Claims Dropped Against Man that Shot Down Drone

FrgMstr

FrgMstr

Just Plain Mean
Staff member
Joined
May 18, 1997
Messages
55,634
When you have a drone over your property while your teenage daughter is catching some rays in the backyard, what do you do? You grab your trusty shotgun and blow that bastard out of of the sky. Probably best that you don't go whine to the shotgun-toting guy either about your lost drone, but you can take him to court. The state of Kentucky the dismissed the claims against the man. Thanks guavaball.

“I had my Glock on me and they started toward me and I told them, ‘If you cross my sidewalk, there’s gonna be another shooting,’ ” Mr. Merideth told the station.
 
Last edited:
In this case, I'm all for him defending his property. You have lots of public space you can take your drone out in, roads, parks, forests, etc etc.

Someone else's back yard, while a girl "happens" to be sunbathing... yeah, no. Fuck that.
 
Verge said:
If you read the article, please don't do what it says in the last sentence. Firing a shotgun into the air.. ok. Don't fire any sort of rifled projectile into the air.
Click to expand...

Just have to use #8 shot, no worries. :D
 
Guarana [BAWLS] said:
In this case, I'm all for him defending his property. You have lots of public space you can take your drone out in, roads, parks, forests, etc etc.

Someone else's back yard, while a girl "happens" to be sunbathing... yeah, no. Fuck that.
Click to expand...
Is it really his property? Pretty sure property stops at 100ft up. I didn't catch if this was inside city limits either, if it is, I'm surprised its legal to shoot the gun in the city in the first place. Another question is, if the drone operator was really spying on daughter, why didn't he just fly away when dad came by with the shotgun? If the drone owner really was gathering pictures of his friends house, on the other hand, he wouldn't have seen dad walking out with the gun.

So many questions, so little detail in the article.
 
Endgame said:
Is it really his property? Pretty sure property stops at 100ft up. I didn't catch if this was inside city limits either, if it is, I'm surprised its legal to shoot the gun in the city in the first place. Another question is, if the drone operator was really spying on daughter, why didn't he just fly away when dad came by with the shotgun? If the drone owner really was gathering pictures of his friends house, on the other hand, he wouldn't have seen dad walking out with the gun.

So many questions, so little detail in the article.
Click to expand...
Technically he doesn't own the air space over his property, as he doesn't own mining rights for the minerals under it either. It's an interesting legal question to decide if this is considered trespassing or not. Because if it is, then by the same definition he could have shot down a 737 flying over his property as well.
 
'In this case, I'm all for him defending his property.'

> resist an attack made on (someone or something); protect from harm or danger.

Certainly don't think that choice of words apply.
 
This has a bit more info: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...down-sues-shotgun-wielding-neighbor-for-1500/

Sounds this like was a dismissal of civil proceedings as other articles mention criminal charges being dropped months ago.

If the drone owner is correct that his drone was at least 200ft up, that was a hell of a shot. More likely that once the daughter was spotted, the mission changed from property inspection to close up ogling.
 
I fully support this guy; it is his property, until you get a ruling it isn't.

Most shotguns are smooth bore, for shooting birds on the wing; i.e. in the air.

That's what they are designed for.

But, there are also rifled shotguns; it's for deer hunting; shooting those in the air gets your hunting license revoked.

Possibly by the other hunters you're with, if not the Game Warden. :)
 
otherweeb said:
Ya. Rifled shotgun barrels exist.
Click to expand...
I know that, but they make up such a tiny fraction of the shotguns used, and is a relatively recent development as some states restricted deer hunting to shotguns. When people hear "shotgun" they think smoothbore bird hunting, not rifled deer hunting.

More colloquially, they are called "slug guns" instead of shotguns.

The "shot" of shotgun is for...shot. You do not use shotshells with a rifled barrel. Thus, a shotgun will be smoothbore. Put a rifled barrel on it, and instead of having a shotgun, you have a low-powered rifle.
 
I am finding more and more drones over my property and friends property and its a blatant disregard of privacy.

My objective opinion is one that if you want to start recording people without their consent, then now I have a real we have more reasons and situations where guns will be used to prevent it.

Sounds extreme but so is the loss of privacy.
 
dpoverlord said:
Sounds extreme but so is the loss of privacy.
Click to expand...
What loss of privacy? Throughout history most people have been (and still are) gossiping busybodies, you just haven't been aware of their presence ...
 
In hindsight, the guy should've tried to get video showing the drone was over his property before shooting it down. That maybe could've countered the drone operator's claim.
 
Few things to understand, the UAV was well over 200ft up. People need to understand these UAV are not predator drones with some high powered camera, at those heights you will be lucky to make out if its a male of female, no less "ogling" someone as mentioned in this thread. The story as told by the father does NOT match events and video, he claimed it was flying under his awning of his back porch and went out, back up and after is when he shot it. The video from this even was posted to YT not a week after it happened (some time ago now), the drone took off where you see two men and one woman, all adults as it takes off, it then climbs a few hundred feet as it crosses the road, it goes over a residential area (yes he fired the shotgun in a residential area), and hovers for a bit, then looks down, back up and then starts to pan the sunset at which point the UAV is hit and falls.

When the people went to go find what happened to the drone, they see the man outside and ask him what happened and if he shot the drone (he had his gun), at which point, rather then saying yes and working things out, he tells them if they cross the sidewalk there will be another shooting. The man caused personal property damage (to the UAV), put people in danger by firing the weapon in a residential area without a backstop, and then jumped straight to man slaughter when the owners come looking for it. Something else worth noting, the drone did not land in the mans yard even though it fell straight down.

This video is the cached video from the app, the shooter claims the drone was 10-15feet off the ground when he shot it, the operator told cops he was 200ft+, which was also recorded in the DJI app (you can decide if its 15ft or 200ft yourself from the video below).

 
Wouldn't a high pressure hose nozzle effectively screw a drone up too? You know, for city folk?

But I'm pretty sure in Kentucky you can fire a howitzer on your own property if you want.
 
Burticus said:
Wouldn't a high pressure hose nozzle effectively screw a drone up too? You know, for city folk?

But I'm pretty sure in Kentucky you can fire a howitzer on your own property if you want.
Click to expand...

That depends on where the property is and if its in city limits, many cities there it is illegal to discharge any projectile in city limits. Others there are restrictions and it has to be done in a safe manner, such as a range or having a proper backstop, shooting into the air however is not.
 
Gotta have your gun, the theatre must go on.
 
Dad is a fing liar. The only issue here - if anyone read the article, is that he sued in Federal court, and the judge said that it was not the proper avenue. He needs to pursue litigation in state court, unless he wants to appeal.

I hope he sues the shit out of the guy. As a mavic owner, you can barely see the drone at 200 feet, much less make up any one individual on the ground.

These things don't have telescoping cameraa...
 
M76 said:
Technically he doesn't own the air space over his property, as he doesn't own mining rights for the minerals under it either. It's an interesting legal question to decide if this is considered trespassing or not. Because if it is, then by the same definition he could have shot down a 737 flying over his property as well.
Click to expand...

I wonder at what point you define airspace though. I mean, can a drone hover 1 ft off the lawn anywhere it pleases on your property and be considered open air space? Maybe there really is a certain "cylinder or airspace" around your home that is considered yours. Anyone know?
 
DocFaustus said:
If that video is true then the dad is a fucking liar.
Click to expand...

It is, I followed this a good bit when it happened as all the new FAA rules were coming out and I had a UAV. The father still has the SD card and refuses to turn it over, the video was pulled from the DJI's ipad app cache, there are also some screens from the app in review that show altitude and GPS location, which is not over the shooters property.

Sufu said:
Dad is a fing liar. The only issue here - if anyone read the article, is that he sued in Federal court, and the judge said that it was not the proper avenue. He needs to pursue litigation in state court, unless he wants to appeal.

I hope he sues the shit out of the guy. As a mavic owner, you can barely see the drone at 200 feet, much less make up any one individual on the ground.

These things don't have telescoping cameraa...
Click to expand...

I think that it being tossed out was due to the reversal of the new FAA rules for UAVs.

nysmo said:
I wonder at what point you define airspace though. I mean, can a drone hover 1 ft off the lawn anywhere it pleases on your property and be considered open air space? Maybe there really is a certain "cylinder or airspace" around your home that is considered yours. Anyone know?
Click to expand...

A bit tricky, however it's often ruled as a "safe" distance or in a number of cases ruled 100ft etc, but this can change depending on the height of structures etc.
 
Sufu said:
I hope he sues the shit out of the guy. As a mavic owner, you can barely see the drone at 200 feet, much less make up any one individual on the ground.

These things don't have telescoping cameraa...
Click to expand...

How was he supposed to know it didn't have a 1000x lense posting close-ups of his daughter live?
 
nysmo said:
I wonder at what point you define airspace though. I mean, can a drone hover 1 ft off the lawn anywhere it pleases on your property and be considered open air space? Maybe there really is a certain "cylinder or airspace" around your home that is considered yours. Anyone know?
Click to expand...
You don't own airspace. You only own the land. Air space is controlled by the government / military. At least that's how it is where I live. It would be highly problematic if you owned the air space above your land. Legally speaking.
 
longblock454 said:
How was he supposed to know it didn't have a 1000x lense posting close-ups of his daughter live?
Click to expand...
You can't and shouldn't take the law in your own hands because of some perceived insult. Or at least you should face the consequences if you made a mistake. In this case there were absolutely no consequence for discharging a firearm in a residential area, destroying property, giving false testimony, and so on.
 
M76 said:
You can't and shouldn't take the law in your own hands because of some perceived insult. Or at least you should face the consequences if you made a mistake. In this case there were absolutely no consequence for discharging a firearm in a residential area, destroying property, giving false testimony, and so on.
Click to expand...

My point was against the fact that he should have known the stock camera was shit at 200ft.
 
Burticus said:
Wouldn't a high pressure hose nozzle effectively screw a drone up too? You know, for city folk?

But I'm pretty sure in Kentucky you can fire a howitzer on your own property if you want.
Click to expand...

Depends on the range. A firehose hooked to a hydrant maybe 100'. Your garden hose maybe 40'
 
BlueFireIce said:
It is, I followed this a good bit when it happened as all the new FAA rules were coming out and I had a UAV. The father still has the SD card and refuses to turn it over, the video was pulled from the DJI's ipad app cache, there are also some screens from the app in review that show altitude and GPS location, which is not over the shooters property.
.
Click to expand...

Surprised that the shooter wasn't required to turn over the SD card to the authorities as evidence during the criminal trial or discovery during the civil trial. Makes one wonder if the prosecutor didn't really want to prosecute the case and just went through the motions.

The video as shown does seem to support the drone operator. Was wondering why a $1500 drone had such crap video but if that is a transmitted video, that explains it.

M76 said:
You don't own airspace. You only own the land. Air space is controlled by the government / military. At least that's how it is where I live. It would be highly problematic if you owned the air space above your land. Legally speaking.
Click to expand...

In the US, you do own some airspace over your property. Within limits, you don't need an airspace permit for antennas, flagpoles etc., or for that matter a building. The problem is the exact height above ground level that it switches from yours to public isn't well defined. Cheap drones are a disruptive tech as far as the legal system is concerned. FAA regs for aircraft prohibit most flight below 1000' AGL for populated areas and 500' AGL for open areas. Rotary aircraft aka helicopters, can fly lower provided they don't put people or property on the ground at risk. Drones tread the area between real aircraft and model aircraft. Until Congress does its job(please don't hold breath waiting), the courts have to create precedent, which a lot of judges don't really want to do.
 
Dead Parrot said:
Surprised that the shooter wasn't required to turn over the SD card to the authorities as evidence during the criminal trial or discovery during the civil trial. Makes one wonder if the prosecutor didn't really want to prosecute the case and just went through the motions.

The video as shown does seem to support the drone operator. Was wondering why a $1500 drone had such crap video but if that is a transmitted video, that explains it.



In the US, you do own some airspace over your property. Within limits, you don't need an airspace permit for antennas, flagpoles etc., or for that matter a building. The problem is the exact height above ground level that it switches from yours to public isn't well defined. Cheap drones are a disruptive tech as far as the legal system is concerned. FAA regs for aircraft prohibit most flight below 1000' AGL for populated areas and 500' AGL for open areas. Rotary aircraft aka helicopters, can fly lower provided they don't put people or property on the ground at risk. Drones tread the area between real aircraft and model aircraft. Until Congress does its job(please don't hold breath waiting), the courts have to create precedent, which a lot of judges don't really want to do.
Click to expand...
The only legal precedent set so far was the Supreme Court case United States v. Causby in 1946 where it was determined to be 365 feet. It's a very dated case, so it definitely needs to be revisited.

The FAA supposedly has set the bar at 500 feet for aircraft while giving civilian drones permission to stay under this height to prevent collisions with manned aircraft. I haven't found this law anywhere yet, it might still be in dispute by the courts.
 
Last edited:
dpoverlord said:
I am finding more and more drones over my property and friends property and its a blatant disregard of privacy.

My objective opinion is one that if you want to start recording people without their consent, then now I have a real we have more reasons and situations where guns will be used to prevent it.

Sounds extreme but so is the loss of privacy.
Click to expand...

Do you have 6'+ 'privacy fences' surrounding your property that prevent passers by from seeing into your property?

Do you think it would be illegal for me to sit on a street corner and record everybody that passes by without their permission?

Your concept of privacy is a mere illusion.
 
dpoverlord said:
I am finding more and more drones over my property and friends property and its a blatant disregard of privacy.

My objective opinion is one that if you want to start recording people without their consent, then now I have a real we have more reasons and situations where guns will be used to prevent it.

Sounds extreme but so is the loss of privacy.
Click to expand...

I feel like there much more of a perceived privacy issue than an actual one.

'over my property' ... over your property is probably the worst locations to film something that is happening on your property. Looking down on stuff is a stupid angle. You can get a much better angle of something happening on your property while being over some adjacent property with a more reasonable camera angle.

There was some Senator in Hawaii I think, who was for like banning quadcopters or something who had some anecdotal story of how she was in a hotel and went out on the balcony to talk on the phone and how someone was using a quadcopter to record her phone conversation... was such a bizarre story. Like yeah, someone is definitely getting some real good audio of your phone conversation carrying a microphone on an object that makes a shit ton of noise.

I just think in the /vast/ majority of cases the person flying the quadcopter isn't even aware of the person who thinks they're being spied on. And I mean imagine you wanted to spy on someone.. where would you rank a device that makes a shit ton of noise? Top or bottom of the list? Yet when you see one why would you assume its being used to invade your privacy?

I'm super into quads.. I totally agree with anyone who wants to say they're loud and fucking annoying or anyone who wants to point out the fact too many people are blase about flying over other people ... just the safety aspect.
 
Sure seems like an odd time of the day for someone to be sunbathing.. you know with the sun setting and all.
 
Here's what I don't understand: Why would anybody want to take pictures of a woman sunbathing? There's so much porn online, c'mon...
 
I was flying my drone (not a real good one - didn't even have my camera operating) at a ballfield. There is a residential house a maybe an 1/8 mile away from the field (guessing on distance - no real landmarks). The owners seemed annoyed I was flying it.
I wasn't over their property and stayed mostly in the ballfield zone. I did get it up 50-75" (learning how to fly it still). Besides I dirty look, I at least didn't get it shot down :)
My drone is not very noisy - maybe they have people fly drones in the field often that do harass them.
After watching the video of the alleged event, you do have to question the original story.
In my case, I will find a different ball field/park area to fly and leave the people alone. I might be in my rights, but why poke the bear if you don't need to?
 
If someone was flying a drone over my backyard I would just grab my fishing pole, put a 1 oz weight on the end of the line and cast into the props... That sucker would be down in 6 seconds.
 
Would be easier to spy with one of those remote balloons with a small camera.
Minimal noise.
Looks like a gag.
 
I thought the whole case was strange since the beginning. Little to no pictures of the drone owner when the case first surfaced. You can google his pictures now, but it's like for every 20 pictures of the drone shooter, there's only 1 picture of drone owner. The drone owner, John David Boggs, is a controversial pastor.

Google "John David Boggs Kentucky"
https://insiderlouisville.com/busin...-courier-journal-for-unpaid-advertising-bill/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top