• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Man shoots down neighbors drone

Status
Not open for further replies.

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
He might be an idiot, but then most criminals are.

Police officers went to the home of Percenti, questioned him about the shooting and discovered the shotgun that was used in the drone attack. from link of 1st post

A total idiot. If he would have just told them to get off his land, he would have been fine. Instead, he wants to tell his story. That's what reddit is for....lol

But if it was over his land, I don't see a problem.

Let the games begin !
 

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,100
Location
Texas

That's not a good answer. With the right equipment, a person could take hi-res photos of your property from above it as far away as space.

Also, this is a trespass matter, not a privacy matter. I could stand in the street outside your home and take pictures of it and you'd have no legal recourse.

IMO as technology that allows "over the fence" observation becomes more prevalent (it's been available much time, people just didn't use it so frequently), people would be much better off finding ways to maintain privacy without relying on being able to interfere with aerial photo-taking machines than trying to find ways to interfere with aerial photo-taking machines (such as shotgunning them).
 

HPmatt

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2013
Messages
1,467
Location
Dallas
Was in range of #2 magnum load...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
Let's see below 400 feet, and in range of a shotgun, yet supposedly taking pictures of another property. Looks like a peeping tom, hopefully the jury has some commons sense.

I would have done the same thing, and then KMBMS.

The supreme court has already upheld a right to privacy, using drones to spy on people without a court order should not be tolerated. The police arrested the wrong person.
 
Last edited:

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
quote n 1946 the Supreme Court acknowledged that the air had become a “public highway,” but a landowner still had dominion over “at least as much of the space above the ground as he can occupy or use in connection with the land.” The upward boundaries of private property may be changing. The federal government is considering lowering the floor of navigable airspace below 500 feet to accommodate surveillance drones, which sometimes travel at lower altitudes. unquote

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...metz_arrest_how_much_airspace_do_you_own.html

ipse
 
Last edited:

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
quote n 1946 the Supreme Court acknowledged that the air had become a “public highway,” but a landowner still had dominion over “at least as much of the space above the ground as he can occupy or use in connection with the land.” The upward boundaries of private property may be changing. The federal government is considering lowering the floor of navigable airspace below 500 feet to accommodate surveillance drones, which sometimes travel at lower altitudes. unquote

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...metz_arrest_how_much_airspace_do_you_own.html

ipse
The drone owner admitted that the drone was not being used to transport, it was being used to take photos. I wonder if he even had permission for the construction site. Bet if they examined his computer they would find images of people's private lives.

I will have to dig but I believe the courts have upheld that a drone cannot be used for spying without a warrant. And then their is the right to privacy, the drone was outfitted with a camera it was not being used for transportation(public highway). If it is possible the police should have examined the memory on the drone for pictures of the construction. Even then a homeowner does not know what pictures are being taken of. If his property was fenced and his wife or GF was sunbathing, he had every right to gun it down.

I wrote a letter to google to blur my property on satellite images. I am not the type person who likes spying for any purpose. If he could reach it with a shotgun it was too close. If he had shot it with a rifle I would think that the drone owner might have a case, but the report clearly said shotgun.
 

OC Freedom

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2014
Messages
646
Location
ADA County, ID
About three months ago I noticed a drone move over my backyard by the sound of its quad rotors. It is the first time I have ever seen one live and my best guess is it was up several hundred feet. The drone stayed in place over me, and I assume it was to watch me work on my new deck attached to my out building.

I live within city limits and its a subdivision, so by law discharging a weapon would be illegal except in the usual defense exceptions. After staring at this drone for a half a minute or so, I extended both middle fingers up at it and after a minute of holding my fingers in this position, the drone flew off.

I have never seen this drone or any other drone again. It really irritated me that this happened and this operator should be thankful that I don't know who he is.

I sure miss the old days before drones, smart phones, cameras everywhere, and etc. Just no privacy anymore.
 

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,100
Location
Texas
IDK guys. I think that in order to reasonably expect privacy, you should make a reasonably effective effort to provide yourself privacy, for instance you couldn't walk down the street topless telling everyone to avert their eyes or they're invading your privacy. A violation would occur if someone intentionally overcame that normally effective barrier providing your privacy, for instance peeping through a window. We may very well be approaching an era where having a simple fence can't be considered a reasonable privacy effort. Photos of your back yard, for instance, could very easily be taken incidentally to normal drone operation in the neighborhood. To expect privacy from aerial photography I think you should make a reasonably effective effort to provide yourself privacy from aerial photography. Only if the aerial photo-taking device were used to intentionally overcome your privacy efforts would I think you were being violated and justified in taking physically damaging action against the device.

I think a slew of technology could be used and developed to help provide privacy from drones without having to resort to physical enclosure, or taking damaging action against the drone.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
IDK guys. I think that in order to reasonably expect privacy, you should make a reasonably effective effort to provide yourself privacy, for instance you couldn't walk down the street topless telling everyone to avert their eyes or they're invading your privacy. A violation would occur if someone intentionally overcame that normally effective barrier providing your privacy, for instance peeping through a window. We may very well be approaching an era where having a simple fence can't be considered a reasonable privacy effort. Photos of your back yard, for instance, could very easily be taken incidentally to normal drone operation in the neighborhood. To expect privacy from aerial photography I think you should make a reasonably effective effort to provide yourself privacy from aerial photography. Only if the aerial photo-taking device were used to intentionally overcome your privacy efforts would I think you were being violated and justified in taking physically damaging action against the device.

I think a slew of technology could be used and developed to help provide privacy from drones without having to resort to physical enclosure, or taking damaging action against the drone.

Using a device to get around privacy barriers, falls into the reasonable expectation of privacy. Using a drone for sneak and peak on private property is about the same as peeking through windows.
 

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,100
Location
Texas
Using a device to get around privacy barriers, falls into the reasonable expectation of privacy. Using a drone for sneak and peak on private property is about the same as peeking through windows.
In that case you would need to prove intent, though. Shoot first and sort it out later wouldn't/shouldn't fly. Pun intended.

Edit: the difference is that in the case of a window peeper the intent is reasonably clear, in the case of a drone JTS not
 
Last edited:

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
In that case you would need to prove intent, though. Shoot first and sort it out later wouldn't/shouldn't fly. Pun intended.

Edit: the difference is that in the case of a window peeper the intent is reasonably clear, in the case of a drone JTS not

If it is low enough to be hit by a shotgun, it is there to spy, no other reason. That is why the police are not allowed to do it without a warrant.
 

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,100
Location
Texas
If it is low enough to be hit by a shotgun, it is there to spy, no other reason. That is why the police are not allowed to do it without a warrant.

I respectfully disagree on both fronts...

As far as recreational flying goes, there are plenty of reasons to be flying around "within shotgun range" and in fact many less expensive drones may not even be capable of making it out of shotgun range. It isn't safe or reasonable at all to assume it's there to spy. With civilian use, there is an ever-expanding set of possible uses, or someone could by flying it for no other reason than to fly it. Drones are not just spy-things... Being easily adapted for the purpose doesn't make it the reason for development or the only possible use.

As for police, in contrast, it is safe to assume that if police are flying a drone it's for police business, which can be reasonably assumed to be one of a limited set of activities, such as surveillance. If police wanted to go fly a drone for recreational purposes at the park I'd say that's a gross misuse of public resources but I don't think a warrant would be required...

I would encourage you all to go look around Youtube and other places for neat and fun things that are done with drones. They are not simply spy-things.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
I respectfully disagree on both fronts...

As far as recreational flying goes, there are plenty of reasons to be flying around "within shotgun range" and in fact many less expensive drones may not even be capable of making it out of shotgun range. It isn't safe or reasonable at all to assume it's there to spy. With civilian use, there is an ever-expanding set of possible uses, or someone could by flying it for no other reason than to fly it. Drones are not just spy-things... Being easily adapted for the purpose doesn't make it the reason for development or the only possible use.

As for police, in contrast, it is safe to assume that if police are flying a drone it's for police business, which can be reasonably assumed to be one of a limited set of activities, such as surveillance. If police wanted to go fly a drone for recreational purposes at the park I'd say that's a gross misuse of public resources but I don't think a warrant would be required...

I would encourage you all to go look around Youtube and other places for neat and fun things that are done with drones. They are not simply spy-things.

surely, you are not serious...after reading all the incidents over the years where LE have abused citizens rights and so forth...you truly believe they wouldn't abuse this technology to it max?

like other of your thought processes reflected in your postings you appear to suffer from significant case(s) of naivety and an inability to associate critical thinking reality as it is being brought to you by others on issues affecting everyone's rights.

ipse
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top