• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Shooting delivery drones

ochadd

ochadd

[H]ard|Gawd
2FA
Joined
May 9, 2008
Messages
1,469
https://jalopnik.com/americans-with-guns-are-hunting-walmarts-delivery-drone-1851574906

Americans With Guns Are Hunting Walmart's Delivery Drones​

Shooting down delivery drones is a felony charge, just so you know​

Last week a Florida man admitted to shooting down a Walmart delivery drone, which he claimed was surveilling him, with a 9mm pistol as it flew over his home.
1720019195634.png
 
You may own the property that your home sits on ...but the air space above it is still owned by the government
 
jlbenedict said:
You may own the property that your home sits on ...but the air space above it is still owned by the government
Click to expand...

That is true, but it depends a little.

My understanding is that typical "air rights" extend up to an altitude of 500ft and anything above that is airspace. In cities where tall buildings are likely this may be a little higher. 1000ft is typical I believe. (Don't quote me on this though)

It also depends very much on the deed for the particular property. These rights can be sold off and packaged differently, so there is no guarantee you actually own even the first 500f of air rights above your property.

All of that said, even of a drone enters your area of air rights, I'd imagine standard trespassing law applies. You'd have to notify the trespasser they are trespassing somehow prior to taking action. You can't just start blasting.

The Supreme Court has held that there is no expectation of privacy in a public place (or any place visible from a public place). This is how the paparazzi can exist. There is nothing you can do about people recording or taking pictures of you or your family when in a public place, but this dates back to before drones were a reality.

Are all of our yards now "visible from a public place" despite privacy fences or hedges because a drone can fly 500ft up in public airspace? That seems a little extreme.

This area of law needs to be challenged in the courts with some precedent setting rulings being handed down so we have more guidance. Either that or laws need to be changed.
 
kydsid said:
Let's applaud this dude at least for hitting a drone with a 9mm, good aim on this guy. Wyatt Earp would be proud. :D
Click to expand...

Yeah, the marksmanship is impressive.

I don't claim to be a marksman by any stretch of the imagination, but I can hit things at at least somewhat of a range with a rifle. A pistol on the other hand, man, I'm not very good with those.
 
kydsid said:
Let's applaud this dude at least for hitting a drone with a 9mm, good aim on this guy. Wyatt Earp would be proud. :D
Click to expand...
Wonder how many rounds he unloaded? Did they all land? He better have been firing straight up, otherwise he's just randomly sending lethal ammunition in his vicinity.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
All of that said, even of a drone enters your area of air rights, I'd imagine standard trespassing law applies. You'd have to notify the trespasser they are trespassing somehow prior to taking action. You can't just start blasting.
Click to expand...

This may depend on individual state laws, but in Texas this is not remotely true. If someone enters your home, you do not have to notify them or ask them to leave before using deadly force. Under Texas law, an intruder is presumed to be there to cause imminent harm allowing the use of deadly force. States like Florida have similar laws. (Often referred to as "Castle Doctrine" or "Stand your Ground" laws.)

I merely bring this up because this extends to the land itself in the State of Texas. Though the law makes no mention of "air space" or altitude above the land. I've highlighted the relevant section. The penal code makes no mention of required notification of a trespasser to vacate the premises prior to the use of deadly force. Force can be used to simply terminate the trespass of the land itself.
1720023389511.png


Obviously, there is a lot more to it. All I'm saying is that notification prior to the use of deadly force is not required in all states. By extension, if you were allowed to protect your air space in such a manner, prior notification would not be required. Though I would say this is a case where the law needs to catch up with the times and define what you can and can not do with the air space above your home and how far the ownership of that space extends beyond the roof of the house.
 
Dan_D said:
This may depend on individual state laws, but in Texas this is not remotely true. If someone enters your home, you do not have to notify them or ask them to leave before using deadly force. Under Texas law, an intruder is presumed to be there to cause imminent harm allowing the use of deadly force. States like Florida have similar laws. (Often referred to as "Castle Doctrine" or "Stand your Ground" laws.)

I merely bring this up because this extends to the land itself in the State of Texas. Though the law makes no mention of "air space" or altitude above the land. I've highlighted the relevant section. The penal code makes no mention of required notification of a trespasser to vacate the premises prior to the use of deadly force. Force can be used to simply terminate the trespass of the land itself.
View attachment 663245

Obviously, there is a lot more to it. All I'm saying is that notification prior to the use of deadly force is not required in all states. By extension, if you were allowed to protect your air space in such a manner, prior notification would not be required. Though I would say this is a case where the law needs to catch up with the times and define what you can and can not do with the air space above your home and how far the ownership of that space extends beyond the roof of the house.
Click to expand...

This seems very dangerous.

Someone accidentally steps into your property, you can legally shoot them without as much as a warning?

This would mean the actions of that guy who shot the car full of girls turning around in his driveway after making a wrong turn would be justified and legal.

There has to be some kind of requirement for a reasonable interpretation of a person being a threat. Entering your home, sure that has to be interpreted as a threat, but extending that to the entirety of one's property is just insane.

If this is really the case, I'm kind of glad I don't live in Texas.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
This seems very dangerous.

Someone accidentally steps into your property, you can legally shoot them without as much as a warning?

This would mean the actions of that guy who shot the car full of girls turning around in his driveway after making a wrong turn would be justified and legal.

There has to be some kind of requirement for a reasonable interpretation of a person being a threat. Entering your home, sure that has to be interpreted as a threat, but extending that to the entirety of one's property is just insane.

If this is really the case, I'm kind of glad I don't live in Texas.
Click to expand...
Like most legal issues, its not that simple. I only highlighted part of the statute. You can read the whole thing here. Intent matters in the state of Texas. It's actually illegal to shoot to kill. You shoot to stop the threat or shoot to stop the illegal act depending on the case. If the individual dies as a result of you stopping the threat, then so be it. But you can't merely shoot with the intent to kill. The point being, some kind of perceived threat is necessary to use deadly force but no notification is required to do so. That was the point I was mainly trying to make.

While it may seem legal to do so, I wouldn't want to be someone who shot a neighborhood kid for walking across your lawn or even a larger property. Making that sort of thing legal is not the intent of the law. It's also not normally a problem. Not to say that Texas always gets things right or that laws do not necessarily need clarification but its not as if assholes shoot kids all the time for walking on their grass and get away with it.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
That is true, but it depends a little.

My understanding is that typical "air rights" extend up to an altitude of 500ft and anything above that is airspace. In cities where tall buildings are likely this may be a little higher. 1000ft is typical I believe. (Don't quote me on this though)

It also depends very much on the deed for the particular property. These rights can be sold off and packaged differently, so there is no guarantee you actually own even the first 500f of air rights above your property.

All of that said, even of a drone enters your area of air rights, I'd imagine standard trespassing law applies. You'd have to notify the trespasser they are trespassing somehow prior to taking action. You can't just start blasting.

The Supreme Court has held that there is no expectation of privacy in a public place (or any place visible from a public place). This is how the paparazzi can exist. There is nothing you can do about people recording or taking pictures of you or your family when in a public place, but this dates back to before drones were a reality.

Are all of our yards now "visible from a public place" despite privacy fences or hedges because a drone can fly 500ft up in public airspace? That seems a little extreme.

This area of law needs to be challenged in the courts with some precedent setting rulings being handed down so we have more guidance. Either that or laws need to be changed.
Click to expand...
The SR-71 Blackbird was capable of seeing a 6" object from its operational altitude of 85,000 feet. Quadcopters are capable of reaching over 15,000 feet, putting them well outside the range of air rights yet still perfectly capable of surveilling your property with modern camera technology. Yes, the FAA does limit small quadcopters to an altitude of less than 500 feet above ground but that's beside the point. A quadcopter can be watching you from 5000 feet up and you would never notice it.
 
What a smart man... Sad these kinda people exist in the US..
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
All of that said, even of a drone enters your area of air rights, I'd imagine standard trespassing law applies. You'd have to notify the trespasser they are trespassing somehow prior to taking action. You can't just start blasting.
Click to expand...
No, company can fly craft in people air right without permission and without trespassing, I think:
https://www.justia.com/aviation/air-rights-and-freedoms/
Unmanned aircraft known as drones are broadly available to the public and can fly at low altitudes over the property of others. Drone owners are free to fly these aircraft over private property, subject to FAA rules, without getting permission from the property owner. If a drone owner substantially impairs the property rights of a private party, though, they might face a civil lawsuit for compensation.

Compension are for, substantially impairs the use of their property, which would typically not apply for a small shipping drone. A drone that would film people, make noise, block the view, probably would too..
 
Dan_D said:
Like most legal issues, its not that simple. I only highlighted part of the statute. You can read the whole thing here. Intent matters in the state of Texas. It's actually illegal to shoot to kill. You shoot to stop the threat or shoot to stop the illegal act depending on the case. If the individual dies as a result of you stopping the threat, then so be it. But you can't merely shoot with the intent to kill. The point being, some kind of perceived threat is necessary to use deadly force but no notification is required to do so. That was the point I was mainly trying to make.

While it may seem legal to do so, I wouldn't want to be someone who shot a neighborhood kid for walking across your lawn or even a larger property. Making that sort of thing legal is not the intent of the law. It's also not normally a problem. Not to say that Texas always gets things right or that laws do not necessarily need clarification but its not as if assholes shoot kids all the time for walking on their grass and get away with it.
Click to expand...
A point to add is that with the war in Ukraine, we’ve all witnessed how even small drones can present a threat. I think anything loitering over your property is fair game in my view these days. I don’t fly my drone often but when I do, it tracks the streets.
 
Absalom said:
Wonder how many rounds he unloaded? Did they all land? He better have been firing straight up, otherwise he's just randomly sending lethal ammunition in his vicinity.
Click to expand...
Bingo. Not so good aim if he went through 3 magazines before he hit it, extended ones too! Not those CA complaint ones :)
 
Absalom said:
Wonder how many rounds he unloaded? Did they all land? He better have been firing straight up, otherwise he's just randomly sending lethal ammunition in his vicinity.
Click to expand...
sfsuphysics said:
Bingo. Not so good aim if he went through 3 magazines before he hit it, extended ones too! Not those CA complaint ones :)
Click to expand...

So, I wasn't there, but I'd imagine the drone was just passing over his property en route to the delivery point. (wouldn't be much point for a delivery drone to just hang out hovering)

If that is the case, the guy would have had to notice the drone, grab his gun, and then aim and fire.

Drones aren't particularly fast, but even so, I can't imagine he got too much time to unload on it, e3specially if it is flying reasonably low, I wonder how many rounds he reasonably could have gotten off.

I wonder if he lives near the distribution center, and thus has these things fly overhead regularly, and thus knew to expect it and where, and just kind of waited.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
This seems very dangerous.

Someone accidentally steps into your property, you can legally shoot them without as much as a warning?

This would mean the actions of that guy who shot the car full of girls turning around in his driveway after making a wrong turn would be justified and legal.

There has to be some kind of requirement for a reasonable interpretation of a person being a threat. Entering your home, sure that has to be interpreted as a threat, but extending that to the entirety of one's property is just insane.

If this is really the case, I'm kind of glad I don't live in Texas.
Click to expand...
The real question here is why are people on your land in the first place? I know I don't accidentally walk on people's property but maybe I am weird that way. I WANT to live in Texas lol -- freedom>feelings.

There have been several times drones have flown over the house, really annoying. You should be able to shoot them down if they are not just passing by.
 
Randall Stephens said:
A point to add is that with the war in Ukraine, we’ve all witnessed how even small drones can present a threat. I think anything loitering over your property is fair game in my view these days. I don’t fly my drone often but when I do, it tracks the streets.
Click to expand...
If someone really wanted to be malicious with you, they can drop something from 2000 feet up and you would never know unless you had radar constantly scanning the skies above your home. And you wouldn't be able to counter it unless you had a radar guided missile or long range sniper rifle. Or a focused jammer, assuming the drone is being actively controlled rather than following an automated set of instructions.

Point being, I see it as a waste of energy to worry about these kinds of things. You can't really do anything about the truly nefarious stuff so there's no point in worrying about the drones that are flying according to the rules.

Edit: the only drones the average person should be concerned with are low flying drones trying to peep into bedrooms and bathrooms.
 
Last edited:
Dan_D said:
This may depend on individual state laws, but in Texas this is not remotely true. If someone enters your home, you do not have to notify them or ask them to leave before using deadly force. Under Texas law, an intruder is presumed to be there to cause imminent harm allowing the use of deadly force. States like Florida have similar laws. (Often referred to as "Castle Doctrine" or "Stand your Ground" laws.)
Click to expand...
Yes & No, yes it definitely depends on individual state, but no in that most castle doctrine is not synonymous with stand your ground. That said, I know California law on this, and yeah shocking as it may be California actually does have a castle doctrine such that anyone entering your home illegally (meaning no fair putting the cable guy in a bag) can be presumed to have an intent to cause great bodily harm and/or death to you and anyone else in your home, and that's the extent of what the castle doctrine means it's an assumption of harm even if none is visible so fire away, however in CA the "castle" does not extend to the rest of the property just the actual home, so you can't shoot someone stealing your catalytic converter from your car and presume danger to yourself. California does have a stand your ground law as well, however you better be very careful about making sure the person is an actual threat to you and you're not allowed to use more force than is required, i.e. old dude shaking a cane at you and you plug him in the forehead might land you in hot water.

That all said, none of these laws apply to this situation since a person wasn't attacked, and assuming the drone didn't fall on anyone then no one got hurt from this. At worst the guy gets prosecuted for destruction of property, and perhaps firing a gun into the air or whatever local codes there happen to be where he is.
 
You guys actually believe this guy's story?

According to the arrest affidavit, Winn told officers he had prior experience with drones flying over his house and believed the aircraft to be surveilling him.

He then went inside, got his gun from a safe, came out, and fired one shot at the drone, which was roughly 75 feet in the air, the affidavit said.
Click to expand...

This guy is 100% lying.


He didn't see a drone, quick run in and get his gun from a safe, come out, and fire one shot and hit the drone. (all in the 30 seconds it took for it to fly by his home). And he didn't actually believe they were surveiling him when he could see they were clearly doing a flyby and not hovering over him.


This is what most likely happened:
He thought it would be fun to shoot drones, even more fun if it drops and he gets a prize. So he sat outside waiting with his pistol for one to come. Completely missed with his entire mag on the first one that came by, same for the second. The third one he dumped his entire mag and one bullet hit. The drone didn't go down, it still flew back to walmart and they reported it to the police.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
Someone accidentally steps into your property, you can legally shoot them without as much as a warning?
Click to expand...
You are, perhaps, missing the use of the word "reasonably". There are examples of people doing what you posit, and they'll usually wind up in jail.

The flip side is this: you're working in a store in a "duty to retreat" state. A robber comes in with a knife or gun. You flee to a back room, and the only other exit is a small window at ceiling level. If you consider yourself cornered and shoot the robber, you may wind up being found guilty of murder or at least manslaughter if the prosecution argues you *could* have climbed out that window and continued to retreat. The jury may not be able to consider things like "do you fit through the window", "can you *get* to the window", "what if the robber stabs you in the butt while you're trying to fit through the window" and so on.

The word "reasonably", as always, is doing a lot of heavy lifting here, unfortunately.

As for my example, when I took my CHL course in South Carolina in the mid-2000s, the instructor mentioned a case exactly as I described (no case number or anything, so I can't look it up). In that state, everything mentioned in the course has to be approved by the State Police.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
All of that said, even of a drone enters your area of air rights, I'd imagine standard trespassing law applies. You'd have to notify the trespasser they are trespassing somehow prior to taking action. You can't just start blasting.
Click to expand...

That depends on your curtilage laws on top of what others have said. In most places, if there is a violation of curtilage, then no notification is necessary, it's just assumed that the intrusion is there in order to commit crime. What crime? some jurisdictions may require a reasonable suspicion where others you don't have to know and you don't have to care.

Like, if I find a person in my fenced off, locked yard, in the middle of the night or even the middle of the day...

I think the rules for drones is that they should have absolutely fewer rights than a human and that property rights don't cover them when they enter other people's property. "Oh I was just watching you in the bathroom potentially" well then you just lost your drone voluntarily. Drones don't deserve anything close to individual rights, and individuals forfeit their property rights when then enter other people's space, just fucking kill them.
 
Axman said:
That depends on your curtilage laws on top of what others have said. In most places, if there is a violation of curtilage, then no notification is necessary, it's just assumed that the intrusion is there in order to commit crime. What crime? some jurisdictions may require a reasonable suspicion where others you don't have to know and you don't have to care.

Like, if I find a person in my fenced off, locked yard, in the middle of the night or even the middle of the day...

I think the rules for drones is that they should have absolutely fewer rights than a human and that property rights don't cover them when they enter other people's property. "Oh I was just watching you in the bathroom potentially" well then you just lost your drone voluntarily. Drones don't deserve anything close to individual rights, and individuals forfeit their property rights when then enter other people's space, just fucking kill them.
Click to expand...
Drone operator here.

FAA controls airspace above private land. The land owner only has control of what is considered "reasonable" for their use. If you have a two story house, it won't be much higher than the house. If you have a 100 foot antenna tower, then it'll be something over 100 ft.

There isn't a hard and fast rule to this, but generally keeping 75-100 feet above ground with a drone seems to be the "best practice".

It would be utter insanity for average homeowners to control airspace as how would jets, helicopters, gliders, hot air balloons, and parachutists flying overhead be able to get anywhere when random pieces of land have no-fly zones? It's not enforceable.

When a drone is on the ground, launching or landing, they need permission to do so, but when it's in the air, it's a aircraft. FAA rules are designed around safety first and foremost. Shooting down a drone means causing an aircraft to crash, which is unsafe to people on the ground.

Being "scared" of a drone does not supersede the potential danger caused by purposefully causing an aircraft crash.

All drone operators require a certificate or license to fly, and will soon require a FAA transponder, so it's not like some random guy is flying a drone around, unless doing it illegally.
 
Skarth said:
Drone operator here.
Click to expand...

So's my wife doesn't change what I said. We need to take a hard and fast position and should more clearly define personal airspace, since this:

Skarth said:
It would be utter insanity for average homeowners to control airspace as how would jets, helicopters, gliders, hot air balloons, and parachutists flying overhead be able to get anywhere when random pieces of land have no-fly zones? It's not enforceable.
Click to expand...

Is absolutely a cope take. You can't shoot down a jet with a shotgun and a jet can't take nudes of you in a shower. Parachutists aren't landing on your house.

Drones are not aviatics in the traditional sense and none of the existing rules that apply to aviation should or even can apply to drones.
 
Axman said:
So's my wife doesn't change what I said. We need to take a hard and fast position and should more clearly define personal airspace, since this:



Is absolutely a cope take. You can't shoot down a jet with a shotgun and a jet can't take nudes of you in a shower. Parachutists aren't landing on your house.

Drones are not aviatics in the traditional sense and none of the existing rules that apply to aviation should or even can apply to drones.
Click to expand...
A drone can't take nudes of you in your room if it's above your house. It will be at roof level at the highest if it's within your property lines for an average-sized suburban lot, and that's absolutely within your airspace. There is absolutely no justification for taking down a drone that's well above your roofline. If it's below that level, a net launcher is a safer and more successful method of taking down a drone.

The only exception I could see is if you have skylights. In that case, if the drone wanted to spy on you through the skylights, it can fly well above noticeable range and use a good zoom lens to peek in. So again, there is no good justification/defense for shooting down a drone high in the sky. Use a net gun for the nuisances down low.
 
Drones are a crappy option for package delivery. I hope more get shot down to end this "experiment".
 
  • Like
Reactions: ncjoe
like this
Axman said:
Is absolutely a cope take. You can't shoot down a jet with a shotgun and a jet can't take nudes of you in a shower. Parachutists aren't landing on your house.
Click to expand...
But can you shoot down a helicopter with a high powered rifle? What about a parachutist that went off course, open range on him because he could be just like those guys in Red Dawn invading from Cuba? I've been in hot air balloons, and when its time to come down they come down wherever they can, which often is some open field aka private property, I'm glad the owner didn't start shooting at me.

mlcarson said:
Drones are a crappy option for package delivery. I hope more get shot down to end this "experiment".
Click to expand...
I can definitely see some situations where it actually is a great delivery solution. But by all means, get back to your porch and shaking your fist at kids who get too close to your lawn.
 
Florida man just needs their own anti-drone drone squadron above the property. Obstruct the delivery airspace by flying a giant American flag.
 
We have a perimeter security system that detects unauthorized UAV activity above the premises and designated property area (~330 acres). Since 2018 it has only alerted us once which in fact was an insurance survey drone. We don't have a license to use a jammer but if it was suspected perhaps we would. This is a rural area and my turkey loads will do the trick. ;-)

I will say a single shot from a 9mm sidearm at that distance and possibly moving a bit more than hover mode is indicative of excellent marksmanship!
 
Axman said:
This is a class of rifles, tied to sport shooting. It is not an anti-materiel class of firearms. You could not shoot down a helicopter with one.
Click to expand...

A .416 Rigby sent to the turboshaft would certainly be a bad day. ;-)
 
cpufrost said:
A .416 Rigby sent to the turboshaft would certainly be a bad day. ;-)
Click to expand...

That's not a High Power Rifle. High Power Rifle is a competition term for a service rifle chambered for a service cartridge, typically American service cartridges from .30-40 Krag to 5.56 NATO, along with allied service cartridges like .303 British, 7.62x54mmR, 8mm Lebel, etc.

Ironically, I don't think there has ever been a formal High Power Rifle competition with .50 BMG. If I'm wrong, let me know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top