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.

 Ouze wrote:

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
I don't think the guy shot the drone so people wouldn't see him killing his baby.

I think you missed my point on purpose.

 jhe90 wrote:
200 feet up, has to be a pretty powerful drone + a fair mass.

what goes up must come down, granted privacy and all but when you send up to several kilo's falling down its velocity plus mass = impact force which could be fairly powerful and risk to people and property.

The most popular consumer drone at that height weighs about 3 pounds (1.3kg).

1.3 kg is still not "light" drop that 200 feet and its going have some force, not like a 1kg steel weight but still carry some energy into any crash.
still do some damage.

Maybe the judge just understood physics better than some of the people in this thread. Birdshot with an accuracy rating and penetration power at the velocity to make it 200 meters=crap to take down a drone. The odds of successfully downing a drone at that range with birdshot are 3,720 to 1.

Dad's story is simply more likely than the drone owner's. Despite what the more argumentative posters on here want to believe.

Further, the prosecution has no evidence his story is inaccurate. There for in a criminal case-suck it drone pervs!

Am I the only one thinking there's money in drone pest control extermination business. (images of model F 15s firing tiny sidewinders while playing "Highway to the Danger Zone" from tiny speakers)

 jhe90 wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
I don't think the guy shot the drone so people wouldn't see him killing his baby.

I think you missed my point on purpose.

 jhe90 wrote:
200 feet up, has to be a pretty powerful drone + a fair mass.

what goes up must come down, granted privacy and all but when you send up to several kilo's falling down its velocity plus mass = impact force which could be fairly powerful and risk to people and property.

The most popular consumer drone at that height weighs about 3 pounds (1.3kg).

1.3 kg is still not "light" drop that 200 feet and its going have some force, not like a 1kg steel weight but still carry some energy into any crash.
still do some damage.

Is it shaped like a pine cone?

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Maybe the judge just understood physics better than some of the people in this thread. Birdshot with an accuracy rating and penetration power at the velocity to make it 200 meters=crap to take down a drone. The odds of successfully downing a drone at that range with birdshot are 3,720 to 1.

Dad's story is simply more likely than the drone owner's. Despite what the more argumentative posters on here want to believe.

That, or he was actually using buckshot; which he wouldn't want to admit to using because he might be looking at a gun charge that he couldn't get out of - as has been explained several times. It's not rare for someone to kill a deer with buckshot at 50 yards with a proper choke (thought you should be using slugs that far); so pretending this is some miracle blind free throw shot from 100 yards away is either intellectual dishonesty, or you don't know enough about firearms. The idea that a shotgun kept by a door for home defense might be loaded with buckshot rather than birdshot is actually the most likely scenario, not a bermuda triangle tin foil hat theory.

Ultimately we don't know what happened, we're probably never going to know what happened, and the charges should not have been dismissed. The next time there's a mass shooting, and people call for new gun laws, and then the inevitable counter argument is that we need to enforce laws on the books: remember this case. This is a guy who fired a gun intro the air in a residential area where shooting is forbidden except for self defense, there is zero ambiguity that both he did shoot, and it was not in self-defense but rather "defending privacy", and the charges were dropped without a trial. If you think that's OK, i don't know what to say to that. Maybe the facts are a slam dunk for the shooter should it have gone to discovery, and maybe not, but we're never going to know, and that's nothing to cheer about.

If a drone falls in a forest and no one hears it crash, was it still a drone?

 Ouze wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Maybe the judge just understood physics better than some of the people in this thread. Birdshot with an accuracy rating and penetration power at the velocity to make it 200 meters=crap to take down a drone. The odds of successfully downing a drone at that range with birdshot are 3,720 to 1.

Dad's story is simply more likely than the drone owner's. Despite what the more argumentative posters on here want to believe.

That, or he was actually using buckshot; which he wouldn't want to admit to using because he might be looking at a gun charge that he couldn't get out of - as has been explained several times. It's not rare for someone to kill a deer with buckshot at 50 yards with a proper choke (thought you should be using slugs that far); so pretending this is some miracle blind free throw shot from 100 yards away is either intellectual dishonesty, or you don't know enough about firearms. The idea that a shotgun kept by a door for home defense might be loaded with buckshot rather than birdshot is actually the most likely scenario, not a bermuda triangle tin foil hat theory.

Ultimately we don't know what happened, we're probably never going to know what happened, and the charges should not have been dismissed. The next time there's a mass shooting, and people call for new gun laws, and then the inevitable counter argument is that we need to enforce laws on the books: remember this case. This is a guy who fired a gun intro the air in a residential area where shooting is forbidden except for self defense, there is zero ambiguity that both he did shoot, and it was not in self-defense but rather "defending privacy", and the charges were dropped without a trial. If you think that's OK, i don't know what to say to that. Maybe the facts are a slam dunk for the shooter should it have gone to discovery, and maybe not, but we're never going to know, and that's nothing to cheer about.

Even with buckshot, the chances of hitting would be minuscule. Thus the drone owner is almost certainly lying.

I can show you tons of videos and links, but at the end of the day, I can't argue with someone who thinks it's nearly impossible to hit something the size of a garbage can lid with a single pellet with several shots at 200 feet. No amount of evidence is going to trump your feelings.

Can they do it when the garbage can is moving and 200 feet in the air with no reference points? This isn't shooting in a controlled environment.

We don't know if it was moving or hovering.

And, for the record, it's just as likely the shooter was telling the truth, and it was hovering right over his property. We don't know. It's very frustrating this case got dismissed for no legitimate reason, because on either side of the argument there are important precedents.

'Hovering'' doesn't meant its completely still. You would never have a flying device be completely still. There would still be quite a bit of movement.

 Grey Templar wrote:
'Hovering'' doesn't meant its completely still. You would never have a flying device be completely still. There would still be quite a bit of movement.

Yeah, you really don't know what you're talking about, at all. A consumer drone can most certainly be very nearly completely still in flight. With the most popular drone at that price point, that is in fact the default behavior - take your hands off the controls, it just stays still, unless there is high wind.

Are you also assuming there is no wind?

Really, you are making tons and tons of assumptions to fit the narrative that the drone was operating at 200 feet. Very few are needed for it to be lower.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Are you also assuming there is no wind?

Really, you are making tons and tons of assumptions to fit the narrative that the drone was operating at 200 feet. Very few are needed for it to be lower.

Of course I'm assuming there wasn't strong wind, because that's the most reasonable assumption. A consumer drone at that price point is hard to handle in wind >15MPH. Therefore, the fact he was flying it at all indicates there was very little wind.

It still doesn't make hitting the drone at 200 feet at all close to likely. The evidence all points to the dorone most likely being far closer to the ground. Especially since the drone was returned to the owner and the video footage was "lost''.

Like I said, no amount of evidence is going to trump your feelings; and more the fool I for knowing that full well and still going this far.

There's virtually no "evidence" at all thusfar presented, save for the flight plan the drone operator provided, which may or may not be accurate. It was never examined by anyone other than showing it to a few reporters.

Sure, just go ahead and cry ''you just uaz feelinzzs, ur ignoring the factz!!"

You are the one ignoring facts. Its very very unlikely that he could have disabled the drone at the alleged distance, the footage from the camera was returned to the owner and thus contaminated(most likely destroyed), and it just makes more sense all around.

Really its a far more likely story that the drone was flying around close to the ground, and the owner destroyed any footage the camera had to prevent it from incriminating him because the police botched it up and released evidence. I have no idea if the peeping tom assertions are true but that's not important.

"You're ignoring facts"

"No you're ignoring facts"

"No you're ignoring facts"

"ur ignoring the factz!!"

"No you"

"No you"

Come on guys. Just let it die. All you're doing is going back and forth with the exact same thing, and now with the mocking tone and intentional misspelling happening I'm calling an end to it.

Frazzled wrote:Further, the prosecution has no evidence his story is inaccurate. There for in a criminal case-suck it drone pervs!

Am I the only one thinking there's money in drone pest control extermination business. (images of model F 15s firing tiny sidewinders while playing "Highway to the Danger Zone" from tiny speakers)

That would be so awesome! Exalted!

Relapse wrote:
Is it shaped like a pine cone?

Lol I saw what you did there! Exalted!

Does anyone here shoot trap. I don't know about damage potential but where I go the clays go in all kinds of directions. I was nailing them just using a regular rem 870 with a pistol grip. The thrower is 27 yards away. So average shot is around fifty yards. I'm a good shot but I'm not great. 200 feet is only 66 yards. Not real far. And yes I know it's shooting in the air but at only 66 yards it's not going to affect POI that much. But like I said as far as damage causing potential I'm not sure.

I shoot trap, yes. Poorly.

I am sorely tempted to get a whole swarm of drones and park then 501 feet over this guys house.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Can they do it when the garbage can is moving and 200 feet in the air with no reference points? This isn't shooting in a controlled environment.

Exactly.

 Ouze wrote:
I shoot trap, yes. Poorly.

Glad I'm not the only one..badly that is.
But skeet (or trap) shooting uses a defined arc that may be at some distance but is still relatively flat with the horizon. The same skills that serve in skeet also are used in bird hunting.; you're shooting downrange at a target that is relatively low on the horizon. Now imagine a target 200 feet up, over your property; the drone did land on his property so it had to have either been over his property or flying toward it, unless he's a rarity and owns acreage in a residential community. Bird shot would not make it 200 feet up unless he's doing some custom loads that could result in blowing the whole rig in his face. That leaves buckshot if we're going to assume 200 feet is accurate/true. He could do it with buckshot but he'd have to be a darn good shot with an average 27 inch spread and most of the shot not making it that far (not all the shot makes it to target even on ground targets, contrary to what some people may think).

Honestly, I like to err on the side of caution when forming an opinion about this kind of stuff and just say that they're both lying. I think 200 feet up (not out and slightly up) is a hard shot even for an expert if it was a moving target, if it wasn't moving, it was hovering over the guy's property in airspace defined by SCOTUS as belonging to him. If it was moving and he hit it, I'd reasonably say it was much lower than 200 feet.

My 2 cents.

Was there anyone else around when he shot the drone?
If yes, i am glad no one got hurt. A damaged drone spiraling out of control can follow quite an erratic flight path.

Another point that has been brought up, is shooting in his yard even illegal? Where I live many of us have gun ranges in our yards and its perfectly legal for us to shoot. I do 400" shots all the time with a loud 7.62 and think nothing of it. One of my friends has his class 3 license and goes full auto with a WW2 30cal. State Law allows it and no city is allowed to restrict back yard shooting, This place sounds like its out in the country, or that was the impression I got and it very possibly has similar laws.

On a side note, you skeet shooters should try marsh hen hunting. Kind of like skeet shooting, except you are standing on the bow of a moving boat shooting at a bird that pops up at random, flies extremely quickly and will dodge and dive back under water to pop up somewhere else. And its frikkin' cold and usually windy. And it tastes like chicken. That's fun.

Col. Dash wrote:
Another point that has been brought up, is shooting in his yard even illegal? Where I live many of us have gun ranges in our yards and its perfectly legal for us to shoot. I do 400" shots all the time with a loud 7.62 and think nothing of it. One of my friends has his class 3 license and goes full auto with a WW2 30cal. State Law allows it and no city is allowed to restrict back yard shooting, This place sounds like its out in the country, or that was the impression I got and it very possibly has similar laws.

On a side note, you skeet shooters should try marsh hen hunting. Kind of like skeet shooting, except you are standing on the bow of a moving boat shooting at a bird that pops up at random, flies extremely quickly and will dodge and dive back under water to pop up somewhere else. And its frikkin' cold and usually windy. And it tastes like chicken. That's fun.

Nope, not legal. I think he was even charged with discharging a firearm in city limits. The thing is though that a judge can throw that charge out if she/he feels that the owner was justified in his actions (kind of like self-defense) and no other person was injured/property damaged.


I suck at skeet and bird hunting, there's no way I could hit one of those hens.

I doubt either the operator nor Droneslayer even know what altitude it had attained.

Drones come in all sizes and would be impossible to identify against the sky. The shotgun doesn't have a laser rangefinder, and the drone doesn't have an altimeter.

It's more or less guesstimation by either of them how high it was, and the ballistics of the shotgun round are the best physical evidence.

At any point has the guy come forward with the drone in question to show the gunshot damage?

Scenario 1: Drone operator had custody of the drone immediately after the incident due to gakky police work. If it had been hit by lucky buck shot at high (>200 ft altitude), he could have shown evidence, but that evidence might also revealed the guy was a pervert and had a camera mount on the drone with pictures of 14 year olds girls sunbathing.

Scenario 2: Drone operator had custody of the drone immediately after the incident due to gakky police work. If it had been hit by lucky bird shot at low (<200 ft altitude), he could have shown evidence, but that evidence might also revealed the guy was a pervert and had a camera mount on the drone with pictures of 14 year olds girls sunbathing.

If the owner hasn't shown evidence of the drone's damage, I can't come up with a scenario where the drone owner doesn't comes forward with the evidence of the damage that doesn't involve him being a pervert.

Help?

 agnosto wrote:
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.

I've highlighted some parts. That isn't how gravity works. The weight of the shot would have nothing to do with the effect gravity would have upon it. The gauge of the shot may have an effect on max height, but that's more likely to be due to air resistance effects or initial velocity, it isn't due to gravity.