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.

 Kanluwen wrote:

yellowfever wrote:
I agree with what has already been mentioned. If your going to fly one fly the damn thing away from people's houses. Think people.

From what was said in the original thread, the pilot of the drone was asked by someone to take photographs for someone wanting to sell their house.

The only way this would be excusable then is if it was the defendant's neighbor as there's no reason to fly the drone through a neighborhood when you can park out front of the house and do it...if it was his neighbor, he obviously wasn't flying 200+ feet as he claims to take photos of a house meant for sale. Yeah, BS on that explanation.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
It takes very little force to take down a quadcopter: a single pellet cracking a single propeller would do it. A steel pellet simply coming into contact with a high-speed prop at any velocity would probably be adequate - they are delicate machines.

At 200 feet I doubt the pellets in a shotgun would do any damage at all. Given that at that range they're not even going to break human skin, or even leave an appreciable bruise.

You literally quoted the line where I explained why and how pellets could damage, and still managed to shrug it off.

00 Buckshot will penetrate ballistic gelatin between 12 and 16 inches at 50 yards, which is fairly close to the 60 yards this drone may or may not have been flying at. The idea that it wouldn't break human skin is not a reality-based idea.

Wait, 200ft is your Airspace? I find that Dubious.
Im with the drone operater here TBH. The fact that the father was so quick to shoot it down, discharging a gun on his property and disobeying the law and damage someones property, speaks to me he might be in the wrong.
But really, it is a Hesaid She said. Do we have proof he used buckshot beyond his word?

There is no proof of virtually anything involving this story. It's almost all supposition.

 Ouze wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
It takes very little force to take down a quadcopter: a single pellet cracking a single propeller would do it. A steel pellet simply coming into contact with a high-speed prop at any velocity would probably be adequate - they are delicate machines.

At 200 feet I doubt the pellets in a shotgun would do any damage at all. Given that at that range they're not even going to break human skin, or even leave an appreciable bruise.

You literally quoted the line where I explained why and how pellets could damage, and still managed to shrug it off.

00 Buckshot will penetrate ballistic gelatin between 12 and 16 inches at 50 yards, which is fairly close to the 60 yards this drone may or may not have been flying at. The idea that it wouldn't break human skin is not a reality-based idea.

The ammo type in this case was Bird shot. Sure, Buckshot will penetrate skin at 50 yards, bird shot most definitely will not.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

yellowfever wrote:
I agree with what has already been mentioned. If your going to fly one fly the damn thing away from people's houses. Think people.

From what was said in the original thread, the pilot of the drone was asked by someone to take photographs for someone wanting to sell their house.

And if that was the case then he should not have been over anyone else's property while doing so.

If you're trying to get aerial photos of a property, you don't just hover directly over it. You move out into the street to get front shots, you might hover a bit into someone else's backyard to get shots of the rear of the house, etc.

So if I have been hired to do photographs with a normal camera I have free reign to walk into the neighboring yards to take the photos if the shot needed requires that angle?

Yeah, thats not the case. Why should it be different for aerial photography?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
"Bullitt County"

I knew you guys loved your guns, but naming a county that...that's just fething ridiculous

Thats nothing Try Bulleit Bourbon. Now thats awesome.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:

yellowfever wrote:
I agree with what has already been mentioned. If your going to fly one fly the damn thing away from people's houses. Think people.

From what was said in the original thread, the pilot of the drone was asked by someone to take photographs for someone wanting to sell their house.

Yes thats his story. Not sure how that relates to him hovering over the teenage girls sunning themselves.

 Grey Templar wrote:
The ammo type in this case was Bird shot. Sure, Buckshot will penetrate skin at 50 yards, bird shot most definitely will not.

I've already explained, in this thread, why the shooter had a strong incentive to lie about the ammunition he used (just as the operator had a strong incentive to lie about his height), just as I've explained that even birdshot would be able to down a quadcopter. I can type it, but I can't make you understand it.

Ok fine, Bird shot could down the drone. Now explain how the guy made the bajillion to 1 shot to down the drone from 200 feet?

No matter what ammo he used, at 200 feet the odds of him downing the drone are some number approaching zero. Even if the drone was totally stationary.

A single pellet that manages to enter into one of the four rotors is all it takes, and it doesn't really matter how fast the pellet is traveling at that point. The damage wouldn't be caused by a high velocity object striking the propeller, the damage would be caused by a high speed propeller blade striking the object. The pellet being slow would actually increase the time it takes to pass through the blades and make it more likely that it will be struck.

A swallow that is sucked into an airplane engine doesn't damage the engine because it had a high air speed velocity, it damages the engine because the fast spinning blades hit the swallow. We could argue all day if there would be a difference between striking a European swallow or an African swallow, but it wouldn't make a difference because the damage is caused by the speed of the engine.

Still doesn't account for the insane probability of hitting it. Which means the Drone was almost certainly not at 200 feet. Occams Razor and all that.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
"Bullitt County"

I knew you guys loved your guns, but naming a county that...that's just fething ridiculous

Thats nothing Try Bulleit Bourbon. Now thats awesome.

It's not bad.

I thought Bullitt sounded familiar.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Ok fine, Bird shot could down the drone. Now explain how the guy made the bajillion to 1 shot to down the drone from 200 feet?

No matter what ammo he used, at 200 feet the odds of him downing the drone are some number approaching zero. Even if the drone was totally stationary.

Depending upon the load and if it was birdshot or buck, it's possible. Buckshot being way, way more possible than bird because the spread on bird at that distance is laughable and the shot being so much lighter that it would be affected by gravity so much more, I'm not sure that bird could make it 200 feet into the air; gravity's a b. Max range, not even lethal, for #8 is about 150yards with all shot having dropped at that point and most of it dropping before.

You can find examples on youtube of people shooting buck with some reasonable accuracy at 55-60 yards but the spread on 00 and 000 is 27 inches or more at that range, shooting level at a ground target. Shooting at an aerial target.... Buck's generally heavier than bird (which is designed to be shot into the air) so gravity would have a bigger effect and larger shot being more effected by drag to slow them. Maybe 200ft with buck but again, he'd have to be an insane shot or lucky because the spread would be huge.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Still doesn't account for the insane probability of hitting it. Which means the Drone was almost certainly not at 200 feet. Occams Razor and all that.

Exactly. The pilot was a perv. He should be sentenced to a spank machine from the entire block, then forced to watch every episode of Dr. Quinn Medicine Woman.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spoiler:

Thread win right there.

Came to this thread for shotguns and drones, left thirsty.

Thanks, Dakka!

 Frazzled wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Still doesn't account for the insane probability of hitting it. Which means the Drone was almost certainly not at 200 feet. Occams Razor and all that.

Exactly. The pilot was a perv. He should be sentenced to a spank machine from the entire block, then forced to watch every episode of Dr. Quinn Medicine Woman.

.

Or, the Father was lying. The police gave the drone right back to the pilot. No examining, nothing. So we have no proof beyond the word of the father that Birdshot was used.

Our work here is done.

Don't forget, try Knob Creek or TX if you like Bulleit. TX is made in Texas.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Still doesn't account for the insane probability of hitting it. Which means the Drone was almost certainly not at 200 feet. Occams Razor and all that.

Exactly. The pilot was a perv. He should be sentenced to a spank machine from the entire block, then forced to watch every episode of Dr. Quinn Medicine Woman.

.

Or, the Father was lying. The police gave the drone right back to the pilot. No examining, nothing. So we have no proof beyond the word of the father that Birdshot was used.

I'd believe the dad over the Perv.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Still doesn't account for the insane probability of hitting it. Which means the Drone was almost certainly not at 200 feet. Occams Razor and all that.

Exactly. The pilot was a perv. He should be sentenced to a spank machine from the entire block, then forced to watch every episode of Dr. Quinn Medicine Woman.

.

Or, the Father was lying. The police gave the drone right back to the pilot. No examining, nothing. So we have no proof beyond the word of the father that Birdshot was used.

The police contaminated evidence by giving it back to the owner before the investigation was complete. We have no proof the drone owner was flying at 200 feet or any evidence exonerating him.

The only thing we have is that the drone was shot down with a shotgun. The probabilities say that the drone would have to be pretty close, well less than 200 feet, to get shot down with the weapon that was used. Therefore the evidence supports the father's narrative.

 Frazzled wrote:
Our work here is done.

Don't forget, try Knob Creek or TX if you like Bulleit. TX is made in Texas.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Still doesn't account for the insane probability of hitting it. Which means the Drone was almost certainly not at 200 feet. Occams Razor and all that.

Exactly. The pilot was a perv. He should be sentenced to a spank machine from the entire block, then forced to watch every episode of Dr. Quinn Medicine Woman.

.

Or, the Father was lying. The police gave the drone right back to the pilot. No examining, nothing. So we have no proof beyond the word of the father that Birdshot was used.

I'd believe the dad over the Perv.

Again, what proof do you have he was a perv? Did you see the video? did people see the camera pointing at the two young women?

I need video evidence of the bikinis in question.

For reasons.

But not if they're under 18.

That would be pervy.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Still doesn't account for the insane probability of hitting it. Which means the Drone was almost certainly not at 200 feet. Occams Razor and all that.

Exactly. The pilot was a perv. He should be sentenced to a spank machine from the entire block, then forced to watch every episode of Dr. Quinn Medicine Woman.

.

Or, the Father was lying. The police gave the drone right back to the pilot. No examining, nothing. So we have no proof beyond the word of the father that Birdshot was used.

The police contaminated evidence by giving it back to the owner before the investigation was complete. We have no proof the drone owner was flying at 200 feet or any evidence exonerating him.

The only thing we have is that the drone was shot down with a shotgun. The probabilities say that the drone would have to be pretty close, well less than 200 feet, to get shot down with the weapon that was used. Therefore the evidence supports the father's narrative.

I have seen people(My family included) hit things with a shotgun from pretty far away. Heck, my cousin regularly takes me to the range that is 300ft and hits stuff with his shotgun.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Still doesn't account for the insane probability of hitting it. Which means the Drone was almost certainly not at 200 feet. Occams Razor and all that.

Exactly. The pilot was a perv. He should be sentenced to a spank machine from the entire block, then forced to watch every episode of Dr. Quinn Medicine Woman.

.

Or, the Father was lying. The police gave the drone right back to the pilot. No examining, nothing. So we have no proof beyond the word of the father that Birdshot was used.

The police contaminated evidence by giving it back to the owner before the investigation was complete. We have no proof the drone owner was flying at 200 feet or any evidence exonerating him.

The only thing we have is that the drone was shot down with a shotgun. The probabilities say that the drone would have to be pretty close, well less than 200 feet, to get shot down with the weapon that was used. Therefore the evidence supports the father's narrative.

I have seen people(My family included) hit things with a shotgun from pretty far away. Heck, my cousin regularly takes me to the range that is 300ft and hits stuff with his shotgun.

Derp, no. Just because a range has a distance doesn't mean he's hitting shots at that distance.
As the duty of evidence is on the prosecution NOT the defendant, its up to you to prove your accusations. Clearly Da Judge thought the prosecution and the "victim" was full of it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kronk wrote:
I need video evidence of the bikinis in question.

For reasons.

But not if they're under 18.

That would be pervy.

indeed.

 Frazzled wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Still doesn't account for the insane probability of hitting it. Which means the Drone was almost certainly not at 200 feet. Occams Razor and all that.

Exactly. The pilot was a perv. He should be sentenced to a spank machine from the entire block, then forced to watch every episode of Dr. Quinn Medicine Woman.

.

Or, the Father was lying. The police gave the drone right back to the pilot. No examining, nothing. So we have no proof beyond the word of the father that Birdshot was used.

The police contaminated evidence by giving it back to the owner before the investigation was complete. We have no proof the drone owner was flying at 200 feet or any evidence exonerating him.

The only thing we have is that the drone was shot down with a shotgun. The probabilities say that the drone would have to be pretty close, well less than 200 feet, to get shot down with the weapon that was used. Therefore the evidence supports the father's narrative.

I have seen people(My family included) hit things with a shotgun from pretty far away. Heck, my cousin regularly takes me to the range that is 300ft and hits stuff with his shotgun.

Derp, no. Just because a range has a distance doesn't mean he's hitting shots at that distance.
As the duty of evidence is on the prosecution NOT the defendant, its up to you to prove your accusations. Clearly Da Judge thought the prosecution and the "victim" was full of it.

.

Did you not read my sentence. He regularly hits at the range.
And again, The Father shot a weapon withing city limits, he should be prosecuted.

 Grey Templar wrote:
The probabilities say that the drone would have to be pretty close, well less than 200 feet, to get shot down with the weapon that was used. Therefore the evidence supports the father's narrative.

That's not how the law works.

He hits a stationary target on a level field. I imagine if the target was moving and 200 feet up in the air he wouldn't hit jack squat.

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
The probabilities say that the drone would have to be pretty close, well less than 200 feet, to get shot down with the weapon that was used. Therefore the evidence supports the father's narrative.

That's not how the law works.

it is if you are the defendant.

Just wait until folks start making or buying these:



Drones gonna be falling like rain.

we employed a new tool that we had developed just weeks before the expo: the Cyber Capability Rifle. Successfully able to remotely disable an overhead UAV, we developed this proof-of-concept device in a dusty backyard garage, as amateur engineers and do-it-yourselfers, in about 10 hours with about $150 of spare parts.

http://warontherocks.com/2015/10/it-is-time-for-the-u-s-military-to-innovate-like-insurgents/



http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a17802/cyber-capability-rifle-ausa-2015-demo/

How does that work?

Without any actual reading probably a focused emp of some sort. But I'm not that interested.

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
The probabilities say that the drone would have to be pretty close, well less than 200 feet, to get shot down with the weapon that was used. Therefore the evidence supports the father's narrative.

That's not how the law works.

Thats exactly how the law works. Reasonable doubt. There is very much reasonable doubt that the drone was not flying at 200 feet because of the near impossibility of it being disabled by a shotgun at that range.

The 'barrel' looks like an antenna. I presume it pumps out a radio signal that interferes with the drone's control signal, or maybe is even powerful enough to disrupt the onboard computer.