Judge says man had right to shoot down drone.

<p>More drone news. Judge says man had the right to shoot down a drone.<br>

<a href="http://petapixel.com/2015/10/28/judge-says-man-had-right-to-shoot-down-drone-that-was-invading-his-privacy/">LINK</a></p>

<p>This won't end there. The judge was way off base. The footage from the kid's copter shows that he was recording no imagery anything like what the anti-aircraft guy said, and the judge is blowing off the matter of the shooter's discharge of a firearm in an area where that's not allowed, but without ANY indication that he was actually acting in the sort of self-defense mode that would excuse that.<br /><br />More to the point, it's a big federal no-no to shoot at ANY form of aircraft or flying device, period. The guy was no more justified in destruction of property by shotgun in this case than he would be in shooting at a car in his driveway because he thought someone was pointing a smartphone camera at him. There was no emergency, and no call for his reaction. The judge's ruling will be reviewed, I'm sure. <br /><br />None if this makes it OK for someone flying a remote control model aircraft, toy, or multi-rotor "drone" (or a thrown football, or a kite, or a pet falcon) low in someone's back yard without permission. But this is no different than a frisbee winding up on a neighbor's roof, or a baseball breaking a window (though the baseball in that context is more dangerous than the kid's quad, which didn't hit or break anything and demonstrably didn't destroy anyone's privacy). Looking forward to this judge hearing from his peers and from the up-stream appeals court.</p>

<p>I have seen a couple of categorical responses that you can not shoot down a drone. Sorry but I would not tolerate a craft flying over my property at 10 ft above the ground. It represents a threat to people and structures on my property. My standard at the very minimum is the height of the tallest object on my property and let someone try to charge me. Of course this could be carried to some ridiculous extreme by erecting a 100' antenna or something.<br>

I have heard people cite FAA regulations but these were written when no one could even conceive of pilotless machines delivering packages etc and I do not consider them valid in this context.</p>

<p>Donald, the fact that you do not consider certain regulations valid does not exempt you from having to obey them. This is what the rule of law is about.</p>

 

<p>I am a supporter of the rule of law so it is hypocritical. But the one place where you should have control in your life is your own backyard. We have to accept that in this world that there is always some control of your life. At work, walking on the sidewalk and driving, paying taxes to maintain a stable and safe society and where the system provides a good environment. This is necessary or if someone doesn't like it they are welcome to move to Irag or the Sudan. However the only place where you have control of your life and freedom is on your own property so long as you act within reason. I draw the line when you cross this threshold and apparently this judge agrees. I am sure she is not the only jurist who would rule this way and I believe that there will be changes to reflect this. In this case using a firearm was irresponsible and he should be held legally liable for that but if I have a safe way to prevent an intrusion within the parameters I stated previously I would use it and face my day in court.</p>

<p>Donald: there are a lot of things I wouldn't tolerate on my property, either. Like, say, somebody hot dogging across it on a dirt bike or a snowmobile. But my annoyance at that doesn't give me legal cover to shoot at the annoyer or destroy property.<br /><br />The video retrieved from the kid's quadcopter clearly shows he wasn't buzzing the guy's yard at 10 feet. And clearly shows that nobody was being endangered. There was no emergency, no threat to life and limb - no justification for illegally discharging a firearm in a suburban back yard, shooting <em>into the air</em>. The guy with the shotgun and the judge are both foolish. This was a matter (at <em>most</em>) for a call to the local PD, so they could go knock on the kid's door and tell him to talk with his neighbors about his hobby. </p>

<p>I did address the issue of firearm and I think I agreed with you on that. That was inexcusable and if I were an uninvolved neighbor up to that point I would have called the police and filed charges since his use of a firearm was a much greater threat. Of course I would have tried to have a dialogue with the kid or his parents. But there is a point where I would draw the line. Some laws should be challenged they are not necessarily sacred. This is hypothetical to me at this point, but if it did occur I would have my day in court and accept the judgement as the rule of law as I am sure you would if you did not like the decision.</p>

<p>Matt<br>

Just for arguments sake, you stated that it wasn't like he was flying 10' above the ground. Does that infer that there is a point where it is justified? How about if I have grandchildren in the yard and the drone is at their eye level? Is it justified then? Would I have to remove them from the yard to accommodate the drone? According to the argument of rule I would be obliged the accommodate the rule of law. Do I have to vacate my yard to accommodate a drone that is a threat to me flying at 5 feet? I understand that in this case he was not piloting the drone at this level. The question becomes where do you draw the line at what is safe? 5',10', 20', 50' or 53.56'?. When the FAA created these regulations they also wrote regulations regarding qualifications of pilots and licensing. Who is operating these machines? A 15 year old, a 35 year old or an 8 year old and how can I assume that the operator is proficient or responsible. Is he drunk? Are there any laws or regulations regarding drunk drone operators? I have no idea who is operating these machines so yes, I will operate under my own standards and take my chances in court. You need a license to drive a car legally. Drones were never part of the equation when these regulations were written and I think it is safe to say that regulations regarding drones have to be addressed. This is an area that needs to be addressed under the rule of law which also defines enforcement and how to resolve complaints. If this is done, I do not think either side will be happy with the rule of law. When I say this I am not being sarcastic, I am echoing the concern of many about the absence of action by the FAA .

<p>Donald: My point was that he was flying well ABOVE that. Tree-top type altitude, not down at people level. <br /><br />There is no specific rule saying what altitude is safe. People have been flying remote control model aircraft for decades, taking off and landing on the ground right in front of themselves. It's about exercising good judgement. Right now, the FAA has no rules about model aircraft, only guidelines. And those relate to staying under 400', away from airports, and just generally not being an idiot around other people. That's been going just fine for many, many years.<br /><br />The FAA has NOT created any regulations about flying such things recreationally. In fact they are required by the 2012 FAA Modernization and Reform Act to NOT put any further burdens on recreational fliers. Not necessary anyway ... as demonstrated in the case in question, there are plenty of laws on the books to deal with reckless or endangering behavior. Doesn't matter if you fly a toy helicopter around, or give a neighbor's kid a concussion by throwing a football over the fence. You don't need the FAA to get involved in such stuff, just like you don't need the Department Of Transportation involved in an NTSB inquiry if you short out your neighbor's power lines while trying to fly a kite. Plenty of local law enforcement ways to deal with rude or careless behavior of all sorts.</p>

Good judgement. My original post started off saying that some. Have posted "categorically" that you can not shoot down a drone. I will accept good judgement.. But the original phrase was under any circumstances(categorically). In that sense I was offering

guide lines of where you set limits. Like you said, involving regulatory agencies is ridiculous. My argument was there is

some point where you can expect some right to respond. I did not say in this specific case the shooter was justified and I

also basically thought that his method was illegal and far worse than anything the operator was doing. I was saying that

there some point where I would take action. At what point does one do this, who knows. I am not going to run around like a

maniac every time a drone came a little too close innocently but if I thought that it was overly intrusive or dangerous I

would take action. My questions might seem absurd or extreme but the idea was that at some point a person should be

able to respond using as you said good judgement.

<p>This is the equivalent of two kids in the back seat of a car on a long, hot, summer vacation from Hell. One kid (the drone operator) is holding his finger one inch from his sibling's face saying "I'm not touching you, I'm not touching you, I'm not touching you" which is an obvious attempt to draw a forceful response from the sibling, to bait a smack from the sibling who will then have crossed the line in response even though said response is warranted.</p>

<p>For what justifiable purposed, legal or not, can a drone operator fly a drone over someone else's property before it becomes a nuisance or worse? Since the property owner can't know what the intent of the drone operator is, the property owner has to on one hand tolerate the finger in the face for fear of repercussions, or on the other hand address a nuisance/ peeping tom/ instigator by disabling the drone. He can't call the police because he has no idea who to report and the drone won't be there when the police arrive. An unauthorized drone within striking distance, within the confines of a property, is a drone that is intentionally invading private property.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Sorry to all those of a certain species, but when MEN stop puffing their chests and reacting with "I'll shoot!" (or if only it were confined to behind the safety of their computer keyboards), the world will be a better place. I say put it back in your pants where it belongs. ;-)</p>

<p>Donald, you said it yourself, you're not talking about THIS case and only about a most extreme (hypothetical) one. Why even go there? </p>

<p>Quick response as I run out the door. This is one of many threads on this subject so I take in context with them. This is already an extreme case. The guy took out a shot gun and took out a kid's drone. To me this illustrates not the potential for extreme action but it has already happened. I was speaking to when one would take extreme action. I did back down a little from my original statement a little and I did agree that we can not call in a federal agency every time we get our nose out of joint but FAA regulations were cited in previous threads so they became part of the discussion. I also did agree that one should use a little more discretion. But, an extreme event did occur I think it will not be the last and some one has to come up with guidelines because it is no longer the hobbyist with a radio controlled craft. They are easier to use, more available at lower price and at the high end being implemented for commercial use.</p>

<p>Donald, thanks for the explanation. I just wish the guy in the story didn't react with "I'll shoot" and then you didn't react that way. If we want to challenge what we think are unjust laws or unjust judicial decisions and we've exhausted legal and administrative routes, I'd recommend civil disobedience. Violent civil disobedience is another matter completely. As I see it, there is too much trigger happiness in the world and rather than respond to this story with situations where we, ourselves, would also resort to aiming our guns at the problem, I'd prefer us to seek other solutions, even if that requires a more difficult and less knee-jerk reaction.</p>

Just to the record straight and in agreement Ido state the the use of the gun posed a bigger threat to the public and I would have filed a

complaint against him rather than the drone operator. If I used his logic I guess I could have gotten a shot gun and took him out (lol).

Please God don't let this start a discussion of when we can use firearms on whoever .

<p>You fly a drone over my property close enough where I can see and identify it, it's going to get shot down. You want to fly one, take it to public property or buy your own acreage. I don't care what you are doing with it, keep it on your own property.<br>

For you who said the guy that fired the shotgun was the greater risk, I submit that he hit a moving drone at what the owner claims to be well over 200 feet in the air so he was well qualified and skilled in the use of his shotgun so not likely to hit the wrong target. </p>

<p>A drone is analogous to a frisbee thrown on my lawn as a baseball is analogous to a hand grenade. Same thing, eh? A frisbee can't hover outside my bedroom window and take pictures of me and the wife having sex.</p>

<p>Anyone who can't see the difference is blinded by his own interests in the matter.</p>

<p>I see a new product opportunity here: Some type of air-powered gun that shoots a net a maximum of say 30 feet or so. I believe something similar exists for capturing wildlife. That would take away the threat to public safety at least.</p>

<p>Al</p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=6064444">Al Derickson</a> , Oct 29, 2015; 11:52 a.m.</p>

 

<p>I see a new product opportunity here: Some type of air-powered gun that shoots a net a maximum of say 30 feet or so. I believe something similar exists for capturing wildlife. That would take away the threat to public safety at least.<br>

Al</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I'd rather see a law specifying prison time for people who fly drones over property they don't own. That'd put a stop to all of this. Want to fly a drone? Keep it in public space, space you have permission to be in, or your own private space, and there's no problem. Nobody has any business flying a drone over my property. Period.</p>

<p>At any altitude.</p>

<p>Usually I write substantive responses to threads like this. But, guys, amateur lawyering is of no higher quality than amateur wedding photography. Usually it's worse. The judge, of course, got this one right. The article isn't even reporting the relevant facts that would tell you what the reasoning behind the ruling is, and the subscript on what the new law would do is clearly off the mark.</p>

<p>What most likely happened is court was that there was some pretrial hearing to weigh whether there was sufficient evidence to proceed, and while the defense had three eyewitnesses saying the thing was flying low the prosecution had just this log and no way to verify its accuracy. The pilot himself says he had never used the thing before that day, so he can't claim to be any sort of expert, and if you look at the video the log is clearly not giving an accurate report of the level of the drone over the ground, because when it hits the ground it reads negative 40-something feet.</p>

<p>Defense argues that destroying personal property is lawful as self defense against trespass and invasion of privacy, judge agrees on this point of law, and the evidence showing that the drone pilot did trespass and invade privacy is much stronger than the evidence showing he did not. That's all the defense needs to win. Letting this proceed to trial would be a waste of time and money.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'd rather see a law specifying prison time for people who fly drones over property they don't own. That'd put a stop to all of this. Want to fly a drone? Keep it in public space, space you have permission to be in, or your own private space, and there's no problem. Nobody has any business flying a drone over my property. Period.<br>

At any altitude.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Quoted for agreement.</p>

<p>It would be so easy to add property line awareness to iPad drone apps, if it's not in there already I fault the manufacturers for not helping their customers avoid these problems.</p>

<p>We had a neighbour who went to the extremes of keeping anything that went into his yard because of his perspective on the privacy of his domain, and my sons lost a couple of Frisbees and a football because of that over a few months. He was a jerk, quite frankly, and it took a midnight raid to get my sons stuff back (not that I'd admit that ever actually happened, but you can see the kind of escalation that this behaviour engenders). Both sides in this court case need to step back and consider their actions. No way ever that someone should be firing a gun at a moving object when other houses are nearby, and there is a very uncomfortable fuzzy line that drones cross that is not paralleled by other flying devices, or by sports equipment. This problem is not going away because there are federal regulations in place, or because someone could go to jail, but clear public clarification of what is acceptable wouldn't hurt.</p>

<p>Having said that, I have two drones now, I'm a pilot, and I'm waiting to understand what is required for me to fly these around going forward, other than, as Matt points out, the existing legislation. I wanted them for photography, and I'm willing to work within the rules to get what I need. I think the potential for photography is worth working through the process.</p>

In my fist statement I was speaking to visceral feelings regarding my rights to control what happens over my property. Of

course a little tolerance but I sure as hell entitled to the dignity of deciding when to be tolerant. It is like having the right to

cut down limbs that over hang my yard but I am not going to cut every one down because they are there. The one time I

did I asked my neighbor it was okay with him, no problem. But I will be damned if someone would tell me I can not if I

really want to do it.

As far as the gun goes there is rule of law. I do not care how good he is. It was specifically illegal and he should have

been charged. I do not want my neighbor firing guns off next door and if it is illegal I would file a complaint.

The frustration with drones is that as they are now it is unchartered waters with no clear way to red solve them now. I

really do not give a damn about drones per se. My issue is my right to control what occurs on my property.

<p>If it's over my property and I can bring it down with my leaf rake, it's a dead drone. I'm going back to my pea shooter. I haven't used one in years but it's time.<br>

Conni</p>

<p>If someone is flying anything over your property and you can hit it with a leaf rake, you've got a very good case for knocking it down. But not for letting loose with a shotgun in a suburban neighborhood.<br /><br />If someone is flying a toy copter of some sort that low (below tree-tops in your yard), you can knock such fragile things down with a spray from a garden hose or a thrown stick. I'd quite possibly do it myself, if I thought the kid operating it was being truly dangerous. </p>