0
144

[–] Number1dududuNumber1 0 points 144 points (+144|-0) ago 

"It's fine and dandy, and I think it's cool there's a camera on it, but just take it to a park or something—he's not a responsible drone owner."

I agree with him completely. A disembodied presence on ones property is tantamount to a physical presence, especially when there's recording equipment involved. The security implications of allowing camera drones over private property without granted access are risky.

0
69

[–] digitalgadget 0 points 69 points (+69|-0) ago 

I agree with him too, and I'm pleased that he has the verbal skills to back up his claim while also breaking some stereotypes.

0
27

[–] Gravspeed 0 points 27 points (+27|-0) ago 

i'm with this guy too. i have a drone, a friend of mine has made one that cost over $2000. but we fly over private property, parks, and some preserve land where we helped make a video for one of their presentations. sometimes we zip around through the neighborhood, sometimes you can't really help but go over someones house. i like that our shooter identifies that even stating that he wouldn't have shot it if it had been flying, but that he only shot it because it was hovering. and he even made a smart weapon selection.

i really like that this will call attention to the privacy matters at hand. especially since my local PD has a drone they use to watch traffic on Friday night. i don't think it will be long before they start using drone footage in court and its important that we address these things as civilians with the courts before the LEO's get involved.

0
27

[–] 1448757? 0 points 27 points (+27|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I clicked the link expecting the usual redneck "hold my beer while I get my gun" crap, so often repeated in the news, and instead found quotes from someone who appears extremely well spoken and measured in his responses. He's also right. We do have a right to protect our property, and he doesn't come across like he has some irrational hatred of drones or people stepping onto his property, but, rather, that he is willing to defend his own rights.

It makes one hope that there are other people out there who will act similarly.

0
3

[–] Number1dududuNumber1 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

It's not the action nor the intent of the drone operator that is relevant here, it's the physical presence of the drone. Hopefully the courts see it the same way, though I do recall another guy who shot a drone down and he got charged under aviation law for shooting at an aircraft. Never saw an update on that one though so not sure how it turned out.

0
2

[–] the_spectre 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Well, I'm not sure it's exactly tantamount to physical presence. In my state (Oklahoma), we have a Make My Day law and some others. If a drone were tantamount to physical presence, that'd mean that I could get a sniper rifle and shoot the fuck with the controller. I don't think that's really in the spirit of the law or particularly moral.

Maybe I'm misreading your comment and I'm pretty sure that's not what you mean, so don't take this as my idea of a damning criticism (lol). It's just a mildly disturbing implication.

But yeah, shoot the fucker's drone down, definitely. The presence of the drone is a physical intrusion on your property on the part of the drone.

Edit: me word very extra bad

Edit2: me word even worse

0
1

[–] Number1dududuNumber1 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Yeah tantamount might not have been a perfect fit. The way I see it is if someone can look into your home from within the boundaries of your property then you should be able to protect yourself against that. A drone in your yard looking at you is as much an invasion of privacy as the controller of that drone standing there looking at you.

What I meant by tantamount was the presence of a drone is, in my eyes, equal to the presence of a person, and you should be able to deal with that drone within the boundaries of the law the same way you would a person. Not that the presence of the drone entitles the landowner to action against the person controlling said drone. I'm not sure if I'm making more or less sense now.

0
1

[–] Emperor_Norton 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Same here, the shooter had every right to take down the drone on his own property (barring any possibility to harming a human, it sounds as if his property is in a semi if not rural area). I am both a drone enthusiast, and a avid hunter, both sides of this fence can have their argument, but I'm siding with the shooter.

1
50

[–] MrScientist 1 point 50 points (+51|-1) ago 

I completely agree with the home owner. The drone owners were entitled little shits who are going to ruin drone use for everyone.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 16 points (+16|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
5

[–] weezkitty 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

That very much depends on what you are recording. I don't think recording private property without permission should be allowed. But recording public events and recording with consent should be allowed

0
2

[–] OmicronPersei8 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

It's more that the drone operator was flying over property that didn't belong to them. The camera does not come into play at all.

3
3

[–] cynoclast 3 points 3 points (+6|-3) ago 

This is not a black & white issue. It's not a false dichotomy that "drone owners" are "entitled little shits".

One kid was assaulted by a woman for using a drone. One guy had his drone flying over his own property shot down by a neighbor.

Sometimes the people shooting at drones are entitled little shits too. Sometimes they're not.

0
3

[–] Qikdraw 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

One kid was assaulted by a woman for using a drone.

Its damned good he was recording it too otherwise he would be up for sexual assault charges from what that nut of a woman was doing. She would have claimed sexual assault and with no video she might have tried it too.

4
-3

[–] bruce_campbell 4 points -3 points (+1|-4) ago  (edited ago)

i hate that these fucking faggot police officers will try to shoot you if you film them trying to murder citizens IN PUBLIC..

but suddenly they throw a hissy fit if you care about protecting your privacy in YOUR OWN FUCKING HOME?

3
3

[–] reed 3 points 3 points (+6|-3) ago  (edited ago)

He discharged a firearm in a populated area, and destroyed multiple thousands of dollars of property in the process. Now, he has to justify doing so. It's that simple.

EDIT: Ho-ly shit mother fuckers. I'm not defending the scumbags, I'm explaining how a civilized society with rules and laws works. I'm not advocating for the judge to fuck him for defending his right to privacy. Goddamn.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 15 points (+15|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
36

[–] sombravetado [S] 0 points 36 points (+36|-0) ago 

It looks like the FAA says 500 feet.

0
7

[–] CaptSpify 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago  (edited ago)

0
7

[–] due 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

I think it does. At least in toronto if you neighbors tree grows into your property you can cut whatever that grew into your property.

2
0

[–] Dadoboy 2 points 0 points (+2|-2) ago  (edited ago)

I've heard judge Marilyn Milian (people's court) say their property is from heaven to hell in regards to cutting down trees that belong to their neighbors.

0
1

[–] nameless1up 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

The thing is the FAA have classified personal drones the same as small aircraft, and shooting it down is a felony. If someone is trespassing, call the cops. The drone pilot was flying at 190+ feet.

0
1

[–] voiceofflawedlogic 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

You wouldn't want someone building a bridge 5' above your backyard, so I'm going to guess the logical answer is "yes", you do own the space above your property (to an extent of course).

0
10

[–] gromenawer 0 points 10 points (+10|-0) ago 

Anybody want to partner up and make a company that sell radio frequency inhibitor for home? We will make many adds about how the danger of drones spying on your children justify our high prices.

0
24

[–] GenellanBound 0 points 24 points (+24|-0) ago 

Active jamming devices are pretty illegal.

0
13

[–] Number1dududuNumber1 0 points 13 points (+13|-0) ago 

Turn on > collect drone > turn off > call police

"Hi officer, yes this drone was flying around my yard video taping my children when it crash landed. Yes the owner is here. Yes he looks like a creeper. Thank you officer, see you in 5 minutes"

0
1

[–] squatsmobile 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Weren't some organizations considering jammers for taking drones down to allow firefighting helicopters to do their job safely?

0
0

[–] pepepepepe ago 

And more dangerous than you might think, depending on where you live. Sounds like a harmless activity but keep in mind you may end up jamming signals for other vehicles reliant on radios like ambulances, cop cars, fire trucks, delivery trucks, trains, boats, planes, etc. and they don't take kindly to that. Ham radio enthusiasts also don't take kindly to it and will hunt you down out of spite if the FCC doesn't find you first. It's trivial to triangulate a jammer.

0
0

[–] El_Doctor ago 

So is the NSA bulk spying program. Great day to be alive.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
1

[–] toobaditworks 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Potato gun net launcher. except a net and not a potato and ar-15. Ya I messed this comment up.

0
0

[–] Aoteamerica ago 

What about an EMP gun?

1
0

[–] toobaditworks 1 point 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

Das illegals nine Americanzi!

[–] [deleted] 1 point 8 points (+9|-1) ago 

[Deleted]

0
7

[–] tame 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago  (edited ago)

“You own the air rights you might reasonably use and enjoy, subject to recognizing the limits imposed by commercial aviation regulations and other modern realities,” says Rosanna Sattler, a partner with Posternak Blankstein & Lund LLP in Boston.

I say that if you have a gun, then you can reasonably use and enjoy all of the air up as high as your gun can reliably shoot. pew pew

Edit: I was joking, don't actually shoot guns up in the air, especially in populated areas, as people explain below!

2
8

[–] vitaminKsGood4u 2 points 8 points (+10|-2) ago  (edited ago)

I am a UAV pilot and a gun owner/hunter.

This is very dangerous advice. You own up to 500ft above your house. That is "yours", but ask yourself if someone drove up on to your property (or if someones Frisbee fell on your property), can you shoot because they are 'on your property?'. If you are in city limits, NO (AND THAT IS A HUGE NO!!!). That is highly illegal to do and only permitted in self defense (in some places). If you live in a rural area where it is legal to fire you will not be charged with the firearms issue, but you can still be charged with destruction of private property ( and depending on the drone, it could be a felony! And what I suspect the man will be charged with in this article too, unless he can show he first tried another means to remove it - you should file it as a nuisance with your local police department). Once again, if your neighbors basket ball comes over the fence, you can not shoot it because you have a gun and do not like it there. Would any of you be saying the same thing if we were talking about someones cat(not a stray, in some states killing strays is legal) on someones else's property(no, it would be a witch hunt to crucify the gun owner)??? If you left your laptop at a friends house, can they keep it and shoot it (it is on their property right so it's theirs now)??? No.

Your only safe actions is to notify the authorities. As for all the "Privacy Fears", your yard is not somewhere you are allowed privacy protection, so you can not walk naked in your yard and then say "It's private because its MY yard" - that is not how it works. A neighbor can use a selfie stick and film your backyard 100% legally, same with the drone and same with Google Maps.

If you had privacy there Google Maps would be fucked! You have NO privacy argument and no right to self defense against a drone BUT you can call the police and have it removed and taken if the pilot is a slow learner.

The pilot seems like the asshole here (no respect for others), but VERY RARELY does someone being an asshole allow someone else to use a firearm, ESPECIALLY IN CITY LIMITS. Sounds to me like both are assholes, someone too trigger happy and someone with no respect for other people but there are ZERO privacy violations going on here (see Google Maps for proof), and correct procedure would be to file the drone as a nuisance with the police department, after that the drone pilot gets fined the next time and eventually jailed. This article is embarrassing to me from both parties involved as someone who enjoys both responsibly.

As pointed out elsewhere, if shooting drones out of the sky is OK, then Amazon will be fucked.

0
0

[–] weezkitty ago 

Not necessarily. In some jurisdictions, all firearm discharges are illegal except for in self defense or on a range

0
0

[–] TheSafeWasALie ago 

as long as it doesnt interfere with commercial airlines or modern realities. like helicopters fighting fires...

not like peeping toms in my yard with a disembodied camera.

0
1

[–] laserguidedpolarbear 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

So what we are talking about is fundamentally a tresspass issue. I am surprised how many people are advocating for shooting at things here.

  • Shooting at something up in the air means you have no idea where the round / shot is coming down, and can injure people or property. Firing into the air is illegal in most states, and is a dangerous thing to do unless you are miles from anyone else.

  • Trespassing does not generally justify the use of force. While these drone operators are in the wrong, so are you if you shoot them down, just as if someone parked their car in your driveway you cannot just burn it down to the ground.

It may be difficult to do something about the trespassing drone after it just moves away, but committing multiple crimes yourself is not the right thing to do here.

0
7

[–] russel 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

This is what I think will happen when and or if Amazon does drone delivery. Shoot it down, win a prize!

0
3

[–] cynoclast 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Shoot it down, win a prize! Shoot it down, receive a $100,000 lawsuit.

Amazon is not staffed, nor controlled by idiots like people who would shoot down delivery drones.

0
1

[–] russel 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

yes but you under estimate the idiots of this world. have an upgoat for your troubles good man.

0
3

[–] fudgepacker 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

I find it unacceptable that the drone owner felt it was alright to hover in someone else's back yard. This man acted reasonably and responsibly in defending his private property.

0
2

[–] Acerebral 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

This guy is 100% correct. They may have been using the drone to case his house for robbery. Sending a remote recording device onto somebody's property without permission is equivalent to a home invasion. This man responded in a measured way that did not endanger anybody.

load more comments ▼ (14 remaining)