Datsun1500 wrote:Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: Note to self... use something that sounds less scary than "shotgun" when shooting drones out of the sky. Paintball gun. Tennis ball launcher. Pitching machine. Wet towel. Fishing lure.All of these methods can get you charged with a felony.
to be honest any "aircraft" that i can take down, from standing on the ground, with a wet towel should maybe not be considered an "aircraft". or maybe people are a lot better then me at throwing wet towels...
In reply to jstand:
Castle law and trespassing laws are quite a bit different. Defending yourself using castle law means someone has entered your "home" uninvited (yes you can use lethal force depending on the situation and state laws) while trespassing is a pretty tricky subject (and no, lethal force is not permissable).
In reply to N Sperlo:
Not debating the nuances of the different laws, but considering some of the events in Florida, the line between the two can rather fuzzy in the sunshine state.
In reply to jstand:
Indeed. I study the laws, so it makes a little more sense to me.
Datsun1500 wrote:foxtrapper wrote:This good enough? https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/32 The title of the thread is "Arrested for shooting down a drone?" I'm just pointing out why it's not that shocking. It'd be like posting "arrested for doing 20 over the speed limit?"NGTD wrote: So you folks down south have laws that make it a felony to shoot down a drone that is flying over private property...No, we have one person who's alleged this claim, with no substantiation provided to date.
From the linked article: "Police arrested and charged Meredith with two felonies, first degree criminal mischief and first degree wanton endangerment. "
While you've convinced yourself that this
and this
are the same thing, the FAA does not suffer such a confusion. For as already described to you, from the FAA home page on the subject, "Unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) are inherently different from manned aircraft."
Does the subject get messy and sticky? Certainly not only from a privacy and trespass perspective, but from an FAA perspective. For while the FAA has no confusion about the likes of this
,
drones like this
do create a problem that until recently didn't really exist. Yes, I know about remote piloted B-17's from half a century ago. They were an anomaly.
Far more an issue is the likes of this
,
and not from an FAA perspective, but from a privacy perspective.
Knock down the latter for trespassing and I've no doubt they would try to find an FAA charge to stick in there.
Nice to see the news has edited their story.
When I read the linked article this morning, they said that the drone was far enough down into the guys yard that it was under the edge of an awning or canopy, multiple times.
Now it just says he waited for it to fly overhead before shooting it down.
There's a big difference between a flyover and peeping under a canopy in someones yard.
If it were that low in my yard, I'd probably be after it with a tennis racket.
Yup, federal crime unless it is a physical threat to health. http://gizmodo.com/is-it-ok-to-shoot-down-your-neighbors-drone-1718055028
I'd argue that if it is coming low enough to be under an awning, you could easily make an argument that it is a physical threat to health. Obviously that isn't what actually happened, but the way it was originally reported it made you think that.
In reply to Datsun1500:
It also says used in air commerce. If this wasn't a drone used for monetary compensation, i.e. getting paid to fly it, I don't think the shootdown falls under FAA jurisdiction. Regular authorities, however, might look at things like unlawful discharge of a firearm.
Fixed wing and rotary wing (helicopter) have altitude limits over populated areas.
Shouldn't drones ?
Good question.
Another question that springs to mind: if two neighbors are having a feud/disagreement/spat and on uses a drone to annoy/harass the other. Using the FAA laws to hide behind won't last very long.
Also interesting that the article has apparently been rewritten at least twice. That sort of thing bothers me when reporters fail to report with at least an appearance of impartiality.
Datsun1500 wrote:Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: Note to self... use something that sounds less scary than "shotgun" when shooting drones out of the sky. Paintball gun. Tennis ball launcher. Pitching machine. Wet towel. Fishing lure.All of these methods can get you charged with a felony.
Law of unintended consequences: Well, hell, if anything I do is a felony, I might as well walk over to the owner of the drone with a chunk of pipe and beat them until they need a million dollars in reconstructive surgery. After all, a felony's a felony...
Of course I am not suggesting that is a reasonable course of action. However there is a large distinction between swatting a high-tech fly and violently beating someone, but legally there isn't??
Datsun1500 is right on this, guys.
I've got a UAV and 3 1/2 years of research on this subject under my belt.
The laws are changing daily. You have no idea how many nuances of law and problems are created by these things.
Cameras and spying on neighbors is barely a blip on the radar. There are much more significant things they can do.
it should be legal for me to shoot down the helicopter that came though, super low, stopping over every house on the street low enough to blow the leaves around in the yard, taking pictures of everyone's property with a big lens. they probably have some nice clear pictures of me letting them know they were number one.
and drones that are over my yard with intent to spy on or annoy me. i think if someone has a go-pro on a drone and starts hovering outside my windows or spying on stuff they can't see from the street, it should be within my right to remove it. if you can't go after these "aircraft" then what's to stop joe criminal from getting a drone and camera and looking in all our windows to see who has the best stuff to steal?
I am a firm believer that if the drone rolls through a stop sign I should have the right to shoot it down with my pistol.
Drones come in all sizes.
Get 2. A big one and a little one, and name them both "Amy".
SVreX wrote: Drones come in all sizes. Get 2. A big one and a little one, and name them both "Amy".
it's not old yet. still 
In reply to KyAllroad:
Simple:
"That's a nice aircraft you have there, may I see your pilot's license?"
Get off my airspace!
Guess I need to get a defense drone so I can tail any drones that might fly into my yard so I can see who is watching me. Or some perimeter drones . After all, the best defense is a good offense. Yeah, that's the ticket. Like a barbed wire fence with scalable height.
It always feels like...somebody's watching me. Ain't got no privacy.
SVreX wrote: Datsun1500 is right on this, guys. I've got a UAV and 3 1/2 years of research on this subject under my belt.
Yes he is, and no he isn't. That's not a cheap shot at him btw (no pun intended).
Let me give you an example.
As a beekeeper I am also on the Department of Natural Resources & the state Farm Bureau list of folk you call when you've got a wasp/bee problem and want the nest taken down.
Now strictly speaking, under "the law" I am required to be a fully licenced pesticide applicator, complete with a 10 or 20 million dollar insurance policy, 7 years apprenticeship, and be board certified for each individual chemical I apply.
As a practical matter, this is deliberately ignored by the regulating entities and practitioners when it comes to wasp nest removals. Is it fully legal? No. Will the DNR of FB give a written letter stating that they are ignoring the law and allowing this "crime" to take place? No.
Same thing with the FAA and drones.
Like I said, the exact letter of the law requires anyone flying anything, including a mere paper airplane or indoor helo to report themselves to the FAA and to contact any and all airports within 5 miles of their individual flight activities and to obtain permission to do so. Every time.
Some, like a few in this thread, take that seriously. They are unable to grasp that neither the FAA nor the local airport actually want to hear from them about their little RC plane/helo/paper plane. Just go about your business, keep the toy out of the real airplane flight envelope, and have a good day.
Fly a big toy, one that can and sometimes does get up into real airplane flight envelopes, and then the FAA and the airport want to hear from you. As well fly commercially (mostly taking pictures for hire), they kinda want to hear from you. I say kinda because someone flying a little AR Parrot isn't what they are after.
But, the law itself doesn't clearly differentiate. So some cannot grasp the sleeping dog concept, and hang themselves.
In reply to foxtrapper:
Yes, you're right. There are thousands and thousands of laws that exist that authorities don't enfirce to the letter. You seem to be missing the point.
Authorities ARE enforcing laws related to UAVs even if they don't make sense. UAVs have been confiscated, people have been fined, people have been arrested, and businesses have been closed.
This thread:
Guy gets arrested.
Armchair online legal experts argue about what should and shouldn't be, and make incorrect claims about the laws
The only licensed and knowledgable guy on the entire forum offers accurate info.
The armchair experts continue to argue with Mr. Licensed Professional.
Foxtrapper tells us that Mr. Licensed Professional is over-stating it, and that authorities often don't enforce laws.
Did you notice the part where the guy got arrested?
Did not take liability laws and huge financial settlements long to kill off general aviation. So you have to wonder how long before it does the same for Droviation?
SVreX wrote: Did you notice the part where the guy got arrested?
For criminal mischief and wanton endangerment. A significant point that seems to keep escaping those who insist the FAA is coming to take away all the toys.
There was a section in the FAA part 103 forultra-light aircraft that says something to the effect "the maintaning of these rules as they apply is solely the responsibility of the user."
Its too bad there isn't something like that for UAVs. All it takes is a few careless acts to ruin it for everybody.
SVreX wrote: Did you notice the part where the guy got arrested?
I think it's worth noting that he was arrested under local law for what amounts to discharging a firearm in a residential area and not any FAA/federal law. This entire discussion has been pretty much moot from the beginning, but the discussion of FAA rules is indeed pretty interesting.
You'll need to log in to post.
