KY. man shoots down drone...

[K191145]

RF Jammers are illegal, banned by the FCC and the use of a jammer in the US carries a very heavy fine. Also many drones don't need signals other than the GPS signal from the sats, mine will go into auto pilot, retrace it's steps and land from where it took off from originally. So that's a just another quick way to end up in hot water much like this guy who shot this one down. Even if a drone pilot breaks the law by flying somewhere they shouldn't it doesn't give you a license to break the law to stop them. Pick up your phone, dial 911, and record the incident if you can safely.

 

http://www.cnet.com/news/man-put-cell-phone-jammer-in-car-to-stop-driver-calls-fcc-says/

 

http://www.cnet.com/news/truck-driver-has-gps-jammer-accidentally-jams-newark-airport/

 

I'm not against people having fun flying their drones, fly over my property, just don't hover and snoop around my property, it's no business of any ones and it's a clear violation of my privacy and i'll probably do something about it myself because the law wont do crap about the drone snoops and you know it.

How about I buy a drone, hover it 5 feet from your wife's or daughter's bedroom window? How would you feel about that? 

[Ted S.]

Quadcopters could make an excellent pancake delivery system. I see potential. From the griddle to the plate, and from thence to the deepest,  most remote and private regions of my bowels. Let the syrupy and butyraceous happiness commence!

[Hozzie]

I'm not against people having fun flying their drones, fly over my property, just don't hover and snoop around my property, it's no business of any ones and it's a clear violation of my privacy and i'll probably do something about it myself because the law wont do crap about the drone snoops and you know it.
How about I buy a drone, hover it 5 feet from your wife's or daughter's bedroom window? How would you feel about 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.

[Oh Shoot]

....Let the syrupy and butyraceous happiness commence!

 

Impressed me, points awarded! ;)

 

- OS

[Sam1]

RF Jammers are illegal, banned by the FCC and the use of a jammer in the US carries a very heavy fine. Also many drones don't need signals other than the GPS signal from the sats, mine will go into auto pilot, retrace it's steps and land from where it took off from originally. So that's a just another quick way to end up in hot water much like this guy who shot this one down. Even if a drone pilot breaks the law by flying somewhere they shouldn't it doesn't give you a license to break the law to stop them. Pick up your phone, dial 911, and record the incident if you can safely.

 

http://www.cnet.com/news/man-put-cell-phone-jammer-in-car-to-stop-driver-calls-fcc-says/

 

http://www.cnet.com/news/truck-driver-has-gps-jammer-accidentally-jams-newark-airport/

 

 

 

This case could end up bringing in a lot of interesting variables.

 

Maybe we can get a scare started like what happened after Sandy Hook, everyone will blow their money on drones since they're about to be outlawed and that will give time for the .22lr stockpiles to replenish.

Edited August 2, 2015 by Sam1

[TrickyNicky]

So lets disregard the FAA and the potential legality of flying a drone over private property since people do not own the airspace over their property (or really the land, but that'll get this too complicated, so lets assume fee simple ownership grants allodial property rights for the sake of simplicity).

 

1. Assume that a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy on their property. 

 

2. Assume airspace is not part of the property and is not owned by the owners of the property.

 

3. Assume this drone is (as alleged) recording private activity (in any way, whether temporary through a live feed of the camera, and/or recorded to a memory card) on the property which there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.

 

That reasonable expectation of privacy is violated the moment any form of audio and/or photographical device has a sensor actively capturing any form of private activity on said property and thus is actively violating the reasonable expectation of privacy on said property. The means by which the sensor of the devices records the private activity is completely immaterial. So regardless of the method the data was captured; the nature of the captured data being private violates that reasonable expectation of privacy.

 

 

Did you get a chance to read Oliver VS US yet? It's a bit different than what we are talking about here, but it's the most relevant case law on REP outdoors on private property I could find. Worth a quick googling IMO.

[2.ooohhh]

I'm not against people having fun flying their drones, fly over my property, just don't hover and snoop around my property, it's no business of any ones and it's a clear violation of my privacy and i'll probably do something about it myself because the law wont do crap about the drone snoops and you know it.

How about I buy a drone, hover it 5 feet from your wife's or daughter's bedroom window? How would you feel about that? 

 

That drone hovering 5 feet from anther's window would have left the usable airspace for an RC operator IMHO, as I stated earlier the homeowner's airspace traditionally ends where their legal use of it ends. To me that's either the treetops or the top of the tallest structure in the vicinity of the craft. Hovering at 200 feet vs flying through at 200 feet of a 2 story home: no difference both totally legitimate and legal uses of the public airspace. Coming down below a tree line or roofline on another's property regardless of whether they are there to peep in windows or not is a safety concern and an invasion of the homeowner's airspace IMHO.  There is no argument in my mind for me to legally fly between two houses, buildings, trees on other's private property ect. The reason I use the term vicinity in regards to clearance of buildings and trees is that the craft determines the safe distance the operator should give to ground obstacles. With a standard consumer camera drone such as a phantom you have reasonable power, control, and maneuverability so you can safely get much closer to obstacles such as buildings than say an RC model blimp for instance. Just because I can safely navigate 15 feet from a home's windows doesn't mean that I should, typically that would be below the roofline, a no go in my opinion without the homeowner's permission. Unfortunately ATM much of this is left up to the craft's operator to make based on their judgement, the weather conditions, and their craft. One thing I've earned frequently flying small aircraft all over the US is that there is almost always an exception to FCC guidelines and there are always idiots out there that don't know the rules, follow the rules, or use good judgement as they should.

[Ted S.]

Impressed me, points awarded! ;)

 

- OS

 

Glory is always one more stick of butter away. :usa:

[Ugly]

Instead of starting a new thread,

This is an eagle taking out a drone, seems to me America doesn't appreciate drones! :)

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4416476226001/eagle-vs-drone-eagle-wins/?#sp=show-clips

[Murgatroy]

Instead of starting a new thread,

This is an eagle taking out a drone, seems to me America doesn't appreciate drones! :)

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4416476226001/eagle-vs-drone-eagle-wins/?#sp=show-clips

Well, except for the whole happening in Australia thing...

[nightrunner]

Well, except for the whole happening in Australia thing...

America is the world police ya know...

[Ugly]

An eagle is an eagle.
It's like the jackass symbol of the dem party, well, better than that.

[Dustbuster]

Shooting at a drone is as stupid as shooting a suspicious vehicle because it's parked on the side of the road. Easiest way to deter or stop one is to call the cops and TN has an excellent lawns regard to drones and filming unknowing citizens.

[Oh Shoot]

Judge dismissed both charges:

 

http://www.wave3.com/story/30355558/drone-slayer-claims-victory-in-court

 

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/10/daniel-zimmerman/charges-dropped-against-man-who-downed-drone/

 

- OS

Edited October 28, 2015 by Oh Shoot

[rmiddle]

A six foot fence is a reasonable measure to assure privacy from average passers by on foot. To say that a 6' privacy fence is a "reasonable measure" to prevent aerial photography from public airspace is a huge leap. At my other house it's not uncommon to have photographers lurking on the beach at all hours (all the beaches in that state are public) trying to catch someone famous that apparently has a house a few hundred yards down the beach from ours. I've talked to the sheriff, so long as they don't step foot on my property not a damn thing I can do, sure I could put up a 30' foot wall to block any nosey photographers from shooting my hot tub from the dunes but then I couldn't see the dunes and beach from my hot tub either. It's just something I've had to learn to live with.

 

Personally I would walk into and out of my hot tub nude.  One look at my naked body would prevent them from ever looking my direction again :)

 

Thanks

Robert

Edited October 28, 2015 by rmiddle

[DaveTN]

"I think it’s credible testimony that his drone was hovering from anywhere, for two or three times over these people’s property, that it was an invasion of their privacy and that they had the right to shoot this drone," Ward told the courtroom. "And I’m going to dismiss his charge."

Merideth also was facing a charge for firing his gun in a residential neighborhood. That charge was dismissed as well.

Wow...that Judge is an idiot.
I doubt many people that decide to shoot down a drone in a residential neighborhood will get a Judge like that.

[TNWNGR]

Wow...that Judge is an idiot.
I doubt many people that decide to shoot down a drone in a residential neighborhood will get a Judge like that.

 

I don't know if your partaking in humor or genuinely disagree with the judges decision Dave but I've seen more than one open and shut dead to rights guilty case be tossed by a judge.