Man Acquitted of Shooting Down Drone

[theecrewchief]

“Drone Slaying” Father Acquitted On All Charges For Shooting Down Drone Flying Over Sunbathing Daughter

 

[motopokep]

odd there's no discussion of this. Would you shoot down a drone not merely hovering over your property, but hovering over your children? I wouldn't so much care if it was hovering over my boys playing sports outside, but if my daughter were to be sunbathing, I'd try to use some gestures first at the drone to warn the guy to back off, and if that wouldn't work, I'd probably throw a rock or two at the drone, and if that don't work, I'd probably fire a bb gun at it...but I would never fire my gun into the sky...if you miss the drone, your bullet may strike someone couple miles away. I'd prolly call the cops to see if they have the technology to bring it down....but heck, if I lived in rural KY, maybe I would .....

oh, and I mean if the drone was clearly low enough above my property, like down to 40-50 feet. If it would be up there high, where my daughter would be a small dot, I wouldn't really care...heck, I fly above people's houses occasionally, but stay high enough so they don't get offended

 

[Chip]

odd there's no discussion of this...

There was on a prior thread. But, thanks for bringing up again because there is a very interesting back story worth repeating.

The shooter was acquitted by Bullitt County, Kentucky (how is that for irony) judge just as reported. Now, shooting into the air at a drone (even if its trespassing) sounds reckless to me but I assume its a rural county where risk caused by stray bullet is diminished.

The second part of the story (far less reported) is that the drone owner was so incensed he filed a civil lawsuit against the shooter in federal court in Kentucky. Why in the world would you file a federal lawsuit over destruction of $1200 in property?

Drone owner said it was because all navigable airspace is federally regulated so there were federal questions. The federal judge dismissed the case on jurisdictional grounds explaining that the resolution of the case did not necessarily involve a federal question.
What happens in the air over private property is not necessarily determined by federal law especially if the core issue is whether state criminal or private property laws were broken.

 

[motopokep]

you sound like a colleague ... The judge was right because the shooting took place from the ground, so the offense occurred on the ground, and that's state jurisdiction. There were quite a few cases years back when people would point lasers at airliners and helicopters form the ground, and not sure where most of them were handled, but the one I participated (not as a defendant ) in was in state criminal court. Same scenario here, the offense, though directed at federal airspace, occurred on the ground.

 

[princeofthehouse]

I wonder who would be blamed if having then shot the drone it lost control, flew towards the daughter, crashed landing on the lap and brutally burning and maiming the girl.
hmmmm...will be a interesting court case come that day...

as for above, it would have been nice to both see the gps data and telemetry and any footage taken to determine if something improper was actually happening and if the pilot was at a reasonable height that one would not be able to see the daughter.

The judge has determined the fathers actions to not be criminal however does not mean they were not foolish.

 

[Chip]

you sound like a colleague ... The judge was right because the shooting took place from the ground, so the offense occurred on the ground, and that's state jurisdiction. There were quite a few cases years back when people would point lasers at airliners and helicopters form the ground, and not sure where most of them were handled, but the one I participated (not as a defendant ) in was in state criminal court. Same scenario here, the offense, though directed at federal airspace, occurred on the ground.

I like your analysis and analogy. I am resisting this argument that the FAA is the sole, exclusive, omnipotent, divine regulator of all air everywhere from our shoelaces to outer space and your laser analogy is another arrow in my quiver!

 

[Floater]

FAA's jurisdiction ends at the too of Class A airspace which is noe 60,000 feet. If you are cruising along in your SR, traffic separation and navigation is on you!

 

[Floater]

too=top, noe=now. Sorry.

 

[floyd]

At the risk of turning this into a gun control discussion, which IS NOT my intent, this situation is another example of using EXCESSIVE force as a perceived reasonable solution. Does the father have a right to be angry? YOU BET! As the father of two daughters, I would be incensed if some sleazy drone pilot were getting his jollies by flying over my daughters while they caught some rays. But I am not going to grab a gun and start firing bullets into the air? Of course not! Absolutely insane! Take photos or video of the drone, call the police, and tell your kids to go inside. Be an adult.

So if some sleazy guy is taking photos of some guy's wife or teenage children at the beach, that gives the guy permission to pull out his concealed pistol or unconcealed rifle and shoot the camera? I realize the two situations may not be apples to apples, but I'm trying to illustrate just how "normal" gun-related solutions have become. What is wrong with this society... from both perspectives.

 

[ac0j]

Was it a pistol or rifle, or a shotgun? I am actually OK with the shotgun being fired into the air.
Interesting case. Do we even know if it was an expensive DJI drone, or a homebuilt, or a cheap walmart camera drone? Is this worse than throwing the guys drone in the ocean? NONE of these things are what you need to be thinking about.
The court basically just ruled that it is OK to shoot down a drone if it hovers over your property in that state (for now). This case can now be used as case and point in the future.
THAT is what we need to focus on. At this point it isnt about right or wrong, It is about what IS.

 

[Chip]

Here is a bit more of the story.

 

[dirkclod]

Being this is old news and you continue to make it a gun discussion by the guidelines I am moving this to Off Topic and am leaving it open.
Till It becomes disruptive at which time I will close it .
This is left up to you guys . Now carry on but Please do be civil .
Thank-You