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.

If the discharging of a gun was the issue... what if he grabbed the pool skimmer and knocked it down and then ran over it with a lawn mower?

If the issue was with the discharge of a gun, and not destruction of the drone, if he destroyed the drone via other mechanisms (Long pole, pool skimmer, bow and arrow) Would he have been ok? (Outside the obvious civil suit)

nkelsch wrote:
If the discharging of a gun was the issue... what if he grabbed the pool skimmer and knocked it down and then ran over it with a lawn mower?

If the issue was with the discharge of a gun, and not destruction of the drone, if he destroyed the drone via other mechanisms (Long pole, pool skimmer, bow and arrow) Would he have been ok? (Outside the obvious civil suit)

I would think so, but I'm not a lawyer.

 Frazzled wrote:

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.

I don't , either. It's hard enough to bring a Pheasant at 30 feet down with number 6 shot let alone something at 300 feet with number 6.

From the local coverage of the story,

“Well, I came out and it was down by the neighbor’s house, about 10 feet off the ground, looking under their canopy that they’ve got in their back yard," Merideth said. "I went and got my shotgun and I said, ‘I’m not going to do anything unless it’s directly over my property.’"

Clearly, someone is lying about the altitude.

Where's the video?

Returned to the Drone owner so he can alter it to fit his narrative.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Returned to the Drone owner so he can alter it to fit his narrative.

Agreed. Big screw up on the part of the cops, giving evidence back like that.

Yup. They basically tossed away the evidence.

Perhaps the video was not usable - if it where a Phantom 2 Vision+, the video would not be closed if it lost power during recording. You'd need to recover it with another P2V+, and even then, sometimes it's too corrupt to fix.

I mean, I know you guys know more about investigating a crime than the cops that were on the scene do and all, but just throwing it out there.

nkelsch wrote:

If the issue was with the discharge of a gun, and not destruction of the drone, if he destroyed the drone via other mechanisms (Long pole, pool skimmer, bow and arrow) Would he have been ok? (Outside the obvious civil suit)

I agree with d-usa in that I would think that the issue is more about the method of destruction, not the destruction itself.


As for the civil suit, I'd counter-sue for the filming/harrassment, and I would kind of assume that I'd get a fairly sympathetic judge in that case

I doubt any digital video would be made irretrievable, especially if it used an SD card(and it almost certainly did)

And yeah, I doubt the Civil suit will go well for the Drone operators.


"So you say the Defendant shot your drone? What was your drone doing when the Defendent shot it?"

"Umm, we were taking videos of his hot daughter your honor."

This calls for a more affordable 'laser shield' to stop unwanted pictures taken.

Like this guy on his yacht:
http://www.wired.com/2009/09/russian-billionaire-installs-anti-photo-shield-on-giant-yacht/

Ouze wrote:
Perhaps the video was not usable - if it where a Phantom 2 Vision+, the video would not be closed if it lost power during recording. You'd need to recover it with another P2V+, and even then, sometimes it's too corrupt to fix.

I mean, I know you guys know more about investigating a crime than the cops that were on the scene do and all, but just throwing it out there.

In all fairness, as you well know, the cops have been shown to be less than perfect at times in news stories featured in this forum.

I guess you have me on that one. Certainly, I wouldn't hold the police out as experts in, say, marksmanship.

w

Ouze wrote:
I guess you have me on that one. Certainly, I wouldn't hold the police out as experts in, say, marksmanship.

 timetowaste85 wrote:

 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.

no, I'm against destruction of other people's property. We have no idea. Y,know drones are hard to control. Maybe the drone owner was having trouble controlling it. But it seems some people have 100% proof of what those few guys where doing and deserve to have their stuff destroyed.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:

 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.

no, I'm against destruction of other people's property. We have no idea. Y,know drones are hard to control. Maybe the drone owner was having trouble controlling it. But it seems some people have 100% proof of what those few guys where doing and deserve to have their stuff destroyed.

If he can't control it adequately he shouldn't be flying it over other peoples property. He should teach himself on his own land or in a public area with not many people.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:

 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.

no, I'm against destruction of other people's property. We have no idea. Y,know drones are hard to control. Maybe the drone owner was having trouble controlling it. But it seems some people have 100% proof of what those few guys where doing and deserve to have their stuff destroyed.

If he can't control it adequately he shouldn't be flying it over other peoples property. He should teach himself on his own land or in a public park.

No gak.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:

 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.

no, I'm against destruction of other people's property. We have no idea. Y,know drones are hard to control. Maybe the drone owner was having trouble controlling it. But it seems some people have 100% proof of what those few guys where doing and deserve to have their stuff destroyed.

If he can't control it adequately he shouldn't be flying it over other peoples property. He should teach himself on his own land or in a public area with not many people.

Especially when you are in fenced in yards with underage girls in swimwear.

I read the title as "Frazzled shoots at whatever he damn well wants that is near his property".

 Ahtman wrote:
I read the title as "Frazzled shoots at whatever he damn well wants that is near his property".

You know Frazz doesn't shoot. He sicks the wiener dogs on intruders. The shotgun is just for looks.

Saw a sign on a tree yesterday when out walking the dog, 'small drone found in back garden' and I found the idea somewhat amusing that we've gone from missing cat posters to missing drones. Still, I would not want a camera drone filming on my property. Seems to me a good spud gun would do the trick, or perhaps one of those net launchers.

Home is Castle Laws. Drones tried to invade the castle and Sir Lancealot blew it to hell good work. so sayeth king Arthur

In the posted local news story, they did a poll, and 90% of the respondents at the time I checked supported what he did.
I guess no one likes the thought of their daughter or themselves being the unwilling participant in a "girls gone wild, drone edition" video.

The police fethed up properly by not securing evidence. The man shooting down the drone bases both his defence and an accusation of wrongdoing against the drone pilot on the belief it was watching his children. And the police give it all back instead of securing it. Seems likely to me that cases on both sides might collapse because they compromised evidence.

The police might have copied the video before giving it back.
If that was all the evidence they wanted, the drone and recording kit could go.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
The police fethed up properly by not securing evidence. The man shooting down the drone bases both his defence and an accusation of wrongdoing against the drone pilot on the belief it was watching his children. And the police give it all back instead of securing it. Seems likely to me that cases on both sides might collapse because they compromised evidence.

If the law doesn't allow you to discharge your weapon at a camera and if the law doesn't make it illegal to fly a drone with a camera, then there is no reason for the police to hang on to the drone.

Let's say someone shoots your car because the car is green, and it's not against the law to drive a green car, that doesn't mean that the police needs to impound for our car.

It's not their job or responsibility to secure the evidence for a successful defense.

 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.

True, but then isn't every driver required to sit a test, obtain a licence, have their vehicles clearly registered and maintained to a road worthy standard? Oh and have insurance in case they did cause damage to something else?

In this case we have an unregulated vs regulated.

Cheers

Andrew

 d-usa wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
The police fethed up properly by not securing evidence. The man shooting down the drone bases both his defence and an accusation of wrongdoing against the drone pilot on the belief it was watching his children. And the police give it all back instead of securing it. Seems likely to me that cases on both sides might collapse because they compromised evidence.

If the law doesn't allow you to discharge your weapon at a camera and if the law doesn't make it illegal to fly a drone with a camera, then there is no reason for the police to hang on to the drone.

Let's say someone shoots your car because the car is green, and it's not against the law to drive a green car, that doesn't mean that the police needs to impound for our car.

It's not their job or responsibility to secure the evidence for a successful defense.

He's effectively made an accusation of voyeurism or invasion of privacy. The police shouldn't dispose of evidence related to that. Further if he wants to claim provocation in his defence then the police not bothering to collect evidence that would support that can count against prosecution. Cases do fall because the authorities decide only to keep evidence that suits them and removes opportunities to make a defence.

Other parts of the case will require discussion of what it was shot with and its height. I would hope they kept evidence to prove that either way. It seems pretty remiss to not keep video footage of an offence being carried out anyway, it should make prosecution easier.

So if someone punches you in the face and says they punched you because you took pictures of his family in your car, and the police show up and search you car and don't find any evidence, do they then get to keep your car for however long it takes for the other guy to go to court?

The police investigated both complaints, they found evidence for one of them, that's pretty much it.

 Ahtman wrote:
I read the title as "Frazzled shoots at whatever he damn well wants that is near his property".

He's busy.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/texas-man-shoots-armadillo-bullet-ricochets-back-into-his-face-1.3176390