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.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
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.

The news footage showed that he was flying a DJI Phantom 3, which does have an altimer, and the display on the controller shows exactly what the altitude is, along with other useful stats.



There are a lot of people posting here that frankly do not know what they are talking about.

 kronk wrote:
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?

I get you but once the evidence was given back to him, the chain of custody was broken and that evidence is tainted and likely inadmissable with a competent defense attorney.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
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.

The news footage showed that he was flying a DJI Phantom 3, which does have an altimer, and the display on the controller shows exactly what the altitude is, along with other useful stats.

Spoiler:

There are a lot of people posting here that frankly do not know what they are talking about.

And none of that is admissable if police blew the chain of custody.

Yes, but now we are having a new discussion. I was pointing out the idea that the drone in question did not have an altimeter and that the operator was guessing at the height was factually incorrect.

 Ouze wrote:
Yes, but now we are having a new discussion. I was pointing out the idea that the drone in question did not have an altimeter and that the operator was guessing at the height was factually incorrect.

I hear you. However that evidence was not raised. Him saying it is just him saying it. Absent other proof (the altimeter reading recorded) its merit is meh given the circumstances.

 Ouze wrote:
Yes, but now we are having a new discussion. I was pointing out the idea that the drone in question did not have an altimeter and that the operator was guessing at the height was factually incorrect.

That's a cool picture.

That evidence wasn't raised because the drone operator was not given a chance to produce any evidence, since the charges were dismissed out of hand.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kronk wrote:
That's a cool picture.

I'll draw all over it if you like.

Draw some flying assault butts attacking the boats!

gak, I need to paint mine. I got it right after my move when my painting gak was still packed away...

 Ouze wrote:
That evidence wasn't raised because the drone operator was not given a chance to produce any evidence, since the charges were dismissed out of hand.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kronk wrote:
That's a cool picture.

I'll draw all over it if you like.

Of course it was. The chain of custody was broken. No fruit from the rotten tree my dear Watson.

Draw some flying assault butts attacking the boats!

This post is made of WIN.

These are the controls the drone operator would see.

Starting at the top left:

Flight mode - you can do totally manual (no one does this), totally GPS - in which case GPS & the altimeter keep it stationary in height and position - or ATTI, which toggles off horizontal correct but uses the altimeter to keep the height steady. You'd usually use pure GPS, but if you need some more speed you can switch to ATTI.

Total GPS sats - the phantom 3 uses both GPS and Glonass to fix position. You need at least 7 to fly.

Status - self explanatory. This will change colors if there is a problem.

Signal strength, battery - self explanatory.

one clicks - there is a button to take straight up and hold at x height, and one to return to home from wherever it is and land where it took off. Normally, it will fly to at least x high (default is 60 meters), fly directly to the location it took off, and slowly descend (fast descents can cause a vortex ring).

Height in meters, obvious. horizontal distance is how far from the controller on a flat plane. HS is horizontal speed (obvious), the VS is if you are climbing or descending, and the last one is the (total) distance from takeoff, which includes the height and distance.

So, yes, he knew exactly how high he was, and where he was. These are precise machines. The software app on the previous version was capable of wholly autonomous flight via a PC or IOS app you'd use to plan it beforehand, it would literally take off, fly your waypoints, take stills, whatever, and return back to wherever you told it to with a single button press and no other intervention.

 Goliath wrote:

 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.

You're right to an extent but at range it's more a combination of gravity and atmospheric resistance otherwise what goes up wouldn't come down. My assumption on that post was a straight shot UP versus your average downrange shot. Not being a physicist my lay-person assumptions of course can be off but hey, I just know what I see when I shoot and I'll readily admit that the HS physics class I took was back in '89 so.....

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

Here's a picture from a news story:



He's using carbon fiber props, which are strong and light but very brittle, and you'll note one prop is broken (which will take down a quadcopter). The shell bulge is probably from the crash.

So, yes, he knew exactly how high he was, and where he was. These are precise machines. The software app on the previous version was capable of wholly autonomous flight via a PC or IOS app you'd use to plan it beforehand, it would literally take off, fly your waypoints, take stills, whatever, and return back to wherever you told it to with a single button press and no other intervention.

Cool. not relevant without the actual evidence. Its just his word and he's motivated to lie. The defendant is motivated to lie too, but the presumption is with the defendant.

Again, I am rebutting an earlier factual deficiency. I am probably going to pull a moderator warning for repeating myself, apparently, so... whatever.

But, to go to your point, one guy has his word, the other guy has his word, physical evidence, and telemetry from the drone. He did not have a chance to even attempt to enter any of that into evidence, where a expert could have examined it for integrity. Maybe I haven't watched enough TV courtroom dramas, but my impression is that you supress evidence due to fruit of the poison tree after one party tries to enter it, and then it's ruled upon. None of that happened.

The police should have kept the SD card as well as the tablet or phone with the flight plan, as I've agreed several times.

 agnosto wrote:

 Goliath wrote:

 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.

You're right to an extent but at range it's more a combination of gravity and atmospheric resistance otherwise what goes up wouldn't come down. My assumption on that post was a straight shot UP versus your average downrange shot. Not being a physicist my lay-person assumptions of course can be off but hey, I just know what I see when I shoot and I'll readily admit that the HS physics class I took was back in '89 so.....

Maybe, but the effect of gravity would be the same for both of them. If they left the barrel at the same speed, and with no air resistance, they would land at the same time. The difference between them will be due to a combination of barrel exit velocity and air resistance, which will likely have less of an effect on the larger one, resulting in it going further /physics

Looks like one blade is missing form that rotor, but I'm not CSI enough to say that it was shot off by buckshot, bird shot, or .38 special.

I would have liked for the positioning and other information to have been submitted during the course of the trial.

Is it possible to edit that information, though?

 Ouze wrote:
Again, I am rebutting an earlier factual deficiency. I am probably going to pull a moderator warning for repeating myself, apparently, so... whatever.

But, to go to your point, one guy has his word, the other guy has his word, physical evidence, and telemetry from the drone. He did not have a chance to even attempt to enter any of that into evidence, where a expert could have examined it for integrity. Maybe I haven't watched enough TV courtroom dramas, but my impression is that you supress evidence due to fruit of the poison tree after one party tries to enter it, and then it's ruled upon. None of that happened.

The police should have kept the SD card as well as the tablet or phone with the flight plan, as I've agreed several times.

No thats not how it works.
The defendant may testify but cannot be compelled to do so. The "victim" may testify and can be compelled to do so unless it violates his 5th A rights.
There is no telemetry from the drone and the there is no drone in the eyes of the court. That evidence has been very effectively tainted.

"Case dismissed for lack of evidence. Now get your Perv Drone out of here before I try out my new Browning Over Under you weird Pervy bastard."
Police should charge perv drone boy under the peeping tom statutes for good measure.

 Goliath wrote:
Maybe, but the effect of gravity would be the same for both of them. If they left the barrel at the same speed, and with no air resistance, they would land at the same time. The difference between them will be due to a combination of barrel exit velocity and air resistance, which will likely have less of an effect on the larger one, resulting in it going further /physics

Wouldn't the difference in mass has an effect on how far the velocity carries it?

 kronk wrote:
Looks like one blade is missing form that rotor, but I'm not CSI enough to say that it was shot off by buckshot, bird shot, or .38 special.

I would have liked for the positioning and other information to have been submitted during the course of the trial.

Is it possible to edit that information, though?

It's a video file so.... not easily in that timeframe, but it's not impossible either. You'd have to have the right software and a very high skill level - I personally would not be able to do that, not in the 24 hours it took to produce it for the media. Additionally, if you edit the video in an application, it's likely going to change the metadata and make it clear it's been tampered with.

 kronk wrote:
Looks like one blade is missing form that rotor, but I'm not CSI enough to say that it was shot off by buckshot, bird shot, or .38 special.

I would have liked for the positioning and other information to have been submitted during the course of the trial.

Is it possible to edit that information, though?

Just as easy to say it broke off upon impact with the ground.

It is possible for a quad to stay aloft, with proper programming (no reason why this guy would have it).
http://gizmodo.com/watch-this-intelligent-quadcopter-recover-after-losing-1478004249

 Frazzled wrote:
[No thats not how it works.
The defendant may testify but cannot be compelled to do so. The "victim" may testify and can be compelled to do so unless it violates his 5th A rights.
There is no telemetry from the drone and the there is no drone in the eyes of the court. That evidence has been very effectively tainted.

I see. I guess that's why no one has ever been convicted due in part to cell phone footage taken at a scene that wasn't under police control for the entire chain of evidence, from the scene to the courtroom.


Someone should let this guy know that the footage in question is totally tainted and inadmissible! it does not exist.

Come on.

 CptJake wrote:

 Goliath wrote:
Maybe, but the effect of gravity would be the same for both of them. If they left the barrel at the same speed, and with no air resistance, they would land at the same time. The difference between them will be due to a combination of barrel exit velocity and air resistance, which will likely have less of an effect on the larger one, resulting in it going further /physics

Wouldn't the difference in mass has an effect on how far the velocity carries it?

Possibly, but that would be independent of gravity. I'm not trying to say that they'll travel the same distance, more trying to educate on a misunderstanding of how gravity affects things.

The acceleration due to gravity is 9.81m/s^2 for any object, so they will decelerate and start to fall at the same rate regardless of mass, given the same initial starting velocity.

in this case however, it is highly likely that the initial starting velocity is not the same, due to the mass and size of the pellets affecting how much force the gunpowder can exert on them. (the larger the shot, the larger the force that can be exerted given the same pressure from the gunpowder) The larger the force, the faster the shot accelerates.

Air resistance will also have an effect, with the larger balls being affected slightly more due to their surface area, but slightly less due to their mass (F = ma, F is increasing due to surface area, but m has also increased, so a will stay largely constant)

So yeah. The mass will have an effect on how far they will travel, but it isn't due to gravity, which is what I was originally correcting.


(Sorry for taking this off on a tangent)

 agnosto wrote:
It is possible for a quad to stay aloft, with proper programming (no reason why this guy would have it).

It is technically possible, but there is no consumer quadcopter I am aware of (and certainly not the one in question) that has that capability.

Generally speaking the only commercially available fault tolerance is having more props - a hexacopter can lose one, and a quadcopter can lose 2 (depending which 2). In practice it's most likely that even in those 2 alternate situations losing an ESC, motor, or prop will lead to a crash with a consumer level drone.

 Goliath wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Goliath wrote:
Maybe, but the effect of gravity would be the same for both of them. If they left the barrel at the same speed, and with no air resistance, they would land at the same time. The difference between them will be due to a combination of barrel exit velocity and air resistance, which will likely have less of an effect on the larger one, resulting in it going further /physics

Wouldn't the difference in mass has an effect on how far the velocity carries it?

Possibly, but that would be independent of gravity. I'm not trying to say that they'll travel the same distance, more trying to educate on a misunderstanding of how gravity affects things.

The acceleration due to gravity is 9.81m/s^2 for any object, so they will decelerate and start to fall at the same rate regardless of mass, given the same initial starting velocity.

in this case however, it is highly likely that the initial starting velocity is not the same, due to the mass and size of the pellets affecting how much force the gunpowder can exert on them. (the larger the shot, the larger the force that can be exerted given the same pressure from the gunpowder) The larger the force, the faster the shot accelerates.

Air resistance will also have an effect, with the larger balls being affected slightly more due to their surface area, but slightly less due to their mass (F = ma, F is increasing due to surface area, but m has also increased, so a will stay largely constant)

So yeah. The mass will have an effect on how far they will travel, but it isn't due to gravity, which is what I was originally correcting.


(Sorry for taking this off on a tangent)

Interesting but it all depends on the shot used, birdshot generally doesn't have the same "load" as buck. I wonder if the difference in load between the two shots makes a difference.

Another factor to consider in this case is if he was shooting straight up (or near to) to hit the drone, wind and other factors would come into play on the accuracy of the shot. With a solid slug, you can compensate for wind but bird or buckshot, not so much.

I don't have the science background to refute a 200ft shot (with buck but certainly not with bird) but it just doesn't ring true in my mind.

 Ouze wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
[No thats not how it works.
The defendant may testify but cannot be compelled to do so. The "victim" may testify and can be compelled to do so unless it violates his 5th A rights.
There is no telemetry from the drone and the there is no drone in the eyes of the court. That evidence has been very effectively tainted.

I see. I guess that's why no one has ever been convicted due in part to cell phone footage taken at a scene that wasn't under police control for the entire chain of evidence, from the scene to the courtroom.


Someone should let this guy know that the footage in question is totally tainted and inadmissible! it does not exist.

Come on.

You're completely correct. Codified criminal procedure is just a thing thats irrelevant because...reasons...

This is basic stuff. The police had the evidence. They gave the evidence back to the victim. I won't quote the Texas statute that violates because its been a few years, but believe what you want.

Ok put it another way, how is that admissible? There is no chain of custody of the drone. There is no protection the "alleged" drone has not been tampered with. Its out.
The flight recording could potentially be used if there is enough support that it was valid and untampered with. However this isn't CSi and People Vs. Bin Laden. This is misdemeanor dick court. No one is going to F with this.

It may well be a desired verdict anyway. The US judiciary is not impartial, judges are directly party politicised, and thus politicised in general.
From the judges words the shooters testimony has been accepted as de facto truth right down to the claim that the drones past over his house low several times, and the case thrown out. Even though there was no firm evidence either way. This should tell us something about what society means to say about drones over inhabited areas.

Which I think is a good thing. Drones should not have free reign like they currently do in most areas.

Quickly, someone start the Droneslayer Signal! We need you Droneslayer!

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/472715/Shock-rise-in-sex-pests-filming-horny-Brit-couples-from-the-sky

 Grey Templar wrote:
Which I think is a good thing. Drones should not have free reign like they currently do in most areas.

So how exactly do you propose to regulate them? Keep in mind that airspace in the US is under federal control, and the FAA frowns rather strongly upon lower-level governments saying "you can't fly here". And current FAA policy is that drones are no different from piloted aircraft, and the FAA gets authority over them.

Obviously with shotguns, specifically Droneslayers' 200m ranged one

 Peregrine wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Which I think is a good thing. Drones should not have free reign like they currently do in most areas.

So how exactly do you propose to regulate them? Keep in mind that airspace in the US is under federal control, and the FAA frowns rather strongly upon lower-level governments saying "you can't fly here". And current FAA policy is that drones are no different from piloted aircraft, and the FAA gets authority over them.

I'm pretty sure under FAA regulations you can't fly within a certain distance above residential areas.