Drone Shot Down

[Mark Williams]

Kentucky man shoots down drone hovering over his backyard. I can understand his point of view and his actions. As I have stated before IMO drones should only be flown on/over your own property or with the permission of the owner. Otherwise you should be SOL.

Kentucky man shoots down drone hovering over his backyard | Ars Technica

[Robert Benda]

Elevation is a key element, of course. If it had been flying at 200 feet, no issue. If it really is hovering, just over his deck (10 feet? 20 feet?), I think they need to enact some privacy laws. Maybe peeping tom laws would apply, but trespassing laws don't appear to.

[Don Bloom]

Trespassing could apply depending on the local laws in that area. Regardless of that, if the drone was flying thru then the guy was wrong and even he said that in the article but according to the shooter he saw it hovering over his property. How high? who knows but a shotgun with 8 gauge buck...probably not too high, but again who's to define what's high enough to be classified as non-threatening. In this case I'm willing to make the assumption (and I HATE assuming anything for obvious reasons) but I'll go out on a limb and guess the thing was flying somewhere between 50 and 100 feet tops. Remember it was brought down by 8 gauge buckshot which are very small pellets.
The drone issue isn't going away anytime some and will bring up some very interesting discussions. AAMoF, there is at least fire department in the south suburbs of Chicago that is now using a drone while working building fires so the officer in charge can get an overall view of the structure and the fire in relation to the structure so the OIC knows exactly where to put the water on the red stuff without putting the fire personnel in more danger than they need to be and it can lead to them putting the fire faster therefore saving more property/people and resources.
The next couple of years are going to be very interesting.

[David Heath]

Interesting story, and I can't help but feel the devil's in the detail.

What sort of height was it at? Just WHY was it's owner hovering it over somebody's yard? (The hovering - not overflying - doesn't seem to be disputed.)

[Donald McPherson]

Seems like he had time to get his shotgun and load with 8 gauge.

[Mark Williams]

It will be interesting to see how the court resolves this. Drones push the legal envelope concerning current definitions of trespassing, invasion of privacy, peeping-tom, and so on.

[Mike Watson]

No, they are really no different than any other camera when it comes to expectation of privacy or "peeping tom" laws. It's still illegal to photograph someone where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy, and, judging by this guy's arrest, it's illegal to shoot something taking a photo of you when you don't.

[Anthony Lelli]

Exactly. But in this case there is something more than just a "reasonable expectation of privacy" (that's the exact term of the rights of publicity and U.S. copyrights in general as you correctly mentioned. There are little girls involved, and the "perception" of a criminal activity in progress, and in that case the destruction of the offending "tool" may be justified. Fathers do protect their kids, and that's also written in the law. The decision to arrest the father was in my opinion kinda rushed, to say the least.

[Greg Boston]

Have been monitoring this story closely. The operator of the multirotor disputes the shooter's claims and shows his flight telemetry data to reporters.

UPDATE: Drone owner disputes shooter's story; produces video he - WDRB 41 Louisville News

Since the NTSB defined these as 'aircraft' in order to place commercial operations under FAA jursidiction, then they should be afforded the same protections given to full size aircraft IMO. I don't believe the FAA should be able to call them aircraft only when it suits them.

-gb-

[Steven Davis]

Maybe a water hose would have been a wiser choice. Super soaker even.

[Robert Benda]

Originally Posted by Steven Davis

Maybe a water hose would have been a wiser choice. Super soaker even.

Ha, though at 200 feet, it wouldn't have reached.

If the flyer is at all truthful, then I have a serious problem with the shooter. Of course, even if it had been hovering at 10 feet, he can't legally shoot it, but I think I'd like to have that sort of flying/filming be trespassing.

200 feet is definitely where I'd consider the flying to be "incidental" to the people and property below.

[Don Bloom]

The shooter was arrested. It seems he broke a few laws of the local municipality like discharging a weapon within city limits and a couple of others.
Like I said, until the FAA makes some definitive rulings on drones this could be an ongoing problem.

I have my quad 50s locked and loaded just in case any of my neighbors decide to start flying drones in my hood! ;-)

[Nate Haustein]

At 278 feet, that's a hell of a shot with #8 buckshot.

[Darren Levine]

ya know to be fair.... many drones do resemble clay skeet targets

[Steven Digges]

Brought down by #8.....close range bird shot load. Girls sunbathing? I will hang the pilot circumstantially, got what he deserved. And keep in mind the general public knows nothing about what we know about drone cameras. That the "average" drone is wide angle only. I have talked to a lot of people that "assume" they are capable of long range telephoto zooming.

To me, this is one more case of an idiot with a drone is ruining things for all of you responsible enthusiasts. You don't hear much about all the good stuff on the news. But sunbathing girls and a dad with a shotgun makes a story.

And good for the Dad, it was a direct hit to bring it down with #8. I sincerely doubt 275 feet. I am no ballistics expert but I know enough to say I BELIEVE it HAD to be a lot closer than that. You don't even fire at a dove at 100 yards, can barely see one. It won't even bring one down if you hit it. That is what that load is made for.

Steve