• 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.

stealthyeliminator

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

Or maybe like your other posts, this one is reflective of your lacking reading comprehension capabilities.
 

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
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.

I do not see how any of that has anything whatsoever to do with a third party shooting it down.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
The restrictions apply mostly to government.

If the guy climbed a tree to look into a neighbors yard should the guy shoot the neighbor?


Not disagreeing that the drone user was a possible jerk , not minding his own business, just trying to think of it in another way.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
The restrictions apply mostly to government.

If the guy climbed a tree to look into a neighbors yard should the guy shoot the neighbor?


Not disagreeing that the drone user was a possible jerk , not minding his own business, just trying to think of it in another way.

Then the person in the tree can be reported as a peeping tom. It is illegal to peek into private areas of property. I have gone through great efforts to make my property private, and not visible by pedestrian traffic. Not to mention most of my neighbors have children. There is no legitimate reason to be peeking onto private property with any device.

There are plenty of places to fly drones that do not intrude on private property. I have not had it happen, but I did make complaints to google and mapquest on satellite images of my neighbors children playing. They blurred the images. I see a drone from my window on my property it is fair game, I just will not talk to police and employ SSS.

BTW there is a sporting club in PA that has shot down four drones with no arrests. We will have to see how the animal rights group fares in civil court.
 
Last edited:

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
Then the person in the tree can be reported as a peeping tom. It is illegal to peek into private areas of property. I have gone through great efforts to make my property private, and not visible by pedestrian traffic. Not to mention most of my neighbors have children. There is no legitimate reason to be peeking onto private property with any device.

There are plenty of places to fly drones that do not intrude on private property. I have not had it happen, but I did make complaints to google and mapquest on satellite images of my neighbors children playing. They blurred the images. I see a drone from my window on my property it is fair game, I just will not talk to police and employ SSS.

BTW there is a sporting club in PA that has shot down four drones with no arrests. We will have to see how the animal rights group fares in civil court.

Unless it is actually over your property, simply seeing a drone, does not either mean you are being spied upon, nor that you are legally correct to shoot it down.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
Unless it is actually over your property, simply seeing a drone, does not either mean you are being spied upon, nor that you are legally correct to shoot it down.

We are discussing the drone in question being over the property of the shooter, and within shotgun range. Same for the four drones shot down by the shooting club, yet there police would not make any arrests. Shooting down a drone should only be a civil matter.
 

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
We are discussing the drone in question being over the property of the shooter, and within shotgun range. Same for the four drones shot down by the shooting club, yet there police would not make any arrests. Shooting down a drone should only be a civil matter.

No, there have been multiple scenarios, not all of which include being over the property. In fact, according to at least one poster here, the reports of the actual thread subject are that it was NOT over the property of the shooter.
It wasn't even over his property. Neighbor was using it to view construction progress.
http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2014/10...ighbors-drone-with-shotgun/?intcmp=latestnews

Fair-use excerpt:

While he was flying the drone over the unfinished home to take the photos, he heard several gunshots in the vicinity and immediately lost control of the drone.


And, no, shooting down a drone should NOT only be a civil matter. It is a destruction of property owned by another.
 
Last edited:

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
No, there have been multiple scenarios, not all of which include being over the property. In fact, according to at least one poster here, the reports of the actual thread subject are that it was NOT over the property of the shooter.


Fair-use excerpt:




And, no, shooting down a drone should NOT only be a civil matter. It is a destruction of property owned by another.

Your reading comprehension sucks, READ the OP.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
I did read the OP. Did you bother to read the actual article?

Then cite where the drone was not on the shooters property.

And the shooter was not charged with shooting down the drown, or criminal damage to property. The charges were gun related, in NJ he would most likely have been charged for shooting a mosquito.

Percenti was placed under arrest and charged with possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose and criminal mischief.
 
Last edited:

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
Then cite where the drone was not on the shooters property.
I did. Several times now.

In fact, there are NO reports that it was ever ON the shooter's property. There are also no reports in the articles linked in this thread that it was ever OVER the shooter's property.


How about you show anything that indicates that the drone was actually over or on the shooter's property. When claiming someone else's 'reading comprehension sucks,' it might be a good idea to get your facts straight, first.
 
Last edited:

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
WHERE? Post number?

Sheesh, post #28, the one you quoted above.


Nothing indicates in ANY of the articles that the drone was EVER on or over the shooter's property. Can you cite even ONE article where your personal opinion is supported?





The drone MIGHT have been over the shooter's property. I have not seen ANY report that it was.
 
Last edited:

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
Sheesh, post #28, the one you quoted above.


Nothing indicates in ANY of the articles that the drone was EVER on or over the shooter's property. Can you cite even ONE article where your personal opinion is supported?





The drone MIGHT have been over the shooter's property. I have not seen ANY report that it was.

Then you would be fibbing because the only cites are of other members posts.

The last line is the claim of the drone owner~~like the pervert is going to admit to perving the neighbors children.
 
Last edited:

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
Then you would be fibbing because the only cites are of other members posts.

The last line is the claim of the drone owner~~like the pervert is going to admit to perving the neighbors children.

BS. Link and a quote from the link have been presented.


You have as yet, presented NOTHING to indicate that the drone was ever on or over the shooter's property. The article and both cites I presented from it, reference over other places.

The 'Fair-use excerpt:' Was a direct quote from the article the other poster linked and referenced.
Fair-use excerpt:

While he was flying the drone over the unfinished home to take the photos, he heard several gunshots in the vicinity and immediately lost control of the drone.
 
Last edited:

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
BS. Link and a quote from the link have been presented.


You have as yet, presented NOTHING to indicate that the drone was ever on or over the shooter's property. The article and both cites I presented from it, reference over other places.

The 'Fair-use excerpt:' Was a direct quote from the article the other poster linked and referenced.

There is nothing to indicate it was not, plus it was shot with a shotgun which has a very limited range. The drone owners story does not pan out IMO. If he wants to film private property he needs to get permission. I doubt he had permission to film the construction site, or he would have been on the property with the drone and would have not needed to involve his neighbor.

--Moderator edited--
 
Last edited by a moderator:

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
There is nothing to indicate it was not, plus it was shot with a shotgun which has a very limited range. The drone owners story does not pan out IMO. If he wants to film private property he needs to get permission. I doubt he had permission to film the construction site, or he would have been on the property with the drone and would have not needed to involve his neighbor.

--Moderator edited--
Oh, the 'prove a negative isn't true' position.

You claim it was over the property. The article states that it was over the new homes being worked on, and did NOT indicate it was over the shooter's home. To claim it WAS over the shooter's home, some data is still needed. Do you have that?


There was no need to involve his neighbor at all. Where are you getting that from? The shooter involved himself.


I disagree with your comment about the construction site. The drone owner does not need to be ON the construction site to film from overhead. In fact, if construction is ongoing, it is most likely that he would NOT be on site during it, permission to film or not.

You appear to be trying to 'fill the blanks' with opinion that supports your version, not that is actually shown to be true.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
Oh, the 'prove a negative isn't true' position.

You claim it was over the property. The article states that it was over the new homes being worked on, and did NOT indicate it was over the shooter's home. To claim it WAS over the shooter's home, some data is still needed. Do you have that?


There was no need to involve his neighbor at all. Where are you getting that from? The shooter involved himself.

The article stated that the drone owner CLAIMED he was taking images of neighbors property. Unless the homes are packed together like sardines it is very doubtful that he reached that drone IN THE AIR some 50 to 100 yards away. There is much more to this than what is being reported. This is a Hatfield and McCoy dispute, and I would imagine the drone operator is not innocent in the least.

There is no legitimate reason to be filming private property that is not visible from public property. Considering the number of pedophiles in this country I am astounded at the stupidity of some people.
 
Last edited:

zack991

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
1,535
Location
Ohio, USA
The article stated that the drone owner CLAIMED he was taking images of neighbors property. Unless the homes are packed together like sardines it is very doubtful that he reached that drone IN THE AIR some 50 to 100 yards away. There is much more to this than what is being reported. This is a Hatfield and McCoy dispute, and I would imagine the drone operator is not innocent in the least.

There is no legitimate reason to be filming private property that is not visible from public property. Considering the number of pedophiles in this country I am astounded at the stupidity of some people.

This^^^
 

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
The article stated that the drone owner CLAIMED he was taking images of neighbors property. Unless the homes are packed together like sardines it is very doubtful that he reached that drone IN THE AIR some 50 to 100 yards away. There is much more to this than what is being reported. This is a Hatfield and McCoy dispute, and I would imagine the drone operator is not innocent in the least.

There is no legitimate reason to be filming private property that is not visible from public property. Considering the number of pedophiles in this country I am astounded at the stupidity of some people.
Once again, you are 'filling in the blanks' to support your preferred version.


According to the article, the drone operator was filming the construction. Another neighbor shot down the drone. Those are the reported facts. The rest you posted is not there, it is speculation.
What does '50 to 100 yards away' have to do with it? If the shooter's property abuts the new construction, it could easily be 10-20 feet away.


And, there ARE legitimate reasons to film something such as the new construction. To add MY baseless speculations, he MIGHT have been hired by the property owner or the construction company itself to film the construction. (i am not claiming that to be the case here, just pointing out that there ARE legitimate reasons for such filming).
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top