Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 17 submissions in the queue.
posted by cmn32480 on Thursday July 23 2015, @01:12PM   Printer-friendly
from the drones-can-now-shoot-back dept.

An 18-year-old student in Clinton, Connecticut has led the Federal Aviation Administration, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, and local police to investigate after his video of a quadcopter drone firing a handgun went viral.

According to his father, Austin Haughwout assembled the drone warrior for a college class project with the help of a professor at Central Connecticut State University. A spokesman for the university said that the professor strongly discouraged Haughwout and that the drone wasn't related to a class project. The 14-second video, posted on YouTube on July 10th, shows a quadcopter hovering and firing a semiautomatic handgun (unconfirmed that this was a Kel-Tec PMR-30 pistol) four times in midair. CNN reports that the agencies involved haven't found any evidence of wrongdoing:

"We are attempting to determine if any laws have been violated at this point. It would seem to the average person, there should be something prohibiting a person from attaching a weapon to a drone. At this point, we can't find anything that's been violated," Clinton Police Chief Todd Lawrie said. [...] The Federal Aviation Administration and federal law agencies are also investigating "to determine if there were any violations of criminal statutes," the FAA said.

[...] Law enforcement analyst Tom Fuentes, a former director of the FBI, said he believed the gun drone could be illegal as a form of reckless conduct. "What if the drone gets beyond the distance of the radio control? We had that drone land on the front lawn of the White House," Fuentes said. Earlier this year, a U.S. intelligence agency employee lost control of a borrowed personal quadcopter drone, which crashed on the White House lawn. "Do we want drones out of control that could land who knows here? We could have a child pick up the drone, pick up the gun, and accidentally kill themselves. I see the whole thing as reckless conduct," Fuentes said.

This isn't the teen's first taste of national drone fame. He was assaulted by a 23-year-old woman last year while taking aerial footage of a beach using an unarmed quadcopter. Despite assaulting a minor and lying to the police whom she had called to the scene, in contradiction of video evidence from the drone and Haughwout's iPhone, she received just 2 years probation.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by ikanreed on Friday July 24 2015, @12:58PM

    by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Friday July 24 2015, @12:58PM (#213124) Journal

    No, it's fucking stupid. This isn't some disagreement where I don't get your intention.

    Seriously. You take a naive version of evolution by natural selection, decide it's automatically a good thing(it's called the naturalistic fallacy, and it's way too common), then apply it stupidly to "solve" a problem by causing grief and pain.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday July 24 2015, @02:05PM

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday July 24 2015, @02:05PM (#213149) Journal

    What "problem" am I trying to solve? I have the Bill of Rights - and the right to bear arms. You're the one who doesn't like that fact. That kid with the quad-chopper also has his 2nd amendment rights, along with his property rights, etc. Anti-gun people don't like the fact that the kid is exercising his rights. As I see it, it is YOUR problem, that YOU are trying to solve. No hard feelings or anything, but I won't wish you luck with that. As I've mentioned elsewhere, if/when the government knocks on my door to confiscate my weapons, they can have them - bullets first. Hoplophobes need to bear in mind that if they ever succeed in passing all the anti-gun laws that they want to pass, they will at the same time be declaring war on a sizeable portion of the US population. Are we ready for another civil war?

    • (Score: 2) by ikanreed on Friday July 24 2015, @02:27PM

      by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Friday July 24 2015, @02:27PM (#213156) Journal

      Oh Christ. Defensive as fuck gun owner gets side tracked with imaginary decision to take your guns.

      "The problem" you're trying to solve is that people are dying because of unsecured firearms. You're solving it by being a callous dick with a shitty understanding of evolution. HOPE THAT HEEEEEEEEEEEEEELPS.

      • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday July 24 2015, @03:20PM

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday July 24 2015, @03:20PM (#213180) Journal

        Nope. People don't die because of firearms, secured or non-secured. People die because other people decide to kill them.