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: 2) by PinkyGigglebrain on Sunday August 02 2015, @11:21PM
Would you feel the same if a drone was hovering over your backyard while your daughter was sunbathing? Or what if you caught it peeking in your window?
From what I've hear the memory card with the video is missing. The only thing they are basing their claim on about it being at such and such an altitude is some kind of separate flight path recording provided from the drone by it's operator.
If you have other info please link it so I can adjust my views.
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 2) by PinkyGigglebrain on Sunday August 02 2015, @11:39PM
finally found the video that supposedly shows the flight path. I didn't see anything that could not have been easily faked by the drone owner. And if he new exactly where the drone came down why doesn't he provide the video form the drone's camera? As I understand it the drone owners claim is that memory card was missing when they recovered the drone.
hitting a small erratically moving target at 270-300 feet with #8 birdshot is quite a feat.
Looking forward to the links that might change my views.
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 3, Informative) by hemocyanin on Monday August 03 2015, @01:39AM
I was looking up range info for #8 shot earlier, and it seems that for clay pigeons people talk of a useful range of 40 yards. It can apparently travel 200+ yards but you're looking at perfect angle and wind conditions.
On the other hand, the guy who shot it down sounds like a total asshole. Maybe this is just an asshole v. asshole thing where you hope the shooter gets punished and drone operator doesn't get reimbursed.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by BasilBrush on Monday August 03 2015, @01:23PM
Erratically moving? It might have been, but generally quadracopter drones are steady in flight, whether hovering, or moving in perdictable lines.
And it's quite revealing of your bias that you suspect the flight data might have been faked, but you take the word of the shooter what kind of lead he was using in the shotgun.
Hurrah! Quoting works now!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 03 2015, @03:33AM
If you don't want people looking at your daughter while she's outside, you have two choices - never allow her out of the house or build a privacy fence. "Somebody was looking at my daughter while she was out in public!" is not a valid reason to use deadly force, its transparent bullshit for an asshole that wanted to destroy somebody else's property.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 03 2015, @06:05AM
Same reasoning applies to the drone owner. You don't like getting Your drone shot down? Don't fly it over my property.
Not only that, how is my personal, private back yard a public space? Even if I erected a privacy screen, a fence or at least some bushes that shield it from the public view, drone operators still don't give a flying fuck about it.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by PinkyGigglebrain on Monday August 03 2015, @09:42AM
My understanding is the there is a 6ft high fence around the shooters property. Given that fact he and his daughter did have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Had the drone operator and his buddies physically hoisted themselves up to look over the fence they could have been charged with some crimes that could get them on the sex offenders watch list for the rest of their lives.
The only thing that would prove the drone operators story would be the video the drone was recording at the time. But that is conveniently missing so it comes down to a He said/they said. I watched the video the drone operator has posted that claims to show the flight pattern of the drone and i didn't see anything that couldn't be fabricated with the right software and a little time. And even that video shows the drone crossing over the shooters property, just at a higher altitude than the shooter claims.
What about the next door neighbors the shooter supposedly talked to while the drone was over their houses? What do they say they saw? Does their story back the shooter or the drone pilot?
There are still too many unanswered questions for me to really pass a judgment on this case but right now I have to side with the shooter. If it was over his property and he had reasonable grounds to believe it was capturing video of his private property and also possibly filming his daughter, and given that a big selling point of the larger drones is that they have HD cameras on them this is likely, then I feel his actions were justified.
The only thing I know for sure is that if I saw a drone flying over and around my home I would feel very uncomfortable about it. Possibly to the point that I would want to get the drone out of the air by any means available.
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 2) by BasilBrush on Monday August 03 2015, @01:29PM
What daughter? I can't see anything in the story about a daughter. Are you confusing someone's hypothetical with the actual case?
Hurrah! Quoting works now!