Man Arrested for Allegedly Shooting Down Neighbor's Drone

You know, the best option might just be a potato gun! One shot, lots of mass, one pile of electronics.

Hmm, I could alway borrow my uncles :)
 
Henning said:
A good Benjamin Franklin .22 air rifle reaches out pretty well with a dozen pumps on it.
Click to expand...

Although quieter, in most places the police view air rifles the same as regular firearms. The only difference is the propellant.
 
docmirror said:
I believe the FAA has gone to court several times accusing people of flying a drone in violation of airspace regs. Not going to look it up but I know they lost one round a while back. As I recall, drone flying is restricted to a limited group right now, and requires a permit.
Click to expand...

All incorrect. There are no laws. All legal action the FAA has attempted to take has been tossed out of court due to it all being fiction. They were told by a federal judge that legislation by e-mail isn't how it works. You can't make up a law over cocktails, send someone a letter proclaiming such, then arrest them for it. Doesn't work like that. All the "rules" about altitude and line of sight" are "recommendations" that certain administrators like to thing are laws.

The FAA has been charged by congress with creating laws that integrate the use of drones into the NAS. They're as far behind on that as they are with ADS-B. The only legit laws are the ones that prohibit them in nation parks and the TFR that prohibits them in the Washington DC FRZ.

The existing state laws on reckless endangerment and privacy all still apply. If you're acting recklessly, the police can still arrest you for it, just like anything else.

In this case, the operator was being perfectly safe, had line of sight, was at a safe altitude, and was not over anyone else's property. He did nothing wrong, legally or otherwise.
 
Gerhardt said:
Although quieter, in most places the police view air rifles the same as regular firearms. The only difference is the propellant.
Click to expand...

I don't see how when a kid can walk into WalMart and buy one.
 
Henning said:
I think it would take a hotter laser than that, maybe an EMP weapon would work better. A good Benjamin Franklin .22 air rifle reaches out pretty well with a dozen pumps on it.
Click to expand...

Hot molten lasers!
 

Attachments

  • images (6).jpg
    images (6).jpg
    8.2 KB · Views: 13
Pedals2Paddles said:
.....

In this case, the operator was being perfectly safe, had line of sight, was at a safe altitude, and was not over anyone else's property. He did nothing wrong, legally or otherwise.
Click to expand...

Guess I missed that part. If this is the case, then the guy with the shotgun is just a mean old coot...
 
docmirror said:
Hmmm, a number of posts already on both sides of the debate and yet, and yet, no one has pointed out that the drone operator was quite possibly breaking the law while flying the drone. (would seem from the article that it was not within his range of vision at the time)

As for the appropriate load for drone, I don't think salt will get the distance unless the thing is within 50' of you. Salt doesn't carry well. I would use #2 bird, and depending on how good a shot, maybe #3 depending on how flitty it is, and distance.

As for shooting "wildly" I would disagree. The shooter apparently hit was he was aiming at, we don't have any reports of collateral damage, and no one is complaining about pellets on their car, or windows, etc. Nothing wild about this shooting.

I"m guessing in Joyzee, he's toast. In TX, I doubt there would be an arrest. If it did go to court, I can't see anyone voting to convict. Sure as hell, if I'm defending the guy, I bring a drone into court(for information and clarity of course), and hover it right over the jury box for a good 15 minutes; "Not guilty!"
Click to expand...

Agreed

Anything firearm related in NJ, NY, CA, the locals are going to go after you like you're Osama.

So for him being in the right or wrong, who knows, if the drone was over his house or property or something, by all means light it up.

OTOH, if drone guy was really just minding his own business, being responsible and keeping it on his clients property, well I still wouldn't arrest the shooter for it, but he should be taken to small claims for the damages, with a police report to back it up.

I'm sure a review of the drone footage would show what really happened.

By the way, if I were the drone operator, in light of recent media coverage of drones, Id have played it safe/nice and knocked on the doors of both neighbors and spoke with them before lifting off.
 
brian];1572393 said:
Guess I missed that part. If this is the case, then the guy with the shotgun is just a mean old coot...
Click to expand...

The only certain thing is that the media claims that the owner of the drone SAID those things.

If the farmer was to claim that the drone was being used to photograph his wife thru the bathroom window the entire argument is turned on its head.
 
Henning said:
I doubt it will see more than restitution and fine.

OTOH, I see a major market for a jamming device for these things.
Click to expand...

Agreed. But the point is, if you shoot down something that was already not supposed to be there, that might factor into the defense.

I already made one. Tested it a few weeks ago and it works perfectly.
 
How did he assertion it wasn't supposed to be there?

Over his property? I can buy into that.

Near enough to be heard so he was 'annoyed'. Not quite ready to deny property rights to others for that.
 
Unless the guy operating it was standing on Elmer Fudd's property, nobody was trespassing. All his flight was legal, safe, and respectful. The fact the Elmer Fudd the angry neighbor can't control his emotions and has a poor grasp on reality doesn't make it ok.

If the drone was hovering outside his window, or otherwise legitimately being creepy and invading their privacy, then I would laugh at it being shot down too. And it would serve the owner right. But a few hundred feet doing real estate photography of someone else's property, no.
 
Jamming these things is not going to be as simple as you probably think. This is not like grandpa's RC plane where you just jam 72.33mhz and it falls out of the sky.

First of all, to jam it, you need to transmit on the same frequency as the controller, with a more powerful signal than the controller. In order to do that, you would need to know what frequency they're using. And these controllers are frequency hopping, spread spectrum. So you can't just jam one frequency. You need a broadband jammer that will overpower a whole range of frequencies.

You have no way of knowing what band they're using. Could be UHF. Could be 2.4ghz. Could be 5.8ghz. So first you need to guess which it is. Then guess which range of frequencies they're using. Then hope you have enough power to capture the receiver over the actual controller. And while doing this, you're ruining everything else using the same band, like your home wifi for example. I use frequency hopping UHF over quite a long range. It is unlikely you'll ever jam it to a point where I can no longer control it.

Furthermore, jamming it will not make it just explode and fall out of the sky. Upon loss of communication, these things have failsafe procedures. If mine lose communication with the controller, it will turn around, fly back to where it took off, and land itself.

Now if those features are disabled, it will probably just fall out of the sky or otherwise crash. A crash that you were a part of causing. And which neither you or the operator have any control over. So if it falls out of the sky and lands on grandma's head, or crashes through your bedroom window, you're now a part of that crash.
 
No. Operating for commercial purpose is receiving compensation for the service you provide. He was taking photos of his friend's new house. Because it's fun and cool. I take pictures of my friend's homes all the time for them.
 
brian];1572341 said:
You know, the best option might just be a potato gun! One shot, lots of mass, one pile of electronics.

Hmm, I could alway borrow my uncles :)
Click to expand...

Potato wad backing a load of ice....
 
NoHeat said:
How much of an annoyance is a drone that's used once over a neighbor's property?

Compared, let's say, to a dog that barks incessantly on the same property.
Click to expand...

Now THAT makes me want to buy a shotgun! :devil:
 
Henning said:
I doubt it will see more than restitution and fine.

OTOH, I see a major market for a jamming device for these things.
Click to expand...

Pedals2Paddles said:
Jamming these things is not going to be as simple as you probably think. This is not like grandpa's RC plane where you just jam 72.33mhz and it falls out of the sky.

First of all, to jam it, you need to transmit on the same frequency as the controller, with a more powerful signal than the controller. In order to do that, you would need to know what frequency they're using. And these controllers are frequency hopping, spread spectrum. So you can't just jam one frequency. You need a broadband jammer that will overpower a whole range of frequencies.

You have no way of knowing what band they're using. Could be UHF. Could be 2.4ghz. Could be 5.8ghz. So first you need to guess which it is. Then guess which range of frequencies they're using. Then hope you have enough power to capture the receiver over the actual controller. And while doing this, you're ruining everything else using the same band, like your home wifi for example. I use frequency hopping UHF over quite a long range. It is unlikely you'll ever jam it to a point where I can no longer control it.

Furthermore, jamming it will not make it just explode and fall out of the sky. Upon loss of communication, these things have failsafe procedures. If mine lose communication with the controller, it will turn around, fly back to where it took off, and land itself.

Now if those features are disabled, it will probably just fall out of the sky or otherwise crash. A crash that you were a part of causing. And which neither you or the operator have any control over. So if it falls out of the sky and lands on grandma's head, or crashes through your bedroom window, you're now a part of that crash.
Click to expand...

And to add further to the mess about jamming... The FCC prohibits the sale or use of jammers by the public in the US. They take a very dim view of such actions. Note that they just went after Marriott for $600,000 for jamming private hot spots in one of their hotels, forcing people to use the service provided by the hotel (at an exorbitant price, I might add). Attempt to jam the link to a drone at your peril.
 
Ghery said:
And to add further to the mess about jamming... The FCC prohibits the sale or use of jammers by the public in the US. They take a very dim view of such actions. Note that they just went after Marriott for $600,000 for jamming private hot spots in one of their hotels, forcing people to use the service provided by the hotel (at an exorbitant price, I might add). Attempt to jam the link to a drone at your peril.
Click to expand...

I couldn't figure out what basis they had for claiming they did nothing illegal. It would be interesting to see what argument their lawyers made to the FCC on that point.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...orce-your-customers-onto-terrible-hotel-wifi/
 
Undoubtedly their argument was obligatory non-sense that wouldn't pass a 6th grade debate club. But would you expect them to say "oh darn, you got us. Sorry." How else are their attorneys going to get paid???
 
Pedals2Paddles said:
Undoubtedly their argument was obligatory non-sense that wouldn't pass a 6th grade debate club. But would you expect them to say "oh darn, you got us. Sorry." How else are their attorneys going to get paid???
Click to expand...

I presume that the attorneys presented the best defense they could come up with for the official proceedings. I was just curious about whether the company has a rational basis for their statements to the press, or if it's just knee jerk PR lies.
 
The first article I read said that the court wasn't upset with their jamming because just because they were jamming. The court was upset that they jammed cell signals to force them to buy ultra-expensive wi-fi.

I'm normally on the side of property owners to do what they want within the confines of their property, but not in this case. Marriott was WAY out of line. The cell phone/tablet owners' rights to their connectivity trumps the hotel's right to jam the aforementioned signals solely for profit.
 
Here's the FCC's notice from Friday on this. This is about all I have, but there's probably enough information to research more if you are really interested. This was published in the FCC Daily Digest on Friday, October 3.
 

Attachments

  • DOC-329743A1.pdf
    118.2 KB · Views: 9
A link in the notice leads to the consent decree, which says that they admit violating section 333 of the Communication Act, which states “No person shall willfully or maliciously interfere with or cause interference to any radio communications of any station licensed or authorized by or under this Act or operated by the United States Government.”

The argument in Marriott's public statement, that they were "using FCC-authorized equipment provided by well-known, reputable manufacturers," is completely irrelevant. Consider this analogy: Legal weapons are provided by well-known, reputable manufacturers, but that doesn't make it legal to use one for an unlawful purpose.
 
Last edited:
Pedals2Paddles said:
No. Operating for commercial purpose is receiving compensation for the service you provide. He was taking photos of his friend's new house. Because it's fun and cool. I take pictures of my friend's homes all the time for them.
Click to expand...

Another useful example: I overflew my friend's rooftop, videotaping the condition of the roof tiles after a recent hailstorm. The roofing contractors were able to submit their estimates without even climbing up on the roof.

I also took overhead shots of my sister's recent outdoor wedding, including some setup shots of the locale, and gave the footage to her wedding videographer. He folded it into his footage and now ALL of his clients want overhead shots... it's that impressive.

All you cowboys who want to jam these devices or shoot them down really ought to spend some time on YouTube and Vimeo to see the incredibly artistic and beautiful footage that people who know what they're doing are creating with these things.
 
Exactly. And unfortunately, much like general aviation, there are some idiots that screw it up for everyone.
 
Pedals2Paddles said:
Unless the guy operating it was standing on Elmer Fudd's property, nobody was trespassing. All his flight was legal, safe, and respectful. The fact the Elmer Fudd the angry neighbor can't control his emotions and has a poor grasp on reality doesn't make it ok.

If the drone was hovering outside his window, or otherwise legitimately being creepy and invading their privacy, then I would laugh at it being shot down too. And it would serve the owner right. But a few hundred feet doing real estate photography of someone else's property, no.
Click to expand...

Please let me know where I can pick up a shotgun with an effective range of a few hundred feet. If it was in range of his shotgun, it was close enough to legitimately invade his privacy.

I can understand how this guy felt. A few weeks back I was sitting on my back deck enjoying cigars and some booze with my buddies when a quad copter flew overhead about 40-50 feet and sat there for nearly 5 minutes. It angered me enough that I brought out the pellet rifle before it skittered off real quick...
 
It's a brave new world. It seems like the legal system is going to have to figure out how to deal with a whole new class of invasion of privacy.
 
colojo said:
Another useful example: I overflew my friend's rooftop, videotaping the condition of the roof tiles after a recent hailstorm. The roofing contractors were able to submit their estimates without even climbing up on the roof.

I also took overhead shots of my sister's recent outdoor wedding, including some setup shots of the locale, and gave the footage to her wedding videographer. He folded it into his footage and now ALL of his clients want overhead shots... it's that impressive.

All you cowboys who want to jam these devices or shoot them down really ought to spend some time on YouTube and Vimeo to see the incredibly artistic and beautiful footage that people who know what they're doing are creating with these things.
Click to expand...

All depends upon the scenario. Over fly my backyard with a drone taking video is the same as in an aircraft... I'm at least taking you to court. Low fly with a drone and I just might shoot it down.

I would guess that at least some of us have taken the time to buy and build an rc airplane of some kind. (I was more into rubber band balsa airplanes.) But these drones seem to be purchased my some YouTube wannabe and that idiocy will likely result in some crazy regulations affecting all of us...
 
Turningfinal said:
Please let me know where I can pick up a shotgun with an effective range of a few hundred feet.
Click to expand...
Basically any? Accuracy drops off an the pattern opens up at 150ft. But is still perfectly effective beyond that for this purpose.

Turningfinal said:
If it was in range of his shotgun, it was close enough to legitimately invade his privacy.
Click to expand...

No. Not really. Actually not at all. First of all, it was not over his property. It was over the neighbors property. So you don't get to just shoot things down over someone else's property and think it is ok.

Second, you greatly overestimate the effectiveness of a GoPro or Mobius camera. It is useless as a spying tool beyond 40-50ft. People look like little dots with no detail. Hovering 100ft over his neighbor's house is NOT invading his privacy.

Turningfinal said:
I can understand how this guy felt. A few weeks back I was sitting on my back deck enjoying cigars and some booze with my buddies when a quad copter flew overhead about 40-50 feet and sat there for nearly 5 minutes. It angered me enough that I brought out the pellet rifle before it skittered off real quick...
Click to expand...
I completely agree. That is creepy and obnoxious. It is completely legal since you can't hover-trespass. But that doesn't make it "ok". Frankly if you nailed it with your pellet gun doing that, I would probably laugh and it would serve the operator right. You'd probably get a visit from the police at the very least. But I wouldn't blame you at all.

Responsible and considerate operators don't do that. If I'm going to be over my neighbor's homes flying around the neighborhood, it is always at least 150ft. And it's never parked hovering over anyone's house but my own.
 
On a related note, I was flying my drone around my neighborhood from a large field at the end of the road. And I found this while playing the video back. I've been flying out here for 6 months and never noticed this. I can't decide if the landscapers did this on purpose 30 years ago, or were completely oblivious.
:dunno:
 

Attachments

  • 2014-10-06_18.51.20.jpeg
    2014-10-06_18.51.20.jpeg
    61.6 KB · Views: 39
Henning said:
I don't see how when a kid can walk into WalMart and buy one.
Click to expand...

I remember the days when (we) kids could walk the neighborhoods carrying BB guns and air rifles. Fat chance now...
 
colojo said:
Another useful example: I overflew my friend's rooftop, videotaping the condition of the roof tiles after a recent hailstorm. The roofing contractors were able to submit their estimates without even climbing up on the roof.

I also took overhead shots of my sister's recent outdoor wedding, including some setup shots of the locale, and gave the footage to her wedding videographer. He folded it into his footage and now ALL of his clients want overhead shots... it's that impressive.

All you cowboys who want to jam these devices or shoot them down really ought to spend some time on YouTube and Vimeo to see the incredibly artistic and beautiful footage that people who know what they're doing are creating with these things.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant.

You fly a HoverDoodle low enough over my property to bother me, I'll take it down any way I choose that does not threaten others. Low and slow or stationary over my patch? It's mine to capture and disassemble.
 
colojo said:
I also took overhead shots of my sister's recent outdoor wedding, including some setup shots of the locale, and gave the footage to her wedding videographer. He folded it into his footage and now ALL of his clients want overhead shots... it's that impressive.
Click to expand...

Kind of like this one? :D

 
I'm sure that seemed like a good idea at the time to the newbie who thinks it is a cool toy. I've come to realize that I am flying an exposed hedge trimmer / lawn mower with 6 high speed spinning knives. Buzzing people gives you a cool effect. But not worth the risk in my opinion.
 
Pedals2Paddles said:
I'm sure that seemed like a good idea at the time to the newbie who thinks it is a cool toy. I've come to realize that I am flying an exposed hedge trimmer / lawn mower with 6 high speed spinning knives. Buzzing people gives you a cool effect. But not worth the risk in my opinion.
Click to expand...

I don't know which one you have, but the Phantom (IIRC) that I used over the summer had plastic blades that I could stick my finger in and stop with no blood loss and only minimal pain.
 
Um, ya. Do that on mine and you'll be taking your finger to the ER with you in a bag of ice. I have 6 motors instead of 4. They're remarkably more powerful motors. The phantom has little 8" plastic props. I'm using 12" carbon fiber props. And I'm using 14.8v 5000mah batteries instead of an 11.7v 3000mah battery. I also have a few extra pounds of weight being tossed around.

If I plowed mine into a person like that guy did with his little phantom, it would cause some hurt.
 
I want a good drone for the farm, but damn are the good one's expensive ....

son of a ***** everything's expensive. Cattle go high and EVERYTHING in town goes up so you don't make any more money. God damnit to hell.

There. I feel better. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top