HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Kentucky man shoots down ...

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 06:47 AM

Kentucky man shoots down drone hovering over his backyard



© 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

433 replies, 45816 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 433 replies Author Time Post
Reply Kentucky man shoots down drone hovering over his backyard (Original post)
liberal N proud Jul 2015 OP
stone space Jul 2015 #1
liberal N proud Jul 2015 #2
stone space Jul 2015 #8
Telcontar Jul 2015 #11
RKP5637 Jul 2015 #46
Dustlawyer Jul 2015 #70
jakedsname Jul 2015 #77
RKP5637 Jul 2015 #89
MADem Jul 2015 #140
Sunlei Jul 2015 #176
MADem Jul 2015 #184
Petrushka Jul 2015 #404
mitch96 Jul 2015 #361
CanonRay Jul 2015 #113
peacebird Jul 2015 #368
stone space Jul 2015 #416
peacebird Jul 2015 #422
stone space Jul 2015 #415
CanonRay Jul 2015 #417
stone space Jul 2015 #418
CanonRay Jul 2015 #419
peacebird Jul 2015 #423
haikugal Jul 2015 #115
hueymahl Jul 2015 #121
Bluzmann57 Jul 2015 #211
awoke_in_2003 Jul 2015 #340
Mojorabbit Jul 2015 #402
sendero Jul 2015 #19
Mbrow Jul 2015 #32
RKP5637 Jul 2015 #47
phylny Jul 2015 #56
paleotn Jul 2015 #60
tavernier Jul 2015 #141
The Green Manalishi Jul 2015 #160
Lizzie Poppet Jul 2015 #181
Sunlei Jul 2015 #183
sendero Jul 2015 #193
Sunlei Jul 2015 #194
sendero Jul 2015 #206
Sunlei Jul 2015 #209
sendero Jul 2015 #213
Sunlei Jul 2015 #214
A Simple Game Jul 2015 #35
Erich Bloodaxe BSN Jul 2015 #61
A Simple Game Jul 2015 #123
Adsos Letter Jul 2015 #312
cntrygrl Jul 2015 #54
BlueJazz Jul 2015 #68
Sunlei Jul 2015 #196
GummyBearz Jul 2015 #240
Sunlei Jul 2015 #248
djean111 Jul 2015 #330
Sunlei Jul 2015 #333
BlueJazz Jul 2015 #251
TeeYiYi Jul 2015 #253
frylock Jul 2015 #345
christx30 Aug 2015 #425
jwirr Jul 2015 #246
Positrons Jul 2015 #332
pipoman Jul 2015 #391
haikugal Jul 2015 #112
TexasMommaWithAHat Jul 2015 #127
haikugal Jul 2015 #147
Sunlei Jul 2015 #200
TexasMommaWithAHat Jul 2015 #202
Sunlei Jul 2015 #207
frylock Jul 2015 #347
Sunlei Jul 2015 #352
frylock Jul 2015 #355
LanternWaste Jul 2015 #229
jeff47 Jul 2015 #262
Erich Bloodaxe BSN Jul 2015 #353
jeff47 Jul 2015 #384
James48 Jul 2015 #378
jeff47 Jul 2015 #383
The Velveteen Ocelot Jul 2015 #380
jeff47 Jul 2015 #385
kelliekat44 Jul 2015 #7
RKP5637 Jul 2015 #50
alcina Jul 2015 #73
RKP5637 Jul 2015 #81
Sunlei Jul 2015 #136
MADem Jul 2015 #153
RKP5637 Jul 2015 #169
kiva Jul 2015 #295
beergood Jul 2015 #409
Post removed Jul 2015 #10
stone space Jul 2015 #12
Telcontar Jul 2015 #13
stone space Jul 2015 #16
Telcontar Jul 2015 #18
stone space Jul 2015 #24
Telcontar Jul 2015 #27
stone space Jul 2015 #31
Telcontar Jul 2015 #48
BlueJazz Jul 2015 #72
skepticscott Jul 2015 #51
Kelvin Mace Jul 2015 #158
Kelvin Mace Jul 2015 #156
The Green Manalishi Jul 2015 #164
Nuclear Unicorn Jul 2015 #281
The Green Manalishi Jul 2015 #299
irisblue Jul 2015 #356
Nuclear Unicorn Jul 2015 #370
skepticscott Jul 2015 #53
liberal N proud Jul 2015 #25
mr blur Jul 2015 #161
frylock Jul 2015 #357
Joe Chi Minh Jul 2015 #84
7962 Jul 2015 #101
Sunlei Jul 2015 #116
Joe Chi Minh Jul 2015 #120
Sunlei Jul 2015 #128
jwirr Jul 2015 #270
xmas74 Jul 2015 #309
LanternWaste Jul 2015 #232
yawnmaster Jul 2015 #396
Joe Chi Minh Jul 2015 #122
Blue_Adept Jul 2015 #102
blackspade Jul 2015 #145
Sunlei Jul 2015 #226
Romulox Jul 2015 #130
Joe Chi Minh Aug 2015 #430
Kelvin Mace Jul 2015 #152
JoeyT Jul 2015 #398
djean111 Jul 2015 #22
stone space Jul 2015 #26
skepticscott Jul 2015 #52
liberal N proud Jul 2015 #185
cntrygrl Jul 2015 #58
hueymahl Jul 2015 #126
ieoeja Jul 2015 #166
7962 Jul 2015 #189
Lizzie Poppet Jul 2015 #182
Marr Jul 2015 #237
frylock Jul 2015 #349
Fred Sanders Jul 2015 #138
Kelvin Mace Jul 2015 #150
brentspeak Jul 2015 #220
Logical Jul 2015 #254
Agschmid Jul 2015 #292
Bradical79 Jul 2015 #275
Android3.14 Jul 2015 #34
stone space Jul 2015 #36
Android3.14 Jul 2015 #129
truebrit71 Jul 2015 #203
paleotn Jul 2015 #59
7962 Jul 2015 #97
ieoeja Jul 2015 #173
7962 Jul 2015 #403
KittyWampus Jul 2015 #144
Hiraeth Jul 2015 #201
Lizzie Poppet Jul 2015 #215
Eleanors38 Jul 2015 #319
MADem Jul 2015 #163
TexasMommaWithAHat Jul 2015 #208
MADem Jul 2015 #224
Reter Jul 2015 #247
hfojvt Jul 2015 #258
sarisataka Jul 2015 #301
sabrina 1 Jul 2015 #351
Matariki Jul 2015 #365
Augiedog Jul 2015 #3
djean111 Jul 2015 #9
stone space Jul 2015 #15
djean111 Jul 2015 #30
A Simple Game Jul 2015 #39
Demit Jul 2015 #41
Fuddnik Jul 2015 #78
truebrit71 Jul 2015 #204
frylock Jul 2015 #359
Sunlei Jul 2015 #71
djean111 Jul 2015 #79
Sunlei Jul 2015 #110
KittyWampus Jul 2015 #154
Sunlei Jul 2015 #172
goonk298 Jul 2015 #406
skepticscott Jul 2015 #107
Sunlei Jul 2015 #142
Eleanors38 Jul 2015 #320
frylock Jul 2015 #360
Sunlei Jul 2015 #366
RKP5637 Jul 2015 #55
valerief Jul 2015 #4
onethatcares Jul 2015 #33
Fortinbras Armstrong Jul 2015 #5
KarenS Jul 2015 #14
stone space Jul 2015 #20
jberryhill Jul 2015 #40
skepticscott Jul 2015 #57
Kelvin Mace Jul 2015 #167
frylock Jul 2015 #362
cherokeeprogressive Jul 2015 #407
LostOne4Ever Jul 2015 #408
cherokeeprogressive Jul 2015 #420
LuvNewcastle Jul 2015 #28
Hoppy Jul 2015 #6
Sunlei Jul 2015 #114
woodsprite Jul 2015 #143
Sunlei Jul 2015 #148
woodsprite Jul 2015 #151
A Little Weird Jul 2015 #17
Locrian Jul 2015 #43
RKP5637 Jul 2015 #62
Locrian Jul 2015 #239
A HERETIC I AM Jul 2015 #272
Locrian Jul 2015 #354
beergood Jul 2015 #410
blackspade Jul 2015 #21
stone space Jul 2015 #29
blackspade Jul 2015 #37
Demit Jul 2015 #42
Kelvin Mace Jul 2015 #171
Logical Jul 2015 #257
blackspade Jul 2015 #326
Logical Jul 2015 #343
LineLineLineLineLineReply ?
blackspade Jul 2015 #367
Logical Jul 2015 #371
blackspade Jul 2015 #372
Logical Jul 2015 #374
blackspade Jul 2015 #377
Logical Jul 2015 #379
azurnoir Jul 2015 #23
TexasMommaWithAHat Jul 2015 #195
Glassunion Jul 2015 #302
Ford_Prefect Jul 2015 #38
Vinca Jul 2015 #44
magical thyme Jul 2015 #45
djean111 Jul 2015 #49
Erich Bloodaxe BSN Jul 2015 #67
HFRN Jul 2015 #119
KittyWampus Jul 2015 #159
RKP5637 Jul 2015 #69
Moostache Jul 2015 #108
RKP5637 Jul 2015 #124
MADem Jul 2015 #190
liberal N proud Jul 2015 #212
MADem Jul 2015 #223
Renew Deal Jul 2015 #86
djean111 Jul 2015 #94
HooptieWagon Jul 2015 #63
DetlefK Jul 2015 #64
TexasMommaWithAHat Jul 2015 #85
Fuddnik Jul 2015 #91
stevenleser Jul 2015 #146
KittyWampus Jul 2015 #165
jeff47 Jul 2015 #243
PoliticAverse Jul 2015 #177
stevenleser Jul 2015 #179
PoliticAverse Jul 2015 #188
stevenleser Jul 2015 #180
Fuddnik Jul 2015 #373
stevenleser Jul 2015 #375
stevenleser Jul 2015 #187
Erich Bloodaxe BSN Jul 2015 #210
jeff47 Jul 2015 #265
KittyWampus Jul 2015 #162
DetlefK Jul 2015 #168
KittyWampus Jul 2015 #178
jeff47 Jul 2015 #252
Romulox Jul 2015 #260
jeff47 Jul 2015 #264
Romulox Jul 2015 #266
jeff47 Jul 2015 #273
Romulox Jul 2015 #279
jeff47 Jul 2015 #283
Romulox Jul 2015 #286
jeff47 Jul 2015 #287
The Velveteen Ocelot Jul 2015 #386
JackInGreen Jul 2015 #65
WinkyDink Jul 2015 #90
Sunlei Jul 2015 #66
liberal N proud Jul 2015 #75
djean111 Jul 2015 #76
avebury Jul 2015 #80
Sunlei Jul 2015 #103
djean111 Jul 2015 #109
Sunlei Jul 2015 #111
djean111 Jul 2015 #117
Sunlei Jul 2015 #139
TexasMommaWithAHat Jul 2015 #217
Sunlei Jul 2015 #221
frylock Jul 2015 #363
Sunlei Jul 2015 #421
liberal N proud Jul 2015 #411
christx30 Aug 2015 #427
TexasMommaWithAHat Jul 2015 #88
WinkyDink Jul 2015 #93
hueymahl Jul 2015 #133
Romulox Jul 2015 #135
Sunlei Jul 2015 #205
Romulox Jul 2015 #233
Sunlei Jul 2015 #238
Romulox Jul 2015 #250
paleotn Jul 2015 #74
azurnoir Jul 2015 #83
RKP5637 Jul 2015 #98
stevenleser Jul 2015 #191
Renew Deal Jul 2015 #82
TexasMommaWithAHat Jul 2015 #92
RKP5637 Jul 2015 #99
tclambert Jul 2015 #104
Romulox Jul 2015 #132
WinkyDink Jul 2015 #87
djean111 Jul 2015 #95
WinkyDink Jul 2015 #96
NBachers Jul 2015 #100
Sunlei Jul 2015 #105
djean111 Jul 2015 #186
Kermitt Gribble Jul 2015 #324
Sunlei Jul 2015 #325
Glassunion Jul 2015 #346
dembotoz Jul 2015 #106
rosesaylavee Jul 2015 #118
flying_wahini Jul 2015 #125
stevenleser Jul 2015 #157
Romulox Jul 2015 #131
jberryhill Jul 2015 #199
Romulox Jul 2015 #234
jberryhill Jul 2015 #236
Romulox Jul 2015 #249
jberryhill Jul 2015 #276
Romulox Jul 2015 #285
Kelvin Mace Jul 2015 #134
liberal N proud Jul 2015 #192
Kelvin Mace Jul 2015 #274
Eleanors38 Jul 2015 #323
liberal N proud Jul 2015 #413
Eleanors38 Jul 2015 #424
Lizzie Poppet Jul 2015 #198
Kelvin Mace Jul 2015 #268
Lizzie Poppet Jul 2015 #294
stevenleser Jul 2015 #137
KittyWampus Jul 2015 #175
sir pball Jul 2015 #278
Blue_Tires Jul 2015 #149
DemoTex Jul 2015 #155
MADem Jul 2015 #174
DawgHouse Jul 2015 #170
olddots Jul 2015 #197
TeeYiYi Jul 2015 #228
oldandhappy Jul 2015 #216
TexasMommaWithAHat Jul 2015 #219
oldandhappy Jul 2015 #304
TexasMommaWithAHat Jul 2015 #308
ileus Jul 2015 #218
Zorra Jul 2015 #222
Sunlei Jul 2015 #241
Zorra Jul 2015 #313
Sunlei Jul 2015 #315
Zorra Jul 2015 #321
Sunlei Jul 2015 #322
randome Jul 2015 #225
jeff47 Jul 2015 #271
randome Jul 2015 #296
jeff47 Jul 2015 #298
randome Jul 2015 #300
jeff47 Jul 2015 #303
TeeYiYi Jul 2015 #307
stevenleser Jul 2015 #335
TeeYiYi Jul 2015 #339
stevenleser Jul 2015 #358
TeeYiYi Jul 2015 #369
jeff47 Jul 2015 #382
TeeYiYi Jul 2015 #387
jeff47 Jul 2015 #390
TeeYiYi Jul 2015 #393
jeff47 Jul 2015 #394
TeeYiYi Jul 2015 #395
restorefreedom Jul 2015 #227
liberal N proud Jul 2015 #230
restorefreedom Jul 2015 #235
Buns_of_Fire Jul 2015 #231
slor Jul 2015 #242
jeff47 Jul 2015 #277
bigwillq Jul 2015 #244
Logical Jul 2015 #261
Erich Bloodaxe BSN Jul 2015 #245
liberal N proud Jul 2015 #256
Name removed Jul 2015 #288
sarisataka Jul 2015 #297
Name removed Jul 2015 #255
Logical Jul 2015 #263
Post removed Jul 2015 #282
Logical Jul 2015 #284
Name removed Jul 2015 #293
olddots Jul 2015 #259
Logical Jul 2015 #267
lumberjack_jeff Jul 2015 #269
stevenleser Jul 2015 #334
jeff47 Jul 2015 #280
Throd Jul 2015 #289
Bradical79 Jul 2015 #290
DFW Jul 2015 #291
tularetom Jul 2015 #305
petronius Jul 2015 #342
DirkGently Jul 2015 #306
yellowcanine Jul 2015 #310
Glassunion Jul 2015 #311
Humanist_Activist Jul 2015 #314
jtuck004 Jul 2015 #329
stevenleser Jul 2015 #337
rdking647 Jul 2015 #316
Major Nikon Jul 2015 #399
ohheckyeah Jul 2015 #317
steve2470 Jul 2015 #318
jtuck004 Jul 2015 #327
TNNurse Jul 2015 #328
Avalux Jul 2015 #331
Liberal_in_LA Jul 2015 #336
saidsimplesimon Jul 2015 #338
LWolf Jul 2015 #341
jomin41 Jul 2015 #344
Dont call me Shirley Jul 2015 #348
olddots Jul 2015 #350
Mr_Jefferson_24 Jul 2015 #364
ruffburr Jul 2015 #376
The Velveteen Ocelot Jul 2015 #381
bluestateguy Jul 2015 #388
christx30 Aug 2015 #429
the band leader Jul 2015 #389
Jack Rabbit Jul 2015 #392
L0oniX Jul 2015 #397
Sancho Jul 2015 #400
lonestarnot Jul 2015 #414
LeftyMom Jul 2015 #401
TeeYiYi Jul 2015 #405
KittyWampus Jul 2015 #412
Kali Aug 2015 #426
AleksS Aug 2015 #428
liberal N proud Aug 2015 #433
Blue_Tires Aug 2015 #431
liberal N proud Aug 2015 #432

Response to liberal N proud (Original post)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 06:52 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stone space (Reply #1)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 06:57 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Reply #2)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 07:06 AM

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:





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stone space (Reply #8)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 07:09 AM

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).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Telcontar (Reply #11)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 07:44 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RKP5637 (Reply #46)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 08:12 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dustlawyer (Reply #70)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 08:22 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jakedsname (Reply #77)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 08:30 AM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jakedsname (Reply #77)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 09:26 AM

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #140)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 10:04 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sunlei (Reply #176)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 10:11 AM

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!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #184)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 11:16 PM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sunlei (Reply #176)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 06:41 PM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RKP5637 (Reply #46)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 08:58 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CanonRay (Reply #113)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 06:57 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to peacebird (Reply #368)

Fri Jul 31, 2015, 08:13 AM

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

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stone space (Reply #416)

Fri Jul 31, 2015, 02:38 PM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CanonRay (Reply #113)

Fri Jul 31, 2015, 08:11 AM

415. Threatened him how?

 

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


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stone space (Reply #415)

Fri Jul 31, 2015, 09:31 AM

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

I'd take that as a threat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CanonRay (Reply #417)

Fri Jul 31, 2015, 09:34 AM

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?




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stone space (Reply #418)

Fri Jul 31, 2015, 09:39 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stone space (Reply #418)

Fri Jul 31, 2015, 02:40 PM

423. Silly post. Not what happened. Strawman.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RKP5637 (Reply #46)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 09:01 AM

115. Bingo!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RKP5637 (Reply #46)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 09:08 AM

121. Agree totally

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RKP5637 (Reply #46)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 10:56 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluzmann57 (Reply #211)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 05:27 PM

340. and he had a 16 year old daughter

 

sunbathing in the back yard. The guys were perverts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RKP5637 (Reply #46)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 10:57 PM

402. I agree. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stone space (Reply #8)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 07:16 AM

19. Are you daft?

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sendero (Reply #19)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 07:23 AM

32. I have to agree with you on that,

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sendero (Reply #19)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 07:45 AM

47. Agree!!! n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sendero (Reply #19)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 07:56 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sendero (Reply #19)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 08:01 AM

60. Damn right. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sendero (Reply #19)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 09:28 AM

141. Best reply. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sendero (Reply #19)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 09:49 AM

160. Completely agree.

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sendero (Reply #19)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 10:09 AM

181. Complete agreement.

 

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sendero (Reply #19)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 10:10 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sunlei (Reply #183)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 10:29 AM

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sendero (Reply #193)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 10:33 AM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sunlei (Reply #194)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 10:51 AM

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

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sendero (Reply #206)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 10:55 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sunlei (Reply #209)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 10:57 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sendero (Reply #213)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 10:59 AM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stone space (Reply #8)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 07:29 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to A Simple Game (Reply #35)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 08:02 AM

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.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Erich Bloodaxe BSN (Reply #61)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 09:10 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Erich Bloodaxe BSN (Reply #61)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 02:47 PM

312. Agreed. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stone space (Reply #8)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 07:54 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cntrygrl (Reply #54)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 08:10 AM

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

 

....my anger up to level 9.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueJazz (Reply #68)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 10:38 AM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sunlei (Reply #196)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 11:45 AM

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GummyBearz (Reply #240)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 12:11 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sunlei (Reply #248)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 04:34 PM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to djean111 (Reply #330)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 04:43 PM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sunlei (Reply #196)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 12:13 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueJazz (Reply #251)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 12:20 PM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sunlei (Reply #196)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 05:51 PM

345. Did that happen?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sunlei (Reply #196)

Sat Aug 1, 2015, 11:40 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stone space (Reply #8)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 12:09 PM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stone space (Reply #8)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 04:41 PM

332. Stay off other folks property...

 

... And there's no problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stone space (Reply #8)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 08:39 PM

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Reply #2)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 08:57 AM

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

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to haikugal (Reply #112)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 09:13 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TexasMommaWithAHat (Reply #127)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 09:34 AM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TexasMommaWithAHat (Reply #127)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 10:42 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sunlei (Reply #200)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 10:46 AM

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TexasMommaWithAHat (Reply #202)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 10:53 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sunlei (Reply #207)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 05:55 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #347)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 06:02 PM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sunlei (Reply #352)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 06:27 PM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TexasMommaWithAHat (Reply #127)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 11:30 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LanternWaste (Reply #229)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 12:25 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #262)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 06:04 PM

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Erich Bloodaxe BSN (Reply #353)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 07:55 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #262)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 07:20 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to James48 (Reply #378)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 07:54 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #262)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 07:48 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #380)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 07:55 PM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stone space (Reply #1)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 07:05 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kelliekat44 (Reply #7)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 07:50 AM

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.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RKP5637 (Reply #50)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 08:16 AM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alcina (Reply #73)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 08:26 AM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RKP5637 (Reply #50)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 09:22 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RKP5637 (Reply #50)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 09:42 AM

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.....


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #153)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 09:56 AM

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."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #153)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 01:04 PM

295. Very well done

I'd read that book.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #153)

Fri Jul 31, 2015, 05:38 AM

409. if i gave you a million dollars

could you make this into a movie?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stone space (Reply #1)


Response to Post removed (Reply #10)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 07:10 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stone space (Reply #12)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 07:11 AM

13. Nope, not what he threatened at all

 

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Telcontar (Reply #13)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 07:12 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stone space (Reply #16)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 07:14 AM

18. More factually incorrect statements

 

No gun in hand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Telcontar (Reply #18)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 07:18 AM

24. Wearing a gun. (nt)

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stone space (Reply #24)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 07:20 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Telcontar (Reply #27)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 07:22 AM

31. He threatened a shooting while armed.

 

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stone space (Reply #31)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 07:48 AM

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Telcontar (Reply #48)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 08:15 AM

72. I like that. (type this slow)

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stone space (Reply #31)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 07:51 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to skepticscott (Reply #51)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 09:47 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stone space (Reply #31)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 09:44 AM

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

 

If only the police would use such restraint.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stone space (Reply #31)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 09:52 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Green Manalishi (Reply #164)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 12:42 PM

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

No, seriously; just ask him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #281)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 01:18 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #281)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 06:30 PM

356. where did he post that?

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to irisblue (Reply #356)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 07:00 PM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stone space (Reply #24)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 07:54 AM

53. So when you said just above

 

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stone space (Reply #16)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 07:19 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Reply #25)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 09:49 AM

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

 

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mr blur (Reply #161)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 06:30 PM

357. Idiot assholes threatening him with violence?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stone space (Reply #16)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 08:27 AM

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Joe Chi Minh (Reply #84)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 08:44 AM

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

 

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 7962 (Reply #101)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 09:01 AM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sunlei (Reply #116)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 09:08 AM

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

casually looking out of your own window.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Joe Chi Minh (Reply #120)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 09:15 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sunlei (Reply #128)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 12:36 PM

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

fences around our yards.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sunlei (Reply #128)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 02:31 PM

309. Yes and no.

There are peeping tom laws, depending on the situation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sunlei (Reply #116)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 11:31 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sunlei (Reply #116)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 09:08 PM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 7962 (Reply #101)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 09:09 AM

122. Nuff said

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Joe Chi Minh (Reply #84)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 08:45 AM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Joe Chi Minh (Reply #84)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 09:32 AM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blackspade (Reply #145)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 11:22 AM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stone space (Reply #16)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 09:17 AM

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".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romulox (Reply #130)

Mon Aug 3, 2015, 03:31 PM

430. True.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stone space (Reply #16)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 09:41 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stone space (Reply #16)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 09:39 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stone space (Reply #12)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 07:17 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to djean111 (Reply #22)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 07:19 AM

26. That's a threat.

 

No, he said there would be another shooting.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stone space (Reply #26)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 07:52 AM

52. It's a warning

 

But I doubt you'll grasp the difference.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stone space (Reply #26)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 10:12 AM

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!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stone space (Reply #12)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 07:58 AM

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!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stone space (Reply #12)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 09:12 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stone space (Reply #12)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 09:54 AM

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.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ieoeja (Reply #166)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 10:18 AM

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

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stone space (Reply #12)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 10:10 AM

182. Nope.

 

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stone space (Reply #12)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 11:41 AM

237. I'd say they threatened him first.

 

I think he made a smart decision, personally.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stone space (Reply #12)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 05:57 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Post removed (Reply #10)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 09:25 AM

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

is not a liberal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Post removed (Reply #10)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 09:35 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Post removed (Reply #10)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 11:09 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Post removed (Reply #10)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 12:20 PM

254. Thanks for exposing yourself! Nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Reply #254)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 12:59 PM

292. Yup.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Post removed (Reply #10)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 12:38 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stone space (Reply #1)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 07:26 AM

34. Wrong response

 

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Android3.14 (Reply #34)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 07:30 AM

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?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stone space (Reply #36)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 09:17 AM

129. Is your name Neo?

 

There's always one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Android3.14 (Reply #129)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 10:47 AM

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

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stone space (Reply #1)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 07:59 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stone space (Reply #1)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 08:37 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 7962 (Reply #97)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 10:00 AM

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.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ieoeja (Reply #173)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 11:07 PM

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

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stone space (Reply #1)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 09:30 AM

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

 

like ammosexual.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KittyWampus (Reply #144)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 10:44 AM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KittyWampus (Reply #144)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 11:00 AM

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

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KittyWampus (Reply #144)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 03:37 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stone space (Reply #1)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 09:51 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #163)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 10:53 AM

208. You should start another thread with that link

I fully support what he did.

Thanks for posting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TexasMommaWithAHat (Reply #208)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 11:16 AM

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!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stone space (Reply #1)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 12:11 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stone space (Reply #1)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 12:25 PM

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."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stone space (Reply #1)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 01:28 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stone space (Reply #1)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 06:00 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stone space (Reply #1)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 06:55 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Original post)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 07:02 AM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Augiedog (Reply #3)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 07:07 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to djean111 (Reply #9)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 07:11 AM

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

 

What was that guy supposed to do


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stone space (Reply #15)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 07:22 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stone space (Reply #15)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 07:34 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stone space (Reply #15)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 07:37 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stone space (Reply #15)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 08:23 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stone space (Reply #15)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 10:48 AM

204. Which he didn't do.

 

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

Completely different.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stone space (Reply #15)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 06:36 PM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to djean111 (Reply #9)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 08:13 AM

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sunlei (Reply #71)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 08:24 AM

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to djean111 (Reply #79)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 08:56 AM

110. no, you call the police on them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sunlei (Reply #110)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 09:43 AM

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

 

over your property?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KittyWampus (Reply #154)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 09:58 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sunlei (Reply #172)


Response to Sunlei (Reply #71)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 08:51 AM

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."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to skepticscott (Reply #107)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 09:29 AM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sunlei (Reply #142)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 03:49 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sunlei (Reply #71)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 06:38 PM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #360)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 06:57 PM

366. peek a boo!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Augiedog (Reply #3)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 07:56 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Original post)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 07:04 AM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to valerief (Reply #4)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 07:25 AM

33. here in Floriduh, we

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Original post)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 07:04 AM

5. I'm an anti-gun type

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fortinbras Armstrong (Reply #5)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 07:11 AM

14. ^^ This ^^ n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fortinbras Armstrong (Reply #5)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 07:16 AM

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.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stone space (Reply #20)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 07:37 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stone space (Reply #20)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 07:58 AM

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).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stone space (Reply #20)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 09:55 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stone space (Reply #20)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 06:43 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stone space (Reply #20)

Fri Jul 31, 2015, 12:30 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cherokeeprogressive (Reply #407)

Fri Jul 31, 2015, 03:42 AM

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]



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LostOne4Ever (Reply #408)

Fri Jul 31, 2015, 09:50 AM

420. I was being totally facetious. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fortinbras Armstrong (Reply #5)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 07:20 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Original post)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 07:04 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoppy (Reply #6)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 08:59 AM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sunlei (Reply #114)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 09:29 AM

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.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woodsprite (Reply #143)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 09:35 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sunlei (Reply #148)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 09:38 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Original post)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 07:13 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to A Little Weird (Reply #17)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 07:40 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Locrian (Reply #43)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 08:03 AM

62. Agree! Well said! n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RKP5637 (Reply #62)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 11:45 AM

239. yeah it's all fun and games

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Locrian (Reply #239)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 12:36 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to A HERETIC I AM (Reply #272)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 06:19 PM

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Locrian (Reply #354)

Fri Jul 31, 2015, 06:29 AM

410. lol

good one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Original post)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 07:17 AM

21. Good for him.

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blackspade (Reply #21)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 07:21 AM

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

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stone space (Reply #29)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 07:30 AM

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

Read the actual article.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stone space (Reply #29)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 07:40 AM

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

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stone space (Reply #29)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 09:56 AM

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

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blackspade (Reply #21)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 12:24 PM

257. Define the criteria in your imagionary law! Nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Reply #257)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 04:16 PM

326. Not sure what your asking.

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blackspade (Reply #326)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 05:45 PM

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

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Reply #343)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 06:57 PM

367. ?

You tell me. Take a position.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blackspade (Reply #367)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 07:02 PM

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Reply #371)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 07:06 PM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blackspade (Reply #372)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 07:11 PM

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

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Reply #374)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 07:15 PM

377. LOL indeed. I stated my opinion.

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blackspade (Reply #377)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 07:31 PM

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

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Original post)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 07:18 AM

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #23)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 10:33 AM

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.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #23)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 01:35 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Original post)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 07:34 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Original post)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 07:42 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Original post)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 07:42 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Original post)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 07:50 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to djean111 (Reply #49)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 08:10 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Erich Bloodaxe BSN (Reply #67)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 09:02 AM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Erich Bloodaxe BSN (Reply #67)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 09:48 AM

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

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to djean111 (Reply #49)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 08:11 AM

69. Here it is, the Drone Net Gun!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RKP5637 (Reply #69)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 08:53 AM

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????

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Moostache (Reply #108)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 09:12 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RKP5637 (Reply #69)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 10:18 AM

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



Half price, too!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #190)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 10:57 AM

212. Only $850

ONLY!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Reply #212)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 11:15 AM

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to djean111 (Reply #49)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 08:29 AM

86. We need anti-drone drones

With radar to detect and light explosive missiles.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Renew Deal (Reply #86)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 08:33 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Original post)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 08:05 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Original post)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 08:06 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DetlefK (Reply #64)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 08:28 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DetlefK (Reply #64)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 08:31 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fuddnik (Reply #91)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 09:33 AM

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

 

Thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #146)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 09:53 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KittyWampus (Reply #165)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 11:55 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #146)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 10:04 AM

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/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PoliticAverse (Reply #177)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 10:06 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #179)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 10:15 AM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PoliticAverse (Reply #177)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 10:08 AM

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. "

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #146)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 07:10 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fuddnik (Reply #373)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 07:13 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fuddnik (Reply #91)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 10:13 AM

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

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fuddnik (Reply #91)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 10:56 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fuddnik (Reply #91)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 12:31 PM

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

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DetlefK (Reply #64)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 09:51 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KittyWampus (Reply #162)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 09:56 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DetlefK (Reply #168)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 10:05 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KittyWampus (Reply #162)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 12:17 PM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #252)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 12:25 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romulox (Reply #260)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 12:27 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #264)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 12:31 PM

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

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romulox (Reply #266)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 12:38 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #273)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 12:41 PM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romulox (Reply #279)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 12:44 PM

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!!".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #283)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 12:47 PM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romulox (Reply #286)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 12:54 PM

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DetlefK (Reply #64)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 07:55 PM

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/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Original post)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 08:06 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackInGreen (Reply #65)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 08:31 AM

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

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Original post)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 08:06 AM

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sunlei (Reply #66)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 08:21 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sunlei (Reply #66)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 08:21 AM

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

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to djean111 (Reply #76)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 08:26 AM

80. Totally agree!

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to djean111 (Reply #76)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 08:46 AM

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sunlei (Reply #103)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 08:55 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to djean111 (Reply #109)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 08:57 AM

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sunlei (Reply #111)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 09:01 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to djean111 (Reply #117)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 09:26 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sunlei (Reply #111)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 11:04 AM

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TexasMommaWithAHat (Reply #217)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 11:10 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sunlei (Reply #221)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 06:49 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #363)

Fri Jul 31, 2015, 10:44 AM

421. follow the manure roller border collie of doom



Bonnie loves horses

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sunlei (Reply #111)

Fri Jul 31, 2015, 07:30 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Reply #411)

Sat Aug 1, 2015, 12:58 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sunlei (Reply #66)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 08:30 AM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sunlei (Reply #66)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 08:32 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sunlei (Reply #66)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 09:20 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sunlei (Reply #66)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 09:21 AM

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romulox (Reply #135)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 10:50 AM

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!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sunlei (Reply #205)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 11:32 AM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romulox (Reply #233)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 11:43 AM

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

g birds.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sunlei (Reply #238)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 12:13 PM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Original post)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 08:20 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to paleotn (Reply #74)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 08:27 AM

83. Thank you

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to paleotn (Reply #74)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 08:38 AM

98. K&R! n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to paleotn (Reply #74)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 10:18 AM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Original post)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 08:27 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Renew Deal (Reply #82)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 08:32 AM

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

Who's going to convict him?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TexasMommaWithAHat (Reply #92)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 08:41 AM

99. Same here! n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Renew Deal (Reply #82)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 08:47 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Renew Deal (Reply #82)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 09:20 AM

132. He needs to demand a JURY TRIAL. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Original post)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 08:29 AM

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

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WinkyDink (Reply #87)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 08:34 AM

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

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to djean111 (Reply #95)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 08:36 AM

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

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Original post)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 08:41 AM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Original post)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 08:48 AM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sunlei (Reply #105)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 10:13 AM

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

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sunlei (Reply #105)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 04:10 PM

324. Google maps doesn't show real-time

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kermitt Gribble (Reply #324)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 04:13 PM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sunlei (Reply #105)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 05:55 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Original post)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 08:49 AM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Original post)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 09:02 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Original post)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 09:12 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flying_wahini (Reply #125)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 09:46 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Original post)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 09:19 AM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romulox (Reply #131)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 10:41 AM

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

 


Those facts were different.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #199)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 11:33 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romulox (Reply #234)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 11:35 AM

236. Yeah, that's right

 


Filming from a public street is fine.

Hovering over the backyard is not fine.

So?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #236)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 12:13 PM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romulox (Reply #249)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 12:39 PM

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".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #276)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 12:46 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Original post)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 09:21 AM

134. I would have done something similar

 

but would have used a paint ball gun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kelvin Mace (Reply #134)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 10:23 AM

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Reply #192)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 12:38 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Reply #192)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 04:09 PM

323. Your own drone?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #323)

Fri Jul 31, 2015, 07:32 AM

413. Drone crash derby

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Reply #413)

Fri Jul 31, 2015, 02:44 PM

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

 

Charge when they enter, charge when they leave.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kelvin Mace (Reply #134)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 10:39 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #198)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 12:33 PM

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

 

Legally allowed to be full auto.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kelvin Mace (Reply #268)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 01:04 PM

294. That'd be fun!

 

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Original post)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 09:22 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #137)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 10:04 AM

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

 

Hope you find answers and share!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here