Another Drone Downed-This One Closer to Home

[Vigilant]

Altitude is the deciding factor for me. If the quad is flying super low over my hypothetical property, I'd consider it more of an invasion of privacy than if it were much higher up (around 50 to 100 feet). Regardless, shotgunning a $2000 piece of tech isn't exactly the best of plans. With expensive camera quads, you can approach felony destruction of property very quickly

Or invasion of privacy, or whatever voyueristic charges Indiana may have in the I.C.

 

[Vigilant]

I deal with drones by using shaky snake. It is very effective.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0WbP2uLJPo

(Crude humor, if you're offended by such don't click).

Hmmm? I thought you were the OIC of the Boner Drone unit?

 

[AngryRooster]

You mean like shooting the drone owner rather than the drone?

It's not inconceivable that someone would fly off the handle and go that far depending on the circumstances. Pervy registered sex offender flying over the yard taking pictures of the 12 year old daughter by the pool for example. I'm not saying it's a good idea, but sooner or later something like that will happen. There are all kinds of people that need their tail kicked for being a jackwagon and end up getting worse than they bargained for.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Hmmm? I thought you were the OIC of the Boner Drone unit?

Pfft, I'm half a step ahead of the Amish in the technology race. They don't let me play with anything more advanced that a pager.

 

[AngryRooster]

I deal with drones by using shaky snake. It is very effective.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0WbP2uLJPo

(Crude humor, if you're offended by such don't click).

LMAO! I've never seen that before. Downloaded and saved. Glad I wasn't taking a drink, I would have ruined the laptop.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Pfft, I'm half a step ahead of the Amish in the technology race. They don't let me play with anything more advanced that a pager.

Does that mean you post on INGO using a horse-drawn kerosene-powered computer?

 

[wizardfitz]

I've already figured that just having the wife report peepers will finish anybody playing drone games around here.

My thoughts exactly. Or child porn. Especially it today's pc world taking pictures of kids in the yard let alone in a pool would create an uproar

 

[cobber]

Since the drone was 'destroyed' why didn't the po-pos confiscate as evidence. And get a warrant for the SIM card.

Pretty loosey-goosey, IMO.


Yeah, there's a privacy issue here. When one of these hovers over someone else's property, I would assume bad motive.


Re the endangerment, was anyone downrange within range of the shot?

 

[jamil]

Since the drone was 'destroyed' why didn't the po-pos confiscate as evidence. And get a warrant for the SIM card.

Pretty loosey-goosey, IMO.


Yeah, there's a privacy issue here. When one of these hovers over someone else's property, I would assume bad motive.


Re the endangerment, was anyone downrange within range of the shot?

He said he shot straight up. The endangerment part might also include the falling debris.

 

[Paul30]

Or invasion of privacy, or whatever voyueristic charges Indiana may have in the I.C.

So every person with a camera on a phone needs to be charged. Every person who owns binoculars is a perv. Every person who owns a camera is a perv and should have the camera shot off the tripod because, well, because the person who may or may not be in the video "feels" violated. Mine is about $6000, and any one who shoots mine will be getting some attention from me. You can't just shoot someone's property because you don't like it. You can't shoot the salesman's car because it is parked in your driveway which is actually on your property while he is knocking on your door. Many people put dash cams on their cars now, maybe even the salesman in your driveway or the cop who shows up to answer the call about someone shooting at someone else's property, do they get shot at or their car because it is carrying a camera? People who pick up a gun to solve problems need to be a permanently prohibited person from owning them, hopefully this guy will become permanently prohibited from owning guns in the future, he is not stable enough to own one.

A true Drone pic. http://www.rchelicopterfun.com/images/real_drone_500pics.jpg
FYI, the video I saw of him shooting it, shows a Videography platform so high in the sky it probably is taking pictures of the entire town from a height where you can't recognize a person from a dog, much less if they are in a swimsuit. Instead of people getting their tin foil hats all snugged up, they need to realize this technology is here to stay, the courts may change some laws, but for now they are the same as for any person with any camera. They are in a place they can legally be taking photographs, which is covered by the 1st amendment according to the press. Since my multi rotor camera platform is over the dollar limit to qualify for a felony, I guess if it ever gets shot down whoever shot it will not own guns after the trial to shoot down another one.

They will soon allow commercial use of these areal camera platforms, and many real estate agents will be video recording or photographing homes from every angle and every height. For all one knows they are taking real estate pictures of different homes in the area.

Any device can be misused, we need to stop trying to paint every person who owns a multi rotor as a perv just like we gun owners need to not be all painted as the trigger happy nuts waiting for an excuse to shoot someone's private property because we want to.

I think the link explains it all very well. This guy could face up to 20 years and a $250 fine which might put a dent in the old 401K savings or other assets since it is a Federal Crime. http://gizmodo.com/is-it-ok-to-shoot-down-your-neighbors-drone-1718055028

 

[Thor]

Unless he was getting paid to fly it the operator was in violation of the first rule in the FAA circular on Model Aircraft. Select an operating site that is of sufficient distance from populated areas.

This guy was flying it over someone else's property, their homes, harassing his neighbors, filming them no doubt (girls on the back porch). It sounds like it was a neighborhood though so should have called the gendarmes for a peeping tom.

The on line survey results; 80% say he shouldn't be charged.

 

[Thor]

If you are taking pictures on my property, scoping out my house with binoculars, I will indeed question your intentions. If I find out it's a relator doing a comp, that's no problem.

 

[KLB]

If it were hovering 10 ft. up a softball properly thrown would deal with it as would a water hose.

Or a good sized rock. If it is close enough to hit that way, it is too close period.

 

[jwh20]

I'm guessing that this man lives where it's illegal to discharge a firearm, like inside the city limits of most cities. Execptions, of course, are to protect your life and property but I've never heard of an exception to protect your privacy. I think this guy said the wrong thing. He should have said the drone was flying in a threatening manner and he was in fear for his life and safety. That would then be justification for shooting the damned thing out of the air.

 

[Leo]

I followed a quad copter to its home and talked to a real smart aleck 20 something punk. Since it was obvious he was not the homeowner I returned to talk to his dad. At first he started to blow me off, but I persisted. I explained that I regarded taking pictures inside my EIGHT FOOT privacy fence of my wife and grand daughters was the same as a peeping tom. I also added that any pictures that appeared on the internet would result in me exhausting all his resources. I offered to leave everything alone if he would rectify the problem. I have seen the guy with the quad copter flying it since then, but never over my yard. There are still a few people left who understand the importance of being a responsible citizen.

 

[Paul30]

Unless he was getting paid to fly it the operator was in violation of the first rule in the FAA circular on Model Aircraft. Select an operating site that is of sufficient distance from populated areas.

This guy was flying it over someone else's property, their homes, harassing his neighbors, filming them no doubt (girls on the back porch). It sounds like it was a neighborhood though so should have called the gendarmes for a peeping tom.

The on line survey results; 80% say he shouldn't be charged.

Actually I don't think one can get paid for operating one at this time. The laws are being crafted and are not law yet. The FAA actually put out that if you are getting paid, you can be fined, a lot. A news show was showing the latest in weddings, the aerial shots. They showed where they hired a guy to do their wedding shots like the royal wedding did, then realized later that they broke the law doing it. I know a guy who had a 30 foot enclosed trailer set up for this with about 10 of these high tech multi rotors carrying Canon and Nikon SLR's. He wanted to go into business doing this for several different uses. He filmed properties for people, farms, ran fence lines for problems, roof inspections without getting out a ladder and you can send the photo back to the realtor. He sold it all since there was a problem doing it "commercially", but as a hobbyist it is fine. There are dozens of uses for these, and some that are getting into it are simply testing new equipment. If they go up and hover, maybe they are testing different signal levels, it's ability to maintain a stable altitude, etc. etc. The 2 boys out on the ocean lost would be a good use for a longer range one, it costs a lot less to operate one of these that a real aircraft, and they can get into more dangerous places without risking lives. As to populated area's, I don't think they have determined homes on a street the same as time square. Perhaps there is a population density that determines "a populated area". Even a park where I fly has people jogging strait through our landing pattern. Some of the not so smart ones like to stop and hang out at the end of our runway to watch the planes land. They don't realize that a gas plane in the face can be painful, but we rarely hit them.

 

[Paul30]

If he lies and the footage can prove it, he would be jailed for perjury, so " just saying I was in fear of my life" doesn't always work. The footage is not always on a sim card either, mine is recorded at my location via a video transmitter. This is mostly in case there were a malfunction and I need to find my flying camera mount. It also records data, like the exact gps location during the entire flight. So while it "might look" like it is in one location, the gps will not lie in court about the fact of exactly where it was. Mine even does a real time Google earth trail of the flight path and altitude during the entire flight. They really are remarkable devices that can be used for a lot of good things. Just because a few bad apples abuse a product, doesn't mean they are all bad or have bad operators.

 

[BE Mike]

Actually, I think that if one uses a drone in a responsible manner, no problems arise. With this drone supposedly being flown 10 feet from the ground and looking under things, I think that the charges might be dropped. There were witnesses (other than the drone operator) saying that thing was this low. The man who was arrested said that his daughters notified him of the thing. While shooting the thing down might not have been the best course of action, I can understand how worked up a person might get when he thinks his children might either be harassed, endangered or be the subject of a peeping tom. As more and more immature people start flying these things and invade personal space (I see trespassing ordinances regarding drones forthcoming) there will be more and more confrontations. I also think that there might be licensing of drone operators and FAA rules come down the pike. After all, there are rules prohibiting aircraft from flying too close to persons and/or property.

 

[Thor]

Actually I don't think one can get paid for operating one at this time.

They can be operated commercially, if you receive a Certificate of Authorization (COA) from the FAA. The issue becomes if you are operating it in locations TBD. They have no way to know if your operations will or will not affect the National Airspace System if you don't have specific locations, times of operation, and lost link procedures.

One of the big issues is operating these above 300' in Military Training Routes which crisscross the country. A hovering Small UAS/UAV is essentially invisible to pilots. And generally speaking their operators have no idea where they are. Until they come up with geofencing they are a hazard to flight let alone personal privacy. (I agree that many people focus on the platform when it is the sensor and its misuse manned or not that is the real problem)

Unfortunately, because of the 'cool' factor and lethargy of the rule makers we may be picking up the pieces of plane wreckage before anyone gets serious about a solution.

 

[eric001]

Three very important words for the homeowner:

Joe.

Biden.

Defense!!