Man shoots down drone hovering over house

[mjbskwim]

The daughter was a 16 year old girl.

That means if the guys flying the drone were perving.... You have some sexual predators that should be put down.

I am sorry but not a parent here will stand idle while some sick freak is recording your child.

This brings up the big fact that drones allow predators to stalk women and children. All from a safe distance...

The men should have to hand over all video evidence. After an investigation we can charge the offending party.

If the drone guys were doing that... I wonder how many other young girls these men were stalking...

And this is exactly how the shooter needs to approach this whole thing.Try to fies charges against the drone owners for peeping or stocking.
What judge or jury would wrong him for shooting it down on that defense?

 

[Flopsweat]

Quadcopter operators have been increasingly irresponsible lately, including interfering with wildfire fighting operations. Do you have a better way to make them responsible? I don't.

Remember, everyone who acts responsibly in injured when one person acts irresponsibly.

By that logic laser pointers and internet connections should be licensed. If you record a quadcopter less than 500' over your property you should be allowed to down it as long as you:

1) Violate no other laws.
2) Record video evidence of its presence in your airspace.
3) Down the bird while it's in your airspace.

Someone will market the equipment to make this happen and a few of us will buy it. Worth trying before we start requiring registration. Once you go that route there is essentially no turning back, even if it's proven ineffective.

 

[The B]

And this is exactly how the shooter needs to approach this whole thing.Try to fies charges against the drone owners for peeping or stocking.
What judge or jury would wrong him for shooting it down on that defense?

It's the SHOOTING part... dude was in a residential area - you need that whole serious injury or death bit for justification. Photographing your 16 year old daughter in a bathing suit just... just doesn't get you there, man.

 

[Just Jim]

For the price of a nice gun, who's gonna buy a jammer?

If the drone comes over my property and falls then it is mine At $1800 a drone there could be money to be made. Or sell it back to the owner for half price.. if my dog doesn't break it when it falls in the yard.

 

[Provincial]

By that logic laser pointers and internet connections should be licensed. If you record a quadcopter less than 500' over your property you should be allowed to down it as long as you:

1) Violate no other laws.
2) Record video evidence of its presence in your airspace.
3) Down the bird while it's in your airspace.

Someone will market the equipment to make this happen and a few of us will buy it. Worth trying before we start requiring registration. Once you go that route there is essentially no turning back, even if it's proven ineffective.

First off, lazer pointers are handy items that often are more powerful that they need to be. Misuse will lead to restrictions of output, and all of us will suffer from the irresponsible acts of a few. Terrorists may be trying to down an airliner by blinding the crew, but they may be smuggling more powerful lasers into the country or building them here in order to achieve their goals. That is a different issue.

Why should you have to buy an expensive item to deal with the possibility of a drone incursion? Why should the rights of Peeping Toms mean you have no recourse when they "peep?" Is there really a difference between walking on your property to "peep" and flying their drone over your property to "peep?" This is a new legal question.

If someone spys on someone else on the Internet, it is subject to existing laws that cover sexual perversion. You can always shut down or limit your Internet interface/access. As it now stands, drones can fly over your property with virtual impunity. The FAA doesn't really have any teeth to enforce these things unless they pose a threat to manned aircraft. They don't even have the manpower to do that effectively.

If someone is using a drone to inspect your roof, with your permission, that is fine as long as they stay on your property footprint, or over the public right-of-way. Once they encroach on the neighbor, it is not OK.

This is something that will end up in a citizen initiative, because too many monied interests like the status quo. Such an initiative should address privacy, nuisance, and criminal aspects.

 

[YoungBlood]

Hope that guy is able to keep his firearm rights, just curious though how would someone follow a drone back to where it came from? I would think that if the pilot saw some threatening behavior from the people on his screen he would fly that $1800 back to the landing zone ASAP.

 

[balaperdida]

If Breckerich needs a RPV to inspect a potential roof job, then there is no excuse for him to not be right at the potential job site so that he can ensure visually that his RPV is limiting its area to the potential customer's property.

 

[The B]

If Breckerich needs a RPV to inspect a potential roof job, then there is no excuse for him to not be right at the potential job site so that he can ensure visually that his RPV is limiting its area to the potential customer's property.

Where the hell else would Breckerich be?

 

[Flopsweat]

First off, lazer pointers are handy items that often are more powerful that they need to be. Misuse will lead to restrictions of output, and all of us will suffer from the irresponsible acts of a few. Terrorists may be trying to down an airliner by blinding the crew, but they may be smuggling more powerful lasers into the country or building them here in order to achieve their goals. That is a different issue.

Why should you have to buy an expensive item to deal with the possibility of a drone incursion? Why should the rights of Peeping Toms mean you have no recourse when they "peep?" Is there really a difference between walking on your property to "peep" and flying their drone over your property to "peep?" This is a new legal question.

If someone spys on someone else on the Internet, it is subject to existing laws that cover sexual perversion. You can always shut down or limit your Internet interface/access. As it now stands, drones can fly over your property with virtual impunity. The FAA doesn't really have any teeth to enforce these things unless they pose a threat to manned aircraft. They don't even have the manpower to do that effectively.

If someone is using a drone to inspect your roof, with your permission, that is fine as long as they stay on your property footprint, or over the public right-of-way. Once they encroach on the neighbor, it is not OK.

This is something that will end up in a citizen initiative, because too many monied interests like the status quo. Such an initiative should address privacy, nuisance, and criminal aspects.

I just don't think that our first reaction to something we don't like should be "There aught to be a law". That should be the last resort after we've tried other options. We have far too many laws, regulations and permitting processes already. I get your frustration. I don't agree with your solution. And I feel I'm still allowed to disagree with you if I don't have a better solution.

 

[The Heretic]

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...ests-shot-down-drone-was-higher-than-alleged/

 

[Provincial]

90 yards up and he hit it with #8 bird shot? Highly unlikely! That is a very small target, and to hit it in a critical spot with enough energy to do damage at that range would require a lot of "luck."

At that range the pattern has spread to the point that multiple hits would be a miracle on an object as small as that drone.

Forensics investigating the impact damage from the pellet(s) should establish the distance from the muzzle. That would be a lot more believable that the drone operator's telemetry. How do we know that the telemetry file has not be tampered with?