Y'all need neighbors like this one.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: billt460
So how many years in Super Max do you think she'll get?


No one said felony, [censored].

But it IS a Federal offence. Don't be so obtuse.
 
Originally Posted By: rooflessVW
Originally Posted By: billt460
So how many years in Super Max do you think she'll get?
No one said felony, [censored]. But it IS a Federal offence.


So she committed what?...... A Federal misdemeanor for shooting a bothersome toy. Operated by some intrusive kid? So how long are they going to lock up granny?
 
Originally Posted By: Alfred_B
At the very least, it's a property crime.

Yes, harassing people flying low over their property like that certainly should be considered a crime.
 
Originally Posted By: Uber_Archetype
Originally Posted By: Alfred_B
At the very least, it's a property crime.

Yes, harassing people flying low over their property like that certainly should be considered a crime.


It is against the law, if you would have read what I posted.
 
Originally Posted By: Uber_Archetype
Yes, harassing people flying low over their property like that certainly should be considered a crime.


95% of these things are nothing but toys flown by kids who have zero respect for peoples privacy. Then they get trashed by the person they're pi$$ing off, and right away it's their fault. There are videos of these things irritating people all over You Tube.
 
It also says:

Quote:
...Small unmanned aircraft may not operate over any persons
not directly participating in the operation, not under a
covered structure, and not inside a covered stationary
vehicle...


Quote:
...No careless or reckless operations...


So if it 'appears' there is careless or reckless operation OR I am not part of the RC operation, and if any of my structures or person are in danger of being damaged or injured, then I think I have the right to remove said objects on or over my property boundaries.
 
Last edited:
Maybe put up a sign that says "No trespassing. Drones will be shot on sight." !


Apparently some people applaud trespassing on other people's properties. I guess it is just another example of me first attitude of this society.
 
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
It also says:

Quote:
...Small unmanned aircraft may not operate over any persons
not directly participating in the operation, not under a
covered structure, and not inside a covered stationary
vehicle...


Quote:
...No careless or reckless operations...


So if it 'appears' there is careless or reckless operation OR I am not part of the RC operation, and if any of my structures or person are in danger of being damaged or injured, then I think I have the right to remove said objects on or over my property boundaries.


The funny thing is, is that you do not have the right to make that decision, much as you do not have the right to shoot down an RC aircraft or small Cessna if it bothers you. Just as you would not have the right to shoot my car if my turning around in your driveway bothered you.
 
Originally Posted By: rooflessVW
Originally Posted By: Uber_Archetype
Originally Posted By: Alfred_B
At the very least, it's a property crime.

Yes, harassing people flying low over their property like that certainly should be considered a crime.


It is against the law, if you would have read what I posted.


Give it a break buddy. She saw this intrusive drone as a trespassing device...a danger if it crashed, and also an invasion of privacy. She did what I would have done.

What if a drone was flying over your property and you had a pool party for a very young daughter and her friends? Would you think it okay for this thing to hover over them and video the kids? Or what if you had a wife that enjoyed the privacy of her fenced backyard and was sunbathing topless? Would you want her to be photographed?

Get some common sense....and drop the attorney bunk. She lives in the country, and firing a little .410 at a drone is no danger to anyone nor is it an offense to the average citizen in danger of losing privacy rights.
 
Originally Posted By: Marco620
.410 means she had a tight group or wouldve missed.

She shot it with her 20 gauge, she was cleaning the .410 (article updated).


Looks like these guys were either trying to snoop on her neighbor (Robert Duvall) or were just out flying their drone in what they thought was a safe area. If they got close enough for her to shoot it with a shotgun (20 gauge is good to what, ~50 yards?), they were too close to her and were invading her privacy.

There does unfortunately need to be some laws in place specifically for these, people are just too stupid with them and could care less about others.
My 11 yr old son has a little $40 drone that he saved and bought. He knows not to fly it over others property. We have a large public park as well as the local school field nearby where he can fly however he wants (not any other people around of course).

Funny thing about RC planes being brought up, people that fly those (and usually build them) fly them in appropriate places where they will not get shot. They don't just go to some random field an fly it there.
 
Originally Posted By: rooflessVW
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
It also says:

Quote:
...Small unmanned aircraft may not operate over any persons
not directly participating in the operation, not under a
covered structure, and not inside a covered stationary
vehicle...


Quote:
...No careless or reckless operations...


So if it 'appears' there is careless or reckless operation OR I am not part of the RC operation, and if any of my structures or person are in danger of being damaged or injured, then I think I have the right to remove said objects on or over my property boundaries.


The funny thing is, is that you do not have the right to make that decision, much as you do not have the right to shoot down an RC aircraft or small Cessna if it bothers you. Just as you would not have the right to shoot my car if my turning around in your driveway bothered you.


False and ridiculous analogies my friend. Get real.

I have a right to make a decision to protect property and or life.

Those decisions have to made in the overall context of the situation and as to the severity of the threat.

Quote:
Funny thing about RC planes being brought up, people that fly those (and usually build them) fly them in appropriate places where they will not get shot. They don't just go to some random field an fly it there.


Exactly! And, they fly in a straight line or loop - and are not capable of hovering over one spot to snoop.
 
Last edited:
There was a lively debate in the comments section of the article. I wonder what the follow up will be if the law enforcement gets interested. Highly unlikely for the local police to do anything because the drone was owned by paparazzi. They won't investigate because no claim has been filed.

original article
 
Originally Posted By: Astro14
Originally Posted By: rooflessVW
Originally Posted By: Brybo86
Originally Posted By: rooflessVW
Congratulations! She committed a Federal crime!

Hardly.


Read and enjoy being wrong.


That thing wasn't an aircraft as defined in the Federal statutes.

And at that altitude, I think she's got a claim for trespassing, after all, the SCOTUS defined airspace up to 83 feet as being property.

At the very least, the drone was harassing her. If the guys who owned the drone had a case, they would've filed by now...




Can't comment about the states, but here, without a pilot's license, it is illegal to lose sight of your drone... Meaning the flyer would themselves have been within shooting range.

The more of these things go up, the more ignorant idiots come out of the woodworks...
 
Originally Posted By: rooflessVW
The funny thing is, is that you do not have the right to make that decision, much as you do not have the right to shoot down an RC aircraft or small Cessna if it bothers you.


Really? Someone should have told this guy that.
 
Originally Posted By: rooflessVW
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
It also says:

Quote:
...Small unmanned aircraft may not operate over any persons
not directly participating in the operation, not under a
covered structure, and not inside a covered stationary
vehicle...


Quote:
...No careless or reckless operations...


So if it 'appears' there is careless or reckless operation OR I am not part of the RC operation, and if any of my structures or person are in danger of being damaged or injured, then I think I have the right to remove said objects on or over my property boundaries.


The funny thing is, is that you do not have the right to make that decision, much as you do not have the right to shoot down an RC aircraft or small Cessna if it bothers you. Just as you would not have the right to shoot my car if my turning around in your driveway bothered you.


Rooflessvw I'm so glad you aren't my neighbor...
I'd turn the gun on myself.

Seriously though... are you really on the side of the drone operator.

How about someone climbs a ladder and peeps into your bathroom you clobber them THEY are the victim right? Sick and twisted.
No doubt in my mind who you are voting for.
 
Last edited:
I wish you would.

I do not aide with voyeurs, but I also do not condone the wanton shooting of other people's property just because the media says "drone bad."

I'm not voting.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

bbhero
Friend died yesterday ... Spooky
2
Replies
29
Views
4K
SammyChevelleTypeS3
slo town
My experience 30 floors up during the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake
2
Replies
23
Views
1K
Cheetah-kins
OVERKILL
Floor Jansen
2 3 4
Replies
78
Views
5K
Black Thunder
slo town
Had my 70th bday this weekend with an epic party, but there's even more to it.
2
Replies
26
Views
1K
slo town
C
I didn't need this.
Replies
19
Views
2K
dlundblad
Back
Top