quote:

---

The way William Merideth sees it, it's pretty clear-cut: a drone flying over his backyard was a well-defined invasion of privacy, analogous to a physical trespassing.
Not knowing who owned it, the Kentucky man took out his shotgun and fired three blasts of Number 8 birdshot to take the drone out.

"It was just right there," he told Ars. "It was hovering, I would never have shot it if it was flying. When he came down with a video camera right over my back deck, that's not going to work. I know they're neat little vehicles, but one of those uses shouldn't be flying into people's yards and videotaping."

Minutes later, a car full of four men that he didn't recognize rolled up, "looking for a fight."

"Are you the son of a ***** that shot my drone?" one said, according to Merideth.

His terse reply to the men, while wearing a 10mm Glock holstered on his hip: "If you cross that sidewalk onto my property, there's going to be another shooting."

---

arstechnia.com


Video Interview with Merideth

Can't say I fault him

It took 3 shots to hit a stationary object?

quote:

---

It took 3 shots to hit a stationary object?

---

That's what happens when you don't use Black Cloud.

quote:

---

It took 3 shots to hit a stationary object?

---

You have to leave your plug in for drone hunting.

quote:

---

Can't say I fault him

---

This. No different than the owner walking in your backyard with a video camera when you really think about it.

Sometimes technology, and the massive advances we make with it on a seemingly daily basis, scares me.

quote:

---

quote:

---

"Are you the son of a ***** that shot my drone?" one said, according to Merideth.

His terse reply to the men, while wearing a 10mm Glock holstered on his hip: "If you cross that sidewalk onto my property, there's going to be another shooting."

---

---

But was it lured on to his property?

The drone could have been casing his home for a later robbery. There is no legitimate reason for strangers to fly drones over your property and hover there for any length of time, IMO.

quote:

---

Unfortunately, the burden of proof will likely fall on the landowner in these cases. The "aerial easement" could be 500', but you're going to have to provide forensic evidence that it was inside that range.

I would've shot it down too, FWIW

---

Pretty simple with 8 shot.

quote:

---

Unfortunately, the burden of proof will likely fall on the landowner in these cases. The "aerial easement" could be 500', but you're going to have to provide forensic evidence that it was inside that range.

I would've shot it down too, FWIW

---

No it will not. In a criminal case it will be the state's burden to prove all elements of the alleged crime beyond a reasonable doubt. And there is a presumption of innocence. The homeowner also does not have to testify to incriminate himself. Finally, a lot of people hate drones. Damn good chance of jury nullification freeing the homeowner.

In a civil case it is a preponderance standard and the drone operator plaintiff has the burden of proof. And, even if he wins a lawsuit, it is very hard to collect a civil judgment unless your defendant is worth about 8 figures. (And homeowner's insurance nor any other insurance does not cover intentional acts so there won't be a policy to go after).

quote:

---

Sometimes technology, and the massive advances we make with it on a seemingly daily basis, scares me.

---

I know you mean this in a general sense and I completely agree with you. With regard to R/C aircraft it is even more alarming and to some degree threatens the hobby.

I've tinkered with R/C since the late 1980's. When I started MOST aircraft were balsa kits and took days and days to build or longer. There were some almost ready to fly kits, but they were still kits and required a bit of assembly. Because of the time invested in learning to fly this thing you just spent a month building it was a good idea to go to a local club and learn from someone with experience how to fly. As part of that process we learned about the responsibilities of operating R/C aircraft. Everyone was encouraged to join Academy of Model Aeronautics and follow their guidelines so they would be covered by AMA's umbrella insurance policy. Fixed wing was far and away most common airframe; helos were terribly expensive and very, very difficult to learn to fly.

Today, with inexpensive on-board flight controllers and quadcopters there is NO training necessary. If you've played a video game you can send $600 to DJI and when you're Phantom arrives you can fly until you're heart's content without any help. I think that's great and it has introduced a lot of people to a new hobby, but it has cut out a part of the process that helped older experienced members teach and train younger enthusiasts a LOT MORE than just HOW to fly.

I watch video clips on youtube of people flying their quad is places that just scares the hell out of me. Things my kids and I would never do because it's not responsible R/C operation and runs the risk of threatening the hobby for all of us.

People are going to keep pushing this and I'm afraid it's just a matter of time before someone's Phantom gets sucked up into a commercial airliners turbine because they're trying to get some cool footage by the airport. The ensuing loss of life and tragedy will be devastating way beyond our hobby. When it happens and we lose the privilege of operating remote controlled aircraft in this country I can't say I'll be surprised.

quote:

---

I don't disagree. My point is, unless we get some law in place soon, you're still going to get arrested, like the guy from Kentucky, and pay bail, court costs, etc until you can prove you made a "clean shoot."

---

I hate this mentality. Not disparaging the poster, just the mentality that we need new and more laws to cover every single individual situation that might possibly arise instead of just applying existing laws with a smidge of "no ****, Sherlock" logic.

Additionally, the idea that one might get arrested when there is no specific law that could be violated goes against common sense.

quote:

---

Today, with inexpensive on-board flight controllers and quadcopters there is NO training necessary. If you've played a video game you can send $600 to DJI and when you're Phantom arrives you can fly until you're heart's content without any help. I think that's great and it has introduced a lot of people to a new hobby, but it has cut out a part of the process that helped older experienced members teach and train younger enthusiasts a LOT MORE than just HOW to fly.

---

I'll tell you the problem with the scientific power that you're using here, it didn't require any discipline to attain it. You read what others had done and you took the next step. You didn't earn the knowledge for yourselves, so you don't take any responsibility for it. You stood on the shoulders of geniuses to accomplish something as fast as you could, and before you even knew what you had, you patented it, and packaged it, and slapped it on a plastic lunchbox, and now ... your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should.