KY. man shoots down drone...

[peejman]

if we can't shoot them down, maybe we get cheap drones and fly in to them.  I swear it was an accident.

 

But they were drones.  Really small ones.  About 40 of them.  Flying in formation.  Launched from a special launching platform.      ;)

 

 

 

Last September the NTSB ruled that all drones fit the federal definition of an aircraft in the FAA vs Pirker case.  So another issue this gentleman may face is that technically he broke Federal law by shooting down an aircraft.  Whether or not the feds will go after him remain to be seen but it is another aspect to think about before you shoot a drone out of the sky.

 

 

There's an important distinction between a "drone" and a hobby R/C aircraft.  A "drone" has the capability for autonomous flight.  If it loses signal, it's preprogrammed to return to a specific location or follow a specific flight path, or it can be programmed to follow a flight path via GPS waypoints or simple time/distance.  That's a drone.   Not all quadrotors will do that.   

 

Either way, I'm sure this toy wasn't registered with the FAA.  I doubt they'll care.

Edited July 30, 2015 by peejman

[Omega]

Last September the NTSB ruled that all drones fit the federal definition of an aircraft in the FAA vs Pirker case.  So another issue this gentleman may face is that technically he broke Federal law by shooting down an aircraft.  Whether or not the feds will go after him remain to be seen but it is another aspect to think about before you shoot a drone out of the sky.

If they bring that up I am sure he can counter with the fact that an "aircraft" was flying too low and get the FAA involved in that aspect.  And I again assert that he was defending his property which is well within his rights.

 

 

What law is that? Something specific to Kentucky? Or the city he's in?

 

- OS

In the city ordinance (his) against discharging a weapon within city limits.

 

" It shall be unlawful to discharge any firearm or airgun, beebee gun, pellet gun, or any toy gun, or any other gun, projecting lead or any missiles excepting in a regularly established shooting gallery; provided that this section shall not be construed to prohibit any officer of the law from discharging a firearm in the performance of his duty, nor to any citizen from discharging a firearm when lawfully defending person or property."

[Oh Shoot]

....

In the city ordinance (his) against discharging a weapon within city limits.

 

" It shall be unlawful to discharge any firearm or airgun, beebee gun, pellet gun, or any toy gun, or any other gun, projecting lead or any missiles excepting in a regularly established shooting gallery; provided that this section shall not be construed to prohibit any officer of the law from discharging a firearm in the performance of his duty, nor to any citizen from discharging a firearm when lawfully defending person or property."

 

Excellent research. I'd posit that may prove to be a quite good legal leg to stand on.

 

- OS

[TrickyNicky]

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

 

 

I think we see eye to eye on a lot of things Hozzie, but here we will have to differ. To be honest I was creeped out within the first minute and a half of the video. Call me old fashioned, but if the homeowner wanted the world to see his backyard and property in real time, he'd probably have a website dedicated to it set up with webcams.

 

Now my digs are not nearly as spectacular as all that, but I just think, what it that was my house and the day you decide to just casually view other peoples private property in my neighborhood coincides with the TrickyNicky 12th Annual Naked Pudding Wrestling and Orgy Party? Maybe I do have something to hide, is it really unreasonable to be able expect to do so on PRIVATE property? Does it really matter how much detail you pick up? Who owns the rights to the arial footage? Maybe TrickyNickyNakedPuddingWrestling.com? You?

 

There are pretty clear cut definitions of what can and does not constitute a reasonable expectation to privacy, I would say that spending a few hundred bucks shouldn't make anyone immune or dare I say 'above' the law. (Get it, above, like a drone? :rofl: ) If you can't reasonably tell from 1.4 miles away what you might be getting yourself into, you shouldn't be flying there. Public property of course is a whole different ball game. If I rent space at the park to have the first annual TrickyNicky Fully Clothed Pudding Wrestling and Handshake Party for instance I'd be pretty foolish to start crying foul on what was easily publicly observed being filmed. Especially if I had chosen a public venue for the event. 

[TNWNGR]

Well I reviewed this a bit more and while I sympathize with the man who shot the drone I question the legality of his actions and am certain the incident will cost him a lot of money. But with that I'm also concerned with the way the responding officers are reported to have handled the drone in that it was returned to the owner. No camera or SIM card (if present) were removed. No ,ention of viewing any footage was reported. If the drone was recording teen girls sunbathing in their yards as reported that could present some legal issues,, particularly if any of the girls were underage and nude or topless. FWIW I think modern recreational drones are an amazing tool and was really excited with the prospect of their use in disaster mapping, lost child or missing persons investigations.

[Sam1]

In TN too in some cases, as porch is part of your dwelling. But that has to do with deadly force to protect life and limb, not to protect property.

 

Are you suggesting that the drone meets the same test as using deadly force against a person?

 

- OS

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_kfUVZdTkU

 

Some drones do now.

[K191145]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_kfUVZdTkU

 

Some drones do now.

 

Sons Of Guns made one over a year ago. Not a new idea.

[gjohnsoniv]

 

Excellent research. I'd posit that may prove to be a quite good legal leg to stand on.
 
- OS

 

With the pistol packing drones flying around I'm sure your attorney could make quite the argument that you were in fear for your life.

Edited July 31, 2015 by gjohnsoniv

[K191145]

Well if the home owner is prosecuted and nothing is done about the punk pervs, I hope those in the town who support the home owner harass the crap out of the punks making everyday of their life miserable until they move, they deserve it. 

[runco]

UFOs beware, no trespassing!  No threats, but beware lead meteors can fall from the sky, and the odds of one smashing a UFO in my neck of the woods are slightly elevated.   That is all, you are warned, ignorance of the warning is not an excuse.  :2cents:

[RC3]

I cant wait until someone mounts a gun on the drones and then all hell will break lose. But they seem fun, just cant justify spending $600+ on a good one yet.  We do have RC planes, but trying to mount a camera on one isn't all that fun. And I would hate to have the P51 shot down.  I also don't have a long enough run way for it. Too many pesky poles, wires and cars to make a safe take off and landing on your street.

[Hozzie]

I think we see eye to eye on a lot of things Hozzie, but here we will have to differ. To be honest I was creeped out within the first minute and a half of the video. Call me old fashioned, but if the homeowner wanted the world to see his backyard and property in real time, he'd probably have a website dedicated to it set up with webcams.
 
Now my digs are not nearly as spectacular as all that, but I just think, what it that was my house and the day you decide to just casually view other peoples private property in my neighborhood coincides with the TrickyNicky 12th Annual Naked Pudding Wrestling and Orgy Party? Maybe I do have something to hide, is it really unreasonable to be able expect to do so on PRIVATE property? Does it really matter how much detail you pick up? Who owns the rights to the arial footage? Maybe TrickyNickyNakedPuddingWrestling.com? You?
 
There are pretty clear cut definitions of what can and does not constitute a reasonable expectation to privacy, I would say that spending a few hundred bucks shouldn't make anyone immune or dare I say 'above' the law. (Get it, above, like a drone? :rofl: ) If you can't reasonably tell from 1.4 miles away what you might be getting yourself into, you shouldn't be flying there. Public property of course is a whole different ball game. If I rent space at the park to have the first annual TrickyNicky Fully Clothed Pudding Wrestling and Handshake Party for instance I'd be pretty foolish to start crying foul on what was easily publicly observed being filmed. Especially if I had chosen a public venue for the event.

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.

[Omega]

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, I think I would take a dim view on a Cessna buzzing my property.  I doubt we would be having this discussion if the drone was just flying overhead at a couple hundred feet, or even if it was over a field but just so happened to cross over every once in awhile.  But no, it appears that it was deliberately hovering low enough to look under covered areas where there just so happens to be girls out there.  And the LEO does not even look into it?  While it seems like justice has already been served and I doubt those guys will be pulling anything like this again, I think they should also be criminaly charged as well.  

 

But technology keeps well ahead of the law and I am sure more incidents are ahead before laws are enacted.  Just like those perverts taking pics under women's skirts couldn't be charged, it may be the same here.

[Hozzie]

I don't know, I think I would take a dim view on a Cessna buzzing my property. I doubt we would be having this discussion if the drone was just flying overhead at a couple hundred feet, or even if it was over a field but just so happened to cross over every once in awhile. But no, it appears that it was deliberately hovering low enough to look under covered areas where there just so happens to be girls out there. And the LEO does not even look into it? While it seems like justice has already been served and I doubt those guys will be pulling anything like this again, I think they should also be criminaly charged as well.

But technology keeps well ahead of the law and I am sure more incidents are ahead before laws are enacted. Just like those perverts taking pics under women's skirts couldn't be charged, it may be the same here.

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. Edited July 31, 2015 by Hozzie

[Ugly]

Can the operator alter the flight data?

Seems to be at least 5 witnesses on the rednecks side.

[Hozzie]

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.

Edited July 31, 2015 by Hozzie

[Omega]

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.

If that bears out I can see the drone pilots side, but I would also like for him to produce the original memory chip for analysis.  Fairly sure he has video as well no?   

[Hozzie]

If that bears out I can see the drone pilots side, but I would also like for him to produce the original memory chip for analysis.  Fairly sure he has video as well no?   

 

Agree, I think he can and should as well.

[Omega]

Can the operator alter the flight data?

Seems to be at least 5 witnesses on the rednecks side.

If it is digital it can be altered.  How easily is something that I would have to see the data to find out.  Many programs just used a specially formatted text file which is very easily manipulated.  As for witnesses, I would rather use the unbiased footage to make up my mind. 

[Hozzie]

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.  

Edited July 31, 2015 by Hozzie

[79troublehead]

Should be legal to shoot them over your own property. Get TWRA to set daily limits and caliber restrictions. Shotguns only, and I'm thinking #6 shot would give drones above 200 ft. a reasonable survival rate. 

Edited July 31, 2015 by 79troublehead

[DaveTN]

Who cares if it was over his property or not? What was he “Protecting his property” from? If a 4 wheeler or a motorcycle ran through his property can he go out and blow the wheels off it? Of course not; what he did was reckless and criminal.

Will he be convicted? That remains to be seen, if he has no criminal past the DA will probably make a deal with him that involves court supervision and paying for the drone. Or, the DA may use his case to set a case law precedent on the issue.

This is a case of the legislature not keeping up with technology. When they address it will it create a free fire zone to shoot down drones? I think we all know the answer to that.

[Lumber_Jack]

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.

What format is the flight data recorded? File extension? I agree that anything digital can be altered but he'd have to act fast.

[KahrMan]

From the drone owner:

 

The owner of the drone, David Boggs, just released the flight data recorder from his iPad, saying it tracks the drone's path. In a video Boggs sent WDRB, he comments on drone's path 40 seconds before, during and after the incident.

"We are now one minute and 18 seconds into the flight," he says on the video. "We are now 193 feet above the ground. This area here is the world-famous drone slayer home, and this is a neighbor's home, and our friends live over here, and over here, and over here. You will see now that we did not go below this altitude -- we even went higher -- nor did we hover over their house to look in. And for sure didn't descend down to no 10 feet, or look under someone's canopy, or at somebody's daughter."

"We are right now one minute, 56 seconds over the drone slayer's house. We're still not on his property line -- we're just now getting ready to cross it....In less than two seconds...we are outside of his property, still at 272 feet. He shot the drone here, and you'll see it rapidly lose altitude, and the drone crash. Boom -- there it goes. Crazy, in the words of the great Paul Harvey, now you know the rest of the story."

 

http://www.wdrb.com/story/29670583/update-drone-owner-disputes-shooters-story-produces-video-he-claims-shows-flight-path

Edited July 31, 2015 by KahrMan

[gjohnsoniv]

Despite what he's showing now, several days after the fact, I'm still suspicious of it. The police should have verified both stories before handing the drone off without checking it. Edited July 31, 2015 by gjohnsoniv