Judge rules man had right to shoot down drone over his house

[Longitude Zero]

That judge is off their rockers, I make my living making electronics for 'drones', and I have seen the pilots own data and raw video, he was about 150 feet if I recall in altitude, and his cameras where forward facing getting the horizon, the persons property was not even visible to the camera feed. Second to that anything in the air is federal, your land rights do not include the sky and things that fly in it, regardless of it being a full sized jet plane or a paper plane. I am all for self defense for legitimate infringements, but this case was not one of them, if anything the guy that shot it down created more of a safety risk then solving one. Sadly it is a slippery slope these days, the FAA wants hobbyists to stay below 400', but below 400' is very visible to the general public whom get excited over things they don't fully understand other then the crap the media poops out, why I almost always fly above 500' to avoid the hassle of pissing someone off that thinks my plane can see them way the hell down there :P.

How can you trust the pilots own data? He could be lying or have altered/corrupted the data to his advantage. Your thoughts on what is or is not an infringement are just that opinions and NOT facts. If the quad is just flying past my property no biggie. Get down below 50' and hover I consider you a criminal Peeping Tom. Here in my state we have had several anuswipe quad pilots flying hundreds of yards beyond the property line to harass animals and hunters. Harass me while hunting your toy hits the ground!

[SlowBurn]

There is no rule that allows you to operate a drone over someone's property without permission 150' overhead. Its trespass and the drone operators were in the wrong even by their own account. Trespass doesn't automatically give a property owner the right to destroy the drone, and there are other issues such as warning, invasion of privacy etc that come into play. But whoever is telling drone operators they're legally ok as long as they stay that high is misleading them.

Its also true as LZ says that law enforcement did not maintain chain of custody, so the drone operator's video and flight data evidence is tainted and could not establish their version beyond a reasonable doubt (the standard in a criminal case like this) especially in view of the neighbors eyewitness evidence to the contrary.

[jocko]

I am not a shotgun hunter, but wouldn't 400' be out of most shotgun loads' range?

absolutely...

[jocko]

This is no BS. We just had a call at the front desk, said she had a Drone or a UFO flying over her house.
Wanted to know if it was ok to shoot it?

Girl (not a violet yet) asked me how to answer and I said I'd go ask the officers.

They wanted to know what I said and I told em blast the sumbuck!

They said the answer is no, can't shoot in the city limits. I asked what if it's causing a threat of serious injury or death, then they saind blast the sumbuck?

Thank goodness for the internet, how did anybody know anything before the internet.

they couldn't do that to your home, as I am told you park it every evening in a different wal-mart parking lot. Just say. Not sure how much truth is to that, maybe its a Target parking lot. Just sayin

[Armybrat]

If that guy's drone peeped into our windows in the evening, his camera would probably explode, short out, melt, or something.

[hardluk1]

MatCat might want to brush up on whats legal in most areas pertaining to air space laws . Passing threw is fine, lingering or low frequent pass's are NOT legal unless you have signed permission .

This story makes me want to re pattern my long barrel 12 ga with some #2 shot , BBand 4 buck loads

[Longitude Zero]

MatCat might want to brush up on whats legal in most areas pertaining to air space laws . Passing threw is fine, lingering or low frequent pass's are NOT legal unless you have signed permission .

This story makes me want to re pattern my long barrel 12 ga with some #2 shot , BBand 4 buck loads

Agreed.

[Bobshouse]

New Headline "The Mayor, angry that his drone was shot down, fires Judge."

[Droolguy]

So, being an actual rated pilot in rotary, fixed-wing, and currently getting my drone certifications I would like to clear something up.

"The pilot might have faked the flight data", while valid and possible, is many (many, many, many, many) multiple times more difficult than people just making **** up on the spot because they don't like something or someone. I can get a dozen people to say that the moon isn't real for a case of beer.

Also, I can tell you that no one in this forum can accurately judge aircraft height with their naked eye from the ground. Not a single one. So them saying "it was below the treeline" at best is a complete guess unless it literally flew between them and the tree, and at worst a complete lie that they made up to get the scary drone away from them.

This case is so ridiculously witch-hunty that it actually makes me angry that a judge can be that ignorant.

[Longitude Zero]

Droolguy fortunately the vast majority of drone operators operate more or less legally for now. I am on several RC boards and the current attitude is the hell with the FAA, the public and the media. If the RC folks fail to police themselves, and it is apparent from the majority of postings they will not, they are going to have onerous restrictions shoved down their throats. They are ignorantly relying up the Reauthorization Act of I believe 2012 to hang their collective hats on and they are about to be surprised. It is not a matter of if but when a valid and documentable full sized aircraft/drone incident does occur and when it does the industry and operators will be all but finished. By your broad based claim about the inability of judging heights is all the more reason to mandate that drones have an electronic height restrictor that cannot be manipulated! Judging height is not as difficult as you erroneously believe.

The undeniable truth/reality is that the drone operators are going to be their own undoing.

[knkali]

Droolguy fortunately the vast majority of drone operators operate more or less legally for now. I am on several RC boards and the current attitude is the hell with the FAA, the public and the media. If the RC folks fail to police themselves, and it is apparent from the majority of postings they will not, they are going to have onerous restrictions shoved down their throats. They are ignorantly relying up the Reauthorization Act of I believe 2012 to hang their collective hats on and they are about to be surprised. It is not a matter of if but when a valid and documentable full sized aircraft/drone incident does occur and when it does the industry and operators will be all but finished. By your broad based claim about the inability of judging heights is all the more reason to mandate that drones have an electronic height restrictor that cannot be manipulated! Judging height is not as difficult as you erroneously believe.

The undeniable truth/reality is that the drone operators are going to be their own undoing.

well said. Doesn't your post typify the concept of just because you can doesn't mean you should?

[Longitude Zero]

well said. Doesn't your post typify the concept of just because you can doesn't mean you should?

True for quad/drone flying and a whole lot of other things also.

[Planedude]

If you want to know how fast the legal environment for hobby can change, look no further than amateur rocketry. One day, the BATF puts out a list of "controlled explosives" and they had added ammonium perchlorate composite propellant (APCP) used in higher power rocketry as fuel. The effect was devastating to the hobby and soon BATF agents were tracking down those "dangerous geeks" and subjecting them to a lot of onerous rules and regulations. The BATF sought to control the "trafficking" of such rocket motors across state lines (get a $$$ permit) and adding a motor storage "magazine" ($$$) that also required permits along with "no notice inspections" by agents that knew not one dang thing about what they were sent to see. As one guy at our rocket shoot described his inspection "the agent was not terribly bright and this really is rocket science..."


But the BATF's plan to take over the hobby had one major flaw. ACPC is a propellant and not an explosive. The rocketry community (not surprisingly) had a mountain of science to back that truth up. When the court case started back in the spring of 02, the rocketry folks had a tight line of reasoning, backed by accepted science written into their brief.


The original BATF brief told the federal court that ACPC was an explosive because "they said so" and that the court should just take their (big government agency) word for it as the court wouldn't be able to understand the science... which went pretty much the way you'd expect after that. Seems the judge knew he'd be fine sifting thru the science and the BATF better start showing some real evidence or be ruled against. In short, they never did... I'll pause while y'all get past the shock of hearing that... And it finally did cause the BATF to lose the case.


The real issue was the eight years of time and huge amounts of money it took the rocketry folks to finally be free of an out of control agency with a rule they had made, "just cause they could".

The Qaudcopter, R/C aircraft and "Drone builders" need to watch their six as the FAA is just as capable of stupid ruling today as the BATF was back then. Rocketry has two great, smart and well run organizations to fight through, NAR and Tripoli (TRA). These two groups were able to raise the funds and lead the fight against the BATF.


I am not aware of any such organizations for the "Drone" crowd. My son builds and loves both big rockets and quads. I put many dollars in the passing hat for the first fight, I will hope I don't have to do the same for a second fight...

If you can stand the legal jargon, here is a link to the history of the case. Parts of it will piss you off seeing the wild and sorry way the BATF tied to circumvent the courts dragging the case on to wait out the rocketry folks (run them out of $$$). Other parts will make you laugh as the BATF stumbled through the entire case with its pants around their ankles.

http://www1.tripoli.org/News/Interna...3/Default.aspx

Oh and my view on the "drone shoot down" is with the "judge got it wrong in this case" folks... Just saying.

[Baklash]

Back in the 60's I would occasionally fly as high as 400 feet, and I never hit an airplane.....just a friend or two, and I saw all kinds of crazy stuff up there, maybe even a drone. Today I never get over 4 inches off the ground.

[Longitude Zero]

Planedude the RC community has the AMA American Modelers Association. They have been fighting the proposed rules but they are coming from behind. They are IMHO fighting a loosing battle or at best to a draw. Back when the rocketry crowd was being hounded there was not the nincompoops operating them like the RC crowd has to deal with now. The other part of the equation is YouTube idiots. There are tons of quad/drone operators that do supremely stupid stuff and show it on video. Unless there is a "mistake of law" the judges ruling will and should stand as valid. The so called fact it is "wrong" has no place in a legal discussion as the only concern is that the ruling was "legal". Whether it is right or wrong has never been an issue in the court system. Also for the most part the BATFE is a widely disrespected agency that has over reached its bounds time and again and they are not directly related to public safety. The FAA has a much better reputation and they are winning the public relations battle because of ignorant quad/drone operators.