Causby, the U.S. Supreme Court declared the navigable airspace to be "a public highway" and within the public domain. At the same time, the law, and the Supreme Court, recognized that a landowner had property rights in the lower reaches of the airspace above their property. The law, in balancing the public interest in using the airspace for air navigation against the landowner's rights, declared that a landowner controls use of the airspace above their property in connection with their uninterrupted use and enjoyment of the underlying land. In other words, a person's real property ownership includes a reasonable amount of the private airspace above the property in order to prevent nuisance. A landowner may make any legitimate use of their property that they want, even if it interferes with aircraft overflying the land."
The low cost of unmanned aerial vehicles in the 2000s revived legal questions of what activities were permissible at low altitude. The FAA reestablished that public, or navigable, airspace is the space above 500 feet.
I suspect the drone was flying under 500 feet if he could take it down with bird shot. Guess the dumb ass operators should get permission before flying their toys over someone else's land.
hotsauceman1 wrote: But, we are not zure why ot was hovering maybe they lost control.
Frankly the 'why' makes no difference. The drone (if under 500 feet) could very likely be considered on his property. Any camera mounting device on my property with out my knowledge and permission is going to be considered an invasion of my family's privacy.
I think this was the kind of case that was inevitable. The previous supreme court case stated firmly that the landowner owns some of the air above their property, but outside of establishing a precedent of ownership, the decision is to vague to be useful.
Cases like this are what will allow the courts to decide how far up the ownership goes. I think flying onto someone's backyard (the guy describes the drone as being really close) is a clear violation.
CptJake wrote: I'm honestly amazed they arrested him for that. If you're allowed to fire a weapon where you live (I can) and it was clearly on his property I don't see the issue. If he could take it down with bird shot it must have been pretty damned close to where he was.
In the case of United States v. Causby, the U.S. Supreme Court declared the navigable airspace to be "a public highway" and within the public domain. At the same time, the law, and the Supreme Court, recognized that a landowner had property rights in the lower reaches of the airspace above their property. The law, in balancing the public interest in using the airspace for air navigation against the landowner's rights, declared that a landowner controls use of the airspace above their property in connection with their uninterrupted use and enjoyment of the underlying land. In other words, a person's real property ownership includes a reasonable amount of the private airspace above the property in order to prevent nuisance. A landowner may make any legitimate use of their property that they want, even if it interferes with aircraft overflying the land."
The low cost of unmanned aerial vehicles in the 2000s revived legal questions of what activities were permissible at low altitude. The FAA reestablished that public, or navigable, airspace is the space above 500 feet.
I suspect the drone was flying under 500 feet if he could take it down with bird shot. Guess the dumb ass operators should get permission before flying their toys over someone else's land.
Number 8 birdshot, the thing was no higher then 100 feet.
This was a clear invasion of privacy from the private owner of the drone. Simple physics will tell the judge the story here.
My bet? These 4 dudes were flying their drone around trying to get a peak at some women.
Does he live inside city limits? I couldn't really tell from the article. There is no threat to his safety or any other indication that would justify deadly force, so he could simply be arrested for firing a firearm inside city limits. Shooting a drone, on his property or not, probably falls under the same law as shooting cans or shooting skeet. If that is illegal then shooting drones would likely be considered illegal as well.
The only other possible charge could be reckless endangerment if he was shooting into the air, but he really mitigated that by using bird shot, so that really shouldn't be an issue.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Edit: I think a good rule of thumb would probably be this: if it is legal to shoot up an RC car that pulls into your driveway then it is probably legal to shoot up a drone. If it is illegal to unload your weapon into an RC car that pulls into your driveway then it is probably illegal to shoot up a drone.
If it is that one drone with the pistol mounted to it, then you are probably covered under self defense laws.
Normally, I'd be talking about how this guy was an idiot, but reading the article, it sounds like he's got a pretty solid defense. Using light birdshot like that is unlikely to cause damage elsewhere, the target was likely real low and loitering way too long if he was able to hit and destroy it with such and was thus likely within the realm of "his property", and (at least from the article) it sounds like the other guys were raging donkey-caves.
Though, if he's within city limits with a restriction on firearm discharge, he'll be in trouble for that.
Edit: I think a good rule of thumb would probably be this: if it is legal to shoot up an RC car that pulls into your driveway then it is probably legal to shoot up a drone. If it is illegal to unload your weapon into an RC car that pulls into your driveway then it is probably illegal to shoot up a drone.
Problem here typically is that shooting into an RC car means the projectile stays on your property, if you're shooting into the air, those projectiles can travel up to a couple of miles and certainly carry lethal velocity for most of that. Though in this case, using light birdshot may be what gets him off.
While this guy seems to have taken the drone down in a fairly safe and responsible way, there's no guarantee that other people will do the same with drones. So while shooting the drone down did the job this time, I don't think it's what we can look at as a general defense against drones threatening people's privacy and property rights in future.
While most laws on trespass could simply be extended to the person controlling the drone, the complicating factor is in determining who is controlling the drone. I don't know if there's a decent technical answer to that question.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: Edit: I think a good rule of thumb would probably be this: if it is legal to shoot up an RC car that pulls into your driveway then it is probably legal to shoot up a drone. If it is illegal to unload your weapon into an RC car that pulls into your driveway then it is probably illegal to shoot up a drone.
If it is that one drone with the pistol mounted to it, then you are probably covered under self defense laws.
That is a good rule of thumb, and it allows us to consider the other part - how is that RC car/drone behaving. If the RC car simply scooted up your drive way, spun around and was heading off when you shot it, odds are you're a bit crazy and probably did something unjustified. But if that RC car moved up to the front door, then circled the house a couple of times and looked in the windows, well then shooting it is justified. A similar question can be asked of the drone - was it merely crossing your territory or is it loitering?
There really isn't any great case law about this. You certainly own the air as far as it has been developed, and somewhat above it - in Causbythey ruled he owned at least 83 feet but not past 500. The idea you can shoot at anything flying over your property is lunacy, though - surely no one would argue you have the right to blast away at a police helicopter or air ambulance if it flew 100 feet over your house. Your rights are simply to seek redress for the easement, just as the case said.
The FAA only regulates 500 feet up. Noncommercial, recreational drone flights for personal enjoyment are not currently regulated by the FAA.
I'd say that if this guy was flying the drone at 10 or 12 feet, he'd be able to make a case for harassment or trespassing against the drone operator, but if he decided to shoot it, he's liable for destruction of property and maybe reckless endangerment, discharging a firearm within city limits, or other criminal statutes depending on jurisdiction.
d-usa wrote: Does he live inside city limits? I couldn't really tell from the article. There is no threat to his safety or any other indication that would justify deadly force, so he could simply be arrested for firing a firearm inside city limits. Shooting a drone, on his property or not, probably falls under the same law as shooting cans or shooting skeet. If that is illegal then shooting drones would likely be considered illegal as well.
The only other possible charge could be reckless endangerment if he was shooting into the air, but he really mitigated that by using bird shot, so that really shouldn't be an issue.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Edit: I think a good rule of thumb would probably be this: if it is legal to shoot up an RC car that pulls into your driveway then it is probably legal to shoot up a drone. If it is illegal to unload your weapon into an RC car that pulls into your driveway then it is probably illegal to shoot up a drone.
If it is that one drone with the pistol mounted to it, then you are probably covered under self defense laws.
If the RC car has a camera i agree, but if it hasn't than it is no same than shooting the ball of some kid.
Drones usually have camera's
Yeaaah, I understand his actions: a drone hovering over my property, recording what's going on? Can anyone really blame him for taking it down? The breach of privacy is horrible, seeesh. I hope the owner of the (ex-)drone gets a bit fat nothing.
They likely arrested him for discharging a weapon within city premises (this usually is illegal without some sort of clearly recognized justification, such as someone breaking into your house).
But I hate most people who buy "drones" to fly them around spying on people "because they can."
Well, I don't "hate" then, I dislike their attitude, and the fact that they screw up something that could be useful for everyone else.
So I am glad this guy blasted some idiots drone out of the sky if it was lingering over his property filming him (or his property).
There have been a LOT of problems recently with drone operators not knowing the rules, and flying/operating a drone in an inhabited area is illegal (The same rules/laws apply to "drones" that apply to Remote Controlled Airplanes or Helicopters - people just stupidly assume otherwise).
hotsauceman1 wrote: But, we are not zure why ot was hovering maybe they lost control.
Frankly the 'why' makes no difference. The drone (if under 500 feet) could very likely be considered on his property. Any camera mounting device on my property with out my knowledge and permission is going to be considered an invasion of my family's privacy.
Highly unlikely. Just because your property goes onto someone else's property doesn't mean it becomes theirs. If you drive onto someone's property you are tresspassing, but they don't now own your pickup.
However, the local state could make it a law, that drones DO become your property if on your land. That would do the trick.
Personally I think this is a big issue that needs to be dealt with.
In the case of United States v. Causby, the U.S. Supreme Court declared the navigable airspace to be "a public highway" and within the public domain. At the same time, the law, and the Supreme Court, recognized that a landowner had property rights in the lower reaches of the airspace above their property. The law, in balancing the public interest in using the airspace for air navigation against the landowner's rights, declared that a landowner controls use of the airspace above their property in connection with their uninterrupted use and enjoyment of the underlying land. In other words, a person's real property ownership includes a reasonable amount of the private airspace above the property in order to prevent nuisance. A landowner may make any legitimate use of their property that they want, even if it interferes with aircraft overflying the land."
The low cost of unmanned aerial vehicles in the 2000s revived legal questions of what activities were permissible at low altitude. The FAA reestablished that public, or navigable, airspace is the space above 500 feet.
I suspect the drone was flying under 500 feet if he could take it down with bird shot. Guess the dumb ass operators should get permission before flying their toys over someone else's land.
Number 8 birdshot, the thing was no higher then 100 feet.
This was a clear invasion of privacy from the private owner of the drone. Simple physics will tell the judge the story here.
My bet? These 4 dudes were flying their drone around trying to get a peak at some women.
That's what I'm thinking too. It had to be damn close for that shot to do what it did.
hotsauceman1 wrote: But, we are not zure why ot was hovering maybe they lost control.
Frankly the 'why' makes no difference. The drone (if under 500 feet) could very likely be considered on his property. Any camera mounting device on my property with out my knowledge and permission is going to be considered an invasion of my family's privacy.
Highly unlikely. Just because your property goes onto someone else's property doesn't mean it becomes theirs. If you drive onto someone's property you are tresspassing, but they don't now own your pickup.
However, the local state could make it a law, that drones DO become your property if on your land. That would do the trick.
Personally I think this is a big issue that needs to be dealt with.
I didn't say the drone became his property...
According to the article the drone was hovering over his deck and filming him. A person doing so could get shot at my place.
A drone flying over my horse pastures? I may get annoyed and try to find the operator (who won't be happy to hear what I have to say). One hovering over my house/the immediate area around my house oriented to film my family and me? Not quite the same as a guy getting lost and driving down my private road. I'm smart enough to realize the difference and can adjust my actions accordingly.
I feel no sympathy for the drone's owner. He was invading the guy's privacy. Heck, I'd be concerned if one of those was videoing my property. Particularly if kids were there.
d-usa wrote: Does he live inside city limits? I couldn't really tell from the article. There is no threat to his safety or any other indication that would justify deadly force, so he could simply be arrested for firing a firearm inside city limits. Shooting a drone, on his property or not, probably falls under the same law as shooting cans or shooting skeet. If that is illegal then shooting drones would likely be considered illegal as well.
The only other possible charge could be reckless endangerment if he was shooting into the air, but he really mitigated that by using bird shot, so that really shouldn't be an issue.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Edit: I think a good rule of thumb would probably be this: if it is legal to shoot up an RC car that pulls into your driveway then it is probably legal to shoot up a drone. If it is illegal to unload your weapon into an RC car that pulls into your driveway then it is probably illegal to shoot up a drone.
If it is that one drone with the pistol mounted to it, then you are probably covered under self defense laws.
If the RC car has a camera i agree, but if it hasn't than it is no same than shooting the ball of some kid.
Drones usually have camera's
I am not aware of any jurisdiction where cameras justify deadly force. They could exist I guess, but I'm not aware of them.
d-usa wrote: Does he live inside city limits? I couldn't really tell from the article. There is no threat to his safety or any other indication that would justify deadly force, so he could simply be arrested for firing a firearm inside city limits. Shooting a drone, on his property or not, probably falls under the same law as shooting cans or shooting skeet. If that is illegal then shooting drones would likely be considered illegal as well.
The only other possible charge could be reckless endangerment if he was shooting into the air, but he really mitigated that by using bird shot, so that really shouldn't be an issue.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Edit: I think a good rule of thumb would probably be this: if it is legal to shoot up an RC car that pulls into your driveway then it is probably legal to shoot up a drone. If it is illegal to unload your weapon into an RC car that pulls into your driveway then it is probably illegal to shoot up a drone.
If it is that one drone with the pistol mounted to it, then you are probably covered under self defense laws.
If the RC car has a camera i agree, but if it hasn't than it is no same than shooting the ball of some kid.
Drones usually have camera's
I am not aware of any jurisdiction where cameras justify deadly force. They could exist I guess, but I'm not aware of them.
"Deadly force" is a legal concept applied to people, not inanimate objects. Shooting a kid's ball, or a camera equipped drone, as long as you are not shooting a person (or near a person) is not 'deadly force'.
d-usa wrote: Does he live inside city limits? I couldn't really tell from the article. There is no threat to his safety or any other indication that would justify deadly force, so he could simply be arrested for firing a firearm inside city limits. Shooting a drone, on his property or not, probably falls under the same law as shooting cans or shooting skeet. If that is illegal then shooting drones would likely be considered illegal as well.
The only other possible charge could be reckless endangerment if he was shooting into the air, but he really mitigated that by using bird shot, so that really shouldn't be an issue.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Edit: I think a good rule of thumb would probably be this: if it is legal to shoot up an RC car that pulls into your driveway then it is probably legal to shoot up a drone. If it is illegal to unload your weapon into an RC car that pulls into your driveway then it is probably illegal to shoot up a drone.
If it is that one drone with the pistol mounted to it, then you are probably covered under self defense laws.
If the RC car has a camera i agree, but if it hasn't than it is no same than shooting the ball of some kid.
Drones usually have camera's
I am not aware of any jurisdiction where cameras justify deadly force. They could exist I guess, but I'm not aware of them.
"Deadly force" is a legal concept applied to people, not inanimate objects. Shooting a kid's ball, or a camera equipped drone, as long as you are not shooting a person (or near a person) is not 'deadly force'.
Deadly force is usually the exception to the whole "no shooting stuff inside city limits" rule, hence why I used it.
If you can legally shoot targets, a kids ball, or a random RC car on your property, then you may likely be clear when it comes to shooting a drone on your property. If you can't go target shooting on your property, then you likely can't shoot drones either. The presence of a camera, on a car or a drone, should be immaterial.
You can either shoot all the time, or you can only shoot to defend yourself (my use of the phrase "deadly force") in which case a remote controlled camera hardly qualifies as a threat IMO.
My first post in the topic stated "If you're allowed to fire a weapon where you live (I can) and it was clearly on his property I don't see the issue."
And IF he was allowed to shoot on his property I still don't see an issue.
If he was not allowed to shoot, 'discharging a firearm in city limits' or what ever the crime is in his jurisdiction is appropriate.
Still not a deadly force issue though. That only applies towards people and then he would be facing assault charges. Very big difference in how the law would handle it.
CptJake wrote: My first post in the topic stated "If you're allowed to fire a weapon where you live (I can) and it was clearly on his property I don't see the issue."
And IF he was allowed to shoot on his property I still don't see an issue.
If he was not allowed to shoot, 'discharging a firearm in city limits' or what ever the crime is in his jurisdiction is appropriate.
Still not a deadly force issue though. That only applies towards people and then he would be facing assault charges. Very big difference in how the law would handle it.
Thats not how the law works though. You can't blast away at property that you don't own, even if it is on your property.
Snagged a local cover of the story. It is illegal to discharge within the city limits for his town. His daughters, and his neighbor's daughter (16) were outside at the time the drone came over. I would have blasted it too.
WDRB wrote:
LOUISVILLE, Ky. (WDRB) -- A Hillview man has been arrested after he shot down a drone flying over his property -- but he's not making any apologies for it.
It happened Sunday night at a home on Earlywood Way, just south of the intersection between Smith Lane and Mud Lane in Bullitt County, according to an arrest report.
Hillview Police say they were called to the home of 47-year-old William H. Merideth after someone complained about a firearm.
When they arrived, police say Merideth told them he had shot down a drone that was flying over his house. The drone was hit in mid-air and crashed in a field near Merideth's home.
Police say the owner of the drone claimed he was flying it to get pictures of a friend's house -- and that the cost of the drone was over $1,800.
Merideth was arrested and charged with first degree criminal mischief and first degree wanton endangerment. He was booked into the Bullitt County Detention Center, and released on Monday.
WDRB News spoke with Merideth Tuesday afternoon, and he gave his side of the story.
"Sunday afternoon, the kids – my girls – were out on the back deck, and the neighbors were out in their yard," Merideth said. "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.
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.
Merideth agrees and said he had to go see for himself.
“Well, I came out and it was down by the neighbor’s house, about 10 feet off the ground, looking under their canopy that they’ve got under their back yard," Merideth said. "I went and got my shotgun and I said, ‘I’m not going to do anything unless it’s directly over my property.’"
That moment soon arrived, he said.
"Within a minute or so, here it came," he said. "It was hovering over top of my property, and I shot it out of the sky."
"I didn't shoot across the road, I didn't shoot across my neighbor's fences, I shot directly into the air," he added.
It wasn't long before the drone's owners appeared.
"Four guys came over to confront me about it, and I happened to be armed, so that changed their minds," Merideth said.
"They asked me, 'Are you the S-O-B that shot my drone?' and I said, 'Yes I am,'" he said. "I had my 40 mm Glock on me and they started toward me and I told them, 'If you cross my sidewalk, there's gonna be another shooting.'"
A short time later, Merideth said the police arrived.
"There were some words exchanged there about my weapon, and I was open carry – it was completely legal," he said. "Long story short, after that, they took me to jail for wanton endangerment first degree and criminal mischief...because I fired the shotgun into the air."
Merideth said he was disappointed with the police response.
"They didn’t confiscate the drone. They gave the drone back to the individuals," he said. "They didn’t take the SIM card out of it…but we’ve got…five houses here that everyone saw it – they saw what happened, including the neighbors that were sitting in their patio when he flew down low enough to see under the patio."
Hillview Police detective Charles McWhirter says you can't fire your gun in the city.
"Well, we do have a city ordinance against discharging firearms in the city, but the officer made an arrest for a Kentucky Revised Statute violation," he said.
According to the Academy of Model Aeronautics safety code, unmanned aircraft like drones may not be flown in a careless or reckless manner and has to be launched at least 100 feet downwind of spectators.
The FAA says drones cannot fly over buildings -- and that shooting them poses a significant safety hazard.
"An unmanned aircraft hit by gunfire could crash, causing damage to persons or property on the ground, or it could collide with other objects in the air," said FAA spokesman Les Dorr.
Merideth said he's offering no apologies for what he did.
"He didn’t just fly over," he said. "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," he said. "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."
For now, Merideth says he's planning on pursuing legal action against the owners of the drone.
"We’re not going to let it go," he said. "I believe there are rules that need to be put into place and the situation needs to be addressed because everyone I’ve spoke to, including police, have said they would have done the same thing."
"Because our rights are being trampled daily," he said. "Not on a local level only - but on a state and federal level. We need to have some laws in place to handle these kind of things."
According to the article the drone was hovering over his deck and filming him. A person doing so could get shot at my place.
And....then you would be in jail for a major felony.
Nope, not in NC.
"He was holding what appeared to be a weapon"
NC GENERAL STATUTE 14 51.1. Use of deadly physical force against an intruder. (This is commonly called the "Castle Doctrine.")
(a) A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence is justified in using any degree of force that the occupant reasonably believes is necessary, including deadly force, against an intruder to prevent a forcible entry into the home or residence or to terminate the intruder's unlawful entry (i) if the occupant reasonably apprehends that the intruder may kill or inflict serious bodily harm to the occupant or others in the home or residence, or (ii) if the occupant reasonably believes that the intruder intends to commit a felony in the home or residence.
(b) A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence does not have a duty to retreat from an intruder in the circumstances described in this section.
If you have come through the two locked gates, or over the barbed wire/chainlink (depending on what part of the property line, traversed the few hundred yards minimum to get to the house and got onto my porch, I am going to assume you mean harm to my family.
Seriously, you have to have trespassed across at least one other property to get to mine unless you come down the private road. Then the series of gates (to keep horses in and vehicles out) along with the multiple no trespassing signs posted gives me confidence no one is showing up lost to ask for directions.
CptJake wrote: My first post in the topic stated "If you're allowed to fire a weapon where you live (I can) and it was clearly on his property I don't see the issue."
And IF he was allowed to shoot on his property I still don't see an issue.
If he was not allowed to shoot, 'discharging a firearm in city limits' or what ever the crime is in his jurisdiction is appropriate.
Still not a deadly force issue though. That only applies towards people and then he would be facing assault charges. Very big difference in how the law would handle it.
Thats not how the law works though. You can't blast away at property that you don't own, even if it is on your property.
A drone casing my place for a future break in? A drone filming my 13 year old daughter?
I think his rights to privacy were definitely violated, and there is the possibility that the drone was recording his underage daughters, which is probably a felony in most of the world.
Shooting the thing seems excessive, perhaps, but what else can you do about it? It's a drone, the controller doesn't have to be anywhere near, there's no other way you can protect yourself or even identify the perpetrator to report him.
CptJake wrote: My first post in the topic stated "If you're allowed to fire a weapon where you live (I can) and it was clearly on his property I don't see the issue."
And IF he was allowed to shoot on his property I still don't see an issue.
If he was not allowed to shoot, 'discharging a firearm in city limits' or what ever the crime is in his jurisdiction is appropriate.
Still not a deadly force issue though. That only applies towards people and then he would be facing assault charges. Very big difference in how the law would handle it.
It was probably an awkward way to respond to the point that the other posted raised, I'll admit that. I was just trying to explain that the presence of a camera really doesn't change how the law would view this case IMO.
CptJake wrote: My first post in the topic stated "If you're allowed to fire a weapon where you live (I can) and it was clearly on his property I don't see the issue."
And IF he was allowed to shoot on his property I still don't see an issue.
If he was not allowed to shoot, 'discharging a firearm in city limits' or what ever the crime is in his jurisdiction is appropriate.
Still not a deadly force issue though. That only applies towards people and then he would be facing assault charges. Very big difference in how the law would handle it.
Thats not how the law works though. You can't blast away at property that you don't own, even if it is on your property.
A drone casing my place for a future break in? A drone filming my 13 year old daughter?
Sorry. I'll take the misdemeanor charge.
Oh I didn't say you shouldn't. Consider it a cost of doing business.
Before you decide to shoot that drone out of your backyard, there are a few important things you need to know.
First of all, damaging any flying robot is a federal crime. It doesn’t matter if it’s crashing your pool party or watching you in your skivvies through the skylight in your master bath.
“In my legal opinion,” says Peter Sachs, a Connecticut attorney and publisher of Drone Law Journal, “it is never okay to shoot at a drone, shoot down a drone, or otherwise damage, destroy or disable a drone, or attempt to do so. Doing so is a federal crime.”
Here’s the thing. You might view a drone as many things: Creepy. Loud. Annoying. Scary. A sophisticated robot. A really cool toy. Target practice.
But in the eyes of the law, a drone is a full-fledged aircraft, and deserves the same kind of respect. Here’s what federal law (18 USC § 32) has to say:
(a) Whoever willfully—
(1) sets fire to, damages, destroys, disables, or wrecks any aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States or any civil aircraft used, operated, or employed in interstate, overseas, or foreign air commerce;
...shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years or both.
What does that mean for you? If you attempt to gun down a flying robot, you could face those two decades in the slammer, and/or a fine of up to a quarter of a million dollars. So, legally speaking, shooting a drone could be the same as trying to damage a chopper or a 747. “Aircraft” is a pretty sweeping definition, it turns out, and it could work in drones’ favor.
“This applies even if a drone is hovering over your backyard,” says Sachs. “According to the FAA, it controls all airspace from the blades of the grass up. However, even if you did own X feet above your property, you would not be permitted to shoot a drone that flies within that space because shooting any aircraft is a federal crime.”
Under the Law, You Just Shot at an Airplane
Since when did a flying, remote-controlled robot become a legally binding “aircraft”? Not that long ago—only last November, as a matter of fact. In 2011, a photographer named Raphael Pirker shot a commercial at the University of Virginia with one of his drones. The FAA decided to fine him because he’d flown his hobbyist drone way too low, close to buildings, cars, and pedestrians. A legal battle ensued, and ultimately the National Transportation Safety Board ruled in November that drones are considered aircrafts, and are subject to FAA regulations.
Recently, people have continued to take literal aim at drones. Last September, a New Jersey man was arrested after shooting down a neighbor’s drone. Just last month, a viral video showed a firefighter spraying a drone with a firehose. Another man had to pay $850 after shooting down his neighbor’s UAV.
FAA spokesperson Laura Brown told Gizmodo: “We do consider unmanned aircraft to be ‘aircraft,’ but the damage issue is more a destruction of personal property question that is outside our jurisdiction.” The Department of Justice didn’t respond for a comment for this story.
Is It OK to Shoot Down Your Neighbor's Drone?
Since as early as 2013, air date of this CNN report, anti-drone citizens have pushed for laws that allow shooting the aerial devices. Image credit: CNN/YouTube
Unfortunately, you can’t bring drones down just because you think they’re a nuisance, even if they’re invading your privacy. There is, however, one plausible reason that could result in your whipping out a shotgun and felling the flying vehicle: Self-defense.
One Reason to Shoot Down a Drone Legally
It sounds like a cyberpunk, apocalyptic scenario, but if you ever found yourself in a situation where a drone is not only trespassing on your property, but is intentionally trying to harm you, then you can probably shoot it down. But this is only if the drone is swooping and trying to ram itself into you, or was outfitted with some (illegal) ammo of its own and started opening fire.
Violent retaliation in the name of “self-defense” has proven to be a slippery slope in America, and drones could be no exception. After all, if one person finds a drone hovering outside his or her bedroom window, spying, couldn’t that kind of buzzing voyeurism be considered a “threat”? Not quite, Sachs says.
“It would have to fall under ‘self-defense’ as it is commonly known: to save yourself from deadly force, or imminent bodily harm,” he says. Someone simply looking at you doesn’t cut it. Put another way: If someone starts taking pictures of you on the street, that doesn’t give you the right to punch ‘em in the face.
But isn’t trespassing on your property enough for you to open fire? Nope. However, trespassing is grounds for you to call the police—even if you can’t break out the boomstick and go all Scarface. Just because you find a drone on your property, it doesn’t mean you have the right to attack it.
Limits to Drone Surveillance
There are reasonable limits, though. Just because the law protects drones from your physical wrath, it doesn’t mean UAVs have full aerial reign.
Many states have “peeping tom laws” that prohibit voyeurism. It’s still prohibited, even if it’s voyeurism-by-drone. That said, there’s a huge difference between a drone violently diving in through an open kitchen window, and one that’s circling around the cul-de-sac down the street. If there’s a drone in your neighborhood that’s capturing video or taking pictures of public places, the operator is within his or her First Amendment rights, Sachs says.
Another reason to avoid shooting machines out of the sky? Common sense.
“Shooting at aircraft also poses a significant safety hazard,” says Les Dorr, FAA spokesperson. “An unmanned aircraft hit by gunfire could crash, causing damage to persons or property on the ground, or it could collide with other objects in the air.” And, of course, it could also “result in criminal or civil charges.” (Firing bullets into the air, period, can be deadly.)
Is It OK to Shoot Down Your Neighbor's Drone?
The US Navy built this laser to shoot down drones in military operations. Credit: Wikimedia
You may have heard news about governments building big-budget, Hollywood-style mega weapons to take down killer drones. This situation is clearly apples and oranges, since military law is vastly different from civilian law. For example, the US Navy constructed an anti-drone laser recently, and Japan and China have also looked into drone-zapping artillery. In combat zones, drones actually are intended to harm humans, so in that situation, killer lasers are A-OK.
Finally: Just because you see a drone in the sky, doesn’t mean it’s a malevolent spybot from Terminator’s Cyberdyne. It’s probably perfectly harmless.
But even if you declare the drone a threat to you and let the bullets fly, you need to be prepared to face a fallout of lawsuits, potentially staggering fines, and prison time. As long as the drone isn’t trying to physically hurt you, there’s not much you can do, besides call the cops.
Otherwise, the laws are still evolving. Unmanned aerial vehicles are a new technology, and the more they’re woven into our lives, the clearer the rules will become.
In the meantime, put yourself in the shoes of the person flying the drone, likely a hobbyist just taking the thing for a spin. In most cases, you shouldn’t freak out. Your neighbor’s drone is probably more scared of you than you are of it.
Basically, in the eyes of federal law, unless the drone was in the act of trying to kill you, you are a terrorist who shot down an airplane and risk 20 years in federal prison.
Sounds like due to lawsuits, judicial law has been made already on this issue so it is time for the feds to sit down and make some drone-specific legislation since I don't think local jurisdictions can overrule the FAA.
Frankly drones should be illegal or carefully licensed. The drones interfering with firefighting aircraft in California a few weeks ago is just the start.
Frazzled wrote: Frankly drones should be illegal or carefully licensed. The drones interfering with firefighting aircraft in California a few weeks ago is just the start.
I agree, The tech has outpaced the laws and need to be a focus of the national legislature.
And while this guy seems like he is going to claim civil disobedience and probably get the charges dropped due to low-level discretion and sympathy, it doesn't take much to be the first person who tries to fight an unjust law and be crushed by it.
Basically, in the eyes of federal law, unless the drone was in the act of trying to kill you, you are a terrorist who shot down an airplane and risk 20 years in federal prison.
Frazzled wrote: Frankly drones should be illegal or carefully licensed. The drones interfering with firefighting aircraft in California a few weeks ago is just the start.
Frazz, you never struck me as someone who favors more government regulation.
Enforce the laws currently on the books - interfering with firefighting efforts with a drone is no different than interfering with firefighting efforts using a hang glider or your bare hands. There are laws on the books for prosecuting people who do so without additional regulation.
“This applies even if a drone is hovering over your backyard,” says Sachs. “According to the FAA, it controls all airspace from the blades of the grass up. However, even if you did own X feet above your property, you would not be permitted to shoot a drone that flies within that space because shooting any aircraft is a federal crime.”
Sachs would be wrong. FAA controls (in most cases) 500 feet AGL. And the previously cited SCOTUS case seems to agree property owners DO own some air space. FAA may be responsible for the safety of all airspace (grass and up) but the property owner does have some rights here.
And according to the FAA the drone operators were probably also violating fed regs on the use of model aircraft (they MUST be flown in direct line of sight of the operator for example, though there are regs about flying them near people/over populated areas too).
CptJake wrote: And according to the FAA the drone operators were probably also violating fed regs on the use of model aircraft (they MUST be flown in direct line of sight of the operator for example, though there are regs about flying them near people/over populated areas too).
I'll repeat, the FAA does not regulate noncommercial radio control aircraft flown below 500 feet. They only have issued nonbinding guidelines that do not have force of law. So the IT MUST be flown in line of sight is not binding, and there are no laws prohibiting flights over crowds with some exceptions - there was a NOTAM to prohibit flights over major/pro league stadiums with occupancy of more than 30,000 people.
Frazzled wrote: Frankly drones should be illegal or carefully licensed. The drones interfering with firefighting aircraft in California a few weeks ago is just the start.
You feel strongly about your right to privacy, do you?
And yes, I agree with Nuggz - the area around a wildfire is classified as a temporary no-fly zone with the exception of authorized firefighting aircraft. In this specific example no further regulations are needed.
Ouze, the author of the article nkelsch posted seemed to indicate that drones were protected by the FAA. What makes you say that they aren't regulated? Genuinely curious here...
I suspect that by defining drones as aircraft the FAA (via the courts) have imposed a whole raft of rules and regualtions on uses that nobody has thought of yet
I bet that they now technically need training, pilots licences etc
also The use of alcohol and drugs by pilots is regulated by FAR 91.17. Among other provisions, this regulation states that no person may operate or attempt to operate an aircraft (which now means drone):
• within 8 hours of having consumed alcohol
• while under the influence of alcohol
• with a blood alcohol content of 0.04% or greater
• while using any drug that adversely affects safety
There are special rules for 'model aircraft'. Basically as stated, they are guidelines, but the aircraft MUST meet the statutory defintion for 'model aircraft' to avoid the regs. Part of that definition is flying in direct line of sight of the operator.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: Ouze, the author of the article nkelsch posted seemed to indicate that drones were protected by the FAA. What makes you say that they aren't regulated? Genuinely curious here...
Hobbyist drones when flown for recreational, non commercial purposes are considered model aircraft and do not require FAA authorization when flown below 500 feet.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Amazon are going to start trials of using drones to deliver parcels. What if a drone has to fly over your house to deliver a parcel to your neighbour?
If a neighbor built his house so that the only access to it would be through my house, he would have bigger problems than a few missing packages from Amazon.
CptJake wrote: There are special rules for 'model aircraft'. Basically as stated, they are guidelines, but the aircraft MUST meet the statutory defintion for 'model aircraft' to avoid the regs. Part of that definition is flying in direct line of sight of the operator.
Section 336 also prohibits the FAA from promulgating “any rule or regulation
regarding a model aircraft, or an aircraft being developed as a model aircraft” if the
following statutory requirements are met:
• the aircraft is flown strictly for hobby or recreational use;
• the aircraft is operated in accordance with a community-based set
of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide
community-based organization;
• the aircraft is limited to not more than 55 pounds unless otherwise
certified through a design, construction, inspection, flight test, and
operational safety program administered by a community-based
organization;
• the aircraft is operated in a manner that does not interfere with and
gives way to any manned aircraft; and
• when flown within 5 miles of an airport, the operator of the aircraft
provides the airport operator and the airport air traffic control
tower … with prior notice of the operation….
P.L. 112-95, section 336(a)(1)-(5).
Thus, based on the language of the statute, we conclude that aircraft that meet the
statutory definition and operational requirements, as described above, would be exempt
7
from future FAA rulemaking action specifically regarding model aircraft. Model aircraft
that do not meet these statutory requirements are nonetheless unmanned aircraft, and as
such, are subject to all existing FAA regulations
Note nothing about line of sight. Also, again note that the can clearly prosecute the drone operators who interfered with firefighting efforts under established law.
They then go on to list rules that they just explained they have no statutory authority to enforce, and in fact, they never have enforced for noncommercial operations. They brought a case against a single drone operator once for unsafe flight; he countersued and the FAA got shot down.
Raphael Pirker, the unmanned aerial vehicle pilot charged in the FAA’s case — and somewhat of a figurehead in the remote-pilot community — was slapped with fines by the FAA in October. The federal agency attempted to classify Pirker’s Ritewing Zephyr powered glider as an Unmanned Aerial System, and said Pirker flew the aircraft in a “reckless and careless” fashion over the University of Virginia grounds. Aero-News reported:
“The (FAA) charged that the ‘pilot’ operated the aircraft with a camera aboard that sent real-time video to the ground; that the flight was performed for compensation; and that he operated the aircraft at altitudes of approximately 10 feet to approximately 400 feet over the University of Virginia in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.”
But National Transportation and Safety Administration Law Judge Patrick Geraghty ruled in favor of Pirker and — it would seem — the entire UAV commercial industry, stating there was — and still is — no real FAA rule against what Pirker did.
“At the time of Respondent’s model aircraft operation, as alleged herein, there was no enforceable FAA rule or FAR Regulation applicable to model aircraft or for classifying a model aircraft as a UAS,” the court documents state.
In this thread, CptJake urges unelected bureaucrats employed by the federal government to extend it's authority in excess of statutes issued by congress with literally no sense of irony
Frazzled wrote: Frankly drones should be illegal or carefully licensed. The drones interfering with firefighting aircraft in California a few weeks ago is just the start.
Frazz, you never struck me as someone who favors more government regulation.
Enforce the laws currently on the books - interfering with firefighting efforts with a drone is no different than interfering with firefighting efforts using a hang glider or your bare hands. There are laws on the books for prosecuting people who do so without additional regulation.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: Ouze, the author of the article nkelsch posted seemed to indicate that drones were protected by the FAA. What makes you say that they aren't regulated? Genuinely curious here...
Hobbyist drones when flown for recreational, non commercial purposes are considered model aircraft and do not require FAA authorization when flown below 500 feet.
But are still subject to FAA regulations... and if found to be reckless or risk to harm property or other, are still regulated under FAA. Being under 400ft doesn't give someone permission to do what they want.
The page which shows actions which are illegal and considered breaking of regulations even though they are under 400ft show the FAA does have control over all 'aircraft' when it comes to potentially dangerous actions.
Just because it is under 400ft doesn't mean if you do dangerous stuff with the drones, you cannot be held accountable... and apparently they consider flying an aircraft within 25ft of a person or building as reckless and dangerous.
Edit: Looks like it is back for a second appeal... Time for the legislative branch to make some federal laws...
Give me a break. You conveniently skipped the section before the one you quoted which lays out the statutory requirements to be considered a model aircraft.
StatutoryRequirements On February 14, 2012, the President signed into law the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (P.L. 112-95) (the Act), which established, in Section 336, a “special rule for model aircraft.” In Section 336, Congress confirmed the FAA’s long-standing position that model aircraft are aircraft. Under the terms of the Act, a model aircraft is defined as “an unmanned aircraft” that is “(1) capable of sustained flight in the atmosphere; (2) flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft; and (3) flown for hobby or recreational purposes.” P.L. 112-95, section 336(c). Congress’
And you left out where the FAA says if you violate that statutory requirement they can regulate you.
Thus, based on the language of the statute, we conclude that aircraft that meet the statutory definition and operational requirements, as described above, would be exempt from future FAA rulemaking action specifically regarding model aircraft. Model aircraft that do not meet these statutory requirements are nonetheless unmanned aircraft, and as such, are subject to all existing FAA regulations, as well as future rulemaking action, and the FAA intends to apply its regulations to such unmanned aircraft.
And no, I do NOT advocate "unelected bureaucrats employed by the federal government to extend it's authority in excess of statutes issued by congress". Get rid of the reg completely and let the states decide how to handle it, or let municipalities and counties decide where folks can fly them.
All I have done was try to show that the quote I used from post by nkelsch I replied to (the one with the Gizmodo article link) was wrong. The Sachs guy was wrong. And if the operators were not in line of sight they took their air craft out of the definition of 'model air craft' which means they likely did violate current FAA regs. I don't claim the regs are good or bad and I sure as hell do not advocate MORE regs. If anything the reg is too restrictive given current GPS and 'fly by camera' tech on some of these toys.
nkelsch wrote: But are still subject to FAA regulations... and if found to be reckless or risk to harm property or other, are still regulated under FAA. Being under 400ft doesn't give someone permission to do what they want.
And so, Pirker is out after getting his fine reduced from $10,000 to $1,100. Under the terms of the deal, he will not admit fault and we're still sort of left with no idea as to what constitutes a reckless flight.
"The FAA had some general allegations in the complaint, like 'flying close to the ground' or 'at treetop level' or 'close to a railway line,'" Pirker said. "It's stuff that everybody is doing, and there was some concern that this could then be used as a precedent. All of these charges were dropped as part of the settlement deal."
As the law lays now, as long as you're under 500 feet, you're really only prohibited from flying over a stadium with a seating capacity of 30,000 or greater, flying within a no-fly area (such as DC or over federal installations), and so on as long as it's within the classification of being a noncommercial radio controlled model aircraft. AFAIK there has never been a prosecution for reckless flight of a model aircraft.
I suspect those wildfire guys are going to be the first.
*Model Aircraft have exceptions to regulation.
*Unmanned aircraft are regulated.
*Both count as 'aircraft' for regulations deeming reckless and harmful activity.
A Drone can be both a Model Aircraft and/or an Unmanned Aircraft depending how the person uses it. Primarily exceeding airspace and operator LOS.
None of this supports shooting a drone over your property unless your life or property was directly in danger and to do so could expose you to personal property civil cases and possibly a landmark legal battle if the FAA decided to target you with untested regulations.
*Model Aircraft have exceptions to regulation.
*Unmanned aircraft are regulated.
*Both count as 'aircraft' for regulations deeming reckless and harmful activity.
A Drone can be both a Model Aircraft and/or an Unmanned Aircraft depending how the person uses it. Primarily exceeding airspace and operator LOS.
None of this supports shooting a drone over your property unless your life or property was directly in danger and to do so could expose you to personal property civil cases and possibly a landmark legal battle if the FAA decided to target you with untested regulations.
Yes, I generally agree this is accurate. I may have used poor phrasing earlier in terms of "unregulated".
OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote: I suspect that by defining drones as aircraft the FAA (via the courts) have imposed a whole raft of rules and regualtions on uses that nobody has thought of yet
I bet that they now technically need training, pilots licences etc
OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote: I suspect that by defining drones as aircraft the FAA (via the courts) have imposed a whole raft of rules and regualtions on uses that nobody has thought of yet
I bet that they now technically need training, pilots licences etc
How about flight plans?
Read that last link I dropped, it's the most up to date.
So he has two teenage daughters, at least one of which was sunbathing in his back yard that has a 6ft tall privacy fence and this drone flies over his home...yeah I would shoot it down as well.
If shooting the damn thing is illegal, I would throw rocks at it or something (if it was low enough). Like a lot of people have said, flying a camera drone onto private property without the owner's permission should be a crime (if it isn't already).
Ghazkuul wrote: So he has two teenage daughters, at least one of which was sunbathing in his back yard that has a 6ft tall privacy fence and this drone flies over his home...yeah I would shoot it down as well.
We could also "tactically acquire" a Duke or similar system, set it up in the dining room (depending on how much yard you have), and then watch the chaos unfold when drones approach
hotsauceman1 wrote: Why don't we see the footage of what was being recorded first?
Because police returned the drone (and SD card) to the owner. Odds are the footage is already edited and and parts that make the owner look bad are deleted.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Why don't we see the footage of what was being recorded first?
Because police returned the drone (and SD card) to the owner. Odds are the footage is already edited and and parts that make the owner look bad are deleted.
Yeah this. I'd bet dollars to cents the unedited film would show a hot young teen sun bathing.
There have been a few cases of drones hampering firefighting aircraft. (As in dangerous to fly an aircraft carrying fire retardent through a cloud of drones).
I think his rights to privacy were definitely violated, and there is the possibility that the drone was recording his underage daughters, which is probably a felony in most of the world.
Shooting the thing seems excessive, perhaps, but what else can you do about it? It's a drone, the controller doesn't have to be anywhere near, there's no other way you can protect yourself or even identify the perpetrator to report him.
It's too bad the cops didn't take the card out of the thing, since there was suspician of wrong doing by the home owners. The thing was hovering below a canopy in a neighbors yard fer crying out loud.
ZergSmasher wrote: If shooting the damn thing is illegal, I would throw rocks at it or something (if it was low enough). Like a lot of people have said, flying a camera drone onto private property without the owner's permission should be a crime (if it isn't already).
It is: trespassing. I think the best option is DNA splicing to develop a trained Pteranadon flight that can take these buggies down.
Paintball.
Instead of shooting it out of the air, blind it.
It's 'non-lethal', doesn't require registration anywhere I know of, and only causes temporary or minor damage.
It'll make a right mess if you miss, though.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Why don't we see the footage of what was being recorded first?
Because police returned the drone (and SD card) to the owner. Odds are the footage is already edited and and parts that make the owner look bad are deleted.
If you think the police didn't review the footage first, you're mistaken.
In any regards, the operators supposedly were hired to take photographs of a neighbor's property. That might sound strange, but it's actually something that is becoming a bit common for people who are listing their properties for sale.
If they were doing it for commercial purposes they were not flying a 'model aircraft' by FAA standards, they are subject to a slew of rules they were clearly breaking.
Daemonhammer wrote: Can someone explain to me ho him shooting a shotgun up in the air is harmless? The projectiles still have to land somewhere, dont they?
He used light shot designed for shooting birds. The shot he used was Number 8, which has a shot diameter of 0.090" (~2.3mm).
Daemonhammer wrote: Can someone explain to me ho him shooting a shotgun up in the air is harmless? The projectiles still have to land somewhere, dont they?
He used light shot designed for shooting birds in flight.
in other words, when the pellets landed they wouldn't inflict any kind of damage beyond....wtf was that?
If you shoot up in the air at enough of an angle, everything short of a .50 doesn't gain enough velocity on the way back down to harm you. Mythbusters for the win.
Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote: If you shoot up in the air at enough of an angle, everything short of a .50 doesn't gain enough velocity on the way back down to harm you. Mythbusters for the win.
Thats strange. You would think that the 9.8ms^2 acceleration from gravity would be enough to hurt somebody.
ColonelFazackerley wrote: There have been a few cases of drones hampering firefighting aircraft. (As in dangerous to fly an aircraft carrying fire retardent through a cloud of drones).
Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote: If you shoot up in the air at enough of an angle, everything short of a .50 doesn't gain enough velocity on the way back down to harm you. Mythbusters for the win.
Thats strange. You would think that the 9.8ms^2 acceleration from gravity would be enough to hurt somebody.
Another Mythbusters (IIRC) thing showed the age old, "if I drop this penny off the Empire State Building, and it hits someone when it gets to the ground, it'll kill them" thing was false. The mass of the object falling even at Gravity might feel like an insect sting, but that's about it. And something even smaller than that, such as this birdshot, I suspect, would feel like a "light" hail.
a law where the government has the right to destroy a your property if they seem fit, brilliant.
Clearly not "as they deem fit". In emergencies, as others have posted, wildfire fighters have had difficulties flying because idiots are out there with drones filming crap. I'm sorry, but a person's right to have their home saved by fire fighters trumps the "right" of people to be douchey "journalists"
Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote: If you shoot up in the air at enough of an angle, everything short of a .50 doesn't gain enough velocity on the way back down to harm you. Mythbusters for the win.
Thats strange. You would think that the 9.8ms^2 acceleration from gravity would be enough to hurt somebody.
Not for pellets smaller than most gravel. Once the shot reaches the apex of its trajectory it loses its lethal force and only comes down with terminal velocity, which at that size isn't going to hurt anything. And that is a regular bullet. Shotgun pellets lose their lethality very quickly.
If you shoot down a drone, you're going to be paying for the drone, you're looking at civil and possibly criminal charges, and you're going to be responsible for what happens when your bullet and the drone hit the ground.
Ouze wrote: I doubt it matters. He was already charged so the ballistic specifics are relevant, one of the charges was first degree wanton endangerment.
in a scenario where the drone was not shot down, the drone could have fallen on top of someone, where is the wanton endangerment charge for the operator?
I think that's not factually accurate - I don't think you have the right to the undeveloped airspace over your home at 300 feet AGL.
But lets hypothetically say he was cruising around at 10 feet instead. The remedy for trespassing is to call the police and press charges for that, or maybe harassment, who knows? Other peoples property doesn't become yours to destroy when it crosses your property.
easysauce wrote: in a scenario where the drone was not shot down, the drone could have fallen on top of someone, where is the wanton endangerment charge for the operator?
The same place as the wanton endangerment charges are for the pilots of helicopters, airplanes, hang gliders, zeppelins, and any other flying thing that could "fall on top of someone" - in the fairy land where we charge people for hypothetical crimes for stuff that didn't happen.
I think that's not factually accurate - I don't think you have the right to the undeveloped airspace over your home at 300 feet AGL.
But lets hypothetically say he was cruising around at 10 feet instead. The remedy for trespassing is to call the police and press charges for that, or maybe harassment, who knows? Other peoples property doesn't become yours to destroy when it crosses your property.
I think that's not factually accurate - I don't think you have the right to the undeveloped airspace over your home at 300 feet AGL.
But lets hypothetically say he was cruising around at 10 feet instead. The remedy for trespassing is to call the police and press charges for that, or maybe harassment, who knows? Other peoples property doesn't become yours to destroy when it crosses your property.
This is why drones should be banned or registered and licensed with big easy to see numbers on the side, so that individuals can indeed be charged.
Grey Templar wrote: I hope he gets off. Drone operators who spy on people are scum.
Good to know that you judge 4 people without knowing them or have any information.
I want the super power where you 100% know someone is up too by just reading a few articles
Frazzled wrote: This is why drones should be banned or registered and licensed with big easy to see numbers on the side, so that individuals can indeed be charged.
Is it fair to say you are concerned with drones impinging on you and your families right to privacy?
easysauce wrote: in a scenario where the drone was not shot down, the drone could have fallen on top of someone, where is the wanton endangerment charge for the operator?
The same place as the wanton endangerment charges are for the pilots of helicopters, airplanes, hang gliders, zeppelins, and any other flying thing that could "fall on top of someone" - in the fairy land where we charge people for hypothetical crimes for stuff that didn't happen.
the guy who shot it down didnt end up hurting anyone, yet you want that charge to apply to him for "stuff that didnt happen".
only difference is one guy put ~an oz of led into the air that could fall on someone vs another guy putting a ~10 ilbs drone into the air that could fall on someone.
well, that and the guy who shot was doing it on his property, with permission, while the other guy didnt even ask for permission.
The drone didn't fall out of the sky on it's own. The fact that it became a falling projectile and a danger to people on the ground is the responsibility of the guy who shot it down.
At this point I'm internally groaning that I even needed to type that. This argument is so junior varsity - that any person who operates something that flies is culpable for wanton endangerment - that I think the best policy for my remaining brain cells is just to pretend I don't see it.
If his birdshot would have fell on someone's head it would have been assault.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: The drone didn't fall out of the sky on it's own. The fact that it became a falling projectile and a danger to people on the ground is the responsibility of the guy who shot it down.
At this point I'm internally groaning that I even needed to type that. This argument is so junior varsity - that any person who operates something that flies is culpable for wanton endangerment - that I think the best policy for my remaining brain cells is just to pretend I don't see it.
Maybe we should have charged the dead guy in the other thread who was driving his car into the curb after the cop shot him in the head...
Ouze wrote: The drone didn't fall out of the sky on it's own. The fact that it became a falling projectile and a danger to people on the ground is the responsibility of the guy who shot it down.
At this point I'm internally groaning that I even needed to type that. This argument is so junior varsity - that any person who operates something that flies is culpable for wanton endangerment - that I think the best policy for my remaining brain cells is just to pretend I don't see it.
Ouze wrote: I doubt it matters. He was already charged so the ballistic specifics are relevant, one of the charges was first degree wanton endangerment.
in a scenario where the drone was not shot down, the drone could have fallen on top of someone, where is the wanton endangerment charge for the operator?
the shooter is being charge with a crime based on what COULD happen, not what did.
sure its theoretically possible that shooting the the air could hit someone, its also just as possible that flying a drone could result in it crashing (not being shot down) and injuring someone.
if the precautions the drone operator took to ensure his drone didnt fall from the sky are enough to stay this kind of chage, then the deliberate precautions of the shooter (using light shot, not firing into populated areas, knowing what laybeyond his shot ect) should also stay the charge
Frazzled wrote: This is why drones should be banned or registered and licensed with big easy to see numbers on the side, so that individuals can indeed be charged.
Is it fair to say you are concerned with drones impinging on you and your families right to privacy?
yes indeed. With easily identifiable registration legal action can be taken. if you wanted to be protected by the FAA you should have to be regulated with the full asteroidlike weight of the FAA.
That line of thinking is so assinine that you might as well argue that they should charge every motorist because their car could have hit someone.
Want to charge a drone operator with endangerment because they flew a drone without fully charged batteries and it fell? Flew out of range and it fell? Operated it while drunk? More power to you. But "shooting a weapon into the air is an dangerous as flying a drone" is such a ridiculous argument that I would gladly turn in my guns and collect signatures for a constitutional convention to repeal the 2nd just so that I never have to read it again.
d-usa wrote: That line of thinking is so assinine that you might as well argue that they should charge every motorist because their car could have hit someone.
Want to charge a drone operator with endangerment because they flew a drone without fully charged batteries and it fell? Flew out of range and it fell? Operated it while drunk? More power to you. But "shooting a weapon into the air is an dangerous as flying a drone" is such a ridiculous argument that I would gladly turn in my guns and collect signatures for a constitutional convention to repeal the 2nd just so that I never have to read it again.
I think that's not factually accurate - I don't think you have the right to the undeveloped airspace over your home at 300 feet AGL.
But lets hypothetically say he was cruising around at 10 feet instead. The remedy for trespassing is to call the police and press charges for that, or maybe harassment, who knows? Other peoples property doesn't become yours to destroy when it crosses your property.
The Drone could not have been flying at 300 feet if it got shot down by the birdshot. You are talking 40 yards at most. Beyond that its not going to do anything beyond scratch the paint.
And yes, if someone's property is the trespassing object I believe I do have the right to damage it.
I also have to question why the Drone was returned to the owner seeing that it is evidence in the charges against the homeowner.
And yes, if someone's property is the trespassing object I believe I do have the right to damage it.
Of course first you would have to determine if someone was trespassing. The law in Kentucky states:
A person is guilty of criminal trespass in the first degree when he knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in a dwelling.
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.
A person is guilty of criminal trespass in the third degree when he knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in or upon premises.
So under Kentucky law, the drone was not trespassing.
And still, if it was, then the recourse to trespass is to call the police instead of the destruction of property.
And yes, if someone's property is the trespassing object I believe I do have the right to damage it.
Of course first you would have to determine if someone was trespassing. The law in Kentucky states:
A person is guilty of criminal trespass in the first degree when he knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in a dwelling.
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.
A person is guilty of criminal trespass in the third degree when he knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in or upon premises.
So under Kentucky law, the drone was not trespassing.
And still, if it was, then the recourse to trespass is to call the police instead of the destruction of property.
And you can bet your sweet patootie that this will get legislated against. Its a loophole in the law. The intent is clear that this would be covered under trespass or at the very least harassment.
Grey Templar wrote: I hope he gets off. Drone operators who spy on people are scum.
Good to know that you judge 4 people without knowing them or have any information.
I want the super power where you 100% know someone is up too by just reading a few articles
This just in, Hotsauceman has no issue with pervs spying on underage girls sunbathing with drones.
There were other witnesses in the neighborhood. Just stop before you hurt yourself.
d-usa wrote: That line of thinking is so assinine that you might as well argue that they should charge every motorist because their car could have hit someone.
Want to charge a drone operator with endangerment because they flew a drone without fully charged batteries and it fell? Flew out of range and it fell? Operated it while drunk? More power to you. But "shooting a weapon into the air is an dangerous as flying a drone" is such a ridiculous argument that I would gladly turn in my guns and collect signatures for a constitutional convention to repeal the 2nd just so that I never have to read it again.
I think my point is being misconstrued,
My point is that the shooter took precautions in shooting down the drone that would be reasonably construed as reasonable precautions that made his action not dangerous to the public. If he was somewhere where shooting down a duck isnt endangering the public, then neither is shooting down a drone.
Probably one of the many other laws that already cover privacy, harassment, privacy, etc. We got a whole book of them, do a Google or something. I'm telling you that your argument of "it was trespassing" is wrong, but I'm not going to Google your next argument for you.
You also don't have an explicit right to privacy in your backyard considering that it is already visible to me on Google Earth, to anybody with a helicopter, to the guy with the home-build light aircraft, to the guy in the hot air balloon, and to everyone looking out the window in an airplane.
You don't get to shoot down anything you want and invoke the "they were looking at me" defense.
And you can bet your sweet patootie that this will get legislated against. Its a loophole in the law. The intent is clear that this would be covered under trespass or at the very least harassment.
Under current trespass law, if someone is on your property do you get to shoot them or shoot up their car?
Under current harassment laws, if someone is harassing you do you get to shoot them or shoot up their car?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: Actually there should be statues about tresspassing on land that would cover it. you appear to have sourced trespassing on fixed improvements.
there is also the old equity tresspassing on property.
Kentucky wrote:511.010 Definitions.
The following definitions apply in this chapter unless the context otherwise requires:
(1) "Building," in addition to its ordinary meaning, means any structure, vehicle, watercraft or aircraft:
(a) Where any person lives; or
(b) Where people assemble for purposes of business, government, education, religion, entertainment or public transportation.
Each unit of a building consisting of two (2) or more units separately secured or occupied is a separate building.
(2) "Dwelling" means a building which is usually occupied by a person lodging therein.
(3) "Premises" includes the term "building" as defined herein and any real property.
And peeping toms get charged with more than trespassing.
Wether using eyeballs or a hand held camera or a drone mounted camera, voyeurism tends to be against the law when the subject of the voyeurism is unaware and/or underaged.
CptJake wrote: And peeping toms get charged with more than trespassing.
Peeping Toms also do a lot more than just looking into a backyard. Now you are talking about laws and prior rulings that cover privacy inside a building as well.
Wether using eyeballs or a hand held camera or a drone mounted camera, voyeurism tends to be against the law when the subject of the voyeurism is unaware and/or underaged.
And does the law allow you to shoot at either the voyeur or the property?
I'm not defending the use of drones to film teenagers sunbathing in back yards. I'm just saying that it doesn't appear that there is any legal justification for shooting them down instead of using the proper legal resources available to the property owner.
CptJake wrote: And peeping toms get charged with more than trespassing.
Wether using eyeballs or a hand held camera or a drone mounted camera, voyeurism tends to be against the law when the subject of the voyeurism is unaware and/or underaged.
Good point. Do they? If so then there is precedent for appropriate laws being put in place or used for this purpose.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kentucky wrote:511.010 Definitions.
The following definitions apply in this chapter unless the context otherwise requires:
(1) "Building," in addition to its ordinary meaning, means any structure, vehicle, watercraft or aircraft:
(a) Where any person lives; or
(b) Where people assemble for purposes of business, government, education, religion, entertainment or public transportation.
Each unit of a building consisting of two (2) or more units separately secured or occupied is a separate building.
(2) "Dwelling" means a building which is usually occupied by a person lodging therein.
(3) "Premises" includes the term "building" as defined herein and any real property.
d-usa wrote: It was the only mention of Trespass that I could find in Kentucky.
Gotcha and not being critical. It may be written in not saying "trespass" or such. Actual laws are a pain in the butt to find or often to interpret. Its almost like they are written by lawyers...
CptJake wrote: And peeping toms get charged with more than trespassing.
Peeping Toms also do a lot more than just looking into a backyard. Now you are talking about laws and prior rulings that cover privacy inside a building as well.
Wether using eyeballs or a hand held camera or a drone mounted camera, voyeurism tends to be against the law when the subject of the voyeurism is unaware and/or underaged.
And does the law allow you to shoot at either the voyeur or the property?
Situationally dependent. As I've mentioned in this topic, my house is pretty remote and you must very deliberately go over barriers to get to it. You can't mistakenly approach my house on foot or by vehicle.
In NC, I can shoot to prevent incursion into my house if I feel threatened. Honestly, it would depend on wether or not I could feel safely confident it was 'just' a perv and not someone trying to break in.
CptJake wrote: In NC, I can shoot to prevent incursion into my house if I feel threatened. Honestly, it would depend on wether or not I could feel safely confident it was 'just' a perv and not someone trying to break in.
Use of force in defense of person; relief from criminal or civil liability.
(a) A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that the conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat in any place he or she has the lawful right to be if either of the following applies: (1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another. (2) Under the circumstances permitted pursuant to G.S. 14‑51.2. (b) A person who uses force as permitted by this section is justified in using such force and is immune from civil or criminal liability for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer or bail bondsman who was lawfully acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer or bail bondsman 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 law enforcement officer or bail bondsman in the lawful performance of his or her official duties. (2011‑268, s. 1.)
So, if you shoot a trespasser because "you felt threatened", you are probably going to jail. Good luck with that.
Frazzled wrote: Highly unlikely you could sustain a self defense claim to shoot outside your house however, which is what occurred here.
Nor is it that appropriate. This is damage to property. Self defense is not an issue. Nor are the penalties as severe.
Note this is also why farmers quit shooting at tresspassers with rock salt. 1. Their ass could go to jail and get the sued out of them. (actual case studies in law class, i can't remember procedure or law). 2. Someone might shoot back.
CptJake wrote: And peeping toms get charged with more than trespassing.
Peeping Toms also do a lot more than just looking into a backyard. Now you are talking about laws and prior rulings that cover privacy inside a building as well.
Wether using eyeballs or a hand held camera or a drone mounted camera, voyeurism tends to be against the law when the subject of the voyeurism is unaware and/or underaged.
And does the law allow you to shoot at either the voyeur or the property?
Situationally dependent. As I've mentioned in this topic, my house is pretty remote and you must very deliberately go over barriers to get to it. You can't mistakenly approach my house on foot or by vehicle.
In NC, I can shoot to prevent incursion into my house if I feel threatened. Honestly, it would depend on wether or not I could feel safely confident it was 'just' a perv and not someone trying to break in.
But to make it more applicable to the case at hand: If someone is on your remote property and has deliberately gone over barriers to get to it, do you then get to shoot up his car?
CptJake wrote: In NC, I can shoot to prevent incursion into my house if I feel threatened. Honestly, it would depend on wether or not I could feel safely confident it was 'just' a perv and not someone trying to break in.
Use of force in defense of person; relief from criminal or civil liability.
(a) A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that the conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat in any place he or she has the lawful right to be if either of the following applies: (1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another. (2) Under the circumstances permitted pursuant to G.S. 14‑51.2. (b) A person who uses force as permitted by this section is justified in using such force and is immune from civil or criminal liability for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer or bail bondsman who was lawfully acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer or bail bondsman 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 law enforcement officer or bail bondsman in the lawful performance of his or her official duties. (2011‑268, s. 1.)
So, if you shoot a trespasser because "you felt threatened", you are probably going to jail. Good luck with that.
14-51.2. Home, workplace, and motor vehicle protection; presumption of fear of death or serious bodily harm.
(a) The following definitions apply in this section:
(1) Home. - A building or conveyance of any kind, to include its curtilage, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed as a temporary or permanent residence.
(2) Law enforcement officer. - Any person employed or appointed as a full-time, part-time, or auxiliary law enforcement officer, correctional officer, probation officer, post-release supervision officer, or parole officer.
(3) Motor vehicle. - As defined in G.S. 20-4.01(23).
(4) Workplace. - A building or conveyance of any kind, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, which is being used for commercial purposes.
(b) The lawful occupant of a home, motor vehicle, or workplace is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent death or serious bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily harm to another if both of the following apply:
(1) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a home, motor vehicle, or workplace, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person's will from the home, motor vehicle, or workplace.
(2) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(c) The presumption set forth in subsection (b) of this section shall be rebuttable and does not apply in any of the following circumstances:
(1) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the home, motor vehicle, or workplace, such as an owner or lessee, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person.
(2) The person sought to be removed from the home, motor vehicle, or workplace is a child or grandchild or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of the person against whom the defensive force is used.
(3) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in, attempting to escape from, or using the home, motor vehicle, or workplace to further any criminal offense that involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.
(4) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer or bail bondsman who enters or attempts to enter a home, motor vehicle, or workplace in the lawful performance of his or her official duties, and the officer or bail bondsman identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer or bail bondsman in the lawful performance of his or her official duties.
(5) The person against whom the defensive force is used (i) has discontinued all efforts to unlawfully and forcefully enter the home, motor vehicle, or workplace and (ii) has exited the home, motor vehicle, or workplace.
(d) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person's home, motor vehicle, or workplace is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
(e) A person who uses force as permitted by this section is justified in using such force and is immune from civil or criminal liability for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer or bail bondsman who was lawfully acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer or bail bondsman 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 law enforcement officer or bail bondsman in the lawful performance of his or her official duties.
(f) A lawful occupant within his or her home, motor vehicle, or workplace does not have a duty to retreat from an intruder in the circumstances described in this section.
(g) This section is not intended to repeal or limit any other defense that may exist under the common law. (2011-268, s. 1.)
NC GENERAL STATUTE 14 51.1. Use of deadly physical force against an intruder. (This is commonly called the "Castle Doctrine.")
(a) A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence is justified in using any degree of force that the occupant reasonably believes is necessary, including deadly force, against an intruder to prevent a forcible entry into the home or residence or to terminate the intruder's unlawful entry (i) if the occupant reasonably apprehends that the intruder may kill or inflict serious bodily harm to the occupant or others in the home or residence, or (ii) if the occupant reasonably believes that the intruder intends to commit a felony in the home or residence.
(b) A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence does not have a duty to retreat from an intruder in the circumstances described in this section.
Someone trying to break in gives me very reasonable belief my family and I are threatened by imminent death or great bodily harm or that the would be intruder intends to commit a felony in my home.
NC GENERAL STATUTE 14 51.1. Use of deadly physical force against an intruder. (This is commonly called the "Castle Doctrine.")
(a) A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence is justified in using any degree of force that the occupant reasonably believes is necessary, including deadly force, against an intruder to prevent a forcible entry into the home or residence or to terminate the intruder's unlawful entry (i) if the occupant reasonably apprehends that the intruder may kill or inflict serious bodily harm to the occupant or others in the home or residence, or (ii) if the occupant reasonably believes that the intruder intends to commit a felony in the home or residence.
(b) A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence does not have a duty to retreat from an intruder in the circumstances described in this section.
Someone trying to break in gives me very reasonable belief my family and I are threatened by imminent death or great bodily harm or that the would be intruder intends to commit a felony in my home.
Does home or place of residence cover the outside of your property?
NC GENERAL STATUTE 14 51.1. Use of deadly physical force against an intruder. (This is commonly called the "Castle Doctrine.")
(a) A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence is justified in using any degree of force that the occupant reasonably believes is necessary, including deadly force, against an intruder to prevent a forcible entry into the home or residence or to terminate the intruder's unlawful entry (i) if the occupant reasonably apprehends that the intruder may kill or inflict serious bodily harm to the occupant or others in the home or residence, or (ii) if the occupant reasonably believes that the intruder intends to commit a felony in the home or residence.
(b) A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence does not have a duty to retreat from an intruder in the circumstances described in this section.
Someone trying to break in gives me very reasonable belief my family and I are threatened by imminent death or great bodily harm or that the would be intruder intends to commit a felony in my home.
Does home or place of residence cover the outside of your property?
CJ is right in that, in your house in Okahoma, he'd not get charged with anything (that state's as 'defense' oriented" as Texas).
D-USA is right in that sustaining such a defense is really really difficult outside the abode, with certain exceptions. Texas has expanded theirs to basically, -"your honor I thought he was stealing some seed out of the bird feeder so I blasted 'em!" being legal under statute if at night. I don't know Oklahoma's specifically.
Frazzled is right (well when am I not?) in that it doesn't matter. Its an action against property. Self defense rules don't apply unless that property is able to make a reasonable threat (killer drone, in the very not at all distant future, killer sheep etc.)
CptJake wrote: Does 'prevent a forcible entry' imply waiting for them to gain entry?
I don't think so.
I think you would still have a hard time arguing that a guy standing in your yard not actively trying to break into your home is in the process of gaining entry into your home.
In the case at hand I think you would have an even harder time arguing that the drone flying in the air above your yard is in the process of gaining entry into your home.
easysauce wrote: id say the onus for breaking what amounts to a fancy RC toy is a lot easier then proving shooting a living being was justified.
Can anyone answer this:
was the area the drone shot down in an area where it is legal to shoot a duck.
He was charged with discharging a weapon inside city limits. So it appears that it wasn't.
One of my first posts was also the whole "if he could legally shoot clay targets in his yard then he could probably legally shoot drones in the yard" thought, so I am with you there. The drone owner might still be able to go through the civil court for damages, but it wouldn't be a criminal issue IMO.
Using ducks as an argument might be more difficult though, since there is a duck season and you have to have a license. But I think if the state would charge $10 for a drone license we could probably fix the state budget shortfall in Oklahoma
CptJake wrote: Does 'prevent a forcible entry' imply waiting for them to gain entry?
I don't think so.
I think you would still have a hard time arguing that a guy standing in your yard not actively trying to break into your home is in the process of gaining entry into your home.
I already said 'if I could not be confident they were not trying to break in'. I'm not a dumb guy. Nor do I want to have to kill people. A guy standing in the yard does not automatically get shot. He MAY get a gun pointed in his general direction and asked to hang tight until the cops can escort him away.
CptJake wrote: Does 'prevent a forcible entry' imply waiting for them to gain entry?
I don't think so.
I think you would still have a hard time arguing that a guy standing in your yard not actively trying to break into your home is in the process of gaining entry into your home.
I already said 'if I could not be confident they were not trying to break in'. I'm not a dumb guy. Nor do I want to have to kill people. A guy standing in the yard does not automatically get shot. He MAY get a gun pointed in his general direction and asked to hang tight until the cops can escort him away.
easysauce wrote: id say the onus for breaking what amounts to a fancy RC toy is a lot easier then proving shooting a living being was justified.
Can anyone answer this:
was the area the drone shot down in an area where it is legal to shoot a duck.
Sounds like that is the issue. No, he was in city limits where he cannot legally fire the weapon.
yeah, so he is technically in the wrong then for dischargin the shotgun, give him a fine, fine the drone operator and move on.
next time he will know to use a potato cannon, or a jammer, or just fly his own drone into it or something other then a firearm.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: . But I think if the state would charge $10 for a drone license we could probably fix the state budget shortfall in Oklahoma
oh yeah!
id love to do that, we actually were toying with the idea of using drones to make maneuverable clays (hang the clay a ways below the drone!) for some target comps up here.
id love to do that, we actually were toying with the idea of using drones to make maneuverable clays (hang the clay a ways below the drone!) for some target comps up here.
If the discharging of a gun was the issue... what if he grabbed the pool skimmer and knocked it down and then ran over it with a lawn mower?
If the issue was with the discharge of a gun, and not destruction of the drone, if he destroyed the drone via other mechanisms (Long pole, pool skimmer, bow and arrow) Would he have been ok? (Outside the obvious civil suit)
nkelsch wrote: If the discharging of a gun was the issue... what if he grabbed the pool skimmer and knocked it down and then ran over it with a lawn mower?
If the issue was with the discharge of a gun, and not destruction of the drone, if he destroyed the drone via other mechanisms (Long pole, pool skimmer, bow and arrow) Would he have been ok? (Outside the obvious civil suit)
I think that's not factually accurate - I don't think you have the right to the undeveloped airspace over your home at 300 feet AGL.
But lets hypothetically say he was cruising around at 10 feet instead. The remedy for trespassing is to call the police and press charges for that, or maybe harassment, who knows? Other peoples property doesn't become yours to destroy when it crosses your property.
I don't believe the 300 feet.
I don't , either. It's hard enough to bring a Pheasant at 30 feet down with number 6 shot let alone something at 300 feet with number 6.
From the local coverage of the story,
“Well, I came out and it was down by the neighbor’s house, about 10 feet off the ground, looking under their canopy that they’ve got in their back yard," Merideth said. "I went and got my shotgun and I said, ‘I’m not going to do anything unless it’s directly over my property.’"
Perhaps the video was not usable - if it where a Phantom 2 Vision+, the video would not be closed if it lost power during recording. You'd need to recover it with another P2V+, and even then, sometimes it's too corrupt to fix.
I mean, I know you guys know more about investigating a crime than the cops that were on the scene do and all, but just throwing it out there.
If the issue was with the discharge of a gun, and not destruction of the drone, if he destroyed the drone via other mechanisms (Long pole, pool skimmer, bow and arrow) Would he have been ok? (Outside the obvious civil suit)
I agree with d-usa in that I would think that the issue is more about the method of destruction, not the destruction itself.
As for the civil suit, I'd counter-sue for the filming/harrassment, and I would kind of assume that I'd get a fairly sympathetic judge in that case
Ouze wrote: Perhaps the video was not usable - if it where a Phantom 2 Vision+, the video would not be closed if it lost power during recording. You'd need to recover it with another P2V+, and even then, sometimes it's too corrupt to fix.
I mean, I know you guys know more about investigating a crime than the cops that were on the scene do and all, but just throwing it out there.
In all fairness, as you well know, the cops have been shown to be less than perfect at times in news stories featured in this forum.
Grey Templar wrote: I hope he gets off. Drone operators who spy on people are scum.
Good to know that you judge 4 people without knowing them or have any information.
I want the super power where you 100% know someone is up too by just reading a few articles
This just in, Hotsauceman has no issue with pervs spying on underage girls sunbathing with drones.
There were other witnesses in the neighborhood. Just stop before you hurt yourself.
no, I'm against destruction of other people's property. We have no idea. Y,know drones are hard to control. Maybe the drone owner was having trouble controlling it. But it seems some people have 100% proof of what those few guys where doing and deserve to have their stuff destroyed.
Grey Templar wrote: I hope he gets off. Drone operators who spy on people are scum.
Good to know that you judge 4 people without knowing them or have any information. I want the super power where you 100% know someone is up too by just reading a few articles
This just in, Hotsauceman has no issue with pervs spying on underage girls sunbathing with drones.
There were other witnesses in the neighborhood. Just stop before you hurt yourself.
no, I'm against destruction of other people's property. We have no idea. Y,know drones are hard to control. Maybe the drone owner was having trouble controlling it. But it seems some people have 100% proof of what those few guys where doing and deserve to have their stuff destroyed.
If he can't control it adequately he shouldn't be flying it over other peoples property. He should teach himself on his own land or in a public area with not many people.
Grey Templar wrote: I hope he gets off. Drone operators who spy on people are scum.
Good to know that you judge 4 people without knowing them or have any information.
I want the super power where you 100% know someone is up too by just reading a few articles
This just in, Hotsauceman has no issue with pervs spying on underage girls sunbathing with drones.
There were other witnesses in the neighborhood. Just stop before you hurt yourself.
no, I'm against destruction of other people's property. We have no idea. Y,know drones are hard to control. Maybe the drone owner was having trouble controlling it. But it seems some people have 100% proof of what those few guys where doing and deserve to have their stuff destroyed.
If he can't control it adequately he shouldn't be flying it over other peoples property. He should teach himself on his own land or in a public park.
Grey Templar wrote: I hope he gets off. Drone operators who spy on people are scum.
Good to know that you judge 4 people without knowing them or have any information.
I want the super power where you 100% know someone is up too by just reading a few articles
This just in, Hotsauceman has no issue with pervs spying on underage girls sunbathing with drones.
There were other witnesses in the neighborhood. Just stop before you hurt yourself.
no, I'm against destruction of other people's property. We have no idea. Y,know drones are hard to control. Maybe the drone owner was having trouble controlling it. But it seems some people have 100% proof of what those few guys where doing and deserve to have their stuff destroyed.
If he can't control it adequately he shouldn't be flying it over other peoples property. He should teach himself on his own land or in a public area with not many people.
Especially when you are in fenced in yards with underage girls in swimwear.
Saw a sign on a tree yesterday when out walking the dog, 'small drone found in back garden' and I found the idea somewhat amusing that we've gone from missing cat posters to missing drones. Still, I would not want a camera drone filming on my property. Seems to me a good spud gun would do the trick, or perhaps one of those net launchers.
In the posted local news story, they did a poll, and 90% of the respondents at the time I checked supported what he did.
I guess no one likes the thought of their daughter or themselves being the unwilling participant in a "girls gone wild, drone edition" video.
The police fethed up properly by not securing evidence. The man shooting down the drone bases both his defence and an accusation of wrongdoing against the drone pilot on the belief it was watching his children. And the police give it all back instead of securing it. Seems likely to me that cases on both sides might collapse because they compromised evidence.
Howard A Treesong wrote: The police fethed up properly by not securing evidence. The man shooting down the drone bases both his defence and an accusation of wrongdoing against the drone pilot on the belief it was watching his children. And the police give it all back instead of securing it. Seems likely to me that cases on both sides might collapse because they compromised evidence.
If the law doesn't allow you to discharge your weapon at a camera and if the law doesn't make it illegal to fly a drone with a camera, then there is no reason for the police to hang on to the drone.
Let's say someone shoots your car because the car is green, and it's not against the law to drive a green car, that doesn't mean that the police needs to impound for our car.
It's not their job or responsibility to secure the evidence for a successful defense.
d-usa wrote: That line of thinking is so assinine that you might as well argue that they should charge every motorist because their car could have hit someone.
True, but then isn't every driver required to sit a test, obtain a licence, have their vehicles clearly registered and maintained to a road worthy standard? Oh and have insurance in case they did cause damage to something else?
Howard A Treesong wrote: The police fethed up properly by not securing evidence. The man shooting down the drone bases both his defence and an accusation of wrongdoing against the drone pilot on the belief it was watching his children. And the police give it all back instead of securing it. Seems likely to me that cases on both sides might collapse because they compromised evidence.
If the law doesn't allow you to discharge your weapon at a camera and if the law doesn't make it illegal to fly a drone with a camera, then there is no reason for the police to hang on to the drone.
Let's say someone shoots your car because the car is green, and it's not against the law to drive a green car, that doesn't mean that the police needs to impound for our car.
It's not their job or responsibility to secure the evidence for a successful defense.
He's effectively made an accusation of voyeurism or invasion of privacy. The police shouldn't dispose of evidence related to that. Further if he wants to claim provocation in his defence then the police not bothering to collect evidence that would support that can count against prosecution. Cases do fall because the authorities decide only to keep evidence that suits them and removes opportunities to make a defence.
Other parts of the case will require discussion of what it was shot with and its height. I would hope they kept evidence to prove that either way. It seems pretty remiss to not keep video footage of an offence being carried out anyway, it should make prosecution easier.
So if someone punches you in the face and says they punched you because you took pictures of his family in your car, and the police show up and search you car and don't find any evidence, do they then get to keep your car for however long it takes for the other guy to go to court?
The police investigated both complaints, they found evidence for one of them, that's pretty much it.
d-usa wrote: So if someone punches you in the face and says they punched you because you took pictures of his family in your car, and the police show up and search you car and don't find any evidence, do they then get to keep your car for however long it takes for the other guy to go to court?
The police investigated both complaints, they found evidence for one of them, that's pretty much it.
Difference is, they never loodked at the video. Read the article I put up. He (and witnesses) watched them just give the drone back without even removing the SD card. If he was claiming voyeurism as the reason he shot it, they should keep the card for evidence. But they didn't, and he went to jail. Thats pretty one sided, and boneheaded on the LEO's part
Someone punches you and gets arrested, the guy that punches you says you were recording him with your phone, the officer doesn't charge you but takes your phone away from you anyway.
If there is no law against flying a camera drone around and the police have no probable cause to take your drone away from you then it doesn't matter if the guy didn't like it and he wants to use it in his "I shot the drone, but he was looking at me funny".
It's not illegal to fly your drone in public (which also includes the airspace above your house), the law is fairly clear on that.
It's also not illegal to take pictures in public, the law is very clear on that.
One guy shooting off his shotgun says "they were spying on me", guy with the drone says "we were hired to take pictures of the neighbors house", there is nothing there to justify the search and seizure of the drone.
d-usa wrote: Someone punches you and gets arrested, the guy that punches you says you were recording him with your phone, the officer doesn't charge you but takes your phone away from you anyway.
If there is no law against flying a camera drone around and the police have no probable cause to take your drone away from you then it doesn't matter if the guy didn't like it and he wants to use it in his "I shot the drone, but he was looking at me funny".
It's not illegal to fly your drone in public (which also includes the airspace above your house), the law is fairly clear on that.
It's also not illegal to take pictures in public, the law is very clear on that.
One guy shooting off his shotgun says "they were spying on me", guy with the drone says "we were hired to take pictures of the neighbors house", there is nothing there to justify the search and seizure of the drone.
The neighbours house is private property, do they have the right to take pictures of it without the owners permission?
Does that right extend to taking pictures of underage girls on that private property without their permission?
I think the man saying "I suspected they were taking pictures of my underage teenage daughter sunbathing in our garden" warrants looking at the SD card, as it could lead to charges of voyeurism and possibly worse since she was a minor.
d-usa wrote: Someone punches you and gets arrested, the guy that punches you says you were recording him with your phone, the officer doesn't charge you but takes your phone away from you anyway.
If there is no law against flying a camera drone around and the police have no probable cause to take your drone away from you then it doesn't matter if the guy didn't like it and he wants to use it in his "I shot the drone, but he was looking at me funny".
It's not illegal to fly your drone in public (which also includes the airspace above your house), the law is fairly clear on that.
It's also not illegal to take pictures in public, the law is very clear on that.
One guy shooting off his shotgun says "they were spying on me", guy with the drone says "we were hired to take pictures of the neighbors house", there is nothing there to justify the search and seizure of the drone.
The neighbours house is private property, do they have the right to take pictures of it without the owners permission?
Yes. Anyone can take picture of anything as long as it is in public. That includes all parts of your private property that is visible from a public area. I can stand in front of your house on a public road and take all the pictures I want. This is a big difference between the US and European countries, and you can look at the various issues that Google Street View has run into to learn more about that. If I am flying in a helicopter, airplane, or hot air ballon I am still allowed to take pictures of your property because I'm in the air which is public.
Drones is where people are starting to re-evaluate these laws and are now thinking about how high/low private property extends. But it is likely that the cops know the law in their own jurisdiction better than us Internet guys and that heh would know if flying that drone with a camera was against the law.
I'm not saying it is right to use a drone and the technicality of being "in public" to video sunbathing teenagers (if that is what they were doing), im just saying it was most likely legal.
Does that right extend to taking pictures of underage girls on that private property without their permission?
Yes. I am legally able to walk through my entire neighborhood and take pictures of every child I see as long as I can see them without having to enter their property.
I think the man saying "I suspected they were taking pictures of my underage teenage daughter sunbathing in our garden" warrants looking at the SD card, as it could lead to charges of voyeurism and possibly worse since she was a minor.
If your daughter was sunbathing and I was able to see her without violating the law, then I would be able to record her without breaking the law. You might not like it, and you might call the cops, but once the cops determine that no law was broken they have no right to search my recordings or to keep my recording device.
The cops don't get to look at the video to see if a crime occurred or keep the memory card to see if a crime occured. They need to have probable cause that a law was violated to justify seizing and searching the drone. Saying "he spied on us" in the absence of any actual evidence, especially if flying a drone and recording with it isn't against the law, does not meet that burden.
I realize that recording (pictures/video) and privacy laws are very different in the US and Europe, so I suspect that this is part of the reason we disagree on the legality of it. But please don't mistake my position on legality as a moral approval to record underage sunbathers to get your jollies.
Whoever, in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, has the intent to capture an image of a private area of an individual without their consent, and knowingly does so under circumstances in which the individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. (b) In this section— (1) the term “capture”, with respect to an image, means to videotape, photograph, film, record by any means, or broadcast; (2) the term “broadcast” means to electronically transmit a visual image with the intent that it be viewed by a person or persons; (3) the term “a private area of the individual” means the naked or undergarment clad genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or female breast of that individual; (4) the term “female breast” means any portion of the female breast below the top of the areola; and (5) the term “under circumstances in which that individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy” means— (A) circumstances in which a reasonable person would believe that he or she could disrobe in privacy, without being concerned that an image of a private area of the individual was being captured; or (B) circumstances in which a reasonable person would believe that a private area of the individual would not be visible to the public, regardless of whether that person is in a public or private place.
Now lets look at this.
They were taking pictures/recording so that satisfies part 1
The girl was sunbathing. It therefore follows that she was probably wearing a bikini, an outfit which could, I think, be argued to be the same as "undergarments". So this satisfies part 3.
The garden is private property. It had a 6 foot fence. So I think it could be argued to satisfy 5 A and/or B.
So I actually do think there is a possible case for the drone owners to be prosecuted under voyeurism if they did have pictures of the sunbathing girl.
If you're standing out in your yard, in clear public view, you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
A Town Called Malus wrote: The girl was sunbathing. It therefore follows that she was probably wearing a bikini, an outfit which could, I think, be argued to be the same as "undergarments".
lol no. We're not going to arrest every person at a beach for charges of public indecency
Ouze wrote: If you're standing out in your yard, in clear public view, you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
A Town Called Malus wrote: The girl was sunbathing. It therefore follows that she was probably wearing a bikini, an outfit which could, I think, be argued to be the same as "undergarments".
lol no. We're not going to arrest every person at a beach for charges of public indecency
So could you explain the difference between a bikini top and a bra?
Because I've seen some bikini tops that cover less area than a bra does.
Also, I don't think just walking around in your undergarments is actually a case of public indecency.
Also, this was his back yard. With a tall fence. That is not "standing in clear public view"
Ouze wrote: If you're standing out in your yard, in clear public view, you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
A Town Called Malus wrote: The girl was sunbathing. It therefore follows that she was probably wearing a bikini, an outfit which could, I think, be argued to be the same as "undergarments".
lol no. We're not going to arrest every person at a beach for charges of public indecency
The thing being ignored is that they weren't in public view, but in their back yard surrounded by a privacy fence. It is also being ignored that the drone was hovering below a tarp on the neighbor's house, presumably looking inside.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: So if someone punches you in the face and says they punched you because you took pictures of his family in your car, and the police show up and search you car and don't find any evidence, do they then get to keep your car for however long it takes for the other guy to go to court?
The police investigated both complaints, they found evidence for one of them, that's pretty much it.
Except the police didn't bother to search the card, which is where the evidence would be. Using your example, if the police show up and you say you punched a guy in the face because he had someone locked, unconscious, in the trunk of his car, and they arrest you because there is evidence you punched him. They, however, let the guy go without making any effort of searching the car, because the victim locked in the trunk can't be seen.
That is crappy police work.
Relapse wrote: The thing being ignored is that they weren't in public view, but in their back yard surrounded by a privacy fence. It is also being ignored that the drone was hovering below a tarp on the neighbor's house, presumably looking inside.
Except that isn't a clear fact, but hotly in dispute. The guy who operated the drone claimed he was at 300 feet, and produced a flight log on an ipad - which can't be faked that I'm aware of - as evidence to support his story. On the other hand, we have the word of a guy who is charged with 2 felonies over his actions and who has every reason to lie about what happened to bolster his defense. So, not sure why he's getting this enormous presumption of honesty.
Because I've seen some bikini tops that cover less area than a bra does.
No, because this is a ridiculous argument that's not worth my time - that being in a bathing suit is the same as undergarments. You can feel free to google the definition yourself, but you need to consider that you're literally arguing everyone at a beach is in their underwear and anyone videotaping, at a beach, could be prosecuted for voyeurism. This is one of the worst arguments I've ever read on Dakka and the bar was already quite low.
So the drone was hovering below the neighbors tarp, with a report that he was hired to take picture of the neighbor house (so he wasn't even "trespassing" on the shooters property under any stretch of definition), and no expectation of privacy from anything that has a vantage point higher than 6 feet.
The legal justification for the shooting is getting worse and worse, and the legal case against the drone operator is getting more nonexistent with every "fact".
Ouze wrote: If you're standing out in your yard, in clear public view, you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
A Town Called Malus wrote: The girl was sunbathing. It therefore follows that she was probably wearing a bikini, an outfit which could, I think, be argued to be the same as "undergarments".
lol no. We're not going to arrest every person at a beach for charges of public indecency
The thing being ignored is that they weren't in public view, but in their back yard surrounded by a privacy fence. It is also being ignored that the drone was hovering below a tarp on the neighbor's house, presumably looking inside.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: So if someone punches you in the face and says they punched you because you took pictures of his family in your car, and the police show up and search you car and don't find any evidence, do they then get to keep your car for however long it takes for the other guy to go to court?
The police investigated both complaints, they found evidence for one of them, that's pretty much it.
Except the police didn't bother to search the card, which is where the evidence would be. Using your example, if the police show up and you say you punched a guy in the face because he had someone locked, unconscious, in the trunk of his car, and they arrest you because there is evidence you punched him. They, however, let the guy go without making any effort of searching the car, because the victim locked in the trunk can't be seen.
That is crappy police work.
"Some random guy said do" is pretty laughable basis for a search and seizure. And it's pretty amazing that you are arguing that "someone said something" is now enough cause to seize property when you continue to argue that decades of court rulings is not enough to take a cow.
Ouze wrote: If you're standing out in your yard, in clear public view, you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
A Town Called Malus wrote: The girl was sunbathing. It therefore follows that she was probably wearing a bikini, an outfit which could, I think, be argued to be the same as "undergarments".
lol no. We're not going to arrest every person at a beach for charges of public indecency
The thing being ignored is that they weren't in public view, but in their back yard surrounded by a privacy fence. It is also being ignored that the drone was hovering below a tarp on the neighbor's house, presumably looking inside.
Hmmm something about this post stands out........what one word could explain why someone would shoot down a flying drone with a camera attached....oh, yeah, " privacy".
People have a reasonable expectation of privacy when enjoying their own property as lomg as appropriate measures have been taken to seclude themselves from casual observation. It's sad that some chuckleheads refuse to recognize and honor their wishes. Had the girl been in the front yard, in full public view, I would be less sympathetic but as the daughter and homeowner took appropriate steps to ensure privacy, I can't find fault with his reaction.
"Some random guy said do" is pretty laughable basis for a search and seizure. And it's pretty amazing that you are arguing that "someone said something" is now enough cause to seize property when you continue to argue that decades of court rulings is not enough to take a cow.
I would think that it's enough to at the very least, ask some questions. Most Americans are fairly reasonable people, they don't do stuff without some sort of provocation (from their point of view). When the cops ask the guy why he was shooting at drones, and he says, "I suspected they were filming my daughter" they should turn to the drone operator, and say something like, "will your video show that you were filming anything you weren't supposed to, such as underage girls?" they could even ask permission to view the footage, without actually confiscating it as well.
This way, when it goes to court they can say, "Your honor, we asked the drone operator if we could view the footage he had taken, it was 10 minutes long, and showed [no/a ton of] footage of underage girls sunbathing"
No, because this is a ridiculous argument that's not worth my time - that being in a bathing suit is the same as undergarments. You can feel free to google the definition yourself, but you need to consider that you're literally arguing everyone at a beach is in their underwear and anyone videotaping, at a beach, could be prosecuted for voyeurism. This is one of the worst arguments I've ever read on Dakka and the bar was already quite low.
I suggest you re-read the definition of voyeurism in law, as I put earlier. People couldn't be prosecuted at a beach as it is not an area where people could expect privacy.
So the argument you think you saw is bad because you didn't read the whole post or understand the law.
"Some random guy said do" is pretty laughable basis for a search and seizure. And it's pretty amazing that you are arguing that "someone said something" is now enough cause to seize property when you continue to argue that decades of court rulings is not enough to take a cow.
I would think that it's enough to at the very least, ask some questions. Most Americans are fairly reasonable people, they don't do stuff without some sort of provocation (from their point of view). When the cops ask the guy why he was shooting at drones, and he says, "I suspected they were filming my daughter" they should turn to the drone operator, and say something like, "will your video show that you were filming anything you weren't supposed to, such as underage girls?" they could even ask permission to view the footage, without actually confiscating it as well.
This way, when it goes to court they can say, "Your honor, we asked the drone operator if we could view the footage he had taken, it was 10 minutes long, and showed [no/a ton of] footage of underage girls sunbathing"
Or he showed his log, shows that he was over the neighbors property, has permission to fly there, in addition to having a legal right to photograph and film in public anyway, and there was no evidence that a crime was committed.
They could ask of course, but not looking at it doesn't make it crappy police work as is being claimed.
No, because this is a ridiculous argument that's not worth my time - that being in a bathing suit is the same as undergarments. You can feel free to google the definition yourself, but you need to consider that you're literally arguing everyone at a beach is in their underwear and anyone videotaping, at a beach, could be prosecuted for voyeurism. This is one of the worst arguments I've ever read on Dakka and the bar was already quite low.
I suggest you re-read the definition of voyeurism in law, as I put earlier. People couldn't be prosecuted at a beach as it is not an area where people could expect privacy.
So the argument you think you saw is bad because you didn't read the whole post or understand the law.
And you don't have an expectation of privacy on your own property if it is visible from an area that is "public", which at this time includes the airspace. Hence Google Street View and Google Earth.
No, because this is a ridiculous argument that's not worth my time - that being in a bathing suit is the same as undergarments. You can feel free to google the definition yourself, but you need to consider that you're literally arguing everyone at a beach is in their underwear and anyone videotaping, at a beach, could be prosecuted for voyeurism. This is one of the worst arguments I've ever read on Dakka and the bar was already quite low.
I suggest you re-read the definition of voyeurism in law, as I put earlier. People couldn't be prosecuted at a beach as it is not an area where people could expect privacy.
So the argument you think you saw is bad because you didn't read the whole post or understand the law.
I'm speaking specifically to your ludicrous equivocation of bathing attire to undergarments.
A Town Called Malus wrote: The girl was sunbathing. It therefore follows that she was probably wearing a bikini, an outfit which could, I think, be argued to be the same as "undergarments". So this satisfies part 3.
Don't shift the goalposts.
d-usa wrote: And you don't have an expectation of privacy on your own property if it is visible from an area that is "public", which at this time includes the airspace. Hence Google Street View and Google Earth.
Wait, are you saying I can't shoot at news helicopters?
d-usa wrote: So the drone was hovering below the neighbors tarp, with a report that he was hired to take picture of the neighbor house (so he wasn't even "trespassing" on the shooters property under any stretch of definition), and no expectation of privacy from anything that has a vantage point higher than 6 feet.
The legal justification for the shooting is getting worse and worse, and the legal case against the drone operator is getting more nonexistent with every "fact".
Ouze wrote: If you're standing out in your yard, in clear public view, you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
A Town Called Malus wrote: The girl was sunbathing. It therefore follows that she was probably wearing a bikini, an outfit which could, I think, be argued to be the same as "undergarments".
lol no. We're not going to arrest every person at a beach for charges of public indecency
The thing being ignored is that they weren't in public view, but in their back yard surrounded by a privacy fence. It is also being ignored that the drone was hovering below a tarp on the neighbor's house, presumably looking inside.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: So if someone punches you in the face and says they punched you because you took pictures of his family in your car, and the police show up and search you car and don't find any evidence, do they then get to keep your car for however long it takes for the other guy to go to court?
The police investigated both complaints, they found evidence for one of them, that's pretty much it.
Except the police didn't bother to search the card, which is where the evidence would be. Using your example, if the police show up and you say you punched a guy in the face because he had someone locked, unconscious, in the trunk of his car, and they arrest you because there is evidence you punched him. They, however, let the guy go without making any effort of searching the car, because the victim locked in the trunk can't be seen.
That is crappy police work.
"Some random guy said do" is pretty laughable basis for a search and seizure. And it's pretty amazing that you are arguing that "someone said something" is now enough cause to seize property when you continue to argue that decades of court rulings is not enough to take a cow.
Let's explore a couple of points, starting with a local report of the story:
No report says that the neighbor's house being looked into was the operator's friend. There are, however other neighbors talking about the drone hovering over their property in the same fashion as the shooter's. Number 8 shot would be hard pressed to bring down a mosquito, let alone something far more robust at the range the drone operator claimed they were flying the drone at.
As far as "some random guy" goes, it was a man claiming a family member was being victimized, and he recieved not even the courtesy, it seems, of a cursory check on his story, especially, as the story seems to say, it was backed by at least one other neighbor.
d-usa wrote: So the drone was hovering below the neighbors tarp, with a report that he was hired to take picture of the neighbor house (so he wasn't even "trespassing" on the shooters property under any stretch of definition), and no expectation of privacy from anything that has a vantage point higher than 6 feet.
The legal justification for the shooting is getting worse and worse, and the legal case against the drone operator is getting more nonexistent with every "fact".
Ouze wrote: If you're standing out in your yard, in clear public view, you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
A Town Called Malus wrote: The girl was sunbathing. It therefore follows that she was probably wearing a bikini, an outfit which could, I think, be argued to be the same as "undergarments".
lol no. We're not going to arrest every person at a beach for charges of public indecency
The thing being ignored is that they weren't in public view, but in their back yard surrounded by a privacy fence. It is also being ignored that the drone was hovering below a tarp on the neighbor's house, presumably looking inside.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: So if someone punches you in the face and says they punched you because you took pictures of his family in your car, and the police show up and search you car and don't find any evidence, do they then get to keep your car for however long it takes for the other guy to go to court?
The police investigated both complaints, they found evidence for one of them, that's pretty much it.
Except the police didn't bother to search the card, which is where the evidence would be. Using your example, if the police show up and you say you punched a guy in the face because he had someone locked, unconscious, in the trunk of his car, and they arrest you because there is evidence you punched him. They, however, let the guy go without making any effort of searching the car, because the victim locked in the trunk can't be seen.
That is crappy police work.
"Some random guy said do" is pretty laughable basis for a search and seizure. And it's pretty amazing that you are arguing that "someone said something" is now enough cause to seize property when you continue to argue that decades of court rulings is not enough to take a cow.
Let's explore a couple of points, starting with a local report of the story:
No report says that the neighbor's house being looked into was the operator's friend. There are, however other neighbors talking about the drone hovering over their property in the same fashion as the shooter's. Number 8 shot would be hard pressed to bring down a mosquito, let alone something far more robust at the range the drone operator claimed they were flying the drone at.
As far as "some random guy" goes, it was a man claiming a family member was being victimized, and he recieved not even the courtesy, it seems, of a cursory check on his story, especially, as the story seems to say, it was backed by at least one other neighbor.
Let's try it this way, since explaining over and over again how no law was broken isn't working:
You guys show which law was broken, what actual evidence backs that up, and how that justifies the search and seizure of the drone without a warrant.
Relapse wrote: Ouse, News helicopters don't randomly hoveri just a few feet over your property taking pictures of underage girls and spy on random neighbors.
If they did, would you be legally justified in taking a few potshots at them?
d-usa wrote: So the drone was hovering below the neighbors tarp, with a report that he was hired to take picture of the neighbor house (so he wasn't even "trespassing" on the shooters property under any stretch of definition), and no expectation of privacy from anything that has a vantage point higher than 6 feet.
The legal justification for the shooting is getting worse and worse, and the legal case against the drone operator is getting more nonexistent with every "fact".
Ouze wrote: If you're standing out in your yard, in clear public view, you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
A Town Called Malus wrote: The girl was sunbathing. It therefore follows that she was probably wearing a bikini, an outfit which could, I think, be argued to be the same as "undergarments".
lol no. We're not going to arrest every person at a beach for charges of public indecency
The thing being ignored is that they weren't in public view, but in their back yard surrounded by a privacy fence. It is also being ignored that the drone was hovering below a tarp on the neighbor's house, presumably looking inside.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: So if someone punches you in the face and says they punched you because you took pictures of his family in your car, and the police show up and search you car and don't find any evidence, do they then get to keep your car for however long it takes for the other guy to go to court?
The police investigated both complaints, they found evidence for one of them, that's pretty much it.
Except the police didn't bother to search the card, which is where the evidence would be. Using your example, if the police show up and you say you punched a guy in the face because he had someone locked, unconscious, in the trunk of his car, and they arrest you because there is evidence you punched him. They, however, let the guy go without making any effort of searching the car, because the victim locked in the trunk can't be seen.
That is crappy police work.
"Some random guy said do" is pretty laughable basis for a search and seizure. And it's pretty amazing that you are arguing that "someone said something" is now enough cause to seize property when you continue to argue that decades of court rulings is not enough to take a cow.
Let's explore a couple of points, starting with a local report of the story:
No report says that the neighbor's house being looked into was the operator's friend. There are, however other neighbors talking about the drone hovering over their property in the same fashion as the shooter's. Number 8 shot would be hard pressed to bring down a mosquito, let alone something far more robust at the range the drone operator claimed they were flying the drone at.
As far as "some random guy" goes, it was a man claiming a family member was being victimized, and he recieved not even the courtesy, it seems, of a cursory check on his story, especially, as the story seems to say, it was backed by at least one other neighbor.
Let's try it this way, since explaining over and over again how no law was broken isn't working:
You guys show which law was broken, what actual evidence backs that up, and how that justifies the search and seizure of the drone without a warrant.
No point, since you don't understand a father defending his daughter.
Privacy is the expectation that confidential personal information disclosed in a private place will not be disclosed to third parties, when that disclosure would cause either embarrassment or emotional distress to a person of reasonable sensitivities. Information is interpreted broadly to include facts, images (e.g., photographs, videotapes), and disparaging opinions.
The right of privacy is restricted to individuals who are in a place that a person would reasonably expect to be private (e.g., home, hotel room, telephone booth). There is no protection for information that either is a matter of public record or the victim voluntarily disclosed in a public place. People should be protected by privacy when they "believe that the conversation is private and can not be heard by others who are acting in an lawful manner." Am.Jur.2d Telecommunications § 209 (1974)."
Feel free to quote the statue where "im defending my girls honor" places you above the law when you make the legal case for a violation of the law by the drone Operator.
Again, like I said many times. I'm not saying the operator was right, I'm saying it was not illegal.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Edit: I also have a two year old girl, so you can shut up with that stupid argument or land on the ignore list. It only makes you look like a sore loser.
d-usa wrote: Feel free to quote the statue where "im defending my girls honor" places you above the law when you make the legal case for a violation of the law by the drone Operator.
Again, like I said many times. I'm not saying the operator was right, I'm saying it was not illegal.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Edit: I also have a two year old girl, so you can shut up with that stupid argument or land on the ignore list. It only makes you look like a sore loser.
is this another rage quit vowing never to be seen again, coming on? BTW, before you storm off, it appears there are laws against it, if you bother to read my link.
Relapse wrote: it appears there are laws against it, if you bother to read my link.
Which one? That site you linked has dozens of unrelated laws listed.
Relapse wrote: The right of privacy is restricted to individuals who are in a place that a person would reasonably expect to be private (e.g., home, hotel room, telephone booth). There is no protection for information that either is a matter of public record or the victim voluntarily disclosed in a public place. People should be protected by privacy when they "believe that the conversation is private and can not be heard by others who are acting in an lawful manner." Am.Jur.2d Telecommunications § 209 (1974)."
They are talking about wiretapping, though - and even then, standing outside in your yard wouldn't give you a reasonable expectation of privacy if you can be overheard without intruding onto said private property.
Also, that cite is not a law, it's a reference to a legal textbook - I don't know what specific section it references, it's improperly cited. Since it was published in 1974, it may be out of date post-Patriot Act.
No, it's pointing out that "you don't know what it's like" is a stupid argument, made even stupider considering that I do know what's like, and a promise that if you continue to make stupid arguments I will ignore you.
You also have yet to show what law the drone owner was violating. "You are charged with 'I have a right to privacy' doesn't really work there".
But hey, feel free to continue with the "I have rights" and "you don't know what it's like" arguments, it does a good job showing your lack of understanding and demonstates the "what facts, just look at all these emotions" mindset that usually happens in cases like this.
Relapse wrote: The right of privacy is restricted to individuals who are in a place that a person would reasonably expect to be private (e.g., home, hotel room, telephone booth). There is no protection for information that either is a matter of public record or the victim voluntarily disclosed in a public place. People should be protected by privacy when they "believe that the conversation is private and can not be heard by others who are acting in an lawful manner." Am.Jur.2d Telecommunications § 209 (1974)."
They are talking about wiretapping, though - and even then, standing outside in your yard wouldn't give you a reasonable expectation of privacy if you can be overheard without intruding onto said private property.
Also, that cite is not a law, it's a reference to a legal textbook - I don't know what specific section it references, it's improperly cited. Since it was published in 1974, it may be out of date post-Patriot Act.
n
You are totally ignoring the part where they talk about cameras.
More from the same link:
"3. Modern Privacy Law
Because privacy is an emerging right, a discussion of privacy is typically a list of examples where the right has been recognized, instead of a simple definition. Privacy can be discussed in two different directions: the nature of the right and the source of the right (e.g., case law, statute, Constitution).
Prosser, in both his article and in the Restatement (Second) of Torts at §§ 652A-652I, classifies four basic kinds of privacy rights:
unreasonable intrusion upon the seclusion of another, for example, physical invasion of a person's home (e.g., unwanted entry, looking into windows with binoculars or camera, tapping telephone), searching wallet or purse, repeated and persistent telephone calls, obtaining financial data (e.g., bank balance) without person's consent, etc."
No, because this is a ridiculous argument that's not worth my time - that being in a bathing suit is the same as undergarments. You can feel free to google the definition yourself, but you need to consider that you're literally arguing everyone at a beach is in their underwear and anyone videotaping, at a beach, could be prosecuted for voyeurism. This is one of the worst arguments I've ever read on Dakka and the bar was already quite low.
I suggest you re-read the definition of voyeurism in law, as I put earlier. People couldn't be prosecuted at a beach as it is not an area where people could expect privacy.
So the argument you think you saw is bad because you didn't read the whole post or understand the law.
I'm speaking specifically to your ludicrous equivocation of bathing attire to undergarments.
A Town Called Malus wrote: The girl was sunbathing. It therefore follows that she was probably wearing a bikini, an outfit which could, I think, be argued to be the same as "undergarments". So this satisfies part 3.
Don't shift the goalposts.
I didn't shift the goalposts, you did. My entire post was in regards to the law in which I think a reasonable argument could be made that, in certain circumstances, a bikini top and bottoms are functionally the same as pants and bra.
Such as in a situation where the wearer expects privacy. If a woman is wearing a bikini top and bottoms under a t-shirt and skirt and someone takes a picture up her skirt, does the fact that the bikini is not sold as undergarments alter the fact that it was being used as such? Are pants and a bra only considered undergarments if they are currently being worn under clothes? If the girl was sunbathing in her back garden in pants and bra, which covered the exact same amount of flesh as a bikini, would it be okay to photograph her without her permission or not? If not, then why would it be okay if she were in a bikini when the end picture is the same?
By your argument you could argue that as a bikini is not "undergarments" then it is not an act of voyeurism to take a photo up a girls skirt as long as she's wearing bikini briefs. That is obviously absurd. The context of the situation is very important in these kinds of situations.
Hence why there is a huge difference between sunbathing in your fenced back yard where it is not unreasonable to assume you will not get photographed by random strangers and on a beach where it is unreasonable to assume that you will not end up in photos, though a stranger deliberately taking one of you is still very creepy and weird.
d-usa wrote: No, it's pointing out that "you don't know what it's like" is a stupid argument, made even stupider considering that I do know what's like, and a promise that if you continue to make stupid arguments I will ignore you.
You also have yet to show what law the drone owner was violating. "You are charged with 'I have a right to privacy' doesn't really work there".
But hey, feel free to continue with the "I have rights" and "you don't know what it's like" arguments, it does a good job showing your lack of understanding and demonstates the "what facts, just look at all these emotions" mindset that usually happens in cases like this.
Rage quit again, then, if it makes you feel better. On second thought, don't. I'd miss ya!
d-usa wrote: No, it's pointing out that "you don't know what it's like" is a stupid argument, made even stupider considering that I do know what's like, and a promise that if you continue to make stupid arguments I will ignore you.
You also have yet to show what law the drone owner was violating. "You are charged with 'I have a right to privacy' doesn't really work there".
But hey, feel free to continue with the "I have rights" and "you don't know what it's like" arguments, it does a good job showing your lack of understanding and demonstates the "what facts, just look at all these emotions" mindset that usually happens in cases like this.
Rage quit again, then, if it makes you feel better.
Are you to post a law that was violate and explain how it justifies a search and seizure?
Or are you going to continue with the "emotions" justification despite the fact that I have repeatedly pointed out that flying a drone to record underage sunbathers is a scumbag thing to do even if it isn't illegal?
"Photographing someone is an intrusion only if it encroaches on someone’s private space, whether through unwanted close physical contact or through photographing someone in their home from a distance. However, photographing someone from a distance in a public place is not considered an intrusion.
The tort of intrusion is complete when the intrusion occurs. The photograph need not be made public or even developed. The act of taking the photograph is enough to constitute intrusion."
This family was in a private place, surrounded by a 6' fence in their back yard.
If the drone really was flying low over his property, as in below his roof line - which has not been ascertained - I think they could have pushed for charges of harassment, or trespassing.
Going back to the original case, though, in no version of posted events was he legally clear to destroy the drone with a firearm.
Ouze wrote: If the drone really was flying low over his property, as in below his roof line - which has not been ascertained - I think they could have pushed for charges of harassment, or trespassing.
Going back to the original case, though, in no version of posted events was he legally clear to destroy the drone with a firearm.
I agree with you on that. I wouldn't have shot the thing, but the police were in the wrong in not checking the camera.
The police need to have evidence of a crime to check the camera. Hence the request for anyone claiming "the police screwed up" to show which crime was committed by the drone operator to justify the search of the drone.
If the guy doing the shooting wants to use it as a defense he is more than welcome to file for discovery in court.
d-usa wrote: The police need to have evidence of a crime to check the camera.
"We can't check for evidence because there is no evidence that a crime occurred."
This is circular logic I more expect to see from the Police Brutality Defense League.
So until they invent cameras that leave physical marks on the subject, we can't persecute people who record child porn, by your standards. Heck, they couldn't check a dead body and a smoking gun if someone pointed them out, because there would be no evidence of a crime that would justify checking that evidence...
So it looks like the SD card for the video is missing, the owner claims it was missing when he got back the drone, shooter says he has no idea. Looks like the owner does have flight path data which appears to show it at ~200+ feet before tumbling to the ground, owner had only had it like two days, shooter says he doesn't know how long it had been hovering there but "long enough to get three shots off" (after of course running to get his weapon).
That certainly looks less solid for the shooter. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Either way, looks like the dude is almost certainly going to face a conviction for discharging a firearm in a residential area.
d-usa wrote: The police need to have evidence of a crime to check the camera. Hence the request for anyone claiming "the police screwed up" to show which crime was committed by the drone operator to justify the search of the drone.
If the guy doing the shooting wants to use it as a defense he is more than welcome to file for discovery in court.
Police giving potential evidence back to be destroyed is a huge screw up, and I know you aren't naive enough to think that evidence in the hands of the accused wouldn't be destroyed. Bear in mind the shooter wasn't the only one saying the drone was hovering. Another neighbor said the same thing about it hovering over her property.
Kentucky law on the subject:
"531.090 Voyeurism.
(1) A person is guilty of voyeurism when:
(a) He or she intentionally:
1. Uses or causes the use of any camera, videotape, photooptical, photoelectric, or other image recording device for the purpose of observing, viewing, photographing, filming, or videotaping the sexual conduct, genitals, an undergarment worn without being publicly visible, or nipple of the female breast of another person without that person's consent; or
2. Uses the unaided eye or any device designed to improve visual acuity for the purpose of observing or viewing the sexual conduct, genitals, an undergarment worn without being publicly visible, or nipple of the female breast of another person without that person's consent; or
3. Enters or remains unlawfully in or upon the premises of another for the purpose of observing or viewing the sexual conduct, genitals, an undergarment worn without being publicly visible, or nipple of the female breast of another person without the person's consent; and
(b) The other person is in a place where a reasonable person would believe that his or her sexual conduct, genitals, undergarments, or nipple of the female breast will not be observed, viewed, photographed, filmed, or videotaped without his or her knowledge.
(2) The provisions of subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to:
(a) A law enforcement officer during a lawful criminal investigation; or
(b) An employee of the Department of Corrections, the Department of Juvenile Justice, a private prison, a local jail, or a local correctional facility whose actions have been authorized for security or investigative purposes.
(3) Unless objected to by the victim or victims of voyeurism, the court on its own motion or on motion of the Commonwealth's attorney shall:
(a) Order the sealing of all photographs, film, videotapes, or other images that are introduced into evidence during a prosecution under this section or are in the possession of law enforcement, the prosecution, or the court as the result of a prosecution under this section; and
(b) At the conclusion of a prosecution under this section, unless required for additional prosecutions, order the destruction of all of the photographs, film, videotapes, or other images that are in possession of law enforcement, the prosecution, or the court.
(4) Voyeurism is a Class A misdemeanor."
d-usa wrote: If hovering your drone is not illegal, then it is not evidence that a crime has occured.
And you know what state and city this happened in, so it shouldn't be hard for you to find the law that makes hovering your drone illegal if it was.
No more point in talking to you about this, since it's not getting thought to you even though I posted laws about invasion of privacy in Kentucky.
I will agree it was reckless shooting the gun, but the operators were potentially in the wrong, also. We'll never know, however, because the police didn't bother to check the drone.
If you posted a link about privacy in Kentucky I didn't see it. I only noticed the post about nebulous privacy rights in general.
And again, your existence of a right doesn't make that violation by another a crime. Cops don't get to take away my phone to search it because you have a right to privacy, they get to search it because violated a specific law that protects that right.
So {citation needed} or quit, I guess.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Edit: I see the edit now, so let me read and get back.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Edit 2: so you posted the law I posted a page or two ago, congratulations.
The back yard has no expectation of privacy from the air, as already extensively explained. The teenagers were not in their underwear (unless you want to argue that it's a bathing suit when you want people to look at you and magically turns into underwear when you don't, but I am unaware of a legal concept of Scheödinger's Garments), they were not having sex, they did not expose their genitals. And the drone hovering was not "unlawful".
These were all already explained of course, but there you go.
Privacy laws state that people in a private place, in this case, a back yard with a 6 foot fence, have a reasonable expectation of privacy and to photograph or capture an image is an action that is subject to prosecution.
One last time in this circular conversation, the cops dropped the ball in not checking the for the card on the drone.
The same privacy laws that say a cop can't climp up and look into your backyard without a warrant, but they can fly over it and look with their helicopter?
And again: your rights =/= laws prohibiting me from doing something. Me telling you to shut up is not me breaking the law because you have a right to free speech. Me driving down the street and seeing you through your window is not me breaking the law because you have a right to privacy.
Talking about your rights when trying to make a case that a law was broken is nonsensical.
The drone operator never got the SD card? I declare shenanigans. The shooter has a 6 foot privacy fence, and the drone landed in a neighbors yard. Shooter never left his property, and the police were the ones that gave the drone back. Where could it have gone?
Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote: The drone operator never got the SD card? I declare shenanigans. The shooter has a 6 foot privacy fence, and the drone landed in a neighbors yard. Shooter never left his property, and the police were the ones that gave the drone back. Where could it have gone?
It was stolen by the same guy who always steals your firearm the day before it is used to murder someone.
It seems to me that if your neighbour used a ladder or periscope to peer into your garden over the fence, he would be extremely rude and liable to have some social sanction delivered to him even if the situation was not illegal. I don't see why hovering a drone to view over the fence should be any different. It may well be that it is legal to hover drones, and illegal to discharge firearms within city limits, but the voyeuristic drone hoverers are going to learn the hard way that their kind of nosey parker behaviour violates social boundaries. Or maybe most people are fine with being drone observed by their neighbours. The situation is still developing, rather like the etiquette of using mobile phones in railway carriages.
Kilkrazy wrote: It seems to me that if your neighbour used a ladder or periscope to peer into your garden over the fence, he would be extremely rude and liable to have some social sanction delivered to him even if the situation was not illegal. I don't see why hovering a drone to view over the fence should be any different. It may well be that it is legal to hover drones, and illegal to discharge firearms within city limits, but the voyeuristic drone hoverers are going to learn the hard way that their kind of nosey parker behaviour violates social boundaries. Or maybe most people are fine with being drone observed by their neighbours. The situation is still developing, rather like the etiquette of using mobile phones in railway carriages.
While that's all true, I'd say a person climbing a ladder to snap up pictures of an underage girl in revealing clothing (yes, we all love bikinis because they're almost the same as underwear and we get to see women almost fully naked) is grounds for action being taken. I'm not gonna say exactly what action SHOULD be taken, because I don't know what the right call is, but something should have been done. And if an accusation of possible underage pics are in question, the cops should have taken steps. It's not uncommon for girls to undo their straps to prevent tan lines. You think they're gonna remember to cover up if they're startled? Right. Could have easily become a case of child porn. And the cops just handed it back to them without issue? If that's true, that's very poor form. And anyone arguing that they were right to get the tapes back without the cops checking first are first class dirt bags. I don't care how good of a person you think you are. If you're in favor of them getting back the tapes before being checked, you're scum. Flat out.
An appeal to emotion != legal grounds for violating 4th Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure.
Unless the cops had actually been there, seen the drone hovering over the girls and obviously recording them(i.e.--the drone remaining in an orbit which could reasonably be considered to be strictly for angles on the girls rather than what the drone pilot has stated happened where he "flew over the backyard")--then it could be legally construed as an unreasonable search and seizure given the evidence at hand which at this point is a "he said, he said".
4th Amendment issue. Without a warrant the cops can't (and should not) be able to just take the storage mechanism and search it/view what is on it.
'Hey, they was filming my daughter' MAY be enough for a judge to issue a warrant, it may not be.
Don't get me wrong, someone filming my daughter won't like my reactions, but I fully understand why the cops did not confiscate the video . They were not called out there because of a voyeur, they were called out because a guy was firing a weapon in city limits and destroyed someone's property.
If you shoot down a drone, you're going to be paying for the drone, you're looking at civil and possibly criminal charges, and you're going to be responsible for what happens when your bullet and the drone hit the ground.
Well if that's the case then if say the home owner is going to be buying a new drone for someone. If that were me I'd have gone to the neighboring houses and let them know " hey I'm going to be flying a drone around taking pictures of the neighboring property, just an FYI.
timetowaste85 wrote: You think they're gonna remember to cover up if they're startled? Right.
In my experience that's the first reaction that most women have. As an example, my girlfriend and I vacationed in the South of France last summer. We went to a topless beach, and she spent the entire time with her breasts fully exposed. Despite that, when she was startled by a backfiring car her first reaction was to cover her breasts with her hands. I saw similar behavior all the time at pool parties on private property throughout high school and college, not to mention at public beaches.
You even named a county after your love of firearms 
sued out of them. (actual case studies in law class, i can't remember procedure or law). 
good work. so sayeth king Arthur 
