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.

Especially bird shot.

Sure, but someone ITT said they would use an AR15.

Arent we just taking the guys word that he used birdshot, y'know, the guy ith every reason NOT to get in trouble?
I say throw the book at em

I'm sure a cursory examination of the aircraft would yield all the evidence needed to show if it was indeed birdshot.

I doubt it matters. He was already charged so the ballistic specifics are relevant, one of the charges was first degree wanton endangerment.

I hope he gets off. Drone operators who spy on people are scum.

As always, your resilience towards facts is remarkable.

The facts are that he was a victim of trespassing.

He may have also broken another law in dealing with the trespasser, but hopefully that gets changed.

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?

 Grey Templar wrote:
The facts are that he was a victim of trespassing.

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.

 Grey Templar wrote:
If it was indeed flying at 300 feet, that was one heck of a shot with the shotgun.

And bullets can definitely be fatal when fired recklessly into the air. Shotgun pellets not so much.

Yea I call BS on that. 100 yards? Whats the spread pattern the size of a VW Bug?

 Grey Templar wrote:

He may have also broken another law in dealing with the trespasser, but hopefully that gets changed.

So you want it to to be legal to destroy the property of another person if it happens to be on 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.

Ouze wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
The facts are that he was a victim of trespassing.

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ouze wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
The facts are that he was a victim of trespassing.

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?

Ouze wrote:

 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.

He endangered people, hence endangerment.

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.

sounds like you didnt read things...

 easysauce wrote:

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

edit - you rephrased

Now I'm not even sure what your argument is anymore

Ouze wrote:

 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.

Wait are you talking to me?

No, not you.

Do model aircraft require any sort of markings to determine ownership? markings for drones could be good, but seems like you could easily change them.

 d-usa wrote:
No, not you.

Do model aircraft require any sort of markings to determine ownership? markings for drones could be good, but seems like you could easily change them.

No, but under the proposed FAA rules you would need a number for a UAS like the drone in this story, among other things.

How long till we can have sub 500feet directional radio jammers so we can start harvesting drones and selling them back

And when is amazaon doing the 30 min delivery?

Ouze wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
The facts are that he was a victim of trespassing.

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.

 Grey Templar wrote:

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.