Another drone shot down

[mavic3usa]

Even though there appears to be a valid law in most countries that are designed to protect aircraft from being shot down, it's becoming increasingly evident that "unmanned" aircraft are not afforded equal protection and even then, it depends on the circumstances. Shoot at a police drone or a company drone and the punishment is arrest/jail or fines, respectively. Shoot at an "ordinary" drone especially those flown by people who are protesting and you stand very little chance there's even going to be a meaningful investigation. Perhaps this is another one of those drone regulations that no one will obey and/or won't be enforced at the federal (higher) levels and will be left to be dealt with at the local (lower) levels which often means less attention and less punishment. My guess is in the future, drone-shooting will become a thing.

Stuff

www.stuff.co.nz

 

[tstr14]

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.

 

[mavic3usa]

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.

 

[tstr14]

When a hunter buys a license, they are also paying for the right to hunt without interference.

Consider this:

You go to an old time Drive-In theater. During the show, a drone appears in front of the screen, flying back and forth and interfering with your viewing the movie. The drone isn't flying over anyone, and hey, airspace is free, right?

Your teenage daughter and her friends go to a beach on private land. A drone appears, taking photos. Again, it may be private land, but the drone is in free space and not actually flying over anyone.

You are playing a round of golf when several drones appear, not only flying over the fairway, but also interrupting your concentration. The golf course may be private, but that air is not, right?

You are attending the gravesite service of you deceased mother. Suddenly a loud drone appears, interfering with the service.

You are enjoying a family barbeque in the back yard when a drone shows up, hovering 20 feet and filming. It's a neighbor who has complained about your parties before and he's just gathering evidence for the police.

Freedom of the airspace is important, but should it trump other rights?

 

[Max Headroom]

Freedom of the airspace is important, but should it trump other rights?

I own a 249g drone I would never fly over a cemetery while someone was being buried I also wouldn't hover over a house but would fly over one to get to a place I wanted to video, it's all about respect and common sense unfortunately some pilots lack both

 

[Fort Pierce Pilot]

Sorry, but the outcome seems predestined when you fly a drone over a bunch of duck hunters with shotguns.

 

[Cafguy]

There should be serious consequences for anyone shooting a weapon into the air! A person that would shoot at a Drone is showing that they have absolutely no firearms training and has no business using a weapon.

 

[Felix le Chat]

Luckily, we only see that kind of behaviour in the UK when the Hooray Henry's and sundry other members of the Green Welly Brigade gather together to snort and whinny at each other while they're blasting the crap out of domestically reared pheasants and grouse with 12 bores.

Hail the hunter eh?

 

[VegasFlyer]

When a hunter buys a license, they are also paying for the right to hunt without interference.

Consider this:

You go to an old time Drive-In theater. During the show, a drone appears in front of the screen, flying back and forth and interfering with your viewing the movie. The drone isn't flying over anyone, and hey, airspace is free, right?

Your teenage daughter and her friends go to a beach on private land. A drone appears, taking photos. Again, it may be private land, but the drone is in free space and not actually flying over anyone.

You are playing a round of golf when several drones appear, not only flying over the fairway, but also interrupting your concentration. The golf course may be private, but that air is not, right?

You are attending the gravesite service of you deceased mother. Suddenly a loud drone appears, interfering with the service.

You are enjoying a family barbeque in the back yard when a drone shows up, hovering 20 feet and filming. It's a neighbor who has complained about your parties before and he's just gathering evidence for the police.

Freedom of the airspace is important, but should it trump other rights?

Your examples are specious and extreme. This thread was started by asking whether it should be legal to shoot down a drone. The answer should be an unmitigated NO, and in most cases, it is illegal to do so. There is nothing illegal about flying near a hunter, over a private beach, or a golf course. (I can’t imagine why anyone would want to do that. Boring.) To the best of my knowledge, I can fly over a person so long as I am not hovering. (in transit) I can fly from one side of a road to another if I do not hover over a vehicle. (Again, in transit) Here in Las Vegas, I can fly over houses without repercussion if I am not making multiple passes over said property, which speaks to intent and privacy issues.

You may not like many things, but does that mean you should be allowed to take extreme measures whenever your feelings get hurt? Would you feel justified in shooting someone’s car because you feel it makes too much noise as it drives by your house?

What if a drone operator is filming a property next to yours at the owner's request? Should you be allowed to interfere with that legal activity? I think not. And just because you see a drone in your area does not mean the camera is pointing at you, or, if it is pointing in your direction, that you are the subject being filmed. It’s incredible how many people feel their lives are so meaningful that they’re worthy of being filmed by a stranger.

I rarely fly below 100 feet, and at that altitude, it is unlikely that you will hear anything. And what if you do? Which of your rights are being infringed upon? Please be specific by pointing to an actual law or ordinance.

Do not take my use of the pronoun “you” personally. I’m using it in a general sense.

 

[tstr14]

I own a 249g drone I would never fly over a cemetery while someone was being buried I also wouldn't hover over a house but would fly over one to get to a place I wanted to video, it's all about respect and common sense unfortunately some pilots lack both

I totally agree but SOME pilots believe that since they are technically allowed to do something, then by God, they are gonna do it!

 

[tstr14]

There should be serious consequences for anyone shooting a weapon into the air! A person that would shoot at a Drone is showing that they have absolutely no firearms training and has no business using a weapon.

So, you would outlaw all bird hunting since the vast majority is done shooting in the air? Guess we should include skeet and trap shooting too. How about outlawing shooting a deer or antelope standing on a hill, since a missed shot would likewise go into the air? OK, now let's start on outlawing fireworks....

 

[Mt-Ed]

Where I live, there are hunter harassment laws to protect hunters from interference by those that may not like or disagree with their activities. If I was out hunting, and a drone FLEW BY, not to be seen again, I could care less. However, if I'm out hunting and a drone keeps buzzing me and OBVIOUSLY attempting to interfere with my hunting, I will do my best to bring it down! I would first document their activities with my cell phone, and then use the corpse to identify the culprit, and let the chips fall where they may. If I was in a situation, as the article seems to show, where the drone(s) were obviously being used by an identifiable source, I'd just call the authorities and let them handle it. I've actually thought about this possibly happening while waterfowl hunting, and considered how I would handle it. If a drone "showed up" and hovered in front of me, I would wave to it (thinking that perhaps the pilot saw me and was just interested in "what I was, and what I may be up to"). If it then took off and did not return, it would not have caused me any issues. IF that drone kept coming back or taking other disruptive actions, I would most likely "mistake" it for a duck and add it to my day's bag limit! By their very nature, a drone "buzzing" someone is quite an anonymous invader, and I think that there are some drone pilots out there that know and feel that such anonymity provides them some level of "safety" as opposed to confronting those being buzzed directly. If someone has an issue with what another is doing, and chooses to deal with it in an anonymous manner, they should not be surprised or annoyed when the target of their activities takes action on the only "thing" before them?

 

[Max Headroom]

I totally agree but SOME pilots believe that since they are technically allowed to do something, then by God, they are gonna do it!

You can guarantee they'll be the first to moan if bans are put in place.

 

[paulhackerllc]

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.

No where in the article did it say the drone was interfering with the hunters. The article did say “ “peacefully document and disrupt”, but it didn’t say the drone was doing the disrupting. But, made a point of saying the drone was launched to capture images.

I regularly fly my M3P 75-100 feet or more over ducks on the lake I live on and it doesn’t even phase them. I would like to know what law the drone pilot broke. We all can probably safely say that in most countries the Hunter broke the law when he decided to shoot down the drone. You say two wrongs don’t make a right, but without more information how do you know there were two wrongs?

 

[paulhackerllc]

Your examples are specious and extreme. This thread was started by asking whether it should be legal to shoot down a drone. The answer should be an unmitigated NO, and in most cases, it is illegal to do so. There is nothing illegal about flying near a hunter, over a private beach, or a golf course. (I can’t imagine why anyone would want to do that. Boring.) To the best of my knowledge, I can fly over a person so long as I am not hovering. (in transit) I can fly from one side of a road to another if I do not hover over a vehicle. (Again, in transit) Here in Las Vegas, I can fly over houses without repercussion if I am not making multiple passes over said property, which speaks to intent and privacy issues.

You may not like many things, but does that mean you should be allowed to take extreme measures whenever your feelings get hurt? Would you feel justified in shooting someone’s car because you feel it makes too much noise as it drives by your house?

What if a drone operator is filming a property next to yours at the owner's request? Should you be allowed to interfere with that legal activity? I think not. And just because you see a drone in your area does not mean the camera is pointing at you, or, if it is pointing in your direction, that you are the subject being filmed. It’s incredible how many people feel their lives are so meaningful that they’re worthy of being filmed by a stranger.

I rarely fly below 100 feet, and at that altitude, it is unlikely that you will hear anything. And what if you do? Which of your rights are being infringed upon? Please be specific by pointing to an actual law or ordinance.

Do not take my use of the pronoun “you” personally. I’m using it in a general sense.

**** you, you took the words right out of my mouth. I was going to say that.

 

[paulhackerllc]

There should be serious consequences for anyone shooting a weapon into the air! A person that would shoot at a Drone is showing that they have absolutely no firearms training and has no business using a weapon.

“There should be serious consequences for anyone shooting a weapon into the air!” I’m sure glad legal duck hunters don’t shoot up in the air, otherwise there would be a lot of illegal activity going on. Don’t get mad, I couldn’t help myself.

 

[paulhackerllc]

When a hunter buys a license, they are also paying for the right to hunt without interference.

Consider this:

You go to an old time Drive-In theater. During the show, a drone appears in front of the screen, flying back and forth and interfering with your viewing the movie. The drone isn't flying over anyone, and hey, airspace is free, right?

Your teenage daughter and her friends go to a beach on private land. A drone appears, taking photos. Again, it may be private land, but the drone is in free space and not actually flying over anyone.

You are playing a round of golf when several drones appear, not only flying over the fairway, but also interrupting your concentration. The golf course may be private, but that air is not, right?

You are attending the gravesite service of you deceased mother. Suddenly a loud drone appears, interfering with the service.

You are enjoying a family barbeque in the back yard when a drone shows up, hovering 20 feet and filming. It's a neighbor who has complained about your parties before and he's just gathering evidence for the police.

Freedom of the airspace is important, but should it trump other rights?

Although, most, if not all, of those examples would be considered d**khead moves by most people. You might want to, but you can’t shoot down the drone. And to be honest, I’m not not sure what you could do that would give you the outcome you desire.

 

[mavic3usa]

When a hunter buys a license, they are also paying for the right to hunt without interference.

Consider this:

You go to an old time Drive-In theater. During the show, a drone appears in front of the screen, flying back and forth and interfering with your viewing the movie. The drone isn't flying over anyone, and hey, airspace is free, right?

Your teenage daughter and her friends go to a beach on private land. A drone appears, taking photos. Again, it may be private land, but the drone is in free space and not actually flying over anyone.

You are playing a round of golf when several drones appear, not only flying over the fairway, but also interrupting your concentration. The golf course may be private, but that air is not, right?

You are attending the gravesite service of you deceased mother. Suddenly a loud drone appears, interfering with the service.

You are enjoying a family barbeque in the back yard when a drone shows up, hovering 20 feet and filming. It's a neighbor who has complained about your parties before and he's just gathering evidence for the police.

Freedom of the airspace is important, but should it trump other rights?

im the first person to believe we have too many laws but we already have laws against much of this.

for example, 18 U.S. Code § 1388

Prohibition on disruptions of funerals of members or former members of the Armed Forces​

18 U.S. Code § 1388 - Prohibition on disruptions of funerals of members or former members of the Armed Forces

www.law.cornell.edu

These laws came about for exactly the reasons you mentioned, not because of drones. And then you have various state and local laws to maybe cover the same when it comes to disturbing the peace or disorderly conduct. These are the exact cases where these laws are applicable to drones as well and most approrpriate.

Missouri RSMo 574.160
Title XXXVIII CRIMES AND PUNISHMENT; PEACE OFFICERS AND PUBLIC DEFENDERS

574.160

Unlawful funeral protest, offense of — definitions — violation, penalty.

revisor.mo.gov

As I mentioned, when a drone interferes with a business, that's a civil action and those who have been aggrieved have a claim. It does not justify pulling out a firearm and opening fire on a drone. If you are at a funeral and a car in the parking lot is honking the horn loudly every time you hear the words "honest man" can you fire a round into the engine block to disable the horn? That's a crime and so is shooting down a drone; we cannot allow "annoying" or "pesky" drones to be dealt with using firearms. Please oppose these state bills when legislations try to enact them into law.

 

[Chip]

Lots of states have criminal laws prohibiting obstructing or interfering with lawful hunting. Here is Washington's which makes violation a gross misdemeanor. Note at the end it says that taking action to stop hunting out of season or trespass to property is an "affirmative defense."

RCW 77.15.210 Obstructing the taking of fish, shellfish, or wildlife—Penalty.

(1) A person is guilty of obstructing the taking of fish, shellfish, or wildlife if the person:

(a) Harasses, drives, or disturbs fish, shellfish, or wildlife with the intent of disrupting lawful pursuit or taking thereof; or

(b) Harasses, intimidates, or interferes with an individual engaged in the lawful taking of fish, shellfish, or wildlife or lawful predator control with the intent of disrupting lawful pursuit or taking thereof.

(2) Obstructing the taking of fish, shellfish, or wildlife is a gross misdemeanor.

(3) It is an affirmative defense to a prosecution for obstructing the taking of fish, shellfish, or wildlife that the person charged was:

(a) Interfering with a person engaged in hunting outside the legally established hunting season; or
(b) Preventing or attempting to prevent unauthorized trespass on private property.

(4) The person raising a defense under subsection (3) of this section has the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence.

In other words, state has to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt while person charged with the crime only has to prove they were defending either public law or their own private property rights by a preponderance of evidence.