SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
El Reg reports
A father who shot down a drone that was hovering over his family home in Kentucky has been cleared of all charges.
Dad-of-two William Merideth thought the quadcopter was spying on his daughters in their yard in Hillview and blasted the gizmo out of the sky with a shotgun. That earned him the title "Drone Slayer" from pro-privacy quarters.
Merideth was arrested shortly after in July and charged with criminal mischief and wanton endangerment.
He appeared before the Bullitt County District Court on Monday this week and after a two and a half hour hearing, Judge Rebecca Ward dismissed the case against him.
"I was in my right to protect my family and my property", said Merideth.
The judge agreed, telling the court: "He had a right to shoot at this drone."
David Boggs, who owned the downed drone, was hoping to get the cost of the machine in compensation and said he will ask the Commonwealth's Attorney's office to take the case to a grand jury--or consider pursuing a civil case against Merideth.
Previous: Man Arrested for Shooting Down Drone Flying Over His Property
(Score: 1) by cloud.pt on Thursday October 29 2015, @10:15AM
So basically, this is what happens when you have solid video and computer encoded evidence as opposed to 2 obviously biased human testimonials.
Every single redneck that happened to be around either: a) lived there thus didn't like the fact that it was hovering around; b) was acquainted with the man that shot the drone; or c) can't grasp what the uses of a drone can be besides snooping around. Seems to me this ruling was more bureaucratic than pondered.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by khallow on Thursday October 29 2015, @01:29PM
So basically, this is what happens when you have solid video and computer encoded evidence as opposed to 2 obviously biased human testimonials.
Actually, it's a third biased human testimonial ("Boggs testified") not "solid video and computer encoded evidence". And the two witnesses who claim that the drone was below the tree line is an important point since we don't expect people to be able to accurately gauge height of a small flying object with no reference points. That two witnesses agree with the defendant that the UAV was flying low is important supporting evidence for the defendant's claim that the drone was flying low. So is the apparent fact that the drone was shot down with bird shot which indicates a rather low altitude too.
(Score: 1) by cloud.pt on Thursday October 29 2015, @01:54PM
Don't distort the facts. There are effectively 3 testimonials, only 1 states he has solid video evidence that can be verified on request, while the other 2 are based on non-verifiable circumstances. A judge with minimal technical skills (and a conscience, for that matter) would simply say "then show us that proof you say you have", and the other 2 witnesses could very well be sued for false testimony, because the proof is that good.
I would usually accept your argument of 2 different individuals stating the same, or even the fact it was shot down easily.
If only I hadn't seen the video evidence he mentions [youtu.be] . All flight during that video, including the moment you see the drone lose control and fall to the ground (i.e.: when it was actually shot), was done at least at 200ft height.And don't tell me it shows signs of tampering. This is a civil case and you don't find the skills for video tampering laying around in any given Kentucky backyard. It's solid, and only blind people won't acknowledge it.
(Score: 3, Informative) by khallow on Thursday October 29 2015, @03:00PM
If only I hadn't seen the video evidence he mentions . All flight during that video, including the moment you see the drone lose control and fall to the ground (i.e.: when it was actually shot), was done at least at 200ft height.
No, doesn't look like that to me. Instead, it looks to me like someone who doesn't know how to interpret video evidence. Let's start with the obvious problem. The video is under 90 seconds long. The incident is over a longer time frame:
William Merideth, 47, was relaxing at his home in Hillview, Kentucky, US, on Sunday afternoon when his daughters told him a drone was flying over the neighborhood. The aircraft hovered low in his neighbor's garden, and then swung by his home.
"I went and got my shotgun and I said, 'I'm not going to do anything unless it's directly over my property,'" Merideth told WDRB News on Wednesday.
"Within a minute or so, here it came. It was hovering over top of my property, and I shot it out of the sky. I didn't shoot across the road, I didn't shoot across my neighbor's fences, I shot directly into the air."
Where's the missing video? What this probably means is that there were previous flights. You aren't seeing the whole story here.
Second, there's no actual measurement of altitude in the video. You conflate your opinion of the altitude with what the video actually shows. And third, given that the vehicle was actually shot down, that indicates it probably was not above 200 feet.
Fourth, the current altitude of the vehicle at the time it was shot is irrelevant. The whole point of the two other witnesses is that it establishes that the shooter's opinion that the drone was flying too low over his property was reasonable because others had the same opinion.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 29 2015, @03:22PM
Two hundred feet over ground level? At least? At all times?
I call bullshit on at least two levels.
First off, the original complaint from the daughters to their father was that the drone had previously flown low, not that it was particularly low at the time of the shooting. The video provided at that time is substantially irrelevant.
Second, given that there's no guarantee that the drone which is flying at two hundred feet now will remain at two hundred feet, given a plausibly claimed history of doing otherwise, the final video cache is not merely irrelevant in general, but particularly shows that people involved weren't bemused or uninvolved, but actually perturbed - this itself constitutes circumstantial evidence. The mere fact that someone who used some kind of stick to shoot upskirts wasn't doing so at the precise time that a crowd of outraged women beat him so bad he has to eat through a straw doesn't excuse him.
My take on it: man probably commits invasion of privacy, alarming his community. There's no conclusive proof against, and substantial witness and circumstantial evidence to support the idea. One of his victims defends his family from this invasion in a way which carries minimal public risk, does little, and highly directed, damage in the specific service of his family.
Toss the case, and tell the dronerator to pound sand.
I'm also suspicious of the claim that the altitude over ground was all that darned accurate. A shotgun pellet remaining effective after a vertical climb of sixty yards? Even at 100 yards horizontally anything less than buckshot is an annoyance unless it happens to hit your eye. The claim is explicitly that he used birdshot. Birdshot at that kind of altitude is completely ineffective. Breaking clay pigeons with birdshot at over 40 yards isn't reliable, and yet this drone somehow got nailed at 60+ yards vertically?
I don't care what the numbers said, on some deep level they are broken, and the judge was right to toss this case out.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by cloud.pt on Thursday October 29 2015, @04:51PM
More guns to you then.
I hope some day somebody decides to shoot your beautiful Ford Mustang because it was stepping in 1 inch of his lawn. I just hope your family isn't inside the car at the time. Maybe that day you will grasp the amount of 'muricanism you should be saving for times that really matter, instead of being "perturbed" by something you clearly don't understand. Maybe that time you will care about the numbers and the deep level in which they are not broken, because numbers don't lie to defend themselves, unlike weak human beings.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 29 2015, @05:14PM
OK, let's take this slowly. Breathe deeply, and follow closely:
The claim (by the drone operator) is that the altitude of the drone over ground level was at least two hundred feet. Let's take that at face value, with maybe a couple of feet of grace. This claim is disputed, but let's just suppose that he's telling the unadulterated truth on all counts because that's the friendliest possible position to his case.
The undisputed claim is that the drone was grounded after being shot with birdshot.
In the real world, birdshot at 60 yards horizontal might possibly chip paint. Nobody is claiming that the father shot with some kind of Texas-powered supercannon, just a regular old shotgun. At 40 yards, it's well known to shotgunners that it's too darned far to hope to reliably break clay pigeons, and 60 yards makes it that much worse.
Therefore: there is a disconnect between the claims of the drone operator, and the physical reality of the drone's fate. Until that is cleared up, there is no reason to believe those claims, and since civil cases work in terms of the preponderance of evidence, the rational step is for that case to be tossed.
See? No NRA flags waving (I'm not a member) nor even Old Glory (I'm not 'merkin, nor even american, and I'm surprised that you assumed any different), just plain old physics and courtroom logic.
Now, please explain again precisely how this shotgun was fired with magic birdshot that wrecks machinery at distances far beyond those of the expected effective range of normal birdshot. Details, and specifics, if you please.
And no, outrage about guns and obfuscations about what constitutes trespass don't count as details and specifics. I expect to see an analysis of the ballistic coefficient, perhaps mediated by a reasonable guess at air pressure, sectional density, penetration rates, and work of fracture.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Thursday October 29 2015, @05:32PM
Sounds like another "Magic Bullet" scenario to me. Now all we need to do is come up with a good conspiracy theory.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 4, Funny) by khallow on Thursday October 29 2015, @05:54PM
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 29 2015, @07:58PM
Seems like a pretty clear dichotomy to me. Either the drone was flying close enough for the birdshot to down it in which case the shooting was justified and Merideth doesn't owe Boggs compensation or it was flying as high as claimed in which case the birdshot couldn't have brought it down and Merideth doesn't owe Boggs compensation.
(Score: 2, Touché) by khallow on Thursday October 29 2015, @05:58PM
I hope some day somebody decides to shoot your beautiful Ford Mustang because it was stepping in 1 inch of his lawn.
And I hope someday you get mugged by common sense. Earlier, you had written that you own firearms. I think given the number of times you've shot yourself in your foot with your keyboard in this discussion, maybe you should give up those weapons before you hurt yourself with them.
(Score: 1) by cloud.pt on Thursday October 29 2015, @02:07PM
And don't forget this is just the controller-side video cache the owner has access to. The dumbfck (pardon the french) who shot the drone down has the memory card that has the better quality recording, but won't use that evidence since it would be self incriminating, or give it back to the original owner. Thank god for the Fifth Amendment right?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday October 29 2015, @03:16PM
The dumbfck (pardon the french) who shot the drone down has the memory card that has the better quality recording, but won't use that evidence since it would be self incriminating, or give it back to the original owner. Thank god for the Fifth Amendment right?
Doesn't dumbfuck to me. Sounds rather smart actually.
(Score: 1) by cloud.pt on Thursday October 29 2015, @04:39PM
Stating it "Sounds rather smart" just gave away your NRA membership. It's now pointless to keep this argument. You're clearly favoring getting away with shooting anything no matter what, over actually discussing the legality of the shooting under actual circumstances.
That's the conundrum with arms liberalization in America: you can't provide the right to carry something that effortlessly kills/destroys/harms, when the people you bestow that right can't acknowledge correct circumstances to use it. And that's exactly the problem at hand.
For the record, I own a gun, and I would shoot the drone myself if it was under my backyard, under treeline altitude, invading my privacy, just as they stated. I believe those are fair terms to shoot a drone. Problem is it's very clear they're fabricating facts and hiding evidence in order not to be incriminated. If the eBay t-shirts didn't give it away, the amount of bullshit around the issue, such as keeping the memory card is pretty blatant. Smart as it may seem, and even being a part of the constitution, it's still ethically and morally wrong. But you'd rather defend the douche blindly on principle.
It's clearly at or higher than 200ft, and I, or anyone with minimal mathematical and graphical skill, could prove it effortlessly with image analysis algorithms. If numbers aren't your thing, maybe the treeline, which always seen from above, is proof that it wasn't even close to "under the treeline" as witnesses stated. "Oh but they don't show all the flights in that video!" - no, they show the flight it was shot in, the one they could keep the cache because it was the last one. If that's your argument, ask the memory card from he guy who kept it without stating why he kept it.
If I stated anything wrong was that it wasn't on the entirety of the video on those heights, but I expected the reader to be decent enough to note the obvious exceptions: the initial take-off seconds, when it hovers above the departure area and nowhere else, and the time it gets shot and falls down. But apparently there isn't any decent argument to prove your point besides semantics.
Unfortunately I've lost interest in this conversation as a rational one, so I won't bother anymore. Fact of the matter is: it's obvious, and only the blind won't acknowledge it. It's just like Iraq (not) having weapons of mass destruction but every 'murican still thinks it was right to invade. You just made it pointless by arguing that the hiding of facts is smart, when it's actually only favorable to the defendant.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 29 2015, @05:35PM
Ignoring your ad hominem attacks on Khallow for now, I don't see how people disputing the reality of what went on, on the basis of readily available physical evidence, constitutes some kind of ideological stance.
Your position rests on the relevance of the video, and the analysis of that video, in the teeth of physical evidence which renders your position ... shall we say, wildly implausible?
So what we really come down to is: why should a judge toss out a case? If it seems implausible? That seems like the right call here. Anything which contradicts that has to come up with a reasonable, credible, plausible explanation of the ballistics involved. I haven't seen you do that.
(Score: 1) by cloud.pt on Thursday October 29 2015, @06:19PM
You don't need to ignore my attacks on his personality, I wanted them to be just as clear as his (to me) by ignoring the obvious height shown in the video. Manipulating that fact is an attack on any person caring for this argument. It's really easy to distort a debate through fallacy, but I, once again, will concentrate on facts:
- the video shows a drone well beyond treeline altitude tumbling down. Very clearly. This video was accompanied actual GPS data to support the height and position at time of shooting
- there's still people here that won't acknowledge there's physical evidence against the 2 witnesses' testimony
- the shooter did not supply the memory card when he was requested to deliver the drone he shot down
- the judge both didn't ask around for that memory card and ignored the existence of the cached video
- ballistics are irrelevant as he might have switched ammo, especially when the first google search for max bird shot range states it can go from 198 to 330 yards. Everybody here wants to focus on how odd it seems to hit a drone at 200ft like it's the most impossible thing in the world, while, once again, there's a video of the drone tumbling down at that height...
For full disclosure, my ideological stance is as follows: I'm european, so I can't tolerate the lack of gun control that exists in America if it was to be applied verbatim in my region. But I understand its existence in America, and I also understand universally enhanced rights to protect individuals and their privacy at their homes. I am also a computer programmer, so I am the type that knows the difficulty (and sometimes lack thereof) of tampering with data, but especially I also know how easy it is to assess tampering. That's why I don't take an under oath, software data-backed assessment lightly. If a guy says he has video and data to a court, he is prepared to face the consequences if that data is found to be tampered, which go way beyond not getting his drone's value (that means jail time in case you didn't understand). I can't say the same about statements made by bystanders, made with the perk of plausible deniability, especially why they're prone to be biased for the reasons I mentioned in my very first comment. But above all I value privacy, and that's exactly why I can't stand what this guy did with a shotgun - you want to defend something you do it for the right reasons within legal bounds. It's counter-productive, and it will affect public opinion. If he had been deemed to pay for the drone he wrongly shot down it would have been much better for privacy in the long run. Now, instead of legislation against implausible drone flight, we'll have people shooting everything they deem in violation of their privacy.
The judge tossed out a case, but it could easily be appealed. Somebody noted the case was about using the gun in the city premises, rather than actually paying for the drone. Maybe I read the news wrong, but from what I understood, the case was all about the drone user demanding damages. I would call it a poor defense argument if this demand was made solely on firing a gun recklessly rather than firing the gun at property without the right to do so.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 29 2015, @07:15PM
OK, now we're getting somewhere ...
And supposedly supporting a miraculous view of ballistics. Shotguns are good for low flying birds a couple of dozen yards away, or vermin at close range. The area is not flat, and altitude above ground level is tricky. Until you have some kind of rational explanation for ludicrously effective shotgun pellets, the video evidence is, at best, open to a lot of serious questions. If you want to talk hard evidence, take all the factors into account.
... and there's someone right here who's having a hard time dealing with explicitly corroborative evidence. Seriously, the one absolutely incontrovertible fact about this whole deal, to which everybody agrees without a murmur of dissent, is that the shotgun blast took down the drone. Number 8 birdshot! Basically, metal sand, fit for pigeons and weasels at twenty yards.
Bummer. Nothing to do with the actual shooting, and given the material which might have been on it, very defensible.
They're called rules of evidence. Neither of those had anything resembling a secure chain of custody, and the lawyers against the shooter would have known that too - otherwise you'd better believe it would have been a major feature of their case.
Oh dear, this is precisely why ballistics are deeply relevant. First off, any damage to the drone would have shown what size the pellets were, so if there were an ammo switcheroo you'd better believe there'd be additional charges, starting with tampering with evidence. Second, the fact that birdshot can travel that distance doesn't even begin to tell you what it does at that range ... and the answer, in case you were wondering, is "patter". In fact, that's pretty much what it does at 150 yards, and 100 yards, and 80 yards, and for small birdshot such as number 8, to a first approximation that's what it does at 50 yards.
Nobody is claiming that a reasonable shot with a shotgun couldn't hit a drone (especially since at 50 yards the pattern of shot is likely to be the size of a van) but a lot of people are really wondering how the shot actually downed the drone - because at 20 yards I'd believe it. 30 yards ... I guess. 40 yards? Wow, lucky shot. Over 60 yards, vertical? Now I want to see real proof. And that's where the drone operator's story comes to earth with a crash.
There were a couple of issues at stake in court - one related to the firing of a weapon in city limits, but the demand of damages was another. The fact, however, that the drone operator's liability in either case hinges on the reasonability of his actions, and given that there are multiple witnesses claiming that the drone operator did shady things, during a period not covered by his video, and that the physical evidence of the shot strongly suggests that his version of events is not substantially complete or correct, the preponderance of evidence and the benefit of the doubt both favour the shooter. And thus found the judge.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday October 30 2015, @04:34PM
- the video shows a drone well beyond treeline altitude tumbling down. Very clearly. This video was accompanied actual GPS data to support the height and position at time of shooting
Unless, of course, the GPS data was manipulated or the GPS data is incorrect. Or it was manipulated. You still haven't explained how the vehicle was dropped by a shotgun blast from 60+ yards away vertical distance.
- there's still people here that won't acknowledge there's physical evidence against the 2 witnesses' testimony
That's because there isn't physical evidence against the two witnesses's testimony. The video you keep referring to doesn't cover all the flights of the drone and hence doesn't contradict the testimony of the witnesses.
- the shooter did not supply the memory card when he was requested to deliver the drone he shot down
Neither did the drone operator. Who actually had the memory card in the first place? According to this post [soylentnews.org] (which you should read before you reply to anyone in this discussion) the shooter left the memory card in the drone.
- the judge both didn't ask around for that memory card and ignored the existence of the cached video
Without expert testimony and a more complete video record, it's rather useless.
- ballistics are irrelevant as he might have switched ammo, especially when the first google search for max bird shot range states it can go from 198 to 330 yards. Everybody here wants to focus on how odd it seems to hit a drone at 200ft like it's the most impossible thing in the world, while, once again, there's a video of the drone tumbling down at that height...
And we'll keep doing that because we know how bird shot works. Also your video doesn't show the drone tumbling from a specific height. As I've noted before, unless you're willing to do the analysis you claim needs to be done to actually determine the height of the vehicle, you are just stating an uninformed opinion. And we still would have to decide whether to trust you or not.
Further, this is not sufficient to claim that the shooting was unjustified. As has been noted before, there are witnesses claiming the drone was well before tree line at some point. Just because it was high at the point of the shooting doesn't change that the shooting was warranted on the basis of the just prior intrusion into privacy.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Thursday October 29 2015, @05:48PM
Stating it "Sounds rather smart" just gave away your NRA membership.
It's a statement of fact. If as you suspect, the video was incriminating, then the guy just saved himself fines and possible jail time. He or an ally also had to know about the memory card in the first place which indicates some degree of technical competency, another indication of smartness.
You're clearly favoring getting away with shooting anything no matter what, over actually discussing the legality of the shooting under actual circumstances.
Says the stealth gun control advocate who just revealed his position. This is why you can't have nice things. Either other people agree wholly with you or they're advocating sniping toddlers on the school yard. Stop being such an idiot with these bogus false dilemmas.
For the record, I own a gun, and I would shoot the drone myself if it was under my backyard, under treeline altitude, invading my privacy, just as they stated. I believe those are fair terms to shoot a drone. Problem is it's very clear they're fabricating facts and hiding evidence in order not to be incriminated. If the eBay t-shirts didn't give it away, the amount of bullshit around the issue, such as keeping the memory card is pretty blatant. Smart as it may seem, and even being a part of the constitution, it's still ethically and morally wrong. But you'd rather defend the douche blindly on principle.
A memory card is a sufficient amount of money. It's theft, if you can show a reasonable case that they took it without cause. But only the drone owner has legal standing to level that accusation. Further, you would have to show that the contents of that memory card weren't the property of the shooter and his family.
It's clearly at or higher than 200ft, and I, or anyone with minimal mathematical and graphical skill, could prove it effortlessly with image analysis algorithms.
Do this analysis then rather than just bleat an unsupported opinion. I bet you'll be surprised. Further, that doesn't mean it wasn't lower on an earlier flight. It sure sounds like this vehicle did more than just fly around a little at 200+ feet. If the vehicle was flying below tree level 5 minutes ago and then returns, then I consider that sufficient cause to shoot it down, even if it's much higher at present.
If I stated anything wrong was that it wasn't on the entirety of the video on those heights, but I expected the reader to be decent enough to note the obvious exceptions: the initial take-off seconds, when it hovers above the departure area and nowhere else, and the time it gets shot and falls down. But apparently there isn't any decent argument to prove your point besides semantics.
What you did wrong isn't semantics, but lack of supporting evidence combined with some idiotic rhetorical grandstanding.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Thursday October 29 2015, @06:08PM
Without a distinct "chain of evidence" you can't know that the Video Evidence wasn't tampered with. Also, the whole issue of it being dangerous to have fired the gun into the air holds no water. Here's what the person defending his home/privacy said and I have no reason to doubt the validity of the statement. "Now, if I’d have had a .22 rifle, I should have gone to jail for that. The diameter of those things are going to come down with enough force to hurt somebody. Number 8 birdshot is not. Number 8 is the size of a pinhead. The bottom line is that it's a right to privacy issue and defending my property issue. It would have been no different had he been standing in my backyard. As Americans, we have a right to defend our rights and property." Source: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/07/kentucky-man-shoots-down-drone-hovering-over-his-backyard/ [arstechnica.com] He could have shot at it with a much higher powered weapon, but was smart enough not to do that. You can go all anti-gun / nra / whatever, but one of the reasons to own a gun is to protect yourself and your family. The judge also noted that there was not reason to believe there was any danger. 'I don’t think anybody’s life was in danger, and I’m going to dismiss that.' Source: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/10/drone-slayer-cleared-of-charges-i-wish-this-had-never-happened/ [arstechnica.com] Those charges are in regards to his firing the shotgun into the air. "Long story short, after that, they took me to jail for wanton endangerment first degree and criminal mischief...because I fired the shotgun into the air." Source: http://www.wdrb.com/story/29650818/hillview-man-arrested-for-shooting-down-drone-cites-right-to-privacy [wdrb.com] So, in reality, the one charge that mattered, the Judge threw out, because she felt there was no case. Also, please note that the Drone Pilot had everything. "They didn’t confiscate the drone. They gave the drone back to the individuals," he said. "They didn’t take the SIM card out of it…but we’ve got…five houses here that everyone saw it – they saw what happened, including the neighbors that were sitting in their patio when he flew down low enough to see under the patio." Source: http://www.wdrb.com/story/29650818/hillview-man-arrested-for-shooting-down-drone-cites-right-to-privacy [wdrb.com] Yes, the "Drone Operator" was not acting responsibly with his new toy. His new toy got shot down, because he was invading the privacy of someone with a shotgun. Glad no one got hurt, but it sounds like we have one smart person and one dumb person. It's just that in this case the smart person was the one holding the shotgun.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 29 2015, @02:53PM
The police never impounded the drone, they let the owner take it home. Any defence lawyer worth his pay would say he's had more than enough time to fabricate evidence to support his claims.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Hairyfeet on Thursday October 29 2015, @08:53PM
Uhhh...if it was flying high he couldn't have hit it in the first place as birdshot loses its energy VERY quickly and the spread pattern widens very fast. this is why bird hunters have to use decoys and calls to get the birds very close, otherwise they aren't gonna hit squat.
So the fact that he was able to blow it to bits with birdshot frankly is really all the evidence you need, if he was above "hey lets spy on the neighbors" range then his drone wouldn't have been able to be dropped so easily with a single shot, the cone of fire and quick drop off for birdshot is simply too much to deal with objects flying with any decent height.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.