Man shoots down drone hovering over house

[radcen]

Legally, he's going to have a hard time dealing with this, but personally I don't blame the guy. Barring some unknown piece of information, if I were on a jury I would not vote to convict as I believe he was defending his property. The daughter factor is irrelevant to me, if the drone was over his property (and that low, low enough to pose a potential threat), regardless of reason, he was within his rights to shoot it down.

Man shoots down drone hovering over house

https://www.yahoo.com/tech/s/man-shoots-down-drone-hovering-000032027.html

 

[ttwtt78640]

Hmm... what poses the greater risk flying in a residential area - a hovering drone or multiple 40mm rounds?

 

[radcen]

Hmm... what poses the greater risk flying in a residential area - a hovering drone or multiple 40mm rounds?

Fair point, but I still don't have an issue with him destroying the drone (which was my primary point)... albeit his method was questionable.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Fair point, but I still don't have an issue with him destroying the drone (which was my primary point)... albeit his method was questionable.

Neither did the police - he was not charged with destroying the "trespassing" drone.

 

[radcen]

Neither did the police - he was not charged with destroying the "trespassing" drone.

Is destroying a drone, specifically, a crime? You tell me. If not, then they just charged with whatever would stick. They may have charged with destroying the drone if that were indeed illegal.

I bet you don't really believe all charges are 100% relevant 100% of the time.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Hmm... what poses the greater risk flying in a residential area - a hovering drone or multiple 40mm rounds?

He shot the drone with his shotgun, and threatened the guys later with his Glock which is what it appears he was charged for doing.

 

[Chomsky]

Legally, he's going to have a hard time dealing with this, but personally I don't blame the guy. Barring some unknown piece of information, if I were on a jury I would not vote to convict as I believe he was defending his property. The daughter factor is irrelevant to me, if the drone was over his property (and that low, low enough to pose a potential threat), regardless of reason, he was within his rights to shoot it down.

I agree 100%

Just like the internet, the technology of drones is going to rquire the law to grapple with a lot of unknown & grey areas.

Law lags technology.

Also, I think the homeowner makes a reasonably compelling argument (to prospective jurors, at least):

"For his part, Merideth says he will sue the drone's owners. He told WRDB: "You know, when you're in your own property, within a six-foot privacy fence, you have the expectation of privacy. We don't know if he was looking at the girls. We don't know if he was looking for something to steal. To me, it was the same as trespassing.""

Also, he seems to have a grasp of 'private property' legal concepts when he claims to have waited until the drone was directly above him (thereby firing only into his personal airspace):

"I went and got my shotgun and I said, 'I'm not going to do anything unless it's directly over my property.'"

And then it allegedly was.

Merideth explained: "I didn't shoot across the road, I didn't shoot across my neighbor's fences, I shot directly into the air.""

All-in-all, I kinda' like this guy & respect his chutzpah & thought process - I'd love to be on this jury!

Hmm... what poses the greater risk flying in a residential area - a hovering drone or multiple 40mm rounds?

He used a shotgun (hopefully with birdshot) to pick-off the drone - his Glock was at his side when he was approached by the intruders:

"However, Merideth told WRDB: "Well, I came out and it was down by the neighbor's house, about 10 feet off the ground, looking under their canopy that they've got under their back yard. I went and got my shotgun and I said, 'I'm not going to do anything unless it's directly over my property.'""

+++

"He says that shortly after the shooting, he received a visit from four men who claimed to be responsible for the drone, who explained that Merideth owed $1,800.

Merideth says he stood his ground: "I had my 40mm Glock on me and they started toward me and I told them, 'If you cross my sidewalk, there's gonna be another shooting.'""

 

[OrphanSlug]

http://www.debatepolitics.com/gun-c...ots-drone-his-property-gets-into-trouble.html

 

[reinoe]

He shot the drone with his shotgun, and threatened the guys later with his Glock which is what it appears he was charged for doing.

I think he had every right to threaten the people with his glock and he shouldn't be charged for that either.

 

[Chomsky]

http://www.debatepolitics.com/gun-c...ots-drone-his-property-gets-into-trouble.html

Hrm .. it would seem this is the earlier thread, and the other thread's owner posted a dupe thread.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Legally, he's going to have a hard time dealing with this, but personally I don't blame the guy. Barring some unknown piece of information, if I were on a jury I would not vote to convict as I believe he was defending his property. The daughter factor is irrelevant to me, if the drone was over his property (and that low, low enough to pose a potential threat), regardless of reason, he was within his rights to shoot it down.

There appears not to have been another shooting. However, Merideth was arrested for wanton endangerment and criminal mischief. There is, apparently, a local ordinance that says you can't shoot a gun off in the city, but the police charged him under a Kentucky Revised Statute.

Sounds to me like a justified shooting.

When the cops fire a gun in the city in a justified shooting, are they also guilty of "wanton endangerment and criminal mischief?"

Just who did he endanger by shooting the drone out of the sky?

 

[Van Basten]

I don't see the problem, I'm all for shooting down these messy drones going where they don't belong.

 

[Riveroaks]

Legally, he's going to have a hard time dealing with this, but personally I don't blame the guy. Barring some unknown piece of information, if I were on a jury I would not vote to convict as I believe he was defending his property. The daughter factor is irrelevant to me, if the drone was over his property (and that low, low enough to pose a potential threat), regardless of reason, he was within his rights to shoot it down.

There is always a chance of jury nullification, sure.

Remember when OJ's jury nullified the indictment for the double murder in the face of overwhelming evidence? That was a good one.

 

[Riveroaks]

Sounds to me like a justified shooting.

When the cops fire a gun in the city in a justified shooting, are they also guilty of "wanton endangerment and criminal mischief?"

Just who did he endanger by shooting the drone out of the sky?

A really good lawyer may be able to make this fly !!!

 

[Beaudreaux]

I think he had every right to threaten the people with his glock and he shouldn't be charged for that either.

No, he should be charged for that. He had every right to shoot the drone down and he had every right to carry his Glock and have it with him, however, he did not have the right to threaten to shoot people that were not threatening him with his life. Now, if they had threatened him and he felt in mortal danger... don't threaten them, light 'em up. But they didn't, not from the story I read anyway.

That's just my opinion.

 

[radcen]

No, he should be charged for that. He had every right to shoot the drone down and he had every right to carry his Glock and have it with him, however, he did not have the right to threaten to shoot people that were not threatening him with his life. Now, if they had threatened him and he felt in mortal danger... don't threaten them, light 'em up. But they didn't, not from the story I read anyway.

That's just my opinion.

Didn't they all four start to approach him all at once? Threats don't have to be verbal.

 

[Skeptic Bob]

I have gotten into drone (quad copter) flying recently. It is a lot of fun. One time I was flying above a formation of geese over a lake. It was incredible. Throw on some first person viewing goggles and it feels like you are flying. I hope to get into drone racing once my skills are good enough.

But I am very careful about where I fly. If I went hovering over someone's private property and the owner shot my quad down I would be upset, but it would be my own damn fault.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Didn't they all four start to approach him all at once? Threats don't have to be verbal.

In my state (NC) he could have been charged with assault by pointing a gun (ABPG), or communicating threats.

§ 14-34. Assaulting by pointing gun. If any person shall point any gun or pistol at any person, either in fun or otherwise, whether such gun or pistol be loaded or not loaded, he shall be guilty of a Class A1 misdemeanor. (1889, c. 527; Rev., s. 3622; C.S., s. 4216; 1969, c. 618, s. 2 1/2; 1993, c. 539, s. 17; 1994, Ex. Sess., c. 24, s. 14(c); 1995, c. 507, s. 19.5(d).)

§ 14-277.1. Communicating threats.
(a) A person is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor if without lawful authority:
(1) He willfully threatens to physically injure the person or that person's child, sibling, spouse, or dependent or willfully threatens to damage the property of another;
(2) The threat is communicated to the other person, orally, in writing, or by any other means;
(3) The threat is made in a manner and under circumstances which would cause a reasonable person to believe that the threat is likely to be carried out; and
(4) The person threatened believes that the threat will be carried out.
(b) A violation of this section is a Class 1 misdemeanor. (1973, c. 1286, s. 11; 1993, c. 539, s. 172; 1994, Ex. Sess., c. 24, s. 14(c); 1999-262, s. 2.)

I'm not sure if four guys coming at you is enough to justify threatening them. However, if he had taken the gun out, held it down, made no reference to it and did not verbally threaten the four, I feel they would have gotten the point and he would not have broken any laws.

I've done that on my own property - let the gun do the talking while I have it pointed at the ground beside my feet. Most people, even those that do not speak English, can understand firepower language that isn't even audible.

 

[radcen]

In my state (NC) he could have been charged with assault by pointing a gun (ABPG), or communicating threats.

§ 14-34. Assaulting by pointing gun. If any person shall point any gun or pistol at any person, either in fun or otherwise, whether such gun or pistol be loaded or not loaded, he shall be guilty of a Class A1 misdemeanor. (1889, c. 527; Rev., s. 3622; C.S., s. 4216; 1969, c. 618, s. 2 1/2; 1993, c. 539, s. 17; 1994, Ex. Sess., c. 24, s. 14(c); 1995, c. 507, s. 19.5(d).)

§ 14-277.1. Communicating threats.
(a) A person is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor if without lawful authority:
(1) He willfully threatens to physically injure the person or that person's child, sibling, spouse, or dependent or willfully threatens to damage the property of another;
(2) The threat is communicated to the other person, orally, in writing, or by any other means;
(3) The threat is made in a manner and under circumstances which would cause a reasonable person to believe that the threat is likely to be carried out; and
(4) The person threatened believes that the threat will be carried out.
(b) A violation of this section is a Class 1 misdemeanor. (1973, c. 1286, s. 11; 1993, c. 539, s. 172; 1994, Ex. Sess., c. 24, s. 14(c); 1999-262, s. 2.)

I'm not sure if four guys coming at you is enough to justify threatening them. However, if he had taken the gun out, held it down, made no reference to it and did not verbally threaten the four, I feel they would have gotten the point and he would not have broken any laws.

I've done that on my own property - let the gun do the talking while I have it pointed at the ground beside my feet. Most people, even those that do not speak English, can understand firepower language that isn't even audible.

Laws vary from place to place, that's for sure.

Personally... and individual laws may or may not agree with me... I feel that a "threat" is fine depending on the nature behind the threat. If the nature is, "Stay back. I don't want to shoot you but will if necessary!", then to me that is perfectly fine. You're giving them a chance to avoid a bad situation for everybody. An aspect of self-defense, if you will. Preferable, in fact, to shooting as a first option. (Of course you need to be willing to shoot if they don't stay back, but that's another topic for another time) Most of the things listed above are implied to be offensive in nature, not defensive, which is fine, there just needs to be accommodation for defense too.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Laws vary from place to place, that's for sure.

Personally... and individual laws may or may not agree with me... I feel that a "threat" is fine depending on the nature behind the threat. If the nature is, "Stay back. I don't want to shoot you but will if necessary!", then to me that is perfectly fine. You're giving them a chance to avoid a bad situation for everybody. An aspect of self-defense, if you will. Preferable, in fact, to shooting as a first option. (Of course you need to be willing to shoot if they don't stay back, but that's another topic for another time) Most of the things listed above are implied to be offensive in nature, not defensive, which is fine, there just needs to be accommodation for defense too.

I agree completely. The bold portion, to me, is not a threat but a fair and reasonable warning.

 

[American]

Hmm... what poses the greater risk flying in a residential area - a hovering drone or multiple 40mm rounds?

40 mm rounds?

 

[radcen]

I agree completely. The bold portion, to me, is not a threat but a fair and reasonable warning.

I'm with ya. But I can see how an overzealous prosecutor and/or police officer could try to make it fit the law as you posted.

 

[ttwtt78640]

40 mm rounds?

My bad on two counts. 1) the drone was shot using a shotgun and 2) .40 is a calibre and not a metric measurement.

 

[MickeyW]

I wonder how long before a terrorist operated drone, brings down a commercial airliner? Anyone want to hazard a guess?

 

[MickeyW]

I think he had every right to threaten the people with his glock and he shouldn't be charged for that either.

Nope, that is menacing and unnecessary, unless he was being threatened with deadly force.
Of course, a Glock is an excellent choice for self defense.