The way William Merideth sees it, it's pretty clear-cut: a drone flying over his backyard was a well-defined invasion of privacy, analogous to a physical trespassing.
Not knowing who owned it, the Kentucky man took out his shotgun and fired three blasts of Number 8 birdshot to take the drone out.
"It was just right there," he told Ars. "It was hovering, I would never have shot it if it was flying. When he came down with a video camera right over my back deck, that's not going to work. I know they're neat little vehicles, but one of those uses shouldn't be flying into people's yards and videotaping."
Minutes later, a car full of four men that he didn't recognize rolled up, "looking for a fight."
"Are you the son of a b***h that shot my drone?" one said, according to Merideth.
His terse reply to the men, while wearing a 10mm Glock holstered on his hip: "If you cross that sidewalk onto my property, there's going to be another shooting."...
Thoughts?
Replies (20)
I think he should take it to a taxidermist and have it mounted.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sat, Aug 1, 2015, at 9:33 AM
Good for him.
-- Posted by left turn on Sat, Aug 1, 2015, at 10:27 AM
Despite owning property, one does not own the air space over your property. Like most technology, statutes have not addressed privacy (and many other factors) with regard to drones.
In the above case, despite his well-thought out actions and debate, the shooter is the one in jail.
If legislators stopped playing politics and actually did their job, drone and other technology issues could be headed off before they creep up.
I can only imagine what will happen when paparazzi start using drones to invade privacy of celebrities.
-- Posted by CSIP2016 on Sat, Aug 1, 2015, at 12:09 PM
I've always understood general aviation is restricted above a certain altitude within most cities. Medical and news helicopters must have exemptions. Property owners should be able to unite and declare similar restrictions. What would happen if a large corporation found a competitor using drones to spy on developing products? News magazines have in the past used long range cameras to spy on automobile prototypes. With drones they could fly the cameras behind the wall and see them before they are disguised.
-- Posted by Old John on Sat, Aug 1, 2015, at 12:56 PM
Until the local, State, & Federal governments address the privacy issue of surveillance by drones, when a drone crosses your property line get out your rod and reel and hook him. You can always say you were practicing your casting.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Sat, Aug 1, 2015, at 1:28 PM
G.H.......you are a genius
-- Posted by left turn on Sat, Aug 1, 2015, at 4:58 PM
Wonder why some call for tighter gun regulations?
-- Posted by CSIP2016 on Sat, Aug 1, 2015, at 5:34 PM
Fire away.
-- Posted by Dexterite1 on Sun, Aug 2, 2015, at 7:18 AM
G.H.: Dexter, Common, Left Turn, Juno, Theorist and the other Liberals on here would be the first to complain to the ACLU if a drone was on their property filming them.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Sun, Aug 2, 2015, at 9:27 AM
Cuius est solum, eius est usque ad coelum et ad inferos
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Aug 3, 2015, at 9:21 AM
"We have said that the airspace is a public highway. Yet it is obvious that if the landowner is to have full enjoyment of the land, he must have exclusive control of the immediate reaches of the enveloping atmosphere. Otherwise buildings could not be erected, trees could not be planted, and even fences could not be run. The principle is recognized when the law gives a remedy in case overhanging structures are erected on adjoining land. 9 The landowner owns at least as much of the space above the ground as the can occupy or use in connection with the land. See Hinman v. Pacific Air Transport, 9 Cir., 84 F.2d 755. The fact that he does not occupy it in a physical sense--by the erection of buildings and the like--is not material. As we have said, the flight of airplanes, which skim the surface but do not touch it, is as much an appropriation of the use of the land as a more conventional entry upon it. We would not doub that if the United States erected an elevated railway over respondents' land at the precise altitude where its planes now fly, there would be a partial taking, even though none of the supports of the structure rested on the land. 10 The reason is that there would be an intrusion so immediate and direct as to subtract from the owner's full enjoyment of the property and to limit his exploitation of it. While the owner does not in any physical manner occupy that stratum of airspace or make use of it in the conventional sense, he does use it in somewhat the same sense that space left between buildings for the purpose of light and air is used. The superadjacent airspace at this low altitude is so close to the land that continuous invasions of it affect the use of the surface of the land itself. We think that the landowner, as an incident to his ownership, has a claim to it and that invasions of it are in the same category as invasions of the surface."
United States Vs. Causby, 1946
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Aug 3, 2015, at 9:33 AM
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Aug 3, 2015, at 9:34 AM
The drones are really gonna be a problem when one of them causes an airliner full of people to crash. right now, you just get a slap on the wrist. But soon, one will be the cause of a commercial plane crash. Only then will America get serious about some sort of regulations. That's what America does...they always are "a day late and a dollar short."
-- Posted by Cadillac on Mon, Aug 3, 2015, at 10:52 AM
Only then will America get serious about some sort of regulations. That's what America does...they always are "a day late and a dollar short." -- Posted by Cadillac on Mon, Aug 3, 2015, at 10:52 AM
The cat is out of the bag. You can pass regulations but a terrorist/sick person won't follow them.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Mon, Aug 3, 2015, at 11:07 AM
"Only then will America get serious about some sort of regulations. That's what America does..."
Yep. That's what America does - we impose regulations. Some 170,000 pages of them and growing.
Land of the Free, my foot!
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Aug 3, 2015, at 11:37 AM
dumbo471, I was the 3rd one to post on this thread. Read it and stfu. And as for you, G.H. I bet you are one of those spineless jellyfish type. You would be the kind to ambush somebody and then run.
-- Posted by left turn on Mon, Aug 3, 2015, at 12:36 PM
Posted by left turn on Mon, Aug 3, 2015, at 12:36 PM
Left Wing Nut: Drunk before 1pm, how sad.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Mon, Aug 3, 2015, at 2:13 PM
The drones are really gonna be a problem when one of them causes an airliner full of people to crash. right now, you just get a slap on the wrist. But soon, one will be the cause of a commercial plane crash. Only then will America get serious about some sort of regulations. That's what America does...they always are "a day late and a dollar short."
-- Posted by Cadillac on Mon, Aug 3, 2015, at 10:52 AM
So when do you think the current leader will do something about this as opposed to being "a day late and a dollar short"?
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Tue, Aug 4, 2015, at 11:42 PM
"...the current leader will do something about..."
Since when does the President enact legislation alone?
Personally, I prefer the "there should be a law" band-wagon start with local municipalities or states. They should be passing drone and other technology ordinances to protect the privacy of individuals and property owners.
-- Posted by notrump on Wed, Aug 5, 2015, at 6:20 AM
U.S. presidents have no problem enacting "laws" through executive order. Don't believe me, just ask the current potus.
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Wed, Aug 5, 2015, at 6:52 AM
Menu
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/kentucky-man-shoots-down-drone-hovering-over-hi...
The way William Merideth sees it, it's pretty clear-cut: a drone flying over his backyard was a well-defined invasion of privacy, analogous to a physical trespassing.
Not knowing who owned it, the Kentucky man took out his shotgun and fired three blasts of Number 8 birdshot to take the drone out.
"It was just right there," he told Ars. "It was hovering, I would never have shot it if it was flying. When he came down with a video camera right over my back deck, that's not going to work. I know they're neat little vehicles, but one of those uses shouldn't be flying into people's yards and videotaping."
Minutes later, a car full of four men that he didn't recognize rolled up, "looking for a fight."
"Are you the son of a b***h that shot my drone?" one said, according to Merideth.
His terse reply to the men, while wearing a 10mm Glock holstered on his hip: "If you cross that sidewalk onto my property, there's going to be another shooting."...
Thoughts?
Replies (20)