Slayerstwin
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2017
- Messages
- 333
- Reactions
- 80
- Age
- 49
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
Sent from my iPad using MavicPilots
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.
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
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.
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.
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 **** 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 .
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
That comes from US Code which was established well in the past.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.
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.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.
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.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.
Please don't get me started.... I SERIOUSLY am wanting to kick these people in the butt.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.
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?