View Full Version : Homeowner arrested after shooting down drone hovering over sunbathing teen daughter
Moose-Knuckle
07-31-15, 17:40
Yeah, I'm going to go ahead and have to side with the concerned father/home owner on this one.
Man shoots down drone hovering over house
Merideth, 47, lives in Hillview, Kentucky. As WDRB-TV reports, a neighbor heard gunshots and called the police. Merideth allegedly told the police that a drone was hovering over his house, where his teen daughter (he has two) was sunbathing. So he pulled out his gun and gave it a merry death.
He says that shortly after the shooting, he received a visit from four men who claimed to be responsible for the drone and explaining that it cost $1,800.
Merideth says he stood his ground: "I had my 40 mm Glock on me and they started toward me and I told them, 'If you cross my sidewalk, there's gonna be another shooting.'"
For his part, Merideth says he will sue the drone's owners. He told WRDB: "You know, when you're in your own property, within a six-foot privacy fence, you have the expectation of privacy. We don't know if he was looking at the girls. We don't know if he was looking for something to steal. To me, it was the same as trespassing."
https://www.yahoo.com/tech/s/man-shoots-down-drone-hovering-000032027.html
1_click_off
07-31-15, 18:03
I remember seeing a website that will allow one to enter their address into it, the info then becomes part of a geo fence. The newer drones built then get the latest firmware with your address setup as part of a geofence to prevent fly overs.
Guess older units can still do fly overs unless they have had their firmware updated.
The drone guys were mad because folks don't have to prove they own the property. You could just go in and register all your neighbors and blanket your whole block.
FromMyColdDeadHand
07-31-15, 18:09
So the next step is anti-drone system that uses a laser to dazzle the optics of the drone.
"What drone?"
"We have video of you shooting at the drone."
Doesn't that prove that they were viewing and recording?
The guy was wrong, don't use a pistol round, use a shotgun.
40mm Glock... where do I buy one and will ALS sell me triple foam or stingball rounds without a letterhead?
Averageman
07-31-15, 19:11
You could have likely taken it down by other means, perhaps a paint ball gun?
Moose-Knuckle
07-31-15, 19:15
Now I can see a need for those shotgun suppressors and rubber buckshot rounds.
, use a shotgun.
He did use a shotgun.
Problem is, like most people that get caught Fn-Up, he re-writes history....
http://www.wdrb.com/story/29670583/update-drone-owner-disputes-suspects-claims-produces-video-claiming-to-show-flight-path
Digital_Damage
07-31-15, 21:11
40mm Glock... where do I buy one and will ALS sell me triple foam or stingball rounds without a letterhead?
34439
Averageman
07-31-15, 22:06
Brave New World
Unless you have a Daughter sunbathing in a Bikini, then it's just another perv trying to see your Daughter Ta Ta's.
I just read the man who shot down the drone over his property was arrested. Has anyone established a defense fund?
I remember seeing a website that will allow one to enter their address into it, the info then becomes part of a geo fence. The newer drones built then get the latest firmware with your address setup as part of a geofence to prevent fly overs.
Guess older units can still do fly overs unless they have had their firmware updated.
The drone guys were mad because folks don't have to prove they own the property. You could just go in and register all your neighbors and blanket your whole block.
And in reality that stops anyone how?
I remember seeing a website that will allow one to enter their address into it, the info then becomes part of a geo fence. The newer drones built then get the latest firmware with your address setup as part of a geofence to prevent fly overs.
Guess older units can still do fly overs unless they have had their firmware updated.
The drone guys were mad because folks don't have to prove they own the property. You could just go in and register all your neighbors and blanket your whole block.
How would someone who is technology impaired deal with a drone flying over their property?
People need to respect the privacy of others without software or government regulation.
He is going to be charged with unlawfully discharging a gun within city limits. Probably a suitable charge as an unarmed drone doesn't justify use of deadly force. Sorry, as annoying as this is, it still doesn't justify shooting off rounds. Is like shooting someone who peer over your fence. If he also threatened people with violence over crossing the sidewalk; he should be thankful he isn't being charged with assault.
What I find odd is what is quoted from the FAA.
"The best the agency can tell us is if a drone is hovering under 10 feet on your property, it might be considered trespassing." So does that mean hovering at 100 feet and using a zoom lens is OK by our ever benevolent government? Irony. National Parks Service bans the use of drones at national parks while mere little people have to contend with asshats violating their privacy.
Unfortunately, the few idiots who think it's fun to overfly people's homes and violate their privacy are going to ruin the whole RC plane and drone fun for the rest of the country.
Wonder if there is a non lethal way to trash these drones?
"Wonder if there is a non lethal way to trash these drones? "
RF jammer?
"Wonder if there is a non lethal way to trash these drones? "
RF jammer?
I was thinking maybe a Wenger water balloon slingshot or a high pressure water hose.
Yeah...NOT GUILTY.
I'll second that. NOT GUILTY!
I remember seeing a website that will allow one to enter their address into it, the info then becomes part of a geo fence. The newer drones built then get the latest firmware with your address setup as part of a geofence to prevent fly overs.
Guess older units can still do fly overs unless they have had their firmware updated.
The drone guys were mad because folks don't have to prove they own the property. You could just go in and register all your neighbors and blanket your whole block.
All a drone pilot would have to do is turn off GPS on the drone. They don't need it to fly, just for some of the more advanced features. Drones can fly by entirely by FPV.
Anyway,there's no infrastructure for geofencing drones. Besides, a segment of the hobby involves building these drones. It would be easy to just build them without any geofencce restrictions.
.
I can see a use for these if you own a lot of acreage and you want to monitor it, but hover over someone's yard - NO!
He is going to be charged with unlawfully discharging a gun within city limits. Probably a suitable charge as an unarmed drone doesn't justify use of deadly force. Sorry, as annoying as this is, it still doesn't justify shooting off rounds. Is like shooting someone who peer over your fence. If he also threatened people with violence over crossing the sidewalk; he should be thankful he isn't being charged with assault.
What I find odd is what is quoted from the FAA.
"The best the agency can tell us is if a drone is hovering under 10 feet on your property, it might be considered trespassing." So does that mean hovering at 100 feet and using a zoom lens is OK by our ever benevolent government? Irony. National Parks Service bans the use of drones at national parks while mere little people have to contend with asshats violating their privacy.
Unfortunately, the few idiots who think it's fun to overfly people's homes and violate their privacy are going to ruin the whole RC plane and drone fun for the rest of the country.
Wonder if there is a non lethal way to trash these drones?
Uh, it isn't "deadly force" as it's a friggin' drone, not a person, nor is it analogous to "shooting someone who peers over your fence". Not even close.
I hope he fights the charge and a jury acquits him.
Uh, it isn't "deadly force" as it's a friggin' drone, not a person, nor is it analogous to "shooting someone who peers over your fence". Not even close.
I hope he fights the charge and a jury acquits him.
I hope it never gets to a jury and is dismissed. Shooting it down was probably not the best choice. I can see why he did it. It should be illegal to use a drone that way.
The drone never did the things he claims. It was nearly 300ft high when he shot it. It crossed his property lines for under 2 seconds.
I don't know why they flew the path they did. It would be nice to see what the camera picked up. He said they had friends all around that area but there doesn't seem to be any reason to take that flight path. The guy seems to be flat out lying about the low hovering and looking under canopies. although even if they flew a path down that road behind the home at 200 - 300 ft they would still be able to see. the yard.
I hope the home owner doesn't live next door to a two story home because they will be able to see his daughters too.
If people would just do what they are going to do and not embellish it with lies afterwards it would make life a lot easier for everyone. He has rights above his land. I suppose if he legally disables a drone above his property line that's fine. But he can't use a gun and probably a jammer is illegal too. Problem is it looks like he disabled it outside his property line and via an illegal means.
I -thought- with the newly passed drone laws you couldn't fly your drone over peoples houses.
So right now, I would say fine him for discharging a weapon, fine the pilot for flying where he's not supposed to and repair costs go to pilot as he's ultimately responsible, especially when he flies in illegal space.
Both screwed up iom.
Jeeze... the plot thickens.... now remember.. .the shooter retrieved the drone and gave it back..... you tell me who you think has the memory card? ETA: oh, so much for that .. now it sounds like a third person is involved as a "neighbor" retrieved the drone.
http://www.wdrb.com/story/29675427/drone-owner-responds-to-claims-of-privacy-invasion
Now I see why they took the flight path they did. A friend had asked them to fly over his home. Got it on cell phone messages.
The pilot seems to be far more truthful than the shooter.
Moose-Knuckle
08-01-15, 12:54
I was thinking maybe a Wenger water balloon slingshot . . .
I like you way of thinking, only thing is those water balloon slingshots are crew served weapons so you have to have a minimum of three people to operate them.
Now the Sky Blaster Slingshot might do the trick, there are also plans and video for water balloon cannons floating around the web. All should do nicely.
The drone never did the things he claims. It was nearly 300ft high when he shot it. It crossed his property lines for under 2 seconds.
100 yards is a bit of a reach for birdshot.
SilverBullet432
08-01-15, 12:58
Bad situation, in most cities, it is illegal to shoot a gun for no good reason. The round(s) have to go somewhere right?
100 yards is a bit of a reach for birdshot.
This... 100 yards smells of b.s.
An airgun would have eliminated the "discharge" charge.
The drone never did the things he claims. It was nearly 300ft high when he shot it. It crossed his property lines for under 2 seconds.
So a guy shot a moving drone 100 yds away at a very high angle? With his "40mm glock"?
Most Glock homeowners I know could not do that at 50ft, much less 100 yards.
Shooting at range with large elevation differences is a skill few practice. Especially with pistols.
I suspect there is more to the story than we are hearing.
Ahh, just saw he shot the drone with bird shot, implying shotgun. More plausible, but still odd it would take down a drone if at the height/distance claimed.
This does change the endangerment aspect, though. I'd challenge that.
ColtSeavers
08-01-15, 14:08
An airgun would have eliminated the "discharge" charge.
The audible discharge, depending on airgun model, yes, but not the actual breaking of the law charge, at least where I live (discharging of airguns and bb guns and the sort are actually spelled out and included in the law for illegal discharge in a overcrowded area AKA pretty much my entire county).
Just load a can cannon with two tennis balls and have at it.
funny article does say and then shows the track
The track does show that the drone hovered for around 30 seconds near Merideth’s home but was at an altitude in excess of 200 feet.
and look up how inaccurate drones can be on elevation a very common problem with them
so for sure the height what is shown can be way off but you cant fake the path and time
so he did hover over his home for 30 seconds most likely at a way lower height than what the gps said
funny article does say and then shows the track
and look up how inaccurate drones can be on elevation a very common problem with them
so for sure the height what is shown can be way off but you cant fake the path and time
so he did hover over his home for 30 seconds most likely at a way lower height than what the gps said
I have not found significant altitude inaccuracies in either of the Phantom drones that I own. Most of the entry-level hobby quadcopters are accurate to about 5 - 8 feet horizontally and better than that vertically. That altitude is reported to the logging software on the iPad. Not inaccurate at all.
To be exculpated of those charges, the shooter would have to prove that he didn't shoot the drone down. Conversely, the drone operator will likely sue the shooter and will likely win. The shooter's recourse was to call the police, not shoot the drone down. He broke the law, the drone operator didn't and apparently he can prove it.
.
I have not found significant altitude inaccuracies in either of the Phantom drones that I own. Most of the entry-level hobby quadcopters are accurate to about 5 - 8 feet horizontally and better than that vertically. That altitude is reported to the logging software on the iPad. Not inaccurate at all.
To be exculpated of those charges, the shooter would have to prove that he didn't shoot the drone down. Conversely, the drone operator will likely sue the shooter and will likely win. The shooter's recourse was to call the police, not shoot the drone down. He broke the law, the drone operator didn't and apparently he can prove it.
.
If he broke the law it was the discharging a firearm in city limits law he broke, not that he shot the drone down over his own property. That shouldn't even be considered. If a drone does any lingering over my homestead I'll shoot the damn thing down, and I live in the country where there is no ordinance prohibiting firing a gun. Don't want your toy shot down? Don't fly it over my property, pretty simple.
If he broke the law it was the discharging a firearm in city limits law he broke, not that he shot the drone down over his own property. That shouldn't even be considered. If a drone does any lingering over my homestead I'll shoot the damn thing down, and I live in the country where there is no ordinance prohibiting firing a gun. Don't want your toy shot down? Don't fly it over my property, pretty simple.
The guy was charged with 1st degree criminal mischief and first degree wanton endangerment. They''l probably plead it down, but it sounds to me like the attorney that's charging the case disagrees with your interpretation of Kentucky law. As to the lawsuit, if it follows the path of other such incidents, the shooter will lose. He's suing the drone operator for invasion of privacy. It will be interesting to see how these cases evolve.
The guy was charged with 1st degree criminal mischief and first degree wanton endangerment. They''l probably plead it down, but it sounds to me like the attorney that's charging the case disagrees with your interpretation of Kentucky law. As to the lawsuit, if it follows the path of other such incidents, the shooter will lose. He's suing the drone operator for invasion of privacy. It will be interesting to see how these cases evolve.
I would think the wanton endangerment evolved from discharging the firearm in city limits. The criminal mischief is puzzling though; it hasn't been adjudicated yet so let's see if he was overreaching.
I see no legal issue whatsoever with shooting a drone loitering over your property; it's a form of trespassing. You're not shooting at a person, just someone's toy. If they cherish it so much they shouldn't trespass, right?
Although I haven't yet, if I see a drone zing overhead high up (key words there) on it's way somewhere else, I likely wouldn't have a big issue with it. However, if it's darting back and forth around my place snooping I'll shoot the damn thing down if I can. A drone operator does not have the right to snoop/trespass.
time to get the video and then if they were watching his daughter time for a huge civil case and some legal first of course :)
I would think the wanton endangerment evolved from discharging the firearm in city limits. The criminal mischief is puzzling though; it hasn't been adjudicated yet so let's see if he was overreaching.
I see no legal issue whatsoever with shooting a drone loitering over your property; it's a form of trespassing. You're not shooting at a person, just someone's toy. If they cherish it so much they shouldn't trespass, right?
Although I haven't yet, if I see a drone zing overhead high up (key words there) on it's way somewhere else, I likely wouldn't have a big issue with it. However, if it's darting back and forth around my place snooping I'll shoot the damn thing down if I can. A drone operator does not have the right to snoop/trespass.
I'm sure you're an excellent attorney. So, if, for example, you find a vehicle on your property without your permission, it's legal to destroy it? See, I always thought that if you inflicted injury on a trespasser or damaged their property, you were liable. I always thought that if you did damage a trespasser's property, you could be charged with criminal mischief.
.
time to get the video and then if they were watching his daughter time for a huge civil case and some legal first of course :)
If he did happen to be recording he'd be crazy to keep the memory card if it was incriminating.
Drones look fun. But obnoxious drone operators are going to push until they get regulations they do not want.
This operator should have known better. He may be currently within the law, but not for long.
There is already big money lawyers pushing for regulations due to just this type of thing over their mansions.
I expect we'll end up with a 500' no fly zone over private property without permission. Planes can't fly lower than that already. Drones should not be flying over that height anyway without vfr pilot license or similar.
I live in a metro area, but remarkably, I can discharge firearms with reasonable safety limits. So I can shoot skeet on my backyard, and have. Can also bird hunt, just not deer hunt except for archery.
Drones would be well advised to stay above 500' if over my property to avoid getting into skeet fallout.
YUP that video will tell the truth for sure what was going on ;)
if he took it and he does not ever release I would lean toward he was not being honest ?
if it does show his daughter then something needs to be done to the drone owners
either way its something we are going to have to deal with in the coming years is privacy and drones
If he did happen to be recording he'd be crazy to keep the memory card if it was incriminating.
The outcome in the courts should prove interesting from a privacy standard. If a LEO uses a drone to look into a backyard to view things that cannot be seen from a public access point (without court authorization), then it's a 4th Amendment violation. There's a higher standard for the government than other citizens, but the expectation of privacy should be (in my personal non-lawyer opinion) the same for a home owner regardless of who is viewing their back yard or other private property.
if he took it and he does not ever release I would lean toward he was not being honest ?
if it does show his daughter......
We'll never know.
This operator should have known better. He may be currently within the law, but not for long.
Yeah, I'm not convinced the drone guy was trespassing, in fact I doubt that he was by current legal definitions even if he was flying over the other guy's yard. Time will tell. Certainly FAA regulation is coming but they just moved their deadline back to 2017.
I expect we'll end up with a 500' no fly zone over private property without permission.
I doubt it. Not for model aircraft.
.
I'm sure you're an excellent attorney. So, if, for example, you find a vehicle on your property without your permission, it's legal to destroy it? See, I always thought that if you inflicted injury on a trespasser or damaged their property, you were liable. I always thought that if you did damage a trespasser's property, you could be charged with criminal mischief.
.
Guess you thought wrong Mr. Barrista-of-the-state. You're okay with aerial spying on you and yours? Goody for you then. I'm not.
so he did hover over his home for 30 seconds most likely at a way lower height than what the gps said
It's not determined by gps. It's barometric and by all accounts quite accurate.
As to the bird shot and that drone. If one pellet reaches any one of the props the spinning speed of the blade hitting it can cause it to break. He fired 3 rounds. Tracking shows the device was over his property for under 2 seconds. when it does that drone can't fly. UAV they show in the news is $$$$$$ and can lose a prop and still fly.
When he hovered for 30 sec... he was also making a direction change. It's not uncommon to do especially for new pilots.
Now he may still have been up to something but all the speculations of altitude and hovering are both realistic and normal.
Drones look fun. But obnoxious drone operators are going to push until they get regulations they do not want.
This operator should have known better. He may be currently within the law, but not for long.
There is already big money lawyers pushing for regulations due to just this type of thing over their mansions.
I expect we'll end up with a 500' no fly zone over private property without permission. Planes can't fly lower than that already. Drones should not be flying over that height anyway without vfr pilot license or similar.
I live in a metro area, but remarkably, I can discharge firearms with reasonable safety limits. So I can shoot skeet on my backyard, and have. Can also bird hunt, just not deer hunt except for archery.
Drones would be well advised to stay above 500' if over my property to avoid getting into skeet fallout.
Be careful now, our resident expert prosecutors will surely advise you the best bet is to just call the cops and they'll sort it out. :rolleyes:
Yeah, I'm not convinced the drone guy was trespassing, I doubt it.
.
Define trespassing. What are you okay with?
The outcome in the courts should prove interesting from a privacy standard. If a LEO uses a drone to look into a backyard to view things that cannot be seen from a public access point (without court authorization), then it's a 4th Amendment violation. There's a higher standard for the government than other citizens, but the expectation of privacy should be (in my personal non-lawyer opinion) the same for a home owner regardless of who is viewing their back yard or other private property.
I don't understand how anyone can have any expectation of privacy out doors. Yes, you can expect no trespass but not privacy.
Several issues come into play:
-Quiet Enjoyment of your land. The law provides for that, and its been part of this issue in the past court cases
- homeowner rights. Court case in the 40's overruled "hell to sky", but did agree there was a reasonable height below which the landowner did have right to prevent tresspass. Something less than 300', more than 86' if I recall. This was in the context of an airport.
-FAA overreach- used to be with very few exceptions 500' and up was all they cared about except for airport areas and helos. But with the drone stuff they declared "drones are an airspace issue, so we now control to the ground". Which has not been challenged yet, but states largely do not agree
-models or the real thing? If they want aircraft rights, then they need to behave like one. Which means rules, regs, training, and (gasp) licensing.
If models, then weight and height restrictions. Likewise, go fly your rc plane over a neighbor enough to annoy them. Large rc now banned in many cities except for approved ranges due to excesses like the drone guys are doing.
17 states have some form of drone regs on the books or in progress. Many more cities/counties.
CA's is fairly reasonable. 350' private property trespass zone. From there to 500' is drone transit/buffer zone. Above that is real aircraft. But complicated by the current FAA we own ground to sky mindset.
-privacy- current laws do not account for current tech and resolution. You on with your neighbor hovering and filming 20' outside your bedroom or bathroom window?
BTW, another drone in the news spotted and avoided by a Delta flight tonight. Wait till one is ingested and see what happens.
350 foot video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUXHX3LfqlQ
Not exactly ideal for invading privacy.
this guy has a good point here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AQ_rJDoV8g
I really love the loud, stupid music in that first video. What a great youtube trend.
Shitty music that makes youtube videos unwatchable (at least without audio muted) remind me a lot of drone operators who seem to want to put those things where they don't belong and some of whom will eventually get people killed I'd wager.
hahahah yeah at 350 feet with a crap walmart special it wont be good :)
that is like showing that vid of that guy who shoots his leg as a training video ?
just like the idiots that caused aircraft not to respond
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/07/drones-ground-helicopters-fighting-fire-that-burned-across-ca-highway/
Zipping overhead at a respectable altitude (not treetop level) while going from Point A to Point B is one thing. Darting back and forth on your property snooping around is another thing entirely.
With regard to the expectation of privacy: if you live in a subdivision with two-story homes it is unlikely that expectation can be as fully accomplished as you might like. You would not be able to successfully argue to keep your neighbor from peering out his window at you. However, I live in the sticks on 22 acres and can't see my neighbors from my house. Therefore anything "peering" at me (like a drone) has penetrated well into my "zone". Unless it involves simple overflight like I mentioned above I'll assume nefarious activity and act accordingly. There is no regulation keeping me from shooting outdoors where I live and I'll guarantee you the county prosecutor wouldn't press charges.
Loitering (snooping or whatever you want to call it) over someone's property is trespassing. This issue is sure to be addressed real soon by the courts as the likelihood of things like this incident occurring increases with the proliferation of drones to every Tom, Dick, and Harry.
Be careful now, our resident expert prosecutors will surely advise you the best bet is to just call the cops and they'll sort it out. :rolleyes:
There's no other legal recourse is there? As Mr. Meredith (and others) have found out, it's illegal to shoot them down. He's been arrested and charged with a felony for it, and will be sued. I don't understand why some people have trouble grasping that concept. It's been in all the papers. Are you suggesting that people should take the law into their own hands?
I get where you're coming from. "By god, someone's not playing by MY rules. Shoot the sumbitch down". I don't have a problem with that but I'm always a little puzzled as to why people are confused when that particular approach to problem-solving turns out to be illegal and then they are outraged when they have to face the consequences.
Define trespassing. What are you okay with?
I don't have to define trespassing. "The Government" has already done that. I'm sure you can find the relevant definition in your state/county/municipality that applies to you.
.
There's no other legal recourse is there? As Mr. Meredith (and others) have found out, it's illegal to shoot them down. He's been arrested and charged with a felony for it, and will be sued. I don't understand why you're having trouble grasping that concept. It's been in all the papers. Are you suggesting that people should take the law into their own hands?
I get where you're coming from. "By god, someone's not playing by MY rules. Shoot the sumbitch down". I don't have a problem with that but I'm always a little puzzled as to why people are confused when that particular approach to problem-solving turns out to be illegal and then they are outraged when they have to face the consequences.
I don't have to define trespassing. "The Government" has already done that. I'm sure you can find the relevant definition in your state/county/municipality that applies to you.
.
You call the cops. They don't know where the thing is controlled from. Exactly what are they supposed to do about it?
It was illegal to shoot in city limits for the guy in the OP. The story is also a little convoluted. Nonetheless, in my particular situation which I outlined above I'd have no hesitation shooting one down (or trying to at least) if it was low-level snooping around my property. The OP and subsequent links muddy the water a bit as to whether the drone was loitering or simply overflying the guy's yard. I stated that if it was a "high level" (whatever that is for a drone) overflight of my property it's not a big deal. However, given the rather remote location I live in anything snooping around out here on my property is up to no good and I'll act accordingly. I'm not concerned with being prosecuted as this is a rural area and the complaining party would be the one likely charged for trespassing.
Well it's made the Sunday morning national news. Here's how it's reported. With a close shot of his wooden privacy fence... ......" claims the drone was hovering just over his six foot privacy fence"...... then they show the flight path data.... back to him " it was here multiple times" ... to pilot "he's not telling the truth".
Right or wrong about where the guy flew it.... I think he is telling the closest version of the truth. The tone of his voice, the manner he answers questions and the fact that he knows the following....
1. The Drone Slayer says it was at 10' altitude
2. The neighbors ( 1 or more ) who spoke to Drone Slayer was/were a witness and I believe the person who retrieved the drone. This is the neighbor that asked "are you going to do anything?"
3. Two daughters as witnesses
4. Possibly a wife as witness
So the pilot knows all all those people will have to lie if he is wrong. The neighbor and drone slayer were first to handle the drone and potentially remove the evidence
The pilot has SMS messages on his phone with a friend asking can you fly it over my home before the incident. He simply has too much evidence and matter of fact answers to the questions. In fact it possible he didn't realize he was that far forward in his flight.
@ABNAK - I agree if you lived on 20 acres and someone was flying over you structures I would think that's suspicious. If they ran down your property line or heavy tree areas and were clearly passing through then it wouldn't worry me.
I honestly don't know what some of these people are thinking about flying these things in wildfires, around airports, hovering over crowds in cities at concerts and sporting events. .... and that's really the only question I would ask this pilot.. 'you went straight forward from your launch, you intended to go 90deg right to your friends house. Why did you go so far forward before turning right and why not just fly the shorter 45deg path from takeoff? So there is still an element of suspicion in his version of the story but at that distance from take off and 200' high, maybe you can't tell just how far down stream you are.... and maybe he went that way so his friend could see it approaching more easily as that is apparently where he was going.
@ABNAK - I agree if you lived on 20 acres and someone was flying over you structures I would think that's suspicious. If they ran down your property line or heavy tree areas and were clearly passing through then it wouldn't worry me.
I'll be honest with you, even if it was a couple hundred feet up and flew right over my house and kept on going it wouldn't bother me. Like I said earlier, Point A to Point B flight paths don't ruffle my feathers.
There's no other legal recourse is there? As Mr. Meredith (and others) have found out, it's illegal to shoot them down. He's been arrested and charged with a felony for it, and will be sued. I don't understand why some people have trouble grasping that concept. It's been in all the papers. Are you suggesting that people should take the law into their own hands?
I get where you're coming from. "By god, someone's not playing by MY rules. Shoot the sumbitch down". I don't have a problem with that but I'm always a little puzzled as to why people are confused when that particular approach to problem-solving turns out to be illegal and then they are outraged when they have to face the consequences.
I don't have to define trespassing. "The Government" has already done that. I'm sure you can find the relevant definition in your state/county/municipality that applies to you.
.
Because a large % of people today are simply incapable of making the mental association between their actions and consequences that follow. I'm not sure where the disconnect happened in the culture, but it's a growing trend.
I really love the loud, stupid music in that first video. What a great youtube trend.
Ha! yeah... I have a volume knob at my desk.. .was just watching vid... The good news though.... No one cares about IP theft so there will be more where that came from! :smile:
I don't have to define trespassing. "The Government" has already done that. I'm sure you can find the relevant definition in your state/county/municipality that applies to you.
In my county its illegal to have a projectile cross a property boundary "on or over" without the landowner's permission. It's already been extended to include other objects. (Airsoft, paintball, water balloons, etc)
Trespassing is broader than setting foot on land. As is "quiet enjoyment"
There is a reasonable answer and reasonable behavior to be agreed to on this issue. Some are determined not to find it.
I expect we will have weight and height restrictions like we do on model rockets and RC planes before its over with. And certifications and licenses.
Likewise, There is a big difference between a kids $39 quadcopter which weighs 8oz, and a $3-5k 5lb drone with HD camera and a 4-5 mile range.
Saying this in a county where I can shoot on my own property within reasonable safety restrictions, but cannot fly RC except if I stay in my boundaries. No legal public flying range in the county. Multiple legal shooting ranges.
You call the cops. They don't know where the thing is controlled from. Exactly what are they supposed to do about it?
It was illegal to shoot in city limits for the guy in the OP. The story is also a little convoluted. Nonetheless, in my particular situation which I outlined above I'd have no hesitation shooting one down (or trying to at least) if it was low-level snooping around my property. The OP and subsequent links muddy the water a bit as to whether the drone was loitering or simply overflying the guy's yard. I stated that if it was a "high level" (whatever that is for a drone) overflight of my property it's not a big deal. However, given the rather remote location I live in anything snooping around out here on my property is up to no good and I'll act accordingly. I'm not concerned with being prosecuted as this is a rural area and the complaining party would be the one likely charged for trespassing.
The cops likely won't be able to do anything about it. What's your point? Are you saying that that justifies taking the law into your own hands? Shoot it down and the cops will be able to do something, but apparently the shooter may not like the outcome since now he is the focus. This particular guy...Meredith...set aside the "discharge firearm" thing that bought him the Wanton Endangerment felony charge since it doesn't apply to many of us. He's still facing the Criminal Mischief felony charge, and a lawsuit. That's the law, at least according to that particular prosecutor. I'm sure i both charges will be plead down, but now let's see if the judge agrees with his interpretation of the law.
No offense, but I don't care at all about your particular situation nor your views on trespassing, nor should others in this thread, since it's irrelevant to many or most of the rest of us. Likewise any particular course of action you choose to take has absolutely nothing to do with me, so fire away and more power to you.
In my county its illegal to have a projectile cross a property boundary "on or over" without the landowner's permission. It's already been extended to include other objects. (Airsoft, paintball, water balloons, etc)
Trespassing is broader than setting foot on land. As is "quiet enjoyment"
Right. In your county.
I expect we will have weight and height restrictions like we do on model rockets and RC planes before its over with. And certifications and licenses.
Unlikely. Drones such as the one that this Meredith guy shot down are already defined as "Model Aircraft". Flight restrictions for hobby drones or R/C aircraft (same thing) are already addressed in the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012. The weight restriction is 55 lbs. The drone that Meredith shot down weighed maybe 5 lbs. I'm sure further regulation is coming....maybe 2017 according to the FAA, but it won't be much different than it is now -- more likely they will leave it up to the Academy of Model Aeronautics to regulate under the "community standards" clause of the FAA regs (they are likely to define the AMA as the arbiter of "community standards"). In the meantime, communities have the option of creating standards for drone operation outside of FAA regulations....a patchwork of local laws. Yours doesn't apply to me.
There is a big difference between a kids $39 quadcopter which weighs 8oz, and a $3-5k 5lb drone with HD camera and a 4-5 mile range.
Saying this in a county where I can shoot on my own property within reasonable safety restrictions, but cannot fly RC except if I stay in my boundaries. No legal public flying range in the county. Multiple legal shooting ranges.
Yes, I'm very familiar with R/C aircraft operations and with hobby drone operations. In my county. The indoor toy drones are pretty much irrelevant to this discussion.
.
Yes, I'm very familiar with R/C aircraft operations and with hobby drone operations. In my county.
Hmac, do you know where the rules are for someone that wanted to operate a typical hobby sized drone for actual income purposes. I wanted to read the rules, regulations and costs, etc., but don't know exactly what to search for
Right. In your county.
Unlikely. Drones such as the one that this Meredith guy shot down are already defined as "Model Aircraft". Flight restrictions for hobby drones or R/C aircraft (same thing) are already addressed in the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012. I'm sure further regulation is coming....maybe 2017 according to the FAA, but it won't be much different than it is now -- more likely they will leave it up to the Academy of Model Aeronautics to regulate under the "community standards" clause of the FAA regs. In the meantime, communities have the option of creating standards for drone operation outside of FAA regulations....a patchwork of local laws. Yours doesn't apply to me.
Yes, I'm very familiar with R/C aircraft operations and with hobby drone operations. In my county.
This attitude is exactly what led to the current restrictions in most metro and suburban areas for RC aircraft. Independent of any FAA interpretation.
This is just another version of the open carry stuff. Just because something is currently and technically legal does not mean its a good idea. And long term may hurt its advocates.
I say this as someone who is not anti-drone and long time rc'er...
Do you really want to defend public nuisance, voyeuristic, and invasive type behavior? That's what it sounds like.
One fundamental difference between the current drones and RC planes/copters. The later required skill and training and were to a certain extent self limiting. You typically had to be mentored with a buddy box to learn. My grandmother could fly a drone just by reading an instruction manual and using her ipad. Just like this guy admitted he did.
Drones have already seen far greater & broader market penetration in a few years than RC did in decades. And it's still growing as prices and ease of use drop.
I expect draconian regulations if the current "open carry" type behavior occurs. Backlash is already happening.
So trespass and peep on you neighbor if you want, you will not be able to do it long.
I expect draconian regulations if the current "open carry" type behavior occurs. Backlash is already happening.
Sounds about right. Ultimately it will go to .gov
.gov has two solutions for everything. Tax and Restrict. First they will ask how they make money off it... that will obviously be education and licensing. Those things require that they restrict the average citizen.
This attitude is exactly what led to the current restrictions in most metro and suburban areas for RC aircraft. Independent of any FAA interpretation.
This is just another version of the open carry stuff. Just because something is currently and technically legal does not mean its a good idea. And long term may hurt its advocates.
I say this as someone who is not anti-drone and long time rc'er...
Do you really want to defend public nuisance, voyeuristic, and invasive type behavior? That's what it sounds like.
One fundamental difference between the current drones and RC planes/copters. The later required skill and training and were to a certain extent self limiting. You typically had to be mentored with a buddy box to learn. My grandmother could fly a drone just by reading an instruction manual and using her ipad. Just like this guy admitted he did.
Drones have already seen far greater & broader market penetration in a few years than RC did in decades. And it's still growing as prices and ease of use drop.
I expect draconian regulations if the current "open carry" type behavior occurs. Backlash is already happening.
So trespass and peep on you neighbor if you want, you will not be able to do it long.
Yes, I've been flying R/C and member of the AMA for 4 decades.
I would only defend legal operation of any model aircraft. Nuisance operation is subjective (currently). Your assumption of the voyeuristic value of a hobby drone suggests a relative lack of familiarity with the capability of what is currently available.
You're assuming a definition of trespass that doesn't really exist. Yet. It is true that hobby drones and the paranoia that surrounds them may well change that definition, at least at the local level. You're also assuming that the purpose of hobby drone operation is voyeurism. Again, paranoia-driven and definitely not the norm..in fact not really even practical. This whole "gazing at the neighbor's daughter's ta-tas" concept is laughable. But you're right....many laws have been passed based on uninformed paranoia, and that's one area where I think your obscure "open-carry" reference holds true.
Yes, I've been flying R/C and member of the AMA for 4 decades.
I would only defend legal operation of any model aircraft. Nuisance operation is subjective (currently). Your assumption of the voyeuristic value of a hobby drone suggests a relative lack of familiarity with the capability of what is currently available.
Actually, I have two different friends who make their living with drones. One currently hold a record in the drone space.
I'm quite familiar. This case is not about serious drone users. It's about a guy who said "hey, hold my beer and watch this" with a drone he bought the day before. And the triggered this event.
You're assuming a definition of trespass that doesn't really exist. Yet. It is true that hobby drones and the paranoia that surrounds them may well change that definition, at least at the local level.
Actually, it did go to the supreme Court at least once already. There was agreement that landowners did have rights above their land. (Even though it was less than the plaintiff wanted)
And the FAA declaration they own down to the ground everywhere should scare everyone. They can tell you to cut trees? Federal preemption of city/county/state height ordinances? They will lose this if challenged. Overreach.
You're also assuming that the purpose of hobby drone operation is voyeurism. Again, paranoia-driven and definitely not the norm..in fact not really even practical. This whole "gazing at the neighbor's daughter's ta-tas" concept is laughable. But you're right....many laws have been passed based on uninformed paranoia, and that's one area where I think your obscure "open-carry" reference holds true.
I know full well that's not the purpose for many. But it is for enough that it's become an issue with big money behind it. Largely papparazi type behavior over mansions.
The open carry analogy is not obscure, its how this will play out. You can win the battle and lose the war. This guy was the equivalent of buying an AR/AK and taking it to Starbucks the next day. And admitting publicly he was just learning how to use it, while arguing its his "right".
I'll let you guys debate this, it just falls into " bad idea" space for me.
The cops likely won't be able to do anything about it. What's your point? Are you saying that that justifies taking the law into your own hands? Shoot it down and the cops will be able to do something, but apparently the shooter may not like the outcome since now he is the focus. This particular guy...Meredith...set aside the "discharge firearm" thing that bought him the Wanton Endangerment felony charge since it doesn't apply to many of us. He's still facing the Criminal Mischief felony charge, and a lawsuit. That's the law, at least according to that particular prosecutor. I'm sure i both charges will be plead down, but now let's see if the judge agrees with his interpretation of the law.
No offense, but I don't care at all about your particular situation nor your views on trespassing, nor should others in this thread, since it's irrelevant to many or most of the rest of us. Likewise any particular course of action you choose to take has absolutely nothing to do with me, so fire away and more power to you.
The cops not being able to do anything about it IS the point. What are you some kind of goody-two-shoes Larry-Law-Abiding or such? Get off that "take the law into your own hands" horseshit. If the cops can't do anything I guess your passive self would just have to sit back and live with being ogled from the air huh?
I don't give a shit what you think of my situation, but since it's the only one I might shoot at a drone in the rest of the country is irrelevant. I wouldn't be in a subdivision so the OP's situation doesn't apply to me.
I sense you're an RC person and apparently this strikes close to home. Don't fly your shit in a trespassing manner and you shouldn't have any problems.
Yes, I've been flying R/C and member of the AMA for 4 decades.
I would only defend legal operation of any model aircraft. Nuisance operation is subjective (currently). Your assumption of the voyeuristic value of a hobby drone suggests a relative lack of familiarity with the capability of what is currently available.
You're assuming a definition of trespass that doesn't really exist. Yet. It is true that hobby drones and the paranoia that surrounds them may well change that definition, at least at the local level. You're also assuming that the purpose of hobby drone operation is voyeurism. Again, paranoia-driven and definitely not the norm..in fact not really even practical. This whole "gazing at the neighbor's daughter's ta-tas" concept is laughable. But you're right....many laws have been passed based on uninformed paranoia, and that's one area where I think your obscure "open-carry" reference holds true.
Hobby drone operation can also be criminal in intent, as in snooping for burglaries and such. Voyeurism is certainly a possibility with all the pervs out there.
I posted my previous one before I read this. I was right, it does strike close to home. While new laws may be written it is just as likely interpretations of existing trespassing laws will be based on judicial rulings to come in the near future. Sounds like you want unfettered access and some perv or thief might f**k it up for you. Police your own little RC community before you go bashing folks who don't want them around in an annoying, trespassing manner.
Well, there's this (regarding MY state's laws about the subject):
"The most expansive law went into effect on July 1, 2014 — just three days before Hartline flew his drone into the Nashville fireworks display. Public Chapter No. 876 amends titles 29 and 39 of the Tennessee code, making it a crime to use an unmanned aerial system to capture an image except under 18 specific circumstances.
"The Tennessee law doesn't say it's OK to use drones for the following things," Mackler explains. "It really says it's illegal to use drones except for the following things. ... It basically starts with a blanket ban on them and then says there are exceptions."
Those exceptions include scholarly research, surveying of utilities, authorized military use, licensed real estate, search and rescue, hazardous materials spill management and fire suppression. Of course, many of the allowed commercial uses are currently prohibited under FAA regulations, which carry civil penalties. Drone uses that are banned under Tennessee law could incur criminal charges (Class B or C misdemeanor, depending on the offense)."
You might notice that la-dee-da "I was just flying around" as an excuse isn't covered.
1) How do we know that the flight plan shown by the pilot is legit? Do we know for a fact that he followed it all the way through? Do we know the pilot did at no time, take over manual control of his craft and did not deviate from the programmed flight plan? Do we know for a fact that he followed it at all?
2) According to the flight plan, the craft was over the homeowner's property at an altitude of 273 feet. Was that 273 above the ground? Or 273 ft altitude? What is the ground altitude at the site of the incident? If it's 263 ft (for example) and the craft was at an altitude of 273 ft, then the craft was indeed quite close to the ground. If the altitude of the craft was measured using barometric pressure, did the pilot get the actual barometric pressure and input the correction to the altimeter?
3) According to the flight plan, the craft was over the homeowner's property for all of two seconds. During that time, the homeowner was able to identify a target, formulate a plan of action, retrieve a shotgun, go into the backyard, discharge THREE shots and down a craft at an altitude of close to 300 feet. Not only is that some shooting, that's some durn fast shooting
HMAC, the law is indeed in our hands. It is in our hands everyday as we determine what laws we obey and how we obey those laws. It is in our hands every time we vote, campaign for our candidates, sign a petition and allow the authorities to apply those laws. That is not to say there are no consequences. It is to say we are a free people and we do have a say as to what laws are passed, how they are enforced and how we let them affect us. When a law is ridiculous, poorly written or does not address the problem, we have the right to choose how we deal with it. Yes, there are consequences. But think of where our country would be today if our founding fathers and mothers were unwilling to accept the consequences of addressing the wrongs they were subjected to. Law has to be more than just law. It also has to be justice and mercy. To simply hang the homeowner out to dry because he felt he needed to defend his daughters is not just or merciful. It may be the Roman way, it may be the English way, it may be the way it's done in the halls where nothing but the law holds sway, but it certainly isn't the American way. Before responding, note that I know there are consequences to our choices and that I did not say he should go scot free. But the pilot holds culpability for his irresponsible part in this mess and that should be taken into consideration. A man's home is his castle
Oh, and then there's this too:
"MURFREESBORO, Tenn. (WTVF) - A Rutherford County man faced charges for criminal trespassing after a father found a drone possible taking pictures over his property while his children swam.
These days you never know who's watching, even in your own backyard. Drones are everyone now and anyone can own them, but did you know they could leave you facing charges?
There is now a bizarre crime in Murfreesboro involving neighbors, privacy and the use of a drone.
Drone technology is amazing and it continues to evolve. Most of the devices have high quality video cameras and that's a feature with obvious potential for abuse.
A Murfreesboro father took a photograph this weekend of a drone hovering over his backyard while his children swam in the pool.
The drone could have been taking video.
The father called police to report an invasion of privacy.
"In this case it's pretty scary when you see a drone flying over your swimming pool taking pictures of your and your family," said Kyle Evans with the Murfreesboro Police Department.
Evans said the father's complaint has now led to the city's very first case involving a drone and invasion of privacy.
"They could be held criminally and civilly liable for operating a drone over someone else's private property," said Evans.
Detectives canvassing the neighborhood located the owner of the drone. They filed a report for criminal trespass.
"This is a case where the law is keeping up with technology," said Evans.
But just barely. Drones have continued to improve. They are quiet, they easily maneuver, and drones can carry cameras that produce high quality video as good as your HDTV and better.
Officials said it was easy to understand why there are growing issues about privacy, and now we see certain uses of a drone can lead to criminal charges.
Police said criminal trespass violations involving the use of a drone can range anywhere from a misdemeanor to a felony.
The owner of the drone did not return calls for a comment. He had not yet been charged with a crime. That will depend on whether his neighbor decides to file formal charges."
So it would seem that IF (a BIG if) I shot a drone snooping around my rural property and the DA thought he could charge me then I would simply insist the operator be charged under these statutes. Then we have a situation (worst case) where you simply say "I'll drop my charge if you drop yours". Out where I live likely no one would be charged.....they'd tell the operator, if he had the gaul to complain, that maybe he shouldn't be snooping on other people's property next time.
1) How do we know that the flight plan shown by the pilot is legit? Do we know for a fact that he followed it all the way through? Do we know the pilot did at no time, take over manual control of his craft and did not deviate from the programmed flight plan? Do we know for a fact that he followed it at all?
2) According to the flight plan, the craft was over the homeowner's property at an altitude of 273 feet. Was that 273 above the ground? Or 273 ft altitude? What is the ground altitude at the site of the incident? If it's 263 ft (for example) and the craft was at an altitude of 273 ft, then the craft was indeed quite close to the ground. If the altitude of the craft was measured using barometric pressure, did the pilot get the actual barometric pressure and input the correction to the altimeter?
3) According to the flight plan, the craft was over the homeowner's property for all of two seconds. During that time, the homeowner was able to identify a target, formulate a plan of action, retrieve a shotgun, go into the backyard, discharge THREE shots and down a craft at an altitude of close to 300 feet. Not only is that some shooting, that's some durn fast shooting
HMAC, the law is indeed in our hands. It is in our hands everyday as we determine what laws we obey and how we obey those laws. It is in our hands every time we vote, campaign for our candidates, sign a petition and allow the authorities to apply those laws. That is not to say there are no consequences. It is to say we are a free people and we do have a say as to what laws are passed, how they are enforced and how we let them affect us. When a law is ridiculous, poorly written or does not address the problem, we have the right to choose how we deal with it. Yes, there are consequences. But think of where our country would be today if our founding fathers and mothers were unwilling to accept the consequences of addressing the wrongs they were subjected to. Law has to be more than just law. It also has to be justice and mercy. To simply hang the homeowner out to dry because he felt he needed to defend his daughters is not just or merciful. It may be the Roman way, it may be the English way, it may be the way it's done in the halls where nothing but the law holds sway, but it certainly isn't the American way. Before responding, note that I know there are consequences to our choices and that I did not say he should go scot free. But the pilot holds culpability for his irresponsible part in this mess and that should be taken into consideration. A man's home is his castle
Excellent points but don't waste your time; he's personally insulted that this occurred and is hoping it doesn't muck up his hobby.
The cops not being able to do anything about it IS the point. What are you some kind of goody-two-shoes Larry-Law-Abiding or such? Get off that "take the law into your own hands" horseshit. If the cops can't do anything I guess your passive self would just have to sit back and live with being ogled from the air huh?
Goody two-shoes. Don't be stupid. Yes, I'd call the cops because a) I don't have the same level of paranoia that you do (a neighbor's drone is out to ogle my daughters, spy on me, or case my place for a burglary? Please.:rolleyes:...) and b) because I don't care enough about a drone flying around my property that I'd be willing to get out my shotgun and risk being charged with any felonies. If you do, then good for you. I personally appreciate your self-righteous desire to be a test case. Personally, I think test cases are for suckers.
Goody two-shoes. Don't be stupid. Yes, I'd call the cops because a) I don't have the same level of paranoia that you do (a neighbor's drone is out to ogle my daughters, spy on me, or case my place for a burglary? Please.:rolleyes:...) and b) because I don't care enough about a drone flying around my property that I'd be willing to get out my shotgun and risk being charged with any felonies. If you do, then good for you. I personally appreciate your self-righteous desire to be a test case. Personally, I think test cases are for suckers.
And the spineless allow this type of behavior to continue because it's too "risky" to do anything about it, so....do nothing. Brilliant idea.
Oh, and in case you didn't read the my last few posts it IS illegal in TN to fly a drone around someone's property unless for 18 specific reasons. "I was just having fun" ain't one of them. Soooo, the operator could be charged with a felony. Like I said, worse-case scenario you both drop charges and he's out a drone. Or, if he's a knucklehead, he gets a felony charge and you'll likely win yours since he committed the felony in the first place and you were responding to it.
Excellent points but don't waste your time; he's personally insulted that this occurred and is hoping it doesn't muck up his hobby.
Why would I be insulted? The drone shooter is on the hook for two felony convictions, the drone operator -- zip. If you perceive that I'm on the side of the drone guy, then you would assume that I think justice has prevailed. And you're right, I am and it did. The guy broke no laws and his property was destroyed.
Muck up my hobby? You overestimate how much I care about whether I can fly a drone around the neighborhood. Anyway, the likelihood of any drone of mine getting shot down is vanishingly small, and the likelihood that I would be caught violating whatever laws might be enacted even smaller
Oh, and in case you didn't read the my last few posts it IS illegal in TN to fly a drone around someone's property unless for 18 specific reasons. "I was just having fun" ain't one of them. Soooo, the operator could be charged with a felony.
And this affects me, how?
Why would I be insulted? The drone shooter is on the hook for two felony convictions, the drone operator -- zip. If you perceive that I'm on the side of the drone guy, then you would assume that I think justice has prevailed. And you're right, I am and it did. The guy broke no laws and his property was destroyed.
Muck up my hobby? You overestimate how much I care about whether I can fly a drone around the neighborhood. Anyway, the likelihood of any drone of mine getting shot down is vanishingly small, and the likelihood that I would be caught violating whatever laws might be enacted even smaller
Guess that depends on where it occurs. Here in TN the operator would be facing felony charges. Location, location, location........
Oh, and the case hasn't been adjudicated yet so don't get too happy too soon.
And this affects me, how?
Same way what happened in KY affects me----not at all. Just saying what I'd do here in TN if I had a prying drone at hand. And the law ain't on the side of the operator here.
Guess that depends on where it occurs. Here in TN the operator would be facing felony charges. Location, location, location........
Oh, and the case hasn't been adjudicated yet so don't get too happy too soon.
Same way what happened in KY affects me----not at all. Just saying what I'd do here in TN if I had a prying drone at hand. And the law ain't on the side of the operator here.
Why would I give a shit? About what happens to drone flyers in Kentucky or Tennessee?
Hey guys- I wish you all a safe and blessed Sunday as you move on to one of the many BBQ, boating, fishing, shooting, ATV'ing, reading, resting, etc options in your world. This thread will be on hiatus until tomorrow when one of us will reopen it for topical, snark-free discussion.
Monday edit: Thread re-opened. Keep it civil.
Moose-Knuckle
08-05-15, 14:03
Whoa, been away for a few days. I'm the OP and all I can say is . . .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FONN-0uoTHI
Back to topic, after reading through this thread and multiple articles I see a future, read that PROFIT in RC frequency jammers.
I can see potential burglars (professional crews not tweekers) use a drone to gather intel of a property/home/business. Not to mention some pedophile obtaining video photography of your children playing/swimming/etc. in the backyard.
You hit a drone with something like a baseball, football, plate, can of soda, bb gun... chair.... it is coming down. I have yet to see one that can take a prop hit and maintain control.
Certainly you are better off to use something other than a firearm.
Would the law react in the same way for Airsoft/BB gun/Air Gun?
If the drone was there for no more than 2 seconds how could this guy have enough time to see it, get a firearm, load, and shoot?
Seems to me there is more to this story. Five bucks says this kid, and others, have done this in the past many times. The Dad just reached his limit when this kid happened to decide it was HIS turn for a free peep show.
It was just the wrong 2 seconds for his thousand dollar drone.
Last I saw the flight data from the drone is contradicting the story of the guy who shot it down. In addition the homeowner stole the Memory card out of the drone. The more that has been coming to light the worse it is looking for Mr. Trigger happy.
I use a drone for my work. I take photos of properties I list. The last thing I want is some drunk Redneck shooting it down because he doesn't know where his property lines are.
Ahhh Here we go. The drone was at over 200 feet despite the guys claims it was hovering over his daughter at 20 feet. In addition it did not stop and hover over his property.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/08/new-drone-telemetry-suggests-shot-down-drone-was-higher-than-alleged/
Looks like he figured by taking the memory card he could hide the evidence. thankfully technology is smarter than he is.
Ahhh Here we go. The drone was at over 200 feet despite the guys claims it was hovering over his daughter at 20 feet. In addition it did not stop and hover over his property.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/08/new-drone-telemetry-suggests-shot-down-drone-was-higher-than-alleged/
Looks like he figured by taking the memory card he could hide the evidence. thankfully technology is smarter than he is.
Same old report from days ago. And no where confirmed who took the memory card.
Does reference the supreme Court case.
Nor does it confirm altimeter was calibrated, accuracy of GPS height measurement (+-15' if I recall for most receivers, etc), or even lat long from the GPS. Just a cheese overlay of Google map imagery.
Fun, slick, but not scientific.
And this guy most be a combo athletic and sporting clays champion to run get a shotgun, load it, and take a shot at a moving drone 200' in the air, plus an unknown horizontal distance.
Nothing's changed from 2 days ago.
All I know is I want to go Goose Hunting with the dude.
All I know is I want to go Goose Hunting with the dude.
10 gauge super full choke
I use a drone for my work. I take photos of properties I list. The last thing I want is some drunk Redneck shooting it down because he doesn't know where his property lines are.
Can you tell me what I need to read up on as far as regulations for commercial use. I do valuations and have seriously thought about adding this as a service. But I would need to be completely legit as far as FAA goes.
======
About this guy... th epilot and hovering, properety lines, etc... I think people ar not realizing he flew that thing quite a ways away from his property. But he could probably still see it. Now there is no indication he had a radio sending video back to him. I don;t see one on the drone in his video. so imagine looking down a city block and knowing are you over the house, the street , the field.... he could tell his side to side location to some degree but not his distance.. Then when he gets ready to make that right hand turn he probably paused a bit... 30 seconds is not all that long. but unless he was wirelessly transmitting video back to his base control he would not have been able to see the guy, his daughters, or anything else so even if eh camera did pick them up it would have been accidental.
I think people are assuming he could see what the camera saw in real time... which as far as I can tell was not the case. Maybe he took the camera and transmitter and antenna off when the news guy was there, I don't know. But it would be interesting to know if he was getting a live feed. Maybe he was.... I don't know who got the memory card but let's say the pilot has it.... why doesn't the home owner and neighbor say ... 'hey, it was in the drone when we gave it back' ... instead it's 'I don't know where it is' which could mean someone "found" it in the grass days later and simply hasn't watched the news and they have it in their pocket,,, or they flushed it down the toilet.... but most people would say, hey, it was in the drone when I gave it back OR I didn't even know they had memory cards.
I'm not convinced the pilot is telling the whole truth but I think the "Father" is creatively leaving things out. also how the hell do you shoot straight up in the air... that's kind of an unnatural position... was he laying on his back?
But at any rate if you have some links for doing this commercially I would appreciate it. I can dig up a bunch of tech stuff but I'm not clear how the commercial side works.
That is kind of a grey area right now. The laws and regulations are murky at best. We just try to keep the altitude low to avoid any problems.
That is kind of a grey area right now. The laws and regulations are murky at best. We just try to keep the altitude low to avoid any problems.
I thought the FAA just passed some regulations that clarified the hobby vs commercial issue? So you just wing it? ... ok prop it...
I thought the FAA just passed some regulations that clarified the hobby vs commercial issue? So you just wing it? ... ok prop it...
I remember seeing/hearing something about having to stay below 400' AGL. I can't remember where I saw this so dont quote me on that. The number seems a bit arbitraty to me, but then again, a lot of Fed rules seem to be.
I suppose as long as you stay outside of Class E airspace (and higher classes) you would be alright. Kinda difficult to do when/if you live next to a major airport.
Digital_Damage
08-06-15, 08:32
time to license these things....
4 incidents and counting over at JFK now.
Same old report from days ago. And no where confirmed who took the memory card.
Does reference the supreme Court case.
Nor does it confirm altimeter was calibrated, accuracy of GPS height measurement (+-15' if I recall for most receivers, etc), or even lat long from the GPS. Just a cheese overlay of Google map imagery.
Fun, slick, but not scientific.
And this guy most be a combo athletic and sporting clays champion to run get a shotgun, load it, and take a shot at a moving drone 200' in the air, plus an unknown horizontal distance.
Nothing's changed from 2 days ago.
Notice on the telemetry that it crashes at -45 feet.
Can you tell me what I need to read up on as far as regulations for commercial use. I do valuations and have seriously thought about adding this as a service. But I would need to be completely legit as far as FAA goes
In its continuing effort to safely expand and support commercial unmanned aircraft operations in U.S. airspace, the Federal Aviation Administration has now granted more than 1,000 Section 333 exemption approvals. As of today, the agency has issued 1,008 such exemptions.
Companies and individuals from a broad spectrum of industries are taking advantage of the Section 333 exemption process. Many of the grants the FAA has issued allow aerial filming for uses such as motion picture production, precision agriculture and real estate photography. The agency also has issued grants for new and novel approaches to inspecting power distribution towers and wiring, railroad infrastructure and bridges
Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 gives the Secretary of Transportation authority to determine if an airworthiness certificate is required for a UAS to operate safely in the national airspace system
Start by searching www.faa.gov
http://www.faa.gov/search/?omni=MainSearch&q=drone
http://www.faa.gov/search/?q=Unmanned+Aircraft+Systems+%28UAS%29
http://www.faa.gov/search/?q=UAS
http://www.faa.gov/uas/
Also call your local FSDO (FAA office)
Thanks, yes, those links seem to have what I was looking for.. Haven't had time to read it all... For some reason I thought if you made money with them then they became higher regulated but apparently that's what they are exempting now.
Digital_Damage
08-10-15, 09:09
Now 4 reporting near Newark airport.
that makes 14 "close" encounters reporting over the last 4 months at major airports.
Sightings were at 2,000 to 3,000 feet.
sevenhelmet
08-10-15, 09:35
I saw one of those drones over the weekend capturing a local civic event. Found a website where you can get control signal/GPS combination noise jammers to keep drones from getting close. They're expensive, and I'm fairly sure they're also illegal, so I didn't post the link. I like the paintball gun idea, or maybe one of THESE (http://shop.droneshield.org/Drone-Net-Gun-0006.htm)...
Just wait until people realize the command channel can be hacked.
Digital_Damage
08-13-15, 14:06
Drone almost collides with medical evac helicopter.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/drone-almost-hits-medical-helicopter-carrying-patient-to-fresno-hospital/ar-BBlHX4J?ocid=iehp
Starting to think an outright ban on them will be a good thing...
Drone almost collides with medical evac helicopter.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/drone-almost-hits-medical-helicopter-carrying-patient-to-fresno-hospital/ar-BBlHX4J?ocid=iehp
Starting to think an outright ban on them will be a good thing...
Ban would be safer. At least license like other aircraft and make them subject to the same operating laws.
Ban would be safer. At least license like other aircraft and make them subject to the same operating laws.
Yep. Just like guns. Ban them because they may be dangerous.
These are not aircraft. They are no different from the RC aircraft people have been flying for decades.
Digital_Damage
08-14-15, 20:56
Yep. Just like guns. Ban them because they may be dangerous.
These are not aircraft. They are no different from the RC aircraft people have been flying for decades.
There is not a constitutional right to own them, and clearly they are not being used responsibly.
And just like an RC craft they are toys, time to put the toys away before they cause casualties.
Yep. Just like guns. Ban them because they may be dangerous.
These are not aircraft. They are no different from the RC aircraft people have been flying for decades.
Here is the problem, you say they aren't aircraft, but about the time a Cessena Skyhawk on final, with mom, dad and two kids on board, hits one, it really won't matter, will it?
I'm an old fart, but it seems to me when I was young, you either flew a tethered gas powered plane, or did some serious education of yourself, and some serious model building, to have an RC plane. In those days the RC'ers were very responsible because they had literally hundreds of hours tied up in their aircraft.
The problems with RC really began when ready made, or easy to assemble kits, became available. Not as much skin in the game for the owners. The drones started out that way. IMO without regulation there is little motivation for drone owners to be responsible users.
There is a Constitutional Right to bear arms, don't recall an Amendment about flying.
Just my point of reference.
Ban would be safer. At least license like other aircraft and make them subject to the same operating laws.
Yes because bans have such a great history of success in the U.S. or elsewhere. Don't we have a ban on murder or crime in general; yet I still have these creaking taxes to pay every day to support the local LEO. Wonder why that is???
How about enforce the laws and punish those guilty of breaking them instead of everyone else? I know in today's society that isn't something we give much consideration to, but maybe this is a small step in that direction. People who fly them responsibly should not be punished for the acts of a few idiots.
FromMyColdDeadHand
08-14-15, 21:43
Yep. Just like guns. Ban them because they may be dangerous.
These are not aircraft. They are no different from the RC aircraft people have been flying for decades.
These new ones have on board GPS and can fly autonomously a route if you want. The planes are almost all foam and none are that heavy. I really don't think most are a threat to a plane- maybe if it hits a tab or tail on a helicopter. The threat, to me, goes up as weight goes up. I have RC planes, and up to a certain size/weight you can fly them in a park, above that you are supposed to go away from people or a dedicated place to fly them.
Frankly, when they get bigger/heavier than a goose, or operate outside line of sight, there probably should be some regulations on them.
Anti-Drone device
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hr-xBtVU4lg
CleverNickname
08-15-15, 13:26
There is a Constitutional Right to bear arms, don't recall an Amendment about flying.
That would be the 9th Amendment.
CleverNickname
08-15-15, 13:27
double post.
LowSpeed_HighDrag
08-15-15, 16:02
Anti Drone Device NSFW NSFW\\ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StxbkWLLTMI&oref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DStxbkWLLTMI&has_verified=1
MountainRaven
08-15-15, 16:50
Anti Drone Device NSFW NSFW\\ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StxbkWLLTMI&oref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DStxbkWLLTMI&has_verified=1
Sweet. "Now which one of you wants to get kicked in the head?"
That would be the 9th Amendment.
Point and match. :D
Moose-Knuckle
08-19-15, 15:03
Anti Drone Device NSFW NSFW\\ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StxbkWLLTMI&oref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DStxbkWLLTMI&has_verified=1
Well his life doesn't suck. Had to look him up, he is a professional poker player. No wonder he can afford to walk around in the desert in his boxers with bikini models shooting suppressed fully automatic toys.
Well his life doesn't suck. Had to look him up, he is a professional poker player. No wonder he can afford to walk around in the desert in his boxers with bikini models shooting suppressed fully automatic toys.
That looks like what I'd do if I could do that all day.
Digital_Damage
08-19-15, 21:53
Well his life doesn't suck. Had to look him up, he is a professional poker player. No wonder he can afford to walk around in the desert in his boxers with bikini models shooting suppressed fully automatic toys.
That is not how he got his money... No poker player could live the lifestyle he does with winnings.
He is a trust fund kid, the source of that money is a story onto itself.
Basically, his father played a shell game before the SEC came to collect on securities fraud conviction. Some of that money ended up with his Son.
or so the story goes....
Moose-Knuckle
08-19-15, 23:48
That looks like what I'd do if I could do that all day.
No kidding, who needs boring old paper targets or empty bottles when you have the money to blow R/C planes and drones out of the sky that cost hundreds of dollars!
That is not how he got his money... No poker player could live the lifestyle he does with winnings.
He is a trust fund kid, the source of that money is a story onto itself.
Basically, his father played a shell game before the SEC came to collect on securities fraud conviction. Some of that money ended up with his Son.
or so the story goes....
I sensed a douche bag aura emitting from him as he spoke . . . it's a gift.
Digital_Damage
08-20-15, 13:12
No kidding, who needs boring old paper targets or empty bottles when you have the money to blow R/C planes and drones out of the sky that cost hundreds of dollars!
I sensed a douche bag aura emitting from him as he spoke . . . it's a gift.
I'm 100% sure I would be one too with that kind of money.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.