Would someone please settle this..can a landowner shoot down our drones or not?

[Robbyg]

Well I would have probably go balistic as this lady. Obviously the drone pilot looks to be harassing them. If you want to go and fly, go do it, but general rule never hover close to anyone property.
still legally she couldnt shoot the drone.

Yes I agree. The lady had every right to do what she did. This guy was close in, maybe 50 ft from her window and hovering.
She also seems very level headed as she did not actually fire the gun. In my moment of anger I might not have been so generous if it had been staring into my house.

 

[GreatScott]

Guys but what if.... Just WHAT-IF One Eyed-Willy and his treasure is real.... ERR SORRY. I meant to say, what if the situation were reversed and a drone was clearly trying to perch right outside of your house and even knew you were trying to get it to leave, and evaded you, only to come back close to you......What would your thoughts be? (Granted perhaps not to shoot it with a gun) I'd still be pretty ticked and I love to fly them. I think the pilot here could have avoided the entire thing with a little better judgement.

Just perspective.

 

[FortPolkMP]

Hell, in Chicago, they'll shoot you and your drone. Then empty your pockets and drive off in your car.

 

[CplMulder]

Just saw this on youtube and remembered this post.... looks like you will be arrested in one place at least.... and then face charges.

To be fair it sounds as if the drone pilot was not behaving very well ... loitering and then returning... dunno if this did or did not have anything to do with the shooters suntanning 16yr old daughter or not... but once again he also said if the guy flew on he would have just ignored it....

 

[Wombat55]

Just saw this on youtube and remembered this post.... looks like you will be arrested in one place at least.... and then face charges.

To be fair it sounds as if the drone pilot was not behaving very well ... loitering and then returning... dunno if this did or did not have anything to do with the shooters suntanning 16yr old daughter or not... but once again he also said if the guy flew on he would have just ignored it....

I think that the shooter was probably a bit trigger-happy. The picture of the drone I saw showed it quite high up in the air, and probably just taking scenic pictures. I think that it's a bit paranoid for someone to think that the drone would be "stalking" his young daughter. Finally, we know that these drones aren't suited to taking good pictures of individuals at such distances because the cameras that virtually all of these drones including the Mavic carry are moderately wide-angle lenses, not telephoto lenses. Good for landscape photography, not good for long-range pictures of individuals. Finally, the reason that our videos and pictures look so good and sharp and stable is that our Mavic is using a moderately wide-angle lens so that slight unavoidable drone movements in the air due to varying winds while in GPS mode aren't really noticeable in the video feed or the pictures. If one mounted a long-range telephoto camera in a drone like a Mavic, the few inches of back-and-forth movement of the Mavic while it is trying to maintain its position would show up as big, wild movements of the image seen through the telephoto lens. It would make you seasick.

 

[gbracer08]

Basically best to call the police, its harassment, invasion of privacy, that person was flying way to close and most importantly lingering, re-positioning the camera. It almost looks staged. If you discharge a firearm in most cities and towns there are ordinances against that. That's what the police are for. The drone was not putting you in imminent danger so you can't shoot. Doesn't matter if its a bird or aircraft.

 

[CplMulder]

I think that the shooter was probably a bit trigger-happy. The picture of the drone I saw showed it quite high up in the air, and probably just taking scenic pictures. I think that it's a bit paranoid for someone to think that the drone would be "stalking" his young daughter. Finally, we know that these drones aren't suited to taking good pictures of individuals at such distances because the cameras that virtually all of these drones including the Mavic carry are moderately wide-angle lenses, not telephoto lenses. Good for landscape photography, not good for long-range pictures of individuals. Finally, the reason that our videos and pictures look so good and sharp and stable is that our Mavic is using a moderately wide-angle lens so that slight unavoidable drone movements in the air due to varying winds while in GPS mode aren't really noticeable in the video feed or the pictures. If one mounted a long-range telephoto camera in a drone like a Mavic, the few inches of back-and-forth movement of the Mavic while it is trying to maintain its position would show up as big, wild movements of the image seen through the telephoto lens. It would make you seasick.

Absolutely, I couldn't agree more... the shooter seemed a bit of a Tackleberry character (Police Academy reference), the kind of guy that lives with his finger on the trigger waiting for an opportunity to use his weapon.... he even says there was gonna be another shooting if they crossed my sidewalk - really???. I also think the bit about his daughter sunbathing is cr@p and him clutching for justification... they say it happened after 8pm... was she trying to catch a moon-tan? Anyways, hats-off to the police for arresting and charging him.... glad the drone pilot got his drone and footage back - would love to see it and see what he was up to, as you say probably just scenery!

I also totally agree about the cameras... as awesome as the Mavic 4K camera is at any kind of height I normally have to point out people on the ground to anyone viewing the footage.... photos are worse and a person is really a few blurred pixels at anything over 90ft, especially in low light like this incident was.... the problem is the general public have watched too many James Bond and CIA movies and think we have the technology to look down a girl's blouse in the dark from 20,000 ft.... if only! I have some footage shot in the evening (I was trying to picture a sunset) where I can clearly see neighbours in their kitchen looking through the windows pointing at my drone and in a sudden fit of paranoia pulling all the blinds down... luckily most people in London do not own firearms.

I guess just as there are drone users that will give us a bad name (and there are some) there are also gun owners that will give them a bad name.... clearly this guy was out of line... he discharged his weapon without any direct threat to himself, his family or his property... in fact the only threat to his property he caused himself from a falling drone. He says he took "steps to protect his property"... surely the most logical steps would be to take your confused daughter inside that is sunbathing in the moonlight, draw the blinds like my paranoid neighbours and if you still feel threatened and paranoid enough then call the police.... if the police decide to shoot it down so be it... it's their call, they are the law.

As for the drone pilot... well it's also a pretty straight forward point... people are ignorant and paranoid and us dronies have got so much bad press from just a few @55h0les lately (drones flying close to commercial jet aircraft, drones smuggling contraband into prisons etc.) that we now face a very tough road ahead... this is not gonna be made any easier by people causing extra conflict and distrust... just this one article in itself will have millions of viewers saying how they would do the same and hating drones more... the authorities have already said how dangerous shooting at a drone is so what will come next is more legislation and so on..... until we have in effect been banished to RC flying clubs where there is nothing worth taking a video of..... or even worse, lets be honest - none of us here want drones banned...

I think we as drone pilots have a responsibility to ourselves, our beloved drones and our fellow hobbyists to do our bit to try and keep our noses clean... all I am saying is think before you fly !!! I really get annoyed when I see people on YouTube being stupid and making people distrust us even more...

Happy flying fellow dronies!

 

[integlikewhoa]

glad the drone pilot got his drone and footage back - would love to see it and see what he was up to, as you say probably just scenery!

This has been posted here before and there is a few videos that show behind the scenes of this shooting.

Man Describes Flight Path of Drone in Kentucky Dispute

 

[CplMulder]

This has been posted here before and there is a few videos that show behind the scenes of this shooting.

Man Describes Flight Path of Drone in Kentucky Dispute

Excellent!! - thank you... (not see this one before so apologies)

Sad outcome in the court.... surely the Judge should be held accountable for ignoring physical and technical evidence? - looks like he the got let off free?

 

[SailorGerry]

I am in Cypress Texas and Had this same issue! I got him on video aiming a shotgun at my Mavic as I was flying through the neighborhood (200 ft roughly). I confronted him (respectfully) and told him my daughter and I were flying it and not looking in their yards. This happened twice in one day and luckily my daughter (2yrs old) being there with me assisted in calming them down. They said they wanted to make sure I wasn't a "sicko". But they insisted they wanted to "shoot it out of the sky" with their shotguns. they seemed so paranoid like I really care whats in their yards.

 

[LawFlyer]

Friends -- as a lawyer, I need to add my 2 cents on this....

First, as many people know, there's a big difference between CIVIL and CRIMINAL laws.

If you violate a criminal law, you have committed a CRIME. In that case, you can be arrested, charged, and prosecuted. Criminal laws are enforced by the police which means local city/town police, county sheriff, or the FBI in cases of federal crimes.

On the other hand, CIVIL law (also known as "tort law") is not enforced by the police -- it's enforced by YOU, either by filing a civil lawsuit in court, or by hiring a lawyer to bring the case on your behalf. Violating civil law is not a crime; it's generally a private civil matter that simply means anyone who is hurt/damaged can bring a lawsuit seeking to recover money. In certain cases, you can also seek an injunction prohibiting certain conduct from happening again in the future.

So, when you are asking whether it's OK to shoot down a drone, you are really asking TWO different questions:

1.) Is there a CRIMINAL law that says this is illegal?
AND
2.) Is the shooter subject to potential CIVIL liability?

A couple other points to consider:

Forget about criminal laws for a minute because the CIVIL side of the issue is 100% clear -- if someone else damages your property, you CAN ALWAYS sue them and you CAN recover money damages for the value of your property. It doesn't matter if the "property" is a car, TV, cellphone, or Mavic -- if someone else damages your personal property, that is always "unlawful" in the sense that you can sue them for damages.

Also, the fact that you are flying over someone else's property is almost certainly NOT a defense in a civil case. If someone accidentally parks their car in your driveway, this might be a form of trespass (same as flying over their property), but does that mean you can shoot the trespasser's car? ABSOLUTELY NOT. If you shoot their car, you will be liable for damages. Same thing with shooting down a flying drone.

Bottom line -- unless a state passes a specific individual law that says it is OK to shoot down a drone that's flying over your land (which I think some states are considering), then trust me -- shooting down a drone for any reason WILL expose you to civil liability 100% of the time -- PERIOD.

Now what about criminal law? This is a very different issue. For one thing, criminal law violations general don't require any damages -- if you break a criminal law, you can be arrested, even if no one was hurt (this is NOT true in a civil case -- if someone shoots at your drone and they MISS, you can't sue them because they have not actually caused you any damage).

Also, even if there is no specific law banning shooting at drones, any person who does this could still face potential criminal liability for things such as unlawfully discharging a firearm, reckless endangerment, disorderly conduct, etc. Trust me -- it is not necessary to have laws banning every little thing. We have so many existing criminal laws that apply to a broad array of conduct, it's nearly impossible to say: "Well, there isn't a law that applies to this situation, so I guess we need a new one."

Final suggestions:

1.) If you have a gun and see a low-flying drone, DO NOT shoot at it.
2.) If you have a drone and someone shoots at it, call the police.
3.) If you really want to fantasize about shooting down drones, watch this (the guy with the beard happens to be suing a client of mine):

 

[SteelFlyer]

Friends -- as a lawyer, I need to add my 2 cents on this....

First, as many people know, there's a big difference between CIVIL and CRIMINAL laws.

If you violate a criminal law, you have committed a CRIME. In that case, you can be arrested, charged, and prosecuted. Criminal laws are enforced by the police which means local city/town police, county sheriff, or the FBI in cases of federal crimes.

On the other hand, CIVIL law (also known as "tort law") is not enforced by the police -- it's enforced by YOU, either by filing a civil lawsuit in court, or by hiring a lawyer to bring the case on your behalf. Violating civil law is not a crime; it's generally a private civil matter that simply means anyone who is hurt/damaged can bring a lawsuit seeking to recover money. In certain cases, you can also seek an injunction prohibiting certain conduct from happening again in the future.

So, when you are asking whether it's OK to shoot down a drone, you are really asking TWO different questions:

1.) Is there a CRIMINAL law that says this is illegal?
AND
2.) Is the shooter subject to potential CIVIL liability?

A couple other points to consider:

Forget about criminal laws for a minute because the CIVIL side of the issue is 100% clear -- if someone else damages your property, you CAN ALWAYS sue them and you CAN recover money damages for the value of your property. It doesn't matter if the "property" is a car, TV, cellphone, or Mavic -- if someone else damages your personal property, that is always "unlawful" in the sense that you can sue them for damages.

Also, the fact that you are flying over someone else's property is almost certainly NOT a defense in a civil case. If someone accidentally parks their car in your driveway, this might be a form of trespass (same as flying over their property), but does that mean you can shoot the trespasser's car? ABSOLUTELY NOT. If you shoot their car, you will be liable for damages. Same thing with shooting down a flying drone.

Bottom line -- unless a state passes a specific individual law that says it is OK to shoot down a drone that's flying over your land (which I think some states are considering), then trust me -- shooting down a drone for any reason WILL expose you to civil liability 100% of the time -- PERIOD.

Now what about criminal law? This is a very different issue. For one thing, criminal law violations general don't require any damages -- if you break a criminal law, you can be arrested, even if no one was hurt (this is NOT true in a civil case -- if someone shoots at your drone and they MISS, you can't sue them because they have not actually caused you any damage).

Also, even if there is no specific law banning shooting at drones, any person who does this could still face potential criminal liability for things such as unlawfully discharging a firearm, reckless endangerment, disorderly conduct, etc. Trust me -- it is not necessary to have laws banning every little thing. We have so many existing criminal laws that apply to a broad array of conduct, it's nearly impossible to say: "Well, there isn't a law that applies to this situation, so I guess we need a new one."

Final suggestions:

1.) If you have a gun and see a low-flying drone, DO NOT shoot at it.
2.) If you have a drone and someone shoots at it, call the police.
3.) If you really want to fantasize about shooting down drones, watch this (the guy with the beard happens to be suing a client of mine):

Great review of legal issues. I'm wondering if you can shed light on something. I have read that there is, in fact, a law making it a criminal act to shoot at aircraft. And since FAA categorizes a drone as an aircraft then shooting at a drone would be a criminal act. I have not researched this myself but wonder if you happen to know.

 

[stratos]

Just saw this on youtube and remembered this post.... looks like you will be arrested in one place at least.... and then face charges.

To be fair it sounds as if the drone pilot was not behaving very well ... loitering and then returning... dunno if this did or did not have anything to do with the shooters suntanning 16yr old daughter or not... but once again he also said if the guy flew on he would have just ignored it....

I love to see this kind of redneck behind bars. He threaten them about crossing the side walk that he was going to open fire.
Most people think that drones flying at 30 meters can get detail pic of their faces, which in reality even if you use 4k, they are way too small.
Anyway, good to see a drone hater behind bars.

 

[LawFlyer]

Great review of legal issues. I'm wondering if you can shed light on something. I have read that there is, in fact, a law making it a criminal act to shoot at aircraft. And since FAA categorizes a drone as an aircraft then shooting at a drone would be a criminal act. I have not researched this myself but wonder if you happen to know.

OK, so here's your answer -- there is a federal criminal law (18 U.S.C. § 32) which says it's illegal to (ignore the verb tense): "sets fire to, damages, destroys, disables, or wrecks any aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States or any civil aircraft used, operated, or employed in interstate, overseas, or foreign air commerce ... ."

A different part of this same law makes it a crime to ATTEMPT a violation (so attempting to destroy aircraft is treated the same way as actually destroying one). A bad guy who violates this provision: "shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years or both." Got that? Shooting at aircraft = 20 years in prison, even if you miss.

But, do drones qualify as "aircraft" under this law? The answer to that is found in the immediately preceding section (18 U.S.C. § 31) which says: "The term 'aircraft' means a civil, military, or public contrivance invented, used, or designed to navigate, fly, or travel in the air." Sounds like a drone could fit that definition, right?

So on the one hand, the definition of "aircraft" is pretty broad, and I am sure the FAA would argue that drones = aircraft (because the FAA wants to exercise authority over drones). Thus, it certainly seems like shooting at a drone would be a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 32.

But, like so many other things in the legal world, it's not that simple.

For one thing, our federal government does not have unlimited authority to create laws. Explaining the exact limits and boundaries of that authority is like a full semester of law school, but the basic idea is that if the feds want to regulate something, they can only do it if the activity involves "interstate commerce" or certain other things. If something does NOT involve interstate commerce, then the feds usually cannot regulate it, even if they want to (but then again, the definition of "interstate commerce" is extremely broad and vague).

If I had a client who was arrested and charged with shooting at a drone, I might try to argue that 18 U.S.C. § 32 simply does not apply to a drone flying in a local park or neighborhood because the drone has a very limited range and thus cannot be involved in interstate commerce. Therefore, establishing laws prohibiting shooting at a drone should be a matter of local law for each state to handle, not a manner of interstate commerce for the feds to control.

NOTE -- even if a court agreed that shooting at a drone DOES affect interstate commerce, at the end of the day federal crimes must be investigated and prosecuted by the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office. In my work, I sometimes have to deal with the FBI for various legal issues. I have been told that even when there is clear evidence of a federal crime, the FBI will not get involved unless there is a financial loss of more than $1 million....because the FBI simply does not have unlimited time/resources to handle every minor issue. They have bigger things on their hands like preventing terrorism, etc.

 

[SteelFlyer]

OK, so here's your answer -- there is a federal criminal law (18 U.S.C. § 32) which says it's illegal to (ignore the verb tense): "sets fire to, damages, destroys, disables, or wrecks any aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States or any civil aircraft used, operated, or employed in interstate, overseas, or foreign air commerce ... ."

A different part of this same law makes it a crime to ATTEMPT a violation (so attempting to destroy aircraft is treated the same way as actually destroying one). A bad guy who violates this provision: "shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years or both." Got that? Shooting at aircraft = 20 years in prison, even if you miss.

But, do drones qualify as "aircraft" under this law? The answer to that is found in the immediately preceding section (18 U.S.C. § 31) which says: "The term 'aircraft' means a civil, military, or public contrivance invented, used, or designed to navigate, fly, or travel in the air." Sounds like a drone could fit that definition, right?

So on the one hand, the definition of "aircraft" is pretty broad, and I am sure the FAA would argue that drones = aircraft (because the FAA wants to exercise authority over drones). Thus, it certainly seems like shooting at a drone would be a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 32.

But, like so many other things in the legal world, it's not that simple.

For one thing, our federal government does not have unlimited authority to create laws. Explaining the exact limits and boundaries of that authority is like a full semester of law school, but the basic idea is that if the feds want to regulate something, they can only do it if the activity involves "interstate commerce" or certain other things. If something does NOT involve interstate commerce, then the feds usually cannot regulate it, even if they want to (but then again, the definition of "interstate commerce" is extremely broad and vague).

If I had a client who was arrested and charged with shooting at a drone, I might try to argue that 18 U.S.C. § 32 simply does not apply to a drone flying in a local park or neighborhood because the drone has a very limited range and thus cannot be involved in interstate commerce. Therefore, establishing laws prohibiting shooting at a drone should be a matter of local law for each state to handle, not a manner of interstate commerce for the feds to control.

NOTE -- even if a court agreed that shooting at a drone DOES affect interstate commerce, at the end of the day federal crimes must be investigated and prosecuted by the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office. In my work, I sometimes have to deal with the FBI for various legal issues. I have been told that even when there is clear evidence of a federal crime, the FBI will not get involved unless there is a financial loss of more than $1 million....because the FBI simply does not have unlimited time/resources to handle every minor issue. They have bigger things on their hands like preventing terrorism, etc.

Thanks for this. I understand much about how the law works (I've spent 35 years in environmental compliance) and know that nothing is ever crystal clear and especially so when it comes to Federal powers. I have read a number of FAA interpretive guidance to know that they ABSOLUTELY consider drones as "aircraft" under the legal definition. So it would appear that the FAA would argue that shooting at a drone is indeed a criminal offense. But, until some court decides the issue it is a grey one.

For me this is mostly an interesting intellectual exercise because I think it highly unlikely that the average responsible drone owner would ever have their drone shot at.

For reference, the following is from FAA Guidance:

Historically, the FAA has considered model aircraft to be aircraft that fall within the statutory and regulatory definitions of an aircraft, as they are contrivances or devices that are “invented, used, or designed to navigate, or fly in, the air.” See 49 USC 40102 and 14 CFR 1.1

 

[LawFlyer]

Ultimately, the question is NOT: "Do we have a law against this conduct"?

The question is -- will a prosecutor care enough to charge someone who violates the law?

Most people don't fully appreciate this, but law enforcement (meaning police and prosecutors) have a lot of discretion when deciding which cases to pursue and which ones not to pursue. They are not required to pursue a case just because YOU think that someone broke the law.

Law enforcement folks love going after "low hanging fruit" meaning easy cases like DUIs, etc. These cases do not take much work, and they produce large fines which many cities/towns rely on for income.

If a case seems marginal, difficult, or complicated, prosecutors can simply say: "Yeah, that is not a priority for us, so we are going to decline prosecution at this time."

THAT is where the line between legal/illegal is actually drawn. If we have a law but no one enforces it, then it's not really a law anymore. This is also why responsible members of the drone community should do our best to self-police....because the first time a drone gets sucked into the engine of a passenger jet, you can bet prosecutors will start re-thinking their priorities.

 

[SteelFlyer]

Ultimately, the question is NOT: "Do we have a law against this conduct"?

The question is -- will a prosecutor care enough to charge someone who violates the law?

Most people don't fully appreciate this, but law enforcement (meaning police and prosecutors) have a lot of discretion when deciding which cases to pursue and which ones not to pursue. They are not required to pursue a case just because YOU think that someone broke the law.

Law enforcement folks love going after "low hanging fruit" meaning easy cases like DUIs, etc. These cases do not take much work, and they produce large fines which many cities/towns rely on for income.

If a case seems marginal, difficult, or complicated, prosecutors can simply say: "Yeah, that is not a priority for us, so we are going to decline prosecution at this time."

THAT is where the line between legal/illegal is actually drawn. If we have a law but no one enforces it, then it's not really a law anymore. This is also why responsible members of the drone community should do our best to self-police....because the first time a drone gets sucked into the engine of a passenger jet, you can bet prosecutors will start re-thinking their priorities.

Couldn't agree more.

 

[Gregp2016]

It seems quite obvious that if a person has that much of a problem with someone flying a drone over their property, that they would actually shoot it down.....they must really have something to hide.

 

[Oingo Boingo]

Perhaps listen to this podcast by a lawyer who tackles the question. Drone Law Today | Who Owns the Air?
Who Owns the Air?

 

[LawFlyer]

Perhaps listen to this podcast by a lawyer who tackles the question. Drone Law Today | Who Owns the Air?
Who Owns the Air?

I'm listening to this podcast right now....and WOW....I don't mean to be a hater, but the guy speaking is really not very good. I am 10 minutes in, and so far he has not said one meaningful thing. He's just sort of rambling without actually saying ANYTHING conclusive. Not sure I can bear to listen to the end.

But as I said, as far as legal consequences for someone shooting at your drone or otherwise destroying it - that's very easy and the law is very settled -- ANYONE who damages or destroys someone else's property (and drones are items of property) can be sued for it and can be forced to pay for the value of the property. PERIOD, END OF STORY.

Also NOTE -- in most states, it is already a crime to damage someone else's property "recklessly" (so that excludes car crashes caused by simple negligence, but it would clearly apply to shooting at a drone).

In Arizona where I live, here's what the law says (ARS 13-1602):

A. A person commits criminal damage by:

1. Recklessly defacing or damaging property of another person.

2. Recklessly tampering with property of another person so as substantially to impair its function or value.

If the property in question is valued at $1,000 or more, then it's a felony....so if someone shot down my Mavic, I'd have no problem calling the police and asking them to arrest the shooter.

Of course the flip-side is what rights do property owners have to stop people from flying over their property? THAT is where the law is less clear....but once again, we don't necessarily need a new law to deal with this. Why? Because existing civil law claims would probably be sufficient in most cases. For example, if someone was hovering over your land and taking photos of you, you could probably bring a claim against them for invasion of privacy (depending on the circumstances), and also potentially for "nuisance". Claims for invasion of privacy and/or nuisance are well-established civil theories that could easily be used to protect people from irresponsible drone owners. The only aspect of these claims that isn't perfect is that you have to enforce the law yourself by pursing the matter in court. In most cases, the police won't get involved in civil matters (which is fine with me).