Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
From my unxerstanding. Being on the lawn is not a reason to shoot someone.

You need to add "...being approached in a threatening manner."

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
From my unxerstanding. Being on the lawn is not a reason to shoot someone.

 Frazzled wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
So. Guy thinks he has the right to fire of his gun at people. And threaten them?

Please slow down and read it again.

I would suggest you do the same.

So what if they called him names? He shot an expensive piece of their property. How would you like it if someone started shooting at your stuff while you were in the process of using it?

The fact that he went out there with a "Glock on him" and told them that "If you cross my sidewalk, there's gonna be another shooting" is everything you realistically need to know about this guy:
He thinks he's friggin' Clint Eastwood dealing with a gang.

Also worth noting that this thread is basically repeating exactly what happened in the first one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kronk wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
From my unxerstanding. Being on the lawn is not a reason to shoot someone.

You need to add "...being approached in a threatening manner."

I really don't want to be the one to do this, buuuuuuuuuuuuuuut...

You mean like Martin approached Zimmerman?

I would suggest you do the same.

So what if they called him names? He shot an expensive piece of their property. How would you like it if someone started shooting at your stuff while you were in the process of using it?

They have no right to commit trespass, assault or battery because of it. With four men approaching, he was right to feel in fear of his life, and peacefully resolved that as an issue. I would have immediately called the PoPo though.

 Frazzled wrote:

I would suggest you do the same.

So what if they called him names? He shot an expensive piece of their property. How would you like it if someone started shooting at your stuff while you were in the process of using it?

They have no right to commit trespass, assault or battery because of it.

And he has no right to shoot at their property. That's the thing you just don't seem to grasp.

With four men approaching, he was right to feel in fear of his life, and peacefully resolved that as an issue.

Absolute horsecrap and you know it.

If he had tried to find the drone's owners while it was operating before resorting to "I'm gonna shoot it down!", then you could make the argument that he tried to "peacefully resolve" the situation.

But no. Redneck here opted to shoot first and then start flashing a gun around when the people whose property he damaged came after it.

I would have immediately called the PoPo though.

He should have called the police before shooting down the drone too, yet you're hailing him as a "hero" here.

And he has no right to shoot at their property. That's the thing you just don't seem to grasp.

Evidently JUDGE DREDD er...Judge Bob thought otherwise.

Droneslayer was called. He assessed the situation and and handed out the appropriate punishment. "I am DA LAWWWWW!"

 Kanluwen wrote:

He should have called the police before shooting down the drone too, yet you're hailing him as a "hero" here.

He did. This wasn't the first time they've have a problem with one another. IMHO, the police allowed this to escalate. A finger wag to them, too!

"I feel good," Merideth said. "I feel vindicated. Police told me there was nothing they could do about it. Nobody would do anything about it, so I did something about it."

 Frazzled wrote:

And he has no right to shoot at their property. That's the thing you just don't seem to grasp.

Evidently JUDGE DREDD er...Judge Bob thought otherwise.

Yeah, and that judge really should not have dismissed the case so quickly. All it's done is established a precedent that it's okay for morons like this guy to start shooting at drones "because it dun might take mah picture!".

People like him have absolutely no business owning firearms. None whatsoever.

I agree with Kan. This thread is becoming a repeat of the other with neither side gong to give in, and both getting more pissed. The big difference is that the judge decided the case in the favor of the father.

 kronk wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

He should have called the police before shooting down the drone too, yet you're hailing him as a "hero" here.

He did. This wasn't the first time they've have a problem with one another. IMHO, the police allowed this to escalate. A finger wag to them, too!

Read the original article. Nothing states that it was the same drone, just that:

Here, Merideth, who operates a local trucking company, said that he had seen "two or three" different drones in his backyard previously over the last year and was disturbed by their presence. "What recourse do we have?" he asked.

"I feel good," Merideth said. "I feel vindicated. Police told me there was nothing they could do about it. Nobody would do anything about it, so I did something about it."

For giggles, here's a fun quote from Relapse's own original article:

And what would Merideth like to tell this errant drone operator when he meets him again?

"I would just like [him] to get some education on his toy and learn to respect the rights of the people," he said. "It's fine and dandy, and I think it's cool there's a camera on it, but just take it to a park or something—he's not a responsible drone owner."

Because shooting at someone else's property is "educated" and "responsible gun ownership".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:
I agree with Kan. This thread is becoming a repeat of the other with neither side gong to give in, and both getting more pissed. The big difference is that the judge decided the case in the favor of the father.

So what if the judge "decided the case in the favor of the father"(dismissing the case, btw, is not the same as "deciding the case in the favor of the father")?

In all honesty, the fact that the judge decided something means nothing in the grand scheme of things. Until laws are actually on the books, this kind of scenario is going to keep repeating itself.

Either way, I made my feelings about the case clear in the other thread and am not going to revisit the issue here.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

And he has no right to shoot at their property. That's the thing you just don't seem to grasp.

Evidently JUDGE DREDD er...Judge Bob thought otherwise.

Yeah, and that judge really should not have dismissed the case so quickly. All it's done is established a precedent that it's okay for morons like this guy to start shooting at drones "because it dun might take mah picture!".

People like him have absolutely no business owning firearms. None whatsoever.

But you don't think anyone should own firearms besides the police so thats nothing different.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

And he has no right to shoot at their property. That's the thing you just don't seem to grasp.

Evidently JUDGE DREDD er...Judge Bob thought otherwise.

Yeah, and that judge really should not have dismissed the case so quickly. All it's done is established a precedent that it's okay for morons like this guy to start shooting at drones "because it dun might take mah picture!".

People like him have absolutely no business owning firearms. None whatsoever.

But you don't think anyone should own firearms besides the police so thats nothing different.

You and I both know that's not true but keep pretending it is laddy!

I remain highly skeptical about this case. The drone flyer apparently produced flight data that showed the drone was not flying at the altitude the shooter claimed, but yet the case was dismissed based pretty much on his say-so claim.

I mean, if the drone legitimately was doing that, then I have no problem with him shooting it down, but when there's apparently flight data evidence to the contrary, I'm not sure why the charges were simply dismissed on the defendants say-so.

 Vaktathi wrote:
I remain highly skeptical about this case. The drone flyer apparently produced flight data that showed the drone was not flying at the altitude the shooter claimed, but yet the case was dismissed based pretty much on his say-so claim.

I mean, if the drone legitimately was doing that, then I have no problem with him shooting it down, but when there's apparently flight data evidence to the contrary, I'm not sure why the charges were simply dismissed on the defendants say-so.

Clearly because the police didn't take the SD card and drone right then and there! The dirty pervert tampered with the flight data, because otherwise he'd be labeled a dirty pervert on the internet for life!

 Vaktathi wrote:
I remain highly skeptical about this case. The drone flyer apparently produced flight data that showed the drone was not flying at the altitude the shooter claimed, but yet the case was dismissed based pretty much on his say-so claim.

I mean, if the drone legitimately was doing that, then I have no problem with him shooting it down, but when there's apparently flight data evidence to the contrary, I'm not sure why the charges were simply dismissed on the defendants say-so.

The flight data is tainted because it was returned to the owner. Him producing the data proves nothing because of that. The data would only be admissible if the drone had never been given back. Such data would also be pretty easy to falsify and chalk up any irregularities to damage the drone sustained.

 Grey Templar wrote:
[Such data would also be pretty easy to falsify and chalk up any irregularities to damage the drone sustained.

Would it? Would it be pretty easy, though?

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
I remain highly skeptical about this case. The drone flyer apparently produced flight data that showed the drone was not flying at the altitude the shooter claimed, but yet the case was dismissed based pretty much on his say-so claim.

I mean, if the drone legitimately was doing that, then I have no problem with him shooting it down, but when there's apparently flight data evidence to the contrary, I'm not sure why the charges were simply dismissed on the defendants say-so.

The flight data is tainted because it was returned to the owner. Him producing the data proves nothing because of that. The data would only be admissible if the drone had never been given back. Such data would also be pretty easy to falsify and chalk up any irregularities to damage the drone sustained.

Did you ever think that the reason it was returned to the owner is that the police could have y'know...copied it over to the computer in the patrol car, and the data could be compared? Or that the data couldn't be recovered at the scene because of Merideth shooting it down?

All you have is the word of Merideth that the drone was "immediately returned to the owner"--which could mean anything. "Immediately" isn't a definitive measure of time. It could mean that the police picked the drone up and handed it to the guy with no delay, or that there was an actual delay while they copied over the SD card.

Given that the police have produced no copy of the original data, I would say they definitely didn't copy it. If such a thing existed we surely would have heard about it.

 Ouze wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
[Such data would also be pretty easy to falsify and chalk up any irregularities to damage the drone sustained.

Would it? Would it be pretty easy, though?

Its just changing a few numbers in the code. Anyone with a moderate knowledge of programming could do it. Its not like we are in the dark days when computers were first coming about. Programming skills aren't exactly uncommon, if you don't have the skills then you almost assuredly know someone who does.

You wouldn't leave a murder suspect alone with the murder weapon and blood samples taken from the scene would you? This is no different.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Given that the police have produced no copy of the original data, I would say they definitely didn't copy it. If such a thing existed we surely would have heard about it.

 Ouze wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
[Such data would also be pretty easy to falsify and chalk up any irregularities to damage the drone sustained.

Would it? Would it be pretty easy, though?

Its just changing a few numbers in the code. Anyone with a moderate knowledge of programming could do it. Its not like we are in the dark days when computers were first coming about. Programming skills aren't exactly uncommon, if you don't have the skills then you almost assuredly know someone who does.

Oh yeah? What language is it written in?

What numbers need to be changed?

 Ouze wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Given that the police have produced no copy of the original data, I would say they definitely didn't copy it. If such a thing existed we surely would have heard about it.

 Ouze wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
[Such data would also be pretty easy to falsify and chalk up any irregularities to damage the drone sustained.

Would it? Would it be pretty easy, though?

Its just changing a few numbers in the code. Anyone with a moderate knowledge of programming could do it. Its not like we are in the dark days when computers were first coming about. Programming skills aren't exactly uncommon, if you don't have the skills then you almost assuredly know someone who does.

Oh yeah? What language is it written in?

What numbers need to be changed?

I don't know. Thats not relevant. This dude with the drone could have found someone who knows the programming in the drone and altered it.

The point is, the data is tainted and 100% inadmissible.

 Grey Templar wrote:
I don't know. Thats not relevant. This dude with the drone could have found someone who knows the programming in the drone and altered it.

Wait, now I'm confused. What do you mean you don't know? You just explained how pedestrian such knowledge is - this isn't the dark age of computers, and all. Surely you know the answer, or if you don't, you know a programmer who can answer such trivial questions? You're saying so confidently the telemetry could be falsified by, well, almost anyone. It should be child's play for you to show us how - after all, you know it's just some numbers that need to be changed - or at lease ask a friend - which you say is super easy to find - who can answer those simple questions.

What numbers need to be changed?

What language is the output in?

 Grey Templar wrote:
Given that the police have produced no copy of the original data, I would say they definitely didn't copy it. If such a thing existed we surely would have heard about it.

Would we really have? Given how fast this case got dismissed, I doubt it.

And the police might have had copies of the original, corrupted data--which could have been used as proof to show that the data WAS corrupted from the crash hence why they did not take the drone or SD card.

 Ouze wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
[Such data would also be pretty easy to falsify and chalk up any irregularities to damage the drone sustained.

Would it? Would it be pretty easy, though?

Its just changing a few numbers in the code. Anyone with a moderate knowledge of programming could do it. Its not like we are in the dark days when computers were first coming about. Programming skills aren't exactly uncommon, if you don't have the skills then you almost assuredly know someone who does.

You wouldn't leave a murder suspect alone with the murder weapon and blood samples taken from the scene would you? This is no different.

Um, yeah. It actually is. These two things are WILDLY different. Nice attempt at sensationalizing it though!
A murder weapon and blood samples from the scene could already have been tampered with to begin with, hence why that kind of stuff is given a rather exhaustive forensics examination.

In the case we have here? It's more like destroying the SD card from a voyeur's camera and then being upset that the police don't try to recover the data at the scene.

 Ouze wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I don't know. Thats not relevant. This dude with the drone could have found someone who knows the programming in the drone and altered it.

Wait, now I'm confused. What do you mean you don't know? You just explained how pedestrian such knowledge is - this isn't the dark age of computers, and all. Surely you know the answer, or if you don't, you know a programmer who can answer such trivial questions? You're saying so confidently the telemetry could be falsified by, well, almost anyone. It should be child's play for you to show us how - after all, you know it's just some numbers that need to be changed - or at lease ask a friend - which you say is super easy to find - who can answer those simple questions.

What numbers need to be changed?

What language is the output in?

Geeze, you just really won't let it go will you?

I do know people who know programming. I know they could easily do this. I don't know jack squat about computer coding though. I could ask my friends who do though, but we'd be here a while waiting for them to get back. I never said it could be falsified by everyone, I just said everyone at least would know someone who could.

I know nothing about computer languages, but all you need to change is the data values for the various telemetry. I'm not gonna go digging and find the exact coding changes for this exact model of drone. Its possible, you know this full well and are just being stubborn.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I don't know. Thats not relevant. This dude with the drone could have found someone who knows the programming in the drone and altered it.

Wait, now I'm confused. What do you mean you don't know? You just explained how pedestrian such knowledge is - this isn't the dark age of computers, and all. Surely you know the answer, or if you don't, you know a programmer who can answer such trivial questions? You're saying so confidently the telemetry could be falsified by, well, almost anyone. It should be child's play for you to show us how - after all, you know it's just some numbers that need to be changed - or at lease ask a friend - which you say is super easy to find - who can answer those simple questions.

What numbers need to be changed?

What language is the output in?

Geeze, you just really won't let it go will you?

I do know people who know programming. I know they could easily do this. I don't know jack squat about computer coding though. I could ask my friends who do though, but we'd be here a while waiting for them to get back. I never said it could be falsified by everyone, I just said everyone at least would know someone who could.

I know nothing about computer languages, but all you need to change is the data values for the various telemetry. I'm not gonna go digging and find the exact coding changes for this exact model of drone. Its possible, you know this full well and are just being stubborn.

There is a significant difference between "It can be done easily and everyone knows how, don't you?" and "It can be done easily by someone who knows what they are doing".

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I don't know. Thats not relevant. This dude with the drone could have found someone who knows the programming in the drone and altered it.

Wait, now I'm confused. What do you mean you don't know? You just explained how pedestrian such knowledge is - this isn't the dark age of computers, and all. Surely you know the answer, or if you don't, you know a programmer who can answer such trivial questions? You're saying so confidently the telemetry could be falsified by, well, almost anyone. It should be child's play for you to show us how - after all, you know it's just some numbers that need to be changed - or at lease ask a friend - which you say is super easy to find - who can answer those simple questions.

What numbers need to be changed?

What language is the output in?

Geeze, you just really won't let it go will you?

I do know people who know programming. I know they could easily do this. I don't know jack squat about computer coding though. I could ask my friends who do though, but we'd be here a while waiting for them to get back. I never said it could be falsified by everyone, I just said everyone at least would know someone who could.

I know nothing about computer languages, but all you need to change is the data values for the various telemetry. I'm not gonna go digging and find the exact coding changes for this exact model of drone. Its possible, you know this full well and are just being stubborn.

I think you should admit you're talking out of your ass.

I never said everyone knows how to do it.

Just admit that the evidence is tainted already.

 Grey Templar wrote:
I never said everyone knows how to do it.

It was kind of implied by the fact that you kept harping on it as though it was some simplistic thing to do.

I don't know how to do it. You don't know how to do it. We could probably figure out how to do it, but what does it matter in this case? The judge dismissed it pretty much out of hand--which is downright irresponsible, as the firearms charges against this guy should NOT have been dismissed this quickly.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I never said everyone knows how to do it.

It was kind of implied by the fact that you kept harping on it as though it was some simplistic thing to do.

I don't know how to do it. You don't know how to do it. We could probably figure out how to do it, but what does it matter in this case? The judge dismissed it pretty much out of hand--which is downright irresponsible, as the firearms charges against this guy should NOT have been dismissed this quickly.

It matters because thats why the evidence is tainted. It really is simplistic to do. Either you know how and do it yourself, or you find someone who does. Really, a short time on the internet or a phone call to your geek friend is all it would take. This would be very easy to argue in court.

Anyway, the firearms charge is a separate violation, it has nothing to do with the case the judge threw out(which was the drone owner suing the homeowner for breaking his toy). You can be mad at the firearms charge getting dismissed without trying to say the drone guy had any case whatsoever.

 Grey Templar wrote:
I never said everyone knows how to do it.

No, what you said was:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Its just changing a few numbers in the code. Anyone with a moderate knowledge of programming could do it. Its not like we are in the dark days when computers were first coming about. Programming skills aren't exactly uncommon, if you don't have the skills then you almost assuredly know someone who does.

You said you don't know how, and that's cool. That's a totally fair answer (although if you don't know how, it's difficult to know how you know how easy it is). You allowed for that maybe he didn't know either, and then you pointed out how totes easy it was to find someone who did know and could do that. Then you later said, doubling down, that you surely could find someone as well and it would take some time.

Well, I find that to be a totally acceptable answer! I will buy that.

The guy produced the flight path for the media the next day. How about tomorrow you post here precisely how this data could be falsified? 24 hours should, as you say, and then reiterate, be more than enough time to explain to us your assertion. After all, that's how long it took this guy.

What numbers had to be changed? It's just a few, you say. What language is this output in?


See you tomorrow, no doubt.


Alternately, another totally acceptable answer would be "I have no idea if the telemetry could be falsified or not". I'd totally take that answer too, although it's the opposite of what you originally said. I'm a reasonable guy, I understand sometimes people realize they were wrong and change their minds!