Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Sunday August 02 2015, @09:38PM   Printer-friendly
from the not-the-first-and-not-the-last dept.

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.


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: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 02 2015, @10:29PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 02 2015, @10:29PM (#217133)

    His reply isn't irrelevant, but taking about shooting sprees is.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +1  
       Touché=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Touché' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   1  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 02 2015, @10:36PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 02 2015, @10:36PM (#217135)

    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

    by Zz9zZ (1348) on Sunday August 02 2015, @10:39PM (#217137)

    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

      by Francis (5544) on Sunday August 02 2015, @11:01PM (#217142)

      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

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 03 2015, @02:42AM (#217197)

        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

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 03 2015, @08:04AM (#217281)

          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

            by Freeman (732) on Monday August 03 2015, @05:17PM (#217470) Journal

            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"