Hozzie

I am in. Ok with any amount.

Sharp car.  Congrats.

Totally agree.  My reason for getting into this thread from the start had nothing to do with people doing this and more directly, how they do it.  It is completely up to each individual the risk they are willing to take and how they take it.  

While I don't necessarily disagree, it only takes once. Seems to me someone could pretty easily take out one of these groups if they had the desire.

Bersa, I appreciate the link, but it still doesn't get to the root of the issue.  I never said there weren't Oath Keepers participating, and I am sure they are sending out info and updates regularly.  The issue comes with stating the majority of these people have extensive training and are the majority of people that are at these sites.   While I believe some may have some training, I don't believe the majority have extensive training.  I don't have any facts to back that up, but I am also not stating it in such a way that it comes across as stating a fact.   I am glad you are an oath keeper, I respect that decision.  I just hope everyone realizes that many times the road to hell is paved with good intentions.  Again, I don't say that to say I am against anyone who wants to go do this, but I believe all they are doing is making themselves a sitting target.  Truth be told, having one of these people in front of one of these centers could have already prevented another attack, but there is no way we will ever know.     What we will undoubtedly know (and I hope this never happens) is that when a group of these guys gets killed because they were trying to help, it makes them no less dead.  I understand where EssOne is coming from with his story about two guys with shovels.  In that case, luckily nothing bad happened, but what if it did?  I expect that story would be much different today.     Sometimes you do just have to stand up for what you believe.  I just want people to do it smartly and avoid unnecessary risk.  I also like to keep opinion from fact where we can.

  I certainly think some are oath keepers, but I have no idea how many and I suspect Bersa doesn't either.  I find statements like "Many other members have been through extensive training courses" to be laughable.  He is making a jump that most of these guys are oath keepers and that many have extensive training.    I am saying unless he can show me some facts on these statements that they just ring hollow.   Don't get me wrong, I am not against what any of these guys are doing, I just don't think it's the smartest way to go about it, but that's just my opinion.  I am not stating my opinion as fact either, but I think in the end, I can provide more facts to prove my point than he can his.   At the end of the day, I personally need facts to sway my viewpoint on any topic.   If there are facts that say these guys are highly trained, combat personnel doing this, that goes a long way to me thinking it is better than some GI Joe wanna be just wanting to walk around with his rifle to look cool to his mom.   And on the Dem Politician statement, I find that laughable as well.  If you would have just said Politican, I would agree with it, but to say it is just Dem's is funny.

And just how did you come to this conclusion? Any facts, or just your wishful thinking? Bersa, I don't mean offense, but you throw out an awful lot of opinions as facts with absolutely zero to back it up. Just because some GI Joe wanna be has a single point sling doesn't mean he has military training. From what I have seen, most of these guys look like they have zero training. I am not saying what they are doing isn't good intentioned, but I believe most have just made themselves sitting targets. Someone with any training wouldn't do that.

No one has or is saying that would be ok. I think every single one of us and the guy who had the drone shot down would agree with you.

Can you fortify the chicken coop better?   Do you know how it is getting in?  Or are these free range chickens?

Brownells is good to go.

It does have a demo mode.  I don't think it records the flight path though.  I will have to check when I get some time.   Also, the camera will always send back what it sees, but it doesn't mean it's recording.  You can fly all you want without recording a thing.  If he was just taking photo's it also wouldn't have video.  You can't take video and photo's at the same time.   For anyone curious, the model is a DJI Phantom 3 Professional.     Also, just a though.  IF it was actually as close as the shooter says, don't you think in today's day and age someone would have taken cell phone video of it?  Seems we can catch cops shooting people, I would think if I was that annoyed, I would video it myself to show to police.  

  This is the easiest question of all to answer.  See Ferguson, MO.  The answer is both.

  Anything is possible, but having my own experience with these things, I fully believe the drone operator after seeing the video and even the fight path.  While it could have been changed, I don't believe it was in this case.   In the end, the only opinion that matters is the courts.  

The flight log data is on a separate data card from the video, but the tablet keeps a cached copy as well of the flight data.  And I should add, the flight log data card is not easily accessible.  You have to take the quad well apart to get to it.  The manufacturer does this because it also affects them when someone says the quad went crazy on its own and crashed and then want it replaced under warranty.  They want to be able to have some confidence the data wasn't altered.  You actually have to send the quad in for them to take it apart and check the data.   Now, anyone knows if you have enough technical ability, you could get to it yourself, so anything is possible.  

  Agree, I think he can and should as well.

Not easily.  I wouldn't know how to do it and I am pretty technical.  Granted, I have never tried either, so it could be easier than I think.     I know you can't judge everyone by what they look like, but the Pilot really did not look or sound like he was trying to cover up anything.     How many rednecks you met that didn't have at least 5 on their side  :pleased:   Don't get me wrong, I can be a bit redneck, so I am not saying that is all bad, just that there is a certain group mentality that comes into play.

They talked to the drone pilot last night and he refutes everything the guy is claiming. He also has flight log data to show he was at approx 200ft when it was shot and it wasn't just hovering. He even stated that if someone was looking under his porch he would shoot it too. He basically said the guy is lying and it appears he may have enough info to prove it. I am not saying this should make a difference if facts prove otherwise, but the pilot looked and sounded very reasonable. The guy who shot it looked a little more red neck. I think this may be a case of a good old boy getting a little carried away. The quad in question is exactly like mine so I know exactly what data is available. He has the flight path, speed , height, and GPS to show exactly what happened. In fact, I would say the guy that shot it was extremely lucky to hit it. It looked to me like he broke a propeller with a lucky shot if the guy was at 200ft. Looks like the damage was from the fall. I think the shooter may be in a lot more trouble than he knows if all proves to be true.

I don't have an issue with a differing opinion on this matter. I don't personally see any issue between this and a Cessna flying over. I guess I know I am not doing this to spy on anyone or trying to find something illicit going on. It's really just about some photography and the fun of flying. I also guess I don't have an issue with someone doing this exact same thing over my property. I just personally think people are way overreacting to all of it. We will agree to disagree on this, but I agree with you that we do agree on many items.

I don't know how it is at GGC, but at Strategic Edge, anyone bringing a guest is not supposed to be shooting while their guest is shooting.  That may be ok as I am not sure how much room there is and if everyone could shoot at once anyway.   Private land is the best option, but I think that is a lot of liability for someone.  Even if I had the space I probably wouldn't offer it unfortunately.

This all comes down to how close it was for me.  It was obviously within shotgun range, so that is pretty close.  Saying that a drone shouldn't fly over your property at all isn't realistic.   The long term question is what should be considered acceptable.  Attached is a good example of a flight I did where I obviously flew over others property.  I went out about 1.4 miles from where I was controlling it.  Am I wrong for doing this at this height?  I don't think so, but some of you may disagree.    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_H-MQ90dc9U

  That's like saying a good portion of guns only exist for people to shoot people.  This couldn't be farther from the truth.   Go out to a quadcopter forum and do some reading.  You will see most quad owners despise situations like this more than anyone.  I would use the analogy, a gun doesn't shoot people, people do.  Same with a quad.   Anytime there is new technology out there, some people will abuse it.  

Omega, I don't disagree.  If one is just sitting there obviously zoning in on something on your property, I say it's fair game.  I don't want anyone to think I approve of that kind of use.

  First let me say I am not approving or supporting what these guys did, that's not my point.  I suspect they were being perv's, but I want everyone to understand what one can actually see in detail from 50 yards with one of these.     It isn't that you can't see people, or even enough detail to make out an object from 50 yards with most drones, but you cannot for instance zoom in and see specific detail on a body part.  I have a better than average drone with a 4k camera, but from 50 yards, all I could make out is probably what person it is if  I know them.  I am not going to see great detail.     Unless you are running a 5-10k drone that holds a DSLR with a zoom attached (which I would be almost certain these guys are not, you would have to be within 10 yards or less to see any spefic detail of a person.   I suspect these morons may have tried to come in that close at some point, so I am not even saying I am against targeted action, but I wouldn't get too worked up over someone just flying over my property at a reasonable height (probably somewhere in the 100ft category is ok with me).  What they can see from that height they can get from Google quite easily.  Granted, the Google image is a one time still.   I will splice together some video from different heights when I get the chance to give you an idea of what you can see at what height.

TN did pass some law related to drones, but I don't remember what it was. In general, I don't think it is a big problem in that most people who have them don't want to use them for nefarious activities. The bigger issue is people flying too high around airports. The worry about cameras is a bit overblown as well. You have to be very close to see much specific in relation to a person. Yes, they could look at things in your yard from very high, but you will never stop that. Hell, if I want a good look at your property I will go to Google.

Can't argue with that.