SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Ars has a story about a man in Kentucky who took skeet shooting to a new level, being arrested after shooting down a drone that he says was hovering over his property. While this is not the first time this has happened, this seems to be the first time someone was arrested for doing it.
Since that article was published new information has been published that indicates that this guy was a better shot than he said he was. The second article points out:
[In 1946], the Supreme Court decided in a case known as United States v. Causby that that a farmer in North Carolina could assert property rights up to 83 feet in the air. In that case, American military aircraft were flying above his farm, disturbing his sleep and his chickens. As such, the court found he was owed compensation.
However, the same decision also specifically mentioned a "minimum safe altitude of flight" at 500 feet—leaving the zone between 83 feet and 500 feet as a legal grey area.
Arthur T Knackerbracket has found an update to this story, however:.
The pilot of the drone shot down Sunday evening over a Kentucky property has now come forward with video provided to Ars, seemingly showing that the drone wasn't nearly as close as the property owner made it out to be. However, the federal legal standard for how far into the air a person's private property extends remains in dispute.
According to the telemetry provided by David Boggs, the drone pilot, his aircraft was only in flight for barely two minutes before it was shot down. The data also shows that it was well over 200 feet above the ground before the fatal shots fired by William Merideth. David Boggs provided this video to Ars, which he describes as his "statement."
Boggs told Ars that this was the maiden voyage of his DJI Phantom 3, and that his intentions were not to snoop on anyone—his aim was simply to fly over a vacationing friend's property, a few doors away from Merideth's property in Hillview, Kentucky, south of Louisville.
"The truth is that this man lied and he's doubling down," Boggs said. "The video speaks for itself." Merideth, meanwhile, continues to maintain that the drone flew 20 feet over a neighbor's house before ascending to "60 to 80 [feet] above me."
I wonder if it would be legal for me to install a Phalanx gun in my backyard to defend my property from drones.
(Score: 4, Disagree) by wonkey_monkey on Sunday August 02 2015, @10:06PM
Just because you have a right to, or expectation of, something, that doesn't mean you automatically have the right to take whatever measures you want to end an infringement of that right.
In other news, both sides in a dispute can be in the wrong at the same time.
PS CSS problems, Soylent?
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 02 2015, @10:09PM
I think that argument can go against the drone pilot, who was almost certainty watching the shooter's daughters.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 02 2015, @10:28PM
The daughters aren't even hot. What an idiot.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 03 2015, @03:36AM
Are you psychic? Can you read minds? No? So what then, you're thinking that, if it was you, you'd be peeking, so you can't imagine anybody doing anything else? You have no possible way of knowing what he was doing.
(Score: 2) by mojo chan on Monday August 03 2015, @12:30PM
Telemetry shows that the drone didn't linger over the property. From the height shown the operator wouldn't have seen much. Of course it might be fake, but the shooter didn't take any photos first so has pretty much destroyed any chance he might have had to prevail in court.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
(Score: 2) by Yog-Yogguth on Wednesday August 05 2015, @12:59AM
200 yards (meters) high + at an angle (thus a greater distance than 200) + not hovering (moving) = a very hard target for anything in a shotgun (birdshot would be among the better options but it would still be a fluke).
If that's the story of the drone operator he shouldn't win in court.
Bite harder Ouroboros, bite! tails.boum.org/ linux USB CD secure desktop IRC *crypt tor (not endorsements (XKeyScore))
(Score: 3, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 02 2015, @10:22PM
You have the right to speak, unless I don't like what you have to say.
You have the right to worship, unless I don't like your religion.
You have the right to assemble, unless I don't like your associates.
You have the right to bear arms, as long as you join my army.
You have the right to refuse to house my soldiers, as long as you are one of my soldiers.
You have the right to refuse to be searched, unless I want to search you.
You have the right to refuse to incriminate yourself, unless I tell you to incriminate yourself.
You have the right to a trial, as long as I dictate the outcome.
You have the right to a lawyer, as long as your lawyer tells you to obey me.
You have the right to a jury trial, as long as I choose the jurors.
You have the right not to be tortured, unless I want to torture you.
You have the right to pretend you have rights, as long as you don't have any rights.
That about sum up your legal beliefs, fascist?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 02 2015, @10:26PM
His point was that while you might have the right to do X, that doesn't mean you can do absolutely anything if you believe it will defend that right. For instance, going on a shooting spree and killing random people because your free speech rights were violated. That appears to be the logic he used, so your reply seems irrelevant.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 02 2015, @10:29PM
His reply isn't irrelevant, but taking about shooting sprees is.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 02 2015, @10:36PM
Correctly summarizing the logical intent so that first knee-jerk reaction by a fool can no longer be justified is irrelevant?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Zz9zZ on Sunday August 02 2015, @10:39PM
The analogy was just fine, showing how the reaction to an offense can definitely be out of proportion. It is not for me to say whether shooting the drone was reasonable or not, that is for our courts to decide. Personally, I would hope it becomes legal to take down a trespassing drone, but there are so many possibilities.
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Francis on Sunday August 02 2015, @11:01PM
What we need more than that is a new set of rules to help govern situations like this. It's hard to say whether the drone would have been shot down if drones didn't typically have cameras. This isn't unlike those glassholes walking around with a camera pointing at people. If there were some way of knowing that the photos weren't being stored, it would greatly reduce the tension in these situations. The current expectations of privacy are based upon what things were like a long time ago. Back then if somebody didn't witness you do something embarrassing, they could only get it through gossip. And you could move away from the gossip by moving to the next town down the road in most cases. In some cities, you might be able to do that just by changing neighborhoods.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 03 2015, @02:42AM
If this was 15 years ago and it was a RC airplane then it wouldn't have been shot down.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 03 2015, @08:04AM
If this was 15 years ago and it was an RC airplane then it wouldn't have had a camera.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Monday August 03 2015, @05:17PM
http://www.rc-cam.com/rc-cam1.htm/ [rc-cam.com] I wouldn't be so sure. Video wasn't so great 15 years ago, but pictures wouldn't be out of the question.
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: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 03 2015, @02:25AM
I tried to load the front page earlier this afternoon.
The page title was in the title bar but all I got was a blank page.
By default, I block everything that isn't text.
When I pulled up my blocking widget, it was blank too (it's usually full of blocked items).
Strange.
-- gewg_