Not sure about that. A camera drone was definitely shot down during the Gezi Park protests in Istanbul, though I don’t know what with.
It is stupid and wrong and you shouldn’t do it, but I feel I must point out shot guns are harmless shooting up in the air. Unlike a regular bullet which could potentially come back down fast enough to hurt someone if shot in an arch, shotgun shot is small, lead BBs which never go that fast to begin with, and come down way too slow to hurt someone. Remember they are only going as fast as gravity will make it go, and the maximum height would probably be less than 200 yards. The ballistics is one of the reasons the shot gun is popular in home defense because it is relatively short range.
1 Like
So, since drones are so loud, I would absolutely use whatever legal relief I could access to prevent their use repeatedly near my house. I think we underestimate the stressful effect of loud noise. I could absolutely see someone under a lot of stress “snapping” and shooting the drone. Not that it’s right or legal to shoot other people’s stuff. Now, if I could just do something about the incessant helicopters over my neighborhood lately!
2 Likes
Actually, doesn’t “reasonable expectation of privacy” come into place here? ie you can’t use a telephoto lens to shoot into somebody’s bedroom if the curtains are open. Using a drone to fly over somebody’s house to see into their backyard feels like it would run into similar issues. I mean, obviously privacy laws are going to vary from state to state, but it seems like, at the very least, it’s getting dangerously close to violating some sort of privacy law. Of course, that doesn’t apply in this situation at all any way, since they weren’t taking pictures of the shooter any way.
Expectation of privacy is the only legal argument I’ve heard that seems to have the potential to hold any water whatsoever. I don’t think it’s terribly clear-cut, though, and would probably require a court case to decide specifics. Bear in mind, first, that expectation of privacy is often discussed in the context of where the government does or does not need a warrant to search, and those cases are different from where a private individual may or may not intrude. In general, law enforcement is more restricted than the public when it comes to invasion of privacy, and even then, there are cases where law enforcement may be allowed to view into a person’s back yard, or view a person’s property from the air, without violating their 4th Amendment rights.
A good rule of thumb is that, “If I can see it from a public location, I can photograph it.” Therefore, if you are in your bedroom, nude, standing in the window with the curtains open, it is likely not an invasion of privacy for me to photograph you. If you are in your back yard, and I can see into your back yard from the street, it is likely not an invasion of privacy for me to photograph you. The interesting question becomes, what if you have a 10’ privacy fence around your back yard, and I put up a copter? Does the situation change if I am specifically spying on you, vs. if I am doing something with permission and my capture of your image is incidental? Etc… these are questions that are not clearly answered in the law today.
The photos released by the pilot do show the shooter’s house and yard at the edge of the frame. It’s just a fact of life that, in a situation like this, some incidental capture of nearby objects/people will occur. In whatever legal analysis eventually comes, this should be taken into account. If it is deemed illegal to capture someone’s image or property without permission, then very few types of legal recording will be possible, since getting clearance from every single person who might have been captured will be prohibitively difficult.
1 Like
What I seem to recall about privacy laws is that, generally speaking, if your neighbor has a privacy fence and you just happen to be able to see over it from your upstairs window, that’s ok. But, if you make a point of lugging a ladder to the property line, and then climb it specifically to see over the fence, you are violating your neighbor’s privacy. However, if you were climbing that ladder to work on your rain gutters, it’s ok. So basically, it’s not considered a privacy violation if you’re engaged in something that could otherwise be considered legitimate.
This is similar to what I read about the use and occupancy of the airspace above the property. It would not be permissible to put up so-called “spite poles” just to block aircraft from using the airspace. If this was the case, then it seems that most RC flight would be fine, since the purpose of the flight is seldom specifically to spy on anyone.
I would like to just take a minute to acknowledge that a lot of the flights that I’ve seen over populated areas make me cringe, simply because of what would happen if the copter crashed. LiPo batteries can catch fire. A 1 kg craft falling from 30 meters can give a person a pretty good lump on the head. I think a lot of these pilots are reckless and irresponsible, but I don’t think they’re violating any privacy laws/rights.
Sorry guys, it’s absolutely illegal to shoot anyone or anything for just trespassing on your property (or airspace). You can call the cops, file complaints about that or the noise or annoyance. All of these are very minor crimes. Shooting a gun is so completely irresponsible that I have no idea why there are so many people supporting some redneck with a gun. You guys hate “drones” that much? Geeze, it’s not like it’s some predator drone with sidewinder missiles that the CIA is flying over your house because you are using Tor. These are just RC helicopters… frigging toys! If you want to shoot it down use a nerf gun, or just throw a rock at it… but expect to pay for it because you broke it.
You can use them for good or evil (I suppose) and right now the good use far outweighs whatever you think is evil. They are incredible for environmental science, for saving lives, and just for fun. If “The Man” wants to spy on you, they can just use a real helicopter.
2 Likes
That’s exactly my thought. While I don’t endorse shooting things as a method of conflict resolution, if the drone was in his airspace, technically it’s trespassing, isn’t it? I wonder how NJ defines airspace for residential property. I’m thinking there has to be some existing case law for billboards that apply here. But I Am Not A Lawyer.
I don’t see how it matters at all whether or not he was trespassing. The appropriate response to a trespasser is to tell them to leave, and then to call the cops if they don’t. If a photographer trespasses on your property, you aren’t allowed to break his camera. If a motorcyclist trespasses on your property, you aren’t allowed to damage his bike. Why do people seem to think an RC aircraft is somehow different? Never mind that it is hardly a given that the pilot was trespassing, given that the law doesn’t unequivocally give all of the airspace above property to the landowner in the first place.
Please see my discussion of US v. Causby here:
tl;dr - It’s not a given that the pilot was trespassing even if he was flying over the shooter’s property.
2 Likes
But the pilot wasn’t trespassing, and I don’t know that an object can be said to be trespassing. It’s simply on your property. In a drone case, deliberately on your property. If I throw something on your property, that’s legally different from trespassing on your property with it in my possession. Plus, a drone with a camera on someone else’s property might run afoul of peeping tom laws.
There was a case not long ago near Seattle where the drone pilot was very deliberately usino it to peep into windows, and he seemed to believe there was nothing could be done to stop him. At that range, I thought a water hose might have been effective.
And now I’m wondering if water could be shot high enough and fast enough to disable a drone at 400 feet. If so, seems like the return trajectory of the water would be fairly risk free.
What about ice pellets/projectiles, sized (or undercooled) to match the weather so they melt to negligible size by the time they return to the ground?
I’m imagining some kind of magical gelatin, that holds the projectile together as long as it’s moving upward, but as soon as it reaches apogee, the whole thing dissipates in a cloud of spray. Sounds like comic book technology right now, but who can say?
Maybe a bag of non-newtonian fluid. Something that is hard at high strain rate but soft and pliable at low strain rate. Such materials are researched for e.g. personal ballistic armor, aka bullet-resistant vests. (Nothing is truly bullet-proof.)
A thing made from such material will be hard at high-speed impact, but soft at low-speed impact. Calculate so it is harmless on freefall impact but hard and penetrating at higher speed at shorter distance from the muzzle.
1 Like
Stuff it with Tater Tots for safety.
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
