Judge says man had right to shoot down drone.

[andylynn]

Matt, self defense is usually a defense to whatever use of force was involved in the defending, with details on state-by-

state basis. If you're allowed to defend yourself by destroying a piece of property, in many states you'd be allowed to use

a shotgun in the process, so long as there aren't people where you're shooting.

 

Obviously it would be better if some easy to use, nonlethal drone destruction device were available to the public, but

hopefully somebody will bring that to market sooner or later.

[GerrySiegel]

A case where neighbor law intersects with gun laws and drone safety laws ( as far they stand) and all of which vary by jurisdiction, state and county and community. It is common for intrusions like trees to get cut down by a property owner and be within his or her rights. With the burden falling on the intruder. In this case, who knows. Excessive force for sure. A drone is not a varmint. Except maybe in rural Dogpatch.

[donald_miller5]

<p>I was under the impression the justification of the level of force used had to be justified by the level of threat. Al states that he was a good gunsman since he hit a target over 200' over head. Where is the justification. While we are it just because he is a good marksman does not mean he is a responsible. As a matter of fact his reaction of using a shot gun in this case make one question his responsibility. If I had a neighbor pull out a gun to shoot down a drone 200 in the air I certainly do not want him using a firearm near me.</p>

<p>But why a shot gun? I think an 88mm AA gun would be the wise choice or maybe one of those missiles in the Ukraine.</p>

[mike dixon]

"I'd rather see a law specifying prison time for people who fly drones over property they don't own."

 

Should a football going into your yard or a person stepping on your lawn also result in prison terms?

[donald_miller5]

<p>Dogpatch, now that is a town I have not heard of in a long time. I wonder Al Capp would say.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Andy: complaining about amateur lawyering and then proposing "easy" solutions like apps that know where <em>everyone's</em> property lines are? Amateur technologizing is bad enough, but that's ALSO an example of amateur lawyering. You don't control the airspace over your own property, though you certainly can get the police involved if someone is disturbing your peace by <em>any</em> of a thousand means in your immediate back yard. Barking dogs, kids playing ball, the neighbor tuning up his Harley - this is no different. That's why we have laws that already cover this sort of thing, and law enforcement officers who are <em>better</em> able to deal with such situations when we don't split hairs and start using different rules for when you get in the head by the neighbor's football vs a 10-pound kite. </p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>Maybe the judge didn't want the shooter to go to jail for this kind of "crime". After all "reckless endangerment" and firing a weapon recklessly could mean a jail term. So he "found" enough evidence to get the shooter off the hook and keep peace in his community. I wonder if he made any recommendation to the accused regarding future action of this sort? </p>

<p>Al Capp would say: <em>"We have found the enemy. An he is us." </em> </p>

[andylynn]

Of course you control the airspace over your property. The legal regime that enables commercial flight without trespass is

an exception, not a general rule, and it's not absolute. There are examples of property owners successfully suing

operators of low flying aircraft over their property. Flying a drone low over somebody's property is of course trespass.

Taking video while doing so is invasion of privacy. There is state law covering this in most or all states. This judge ruled,

on the evidence that was admitted - which was that the drone hovered low over the property - that because the drone

operator had committed these violations destruction of the property was a reasonable act of self defense against these

intrusions on the property owner's rights. The only thing improper here is that the judge's ruling works against the

interests of a drone operator, and some people are always in favor of drone operators because that's a group they belong

to.

 

Keep your drones off of other people's property. Particularly in places where people tend to own shotguns.

[black_silver]

What happens when law enforcement is using their drones over your property?

If they aren't now, they soon will be.

 

A shotgun is not particularly lethal at 200 feet, unless buckshot, slug, or sabotage are used.

 

What if the marksman used or uses an air rifle, paintball gun, airsoft gun to bring down a drone?

[GerrySiegel]

-----Al Capp would say: "We have found the enemy. An he is us."

 

I am thinking, Alan, maybe Charles Schulz, cartoon creator of Charlie Brown of Peanuts. Apropos of shotguns and aerial objects out of their allowed zones: Authorities deflated helium and downed a wayward blimp from Aberdeen Proving Ground with shotguns.

[dave_s]

<p>Walt Kelly, creator of <a href="http://www.foldedspace.org/images/pogo.gif"><em>Pogo</em></a>.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Andy: It's not just commercial aircraft that are allowed over your property. Just so with private, general aviation, hot air balloons, ultra-lights, hang-gliders, and the rest. As courts have reinforced, your reasonable expectation of control ends right about where you've stopped building objects (like your windmill, your roof, etc). Which is why I'm all for calling the cops about physical endangerment when someone is buzzing, floating, or otherwise flying something around below such levels. This is a separate issue from questions about invasion of privacy. That's a technology question, not an airspace question - because someone with a long gimbal-mounted lens in a passing Cessna at 1000' can see more details through your kitchen window than can some kid's GoPro on a toy copter 30' away at tree-top height.</p>

[andylynn]

Well, clearly we disagree, but I challenge you to find a legal precedent for you statement about your rights ending at your

roof line, because that's not correct. What else can I say except that a judge who knows Kentucky law better than either

of us and has all the evidence agrees with the property owner?

[Matt Laur]

<p>No need to disagree with me, Andy. Take it up with the Supreme Court. In 1946, they acknowledged that the air had - because of new technology - become a "public highway." Recognizing the ocean of unintended consequences that would come with specifying an actual number of feet above property that a landowner should reasonably control, they said the landowner had dominion over "as much of the space above the ground as he can occupy or use in connection with the land."<br /><br />So unless you've got a 100' HAM antenna tower on your property, or a very tall wind turbine, etc., somebody flying an ultralight or a model airplane over at 100' isn't in "your" air space. That's a separate consideration, as I've said, from whether someone is deliberately violating your reasonable expectations of privacy - but we can apply all the same sort of rules there as we do when we talk about street photography.<br /><br />Flying over your property isn't the same as flying over your property and using and using a long lens to look in your windows - just like driving past your house on the street isn't the same as sitting at the curb with a 1000' lens and an infrared camera trained on your window ... but we don't turn to the DoT for new CAR regulations because it's now a lot less expensive to own and use a long lens IR camera from inside a car on a public street. The FAA has repeatedly explained that privacy matters are <em>not their turf</em>, and they don't involve themselves in such, or think that any of their flight safety regulations have or should have any bearing in that area. That's not in the FAA's or the DoT's charters. </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Ahh, photography, LOL, what a novel idea. </p>

[andylynn]

Matt, are you thinking of Causby? In that case the land owner won. The case does not stand for a rule that only the air

space a property owner DOES occupy is private property. It says that the space you COULD occupy is private property.

There is no bright line set, but the court did refer to federal regs that say minimum safe operating level starts at 500 feet

as one possible reference, and that even though the airplanes in question were above any actual buildings the level they

were at was low enough to be considered a trespass. Since the planes were owned by the government, the court

interpreted this as a taking of an easement and awarded the plaintiff compensation for the value of the easement.

 

The case means the opposite of what you think it means. There is a zone of air space that is above your building but

ends at some level that is where airplanes belong, which might be 500 feet, that you as a property owner control.

 

Of course there is a difference between taking video of somebody within this zone and doing so with a Cessna at 1000

feet. The Cessna is photographing from public space. The low drone is doing so from private property. If we're looking at

whether taking drone footage over somebody's property is an unlawful invasion of privacy, the only connection to the FAA

here is that its regs may inform a decision on whether an aircraft at a particular level is in private air space - the rest of it

is state law and has nothing to do with FAA.

[Member69643]

<p>I'd love to hear a single good reason for a drone flying over my property without my permission. I don't care about airplanes flying overhead, I care not at all if footballs or frisbees traverse my airspace. Helicopters and police surveillance are fine too, even if I'm the target. Don't really even care if your RC plane flies over my yard.</p>

<p>To paraphrase the political quote: It's the camera, stupid.</p>

<p>Tell me sir, why are you flying a drone over my property? Is there a reason you can't restrict your spying to public property or your own? Of course, of course there is, because you want to do it. As I said before, the drone owners think they have the right to do so, simply because they want to do it. It's all a matter of being able to do what you want to do, regardless of whose privacy you invade.</p>

[Gup]

<p>http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/blimp-runaway-poilice-shoot-1.3295584<br>

I think this is what Gerry was alluding to earlier in this thread. Shotguns were the weapon of choice. Apparently, at least 100 times.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Patrick: do you consider Google to be spying on you when they take aerials of your area? Is the guy in the traffic plane spying on you? Why do you assume that someone flying an RC device is spying <em>on you</em>? Is everyone who drives 20 yards past your window spying on you with their ubiquitous mobile internet-connected GPS-enabled phones? No. Believe it or not, people with devices up the air are sometimes finding things besides you to be interested in. Aircraft of all kinds traverse your property every day, many of which could be FAR better equipped to see how well you water your yard than could be some kid with an RC sailplane, or some multi-rotor nerd testing out some new firmware or figuring out, as his tiny little GoPro is pointed at <em>the horizon</em>, if he's got his gimbal balanced correctly and his shutter speed set up right to minimize vibrations.<br /><br />There's nothing more sinister in a neighborhood test flight of a 4-pound plastic quad-copter than there is in a videographer driving around the neighborhood testing out his new three-point suction cup camera hood mount before he takes it out for a shoot that weekend. The difference is the guy driving by on the road can record much higher resolution images of the homes he passes than can the kid with the GoPro hanging from his model airplane.</p>

[andylynn]

<p>Just because there are some sinister things going on that we can't stop doesn't mean we shouldn't try to stop the things we can. Drones are not welcome over my property, and many people out there say the same. If it takes a few high publicity drone losses to get it through to drone users that they can't fly over private property, well, at least after that you can't say you weren't warned, and it's better than the alternative, which is drones over my house.</p>

<p>Just don't fly drones over private property without permission. It's really simple. If you really need to fly over somebody's property, you can ask permission.</p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>Using shotguns to get rid of pesty drones reminds me of a similar situation where I use to live. My wife and I use to eat regularly at a great Italian restaurant that was understood by those in the know to be run by someone very connected with the Mafia. It was located in a crowded section of the boro of Queens in NYC. This capo raised pigeons in a coop above the restaurant that he would let fly now and then. Of course, in the last decade or two, Red Tailed hawks have had a resurgence and they're growing to multiples all of the city. So apparently there were a couple of hawks that kept buzzing this capo's coop. So he pulls out a shotgun whenever they showed up and blasted away.</p>

<p>Well the neighbors, understandably upset with pellets landing all over the place where their kids play, wanted him to stop. Being apprehensive about discussing the concerns with their neighbor directly, an understandable position most people would argue, they complained to the police anonymously.</p>

<p>So the foot soldiers of the NYPD show up and nicely remind the pigeon breeder that he'll have to find some other way to defend his coop. No tickets were issued for disturbing the peace or discharging a firearm in a crowded neighborhood. The patrolmen apparently thought better with giving just a verbal request.</p>

<p>Maybe the judge in the drone case raised pigeons too.</p>

[art_thomas1]

<p>1. Unlike a previous poster, I’ve seen too much legal abuse to be very respectful of the “rule of law” per se. </p>

<p>2. Despite being a very strong 2^nd Amendment supporter, shooting a gun in the air is foolish. What goes up must come down. Small shot (high number) probably falls to earth at under 100 fps, but can damage skin and put out an eye. New Year’s Eve celebrants shooting guns in the air have caused collateral damage. Some deaths are attributed to that. A typical .30 caliber 150-165gr bullet reaches 300+ fps on the way down. A .38spl or .45 ACP is in the 150-200 fps range. Dumb. </p>

<p>3. Not wanting to light off Fred G. again with something sounding masculine, some males and females both do want to see to their family and home safe and private and are willing to take aggressive steps. Arguing against my assertion, American society is trending away from both property rights and the right of self-protection. My guess is that public opinion is getting close to 50-50 that only the State should have those rights. </p>

<p>4. Is it logical for the same society to want to make it illegal to take a picture of private (or especially government) property from a public street, but wants to defend the “right” for a photo drone to slip over a private property fence and take pictures in your window where one might otherwise have a reasonable feeling of privacy? </p>

<p> </p>

[GerrySiegel]

When the subject of privacy comes up along with invasion of our homes,aka castles, the 'cheese gets more binding.' (To exhume a half forgotten term). How about sticky wicket then?. Personally I believe it comes with the current urban and especially suburburban feeling of nagging suspicion that noone, person or agency should be snooping at us in our domain. Google Street views took flack over this...and had to relent some. One wonders. Could they be casing the joint to get at collection of silver dollars , our Luxus Leica..? Our prize spaniel ? . Seriously, I doubt anyone seeks to peek at our brm sexual frolics. ( It does happen, there are pervs) The logical sane answer is to talk to the interloper person or parents. Sometimes we just have to call police to mediate though.

 

Story. This week here some wisearse been setting off an explosive firecracker of real loud bomb quality in the neighborhood at night. Dogs hide. People jump. Cats cower under the bed. My blood pressure shoots up... I And I think at my gut lefvel, as I hear the blat in the quiet of eve, how I would just like to ram that tube up where the sun don't shine...my calm explodes and I get pissed. No not to point of firearms, not in HI and not outside my threshold for sure..

 

I mean getting upset does not mean losing all reason. Measure the threat or the irritation.I did not read the testimony. A violation that had to be met with gunfire. I doubt it, but I can sympathize with Shotgun Mike.

[Norma Desmond]

Art, LOL, you may have misunderstood me. I said guns tend to be things MEN like to play with. I actually don't think

there's anything remotely masculine about that. More and more I find a lot of non-hunting gun use to be rather cowardly. I mean, come on, sitting behind the safety of a keyboard threatening to shoot down the drone of a neighborhood kid. Seriously? No, nothing terribly masculine about that. Or maybe it is, sadly.

[donald_miller5]

<p>This has to be put in perspective. When I first posted I was addressing at what point do we have the right to exercise control of the space over our property with a little (but appropriate) rant about my rights. I raised questions about extreme circumstances to question where these rights start and end. Then comments by Matt and Fred made me question what action is appropriate. I came to the conclusion in my opinion that accepting that this guys rights were violated his solution was worse than the violation by the drone. I have visceral feelings about my rights on my property and completely overlooked the fact that the level of this guys actions should have concerned me more in this case.</p>