Hillview man arrested for shooting down drone; cites right to privacy.

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by FieldingMellish, Jul 29, 2015.

  1. FieldingMellish Suspended

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    #1
    LOUISVILLE, Ky. (WDRB) -- A Hillview man has been arrested after he shot down a drone flying over his property -- but he's not making any apologies for it.

    It happened Sunday night at a home on Earlywood Way, just south of the intersection between Smith Lane and Mud Lane in Bullitt County, according to an arrest report.

    http://www.wdrb.com/story/29650818/...or-shooting-down-drone-cites-right-to-privacy


    I sat wtf - it’s BULLITT COUNTY. C’mon. Leave the man alone.
     
  2. 556fmjoe macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2014
    #2
    If the drone's owner had just flown it past them and left them alone, that's different, but creepily hovering around while the guy's daughters are out there? Good shoot. I have no problem with him destroying a camera that someone places in his yard either.
     
  3. ElectronGuru, Jul 29, 2015
    Last edited: Jul 30, 2015

    ElectronGuru macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2013
    Location:
    Oregon, USA
    #3
    Drones look like an opportunity for libertarians to show us how great not having new regulations will work.
     
  4. Populism macrumors regular

    Populism

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2014
    #4
    This could be an interesting case to watch. I hope he doesn't plead out and/or that the charges are dropped. It could become a bell-weather case of sorts if both sides stick to their guys (pun intended).
     
  5. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #5
    If it was lingering around over his property, then he has ever right to shoot it. But if it was a situation like what this guy found himself in, shooting a drone in his neighbors property, then he doesn't have a leg to stand on.
     
  6. 556fmjoe macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2014
    #6
    I'm in favor of expanding private property rights to include the airspace above the property to a certain altitude, so that being in that airspace is no different legally than being on the ground. What that altitude should be I don't know. But certainly 10 feet off the ground is essentially the same as putting a camera on a tripod in his yard and I'd be fully in favor of him destroying that too.
     
  7. Huntn macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
  8. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #8
    I don't believe we own the airspace above our property. Of we do, then Alaska and Southwest owe me a ton of money.
     
  9. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #9
    like they just did, fly something over someone else's property & risk the owner shooting it down.
     
  10. ElectronGuru macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2013
    Location:
    Oregon, USA
    #10
  11. LIVEFRMNYC macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2009
    #11
    That's enough reason to make me shoot it down.
     
  12. Praxis91 macrumors regular

    Praxis91

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2011
    #12
    Good for the owner. If the judge has a brain, the charges will get dropped.
     
  13. Populism macrumors regular

    Populism

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2014
    #13
    I disagree with the "every right" part of your comment. A person doesn't have every right to fire a weapon on their property. Never have. Never will. Whether you are firing in the air, at the ground, at a person, at an animal, etc., there's a myriad of civil and criminal laws at play, regardless of whether people agree with them.

    My personal opinion is that a homeowners should be able to shoot a drone out of the sky in the four corners of their property. But then again, my opinion is that Kelly Reilly would find me attractive and want to date me.
     
  14. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #14
    Lets say that right to privacy also includes air space, what is the height limit that I can claim privacy? Are Google earth images invading my privacy? A plane flying at 15,000 ft with a photographer invading my privacy? We know that a right to privacy doesn't include someone on a sidewalk looking at my house. Does a neighbor on his yard with binoculars count?
     
  15. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #15
    I don't know but I'm sure this is codified somewhere. It's not exactly a new issue.
     
  16. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #16
    I'd say people have a right to shoot it out of the air if it's just hovering about, and you get a firm impression that it might be someone peeping in on you remotely. If it's merely traversing across the airspace above your property, you have no clear right to fire on it.

    Though the problem with this would be proving it. Someone could happily spy on you, only to take you to court and claim they were merely flying over their property when you decided to shoot it out of the air, and vice versa for someone who just wants to take potshots at anything flying over their yard.

    As for the whole gun safety thing, I kinda have to admit someone firing wildly into the air to take out a drone doesn't fill me with the warm fuzzies, especially if they live some place like a tightly packed subdivision. But there are some interesting anti-drone measures being developed that'll help you keep your privacy without the downside of stray bullets flying into your neighbors yard. Personally, I'm leaning towards using super concentrated lazers to knock them out of the sky. That, or the net gun.

    And Kelly Riley? Hey, if you have the confidence, then go for it, I say. Believe in yourself!

    Just don't take it too far, or restraining orders happen.
     
  17. Mousse macrumors 68000

    Mousse

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2008
    Location:
    Flea Bottom, King's Landing
    #17
    Maybe not THAT high up, but you do own the air above your property to a reasonable level. Try letting the tree limbs (city's tree on the easement between sidewalk and street) above your property extend over your rooftop. Your HOA will razz you constantly until you trim them back. If it's over your property, it's your responsibility.

    If your neighbor's apple tree's branches extend over the property line. The apples above your property line are legally your apples. Thanks neighbor.:cool:
     
  18. 556fmjoe macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2014
    #18
  19. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #19
    Putting on my student pilot's hat for a moment.

    Actually, in a roundabout sense, we do own the airspace above our property. Keep in mind that we fund the FAA, and as they regulate the airspace above us, we effectively own the airspace to a degree. There is regulation of that airspace, as to who can fly what, where, and at what altitude.

    With that said, let's get a bit technical here, with airspace. The closest major city to this incident is Louisville, which is in Class C airspace. to operate an aircraft in Class C airspace, only 2-way radio communications is required, meaning you must identify yourself to ATC, and must get a response back from ATC (with the exception of ATC telling you to remain outside of Class C airspace).

    By contrast, Class B airspace is nearly the same, with the exception that you must establish 2-way communications, and must explicitly get a clearance to enter Class B airspace. No explicit clearance = can not enter it. With Class C, if you establish radio communications, and aren't told to remain outside of it, you can enter it.

    Back to Louisville, and why this is important. Around the airport there, the floor of Class C airspace is the ground (SFC). The ceiling is 4500ft MSL. Other areas around Louisville has the floor at 1700 or 2200ft MSL, with the ceiling being 4500ft MSL.

    Bullitt County, where this happened, is outside of both Class B and Class C airspace, so no explicit clearance or radio communications is required, so the airspace above their homes would be fair game, from surface to 18000ft MSL, where Class A airspace begins.

    Both would have a legitimate case here.

    BL.
     
  20. satcomer macrumors 603

    satcomer

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2008
    Location:
    The Finger Lakes Region
    #20
    I'm torn on this. On one hand I can calmly see some idiot creepy nerds flying drones to spy on little girls and staying in the sky long enough for him to get a shotgun out of his house, load bird shot and then walk out, aim amd shoot the drone down.

    Now I know bird shot in the USA is good about between 30 to 50 yards, depending on angle and wind directions.

    Now I am starting to think that lawmakers will have to get on the ball and regulate mininal hight these drones can fly relative to peoples properties.
     
  21. Badagri, Jul 30, 2015
    Last edited: Jul 30, 2015

    Badagri macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2012
    Location:
    UK
    #21





    "this is a camera flying 300 ft up in the air and zooming out from about 4 miles away."
     
  22. rhett7660 macrumors G4

    rhett7660

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2008
    Location:
    Sunny, Southern California
    #23
    Holy cow that is pretty impressive! (The zooming in feature)
     
  23. vrDrew, Jul 30, 2015
    Last edited: Jul 30, 2015

    vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #24
    I'm frequently amazed at some of the things I learn here. Thanks, BTW.

    This particular instance strikes me as an instance of "two wrongs don't make a right."

    Its wrong to deliberately fly your drone over someone else's property, or indeed to operate any device in a way that it becomes overly annoying, distracting or intrusive. However, its even more wrong to start shooting at everything you encounter - on your property or off it - that you don't like.

    I'm concerned about the apparent acceptance of the notion that its alright to take the law into one's own hands: Don't call the cops if you see a person trespassing. Or if the kids in a SUV are playing rap music too loud. Everyone has the right to self-defense. But opening fire (on a person, on a dog, on a drone) ought to be the last resort. Not the first.

    Did this neighbor have other options? Of course. He could have yelled over the fence "Please stop flying that thing over my house!" He could have called the cops to come and do the same thing. He could have filed a complaint in civil court.

    For the most part the United States is a civil society. A nation of laws and courthouses to help us settle our differences. With plenty of law enforcement officers to keep things calm until we get there.

    Lets keep it that way. If you want to shoot flying things - take up skeet or trap. But if you have a toy or device that could potentially annoy your neighbors (a chainsaw; a straight-piped FatBoy; a 200 watt Marshall amplifier; or a sleek new quadcopter) - use it with a little discretion and consideration.
     
  24. Badagri, Jul 30, 2015
    Last edited: Jul 30, 2015

    Badagri macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2012
    Location:
    UK
    #25


     

Share This Page