posted by
janrinok
on Thursday October 02 2014, @06:59PM
from the so-every-model-aircraft-is-now-a-drone? dept.
from the so-every-model-aircraft-is-now-a-drone? dept.
motherboard.vice.com has spoken to the owner of the drone that was shot down in New Jersey recently, and written up some of the details of what happened, as well as published some of the photos that were taken from the drone and a few closeups of the drone itself. The shotgun-wielding drone hunter was taken into police custody for criminal mischief and "possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose". The pilot remains anonymous as the offender has posted bail.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
An Interview with the Man Whose Drone was Shot Down in New Jersey
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 25 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 02 2014, @07:02PM
BOOM goes the drone!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Sir Garlon on Thursday October 02 2014, @07:43PM
What I learned is, I need to build an EMP cannon. So when some asshole decides to take surveillance of photos of my property and says I have no cause to complain because the photos are not good enough, I can express my objection with minimal risk to human life.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
(Score: 4, Funny) by SlimmPickens on Thursday October 02 2014, @07:56PM
I do not wish to make fun of you, but this is very amusing to me. It's very American, freedom and big guns etc, but more evolved and philosophically correct!
(Score: 2) by Sir Garlon on Friday October 03 2014, @01:41AM
Thanks. My afterthought, which is always more clever than my first thought, was "If you agree not to point you camera at my stuff, I'll agree not to point my EMP cannon at your stuff, and we can sit down like civilized people and have a conversation about whether privacy is actually dead."
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bob_super on Thursday October 02 2014, @08:18PM
EMP is hard (for the stuff in your house).
Big red button to jam standard RC frequencies? that's easy! You don't even have to have a visible antenna.
Yes, it will only work on RC toys rebranded as Drones, not on real GPS-path autonomous ones.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Thursday October 02 2014, @08:27PM
GPS also uses radio.. and can thus be jammed..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 02 2014, @08:33PM
hmm 'free drone kit'...
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday October 02 2014, @08:34PM
Yes, but my neighbors would be pissed if they couldn't find their own garage anymore...
More seriously, jamming RC control frequencies won't ever get noticed, jamming GPS a few times could draw unwanted attention.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Thursday October 02 2014, @08:43PM
You have to control ERP and beam to make sure it only affects the physical space you actually own.
(Score: 1) by BananaPhone on Thursday October 02 2014, @08:24PM
cough, cough, HERF, cough, cough
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 02 2014, @09:35PM
> What I learned is, I need to build an EMP cannon.
I'm surprised we haven't seen the widespread marketing of hunter-killer drones - drones that seek out other drones and disable them, either kamikaze style or something more reusable like hovering above them and dropping a little net into one of their propellers.
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Friday October 03 2014, @02:45AM
I think the term "Hunter-Killer" has already been coined in relation to drones. [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by strattitarius on Thursday October 02 2014, @07:49PM
According to N.J.S.A. 2C-39-4, any individual who knowingly has in his or her possession a handgun, without an obvious lawful purpose for use of that handgun, is guilty of a crime of the second degree. Possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose in the state of New Jersey is not limited to traditional forms of weapons, though traditional weapons are obviously encompassed under this statute. A weapon in the State of New Jersey is essentially any object that is capable of causing death or serious bodily injury.
I am in favor of reasonable gun control, but can I ask what an "obvious lawful purpose" for owning the multitude of munitions that don't have much of a useful purpose would be (old guns, muskets, a hunting rifle in manhattan)? Or could they say there is no lawful reason to own 10 guns? Or in the case of TFA, isn't owning a shotgun for self defense lawful? Isn't owning a gun because you think it looks cool a lawful purpose?
It's either illegal to possess a firearm or it isn't. It isn't legal to possess it this minute, but I get pissed and shoot someone so it is suddenly illegal to possess it. The act of shooting someone was illegal. The firearm possession was still perfectly legal. At least that makes some logical sense.
Slashdot Beta Sucks. Soylent Alpha Rules. News at 11.
(Score: 2) by Sir Garlon on Thursday October 02 2014, @08:12PM
Shooting in the direction where you know someone to be standing is also illegal, and it ain't just "criminal mischief" either.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Thursday October 02 2014, @08:31PM
That must mean that an automatic drone hunting system that thus need enough fire power that can cause "serious bodily injury" will be illegal to posses in NJ/USA ..? And thus you can't defend your property efficiently there.
(Score: 2) by Hartree on Thursday October 02 2014, @08:00PM
I bet it was Opus thinking the drone was a flying toaster.
(Score: 2) by resignator on Thursday October 02 2014, @10:24PM
How large of a vortex cannon https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GteGbZeKsOI [youtube.com] would you need to knock an RC plane out of the sky? I also wonder if a pumpkin-chucker like this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMFgkoCctdk [youtube.com] could be modified to throw up flak.
(Score: 1) by citizenr on Friday October 03 2014, @02:11AM
why bother, just use microwave magnetron aimed at general direction of a drone
(Score: 3) by JNCF on Friday October 03 2014, @02:30AM
From TFA:
We're only getting one side of the story here, I have yet to see the drone-hunter interviewed. I'd really like to see the whole recording taken by the drone so that we'd know if it was ever over the drone-hunter's property. Even then, it could have not been filming when it came over. The operator claimed it wasn't filming at the time of the shooting. If it actually came into his arispace, I don't think lead is an unreasonable response. Reason did a public opinion survey [reason.com] (PDF warning) which shows that about half the country agrees:
(Score: 3) by bradley13 on Friday October 03 2014, @06:09AM
Consider: if someone were to hide a recording device in your living room, and you found it, wouldn't you feel entirely justified in doing whatever your wanted with it - sell it, smash it, whatever? The airspace over your property is - or should be - private up to the level of overflying aircraft. We can discuss the altitude you draw that line at, but it is certainly higher than most drones usually fly. Below that - if you had someone deliberately flying a drone over your property, certainly you should have a right to take some sort of action.
That said, shooting a gun into the air in a populated area is stupid. Those bullets (or, in this case, pellets) are going to come back to the ground, and are perfectly capable of injuring or even killing someone. The people building that house have just discovered that they have a whacko for a neighbor...
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Friday October 03 2014, @03:32PM
Actually, pellets are pretty harmless when they come back down. I've never been dove hunting on really heavily used public land, but I know some guys who have they tell me that getting peppered with falling shotgun pellets is a normal part of it. Individual pellets aren't going to have a terribly high terminal velocity. They just bounce off you, no big deal.
I wouldn't shoot a drone in the city, but only because I fear my government.
(Score: 1) by JNCF on Friday October 03 2014, @03:39PM
It would be interesting to know the lowest angle he fired at, though.
(Score: 2) by BasilBrush on Friday October 03 2014, @03:50PM
Those bullets (or, in this case, pellets) are going to come back to the ground, and are perfectly capable of injuring or even killing someone.
No they're not, so long as they really are fired mostly upwards. The terminal velocity of bullets falling by gravity (rather than under the force of gunpowder) is low, as is the mass. It's a myth, as is the idea that a coin thrown off the top of the Empire State Building would kill a pedestrian if it hit them.
Reports of people being killed by bullets shot into the air are where they are merely shot at a fairly low angle, and arc back down, the horizontal velocity still being largely dictated by the force of the gunpowder.
Hurrah! Quoting works now!
(Score: 2) by BasilBrush on Friday October 03 2014, @03:54PM
The right to fly a drone vs the right to shoot down a drone. It's enough to send a libertarian into a a fatal loop of illogic.
Hurrah! Quoting works now!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 05 2014, @03:07AM
> It's enough to send a libertarian into a a fatal loop of illogic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzVxsYzXI_Y [youtube.com]
Priceless, famous moment in television history! :)