Farmer shoots at my MA2 drone

[christangey]

Bottom line. Most countries in the world have not caught up with drones so they are all still classified simply as "aircraft". The penalty for shooting a drone is the same as shooting an aircraft, which equates to serious jail time.

 

[Fadly]

Simply put, if the drone is at 120m no one on the ground with a shotgun is going to do any damage to it.

Hitting something as small as a drone that's moving and 120 m away is less likely than winning the Powerball lottery twice.

At 120m, I don't think anyone will know the drone was up there, unless they actively searching for it.

 

[mobilehomer]

Just because it is rarely enforced does not excuse the fact that it is illegal. A drone, by FAA definition, is an aircraft.

 

[MS Coast]

Just because it is rarely enforced does not excuse the fact that it is illegal. A drone, by FAA definition, is an aircraft.

Yes, I think that's generally agreed upon here.

 

[Meta4]

Just because it is rarely enforced does not excuse the fact that it is illegal. A drone, by FAA definition, is an aircraft.

But that's not what was being discussed.

 

[GadgetGuy]

Lots of technically illegal things are rarely, if ever, enforced. Further, the maximum penalty is rarely ever given for violations of any offense which are enforced. The totality of the circumstances for a de minimus technical violation that is enforced generally would result in a warning, probation, or a small fine, or some combination of the three. Serious jail time, or even a large fine for a first offense of any violation is highly unlikely.

While shooting at a drone may technically qualify as shooting at an aircraft, it is certainly not the same, nor treated the same, as shooting at a manned aircraft, and the penalty for shooting at a drone, assuming any kind of enforcement, is certainly not going to be "serious jail time."

"The penalty for shooting a drone is the same as shooting an aircraft, which equates to serious jail time..

So, while shooting at a manned aircraft could potentially lead to serious jail time, stating that shooting at a drone would automatically result in the same penalty, simply because a drone is technically an aircraft, is a quantum leap that requires some proof that such a penalty was ever imposed for shooting at a drone.

 

[GadgetGuy]

The "serious jail time" is a real stretch.

Even the OP states that confiscation of the firearm is the only punishment after any potential criminal conviction in his jurisdiction, and that the police also won't care unless the drone was actually hit, and he has proof of who did the shooting, and can also prove he was not invading the privacy of the landowner, which would make him the criminal!

"- No, it is not legal to shoot at drones, in fact punishable by confiscation of the firearm and a criminal offense
- As long as my drone wasn't hit and I don't have evidence police wouldn't really care"
- Yes, it is legal to fly over someone's farm, as long as you respect privacy"

Worst case, sounds more like the illegal discharge of a firearm at an expensive frisbee, where the firearm might be confiscated (not even forfeited!) for a short period of time, and maybe restitution for the cost of the frisbee ordered, if the shooter couldn't make out a case for invading his privacy, making it an illegal flyover, which justified the shooting of the invading frisbee, and his requesting criminal charges be filed against the drone pilot for invasion of his privacy!

 

[GFields]

If the incivility continues this thread will be closed. I have deleted several posts already. Please refrain from personal attacks. Refer to the community guidelines.