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

[Slayerstwin]

I live in New York and if you go shooting things out of the sky you go to jail


Sent from my iPad using MavicPilots

 

[adiru]

Simple, Mavic is small. Fly high enough away from them so they cannot see it.

If they can't see it, they dont' know its there, they can't claim invasion of privacy.

No one is going to use a sniper rifle with a scope to shoot down your mavic, this ain't Bourne Legacy.

 

[AlanTheBeast]

Please see the attached... don't always base your facts on the way news reports something.. keep in mind that many of their "news reports" have an agenda behind them.

Couldn't follow that - could someone summarize where the case is at?

 

[Squamer]

I would've told him sure you could shoot my drone out of the sky but I'm much more likely to hit you in center mass afterwards!

Kidding of course, maybe, maybe not.

 

[Robbyg]

I live in New York and if you go shooting things out of the sky you go to jail


Sent from my iPad using MavicPilots

Your right and If you read post #21 that is exactly what I said.
The police/Courts don't seem to care about the person shooting down the drone but they do go after the Gun owner for discharging the weapon.

Seriously guys this is a debate that can go on forever! Right now the FAA is stalling for time as they figure out what is in the best interest of Amazon and all the other companies that want to use drones for delivery. Until then we are a problem that they wish they could get rid of. Fortunately for us they cannot do so without also affecting the future interests of certain big companies. So here we are waiting for the FAA to finally do something and until then this debate will go nowhere.

Rob

 

[Robbyg]

Simple, Mavic is small. Fly high enough away from them so they cannot see it.

If they can't see it, they dont' know its there, they can't claim invasion of privacy.

No one is going to use a sniper rifle with a scope to shoot down your mavic, this ain't Bourne Legacy.

In the daytime at a 150ft up and a Mavic is like a cloaked ship. You cannot see it and you cannot hear it. Unless someone had a rifle with a scope and knew it's exact location there is no way it will ever get shot down.

 

[DJ Kim]

Unfortunately there _is_ legal precedent for this. It's not correct... but there is a court ruling (KY). Its a well known fact that judges rule all of the time based on their feelings about an issue and not the law.

Negative on that KY case. That case is not about shooting at drone. The drone happened to be the target.
The charge was discharging a firearm.
He could have shot vertically in thin empty air, that would have not made any difference on the charge.




Sent from my iPhone using MavicPilots

 

[rydfree]

In the daytime at a 150ft up and a Mavic is like a cloaked ship. You cannot see it and you cannot hear it. Unless someone had a rifle with a scope and knew it's exact location there is no way it will ever get shot down.

Say WHaaat ? LOL

While indeed it is hard to spot some days I can hear my Mavic easily at 400 feet even when it is 700 feet away over my friends house .

I really wish fliers would just use common sense and courtesy . Nobody wants a toy ,especially one that newbie pilots seem to be crashing and losing a lot , over their house ,family or car . Before the off the shelf drones came to be , nobody went flying their RC planes and helicopters over any ones property or people thousands of feet or miles away . In fact RC flying fields usually had strict rules about flying behind the flight line and outside immediate property borders . For decades there has been little issue with RC aircraft and now the drones that can basically fly themselves have pulled in a ton of inexperienced and arrogant people that think their toy is a real aircraft . Forget the legal definition or lack of and realize your drone IS A TOY . I love this hobby and have for many years but even I do not want just anyone flying over my property nor do I want someone running their RC truck across my yard or heli over my house . Can they shoot your toy drone down ? WHY HELL YES . They may face consequences and so may you but in the end who is at fault ?

BTW years ago there was a ruling that stated a land owner owns 80' over the tallest structure on the property . I'm not sure that is still in effect but it made sense . If me and Bob lived side by side yet I had the city's permission to erect a 100' ham radio tower , then I would own 180' AGL and Bob would only own 80' AGL over his .

Please just use some sense and don't stop and hover over peoples property and fly higher than they would reasonably notice . Most of the people flying low and snooping or doing stupid stuff like flying near airports won't even be in the hobby after a few years . They will just have ruined it for the rest of us .

 

[adiru]

Say WHaaat ? LOL

While indeed it is hard to spot some days I can hear my Mavic easily at 400 feet even when it is 700 feet away over my friends house .

I really wish fliers would just use common sense and courtesy . Nobody wants a toy ,especially one that newbie pilots seem to be crashing and losing a lot , over their house ,family or car . Before the off the shelf drones came to be , nobody went flying their RC planes and helicopters over any ones property or people thousands of feet or miles away . In fact RC flying fields usually had strict rules about flying behind the flight line and outside immediate property borders . For decades there has been little issue with RC aircraft and now the drones that can basically fly themselves have pulled in a ton of inexperienced and arrogant people that think their toy is a real aircraft . Forget the legal definition or lack of and realize your drone IS A TOY . I love this hobby and have for many years but even I do not want just anyone flying over my property nor do I want someone running their RC truck across my yard or heli over my house . Can they shoot your toy drone down ? WHY **** YES . They may face consequences and so may you but in the end who is at fault ?

BTW years ago there was a ruling that stated a land owner owns 80' over the tallest structure on the property . I'm not sure that is still in effect but it made sense . If me and Bob lived side by side yet I had the city's permission to erect a 100' ham radio tower , then I would own 180' AGL and Bob would only own 80' AGL over his .

Please just use some sense and don't stop and hover over peoples property and fly higher than they would reasonably notice . Most of the people flying low and snooping or doing stupid stuff like flying near airports won't even be in the hobby after a few years . They will just have ruined it for the rest of us .

Yeah when I fly it over my neighborhoods I can hear it 600 feet away too! No one has complained about it though, the high school teenagers doing crazy circle driving in the parking lot is ten times louder and many have called the police since its loud and the rubber from the tires can be smelled at night but no one cares about it.

Mavic noise pollution is very low, but I can definitely hear it more than 600 feet away

 

[pogopilot]

This is a simple issue (IMHO). You cannot shoot down someones drone from out of the sky, in fact you cannot shoot it if it is sitting in you driveway. And it does not matter if it is a drone or a flying toaster. If you willfully destroy someones property, you have broken the law, plain and simple. Unless of course you can prove that you or your family were at risk from said "toaster"

You need to see law enforcement and they will enforce the law, not the property owner. But even better, the pilot should not fly in such a manner to raise the ire of their neighbor or any other human being.

 

[tcope]

Negative on that KY case. That case is not about shooting at drone. The drone happened to be the target.
The charge was discharging a firearm.
He could have shot vertically in thin empty air, that would have not made any difference on the charge.

"Judge rules Kentucky man had the right to shoot down his neighbor’s drone"

Judge rules Kentucky man had the right to shoot down his neighbor’s drone

He was charged with criminal mischief and wanton endangerment (not unlawful discharge of a firearm).

He was really charged incorrectly, which allowed him to prevail. If he had been charged with simply discharging a firearm, he'd had been found guilty (as he admitted to this). As this was _not_ a case of discharging the fire arm and _was_ a case of criminal mischief, the circumstances of damaging the drone were taken into consideration. The judge ruled since witnesses testified that the drone was at tree level, it invaded Meredith's privacy so he was not guilty of the charges (again, not the discharge of the weapon itself, the _wanton_ destruction of the property/drone.

 

[adiru]

"Judge rules Kentucky man had the right to shoot down his neighbor’s drone"

Judge rules Kentucky man had the right to shoot down his neighbor’s drone

He was charged with criminal mischief and wanton endangerment (not unlawful discharge of a firearm).

He was really charged incorrectly, which allowed him to prevail. If he had been charged with simply discharging a firearm, he'd had been found guilty (as he admitted to this). As this was _not_ a case of discharging the fire arm and _was_ a case of criminal mischief, the circumstances of damaging the drone were taken into consideration. The judge ruled since witnesses testified that the drone was at tree level, it invaded Meredith's privacy so he was not guilty of the charges (again, not the discharge of the weapon itself, the _wanton_ destruction of the property/drone.

there is no double jeopardy, he can get charged again this time for the right offense

 

[tcope]

This is a simple issue (IMHO). You cannot shoot down someones drone from out of the sky, in fact you cannot shoot it if it is sitting in you driveway. And it does not matter if it is a drone or a flying toaster. If you willfully destroy someones property, you have broken the law, plain and simple. Unless of course you can prove that you or your family were at risk from said "toaster"

You need to see law enforcement and they will enforce the law, not the property owner. But even better, the pilot should not fly in such a manner to raise the ire of their neighbor or any other human being.

Usually but not in all cases. See my post above. If a drone was being used to look into your fenced in backyard windows (I'm trying to show expectation of privacy) then you would be able to swat the drone, with let's say a towel, and knock it down. As long as the it was shown that the drone was being used to cause you harm (invasion of privacy would apply) than you have a right to stop that harm.

I'm being a little nit picky here as I think we are really talking about legal use of the drone. Just pointing this out as it goes along with my other post.

 

[adiru]

This is a simple issue (IMHO). You cannot shoot down someones drone from out of the sky, in fact you cannot shoot it if it is sitting in you driveway. And it does not matter if it is a drone or a flying toaster. If you willfully destroy someones property, you have broken the law, plain and simple. Unless of course you can prove that you or your family were at risk from said "toaster"

You need to see law enforcement and they will enforce the law, not the property owner. But even better, the pilot should not fly in such a manner to raise the ire of their neighbor or any other human being.

True,. a pilot like that is more likely to get his tires slashed by the neighbors than his drone shot down.
best way to go about it is just takeoff vertically to 400 feet in your own airspace, then move around, do your thing, then land vertically from 400 feet in your own airspace. never fly too close nor too low, and all should be fine.

 

[tcope]

there is no double jeopardy, he can get charged again this time for the right offense

He cannot be charged (this is criminal) with the same classification of crime... for the same crime. This is a right (in the US) afforded under the 5th Amendment.

I'm speaking of the county as they made the mistake. There is no indication (and it won't happen) that a Federal Court would go after the corrected charges.

 

[adiru]

He cannot be charged (this is criminal) with the same classification of crime... for the same crime. This is a right (in the US) afforded under the 5th Amendment.

I'm speaking of the county as they made the mistake. There is no indication (and it won't happen) that a Federal Court would go after the corrected charges.

ok.

They should have charged him for the weapon offense correctly the first time. He got lucky. I don't know of any state in the US that he can discharge his firearm within city limits when he was not in fear for his life nor when his property was not being stolen at night, etc and not get charged for it. (trespass allows use of force but not deadly force, and the drone wasn't stealing from him nor was it a danger to his life)

 

[CC Rider]

Well read what a drone advocacy page has to say. I am looking up more but just came across this one first.


Where does private land end and public airspace begin?

The problem with this article is that the information it contains is outdated, being dated 2015, 1 year BEFORE the latest FAA release of its regulations pertaining to drones.

My understanding is the FAA's August 29, 2016 press release and presentation of its latest regs and guidelines clearly state the FAA controls all airspace from where the ground begins and going ever upward, from Sea To Shining Sea. Moreover, the FAA stated that the first 400' of that airspace is open to drone pilots, wherever it happens to be. In fact, unless I am wrong here and I don't think I am, they further stated that no one or no entity can deny that 400' airspace to any drone pilot flying at least a registered drone weighing in anywhere between .55 lbs up to 55 lbs. Some States and municipalities HAVE attempted to interject themselves between the FAA and the skies since August 2016, but my understanding is the FAA's resolve to maintain its control over all U.S. airspace is set in stone.

In my estimation, the FAA WILL have the final say, as it would be impossible to move forward.with the drone industry - and folks, drones are here and they're here to stay - with, as one thread poster described, a "mishmash" of rules and regulations that changes from town to town, county to county, or State to State. Things just won't fly that way, pun intended, and the U.S. of A. is not about to do anything that impedes either commerce or technology, especially cutting edge technology that promises even greater U.S. commerce. As always, the dollar rules, make no mistakes about that. It's just the American way.

Here in Delaware, several coastal resort beach towns recently attempted to ban drone flying in their separate airspaces through city and town ordinances they passed, but the State leaned on them claiming IT owned and controlled Delaware's airspace, not the cities or towns, and so all but one town reversed their positions. (I'm already planning my first flight there this summer.) Of course, the FAA never agreed with Delaware about their position on owning its airspace. But when it comes down to it, I don't think even a State could financially afford to challenge the FAA's rulings.

The real pity about this whole situation that does not get enough attention, to my way of thinking at least, is the fact that MOST of the people making decisions regarding drones or wanting to shoot them down claiming invasion of privacy concerns have little to no experience with drones in the first place. One local city councilwoman who voted to ban drones in her charming, little, perfect, upper-crust resort town was quoted in a local newspaper and scaring people with her stated belief that ALL of us are flying massive, can-do-everything 55lb drones in the air! Personally, I've never even seen a 55lb drone. I wanted to shake her by her narrow shoulders until her ridiculously expensive jewelry rattled and show her my innocent, little, sweet Mavic Pro.

Don't we WISH our consumer-level drones could behave in the manner and do the things that many of these people out there are afraid of and want protection from!! I mean, WE know the limitations of our drone cameras, but non-drone pilots have no idea whatsoever. If you wanted to fly discreetly high above someone to film them and be assured you are not being heard or seen while attempting to do so (i.e., spying on someone or attempting to secretly invade their privacy) then just how close up is your subject even going to be in your camera frame? And if you wanted to fly close enough to snatch some REAL close up shots or footage, your drone would be so conspicuous and obvious that even Stevie Wonder would know it's there.

With any type of front sensor/OA abilities on, regardless of the drone brand, your drone won't even let you close enough to a closed window to even peer into it, and not too many pilots are going to try being a Peeping Tom using a drone, again due to our drone's limitations as well as our own. (Plus you wouldn't even have a free hand, so what would be the point? ) The average politician or citizen is not even aware of just how limited we are time-wise to even BE in the air due to our battery power constrictions, again regardless of what brand of drone it is, and just how little time we can even be an annoyance to them in the air.

My point is, once again Americans are making ill-informed decisions based upon ignorance and personal beliefs rather than knowledge and proof. Since the 1600s, Americans have enjoyed having a little witch burning every now and then. Right now one of those witches are drones.

 

[tcope]

ok.

They should have charged him for the weapon offense correctly the first time. He got lucky. I don't know of any state in the US that he can discharge his firearm within city limits when he was not in fear for his life nor when his property was not being stolen at night, etc and not get charged for it.

Yup, they should have. They did screw up the charges (I'm not sure how it works but I'm betting the police start that process and perhaps the procecutor has so long to correct/change the charges).

I _suspect_ that perhaps they were trying to help Boggs in rolling his property damage claim into the charges (if convicted, the could probably then order restitution to Boggs).

But in the end Boggs has filed in Federal court which should be much better for all of us as the ruling will then apply across state lines (and better judges will hear the case).

 

[tcope]

My understanding is the FAA's August 29, 2016 press release and presentation of its latest regs and guidelines clearly state the FAA controls all airspace from where the ground begins and going ever upward, from Sea To Shining Sea.

That comes from US Code which was established well in the past.

Moreover, the FAA stated that the first 400' of that airspace is open to drone pilots, wherever it happens to be. In fact, unless I am wrong here and I don't think I am, they further stated that no one or no entity can deny that 400' airspace to any drone pilot flying at least a registered drone weighing in anywhere between .55 lbs up to 55 lbs.

Not really. The FAA cannot make regulations for the hobby drone use (but they get around this when claiming safety issues, which they can regulate). As to the 400' rule, there simply is no regulation for hobby use. It does not exist. The FAA tries to sneak this in a "recommendation" (and pretty much puts it out there as a requirement in some situations) but its never been anything more then a recommendation. So they never said it was open... they have just confirmed (what was already known), that there is no regulation to limit drone altitude specifically. They also don't say no one is allowed to limit drone use within 400'. 500' is mentioned as public airspace (I won't go into details) and they mention that "Community Based Organizations" can create their own limitations. I suspect this is why local law makers _think_ they are allowed to create regulations and why we see some claim their rules govern up to 400' or 500' (because the FAA does have clear regulations at 500' and above and some local lawmakers can't even figure out 400' is not a thing.

Some States and municipalities HAVE attempted to interject themselves between the FAA and the skies since August 2016, but my understanding is the FAA's resolve to maintain its control over all U.S. airspace is set in stone.

Yup! The FAA has even cautioned local law makers. But it does not stop them from making illegal laws. It's done all of the time. Makes me want to kick those people in the nuts.

In my estimation, the FAA WILL have the final say, as it would be impossible to move forward.with the drone industry - and folks, drones are here and they're here to stay - with, as one thread poster described, a "mishmash" of rules and regulations that changes from town to town, county to county, or State to State. Things just won't fly that way, pun intended, and the U.S. of A. is not about to do anything that impedes either commerce or technology, especially cutting edge technology that promises even greater U.S. commerce. As always, the dollar rules, make no mistakes about that. It's just the American way.

The FAA won't do anything until it becomes in their interest. So I doubt they care if local law makers attempt to regulate drones in the air as it really does not hurt the FAA. Once it affect them, they will probably push back.

Here in Delaware, several coastal resort beach towns recently attempted to ban drone flying in their separate airspaces through city and town ordinances they passed, but the State leaned on them claiming IT owned and controlled Delaware's airspace, not the cities or towns, and so all but one town reversed their positions. (I'm already planning my first flight there this summer.) Of course, the FAA never agreed with Delaware about their position on owning its airspace. But when it comes down to it, I don't think even a State could financially afford to challenge the FAA's rulings.

Please don't get me started.... I SERIOUSLY am wanting to kick these people in the butt.

 

[CC Rider]

Just had a big debate with my engineer that says he could shoot down my drone if I flew it over his house. I said really can you shoot down a helicopter flying over your house too? He didn't know how to answer that.

So then he brings up that he talked to a lawyer and they looked it up and said that people own the air space above their house(which I am not sure even that is true) but then I said even if that is true that doesn't give you the right to shoot down a drone flying over your property temporarily.

So can I have a definitive answer on this subject please?

Y'know, on a purely practical level, the correct answer to the OP's original question is YES! Someone CAN shoot down your drone if it flies over their property! All it takes is an idiot with a shotgun with the willpower and aim to do so. (I say shotgun because darn few people are good enough with a rifle - let alone a handgun - to hit a moving drone with a bullet. People who can't aim but want to shoot something are always quick to grab their shotguns.)

Your best bet if ever caught in that scenario is probably to pull back on the right stick fast and just get yourself out of where you were and where the shooter aimed, since shotgun pellets begin to spread out in all directions after leaving the gun barrell and lose their potency fast as they fly, especially upward. Trying to fly left or right or up and down would merely put you in the pattern of the shotgun pellet spread; moving backward quickly away from the blast would allow the pellets time to fly on past you and lessen the impact the pellets would have. Of course, if you're close enough to the shooter you're simply toast either way.

Hopefully none of us will ever face such a situation, but that's the only recourse I can think of that would be available at the time. That and cleaning someone's clock!