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.

This'll be interesting:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/kentucky-man-shoots-down-drone-hovering-over-his-backyard/ar-AAdGg2x

Yeah, how far high does your propert extend?

I hope he was shouting "Get out of my airspace!" when he fired

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.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Yeah, how far high does your propert extend?

Under 40k rules, terrain extends vertically an "infinite distance"

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.

From the source of all accurate info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_rights

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.

But, we are not zure why ot was hovering maybe they lost control.

 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.

Especially number 8.

 CptJake wrote:

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.

From the source of all accurate info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_rights

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.

 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.

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.

Interesting times ahead.

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?

When did Frazz move to KY?

This isn't the first time he's had to deal with drones, according to the story.

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 Causby they 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.

There are a host of statutes prohibiting shooting at aircraft. This is America so I know our first instinct tends to involve guns, but maybe we should try and find a better way.

"We have to stop skynet"

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
When did Frazz move to KY?

When he left Astroglide...

 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.

One problem is well what goes up must come down and some drones are not light toys and have real mass.

You have to be careful where the thing is going to crash as anything shot down will have to go somewhere

 jhe90 wrote:
One problem is well what goes up must come down and some drones are not light toys and have real mass.

You have to be careful where the thing is going to crash as anything shot down will have to go somewhere

And the shooter said he took that into account when he shot according to the article.

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).

MB

 CptJake wrote:

 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.

 djones520 wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

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.

From the source of all accurate info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_rights

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.

 Frazzled wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 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.

 Jehan-reznor wrote:

 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:

 Jehan-reznor wrote:

 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'.