Another Drone Shot Down

[Obiwan]

Woman shoots drone: “It hovered for a second and I blasted it to smithereens.”

Woman used a .410 shotgun against trespassing aircraft thought to be paparazzi.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/08/65-year-old-woman-takes-out-drone-over-her-virginia-property-with-one-shot/

[musicman]

The last sentence of the article caught me off guard and I literally lol'd.

[KahrMan]

Well she is correct, he is a national treasure. 

[MacGyver]

2 hours ago, musicman said:

The last sentence of the article caught me off guard and I literally lol'd.

The Apostle is a great movie.

Not to mention Lonesome Dove. 

She's probably right. 

[2.ooohhh]

The fact the pilots didn't stick around or file a police report leads me to believe they were paparazzi with no right to be over either property as low as they were likely flying. IMHO Good kill.

[GlockSpock]

For anyone that has never watched it, look into Get Low, one of my favorite movies. Of course Secondhand Lions is also a great movie.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Grayfox54]

this is an area that needs an official legal ruling. I certainly hope when one does come that it favors the land owner. 

I live inside the city limits, so I can't shoot one. But I got a water hose with a good nozzle. 

[DaveTN]

Another case of the legal system not keeping up with technology. I doubt there will ever be laws that will allow someone to shoot down a drone unless it presents a threat. You can’t shoot someone for trespassing on your property. So I assume it will be addressed in trespass laws.

To me its just common sense. You don’t fly a drone over other people’s property without permission. But if someone does; you don’t get to shoot it.

[bersaguy]

I think if someone is going to be flying one of these toys over a persons property they should be required to get that property owners permission or expect that this may very well happen to their toy also. Just because they have the money to buy these expensive toys does not give them the right to make a pest of themselves and disturb the property owners in that area............jmho

[gjohnsoniv]

5 hours ago, DaveTN said:

Another case of the legal system not keeping up with technology. I doubt there will ever be laws that will allow someone to shoot down a drone unless it presents a threat. You can’t shoot someone for trespassing on your property. So I assume it will be addressed in trespass laws.

To me its just common sense. You don’t fly a drone over other people’s property without permission. But if someone does; you don’t get to shoot it.

Law doesn't say anything about pressure washers.

[DaveTN]

24 minutes ago, gjohnsoniv said:

Law doesn't say anything about pressure washers.

Nope, it isn't required to list the devices used....

You could also end up being charged with a felony.

39-14-408.  Vandalism.

  (a) For purposes of this section:

   (1) "Damage" includes, but is not limited to:

      (A) Destroying, polluting, or contaminating property;

      (B) Tampering with property and causing pecuniary loss or substantial inconvenience to the owner or a third person;

      (C) Intentionally spilling, pouring, or otherwise administering chemicals or other toxic substances to or on the merchandise with the intent to:

         (i) Render the merchandise unusable or unsellable; or

         (ii) Alter the merchandise from its original or intended form; or

      (D) Destroying, harming, or decreasing the value of merchandise offered for sale by a retail merchant in any other manner;

   (2) "Merchandise" includes any goods, chattels, foodstuffs, or wares of any type of description, regardless of the value;

   (3) "Polluting" means the contamination by man-made or man-induced alteration of the chemical, physical, biological, or radiological integrity of the atmosphere, water, or soil to the material injury of the right of another. Pollutants include dredged soil, solid waste, incinerator residue, sewage, garbage, sewage sludge, munitions, chemical wastes, biological materials, radioactive materials, heat, wrecked or discarded equipment, rock, sand, cellar dirt, and industrial, municipal, and agricultural waste;

   (4) "Retail merchant" means any person primarily engaged in the business of making retail sales. For purposes of this subdivision (a)(4), "primarily" means that at least fifty percent (50%) of the taxable gross sales of the business are retail sales; and

   (5) "Retail sale" or "sale at retail" means any sale other than a wholesale sale.

(b) A person commits the offense of vandalism who knowingly:

   (1) Causes damage to or the destruction of any real or personal property of another or of the state, the United States, any county, city, or town knowing that the person does not have the owner's effective consent;

   (2) Solicits, directs, aids, or attempts to aid another to commit vandalism of a retail merchant, while acting with the intent to promote or assist the commission of vandalism of a retail merchant, or to benefit in the proceeds or results of the offense;

   (3) Damages merchandise offered for retail sale by a retail merchant; or

   (4) Facilitates commission of vandalism of a retail merchant or acts as an accessory after the fact to vandalism of a retail merchant.

(c)  (1) A person violating subdivision (b)(1) or (b)(3) is a principal under § 39-11-401 and shall be punished as for theft under § 39-14-105, after determining value under § 39-11-106.

   (2) A person violating subdivision (b)(2), is a principal under § 39-11-402 and shall be punished as for theft under § 39-14-105, after determining value under § 39-11-106.

   (3) A person violating subdivision (b)(4) by facilitating a felony act of vandalism committed under subdivision (b)(1) or (b)(3), shall be punished one (1) classification lower than the value of the act of vandalism committed under subdivision (b)(1) or (b)(3).

   (4) A person violating subdivision (b)(4) as an accessory after the fact, under § 39-11-411, to a felony act of vandalism committed under subdivision (b)(1) or (b)(3) commits a Class E felony.
 

[gjohnsoniv]

That was a joke, Dave.

[DaveTN]

8 minutes ago, gjohnsoniv said:

That was a joke, Dave.

Good, but there are a lot of people that think they have a right to damage a drone simply because they see it as an invasion of their privacy. As you can see from the law they could be charged and possibly convicted of a felony.

[E4 No More]

19 hours ago, Obiwan said:

Woman shoots drone: “It hovered for a second and I blasted it to smithereens.”

Woman used a .410 shotgun against trespassing aircraft thought to be paparazzi.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/08/65-year-old-woman-takes-out-drone-over-her-virginia-property-with-one-shot/

For what it's worth she used the 20-gauge: 

“I loaded my [20-gauge] shotgun and took the safety off, and this thing came flying over my trees. I don’t know if they lost command or if they didn’t have good command, but the wind had picked up. It came over my airspace, 25 or 30 feet above my trees, and hovered for a second. I blasted it to smithereens.”

[TrickyNicky]

3 hours ago, gjohnsoniv said:

That was a joke, Dave.

 

[DWARREN123]

Got to be some limits on what folks can or can not to others property. Maybe a height limit or boundary limit. 

[xsubsailor]

Since I fly RC planes I decided to read the FAA's ruling....bad idea. (623 pages). Doesn't seem like our government can keep anything simple.

[Omega]

Seems like erecting some bird netting could take care of aerial trespassers. And there is nothing saying I need to retrieve it for you or allow you to retrieve it yourself. Most tree lines are around 100 feet or so, if you just need to go across private property then maybe you need to be well above that, or above shotgun range.  Besides, I believe drones now have to be within eyesight of the operator unless commercially licensed. 

[Hozzie]

Seems like erecting some bird netting could take care of aerial trespassers. And there is nothing saying I need to retrieve it for you or allow you to retrieve it yourself. Most tree lines are around 100 feet or so, if you just need to go across private property then maybe you need to be well above that, or above shotgun range.  Besides, I believe drones now have to be within eyesight of the operator unless commercially licensed. 

No, it's a recommendation not a law. Shooting an aircraft, drone or not, out of the sky is a federal offense. I am not saying there aren't stupid people flying drones, but for the most part it is like any other hobby. Those that use some common sense and those that don't.

[Omega]

7 minutes ago, Hozzie said:

No, it's a recommendation not a law. Shooting an aircraft, drone or not, out of the sky is a federal offense. I am not saying there aren't stupid people flying drones, but for the most part it is like any other hobby. Those that use some common sense and those that don't.
 

I believe you are mistaken, the new drone rules make flying by camera or not within visual range a discriminator between needing a special (expensive) class and license or just being a hobbyist.  And I'm not sure shooting a hobby drone falls under the Feds, local law maybe but not the Feds.

[Hozzie]

Nope, have a drone and know the laws. They just made new recommendations to reduce the requirements to fly for commercial purposes (FAA Part 107) but it is not a law for in visual site for hobbyists. It is a guideline (read recommendation) to stay within visual site, but not a law.

[nightrunner]

Here is my problem with it. I don't have a problem with anything you, go smoke meth for all I care, AS LONG AS IT DOESN'T AFFECT ME. But when you enjoying your hobby invades my reasonable expectation for personal privacy, that's where the problem lies. I think we can all agree that when we go out in public, someone is always watching  in one way or another. But when I am at home, I should have privacy to not be watched.

There is no reason that drones shouldn't be forced to say 250-500ft minimum unless it's over public property or have the consent of the property owner. I shouldn't have to put up bird netting or some other defense.

[Hozzie]

1 hour ago, nightrunner said:

There is no reason that drones shouldn't be forced to say 250-500ft minimum unless it's over public property or have the consent of the property owner. I shouldn't have to put up bird netting or some other defense.

If most people had any idea what detail you can see (and by that I mean what you can't see) from a drone at 100ft, they would realize a drone is absolutely no infringement on their privacy.  I am not saying anyone should just hover over anyone else's property without permission, but just passing over is absolutely no invasion of anyone's privacy in my view.  I don't do it most of the time, but I have certainly flown over private land at an altitude of 100 ft taking video of the nice Tennessee country side.  

At the end of the day, this is an FAA issue once they are in the air.  As much as most would like to believe they own the area above their property, they don't, it's airspace controlled by the FAA.  One can argue with that, but legally that is the case.   There is certainly a case for privacy, but simply saying you can't fly over any private property isn't going to pass muster.  I suspect most don't think about a news chopper flying over as an infringement and yet they can zoom in to take a picture of a pimple of your face.  These drone camera's don't zoom.  For me it is simply a matter of misunderstanding them.  I would be glad to show anyone mine and let you watch while I fly it.   If you see someone flying one, ask about it.  they would love to talk to you about it.

 

[jughead]

what is the difference in this and a person posting no gun signs as far as private property goes. why doesnt trespassing laws apply?

[Hozzie]

For the reason I mentioned above.  You don't in general own much space above your property so they can't be trespassing.   The standard set seems to be about 80' from the ground for a normal house from what research I have done.    

Edited August 31, 2016 by Hozzie