Neighbor Shoots Down Drone Near Robert Duvall’s Property

Michigan reclassified them a while ago. Senate Bill 85, take a look. It's not a firearm.

North Dakota and Delaware it is considered a dangerous weapon not a firearm. Other dangerous weapons are things like machetes, brass knuckles, gravity knives. Again, not firearm.

It's only considered a firearm in two states.

And you're right, not morons you were calling other people ignorant on this.


Edit:

I'm really only stressing this point because you called other people ignorant when you didn't have all of the facts straight. I'm not arguing semantics over firearm and dangerous weapon either because they are treated different especially when relating to private property.

Sooo what? I just pointed out a website with pertinent information, I didn't attest to it's accuracy. You know, instead of doing all of that research into how accurate all that information is, and bringing up the moron and ignorant comments yet again, how about you look at when the comment was posted, and how long it took me to realize I was being too harsh and edited it?

It was less than 2 minutes and that's cause I was not only retyping it but I also pulled up and added the website link. As soon as I submitted that post and reread my comment I recognized that I didn't like what I had written and started changing it. Don't give me any credit for that though.
 
Why do people try to read things into a situation that isn't there? Proper judgement almost always relies on the situation that was present and if you present a different situation the judgement should change accordingly, not be applied universally.


But it wasn't kids and it wasn't a kite. It was some very inconsiderate people doing something that is illegal and it was illegal. The person they were harassing is a celebrity and his neighbor obviously wasn't going to allow these people to abuse her friend anymore. And when presented with legal recourse, she took it.

You don't see anything in this article about the cops and charges do you?

Don't read things into situations to try and make them what they aren't. Otherwise someone is going to say it could have been ISIS flying a tank.

See what I mean?

Shooting down a drone (i.e., destruction of property) was probably not a legal recourse. According to the article, the cops were never even called. The guys took off after she shot down their drone and she THREATENED to call the cops. Now, if the cops had been called, the likely would have made the guys leave, and possibly confiscated their drone. If the cops had come AFTER the shooting, they might have arrested HER for destruction of property or reckless discharge of a firearm or something similar. We won't know because the cops were never called.

Should these douchebags have been harassing some retired old actor? No. Were they a immediate physical threat to anyone? Also no. In that case, call the cops, don't just open fire.
 
Sooo what? I just pointed out a website with pertinent information, I didn't attest to it's accuracy. You know, instead of doing all of that research into how accurate all that information is, and bringing up the moron and ignorant comments yet again, how about you look at when the comment was posted, and how long it took me to realize I was being too harsh and edited it?

It was less than 2 minutes and that's cause I was not only retyping it but I also pulled up and added the website link. As soon as I submitted that post and reread my comment I recognized that I didn't like what I had written and started changing it. Don't give me any credit for that though.

You indirectly attest to it's accuracy when you're posting it as counterargument. I didn't have to research that information as I already knew it.. I wouldn't start an argument without knowing some of the basic facts.

I do give you credit for changing your post as it was out of turn. You bring up good points as well.

The fact is, there are still a lot of questions and will be until we get final FAA rulings. People believe that they are entitled to airspace under 500 feet from their home, but that's technically not true as the FAA rules all airspace above the tips of grass in your lawn as I recall but generally don't enforce much.

I dont particularly approve of people flying their drones over people's property without permission, but it's not cool for people to be firing weapons into the air thinking that it's perfectly in their rights.. especially when you got the asshole that will undoubtedly be firing high powered rifles.
 
No, but the theory is the same...I'm operating something in the air over your property.. String tether rather than a radio tether.

My point is that people DO have rights on their property, but that doesn't mean they can or should immediately start shooting at it. Call the cops. Shoot if you or someone else is in DANGER.

You don't get this whole, secluded property in the country thing do you?

You also don't get the idea that one of the perks of living in the country is that you can just pull out a gun and shoot at whatever you want for the most part. As long as your not killing people (and there are exceptions), or being cruel to animals, or destroying other people's property, (exceptions noted right in this story). Time to make sure you think about the one thing your not thinking of. No charges have been filed.

Now I am not one of those people that thinks every drone in the sky is an excuse for target practice. But I am one of those people that thinks that this women was perfectly justified in her actions as reported in this article. But how about you take a look at this article and maybe the photos will put a different perspective on things for you.
Robert Duvall at home in rural Virginia

See, those guys drove way the hell out there, pulled up as close as they legally could without getting onto his property, and then used a drone to violate the law that his security guards wouldn't let them do any other way. I bet he's already given shotguns to his security guards just for this reason.

Now these guys with the drone weren't kids flying a kite, and they weren't any of you out enjoying your drones. Their drone was tool used to violate Mr. Duvall's privacy. You all do care about privacy last I checked.
 
You don't get this whole, secluded property in the country thing do you?

You also don't get the idea that one of the perks of living in the country is that you can just pull out a gun and shoot at whatever you want for the most part. As long as your not killing people (and there are exceptions), or being cruel to animals, or destroying other people's property, (exceptions noted right in this story). Time to make sure you think about the one thing your not thinking of. No charges have been filed.

Now I am not one of those people that thinks every drone in the sky is an excuse for target practice. But I am one of those people that thinks that this women was perfectly justified in her actions as reported in this article. But how about you take a look at this article and maybe the photos will put a different perspective on things for you.

No charges have been filed because she likely scared the guys off, and they likely knew they weren't supposed to be there. That does NOT mean that nothing illegal happened on both ends of the argument.

I don't think she was justified in destruction of property. Did she approach these men and ask them to leave? Did she call the authorities? Did she let her neighbor know this was happening? How about a warning shot? Did she try ANY OTHER SOLUTION? No, she just opened fire. That's the actions of someone who's dangerously deranged, not some sort of freedom loving patriot. If this was the 3rd or 4th time they'd been flying around the property, she might have more of an excuse. But the "shoot first, ask questions later" mentality doesn't work. ESPECIALLY when there was no one in danger here, just a woman being mildly annoyed.
 
Shooting down a drone (i.e., destruction of property) was probably not a legal recourse. According to the article, the cops were never even called. The guys took off after she shot down their drone and she THREATENED to call the cops. Now, if the cops had been called, the likely would have made the guys leave, and possibly confiscated their drone. If the cops had come AFTER the shooting, they might have arrested HER for destruction of property or reckless discharge of a firearm or something similar. We won't know because the cops were never called.

Should these douchebags have been harassing some retired old actor? No. Were they a immediate physical threat to anyone? Also no. In that case, call the cops, don't just open fire.

Well, She admitted to the crime in her statements to the press and you don't have to call the cops to have them come after you. Breaking the law is enough, an aggrieved person does not have to "press charges" for the cops to take action.
Your first assumption is talking about this as if cops are coming. See, the thing you learn about living in the country is that their are no cops. There are Sheriffs though and in many ways, Sheriffs are much more powerful than city cops. Hell, Feds have to notify a Sheriff before conducting operations in a Sheriff county. But, despite the power and authority vested in the average County Sheriff, they usually operate on a much more limited set of laws and in fact, it's State Laws, County Ordinance, and Federal Law that are their prime concerns. So out in the country you don't always have all those touchy feelly laws that people in the city grow up with and get accustomed to. And because a Sheriff has more power and less oversight on him than a city cop, they are a little less likely to arrest someone for destruction of property when the property owners were violating other peoples privacy in a manner that is itself against the law. See, when you start breaking the law, you also start loosing it's protections. For instance, just as you mentioned, self defense. Shooting someone in self defense is still homicide, but given the situation, it may be ruled justified. The exception to the rule. When you live in the country one thing you learn is that their is almost no such thing as reckless discharge of a firearm. There ain't nothing out there to "recklessly" hurt. If there were, it's be intentional.
 
No charges have been filed because she likely scared the guys off, and they likely knew they weren't supposed to be there. That does NOT mean that nothing illegal happened on both ends of the argument.

I don't think she was justified in destruction of property. Did she approach these men and ask them to leave? Did she call the authorities? Did she let her neighbor know this was happening? How about a warning shot? Did she try ANY OTHER SOLUTION? No, she just opened fire. That's the actions of someone who's dangerously deranged, not some sort of freedom loving patriot. If this was the 3rd or 4th time they'd been flying around the property, she might have more of an excuse. But the "shoot first, ask questions later" mentality doesn't work. ESPECIALLY when there was no one in danger here, just a woman being mildly annoyed.

You don't think she was justified, I do. So we can go around and around but I am thinking we are not going to get anywhere closer on this discussion.

But the thing is, there is no requirement for her to approach the men, they aren't on her property. And she didn't have to call the Sheriff cause the problem drove away after she destroyed the toy they were using illegally over her property. She didn't shoot the drone over Duvall's property, the wind took it over hers and she took care of it legally. Now if I am wrong, than maybe we will see a new article about the woman being cited. fined, or even arrested. But unless you are so invested that you want to look up the county codes for Fauquier County and the State of Virginia, I think well just have to wait and see.

People don't move out to the country cause they want more visitors. These asshats with the riddled drone might have learned that.
 
Uhm, technically they BOTH broke the law. The pilot should have acquired permission to fly over private property and yes, according to federal law, that "plastic" drone is considered an aircraft in the national airspace no matter what the altitude. This recent ruling I'm sure will be considered if it ever comes up in court.

So, in all accounts the lady says that she was SPECULATING that they were TRYING to spy on Robert Duvall. The wording she uses is entirely speculative. There is no probable cause in this manner. Now, the startling of animals... this dates WAYYY back to the early days of aviation when "national airspace" was defined. Many farmers complained about the same things and what happened? Oh yeah... THE FARMERS LOST. Pretty sure a 1/2 ton cow vs. a 16 ounce quad is not even a fair contest.

and by the way...

 
You don't think she was justified, I do. So we can go around and around but I am thinking we are not going to get anywhere closer on this discussion.

But the thing is, there is no requirement for her to approach the men, they aren't on her property. And she didn't have to call the Sheriff cause the problem drove away after she destroyed the toy they were using illegally over her property. She didn't shoot the drone over Duvall's property, the wind took it over hers and she took care of it legally. Now if I am wrong, than maybe we will see a new article about the woman being cited. fined, or even arrested. But unless you are so invested that you want to look up the county codes for Fauquier County and the State of Virginia, I think well just have to wait and see.

People don't move out to the country cause they want more visitors. These asshats with the riddled drone might have learned that.


She didn't take care of it legally, she destroyed their property. Now, in that type of claim, THEY have to file the complaint before the cops will take action. Regardless of if they file the claim or not though (for whatever reason), her actions were still illegal.

Just because you live in the country doesn't give you any more rights than someone living in the city, it just means you're LESS LIKELY to cause a problem when you're out firing your guns into the air. If you damage someone's property or injure someone, you're just as liable.

Let's imagine a situation where that shot down drone crashes and causes a wildfire. Or lands on a 3rd person's car and damages it. Or, worst case, that chunk of plastic and metal comes down and hurts someone. Who's liable then? The guys flying the drone? Or the idiot who started shooting into the air?
 
Lets see, I live in the country, 20 to thirty acres of pasture land. Neighbors have the same or more. A couple of Ass Hats pull up on the edge of my property and fly their fu--king drone over my property and approach my house. Flight height about 100 to 200 feet based on the hit from #7 shot. My hats off to you lady, NICE SHOT! Wanna go duck hunting some time?
 
The pic was. There was no pic of the actual "drone" shooting.

AND... STOP CALLING QUAD COPTERS DRONES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:


That's what they are.

"3. a remote-controlled pilotless aircraft or missile"

That definition has existed since the military started using "targeting drones" after WW2. It doesn't matter how it flies, just that it's remote operated.
 
Technically, the term "drone" has been synonymous with military UAVs until only recently. The Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA) was established in 1936... BEFORE WWII. Until the recent tech got to where multicopters were even possible you had drones referred to as model airplanes and model helicopters. The term applied to all SUASs was popularized by sensationalist media attention meant to strike fear in the public in order to maintain popular news coverage. I've been in this hobby for two decades now. It has come a long way and the access to the tech has been great for hobbyists but wreaked havoc on the perception of the hobby due to access being granted to more and more stupid people... like the ones in this report.

I like to compare this recent public "freak out" to the days when cameras were first put on phones. Every paranoid conservative wacko thought that every other person in the world was a sick pervert and would be taking pictures of people in bathrooms and whatnot. Its just not the case. Everyone seems to think that people with these things is out to get you. In reality, the majority of them are fascinated with the tech and want to push its boundaries. They just have not educated themselves on the safety concerns of the general public before they try. From the dawn of the age of flight people have wanted to see their world a bit differently... at altitude. I take the stance of "yeah, there are stupid people out there. Let me educate you on what SHOULD have been done." the vast majority of the time, the faults come from tech failure, or an uneducated operator. One of those is entirely preventable.
 
noun
plural noun: drones
  1. 1.
    a low continuous humming sound.
    "he nodded off to the drone of the car engine"
    synonyms: hum, buzz, whirr, vibration, murmur, purr
    "the drone of aircraft taking off"
    • informal
      a monotonous speech.
      "only twenty minutes of the hour-long drone had passed"
    • a continuous musical note, typically of low pitch.
    • a musical instrument, or part of one, sounding a continuous note, in particular (also drone pipe) a pipe in a bagpipe or (also drone string ) a string in an instrument such as a hurdy-gurdy or a sitar.
  2. 2.
    a male bee in a colony of social bees, which does no work but can fertilize a queen.
  3. 3.
    a remote-controlled pilotless aircraft or missile.

In cases like this, that have legal ramifications, dictionary terms do not matter, legal terms do. And he is correct, the small personal craft 99% of the people fly today are not drones by law, but UAS or model air craft.
 
Sorry,
Drone is the term of a UAV, unmanned aerial vehicle. A Quad Copter, is the specific kind of Drone. ;)
Actually drones are also a sub-class of UAVs that are capable of flying autonomously. UAV is the correct term, as it covers all unmanned aerial vehicles.
 
Shooting down a drone (i.e., destruction of property) was probably not a legal recourse. According to the article, the cops were never even called. The guys took off after she shot down their drone and she THREATENED to call the cops. Now, if the cops had been called, the likely would have made the guys leave, and possibly confiscated their drone. If the cops had come AFTER the shooting, they might have arrested HER for destruction of property or reckless discharge of a firearm or something similar. We won't know because the cops were never called.

Should these douchebags have been harassing some retired old actor? No. Were they a immediate physical threat to anyone? Also no. In that case, call the cops, don't just open fire.
You act like the cops are sitting around bored with nothing to do and will immediately show up and take the proper action. In reality, these creeps would have cased Robert Duvall's home and perhaps found ways of breaking in (the article mentions how tourists have been robbing houses in the area lately) and would have left before the cops even arrived.
 
You act like the cops are sitting around bored with nothing to do and will immediately show up and take the proper action. In reality, these creeps would have cased Robert Duvall's home and perhaps found ways of breaking in (the article mentions how tourists have been robbing houses in the area lately) and would have left before the cops even arrived.

That might be the case. But legally, she should have at least CALLED the cops first. If she'd called, they didn't respond, THEN she took matters into her own hands, we'd be talking about a completely different situation.

Not to mention calling the cops first would probably legally cover her butt in court if it ever came to that.
 
Uhm, technically they BOTH broke the law. The pilot should have acquired permission to fly over private property and yes, according to federal law, that "plastic" drone is considered an aircraft in the national airspace no matter what the altitude. This recent ruling I'm sure will be considered if it ever comes up in court.

So, in all accounts the lady says that she was SPECULATING that they were TRYING to spy on Robert Duvall. The wording she uses is entirely speculative. There is no probable cause in this manner. Now, the startling of animals... this dates WAYYY back to the early days of aviation when "national airspace" was defined. Many farmers complained about the same things and what happened? Oh yeah... THE FARMERS LOST. Pretty sure a 1/2 ton cow vs. a 16 ounce quad is not even a fair contest.

and by the way...



Wow, a lawyer by your words. Too bad she has no burden to show "probable cause". Probable cause is a burden that applies to law enforcement and not to citizens. Probable cause is a requirement that the government must meet when dealing with the citizenry.

What she said to the newspaper is all anyone has in order to determine her reasoning. And you post about a man winning a civil small claims court case against a man who illegally shot down his drone while it was flying over his own property is rapidly looking as if it has nothing at all similar to this case other than a drone was shot down with a shotgun.

Another issue is did these shootings occur before the FAA made their ruling that drones are aircraft or did it happen after?
The one you linked to happened several years ago so that is definitely before the ruling by the FAA, no Federal crime committed there. But this latest one in Virginia, that might be the case, but as I said earlier, we just have to wait and see. If the FAA or Sheriffs or maybe the FBI don't come down on her then I think she is going to skate. No harm, no foul.
 
That might be the case. But legally, she should have at least CALLED the cops first. If she'd called, they didn't respond, THEN she took matters into her own hands, we'd be talking about a completely different situation.

Not to mention calling the cops first would probably legally cover her butt in court if it ever came to that.

No we aren't. There is no legal requirement for her to call the cops before legally discharging a firearm. If it is legal for you to walk outside on your property and shoot a gun in a legal manner then as long as she is still legally firing her gun then she has no requirement to call the cops before doing so.

Now Willsonman has brought up the fact that it very well may have been an illegal shoot because the drone is now considered an aircraft under new FAA regulations. But that is a very new ruling and it is going to take some time to see how the courts deal with that one. Small unmanned UAS being classified in the same category as jumbo jets and such might become a leap they are not able to make happen. Time will tell, the same is true of whether or not this woman get's charged with a crime.

I do think it's becoming safe to say that in the near term, shooting down a UAS is no longer something that you should consider doing unless it is for very extreme safety reasons. Like someone's life depends on you knocking down that aircraft.
 
No we aren't. There is no legal requirement for her to call the cops before legally discharging a firearm. If it is legal for you to walk outside on your property and shoot a gun in a legal manner then as long as she is still legally firing her gun then she has no requirement to call the cops before doing so.

Now Willsonman has brought up the fact that it very well may have been an illegal shoot because the drone is now considered an aircraft under new FAA regulations. But that is a very new ruling and it is going to take some time to see how the courts deal with that one. Small unmanned UAS being classified in the same category as jumbo jets and such might become a leap they are not able to make happen. Time will tell, the same is true of whether or not this woman get's charged with a crime.

I do think it's becoming safe to say that in the near term, shooting down a UAS is no longer something that you should consider doing unless it is for very extreme safety reasons. Like someone's life depends on you knocking down that aircraft.

Shooting someone else's property is not LEGAL. Period. Even if that property is temporarily on your land.
 
Shooting someone else's property is not LEGAL. Period. Even if that property is temporarily on your land.

You are incorrect. If your dog is harassing (the legal phrase is "worrying") my livestock, I am perfectly justified in shooting it. By extension, if your drone is worrying the cattle, it is fair game. You'd also do well to remember that it could be a jury of my peers (ie. neighbours, when in a sparsely populated rural area) passing judgement.
 
You are incorrect. If your dog is harassing (the legal phrase is "worrying") my livestock, I am perfectly justified in shooting it. By extension, if your drone is worrying the cattle, it is fair game. You'd also do well to remember that it could be a jury of my peers (ie. neighbours, when in a sparsely populated rural area) passing judgement.

True, but you're talking about defending your property against something that might be a threat to your property or family. A drone isn't directly a threat to people or livestock if it's just hovering overhead, as in this case. It's more of a threat when you shoot it and it comes crashing to the ground.

And you might be tried by a jury in this case, and they might think you were justified, but that doesn't mean you'd be found innocent. If the law says you destroyed someone's property illegally, then you'll be guilty. The jury just might be nicer during the sentencing phase, or look for extenuating circumstances. If I was going to be tried by a jury for something like this, I'd personally like it on record that I tried calling the cops, or talking with the drone pilots FIRST, before I just started shooting.
 
True, but you're talking about defending your property against something that might be a threat to your property or family. A drone isn't directly a threat to people or livestock if it's just hovering overhead, as in this case. It's more of a threat when you shoot it and it comes crashing to the ground.

Really? Two people drive up in a black SUV and then start flying a drone around a famous person's property and you don't think it could be a threat? Letting these strangers do whatever they want on your property with spy equipment is as silly as Han Solo shooting second after the bounty hunter somehow misses.
 
Last edited:
What's with all the bleeding heart drone defenders ?

Douchebags are trying to spy on an old man in the country , nice neighbor solves the problem for him.

No sheriff or jury in any rural county sides with said douchebags over land owner.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Youn
like this
Really? Two people drive up in a black SUV and then start flying a drone around a famous person's property and you don't think it could be a threat? Letting these strangers do whatever they want on your property with spy equipment is as silly as Han Solo shooting second after the bounty hunter somehow misses.

I don't think you should do NOTHING about that situation. I just don't think your first option should be to open fire. Maybe call the cops, the famous guy, the famous guy's security, or something to resolve the situation without gunfire?
 
True, but you're talking about defending your property against something that might be a threat to your property or family. A drone isn't directly a threat to people or livestock if it's just hovering overhead, as in this case. It's more of a threat when you shoot it and it comes crashing to the ground.

And you might be tried by a jury in this case, and they might think you were justified, but that doesn't mean you'd be found innocent. If the law says you destroyed someone's property illegally, then you'll be guilty. The jury just might be nicer during the sentencing phase, or look for extenuating circumstances. If I was going to be tried by a jury for something like this, I'd personally like it on record that I tried calling the cops, or talking with the drone pilots FIRST, before I just started shooting.

It's a threat to my privacy and I feel threatened by it.

I don't think you should do NOTHING about that situation. I just don't think your first option should be to open fire. Maybe call the cops, the famous guy, the famous guy's security, or something to resolve the situation without gunfire?

They're trespassing using the drone, and I have the right to defend my property. Trespassing in the case of drones means staying within the area rather than merely passing through. Also, contrary to what has been said, the air immediately above your property is owned by you; what has not been established is the exact height. However, it has been established that public airspace is above 500 feet, so it is generally recognized that below 500 feet is the implied airspace ownership.
 
Shooting someone else's property is not LEGAL. Period. Even if that property is temporarily on your land.

And shooting a gun into the air is illegal no matter what.

Hell, I'll take your word for it ..... but......

I'll bet the Sheriff has something to say about it all one way or the other.

If your right, we'll see a followup on the woman's arrest. Waiting with baited breath.
 
I'll let the Sheriff sort it out. If your right I am sure we'll see a followup of the woman's arrest. Waiting with baited breath.


Like I already said, in a destruction of property case, the people who owned the drone have to file a complaint. Since they're probably not going to do that, the law won't really get involved in this particular instance.

I'm sure this will inspire some other idiot will blast down a drone in the future and we'll have a fun legal battle to enjoy.
 
True, but you're talking about defending your property against something that might be a threat to your property or family. A drone isn't directly a threat to people or livestock if it's just hovering overhead, as in this case. It's more of a threat when you shoot it and it comes crashing to the ground.

And you might be tried by a jury in this case, and they might think you were justified, but that doesn't mean you'd be found innocent. If the law says you destroyed someone's property illegally, then you'll be guilty. The jury just might be nicer during the sentencing phase, or look for extenuating circumstances. If I was going to be tried by a jury for something like this, I'd personally like it on record that I tried calling the cops, or talking with the drone pilots FIRST, before I just started shooting.

You sound like someone who's only ever lived in an urban setting. In rural areas it can be several hours before a sheriff shows up (or Mountie, in rural Canada), if at all. As such, it is quite common for everyone to have a either a rifle or shotgun and to be expected to use it to take care of themselves.

Also, your specious argument of being found innocent is amusing. You are either guilty or not guilty in a court of law. The closest you get to innocent is a dismissal. You are also confusing the role of the jury; they are the ones who determine guilt and it is the court that decides the sentence (with their input).
 
You sound like someone who's only ever lived in an urban setting. In rural areas it can be several hours before a sheriff shows up (or Mountie, in rural Canada), if at all. As such, it is quite common for everyone to have a either a rifle or shotgun and to be expected to use it to take care of themselves.

Also, your specious argument of being found innocent is amusing. You are either guilty or not guilty in a court of law. The closest you get to innocent is a dismissal. You are also confusing the role of the jury; they are the ones who determine guilt and it is the court that decides the sentence (with their input).

Actually I've lived in both areas. The point is to CALL at least. At least make an effort to inform the authorities. It would be one thing if it was sudden event and she had no time to react to defend herself or her property. In this case, she had plenty of time, and it's not like her life was at risk.

And my point wasn't to debate the intricacies of a jury trial and sentencing rules. The point there was that if you were destroying property in this fashion, you would likely be found guilty of it when a court analyzed the evidence. And once found guilty, your sentence would (or at least should) change based on if you made any other effort to avoid destroying property. If a judge hears your first action upon hearing a problem was to open fire, they should take that into account when determining your sentence. If they hear you talked to the offenders and asked them to leave, called the cops, and after that didn't work, THEN you opened fire, you should have a different sentence.
 
Actually I've lived in both areas. The point is to CALL at least. At least make an effort to inform the authorities. It would be one thing if it was sudden event and she had no time to react to defend herself or her property. In this case, she had plenty of time, and it's not like her life was at risk.

And my point wasn't to debate the intricacies of a jury trial and sentencing rules. The point there was that if you were destroying property in this fashion, you would likely be found guilty of it when a court analyzed the evidence. And once found guilty, your sentence would (or at least should) change based on if you made any other effort to avoid destroying property. If a judge hears your first action upon hearing a problem was to open fire, they should take that into account when determining your sentence. If they hear you talked to the offenders and asked them to leave, called the cops, and after that didn't work, THEN you opened fire, you should have a different sentence.

I'd say you are being entirely too optimistic and I'd caution you against treating trespassing so lightly unless you have a fondness for bird shot. And again, you are presuming a guilty verdict without justification. A jury isn't a court, they submit a ruling to a court for a decision. But we're just going in circles at this point. I'm not going to agree with you and I doubt you're going to agree with me!
 
I'd say you are being entirely too optimistic and I'd caution you against treating trespassing so lightly unless you have a fondness for bird shot. And again, you are presuming a guilty verdict without justification. A jury isn't a court, they submit a ruling to a court for a decision. But we're just going in circles at this point. I'm not going to agree with you and I doubt you're going to agree with me!

I think my major complaint with this whole thing is that she just immediately started shooting. Even the military warns off intruders before opening fire!
 
Like I already said, in a destruction of property case, the people who owned the drone have to file a complaint. Since they're probably not going to do that, the law won't really get involved in this particular instance.

I'm sure this will inspire some other idiot will blast down a drone in the future and we'll have a fun legal battle to enjoy.

The property destruction isn't the only handle in this case. There is the shooting of the firearm as well as shooting an aircraft. So whether or not a law enforcement or regulatory entity takes notice does not solely hinge on whether the property owners file a complaint..
 
I think my major complaint with this whole thing is that she just immediately started shooting. Even the military warns off intruders before opening fire!

I understand that complaint but if these are the 4,000th set of photographers to try gaining access to her famous neighbour via her land she may very well have had done with warnings. This is why I cautioned against being optimistic about trespassing. Being in the right won't bring you back to life.

And with regards to your military reference, look up the doctrine of First Strike. :whistle::angelic:
 
I understand that complaint but if these are the 4,000th set of photographers to try gaining access to her famous neighbour via her land she may very well have had done with warnings. This is why I cautioned against being optimistic about trespassing. Being in the right won't bring you back to life.

And with regards to your military reference, look up the doctrine of First Strike.

If it's been the same guys that have been warned off 4000 times, then she might have an excuse. If it's a new group each time, it might be different. Even then, a warning before shooting is justified IMO.

I have done the military thing for a while now. I do know how we handle warnings in regards to defending our ships and bases, and we do have a range of options to escalate those warnings from verbal/radio, to visual, to warning shots, to actually engaging a target. It is possible to go directly to the lethal options, but it's not the standard way we operate in peacetime.
 
I think my major complaint with this whole thing is that she just immediately started shooting. Even the military warns off intruders before opening fire!

The Military isn't shooting down a toy airplane.

Look, no mater how deadly a shotgun can be, it wasn't used in order to stop or threaten anyone. It was used to shoot down a small UAS system that never should have been there to begin with.
Now if she had been really pissed, she might have gone right after the people responsible.
 
Back
Top