This is a case of the law being broken on both sides. While shooting a drone is illegal, so too is using a drone to interfere with hunters. Unlike the person flying the drone, the hunters paid for the right to hunt and even though I'm a pilot, if I were on the jury, I would vote to find the hunters not guilty. Likewise, if sitting a jury in the case of the drone operator and protesters, I would vote to find them guilty. While two wrongs don't make a right, the second wrong was a direct result of the first one.
Wait a second, there's a law that says you cannot use a drone to capture what these hunters are doing? When a hunter pays for rights, the airspace over those hunting grounds are included?
This is the essence of Florida and Texas laws purporting to allow citizens to shoot down drones. Why bother a jury when we can just pass the law upfront that says if the drone is doing something we don't like, shoot it down. This ensures the drone operator is stopped immediately and punished on the spot and we don't have wait for a jury to decide. In addition, we believe the jury might be totally biased (just like expressed) and never convict (the other side) and we can't take that chance so let the shooter be the jury. You just said you would allow a drone to be shot down because you believe it was breaking a law so instead of depending on that law, you'd rather just take action in the field? Does this mean you support state laws in the US that allow this?
What if this were an unmarked police drone investigating hunters who take too much game, use illegal shotguns or ammo, or otherwise might be convicted felons, is it ok to shoot down the police drone? Or, are only pesky protesting activist drones "fair game?"
We cannot allow drones to be shot down using firearms
under any circumstances unless if the drone is attacking and the victim has no other options left but to shoot it down otherwise death or grave bodily harm is imminent. Just for the record, I didn't read anywhere these drones were harassing the hunters or getting in the way of their shots or scaring off game, etc. My understanding is the drones were gathering intelligence, taking pictures, and just being protesters in the public space and the hunters didn't like it and if they are like most people, they do believe they actual own that airspace which is why they shot at those drones. Even so, if a drone gets in your way or it's distracting (i.e. using a spotlight at night or a loudspeaker), it doesn't matter if you paid or not, you can't shoot it down. You have a civil claim, that's it. It's not a drone crime. Destroying that drone is also a civil matter but the relevant law makes it a crime and I keep wondering when we are going to acknowledge and respect that. We don't need a list of "acceptable actions" where shooting at a drone becomes legal. Also I would like to point out that I realize drones and hunting don't mix in many areas and when it comes to hunting there are quite a few laws regulating their use but I am unaware of those that come into play here.
www.stuff.co.nz
