Man shoots down Drone with camera hovering over his property

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.

**Desubot**

d-usa wrote:
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.

Are there no privacy laws concerning filming?

**Grey Templar**

So what does a Drone spying on me constitute?

And you can bet your sweet patootie that this will get legislated against. Its a loophole in the law. The intent is clear that this would be covered under trespass or at the very least harassment.

**timetowaste85**

hotsauceman1 wrote:
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

This just in, Hotsauceman has no issue with pervs spying on underage girls sunbathing with drones.

There were other witnesses in the neighborhood. Just stop before you hurt yourself.

**easysauce**

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.

I think my point is being misconstrued,

My point is that the shooter took precautions in shooting down the drone that would be reasonably construed as reasonable precautions that made his action not dangerous to the public. If he was somewhere where shooting down a duck isnt endangering the public, then neither is shooting down a drone.

Ouze wrote:
edit - you rephrased

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

no that was my original unedited post, you just missed the word "not" it sounds like.

**Frazzled**

Actually there should be statues about tresspassing on land that would cover it. you appear to have sourced trespassing on fixed improvements.

there is also the old equity tresspassing on property.

**d-usa**

Grey Templar wrote:
So what does a Drone spying on me constitute?

Probably one of the many other laws that already cover privacy, harassment, privacy, etc. We got a whole book of them, do a Google or something. I'm telling you that your argument of "it was trespassing" is wrong, but I'm not going to Google your next argument for you.

You also don't have an explicit right to privacy in your backyard considering that it is already visible to me on Google Earth, to anybody with a helicopter, to the guy with the home-build light aircraft, to the guy in the hot air balloon, and to everyone looking out the window in an airplane.

You don't get to shoot down anything you want and invoke the "they were looking at me" defense.

And you can bet your sweet patootie that this will get legislated against. Its a loophole in the law. The intent is clear that this would be covered under trespass or at the very least harassment.

Under current trespass law, if someone is on your property do you get to shoot them or shoot up their car?
Under current harassment laws, if someone is harassing you do you get to shoot them or shoot up their car?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
Actually there should be statues about tresspassing on land that would cover it. you appear to have sourced trespassing on fixed improvements.

there is also the old equity tresspassing on property.

Kentucky wrote:511.010 Definitions.
The following definitions apply in this chapter unless the context otherwise requires:
(1) "Building," in addition to its ordinary meaning, means any structure, vehicle, watercraft or aircraft:
(a) Where any person lives; or
(b) Where people assemble for purposes of business, government, education, religion, entertainment or public transportation.
Each unit of a building consisting of two (2) or more units separately secured or occupied is a separate building.
(2) "Dwelling" means a building which is usually occupied by a person lodging therein.
(3) "Premises" includes the term "building" as defined herein and any real property.

**CptJake**

And peeping toms get charged with more than trespassing.

Wether using eyeballs or a hand held camera or a drone mounted camera, voyeurism tends to be against the law when the subject of the voyeurism is unaware and/or underaged.

**d-usa**

CptJake wrote:
And peeping toms get charged with more than trespassing.

Peeping Toms also do a lot more than just looking into a backyard. Now you are talking about laws and prior rulings that cover privacy inside a building as well.

Wether using eyeballs or a hand held camera or a drone mounted camera, voyeurism tends to be against the law when the subject of the voyeurism is unaware and/or underaged.

And does the law allow you to shoot at either the voyeur or the property?

I'm not defending the use of drones to film teenagers sunbathing in back yards. I'm just saying that it doesn't appear that there is any legal justification for shooting them down instead of using the proper legal resources available to the property owner.

**Frazzled**

CptJake wrote:
And peeping toms get charged with more than trespassing.

Wether using eyeballs or a hand held camera or a drone mounted camera, voyeurism tends to be against the law when the subject of the voyeurism is unaware and/or underaged.

Good point. Do they? If so then there is precedent for appropriate laws being put in place or used for this purpose.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kentucky wrote:511.010 Definitions.
The following definitions apply in this chapter unless the context otherwise requires:
(1) "Building," in addition to its ordinary meaning, means any structure, vehicle, watercraft or aircraft:
(a) Where any person lives; or
(b) Where people assemble for purposes of business, government, education, religion, entertainment or public transportation.
Each unit of a building consisting of two (2) or more units separately secured or occupied is a separate building.
(2) "Dwelling" means a building which is usually occupied by a person lodging therein.
(3) "Premises" includes the term "building" as defined herein and any real property.

Yes that looks like a fixed improvement ordnance.

**d-usa**

It was the only mention of Trespass that I could find in Kentucky.

**Frazzled**

d-usa wrote:
It was the only mention of Trespass that I could find in Kentucky.

Gotcha and not being critical. It may be written in not saying "trespass" or such. Actual laws are a pain in the butt to find or often to interpret. Its almost like they are written by lawyers...

**CptJake**

d-usa wrote:
CptJake wrote:
And peeping toms get charged with more than trespassing.

Peeping Toms also do a lot more than just looking into a backyard. Now you are talking about laws and prior rulings that cover privacy inside a building as well.

Wether using eyeballs or a hand held camera or a drone mounted camera, voyeurism tends to be against the law when the subject of the voyeurism is unaware and/or underaged.

And does the law allow you to shoot at either the voyeur or the property?

Situationally dependent. As I've mentioned in this topic, my house is pretty remote and you must very deliberately go over barriers to get to it. You can't mistakenly approach my house on foot or by vehicle.

In NC, I can shoot to prevent incursion into my house if I feel threatened. Honestly, it would depend on wether or not I could feel safely confident it was 'just' a perv and not someone trying to break in.

**Frazzled**

Highly unlikely you could sustain a self defense claim to shoot outside your house however, which is what occurred here.

Nor is it that appropriate. This is damage to property. Self defense is not an issue. Nor are the penalties as severe.

**Ouze**

CptJake wrote:
In NC, I can shoot to prevent incursion into my house if I feel threatened. Honestly, it would depend on wether or not I could feel safely confident it was 'just' a perv and not someone trying to break in.

That's not what the law in NC actually says.

Use of force in defense of person; relief from criminal or civil liability.
(a) A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that the conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat in any place he or she has the lawful right to be if either of the following applies: (1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another. (2) Under the circumstances permitted pursuant to G.S. 14‑51.2. (b) A person who uses force as permitted by this section is justified in using such force and is immune from civil or criminal liability for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer or bail bondsman who was lawfully acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer or bail bondsman identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer or bail bondsman in the lawful performance of his or her official duties. (2011‑268, s. 1.)

So, if you shoot a trespasser because "you felt threatened", you are probably going to jail. Good luck with that.

**Frazzled**

Frazzled wrote:
Highly unlikely you could sustain a self defense claim to shoot outside your house however, which is what occurred here.

Nor is it that appropriate. This is damage to property. Self defense is not an issue. Nor are the penalties as severe.

Note this is also why farmers quit shooting at tresspassers with rock salt.
1. Their ass could go to jail and get the

sued out of them. (actual case studies in law class, i can't remember procedure or law).
2. Someone might shoot back.

**d-usa**

CptJake wrote:
d-usa wrote:
CptJake wrote:
And peeping toms get charged with more than trespassing.

Peeping Toms also do a lot more than just looking into a backyard. Now you are talking about laws and prior rulings that cover privacy inside a building as well.

Wether using eyeballs or a hand held camera or a drone mounted camera, voyeurism tends to be against the law when the subject of the voyeurism is unaware and/or underaged.

And does the law allow you to shoot at either the voyeur or the property?

Situationally dependent. As I've mentioned in this topic, my house is pretty remote and you must very deliberately go over barriers to get to it. You can't mistakenly approach my house on foot or by vehicle.

In NC, I can shoot to prevent incursion into my house if I feel threatened. Honestly, it would depend on wether or not I could feel safely confident it was 'just' a perv and not someone trying to break in.

But to make it more applicable to the case at hand: If someone is on your remote property and has deliberately gone over barriers to get to it, do you then get to shoot up his car?

**CptJake**

Ouze wrote:
CptJake wrote:
In NC, I can shoot to prevent incursion into my house if I feel threatened. Honestly, it would depend on wether or not I could feel safely confident it was 'just' a perv and not someone trying to break in.

That's not what the law in NC actually says.

Use of force in defense of person; relief from criminal or civil liability.
(a) A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that the conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat in any place he or she has the lawful right to be if either of the following applies: (1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another. (2) Under the circumstances permitted pursuant to G.S. 14‑51.2. (b) A person who uses force as permitted by this section is justified in using such force and is immune from civil or criminal liability for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer or bail bondsman who was lawfully acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer or bail bondsman identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer or bail bondsman in the lawful performance of his or her official duties. (2011‑268, s. 1.)

So, if you shoot a trespasser because "you felt threatened", you are probably going to jail. Good luck with that.

14-51.2. Home, workplace, and motor vehicle protection; presumption of fear of death or serious bodily harm.
(a) The following definitions apply in this section:
(1) Home. - A building or conveyance of any kind, to include its curtilage, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed as a temporary or permanent residence.
(2) Law enforcement officer. - Any person employed or appointed as a full-time, part-time, or auxiliary law enforcement officer, correctional officer, probation officer, post-release supervision officer, or parole officer.
(3) Motor vehicle. - As defined in G.S. 20-4.01(23).
(4) Workplace. - A building or conveyance of any kind, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, which is being used for commercial purposes.
(b) The lawful occupant of a home, motor vehicle, or workplace is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent death or serious bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily harm to another if both of the following apply:
(1) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a home, motor vehicle, or workplace, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person's will from the home, motor vehicle, or workplace.
(2) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(c) The presumption set forth in subsection (b) of this section shall be rebuttable and does not apply in any of the following circumstances:
(1) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the home, motor vehicle, or workplace, such as an owner or lessee, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person.
(2) The person sought to be removed from the home, motor vehicle, or workplace is a child or grandchild or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of the person against whom the defensive force is used.
(3) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in, attempting to escape from, or using the home, motor vehicle, or workplace to further any criminal offense that involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.
(4) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer or bail bondsman who enters or attempts to enter a home, motor vehicle, or workplace in the lawful performance of his or her official duties, and the officer or bail bondsman identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer or bail bondsman in the lawful performance of his or her official duties.
(5) The person against whom the defensive force is used (i) has discontinued all efforts to unlawfully and forcefully enter the home, motor vehicle, or workplace and (ii) has exited the home, motor vehicle, or workplace.
(d) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person's home, motor vehicle, or workplace is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
(e) A person who uses force as permitted by this section is justified in using such force and is immune from civil or criminal liability for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer or bail bondsman who was lawfully acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer or bail bondsman identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer or bail bondsman in the lawful performance of his or her official duties.
(f) A lawful occupant within his or her home, motor vehicle, or workplace does not have a duty to retreat from an intruder in the circumstances described in this section.
(g) This section is not intended to repeal or limit any other defense that may exist under the common law. (2011-268, s. 1.)

NC GENERAL STATUTE 14 51.1. Use of deadly physical force against an intruder. (This is commonly called the "Castle Doctrine.")

(a) A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence is justified in using any degree of force that the occupant reasonably believes is necessary, including deadly force, against an intruder to prevent a forcible entry into the home or residence or to terminate the intruder's unlawful entry (i) if the occupant reasonably apprehends that the intruder may kill or inflict serious bodily harm to the occupant or others in the home or residence, or (ii) if the occupant reasonably believes that the intruder intends to commit a felony in the home or residence.

(b) A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence does not have a duty to retreat from an intruder in the circumstances described in this section.

Someone trying to break in gives me very reasonable belief my family and I are threatened by imminent death or great bodily harm or that the would be intruder intends to commit a felony in my home.

**d-usa**

CptJake wrote:

NC GENERAL STATUTE 14 51.1. Use of deadly physical force against an intruder. (This is commonly called the "Castle Doctrine.")

(a) A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence is justified in using any degree of force that the occupant reasonably believes is necessary, including deadly force, against an intruder to prevent a forcible entry into the home or residence or to terminate the intruder's unlawful entry (i) if the occupant reasonably apprehends that the intruder may kill or inflict serious bodily harm to the occupant or others in the home or residence, or (ii) if the occupant reasonably believes that the intruder intends to commit a felony in the home or residence.

(b) A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence does not have a duty to retreat from an intruder in the circumstances described in this section.

Someone trying to break in gives me very reasonable belief my family and I are threatened by imminent death or great bodily harm or that the would be intruder intends to commit a felony in my home.

Does home or place of residence cover the outside of your property?

**CptJake**

Does 'prevent a forcible entry' imply waiting for them to gain entry?

I don't think so.

**Frazzled**

d-usa wrote:
CptJake wrote:

NC GENERAL STATUTE 14 51.1. Use of deadly physical force against an intruder. (This is commonly called the "Castle Doctrine.")

(a) A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence is justified in using any degree of force that the occupant reasonably believes is necessary, including deadly force, against an intruder to prevent a forcible entry into the home or residence or to terminate the intruder's unlawful entry (i) if the occupant reasonably apprehends that the intruder may kill or inflict serious bodily harm to the occupant or others in the home or residence, or (ii) if the occupant reasonably believes that the intruder intends to commit a felony in the home or residence.

(b) A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence does not have a duty to retreat from an intruder in the circumstances described in this section.

Someone trying to break in gives me very reasonable belief my family and I are threatened by imminent death or great bodily harm or that the would be intruder intends to commit a felony in my home.

Does home or place of residence cover the outside of your property?

CJ is right in that, in your house in Okahoma, he'd not get charged with anything (that state's as 'defense' oriented" as Texas).
D-USA is right in that sustaining such a defense is really really difficult outside the abode, with certain exceptions. Texas has expanded theirs to basically, -"your honor I thought he was stealing some seed out of the bird feeder so I blasted 'em!" being legal under statute if at night. I don't know Oklahoma's specifically.
Frazzled is right (well when am I not?) in that it doesn't matter. Its an action against property. Self defense rules don't apply unless that property is able to make a reasonable threat (killer drone, in the very not at all distant future, killer sheep etc.)

**easysauce**

id say the onus for breaking what amounts to a fancy RC toy is a lot easier then proving shooting a living being was justified.

Can anyone answer this:

was the area the drone shot down in an area where it is legal to shoot a duck.

**d-usa**

CptJake wrote:
Does 'prevent a forcible entry' imply waiting for them to gain entry?

I don't think so.

I think you would still have a hard time arguing that a guy standing in your yard not actively trying to break into your home is in the process of gaining entry into your home.

In the case at hand I think you would have an even harder time arguing that the drone flying in the air above your yard is in the process of gaining entry into your home.

**CptJake**

easysauce wrote:
id say the onus for breaking what amounts to a fancy RC toy is a lot easier then proving shooting a living being was justified.

Can anyone answer this:

was the area the drone shot down in an area where it is legal to shoot a duck.

Sounds like that is the issue. No, he was in city limits where he cannot legally fire the weapon.

**d-usa**

easysauce wrote:
id say the onus for breaking what amounts to a fancy RC toy is a lot easier then proving shooting a living being was justified.

Can anyone answer this:

was the area the drone shot down in an area where it is legal to shoot a duck.

He was charged with discharging a weapon inside city limits. So it appears that it wasn't.

One of my first posts was also the whole "if he could legally shoot clay targets in his yard then he could probably legally shoot drones in the yard" thought, so I am with you there. The drone owner might still be able to go through the civil court for damages, but it wouldn't be a criminal issue IMO.

Using ducks as an argument might be more difficult though, since there is a duck season and you have to have a license. But I think if the state would charge $10 for a drone license we could probably fix the state budget shortfall in Oklahoma

**CptJake**

d-usa wrote:
CptJake wrote:
Does 'prevent a forcible entry' imply waiting for them to gain entry?

I don't think so.

I think you would still have a hard time arguing that a guy standing in your yard not actively trying to break into your home is in the process of gaining entry into your home.

I already said 'if I could not be confident they were not trying to break in'. I'm not a dumb guy. Nor do I want to have to kill people. A guy standing in the yard does not automatically get shot. He MAY get a gun pointed in his general direction and asked to hang tight until the cops can escort him away.

**d-usa**

CptJake wrote:
d-usa wrote:
CptJake wrote:
Does 'prevent a forcible entry' imply waiting for them to gain entry?

I don't think so.

I think you would still have a hard time arguing that a guy standing in your yard not actively trying to break into your home is in the process of gaining entry into your home.

I already said 'if I could not be confident they were not trying to break in'. I'm not a dumb guy. Nor do I want to have to kill people. A guy standing in the yard does not automatically get shot. He MAY get a gun pointed in his general direction and asked to hang tight until the cops can escort him away.

Gotcha.

**easysauce**

CptJake wrote:
easysauce wrote:
id say the onus for breaking what amounts to a fancy RC toy is a lot easier then proving shooting a living being was justified.

Can anyone answer this:

was the area the drone shot down in an area where it is legal to shoot a duck.

Sounds like that is the issue. No, he was in city limits where he cannot legally fire the weapon.

yeah, so he is technically in the wrong then for dischargin the shotgun, give him a fine, fine the drone operator and move on.

next time he will know to use a potato cannon, or a jammer, or just fly his own drone into it or something other then a firearm.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

d-usa wrote:
. But I think if the state would charge $10 for a drone license we could probably fix the state budget shortfall in Oklahoma

oh yeah!

id love to do that, we actually were toying with the idea of using drones to make maneuverable clays (hang the clay a ways below the drone!) for some target comps up here.

**Desubot**

easysauce wrote:

yeah, so he is technically in the wrong then for dischargin the shotgun, give him a fine, fine the drone operator and move on.

next time he will know to use a potato cannon, or a jammer, or just fly his own drone into it or something other then a firearm.

Drone combat? yes please.

I want to see some with big buzz saw arms and flame throwers.

**Frazzled**

id love to do that, we actually were toying with the idea of using drones to make maneuverable clays (hang the clay a ways below the drone!) for some target comps up here.

That
sounds
AWESOME!

**easysauce**

so would it be legal to use this to shoot down the droneÉ

what are the rules for drone on drone shootingsÉ

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Desubot wrote:

Drone combat? yes please.

I want to see some with big buzz saw arms and flame throwers.

You get it!