Kentucky man shoots down drone hovering over his backyard

[liberal N proud]


© William H. Merideth The way William Merideth sees it, it’s pretty clear-cut: a drone flying over his backyard was a well-defined invasion of privacy, analogous to a physical trespassing.

Not knowing who owned it, the Kentucky man took out his shotgun and fired three blasts of Number 8 birdshot to take the drone out.

"It was just right there," he told Ars. "It was hovering, I would never have shot it if it was flying. When he came down with a video camera right over my back deck, that's not going to work. I know they're neat little vehicles, but one of those uses shouldn’t be flying into people's yards and videotaping."

Minutes later, a car full of four men that he didn’t recognize rolled up, "looking for a fight."

"Are you the son of a b***h that shot my drone?" one said, according to Merideth.

His terse reply to the men, while wearing a 10mm Glock holstered on his hip: "If you cross that sidewalk onto my property, there’s going to be another shooting."

The men backed down, retreated to their car, and waited for the police to arrive.


http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/kentucky-man-shoots-down-drone-hovering-over-his-backyard/ar-AAdGg2x?ocid=iehp

[stone space]

1. This ammosexual needs to be arrested before he carries out his threat...

...to start murdering people.

His terse reply to the men, while wearing a 10mm Glock holstered on his hip: "If you cross that sidewalk onto my property, there’s going to be another shooting."

Sounds like it's lucky that the victim in this case was a mere drone, and not multiple human beings.

[liberal N proud]

2. My anti gun side would tend to agree with you but...

Shooting down the invasion of his privacy was way over the line.

I think drones are cool and would love to have one, but using it to fly into other peoples back yards and spying on them? I think he had the right to do something about the drone.

I don't know, I am totally up in the air on this one, justified/not justified, I just don't know.

[stone space]

8. I have no sympathy for the drone. (AI hasn't come far enough for that!)

But given how quickly the guy pivoted from attacking the drone to threatening human beings with murder using the same gun he used to shoot down the drone, the drone would seem to me to be a relatively minor player in this whole episode.

The real story here is an angry guy with a gun using his gun to threaten people with murder.

The drone is only incidental to this story.

The proper way to disable an obnoxious drone is demonstrated here:

[Telcontar]

11. If you are going to post a rightious anger post, get the facts straight

He didn't threaten them with the shotgun (that he used to shoot down the drone).

He had a pistol in a holster, that did not leave the holster (so no brandishing violation).

[RKP5637]

46. Yep, to me they threatened him twice! A drone in his back yard, WTF, and then threatening him

Last edited Thu Jul 30, 2015, 09:14 AM - Edit history (1)

when the four of them came up. To me, he was taking self-defensive action. If these assholes had not been flying a drone in the first place there would have been no problems at all. They instigated it, and this man took defensive action.

[Dustlawyer]

70. +1! I would have done the same thing except I would take the case up to get an appellate ruling if

I could to make what the drone operators done illegal.

[jakedsname]

77. I agree and there's more to the story...

Apparently, he has a 16 year old daughter who was out sunbathing at the time and the drone, at points, seemed to be hovering over her. The guy treated the drone as a trespassing peeping Tom of sorts and, in his own Kentucky way, dealt with the situation.

[RKP5637]

89. I really can't blame him for what he did. n/t

[MADem]

140. Ok, so the drone owners, who called the guy an asshole, are quickly losing "cred" here.

They didn't innocently wander their drone into the backyard, they wanted salacious views of jail bait.

Hmmmm.

I suppose if he'd hit the drone with a pressure washer and knocked it out of the sky, perhaps disabled the camera, that would be OK?

[Sunlei]

176. hey that is a good idea, shoot water at the drone.!! actually that is a lot safer then using a gun.

gun man could have shouted at his neighbor, next time I see that drone I'll shoot it with water.

or gunman could go to his neighborhood association and try to add, make an neighborhood ordinance where its a crime to fly drones, even toy drones in the neighborhood.

That way gunman could turn in his neighbor and every criminal child or adult to association for the heinous crime of toy drone flying.

[MADem]

184. I think the drone operators were trying to get views of the teen girls in the house, so

I do think that the homeowner had a point here.

I am not a gun fan, but I'm also not a "pervy pictures of young people" fan, either. The homeowner is calling for more drone laws--it'll be interesting to see if that motivates drone owners to call for more gun laws!

[Petrushka]

404. In my opinion, those drone operators should be arrested as the peeping toms they are. (eom)

[mitch96]

361. Neat! an anti drone water balloon gun

You were flying a drone and I was playing with my water ballon gun and they "met" by accident…
Hell it's just water, right?
m

[CanonRay]

113. I hate all the gun violence, but I have to agree with you on this one

the homeowner is the aggrieved party in this case. He had every right to get rid of the drone spying on him, IMHO. And these 4 guys drove up to his house and threatened him.

[peacebird]

368. Exactly. If I saw one hovering over my property I would try to knock it out of the sky too....

Birdshot is appropriate, especially since it was hovering over his teenaged daughter sunbathing.

[stone space]

416. But would you shoot them if they crossed onto your property to rertieve their dead drone? (nt)

[peacebird]

422. No, nor did he. He never unholstered his handgun.

[stone space]

415. Threatened him how?

And these 4 guys drove up to his house and threatened him.

[CanonRay]

417. Four guys roll up in a car and call you an SOB.

I'd take that as a threat.

[stone space]

418. A big enough threat to shoot them if...

...they try to cross your property line to retrieve their damaged drone?

What is the threat?

Would you murder four people for crossing a line to retrieve a damaged drone?

Yes or no?

[CanonRay]

419. If four guys attacked me on my front lawn

you bet I would use whatever means necessary and available to defend myself. If that escalated to shooting them, and I would hope it would not, then yes. Why do you assume they were just there to retrieve the drone? Four men to retrieve one drone? C'mon, get real. They were there to beat the shit out of the guy who shot their drone and then retrieve the drone.

Having had the crap beat out of me a few times, I am not interested in a repeat performance.

[peacebird]

423. Silly post. Not what happened. Strawman.

[haikugal]

115. Bingo!

[hueymahl]

121. Agree totally

Don't love the guns involved, but the asshats flying the drone are the bad guys.

[Bluzmann57]

211. The guy also has a right to protect his property and himself

Four on one? And the four were invading his privacy? Yeah, I think the guy was correct and I don't especially like guns. But as stated, the guy has a right to protect himself and he was on his own property.

[awoke_in_2003]

340. and he had a 16 year old daughter

sunbathing in the back yard. The guys were perverts.

[Mojorabbit]

402. I agree. nt

[sendero]

19. Are you daft?

Four men came to his house looking for a fight. HE DID NOTHING WRONG.

[Mbrow]

32. I have to agree with you on that,

[RKP5637]

47. Agree!!! n/t

[phylny]

56. I hate guns and threats and violence,

but I agree. Four men come to his home and threaten him? He gets a pass from me for both shooting down the drone with birdshot, which doesn't travel far and poses no threat to a person off his property, and in telling the men to back off.

[paleotn]

60. Damn right. (nt)

[tavernier]

141. Best reply. n/t

[The Green Manalishi]

160. Completely agree.

Come to my house and threaten me and I am within my rights to take ANY action to defend myself.

[Lizzie Poppet]

181. Complete agreement.

Four men advance towards my property looking for a fight, they're going to get the same treatment.

[Sunlei]

183. To shoot a gun in a neighborhood is wrong, unless there is threat to ones life.

I would think it was quite a shock to the neighbors when the drone was shot down and they were upset and loud about it.

But there are other, better ways to deal with 'neighbor troubles' for both sides.

[sendero]

193. There might be laws...

...against discharging a firearm in the city limits. That is between the guy and the police. If a drone hovered near my house I would wave it away for a while and then I would blast it out of the sky. The lower-level airspace over my property is MINE.

There was nothing dangerous about what the man did. You do know what #8 birdshot is right? Or you just another person with an opinion and no facts?

[Sunlei]

194. can't you shoot water at it with your garden hose? why think gun as first choice?

[sendero]

206. I don't know at what altitude it was hovering..

..... if it were low enough, yes that would be a good option.

[Sunlei]

209. the cheaper ones..1k? I don't know..don't fly very high or far

edit to add, I want one like my friend uses to document animal cruelty but those are to expensive for me. like 20,000? someone gifted his group a million. And his drone got shot down too by angry men with guns.

[sendero]

213. The owner claimed..

... it cost $1800. The amount of drone you get for that much $$ depends on how much you do. You can buy kits and parts and if you do it that we you can build a pretty advanced one for that kind of money. Off the shelf, no so much.

[Sunlei]

214. one I want is about $7,000. to much for me to afford, but I can dream :)

[A Simple Game]

35. Couple of thing, the threat in this story was from the four men that first

invaded his privacy with the drone and then came to his house with a hostile attitude. Second he didn't threaten them with the same gun, please read the whole post.

What was the man defending his home to think of the four men that suddenly appeared at his house? Should he have invited them in for tea? The man told them if they personally invaded his home a second time he would defend it again, I think he was right considering the drone incident.

The drone is incidental? No drone, no story. The four men mind their own business, no story.

We may have to put up with the government spying on us but maybe we should draw the line when individuals decide it is their right to invade our privacy.

The four men were the aggressors in this story, they came after him twice once with the drone and then in person, to think otherwise is wrong.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

61. Oddly enough, I agree with the homeowner.

This is actually one of those rare cases where a gun was actually used for defense. (Or at least the threat of one.) Four angry guys pulling up, one already cursing him out? Was he supposed to let four of them come onto his property and beat the crap out of him? He let them know that if they tried to assault him, he would use the force available to him to attempt to prevent harm to himself. He didn't actually shoot anyone, or even 'fire a warning shot'. Responsible gun use - not using it.

(You don't want your $1800 spy toy trashed? Keep it out of private property.)

[A Simple Game]

123. Some in this thread assume that the homeowner was a young strong lad able to fend off

four men making threats to him using only his hands. How would they feel if he came to the door with a baseball bat? What if he was 64 like me and in poor health, again like me? If I were in that situation and I had a gun, which I don't, I would probably resort to at least use it as a threat myself. This man was threatened twice by the same people and took action, good for him.

Yes I defend his actions against the drone and the four hoodlums and am very anti-gun myself. Had he actually pulled the gun out of it's holster...may have had different feelings about that.

[Adsos Letter]

312. Agreed. n/t

[cntrygrl]

54. If four angry men came to my house and

acted like they did (angry) I'm going to warn them too. If they value their life, they will not come closer.

[BlueJazz]

68. You got that right. Their first words: "Are you the son-of-a-bitch..." would have raised..

....my anger up to level 9.

[Sunlei]

196. angry enough to shoot them while they stood next to their truck on the public street?

[GummyBearz]

240. I didn't finish the article

But I did read the part where 4 guys rolled up and threatened someone, who responded. Did he end up shooting them? Or is your post useless in this context?

[Sunlei]

248. I don't know. my context is I've had 'angry neighbors' drive up and yell. I didn't 'wave a gun' or

threaten to kill them.

[djean111]

330. Really, you have had angry neighbors drive up and yell at you?

Sounds like you love the thought of drones with cameras, toy trucks with cameras, pets with vests with cameras, balloons with cameras, peeking over fences, spying with telescopes, looking at peoples' back yards with Google map - with a side of dogs tearing things apart. Very strange

[Sunlei]

333. 'sounds like' you're misinterprting several messageboard posts by

a lot. Very strange indeed

had to edit, look 999 on my post count, upside down is 666, mark of the beast. omg, very strange

[BlueJazz]

251. No. Just pissed off enough to let them know that if they have come to attack/hurt/maim me, it ...

...will not be the right/smart thing to do. Having said that, I don't even have a gun so I couldn't have shot the thing down in the first place.

[TeeYiYi]

253. Kinda' makes me want to get a shotgun...

I've never thought that I would have a use for a shotgun, but now... I'm wondering.

TYY

[frylock]

345. Did that happen?

[christx30]

425. He didn't threaten to shoot them on the public street.

He threatened to shoot them if they crossed the sidewalk onto his property. And there is a difference. They were spying on his teenage daughter. The homeowner was protecting her by shooting down the toy. They were pissed off and probably wanted to kick his ass. So he was protecting himself.
I would have shoot the thing down with whatever I had. Thrown rocks at it. Shot it with a water hose to try to destroy the electronics inside. If you're spying on my daughter, you're a sicko that deserves what happens to you.

[jwirr]

246. Aren't you guys forgetting that the FOUR guys are threatening him?

[Positrons]

332. Stay off other folks property...

... And there's no problem.

[pipoman]

391. Four men who you have never met and are obviously pissed and heading toward you

While on your own property. If he hadn't turned them around he could have been seriously injured or killed as far as he knew at the time.

And he didn't threaten them with a shotgun, nor did he point a gun at them....he had a holstered handgun on while on his own property.

No, why would you think its ok to film people in the privacy of their own yard? Why do you think that's ok?

[haikugal]

112. It was a total invasion of the mans privacy..

I can understand his impulse. What a cool way to case a house.

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

127. If the drone is low enough to "look" into my windows

I believe this should fall under some kind of trespassing law.

We need laws to keep up with technology. This thing shouldn't be able to fly lower than "x" amount of feet over private property, imo, especially one's back yard.

[haikugal]

147. Agree, I don't fault any of the actions or words of this homeowner....at all. nt

[Sunlei]

200. but all your neighbors can see in your window with telescope or handheld camera zoom

with line of sight.

second story even easier without a drone.

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

202. Bright light outside. Dimmer inside. They can't see.

So, no, my neighbors can't see into my house unless they move closer to the windows on my property.

They cansee inside at night, however, when my lights are on, which is why I close my curtains if I want privacy.

But more importantly, knowing my back neighbor can see inside my house does not scare me like a drone would. Who is operating the drone? And why?

[Sunlei]

207. many camera drones and toy drones are dirt cheap and on sale. Get used to drones, they're legal.

and very popular these days.

you can always go argue with your neighborhood association and make another regulation to ban toys that fly in your neighborhood.

[frylock]

347. Get used to more stories like this..

if people can't respect the privacy of others, they should expect to have their expensive toys destroyed.

[Sunlei]

352. lol, glad you're not my neighbor. get a taller fence if your Neighborhood regulators allow it.

[frylock]

355. if you approve of spying on neighbors with a UAV, then I don't want you as a neighbor either.

[LanternWaste]

229. 500 feet and lower is generally considered part and parcel of private property.

500 feet and lower is generally considered part and parcel of private property, though this isn't a hard definition and discrepancies apply from state to state and even from county to county. Anything higher than that, and it becomes public. The advent of small drones has seen a number of courts reevaluating and redefining the property right for this particular aspect of property rights.

[jeff47]

262. No. Everything above the ground belongs to the FAA.

Ground being defined as the end of whatever is attached to the surface of the Earth. So over your house, the FAA "owns" everything above the roof. Over your lawn, the FAA "owns" everything above the grass.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

353. So if I string a tarp across the yard, attached to my house and some of my trees

Do I own the airspace under the tarp, or does the FAA?

[jeff47]

384. You do.

Long story short, the rules haven't been updated in a long time, because RC aircraft were not this capable before now.

[James48]

378. No, everything does not "belong" to the FAA.

Under the Commerce Clause, the FAA only has authority in "controlled airspace". That usually begins at 70 feet or 1200 feet, depending on location. With the exception of airport Class C airspace, that airspace which is immediately above one's house is usually Class "G" uncontrolled airspace.

While some may think the FAA has jurisdiction- it doesn't.

[jeff47]

383. You better go let the FAA and NTSB know that they're wrong.

There are different rules for manned aircraft and RC aircraft. The RC aircraft rules start at ground level, and end at 500 feet, the maximum altitude that hobbyist RC aircraft are supposed to reach.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

380. Depends on where you are, what you're doing and what you are doing it with.

Drones (UAVs) aren't allowed to fly higher than 400 feet. Manned aircraft can't fly below 1,000 feet in a populated area, or 500' in an unpopulated area. (FAR § 91.119). You actually "own" the airspace above your property but the FAA decides who can fly in it, and how high.

[jeff47]

385. Yep, was using "own" in a vernacular sense instead of a legal sense. (nt)

[kelliekat44]

7. I don't agree with the way the property owner handled the situation BUT I also believe that drones

are an increasing menace to society as well. I don't want drones circling my home either. And drones in the hands of criminals or irresponsible citizens can be dangerous. Street gangs and organized criminals can use them for much evil. I think we need some tough legislation or laws to control the purchase, building, and use of drones. How long before they become equipped with mini weapons to do harm to people? Weaponized drones in the hands of civilians should just be outlawed, period. And recreational drones should be controlled by struck laws on what they can be used for and where.

[RKP5637]

50. There are now drones with weapons mounted on them for firing. It was posted recently. Here it is.

Yet another total WTF. I can really see this homeowner's point of view on this.

[alcina]

73. "Flying guns are legal in Connecticut"

I found an article that provides a little background, and I was quite surprised to see that claim. WTF? Perhaps they simply mean there's no law prohibiting flying guns. Then again, perhaps some lawmaker with exceptional foresight anticipated the day when the good citizens of Connecticut would need to legally arm themselves with flying guns. Could be the first line of defense against a sharknado!

http://news.softpedia.com/news/his-diy-drone-fires-a-gun-it-s-time-to-freak-out-487621.shtml

[RKP5637]

81. "Unless serious accidents or crimes made by gun-toting drones happen, it's unlikely FAA

or any US authority will ban the new flying guns." We live in an insane place IMO. Here's the victims line of defense analogous to Mace, stun guns or the like, but useless against a flying gun perhaps.

http://shop.droneshield.org/Drone-Net-Gun-0006.htm

[Sunlei]

136. I think it is illegal to hunt animals from/with remote controled mounted guns.

not sure exactly, I don't follow those hunting Laws to close. This may be allowed in some states.

[MADem]

153. I am glad that that video is up there, making the rounds.

It is freaky and disturbing, but we need to talk about it. And it's probably a great twist for a potboiler murder mystery....

Clive excused himself, hurried to the bathroom, and quickly activated the drone to fly from the rooftop to the side yard. There, aiming carefully, as he'd practiced so often, he drew a bead on his wealthy and hated bride, who was lounging in an adirondack chair after dancing, salaciously, for an hour with that playboy Egbert to the pulsing Carribbean rhythms pounding from the back yard speakers. Pushing the controller button three times, he shot Shirley in the head, throat and heart--bam! Bam! Bam!

Then, just as quickly, he returned the drone to the rooftop, pocketed the controller, and returned to the party, ready to sob over the body of his now dead wife while the rest of the party guests milled about, shrieking in horror or standing helplessly, stunned, as the blood drained out of her lifeless body, the music blared incongruously, and the sound of an ambulance siren began to rise in the distance.....

[RKP5637]

169. OMG - and it'll happen, just a matter of time. "Invasion of the Drones," like a fifites

scifi movie! ... or a spin on the movie "Clue."

[kiva]

295. Very well done

I'd read that book.

[beergood]

409. if i gave you a million dollars

could you make this into a movie?

[stone space]

12. He threatened them with murder.

This is why I donate to the NRA

If you support murder, then it is no surprise to me that you donate to the NRA.

[Telcontar]

13. Nope, not what he threatened at all

What he said was if they came on his property, there'd be another shooting.

[stone space]

16. Threatening cold blooded murder with a gun in hand.

What he said was if they came on his property, there'd be another shooting.

You may support cold blooded murder, but I don't.

[Telcontar]

18. More factually incorrect statements

No gun in hand.

[stone space]

24. Wearing a gun. (nt)

[Telcontar]

27. The difference is key, gun in hand is brandishing, gun in holster is not

Save your outrage for illegal use of guns, this was clearly a legitimate defensive gun use.

[stone space]

31. He threatened a shooting while armed.

But let's all just pretend that it's not a threat of murder.

[Telcontar]

48. Let me type this slow so you can understand

If
he
shoots
someone
hostile
on
his
own
property
it
is
not
murder

Get it now?

[BlueJazz]

72. I like that. (type this slow)

[skepticscott]

51. He told them he would defend himself

if they came onto his property illegally. That's not a "threat of murder" in any world we live in. By warning them, he AVOIDED a shooting. If four men trespassed onto his property with hostile intent after having been warned not to, he would have been entirely justified in using force. He is not required to wait until they're holding him down and punching and kicking him to decide that their intent is not friendly.

[Kelvin Mace]

158. I am very anti-gun

but given these facts, if I were on a jury, I would acquit him. This case is pretty clear cut and to be honest he handled the situation better than the police did in many recent cases.

[Kelvin Mace]

156. And that was sufficient to send four potentially violent men packing

If only the police would use such restraint.

[The Green Manalishi]

164. Self defense is not murder.

Only an evil moron would think otherwise.

Somebody threatens a person on that person't property they have the right to defend themselves with lethal force, Established in law and perfectly OK with me.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

281. Your interlocutor rejects the idea that a woman has a right to shoot an attacking rapist.

No, seriously; just ask him.

[The Green Manalishi]

299. He's on ignore

I find my IQ dropping and my stomach churning at even seeing him.

Maybe not the dumbest person I've ever came across on the internet, but the dumbest outside of some conservative sites.

[irisblue]

356. where did he post that?

I know Skinner PPR-ed him today, but where did Telcontar post that?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

370. Manalishi wasn't speaking to Telcontar in the post I replied to. nt

[skepticscott]

53. So when you said just above

"with a gun IN HAND" that was just made up bullshit. And now you admit it.

[liberal N proud]

25. Another shooting

He did not say he was going to shoot them or murder them.

He was warning them that to stay off his property. He had been violated enough by the drone.

[mr blur]

161. So what, exactly, do you suggest he was threatening to shoot,

with his "there’s going to be another shooting."?

[frylock]

357. Idiot assholes threatening him with violence?

[Joe Chi Minh]

84. There was nothing cold-blooded about it, to be fair on that particular issue.

But one question puzzles me,which no one seems to have picked up on: For what purpose was it hovering directly over his property videoing?

[7962]

101. Earlier post refers to his daughter sunbathing in the backyard.

THAT would explain a lot, if thats the case. MAybe something like this:

[Sunlei]

116. what stops the next second story homeowner from looking out their window?

[Joe Chi Minh]

120. Depends if they're staking it ou like police surveillance!! Not just

casually looking out of your own window.

[Sunlei]

128. people are allowed to sit at their window all day long if they want.I agree its creepy but its legal

I've lived a lot of places and we don't get to pick our next door neighbors most times.

And believe me no real estate agent will talk about neighbor problems/trouble ever.

[jwirr]

270. There are peeping tom laws in most areas. And that is also why we have curtains and wooden

fences around our yards.

[xmas74]

309. Yes and no.

There are peeping tom laws, depending on the situation.

[LanternWaste]

232. Homeowners do no not own a view. They often however, own the air space up to a few hundred feet

Homeowners do no not own a view. They often however, own the air space up to a few hundred feet above their property.

[yawnmaster]

396. was there a two story or better building nearby? eom

[Joe Chi Minh]

122. Nuff said

[Blue_Adept]

102. I saw at least one mention of his 16 year old daughter sunbathing out back

[blackspade]

145. Apparently he had a 16 yr old daughter who was laying out....

[Sunlei]

226. now he knows all his male neighbors were taking a peek at the teen next door.

[Romulox]

130. You know, words MEAN THINGS. Please look up "cold blooded".

It just looks ignorant to use it incorrectly, similar to the misuse of "literally", or people who tell you about "bold faced lies".

[Joe Chi Minh]

430. True.

[Kelvin Mace]

152. Um.. the gun was never in his hand

according to the story it was holstered. And telling a group of angry people who outnumber you 4-1 that should they cross onto your property "there will be another shooting" is not "threatening cold-blooded murder". I do not own any guns, will never own any guns, and am quite critical of the "Wild West" laws that currently exist. But in this case, I support the property owner. As I said in another thread, had it been me, I would have done the same thing, I just would have used a paint ball gun.

[JoeyT]

398. Just gonna point out that it's attitudes like this that make it so people like

Telcontar never ever have to worry about gun control gaining any serious traction in this country.

Every time people see the word "gun" in a story and freak out and start screaming about how people don't have a right to defend themselves on their own property against violence, you're guaranteeing your cause will never ever ever go anywhere. Because all anyone else hears is that this guy should've allowed himself to be violently attacked by multiple assailants because it makes you feel better.

And I say that as someone that actually supports increased restrictions on firearms. Your attitude is what holds the cause up.

[djean111]

22. No, he said there would be another shooting.

Four angry guys. What was he supposed to do? And his gun never left the holster.
I do not like guns, and I leave places when I see a gun. But if someone entered my house I would threaten to kill them, because they have no good intentions towards me.

[stone space]

26. That's a threat.

No, he said there would be another shooting.

[skepticscott]

52. It's a warning

But I doubt you'll grasp the difference.

[liberal N proud]

185. All he did was draw a line in the sand meeting threat with threat

Mr. Merideth was the one who felt threatened when they jumped out and mouthed off.


"Are you the son of a b***h that shot my drone?" kind of set the tone!

[cntrygrl]

58. Stone, from your post, he did NOT threaten

to "murder" anyone. He stated "If you cross that sidewalk onto my property, there’s going to be another shooting." He in no way stated if he would aim at them, aim to wound or to kill. Nothing!

[hueymahl]

126. WRONG - Not murder, self defense

As other posters have pointed out, what was he supposed to do? Let them beat him up, or worse? The 4 trespassers are the ones in the wrong here.

[ieoeja]

166. When the KKK tried to march on my family's farm, we threatened them with murder too.

You got a problem with that, then just too fucking bad.

[7962]

189. No you didnt, you informed that you would protect yourself. No murder intended nt

[Lizzie Poppet]

182. Nope.

He threatened four angry men looking for a fight with lethal force. Perfectly legal, perfectly ethical.

[Marr]

237. I'd say they threatened him first.

I think he made a smart decision, personally.

[frylock]

349. he threatened to defend himself against physical harm..

which was implied when four men exited a vehicle and confronted him about shooting their drone.

[Fred Sanders]

138. ^^^^^this is why I donate to the Brady campagin^^^^^^ and I say anyone donating to the NRA

is not a liberal.

[Kelvin Mace]

150. Sorry, the NRA does NOT work for gun owner

it works for gun manufacturers. It is an extremist organization.

I support the property owner in this instance. He had the right to defend his property and to stop people spying on him.

But the NRA is not needed to protect those rights. If you read this thread in its entirety, you will see that even on "liberal" DU, the majority agree with me in supporting the man's actions.

[brentspeak]

220. So you are officially announcing yourself as a GOP supporter

Since a good chunk of the NRA's unstated mission is to get Republicans elected.

[Logical]

254. Thanks for exposing yourself! Nt

[Agschmid]

292. Yup.

[Bradical79]

275. So you donate to right wing causes

Why? Some paranoid fear of Obama canceling the 2nd amendment and stealing all your guns? Why do you think openly supporting the Republican party and right wing extremist causes is a smart thing to do? Seems like an intentionally destructive use of your money at best.

[Android3.14]

34. Wrong response

On your part. Next you'll be defending the NSA's awful surveillance of innocent Americans.

[stone space]

36. Based on what?

Wrong response

On your part. Next you'll be defending the NSA's awful surveillance of innocent Americans.

Did you find some old post of mine somewhere opposing the murder NSA employees, and you took that opposition to murder as support for the NSA?

I'm trying to understand your thought process here.

Just what could possible possess you to make such a claim?

[Android3.14]

129. Is your name Neo?

There's always one.

[truebrit71]

203. Okay. Stop the thread. This response wins the internets for at least the next week...

[paleotn]

59. Normally I might agree with you...

...but certainly not in this case. If you hover a drone over my property, I will shoot it down as is my right, and if threatened, I will defend my self.

[7962]

97. The gun on his hip is probably the only reason he wasnt attacked

He's alone and a group of men pull up yelling at him as they get out of the car.

[ieoeja]

173. While I find stone's response bizarrre, you just wondered off into paranoid land.

Confrontations like this almost always end up with a bunch of guys yelling shit at each other without anyone ever throwing a punch. Violence is the exception, not the norm. So "probably" nothing would have happened.

I still agree with what the homeowner did. But I am sick and tired of people spreadiing paranoia. I have adult relatives who today will not walk into woods without a gun because "it's too dangerous" where I used to camp by myself overnight when I was a fucking 10 year old. Because of the paranoia used to justify all guns at all times.

[7962]

403. Its not paranoia if they're really after you!

[KittyWampus]

144. if you read the story the man is not an "ammosexual". But HEY, you got to use a cool term

like ammosexual.

[Hiraeth]

201. That term is offensive on several different levels but, you know a jury would give it a pass.

[Lizzie Poppet]

215. Agreed. And by "cool," I mean "bigoted."

[Eleanors38]

319. You can get hidden using "hoplophobe," but not "ammosexual"

Piggybacking a sexually derogatory term seems to be kosher in DU. If you are referencing pro-2A members.

[MADem]

163. Here's more information on the topic--the shooter is calling for more drone laws!

http://www.wdrb.com/story/29650818/hillview-man-arrested-for-shooting-down-drone-cites-right-to-privacy

I think we need more drone laws too, along with more gun laws. In this case I do support the guy, even though I'm not a gun fan. If he'd knocked the drone out of the sky with a high pressure hose, though, I'd have been fine with that as well.

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

208. You should start another thread with that link

I fully support what he did.

Thanks for posting.

[MADem]

224. You can, if you'd a mind to--I usually stay away from "gun threads" but

this one had drones in it, so I was interested!

[Reter]

247. Talk about a stretch

Four irate guys were about to beat him up. He merely warned them not to step on his property, or else. You talk like he threatened to shoot up innocent strangers at the movies.

[hfojvt]

258. it reminds me of a joke

A guy was hang-gliding over a rural area when he sees a couple of guys walking below him. One of the guys pulls out a rifle and blam, blam, blam. The other guy says "what the hell was that thing?" The first guy says "I don't know, but I sure made it drop that man it was carrying."

[sarisataka]

301. Your tacit acceptance

of a 4 on 1 assault likely leading to great bodily harm or death shows you are a member of the morally bankrupt section of gun control whose hatred of guns has supplanted concern for victims.

I am glad to see you are in the minority.

[sabrina 1]

351. Well, in this case, I'm with him. I hope lots of these invaders of people's privacy

are taught a lesson, we still value our right to privacy in this country.

Take it somewhere else or this is what you might encounter.

That's the equivalent of having a peeping tom in your backyard.

Hopefully some laws will be passed to deal with these morons who think anything goes when it comes to people's privacy.

Meantime, I think he was well within rights on this.

[Matariki]

365. Why are you defending assholes who fly drones - with cameras - into people's back yards?

And then come to the door with a posse looking for a fight.

I think the guy was in the right to shoot the thing down.

[Augiedog]

3. Considering

That some nut Maine or thereabouts weaponized a drone with a hand gun I suspect we're going to see a lot more of this and it won't be pretty. What would you do if a drone was hovering outside your window or in your backyard

[djean111]

9. I would try and get it down any damned way I could.

What was that guy supposed to do, wave and smile for their camera? What if someone was sunbathing nude? Drones looking at little kids? Drones checking to see if someone is home?
And - guns attached to drones? Fuck drones. And now Amazon want to literally be granted our air space for their drones.
Getting out of hand.

[stone space]

15. The guy could stop threatening to murder people with his guns for a start.

What was that guy supposed to do

[djean111]

30. How would that prevent a drone from invading his property and privacy?

And he did not threaten murder, he said there would be another shooting, and he did not unholster his gun.
I hate guns in public places, but if someone broke into my house, or was attempting to break into my house, I would not hesitate to defend myself. Four angry guys? No contest.

[A Simple Game]

39. Why don't you explain to us what part you think the four men played in this confrontation?

Do you consider them innocent bystanders? Innocent victims lured to the man's house?

Please let us know, I am very interested in your perspective on the four men.

[Demit]

41. He was one guy, confronted with FOUR guys, one of whom was angry & hostile.

Four angry men against one. I can see why it would be reasonable to put on a show of bravado. I don't blame him one bit in this scenario.

[Fuddnik]

78. If the drone only had a gun.........

This is how liberals get a bad name.

The guy warned 4 angry men away from his home. Had they been in a state like Florida, he would have probably been justified legally shooting them.

He didn't threaten, or brandish the weapon, merely stated in so many words, that he would defend himself and his property.

[truebrit71]

204. Which he didn't do.

He let them know that he would defend his property if they trespassed again.

Completely different.

[frylock]

359. Or... hear me out, OR you could stop lying about him threatening murder.

[Sunlei]

71. so if someone peeks over 'their' fence, does that give you the right to shoot the fence?

of course the bullets could hit a person or the next home, even if you're only aiming at their fence.

Does that mean laws to not fire guns in some areas and laws about reckless shooting of firearms can be ignored?

[djean111]

79. This is about drones with cameras hovering in back yards.

You can't yell at them to stop or chase them off.
And those guys knew damn right well where their drone was.
Question - do you think Peeping Toms are okay?

[Sunlei]

110. no, you call the police on them.

[KittyWampus]

154. Call the police on whom? How is anyone supposed to know who owns a drone hovering

over your property?

[Sunlei]

172. those toys are line of sight. Its one of their next door neighbors. probably because the drone owner

drove to get their toy back..its the home right over his back fence. drones don't wander like a stray dog.

[skepticscott]

107. The shooter is well aware of such things

He said explicitly: "Now, if I’d have had a .22 rifle, I should have gone to jail for that. The diameter of those things are going to come down with enough force to hurt somebody. Number 8 birdshot is not."

[Sunlei]

142. sounds like he was ready & waiting for his neighbors 'toy' to cross over his side.

[Eleanors38]

320. Do you know how prolific #8 birdshot is? Any upland bird hunter does.

And millions more sporting clays shooters. It may be the most prolific shot-sze sold. I have 150 rounds of the stuff under my dresser for bird season Sept. 1.

[frylock]

360. What if a strawman peeks over your red herring?

[Sunlei]

366. peek a boo!

[RKP5637]

55. See post #50. I would be damn concerned too if some unknown drone were

hovering in my backyard with all of the crap that goes on today.

[valerief]

4. We're going to have to start tinfoiling our windows now. nt

[onethatcares]

33. here in Floriduh, we

call that "economical solar film". sadly we don't get an energy credit for it.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

5. I'm an anti-gun type

But in this case, my sympathies are entirely on the side of Mr Merideth.

[KarenS]

14. ^^ This ^^ n/t

[stone space]

20. He lost my sympathies the moment he pivoted from attacking a drone to...

...threatening human beings with murder while armed.

This angry violent ammosexual is out of control and needs to be arrested and needs to have all of his guns confiscated for life.

This is not somebody swatting a drone out of the sky with his tshirt.

[jberryhill]

40. I don't know where you got your law degree

but they were not intent on entering his property for a cup of tea.

He was stating his intent to defend himself against angry trespassers.

[skepticscott]

57. Equating self-defense with "murder"

is about as intellectually and legally bankrupt as it gets. But keep trying.

And do tell us what YOU would have done in that situation. (what you wouldn't have done is not an answer, btw).

[Kelvin Mace]

167. At no point did he threaten murder

Telling someone to stay of your property or "there will be another shooting" is not threatening murder. It is telling four hostile men than he is standing on his own property, that they an not allowed on that property and that he is prepared to shoot them should they violate his property unlawfully.

"This angry violent ammosexual is out of control "

Actually, his response was quite measured. "Out of control" would have been shooting at the first car that drove by his house assuming they were a threat.

[frylock]

362. Why do you continue to lie to support your stance?

That's what conservatives do, because they are unable to provide a cogent argument in favor of their viewpoint.

[cherokeeprogressive]

407. It's hilarious; the way everyone thinks you're being serious. You had me going too, but I caught on.

People can be so gullible sometimes when highly charged issues are being discussed, can't they? So much so that it's almost unfair for you to be playing on their emotions like you obviously are.

Srsly, you should come clean. I'm pretty sure when you do, everyone will laugh as they come to understand you're not being serious and you're not actually as thick as oatmeal.

[LostOne4Ever]

408. No one who has had to deal with him takes him seriously

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]In fact, I think he should change his avatar to this guy:



Or maybe:[/font]

[cherokeeprogressive]

420. I was being totally facetious. n/t

[LuvNewcastle]

28. Me too.

Maybe everybody else is fine with having drones flying around in their yards, but I'm not. Of course, you'll find people here who think it's fine for the NSA or whoever to read our emails, so I won't be surprised to see people supporting this bullshit.

[Hoppy]

6. I thought about wanting a drone for about 5 minutes. But after flying it up and down,

then around the neighborhood for a few minutes, it would end up in the cellar.

That would be the end of it.

[Sunlei]

114. I want one for photography but the good ones cost to much :(

[woodsprite]

143. Have you tried attaching an old digital camera to a kite?

Google "kite aerial photography". My husband has a mechanism that will rotate the camera so you can get shots from 360 degrees. We use it at the beach to take pics of the coastline, campground, sound (OBX, Ocracoke, etc.)

[Sunlei]

148. I love kites of all kinds, so many powerlines around my house along the easements. I'd

lose a kite fast and get in trouble with it hanging from Houston's "no trespassing" easements.

After 9/11, all open easements are posted with no trespassing signs. sure people still walk through, kids walk home from school through them, I ride my horse for miles through them.

But our local police have used the signs to charge 'some' people with trespassing.

[woodsprite]

151. Yeah, we can't do it anyplace around home because of the space required.

That's why it's our 'vacation' hobby. Plenty of room to use it with no power line or tree issues down at the beach or some of the campgrounds we go to.

[A Little Weird]

17. I don't have a problem with someone taking out a spying drone

I don't think the laws have caught up with the technology but the drone operator was trespassing. The guy didn't shoot a person, he didn't even unholster his gun when they confronted them. The way I see it, he shouldn't be the one in trouble here.

[Locrian]

43. I agree

This is going to be a problem. There's a potential for a *huge* imbalance of power here: Drones have easy access to just about anywhere, have cameras that record what YOU do but you have no counterbalance to know who's on the other end, what the purpose is, etc.

So they are anonymous and you are not.

I don't like the idea anyone with enough $$ being able to pilot one into a yard, playground, school, etc. If not for the obvious issue of potential failures (collision, loss of power, etc) the invasion of privacy is disturbing.

[RKP5637]

62. Agree! Well said! n/t

[Locrian]

239. yeah it's all fun and games

until the imperial forces show up on your ice planet looking for you

[A HERETIC I AM]

272. They invariably come out of hyperspace too close, though.

Gives plenty of warning to get the transports away.

BTW... Ion cannons kick ass. I got mine with frequent fueler points.

[Locrian]

354. heh

Yeah, traveling through hyperspace ain't like dusting crops. Without precise calculations we could fly right through a star or bounce too close to a supernova, and that'd end your trip real quick, wouldn't it?

[beergood]

410. lol

good one.

[blackspade]

21. Good for him.

There should never be drones flown into people's back yards.

[stone space]

29. No excuse for this ammosexual to threaten murder while armed. (nt)

[blackspade]

37. Your facts are off by a country mile on this.

Read the actual article.

[Demit]

42. He was acting defensively. You're way off on this one.

[Kelvin Mace]

171. So, you have no problem with people threatening murder while NOT armed?

[Logical]

257. Define the criteria in your imagionary law! Nt

[blackspade]

326. Not sure what your asking.

People shouldn't be flying drones in other peoples yards.
It's call courtesy and common sense.

[Logical]

343. 10 feet? 25 feet? 100 feet? nt

[blackspade]

367. ?

You tell me. Take a position.

[Logical]

371. You are the one that said "into people's back yards", not me. So you define what....

a backyard is?

Simple question.

100 feet high ok? 50? 25? Understand the question?

[blackspade]

372. So, you have no stance other than harassing me for my opinion.

[Logical]

374. LOL, I guess you have no opinion. Just random thoughts with no basis. But to each their own. nt

[blackspade]

377. LOL indeed. I stated my opinion.

But I'm not going to play 20 questions with about it.

[Logical]

379. It was one question. Even you can come up with an answer to one question. nt

[azurnoir]

23. I'm really torn on this but something else too it could be an important case

so how far does our right to privacy go? do we own the air space above our yards, I think no at least after a certain altitude, how far does that go?

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

195. Yeah, that "air space" two feet from my daughter's window

should be free to all peeping toms out there.

My backyard is fenced; I have an expectation that no one will enter my backyard. Does that right not extend to an expectation that no object will approach my windows and take pictures?

Will we all have to live with our windows covered in tinfoil so as not to have the government "searching" our homes with drones?

All of the windows on the back of my house remain uncovered for most of the day, precisely because I have an expectation that no one will enter my backyard and peer into my house!
(Although I do expect the occasional utility worker to enter my backyard.)

[Glassunion]

302. Currently the federal government sets the general limit at 500 feet in uncongested areas.

It hasn’t been explicitly accepted however, but generally anything over that height is considered navigable airspace.

[Ford_Prefect]

38. I have to say that if it was my backyard I would want to do the same, Or at least capture the drone.

Invasion of privacy is just that. Put your drone in my space absent my permission and you just lost it. If Google has no right to read my network why does a drone pilot have the right to examine my back yard on a whim? How do I determine the drone's ownership or intent?

How would you react to a person walking through your back yard uninvited and unannounced?
Would you assume a threat? Would you ask them to leave? Would you call your lawyer and sue?

How do we make clear to people with no appropriate sense of boundaries that they do indeed apply? What level of response would you like to suggest?

Or do we now need to not only fence our property but also cover them with bird nets to make specific our desire to be unmolested in our own homes?

How do I know the drone owner is a benign user as opposed to someone with hostile intent? I don't need to have a 12 gauge answer but I do require civil behavior. One of the aspects of revenge porn is the hateful desire to ridicule and violate. How many of you recall school yard humiliation? Imagine a candid and essentially innocent video of your back yard comfort presented out of context along the lines of the current Planned Parenthood attacks.

I should add that I live on a flight path for low level military aircraft training. When a V-22 Osprey goes over at 600 feet the whole house shakes, never mind the low level jets. We are in a small neighborhood where the farms meet the houses. The encounter of hunter versus drone is a real possibility out here. I think guns have only 2 purposes. I don't hunt and have no tolerance for ammunition addicted wannabees.

[Vinca]

44. I would do the same thing to a drone invading my privacy . . . if I had a gun.

There needs to be some rules before drones get 100% out of control.

[magical thyme]

45. sorry, but if I had a gun I'd shoot down a trespassing, hovering, videotaping drone too.

And if 4 men drove up to my house yelling at me for interfering with their invasion of my privacy, I'd threaten "another shooting" too.

People have some right to privacy and they also have a right to protect themselves from direct threats. And outnumbered 4:1, it's not surprising that somebody that has a gun will make it visible.

It's not like he kept it hidden and then pulled it out to shoot some friendly visitors.

It was safe in its holster, but visible. Sorry to the gun-haters, but his response was the sane and responsible one here.

[djean111]

49. Drones, IMO, will become nothing more than mechanized Peeping Toms.

Don't want to get caught watching kids, people in their back yards, casing a house for a break-in, peeking in a window?
Get a drone!
Here's a great business idea - a device that can disable them.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

67. The vast majority are remote control

and probably operate within a fairly specific narrow band of the spectrum, so it shouldn't be too hard for someone who knows what they're doing to come up with a jammer, even one you could 'tune' until it found the frequency being used. My old boss plays around with RC and robotics these days, bet he could do it.

[HFRN]

119. yup - and that's why i am against them being flown in populated areas

one of those things is above you, and encounters unintentional radio interference, and it comes crashing down on your head

or just hits another drone, or bird mid air, same thing

[KittyWampus]

159. you may have just found your "million dollar idea".

[RKP5637]

69. Here it is, the Drone Net Gun!

http://shop.droneshield.org/Drone-Net-Gun-0006.htm

[Moostache]

108. I found this disturbing at that link...

"Comes with carrying strap and optional additional nets for fast reloading."

Maybe I live in a behind-the-times area, but damn, how many freaking drones are people finding flying in their yards????

[RKP5637]

124. Yep, it sounded like protection from a drone invasion. I think I'm in that same time too, like

really, is there a drone invasion coming needing a carrying strap and optional additional nets for fast reloading.

When I was a kid all we worried about from the sky were flying crows that loved to land on our heads and get tangled in hair.

[MADem]

190. That's a wildlife capture gun, repurposed!!!

Half price, too!!!

[liberal N proud]

212. Only $850

ONLY!

[MADem]

223. I know! Didn't they used to do the same thing with a few rocks tied to the corners of a net, and a

very strong arm?

[Renew Deal]

86. We need anti-drone drones

With radar to detect and light explosive missiles.

[djean111]

94. Now yer talkin'!!!!!!

Actually, something that shot a net at a drone would be great. Like the anti-drone thing down thread. But that thing costs $500. Maybe a slingshot or a t-shirt cannon. Something.
Last week, I read that a couple of drones hampered some fire-fighting planes loaded up with water, from getting to an interstate where people were trapped in cars.
Hopefully no one will defend that.

[HooptieWagon]

63. How do we keep privacy invading drones out of our backyards?

Until there's a better solution, I'm OK with shooting them down with birdshot.

[DetlefK]

64. Problem: RC drones count legally as planes.

You don't own the airspace above your land and RC drones are treated regulatorily as aircraft traversing through airspace.

The laws are insufficient.

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

85. Planes don't hover ten feet over the ground

I support what he did.

And since I don't have a gun, my very well trained doberman would have been sitting at my side and showing some teeth when those guys arrived. And I don't mean smiling at them.

[Fuddnik]

91. Ok, if they're legally planes, according to FAA regulations..

Except for takeoff and landing, they can't legally fly below 1,000 ft, in densely populated areas, or under 500 ft. elsewhere.

And birdshot doesn't have that kind of range.

[stevenleser]

146. Do you have a link to that regulation? I'm trying to understand the legal aspects of this.

Thanks.

[KittyWampus]

165. FYI- if you own property, you own the right to build X feet up into the air.

In most suburbs its probably going to be about 25-30'.

So there is that aspect.

I didn't know they are considered aircraft. Not sure I agree with that classification.

Steven, this is an interesting topic to me. And it sounds like it could use some real investigating on legalities etc.

I agree with posters above who see laws as not adequate and potential for abuse being very great and widespread.

-IF- drones are aircraft, they need to be registered and regulated.

[jeff47]

243. Doesn't matter if you can build there.

FAA regulations start as soon as the aircraft is off the ground. Even if it's only 1/4".

I didn't know they are considered aircraft. Not sure I agree with that classification.

They're considered the same as RC planes.

[PoliticAverse]

177. "I'm trying to understand the legal aspects of this."

You may find this April 2013 Congressional Research Service report of interest (.pdf):
Integration of Drones into Domestic Airspace: Selected Legal Issues
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R42940.pdf

As well as this web page:
FAA Unmanned Aircraft Systems:
http://www.faa.gov/uas/

[stevenleser]

179. Good stuff. Right off though, the summary in the first link includes this nugget

"Although the text of this act places safety as a predominant concern, it fails to address significant, and up to this point, largely unanswered legal questions.

For instance, several legal interests are implicated by drone flight over or near private property.
Might such a flight constitute a trespass? A nuisance? If conducted by the government, a
constitutional taking? In the past, the Latin maxim cujus est solum ejus est usque ad coelum (for
whoever owns the soil owns to the heavens) was sufficient to resolve many of these types of
questions, but the proliferation of air flight in the 20th century has made this proposition
untenable. Instead, modern jurisprudence concerning air travel is significantly more nuanced, and
often more confusing. Some courts have relied on the federal definition of “navigable airspace” to
determine which flights could constitute a trespass. Others employ a nuisance theory to ask
whether an overhead flight causes a substantial impairment of the use and enjoyment of one’s
property. Additionally, courts have struggled to determine when a government-operated overhead
flight constitutes a taking under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. "

Will read through the rest and the second link to see what I can glean from it.

[PoliticAverse]

188. In February the FAA released 195 pages of proposed regulation...

(they are supposed to have final rules released by end of September):

Proposed rules: http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/recently_published/media/2120-AJ60_NPRM_2-15-2015_joint_signature.pdf

[stevenleser]

180. Also this...

"With the ability to house surveillance sensors such as high-powered cameras and thermal-imaging
devices, some argue that drone surveillance poses a significant threat to the privacy of American
citizens. Because the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures
applies only to acts by government officials, surveillance by private actors such as the paparazzi,
a commercial enterprise, or one’s neighbor is instead regulated, if at all, by state and federal
statutes and judicial decisions. Yet, however strong this interest in privacy may be, there are
instances where the public’s First Amendment rights to gather and receive news might outweigh
an individual’s interest in being let alone. "

[Fuddnik]

373. FAR 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes (general) (FAR-AIM FAA Publication)

"Except when necessary for takeoff and landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes.
(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.

(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, or town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 ft of the aircraft.

(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 400 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.

(d) Helicopters. Helicopters may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) if the operations are carried out without hazard to persons or property on the surface. In addition, each person operating a helicopter shall comply with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the Administrator.

-------------------------------------------------------------
A new FAR-AIM is published every year. They don't change much. Especially the FAR part. This was from the 2002 edition.

[stevenleser]

375. Political averses links break that out more. UAV are below 500 feet. They're not

Supposed to go above that. The regulations you notes are for manned fixed wing aircraft.

[stevenleser]

187. Thanks to a link from someone else, I know that regulation only applies to fixed wing aircraft.

See political averse's link here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027025962#post177

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

210. Exactly.

Drone owners can't have it both ways. They can't claim the same protections while demanding they get special exceptions from the other laws.

[jeff47]

265. RC planes. They have different rules than manned aircraft.

Which is why they are not allowed to fly higher than 500 ft.

[KittyWampus]

162. Every community has limits on how tall a house might be. So we do own the rights

to airspace above our property. It's probably about 25-30' in most suburbs.

[DetlefK]

168. That's just the building-code. That doesn't mean you own the airspace.

If we did own the airspace above our real estate, then the height of the estate would get mentioned when real estate is advertised.

[KittyWampus]

178. legally, we don't even "own" land or airspace. What we own is the RIGHT to use it-

We own the RIGHT to use land/space in certain, prescribed ways.


That said, I actually find this whole topic really interesting on so many levels.

If you find any specific info on all this please share links.

[jeff47]

252. Nope. You do not own the rights to the airspace above your property.

The FAA is in control of everything above the building. The saying is FAA regulations start at the end of the grass.

Using a shotgun to shoot down a drone hovering over your backyard is legally the same as using an anti-aircraft cannon to shoot down a 737.

http://gizmodo.com/is-it-ok-to-shoot-down-your-neighbors-drone-1718055028

[Romulox]

260. You are simply incorrect. One does have a right to airspace above one's house. How much, and how

exclusive that use, may be in question.

The gizmodo article is not legal analysis.

[jeff47]

264. FAA regulations apply to all airspace. Even the airspace above your house.

And their regulations start at the end of whatever is attached to the ground. So over your house, the FAA regulations start at the roof. Over your lawn, the FAA regulations start at the end of the grass.

[Romulox]

266. You make a basic mistake: you assumed the definition of "airspace"

that supports your argument, without citing any authority for that definition.

[jeff47]

273. Need a mirror?

There are multiple links in that article to regulations and US law.

You, on the other hand, are asserting your definition of airspace without citing any authority for that definition.

[Romulox]

279. Oh dear. *You* made a claim. You can't support it. nt

[jeff47]

283. I did support it. Again, the article has links to regulations and law.

*YOU* said that claim is false, and you have failed to support your claim.

So far, you have supplied: "Nuh-uh!!".

[Romulox]

286. No. That's not how legal proof works. Don't worry about it. nt

[jeff47]

287. So you apparently need me to copy-and-paste the links from the article for you.

FAA: Drones are aircraft. Here's a press release after the NTSB ruled the FAA is correct for saying drones are aircraft.

It's a nice, convenient, short link since apparently you couldn't click on blue in the Gizmodo article.
https://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=17734

Here's the Forbes coverage if you are able to read a little more.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngoglia/2014/11/18/ntsb-overturns-pirker-finds-for-faa-that-drones-are-aircraft-subject-to-its-rules/

And here's the NTSB documents.
http://www.ntsb.gov/legal/alj/Pages/pirker.aspx

Here's 18 U.S. Code § 32 - Destruction of aircraft or aircraft facilities
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/32
Since drones are aircraft, per the FAA and NTSB, then that applies to shooting down a drone.

The law is not on your side. The facts are not on your side. You going to keep pounding the table?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

386. Not exactly. They are subject to differenet regulations than manned aircraft.

You do own the airspace above your land, but the FAA governs who and what can fly through it and at what altitude. https://www.faa.gov/uas/model_aircraft/

[JackInGreen]

65. Ah...idiots with guns

it's a shame there aren't more stupid confrontational people with guns dealing with other stupid confrontational people with guns, we might fix our population problem.

[WinkyDink]

90. I see it as "Idiots with Drones"----hoping to capture something risque' to post on the internets.

[Sunlei]

66. my little brother has tied a camera on his remote control truck & drives it on lawns

does that mean some gunman has the right to shoot it to pieces?

[liberal N proud]

75. I would think it depends on how much in intrudes on others privacy?

Driving on the neighbors front lawn, probably not a problem.

Driving it down the street and into someone's back yard and onto their patio, that might infringe on privacy.

Again, I am anti gun but pro-privacy so as long as someone isn't getting shot here, I side with privacy.

[djean111]

76. If he drove it into my back yard he might not get it back. n/t

[avebury]

80. Totally agree!

And I would be calling the police to have a little chat with him.

[Sunlei]

103. yards are pretty close in most neighborhoods, what if his pet wearing camera vest climbed fence in

to your yard? you going to keep his dog? shoot the camera?

what if people start to place a camera on a small hot air balloon? shoot that too? or party/funeral balloons sailing overhead?

[djean111]

109. So, you are okay with little cameras invading property and privacy?

We are talking about drones being deliberately flown by adults into back yards.
Are you saying that we should excuse that?
Oh, and balloons are pretty much at the mercy of the wind.
A pet wearing a camera vest? Trap it and call police or animal control.
Can't do that with a drone.

[Sunlei]

111. well google map shows your backyard to the world. you ok with that?

I can see through the cracks in fence into next yard, you ok with that?

[djean111]

117. So - are you really saying that everyone has a right to spy on others?

If your little brother has gotten the idea that it is okay to drive his little camera-laden truck into someone's back yard because of Google maps, he is eventually going to be getting a rude awakening. And I can ask Google maps to pixilate my back yard. In fact, that is a good idea. Thank you for reminding me.
The idea that something is okay because others do it is a sad idea indeed. That's quite the slippery slope.

[Sunlei]

139. he can't get his TOY into backyard because of fence, but some places use invisable fence for dogs.

dogs would tear-up any toy that crosses the SHOCKLINE. They also tear-up any animal that crosses that line. some would even kill a person who crosses the shockline by accident.

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

217. Google does not take pictures INSIDE my house

The drone cameras are capable of doing just that.

If the government was using a drone to search your house, would you think that was ok?

[Sunlei]

221. any camera or telescope can look through your windows. be sure to tin foil and keep drapes closed.

The gov. does use drones to find pot grow houses all the time. the heat is easy for them to read.

the gov also can see electric bills to see who uses to much.

police and gov. can make excuse to get into any house they want. just call on your neighbor you don't like and state you saw the door open and no one around. police will come and they will go inside.

or have an alarm go off when you are not home. police will come and go inside.

[frylock]

363. Can you post your home address..

I'd like to see just how cool you are with people watching you and your family with drones, telescopes, or binoculars. Thanks.

[Sunlei]

421. follow the manure roller border collie of doom

Bonnie loves horses

[liberal N proud]

411. Google also alters images showing people in their street view and maps

They are also taking those photos from a satellite and not from a drone hovering over your house and yard.

[christx30]

427. Very true.

It also doesn't show a live pictureof your backyard with your 16 year old daughter in a bathing suit. And even if it did, it would blur the image so you'd see a ill defined lump rather than a female body.

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

88. Does it go into back yards and take pictures at windows?

[WinkyDink]

93. OTHER people's lawns? Why? Let him play in his own damn yard. Unless, of course, it's okay for the

neighbors to trespass on IT.

[hueymahl]

133. False analogy

The homeowner could pick it up, step on it or kick it pretty easily. Can't do that with a flying drone. Shooting it down, when done properly with a safe load of birdshot (as was done here), is actually pretty reasonable. And about the only way to insure that the drone is stopped.

[Romulox]

135. Hey--ladders and telephoto lenses are legal! Why not photograph your neighbors sunbathing with a giant ladder!!!!

You realize how ridiculous your argument is, right?

[Sunlei]

205. or mount a camera in your tree thats taller then the fence blocking the 'view'.

oh noooss, mr billll, the google map helicopter flew over my swimming pool, shoot it down!!

[Romulox]

233. That would *also* be invasion of privacy. nt

[Sunlei]

238. so call the police and have the VOYEUR arrested. but be prepared for them to say, I was photographin

g birds.

[Romulox]

250. No. I would likely engage in "self help" and let YOU (the peeper) call the police. nt

[paleotn]

74. Cuius est solum, eius est usque ad caelum et ad inferos

...OK, with the advent of commercial air traffic, the limit is 83 feet...at or below that and their little toy is far game. 83 to 500....I'd still shoot it down because in my neck of the woods that airspace isn't usable by commercial air traffic, unless they intend to crash into a mountain side. Keep your toy out of my airspace or loose your toy. Not hard to understand.

Threaten me on my own property? Domus Sua Cuique Est Tutissimum Refugium, and he has a right to defend it and himself. Simple common law folks.

[azurnoir]

83. Thank you

[RKP5637]

98. K&R! n/t

[stevenleser]

191. The SCOTUS in US v Causby rejected that doctrine as it applies to airspace. See political averse's

link in #177 above. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027025962#post177

On Edit: Alternatively, see a direct link to US v Causby: http://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1949/1945/1945_630

[Renew Deal]

82. He was charged with Criminal Mischeif and Wanton Endangerment

I'm not sure the charges can be proven, especially Mischeif. I wouldn't convict on either.

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

92. I'd take that one to trial if I were him.

Who's going to convict him?

[RKP5637]

99. Same here! n/t

[tclambert]

104. The wanton endangerment fails because he used bird shot.

If that falls on a neighbor's head, it won't hurt them. The drone operator should be charged with Criminal Mischief. Not sure if trespass laws have caught up to the drone age.

[Romulox]

132. He needs to demand a JURY TRIAL. nt

[WinkyDink]

87. Am I supposed to side with the Drone-Boys? Because I do not.

[djean111]

95. I think only one or two people here are siding with them. nt

[WinkyDink]

96. In a previous drone-thread, I was taken to task by a DU drone-owner. J/S.

[NBachers]

100. I agree with this guy's behavior, and I support what he did.

[Sunlei]

105. I don't think people 'think' before they shoot. we have laws against peeping at people. Call 911.

edit to add, I can use google map to see your backyard

[djean111]

186. And that is creepy. And just because Google does it, does not make it right.

[Kermitt Gribble]

324. Google maps doesn't show real-time

and will not zoom to the level a drone can see.

[Sunlei]

325. on google street view you can see close in cars and thats interesting in russia street view lol.

[Glassunion]

346. Google maps use a combination of satellite and aerial imagery.

In both instances the images are taken from above 500 feet.

A drone can hover inches off the ground as well as take horizontal images.

Google maps will show you my back yard. A drone will let you see in my daughter's bedroom.

[dembotoz]

106. having recieved a death threat this year i have greater sympathy for the guy with a gun

not a conspiracy nut

there are crazy folks out there

do i carry a gun or own a gun or want to own a gun?

no

but do i pay more attention to my surroundings? yes

[rosesaylavee]

118. Not a gun owner

but if I were, this is how I would use it. I agree that this is a privacy issue. His property and this was an invasion of his space. If it were me, I would sue the drone owner for invasion of privacy.

[flying_wahini]

125. If you take out the fact that the drone was involved

And a man with a camera (and possibly armed) the situation is a slam dunk for the homeowners privacy.
When Anyone has a camera and comes to snoop in your yard or thru your windows the homeowner has a right to defend himself.
The drone is just an extension of the person flying it.

[stevenleser]

157. Do you have a link to the applicable laws? I don't think it's that simple in this situation.

First off, we don't know what he was photographing if he was photographing anything at the time.

Maybe he was just learning the controls or otherwise flying the thing without using the camera.

We don't know how high up the drone was when it was shot. Effective range of birdshot is around 40 yards (120 feet). Where I am going with this is, at some point, perhaps that is at 30-40 feet or higher taking pictures from that height isn't spying and is taking pictures of the immediate neighborhood. Of course that depends on the camera, whether it is being zoomed, etc.

The exact law is going to matter a lot here. See my #137, there are a lot of questions to which I am interesting in learning the answer.

[Romulox]

131. What happened to all the drone-defenders from the last thread??? nt

[jberryhill]

199. The one where the guy with the baseball bat beat the drone on public property?

Those facts were different.

[Romulox]

234. Yeah. The one where our "legal experts" posited that one may film into a persons' home,

so long as they do it from the street.

[jberryhill]

236. Yeah, that's right

Filming from a public street is fine.

Hovering over the backyard is not fine.

So?

[Romulox]

249. No. It's not. Invasion of privacy is not solely dependent on the location of the camera. nt

[jberryhill]

276. You are entitled to believe that

But it also remains thoroughly irrelevant to the distinctions between the two situations.

Yes, if I position a camera just outside of your second floor streetfront window and peer in, or hover over your backyard and snoop around, that's one thing.

But, no, if someone is lawfully flying their drone on a public street, you do not get the right to go out to that street and hit it with a baseball bat.

You are, of course, entitled to believe whatever you want about relevant principles of privacy law, and you are entitled to believe that Boring v. Google Inc. (3rd Cir. Jan. 28, 2010) is, in some universe, not "law".

[Romulox]

285. It's simply a fact. You want to muddy the waters, of course.

Yes, if I position a camera just outside of your second floor streetfront window and peer in, or hover over your backyard and snoop around, that's one thing.

You don't say?!?

But, no, if someone is lawfully flying their drone on a public street, you do not get the right to go out to that street and hit it with a baseball bat.

If they are filming at or near my property, I will likely make an investigation!

You are, of course, entitled to believe whatever you want about relevant principles of privacy law, and you are entitled to believe that Boring v. Google Inc. (3rd Cir. Jan. 28, 2010) is, in some universe, not "law".

The technology used by google for its street view is completely different than that used by drones. So it doesn't answer any questions about the present case.

Moreover, I have no idea what a 3rd Circuit case has to do with *my* rights.

[Kelvin Mace]

134. I would have done something similar

but would have used a paint ball gun.

[liberal N proud]

192. Not owning a gun, I would have to find other means

Maybe a pressure washer or something.
I was thinking about this as I have read the responses to this, what would I do?

[Kelvin Mace]

274. Again, paintball guns are perfect for drones

though a water hose will do in a pinch. Also, a ball of of twine thrown into the rotors. a tennis racket, a potato cannon, water balloon, Super-Soaker™, or if you are of a technical mind, a radio frequency jammer.

[Eleanors38]

323. Your own drone?

[liberal N proud]

413. Drone crash derby

I think I see an opportunity here. Maybe an attraction at a county fair!

[Eleanors38]

424. The foul ball fence for spectators will be a grand chicken coop...

Charge when they enter, charge when they leave.

[Lizzie Poppet]

198. I'd have been at bit at a loss.

I'm a gun owner...but none of them are shotguns. Shooting at a small flying target with any other sort of gun is a) unlikely to hit , and b) a very dangerous thing to do unless you're out in the middle of nowhere with no one around.

[Kelvin Mace]

268. Well, ya need a paiunt ball gun for drone varmints

Legally allowed to be full auto.

[Lizzie Poppet]

294. That'd be fun!

I suspect I'd be making quite a mess in short order!

[stevenleser]

137. There are legal questions here need answering. I honestly don't know the answer.

I am not in favor of wantonly shooting at something that isn't personally threatening you with bodily harm. Of course I am anti-gun so that would generally follow. But that opinion is irrelevant in face of the legal issues here.

1 - What is the amount of airspace around ones abode to which they are legally entitled to do what they want, if any. I saw someone post 83 feet above. That seems like a lot.
1a - Does this mean that outside of humans in that airspace (or perhaps even including humans entering that airspace), you can do anything you want to something coming into it?
1b - If the answer to 1a is that you can't do anything you want, what obligations do you have to other peoples property that might enter your property or the legally private airspace around your property. Can you destroy it at will?

2 - Is it OK to threaten people with shooting them if they go onto your property? My guess is the answer to this question depends on the state you are in. In the south, with stand your ground laws and other foolishness the answer is probably yes.

[KittyWampus]

175. with your connections, I hope you find the answers. I find this topic incredibly interesting….

Hope you find answers and share!

[sir pball]

278. Re question 2, it's "yes" in virtually every state.

I think (at work on phone, can't research) there's only 3 or 4 states without "castle doctrine" laws, which presume intruders into one's home are intending harm and there is no reasonable retreat (different from SYG in that they're limited to home, not anywhere). At any rate, the nature of the encounter makes it pretty clear that the 4 bad guys sure as hell didn't want to have a friendly chat; telling them essentially "you've threatened me - I'm armed, if you enter my property I will reasonably assume you mean me harm and use any and all means to stop you" is entirely kosher. Not even sure why he's being charged for that, even in non-SYG CT that would be an entirely legal action (source, my CT licence class).

[Blue_Tires]

149. I can't wait to see how many drones Amazon loses

once they finally start delivery...


FWIW, I'm hesitant to buy into Mr. Meredith's story 100%...

[DemoTex]

155. A friend of mine shot down a drone near Greenville, SC.

Seems it only came around when his wife was by the pool in a bikini. He documented the facts, then shot the electronic Peeping Tom down. The owner of the drone never came forward.

[MADem]

174. He could sell the non-broken parts on E-Bay!! nt

[DawgHouse]

170. I don't blame the home owner for blasting the drone.

It's creepy and invasive, IMO - and in this chimp's opinion too!

[olddots]

197. the people with the drones are gun owners too

Everybody gets more guns then more drones then more guns ............action reaction

How does this all end .Do I have a constitutional right to own and fly a spy or armed drone outside of my own property ? Do you have a right to the sky over your property ? The one thing that comes from this is more guns , drones and legal ( ownership ) battles .
We seem to be getting less civilized ,less gentile and more barbaric plus we consider it fashionable and modern .

Were are loosing Peace ,hey but war is sexy and now .

[TeeYiYi]

228. Good point, olddots...

re: the people with the drones are gun owners.

Your comment about the world becoming more barbaric made me reflect on my understanding of barbarism such as the Dark Ages and, of course, the Holocaust... and whether or not we are truly becoming less civilized as a people...

Then I remembered that I went to bed depressed last night, after watching Rwanda Hotel again. That particular, recent genocide has to be one of the worst (or best) examples of barbarism (carried out with machetes) in the history of the world.

So yeah, the world doesn't seem to be skipping a beat in the 'new and even more sadistic' ways to be evil to fellow human beings category. Consider the use of drones, depleted uranium and white phosphorus to murder people in the Middle East.

To be honest, I have to side with the homeowner in this situation.

TYY

[oldandhappy]

216. Glad to see this conversation.

I do not want to see a drone flying over my place. Then again, how do we get map stuff on the internet??!! Maybe drone that are filming need to have a license unless on private property. I think it is OK for people to have a drone to film a wedding or birthday party or reunion -- in one place on a specific property. I am against the random snoop.

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

219. Google does not take photos INSIDE of your house

or hover at eight feet to peer under your porch.

Definitely different. KWIM?

[oldandhappy]

304. Yes

Sorry I was not clear. Road maps yes, back porch no.

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

308. No apologies necessary!

Give and take. Give and take.

[ileus]

218. Sounds like a righteous shooting

He could have worded his reply to the 4 punks a little differently but it was effective in stopping their attack.

[Zorra]

222. Good for him. Anyone using a drone with a camera is probably a pervert.

[Sunlei]

241. roof inspection, solar panel inspection, power line inspection. camera drones are here to stay.

[Zorra]

313. You forgot breast and vagina inspection. If they are here to stay, then a $100,000

fine should be levied against any drone owner who allows his camera equipped drone to troll within 300 ft surrounding of another person's property, residence, etc., and within a 500 ft vertical airspace over said residence or property.

If I owned a shotgun and saw a drone hovering over me while I was sitting outside on my deck topless, you can bet your life that I would blow it out of the sky in a heartbeat without a second thought.

And if a drone ever does hover over me, for any reason, under those circumstances, I will buy or borrow a shotgun and keep it near me when being outdoors on my property, and take direct action to make sure it never comes near me again.

If some perv gets upset that I shot his peeping drone sex toy out of the sky, he can explain to the judge why it was taking images of my breasts.

[Sunlei]

315. lol, probably something police would love to have as law. just for private citizens.

They could make it a Felony charge to increase local revenue stream and help fill up jails with criminals with camera drones

[Zorra]

321. The Sex Crime of Voyeurism

Voyeurism refers to “spying” on people for the purpose of sexual stimulation. Voyeurism involves invading a person’s privacy by watching, and/or recording them without their knowledge or consent. In years past, male voyeurs were called “Peeping Toms,” but with today’s modern technology, voyeurism has reached a whole other level.

Voyeurism can take place in a variety of different settings, and it can be recorded, or distributed on a variety of different levels. It can involve spying on women as they change in dressing rooms, it can include placing hidden cameras where the voyeur can look up women’s skirts, it can include taking pictures, or recording people as they change, or shower in locker rooms, or as people use the restroom. It can also involve taking pictures, or recording people at various states of undress or during sexual activity.

A person doesn’t have to commit this crime in public, or outside their home to be found guilty. A homeowner or landlord can violate the law by installing cameras in their own home to tape tenants, or people can spy on, and record their own roommates while they undress, go to the bathroom, take showers, or during sexual activity. A person can violate somebody else’s privacy, and violate the law whether they are in a public place, or in their private home.
snip----
Voyeurism is a sex crime, and if convicted, a person can be charged with either a misdemeanor or felony offense. Either way, the suspect can be forced to go to jail, pay fines, attend court-ordered counseling, and be placed on probation. Furthermore, a person convicted of voyeurism could be made to register as a sex offender. Mandatory sex offender registration creates incredible obstacles for the offender, and will make life extremely difficult and unpleasant for the accused.

http://www.hg.org/article.asp?id=23535

[Sunlei]

322. yes, more then we need to assume about why the drone flew into the neighbors 'airspace'

[randome]

225. I really, really don't like this guy. And those who think all drones are nefarious are...something.

But I have to admit I don't see that he did anything illegal.

We can all pontificate on how he should have behaved better and not endangered others by shooting into the sky but the law works on absolutes (for the most part), not on an evaluation of someone's sense of ethics.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Birds are territorial creatures.
The lyrics to the songbird's melodious trill go something like this:
"Stay out of my territory or I'll PECK YOUR GODDAMNED EYES OUT!"[/center][/font][hr]

[jeff47]

271. Firing a weapon at an aircraft is against federal law. He fired at a remote-controlled aircraft.

There is no exception in that regulation for "but it was hovering over my property".

[randome]

296. Not sure if it qualifies as an 'aircraft' but point taken.

And could it be considered on his property if it was hovering below his house level? Like I said, I don't like the guy but I'm trying to look at it from a devil's advocate point of view.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[jeff47]

298. Nope, the FAA rules start at the end of whatever is attached to the ground.

So, over the house they start at his roof. Over the lawn, they start at the end of the grass.

Basically, the laws haven't caught up to what a modern drone can do versus what a 1960s-era RC plane/helicopter can do.

For example, what if it flies under a deck? What if it only flies partially under a deck?

[randome]

300. So, theoretically, a drone could hover right in front of your face and legally you could do nothing.

I suppose if it was equipped with a camera, though, that might edge into peeping tom territory so long as 'line of sight' wasn't involved.

What a mess.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

[jeff47]

303. If it's close enough, you might be able to claim self-defense.

Though there is not an explicit self-defense exception in the regulations/laws in this area.

But yes, it's a mess for the time being. And it's probably not a good idea to "clean up" the laws yet, since we're still figuring out what drones could do.

[TeeYiYi]

307. Airspace rules...

...delineate between upper and lower stratum. The homeowner owns the airspace in the lower stratum that begins at the grass level and extends to a minimum of 500 ft. above the roof level.

In the United States, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has the sole authority to control all public airspace, exclusively determining the rules and requirements for its use. Public air space is classified as the 'navigable' airspace above 500 feet.[1] The general rule is that airplanes must fly high enough that, in the event of an engine failure, the pilot can land the plane without undue hazards to persons or property on the ground. The exact altitude requirements (except for purposes of takeoff and landing) are as follows. In congested areas, airplanes must stay 1,000 feet (300 m) higher than any obstacle (building, antenna, etc.) within a 2,000 feet (610 m) radius of the aircraft. In non congested, sparsely populated areas, or over bodies of water, the pilot must remain at least 500 feet (150 m) from any person, vehicle, vessel, or structure.[2] Private landowners retain their right to exclusive use of the airspace for the reasonable enjoyment of their property up to 500 feet above their lands.[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_rights

TYY

[stevenleser]

335. What you wrote is for fixed wing aircraft only. Drones, what

The FAA Classifies as UAV they have different rules for those

[TeeYiYi]

339. I don't believe that differences in aircraft classification...

...would affect the homeowner's legal right to enjoy their property without threat of nuisance, noise or trespass.

In the case of United States v. Causby,[6] the U.S. Supreme Court declared the navigable airspace to be "a public highway" and within the public domain. At the same time, the law, and the Supreme Court, recognized that a landowner had property rights in the lower reaches of the airspace above their property. The law, in balancing the public interest in using the airspace for air navigation against the landowner's rights, declared that a landowner controls use of the airspace above their property in connection with their uninterrupted use and enjoyment of the underlying land. In other words, a person's real property ownership includes a reasonable amount of the private airspace above the property in order to prevent nuisance. A landowner may make any legitimate use of their property that they want, even if it interferes with aircraft overflying the land."[7]

The low cost of unmanned aerial vehicles in the 2000s revived legal questions of what activities were permissible at low altitude.[8] The FAA reestablished that public, or navigable, airspace is the space above 500 feet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_rights

The space above 500 feet is public. The space below 500 feet is at the discretion of the landowner.

TYY

[stevenleser]

358. There are links above that explain it all in greater detail. You don't have the right to

Shoot or otherwise damage UAV.

[TeeYiYi]

369. Maybe not...

...I guess that will be for a court to decide.

I could probably have the UAV impounded, the same as cows wandering onto my property. If I have 'no trespassing' signs posted, I might be able to have the owner of the UAV arrested for trespassing and invasion of privacy. Without 'no trespassing' signs posted, his first offense becomes the one and only official warning. Second offense gets him arrested.

TYY

[jeff47]

382. Wrong kind of aircraft.

RC aircraft and manned aircraft have different rules. That's why the FAA can require RC aircraft to not fly higher than 500 feet. Drones are RC aircraft.

[TeeYiYi]

387. That's true...

...which puts it within the 500 ft. threshold of my private property rights. Illegal to fly above 500 ft. and illegal to fly below 500 ft. over private property without permission.

TYY

[jeff47]

390. Except the FAA says they can fly it there too.

It's a big mess because the rules were written for 1960's era RC aircraft. And drones are far more capable.

We need a revision of the rules.

[TeeYiYi]

393. Where do they say that RC aircraft...

...can specifically fly through a landowner's perceived private airspace? The following paragraph leads me to believe that they considered RC aircraft or UAVs when they reestablished their stance on public airspace as above 500 ft.:

The low cost of unmanned aerial vehicles in the 2000s revived legal questions of what activities were permissible at low altitude. The FAA reestablished that public, or navigable, airspace is the space above 500 feet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_rights

Utah signed a bill that restricts the use of drones by law enforcement without a warrant:

“Because of their size and ease of use, they also have a high potential for abuse in surveilling innocent individuals and encroaching upon a person’s privacy,” he continued. http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/04/utah-governor-signs-bill-to-restrict-drone-use/

I suspect the case law might apply in private property situations. (I live in Utah.)

TYY

[jeff47]

394. By not recognizing the concept of a landowner's private airspace.

Why have any regulations below 500 feet if below 500 feet is all up to the landowner?

[TeeYiYi]

395. The regulation...

...as I understand your wording of it, applies to RC aircraft not being allowed above 500 ft. That doesn't automatically give them carte blanch to all airspace below 500 ft. They still have to abide by no trespassing laws.

TYY

Edit to add:

The FAA has already defined the difference between upper and lower stratum airspace to mean that lower stratum belongs to private landowners:

In the United States, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has the sole authority to control all public airspace, exclusively determining the rules and requirements for its use. Public air space is classified as the 'navigable' airspace above 500 feet.[1] The general rule is that airplanes must fly high enough that, in the event of an engine failure, the pilot can land the plane without undue hazards to persons or property on the ground. The exact altitude requirements (except for purposes of takeoff and landing) are as follows. In congested areas, airplanes must stay 1,000 feet (300 m) higher than any obstacle (building, antenna, etc.) within a 2,000 feet (610 m) radius of the aircraft. In non congested, sparsely populated areas, or over bodies of water, the pilot must remain at least 500 feet (150 m) from any person, vehicle, vessel, or structure.[2] Private landowners retain their right to exclusive use of the airspace for the reasonable enjoyment of their property up to 500 feet above their lands.[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_rights

I read that to mean the FAA has determined that RC aircraft must be operated on public land below 500 ft.

TYY

[restorefreedom]

227. i am as anti gun as they come

but i wouldn't vote to convict this man on anything. however, i might charge the skeevy losers with criminal trespass, disturbing the peace, and intent to commit battery. they didn't go there to have tea.

[liberal N proud]

230. I kind of feel the same way

I don't like guns and think we need some control, but this guy was justified.

[restorefreedom]

235. totally. nt

[Buns_of_Fire]

231. Please -- won't someone think of the drones?

As usual, the law will eventually catch up with the technology. Until then, there's...

Drone-B-Gone! The only radio controller frequency jammer!

Give it an effective range of about fifty feet, and just watch those pesky drones lose their minds when they invade your space! Warning: At that point, one would have an out-of-control drone to contend with...

[slor]

242. Mr. Meredith had every right to do...

what he did.

[jeff47]

277. Except he actually doesn't.

http://gizmodo.com/is-it-ok-to-shoot-down-your-neighbors-drone-1718055028

Laws have not caught up to the privacy implications of drones.

[bigwillq]

244. Good for him (nt)

[Logical]

261. Lol, great analysis as usual! Nt

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

245. Interesting comment thread here.

One or two against the homeowner, but all the rest of us, even those who've been told we're 'gun grabbers' siding with him.

For my part, I think he's actually a 'responsible gun owner', at least in this story, and I'd be a lot less down on guns if I actually trusted all gun owners to show the same restraint. The gun he fired, he did on his own property, at a nonliving target, using a load that wouldn't travel far. The other gun he used as a warning, without whipping it out and brandishing or firing it, even in the face of 4 potentially threatening strangers.

That's a far cry from the idiots who shoot injured drivers who knock on their door after traffic accidents.

[liberal N proud]

256. Maybe it demonstrates that for many of us its about control of the guns

Not so much about taking guns away from people but controlling what types of guns are available and who gets them. There have been so many shooting where the shooter should have never had a gun.

I don't like guns, but I don't mind that others do as long as they are using them responsibly.

[sarisataka]

297. It is encouraging

as I was giving up hope that the entire gun control movement had become morally bankrupt and had no concern for non-gun victims.

There is a lot of support for this DGU that ened with no one dead or injured.

As one who jas been labeled a "gun enthusiast" I have no issue with the charges. It is fair to consider if he had other means to neutralizing the drone without shooting it down.
I must recuse myself as I have a daughter and would likely have done the same.

[Logical]

263. Hope he gets arrested, a night in jail would be good for him! Nt

[Logical]

284. Ahhh, someone needs a nap! Nappy time! nt

[olddots]

259. yeah I'm gonna buy me a shotgun to blow away them drones !

DUH! this isn't about rights this about selling more garbage .

[Logical]

267. Here is a pic of the nut

[lumberjack_jeff]

269. Would the conversation be different if he'd dropped it with a slingshot?

If so, we're missing the point.

[stevenleser]

334. There are several facets to the issue, for me that would make one of them less "bad"

But many questions and issues would remain.

The discharge of a firearm for anything other than preventing greivous bodily harm is a bad thing imho.

[jeff47]

280. For anyone thinking of shooting down a drone, it is actually against the law to do so.

http://gizmodo.com/is-it-ok-to-shoot-down-your-neighbors-drone-1718055028

The laws have not caught up with what drones can do.

[Throd]

289. I would do the same thing.

[Bradical79]

290. I'm think I'm ok with this

Though with how easy it is for anyone to get a drone, I think I'll try to come up with a better anti-drone plan than a gun.

1. I'm not interested yet in being a gun owner (though I've thought about it).
2. What goes up, must come down. What damage will the bullet/pellets do elsewhere if I miss?

As for confronting the guys coming after him, it worked out. One of the few cases where having a gun actually did result in less violence. Guys came to his home angry, he warned them, they waited for the authorities. Basically the ideal self defense scenario :-P

[DFW]

291. This is a rare instance where I also side with the guy with the guns

His 16 year old daughter is sunbathing in their yard and a drone comes to hover right over it? Hell, yeah, he's justified in shooting it down, especially with something as innocuous as birdshot. Then four guys pull up in a car and start to menace him. FOUR guys? These are not casual peepers. Sounds more like a porn site team looking for some free material. They sure as hell did not act like they were shooting a nature documentary for National Geographic. The guy never pulled his gun out of his holster and said, in effect, that he wouldn't unless they crossed onto his property. Threat uttered, threat countered. No one hurt, no lethal weapon drawn, no shots fired.

We can only wish a couple of hundred killer cops in our country would have practiced similar restraint.

[tularetom]

305. Obviously there's nothing new to be said here

But my response is I strongly support everything this guy did.

[petronius]

342. +1. The main learning outcome I see here is when shooting down a perv-drone,

shoot from a blind...

[DirkGently]

306. We're going to need some Drone Rules at some point here.

My understanding is that for the time being, remote-controlled vehicles like this are considered "aircraft," and shooting them is therefore a federal offense.

But hovering over someone's backyard deck with a video camera is not okay either. If it was as close as the man suggests, especially if it was "hovering over the deck" as he says, I can understand the impulse. That's invasive and annoying, and potentially dangerous as well. One of these things is going to crash on someone's cat or their child at some point.

Can they fly up to your second-floor window, look in at your kids? Buzz your dogs for giggles?

DRONE WARS -- coming to your town this summer.

[yellowcanine]

310. Coming to your neighborhood soon - the anti drone drone.

http://www.popsci.com/rapere-anti-drone-interceptor

[Glassunion]

311. I so hope that this goes to court.

Perhaps this incident could end up with a precedent regarding drones, privacy, and the limits of trespassing.

I understand the home owner's frustration, especially in the light that he has two daughters, who were possibly being recorded or photographed in their back yard. However shooting it down, in this gun owner's opinion was way wrong. I'd simply call the police, and try to seize the drone without damaging it.

As for the assholes, flying these things over other folks back yards, creepy scum. I am glad however they lost their "toy".

[Humanist_Activist]

314. I don't see why trespassing laws wouldn't apply to remote controlled and automated devices...

they already apply, to a limited extent, to devices that extend recording into someone's home when there is expectation of privacy, even when you are not technically on their property. For example, telescopes focused inside homes, trying to work around privacy fences, etc.

So I think the homeone was fully justified in what he did, and I'm glad he had the foresight to not endanger his neighbors, by using the proper type of ammo(also more likely to hit the drone as well).

As far as new laws, perhaps in protecting against recording and defining reasonable expectations of privacy more clearly.

Do I think drones are bad? No, I briefly(as in the bloody thing crashed), got an RC copter with built in digital camera from thinkgeek for free. I was able to briefly film the roof of my Dad's house before the wind kicked up and the thing smashed into a tree, hard. The camera broke off, was able to salvage the SD card.

That is my one annoyance, people are talking "drone this" and "drone that". Uhm, we used to just call them RC copters. They are more stable and user friendly nowadays, in addition to smaller, but that's all they are, RC quadcopters with cameras attached.

What I would like is a fully programmable, autonomous quadcopter that I can give a path for it to fly and have it return on its own, now that would be a true drone.

[jtuck004]

329. Is stalking. Which neighbor is keeping track of when you are there, and when your kid is alone? n/t

[stevenleser]

337. Stalking is a crime that invariably requires more than one instance of bad behavior.

I've checked most states laws regarding stalking for an article I wrote on bullying (I basically said bullies should be prosecuted as stalkers since most bullying behavior is repetitive and overlaps the legal definitions for stalking).

There is no evidence in this case of this happening before.

[rdking647]

316. in texas flying adrone to conduct "survellance" is illegal

i have a drone and fly it over houses a lot. but when i do its high in the air. i would never fly it low over someone elses house. but if im 100-200' in the air its pretty obvious im not doing "surveillance" . its no different than flying a kite at those heights

[Major Nikon]

399. They passed that law after a drone captured footage of a business dumping illegally

Obviously the state of Texas is more concerned about citizens monitoring the illegal activity of businesses.

The law is written pretty poorly and I'm not sure how it could ever be enforced if someone wanted to challenge it. The FAA regulates aerospace, not the states.

[ohheckyeah]

317. I have no

problem with what he did. We live out in the cou ntry on 1.5 acres and I would have shot it down, too. Come on my property cursing at me and we're going to have a problem. We don't belong to the NRA- I despise it, and we didn't buy our guns, they were passed down to us by family but we know how to use them. It may be illegal to shoot the drone but it isn't immoral to me. So I guess I would be spending some time in jail.

[steve2470]

318. The homeowner is in the right here

Granted, all we know here is published news reports.

I'm all for reasonable gun laws, but the drone invaded his privacy big time and was probably perving his teenage daughter for photos. A garden hose or high-pressure hose would have been preferable, but I can understand using his shotgun.

As for his response to four angry men looking for a fight, of course he was in the right. He's on his own property and issued a warning to them. He had remarkable self-restraint to keep his gun holstered. He's one of the "good guy" gun owners, if the published reports are accurate.

[jtuck004]

327. Good. Nothing but a flying stalker - and the operator is threatening my family. n/t

[TNNurse]

328. I knew people would start shooting them down.

I did not think of this plan, I thought they would just do it for sport....you know like killing birds or lions.

If you were just learning how to control it, you should be out away from people and possible harm.

If you were playing around and snooping on people, you deserve the loss of your toy. In this case it was a toy. It was not being used for search and rescue, or any other possible meaningful use. They were adults who were playing and got caught misbehaving. If they threatened the property owner, I believe the law is on his side.

Most of us would not threaten an intruder ( or several of them) with a gun, but we would confront them in some way. A much as I hate gun violence, it sounds like he had reason to feel threatened.

[Avalux]

331. I would have done the same thing, except used a slingshot or rocks to knock it down.

Then I'd have called the police if the owners showed up. If the owners can't operate it properly and it ends up in my yard, hovering, with a camera, it's going down.

Total invasion of privacy.

[Liberal_in_LA]

336. no.pity for the drone owner

[saidsimplesimon]

338. Kentucky holds a special place in my memories.

My father, born and raised in KY, would be proud of this man. For those who suggest a garden hose, if you live in an area with abundant, mother nature provided water, who needs a garden hose?

If you own a drone use it for recreational purpose, respect the privacy of others, and don't waste the time of police officers. Unless KY has changed, respecting the privacy of property owners is a big f---ing deal.

[LWolf]

341. I don't have any guns,

but I would have knocked it down with a rock. I've got way too many of those.

[jomin41]

344. If some yahoo flies a drone "in my face",

I'm going to do something to it. I think a jury would be friendly. "The law's an ass"

[Dont call me Shirley]

348. Mass marketing of drones, great idea!...

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

364. Not sure what the applicable laws are...

...for a case like this. I think this might be an interesting one to follow if it goes to court. And if it does
I hope the home owner prevails. That said, I very much dislike reckless gunplay of any kind and would
also hope, if the homeowner does prevail in court, that it doesn't become open season on drones.

[ruffburr]

376. Finally a justified shooting.

As far as I'm concerned fly your drone onto private property at your own risk.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

381. I wouldn't shoot the drone down

because it would be dangerous to shoot a gun in a residential neighborhood. I would photograph it and call the police; if it got close enough I might try to nab it with a net.

[bluestateguy]

388. I agree with him shooting the drone down

it is an invasion of privacy, and he acted accordingly.

The threats he made to the men in the car, however, were inappropriate.

[christx30]

429. The threat of 4 angry men coming onto his

property to assault him justifies "you stay on your side of that line or I'll defend myself". I'd probably do the same thing. Four men could easily overpower him and either put him in ICU or kill him.

[the band leader]

389. He was completely justified in shooting down the drone and issuing the warning.

[Jack Rabbit]

392. For the record, I hate guns and I hope he walks

That's a much better use of a weapon than trophy hunting.

[L0oniX]

397. Hey the NSA is spying on us all the time. What's a little drone spying? Hell what if it was a Amazon

delivery?

Serious ...WTF ...yall up about the gun but no problem with a group threat over a trespassing drone. Check out my inner bowl toilet cam: 127.0.0.1

[Sancho]

400. Stand my ....er....air

[lonestarnot]

414. Snort.

[LeftyMom]

401. Good for him.

Recently I had to tell a neighbor that the next time his mini drone was above my backyard was going to be the last. He's lucky I saw him standing on his driveway and asked if it was his, or he'd have been out $500 without a warning.

[TeeYiYi]

405. Citing precedent-setting 2015 Idaho remote-controlled drone law...

...(Idaho is one state north of Utah, where I currently reside.)

Trespass, Privacy, and Drones in Idaho: No Snooping Allowed!
(published in the Idaho State Bar Advocate Magazine, Mar/Apr 2015)
(by) Arthur B. Macomber

In Idaho, regardless of the lawful geographic position of the drone operator, Idaho law prohibits the flying of drones1 into properly posted private property airspace without permission of the title owner or possessor of that airspace.2

In Idaho, real property includes land3 and land includes airspace.4 Rights in and limitations on the use of airspace in Idaho are governed by state statute and federal law, the latter through the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution.5 However, in Idaho Code “Flight in aircraft over the lands and waters of this state is lawful. . . ,” which implies a person inside the aircraft, not flight of a remote-piloted drone.6

<snip>

Civil trespass and drones

Since property in Idaho includes the air space above it, a person flying a drone into airspace owned by another without permission is trespassing, subject to the right of flight. If a person without permission enters the real property of another with notice that such entry is a trespass, “and nonetheless continues his trespass, the landowner plaintiff may be entitled to punitive damages.”31 Therefore, while the definitions of “permission” and “entry” will refine the issue, flying a drone into private property airspace should initially be analyzed as a common-law tort.

<snip>

Privacy and drones

Certain uses of unmanned aircraft in Idaho are prohibited without “written consent,” even if entry into the airspace owned by another does not occur.39 These activities, “absent a warrant,” (except for emergency responses for health and safety), include surveillance of persons or property, gathering evidence or information about a person or property, “photographically or electronically record[ing] specific [ ] persons or specific [ ] private property is a dwelling, “farm, dairy, ranch or other architectural industry.”40

Thus, even if an unmanned aircraft system operator in Idaho stands on a public street where she is legally allowed to be, she cannot fly her unmanned aircraft in the air above that public street to watch specific persons or specific private property that may abut that public street without written consent of the persons being watched or the property owner.41 For this reason, the statute as written is overbroad because it prohibits photographic aerial capture of then-presently occurring “constitutionally-protected speech activity, such as protests, speeches, or rallies.”42

- See more at: http://macomberlaw.com/advocate-article-trespass-privacy-and-drones-in-idaho-no-snooping-allowed/#sthash.OtGRP4K3.dpuf

Utah law already places strict limits on the use of drones by law enforcement. http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/04/utah-governor-signs-bill-to-restrict-drone-use/

I have no doubt that private property laws in Utah, trump drone operators' desire to invade my privacy through invasion of privately owned airspace. It may end up in court but I am confident about the jury finding, as a landowner, in my favor.

TYY

[KittyWampus]

412. Very helpful. It helps underline the words, phrases and concepts involved.

[Kali]

426. I don't blame him one bit.

Hell I feel like doing it when the Border Patrol is nosing around. Fuckers.

[AleksS]

428. I agree with the sentiment, BUT

I agree with the sentiment, BUT, discharging a firearm in a residential neighborhood seems dangerous and irresponsible. Bullets keep going. Shotgun pellets keep going.

If a neighbor had been in the wrong place?

[liberal N proud]

433. I thought that when I first moved to our city

People were hunting across the street from our house, we were informed it was legal.

Today I was at the golf course which is surrounded by homes, some with good size back yards between them and the golf course. I shot a ball which went into the woods between the fairway and houses. I thought I could find the ball and stepped into the trees. There was a deer stand about 5 feet into the woods, right in the middle of town.

[Blue_Tires]

431. UPDATE: New telemetry suggests shot-down drone was higher than alleged

The pilot of the drone shot down Sunday evening over a Kentucky property has now come forward with video provided to Ars, seemingly showing that the drone wasn’t nearly as close as the property owner made it out to be. However, the federal legal standard for how far into the air a person’s private property extends remains in dispute.

According to the telemetry provided by David Boggs, the drone pilot, his aircraft was only in flight for barely two minutes before it was shot down. The data also shows that it was well over 200 feet above the ground before the fatal shots fired by William Merideth.
David Boggs provided this video to Ars, which he describes as his "statement."

Boggs told Ars that this was the maiden voyage of his DJI Phantom 3, and that his intentions were not to snoop on anyone—his aim was simply to fly over a vacationing friend’s property, a few doors away from Merideth’s property in Hillview, Kentucky, south of Louisville.

"The truth is that this man lied and he's doubling down," Boggs said. "The video speaks for itself."

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/08/new-drone-telemetry-suggests-shot-down-drone-was-higher-than-alleged/


Sometimes a rednecked gun nut is just a rednecked gun nut...

[liberal N proud]

432. Can a shot gun shoot straight in the air to that altitude with enough force to hit the drone?

this diagram assumes a horizontal shot, not one into the air—questioning whether Number 8 birdshot could reach so high into the air.

Also, the altitude calibration of the drone or receiver could have been off.