Kentucky man shoots down drone hovering over his backyard. I can understand his point of view and his actions. As I have stated before IMO drones should only be flown on/over your own property or with the permission of the owner. Otherwise you should be SOL.

Kentucky man shoots down drone hovering over his backyard | Ars Technica (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/07/kentucky-man-shoots-down-drone-hovering-over-his-backyard/)

Elevation is a key element, of course. If it had been flying at 200 feet, no issue. If it really is hovering, just over his deck (10 feet? 20 feet?), I think they need to enact some privacy laws. Maybe peeping tom laws would apply, but trespassing laws don't appear to.

Trespassing could apply depending on the local laws in that area. Regardless of that, if the drone was flying thru then the guy was wrong and even he said that in the article but according to the shooter he saw it hovering over his property. How high? who knows but a shotgun with 8 gauge buck...probably not too high, but again who's to define what's high enough to be classified as non-threatening. In this case I'm willing to make the assumption (and I HATE assuming anything for obvious reasons) but I'll go out on a limb and guess the thing was flying somewhere between 50 and 100 feet tops. Remember it was brought down by 8 gauge buckshot which are very small pellets.
The drone issue isn't going away anytime some and will bring up some very interesting discussions. AAMoF, there is at least fire department in the south suburbs of Chicago that is now using a drone while working building fires so the officer in charge can get an overall view of the structure and the fire in relation to the structure so the OIC knows exactly where to put the water on the red stuff without putting the fire personnel in more danger than they need to be and it can lead to them putting the fire faster therefore saving more property/people and resources.
The next couple of years are going to be very interesting.

Interesting story, and I can't help but feel the devil's in the detail.

What sort of height was it at? Just WHY was it's owner hovering it over somebody's yard? (The hovering - not overflying - doesn't seem to be disputed.)

Seems like he had time to get his shotgun and load with 8 gauge.

It will be interesting to see how the court resolves this. Drones push the legal envelope concerning current definitions of trespassing, invasion of privacy, peeping-tom, and so on.

No, they are really no different than any other camera when it comes to expectation of privacy or "peeping tom" laws. It's still illegal to photograph someone where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy, and, judging by this guy's arrest, it's illegal to shoot something taking a photo of you when you don't.

Exactly. But in this case there is something more than just a "reasonable expectation of privacy" (that's the exact term of the rights of publicity and U.S. copyrights in general as you correctly mentioned. There are little girls involved, and the "perception" of a criminal activity in progress, and in that case the destruction of the offending "tool" may be justified. Fathers do protect their kids, and that's also written in the law. The decision to arrest the father was in my opinion kinda rushed, to say the least.

Have been monitoring this story closely. The operator of the multirotor disputes the shooter's claims and shows his flight telemetry data to reporters.

UPDATE: Drone owner disputes shooter's story; produces video he - WDRB 41 Louisville News (http://www.wdrb.com/story/29670583/update-drone-owner-disputes-shooters-story-produces-video-he-claims-shows-flight-path)

Since the NTSB defined these as 'aircraft' in order to place commercial operations under FAA jursidiction, then they should be afforded the same protections given to full size aircraft IMO. I don't believe the FAA should be able to call them aircraft only when it suits them.

-gb-

Maybe a water hose would have been a wiser choice. Super soaker even.

Maybe a water hose would have been a wiser choice. Super soaker even.

Ha, though at 200 feet, it wouldn't have reached.

If the flyer is at all truthful, then I have a serious problem with the shooter. Of course, even if it had been hovering at 10 feet, he can't legally shoot it, but I think I'd like to have that sort of flying/filming be trespassing.

200 feet is definitely where I'd consider the flying to be "incidental" to the people and property below.

The shooter was arrested. It seems he broke a few laws of the local municipality like discharging a weapon within city limits and a couple of others.
Like I said, until the FAA makes some definitive rulings on drones this could be an ongoing problem.

I have my quad 50s locked and loaded just in case any of my neighbors decide to start flying drones in my hood! ;-)

At 278 feet, that's a hell of a shot with #8 buckshot.

ya know to be fair.... many drones do resemble clay skeet targets

Brought down by #8.....close range bird shot load. Girls sunbathing? I will hang the pilot circumstantially, got what he deserved. And keep in mind the general public knows nothing about what we know about drone cameras. That the "average" drone is wide angle only. I have talked to a lot of people that "assume" they are capable of long range telephoto zooming.

To me, this is one more case of an idiot with a drone is ruining things for all of you responsible enthusiasts. You don't hear much about all the good stuff on the news. But sunbathing girls and a dad with a shotgun makes a story.

And good for the Dad, it was a direct hit to bring it down with #8. I sincerely doubt 275 feet. I am no ballistics expert but I know enough to say I BELIEVE it HAD to be a lot closer than that. You don't even fire at a dove at 100 yards, can barely see one. It won't even bring one down if you hit it. That is what that load is made for.

Steve

Any word on if he retrieved the drone or not? I'd like to see the drone video, if there is any.

They always say first impressions shouldn't count, but the first picture I saw shows the guy sitting there smugly with two guns. In America, you seem to have a right to own lots of weapons, quite why everyone needs them, I'm not that clear on, but you have a right, so you take it. The law says you can have a gun, and defend yourself with it, again, defend yourself seems to include shooting things that might possibly hurt you, people, lions, drones, humming birds (the noise clearly would impact on your mental health). You can't understand why the world is laughing. We are arguing over the height of a drone? If it was low then blasting it out of the sky is fine, if it was high, then that's bad? Surely what is bad is letting an idiot like this have access to anything other than a stone to throw, and even then, he'd push it to a boulder. People do have guns in the UK. They are people who genuinely need them, so mainly farmers to protect their animals from others. Even then, we had a farmer go to prison because he shot a burglar who was robbing him! Having a weapon should require responsibility, and giving complete berks like this a gun is your real problem, not the guy annoying him with a drone. In the UK people object to drones overflying too. They write to the newspapers, they complain to the police or contact their member of parliament - they don't take the law into their own hands. Let people have guns and they will use them. Not all gun owners are irresponsible. Cars reveal road rage tendencies in many. You give these people guns for gods sake!

I BELIEVE it HAD to be a lot closer than that. You don't even fire at a dove at 100 yards, can barely see one. It won't even bring one down if you hit it. That is what that load is made for.

Maybe you should double-check those beliefs then. (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/08/new-drone-telemetry-suggests-shot-down-drone-was-higher-than-alleged/)

I didn't believe that homeowner from the start. I felt like he was probably just being hysterical from all the overblown posturing I've seen from people on this issue.

When you learn to fly here, the 500ft minimum is a tricky one. One instructor I had said that if you can tell a cow from a bull, then you are below 500ft, if your altimeter has failed.

Hey Gary,

That video changes everything. Good for the pilot that he has video evidence that he was not a pervert checking out girls sunbathing. My first exposure to this story was an interview of the shooter, not wearing camouflage or showing off his gun, saying, "it was hovering 80 feet over my house, while my wife and 19 year old daughter were sunbathing, so I shot it down". I am glad the pilot has the data to defend himself!

This is a video forum that I enjoy in a lighthearted but seriously informative fashion. I am not going to engage anybody in a debate on gun control here. This is not the place for that Paul.

Did some yahoo needlessly shoot down a drone that was or was not spying on him is fair game. But it is a gray, emotionally charged area of politics not usually broached on this forum. I will not debate gun rights here on DVINFO.net. This is not the proper forum for that discussion.

Kind Regards,

Steve

I am surprised that one can aim up and shoot an object 272 feet up with a #8. If all this is true, then he should be immediately picked up by the olympic shooting team for trap shooting.

PS: How correct is the altimeter reading of the Phantom 3?

30 years of shooting sporting clays and my accuracy range with #8 shot is about 40 yards. Past 100 yards and the falling shot could rarely penetrate paper. Of course we are only taking him at his word that he was using #8 shot.

Buck shot sizes go from 000 to #4. #4 buckshot is 0.24" diameter. There is no #8 buck shot.
#8 shot is small 0.09" diameter. It typically has an effective range of about 120 feet for breaking clay targets

Shot that size might carry up perhaps 200 yards. if fired at a ~45 degree angle, and would likely feel like rain when it lands on you. Vertical distance might be more like 100 yards before it starts to fall.

The drone flight recording may or may not be accurate - may or may not be edited - but its release is self serving. Did he edit out any close approaches? How old were the mentioned sun bathing girls? While most drone cameras we fly are wide angle, other lens configuration are not unheard of, they just cost money.

Some drones maybe relatively fragile easy to knock down if a spinning prop hits something hard and heavy enough.

Both parties sound like a collection of village idiots, the guy who shot the drone in a city where discharge of firearms is prohibited (should have called the police in this case) and the guy who apparently flew the drone over others' yards on a persistent basis. What we do not know is the history of the involved individuals.

A few idiot drone pilots are the overall communities own worst enemy - flying in the way of emergency operations and manned aircraft.

...A few idiot drone pilots are the overall communities own worst enemy ...

It's not just idiots:
Drone drops drugs in Ohio prison yard, spurring inmate fight | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/08/04/drone-drops-drugs-in-ohio-prison-yard-spurring-inmate-fight/?intcmp=hplnws)

I am surprised that one can aim up and shoot an object 272 feet up with a #8. If all this is true, then he should be immediately picked up by the olympic shooting team for trap shooting.

PS: How correct is the altimeter reading of the Phantom 3?

Well he did say it took him 3 shots. lol.

/Doesn't the altimeter reading base off of take of position, rather than true elevation? If they live in an area with hills, a reading of 270 feet could easily be closer to 200 feet, if he flew a little.

/For wide angle or not, if the shooter's quote of the flyer saying he'd owe him $1800 is true, than it seems unlikely it was anything other than a GoPro.

How old were the mentioned sun bathing girls?

Let's not give any credence to pervert hysteria. It's a convenient enough excuse that gullible people tend to buy wholeheartedly.

This is a video forum that I enjoy in a lighthearted but seriously informative fashion. I am not going to engage anybody in a debate on gun control here. This is not the place for that Paul.

Did some yahoo needlessly shoot down a drone that was or was not spying on him is fair game. But it is a gray, emotionally charged area of politics not usually broached on this forum. I will not debate gun rights here on DVINFO.net. This is not the proper forum for that discussion.

Kind Regards,

Steve

Agreed, Steve. I already removed one thread a short while back that went quickly into political gun talk. This isn't the place to engage in those types of discussions.

Unfortunately, "drones" are the current media buzzword if you'll pardon the pun. It seems almost any discussion of them turns into political debate. I always liked to believe that the contributors to DVINFO were able to have intelligent discussion on things related to video.

I find it a disturbing trend amongst people in general to immediately label others who have differing views or moral compass as 'idiots' and 'morons'. I just see the tension building up in the public at large as they take to social media to lash out from the keyboard. That's not how DVINFO is intended to operate.\

As I stated before, the Flying Cameras forum was created to provide a place to exchange knowledge about the different platforms available and how they might work/not work for the needs of various shooters, much like the other forums on DVINFO. We're supposed to be here helping others out with their video related issues.

-gb-

Is the altimeter GPS-based, if so that provides some information on accuracy. The ones I've used are not very precise for altitude, especially while moving.

I see the girl was said to be 19, it would be nice to be 19 again, or 29...

I hadn't realised it was a political hotspot - so sorry for that.

Seriously though, the law in the US, if I have understood it, does within certain limits give people permission to do this. However, the law has no precise way of dealing with aerial objects. Let's assume you have a paid commission to overfly a property for the purposes of recording the layout and appearance - I'm thinking property sales (what we'd call estate agents, and you, I think realtors??).

This is a perfectly reasonable use, but angles are important - filling the frame probably pushes the height limit as they're usually wide angle devices. The drone is then flying at the legal minimum altitude, but probably below it, because 500ft is still pretty high. The cameras face forward and down, so a drone will be over somebody else property to take the shot, not over the target? Looking upwards, many home owners would assume it is they who are the target - they cannot see the frame!

If your laws allow it, the drone would be a legitimate target. Here, we would have an impossible job to locate the person with the control and get them arrested, and many police forces would not prioritise it as an essential immediate problem. So here, we can moan and groan, but in the US there would be a legal alternative. This case is obviously a distorted one, but Pythagoras is the problem. The camera is on the hypotenuse with the altitude (maybe the real problem) on the opposite side. The real subject is the distance away on the adjacent side. From the ground, this is not visible.

If overflying is banned, it will be impossible to take the kinds of shots people want. The people on the ground are understandably ignorant.

Somebody will produce a gun 'rule' and taking potshots on something over your own property could be more common.

Agreed, Steve. I already removed one thread a short while back that went quickly into political gun talk. This isn't the place to engage in those types of discussions.

Greg,

I was the original poster of the discussion you deleted entirely. It started as a clean discussion, fact based, with an official document I posted... a discussion about the legality of drones in GA.

Would it not serve better the purpose of this forum to delete only the offending post instead of deleting the whole discussion?

Respectfully,

I'll take a second look at it, Ervin.I have been pretty busy as of late and didn't have time to look at how to keep the thread on topic.

I hadn't realised it was a political hotspot - so sorry for that.

Seriously though, the law in the US, if I have understood it, does within certain limits give people permission to do this. However, the law has no precise way of dealing with aerial objects. Let's assume you have a paid commission to overfly a property for the purposes of recording the layout and appearance - I'm thinking property sales (what we'd call estate agents, and you, I think realtors??).

This is a perfectly reasonable use, but angles are important - filling the frame probably pushes the height limit as they're usually wide angle devices. The drone is then flying at the legal minimum altitude, but probably below it, because 500ft is still pretty high. The cameras face forward and down, so a drone will be over somebody else property to take the shot, not over the target? Looking upwards, many home owners would assume it is they who are the target - they cannot see the frame!

If your laws allow it, the drone would be a legitimate target. Here, we would have an impossible job to locate the person with the control and get them arrested, and many police forces would not prioritise it as an essential immediate problem. So here, we can moan and groan, but in the US there would be a legal alternative. This case is obviously a distorted one, but Pythagoras is the problem. The camera is on the hypotenuse with the altitude (maybe the real problem) on the opposite side. The real subject is the distance away on the adjacent side. From the ground, this is not visible.

If overflying is banned, it will be impossible to take the kinds of shots people want. The people on the ground are understandably ignorant.

Somebody will produce a gun 'rule' and taking potshots on something over your own property could be more common.

No, it really is illegal to discharge a weapon within most municipalities unless there is an immediate threat to your life. An overflying camera doesn't really quality in that respect. The proper course of action, much like you mentioned, would have been for the homeowner to contact local law enforcement who can then advise whether any laws are being broken.

The political nature of these topics deals with many recent stories in our news about UAV's and there are many local states and municipalities rushing to pass laws and ordinances that ban aerial photography specifically from a UAV. It's a knee jerk reaction to satisfy the public, but in reality does nothing as there are already laws regarding improper photography, voyeurism, trespass, etc.

You are correct about the potential problems with residential area real estate photography as that is one of the prime applications for lower cost UAV systems.

My problem with your posts is only when you make commentary about the gun laws in the US vs. UK as that is always something that goes into a debate( one I've had on Skype many times with friends in your part of the planet) and as stated earlier, DVINFO isn't the place to debate that topic.

-gb-

Greg,

I was the original poster of the discussion you deleted entirely. It started as a clean discussion, fact based, with an official document I posted... a discussion about the legality of drones in GA.

Would it not serve better the purpose of this forum to delete only the offending post instead of deleting the whole discussion?

Respectfully,

I was the follow up poster who brought up the gun laws situation. My apologies for that, like Paul I didn't realise what a sensitive subject it was :-( I did wonder where the thread went though.

Roger

I was the follow up poster who brought up the gun laws situation. My apologies for that, like Paul I didn't realise what a sensitive subject it was :-( I did wonder where the thread went though.

Roger

Thanks Roger. Apologies to Paul as I had it my mind it was his posts in the other thread.

Anyway, as to the current event which brought this thread up, the court date is scheduled for September so we should all probably just wait for the outcome of that hearing.

-gb-

Greg Boston:

So someone makes a post you don’t like and then you delete it.

I was the follow up poster who brought up the gun laws situation. My apologies for that, like Paul I didn't realise what a sensitive subject it was :-( I did wonder where the thread went though.

There is another option we’ve seen you use which is to move it to Area 51. It would seem the thread could have been easily moved there instead of just deleting it.

Greg Boston:

So someone makes a post you don’t like and then you delete it.



There is another option we’ve seen you use which is to move it to Area 51. It would seem the thread could have been easily moved there instead of just deleting it.

Hi John,

As the poster who brought gun control into that thread, I have no objection to him removing that aspect of it. I feel very strongly about the subject which is why I posted, perhaps somewhat naively as a UK citizen, but fully understand why it could be seen as turning into a heated political debate, which may not be appropriate on this refreshingly amicable forum.

I also have no idea what else was posted following my post, as it had disappeared by the time I looked again, but Greg presumably felt it was heading in an unacceptable direction.

Roger

I posted after yours. I felt your post was OT and ignored it and responded to Ervin's point.

Speaking of OT, now maybe we turn this thread back on topic:

Selfie drones are on the way which will only make matters worse. According to one Hotel:

"Selfies are a very important part of life,” said Mike DeFrino, CEO of Kimpton Hotels and Restaurants who has seen demand from the people who want to take selfies explode -- the hotel chain now gives out selfie sticks at all of their hotels. “They get to share what they’re doing with their friends back home and we get to be a part of that.”
http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2015/07/02/meet-lily-ultimate-selfie-drone/

Shhhhhh! don't mention selfies with a drone Les or they will be appearing like a swarm of bees. Seriously though, I fear that many people's basic inability to use common sense and follow recommendations will lead to a total ban on drone flying in many areas.

Totally unrelated but referring to common sense, our local park has probably 50-60 dog walkers walking their dogs every day, but 2 or 3 regularly fail to pick up their dogs mess, which has led to a proposal to ban all dogs from the park despite repeated warnings. Why do a tiny percentage of people have to be so selfish and anti social to the detriment of everybody else in so many walks of life.

Roger

Imagine a selfie drone with an inconspicuous tag/transmitter you can put on a person or vehicle. Or facial recognition. A Paparazzi's dream.

I guess he should have used a fishing rod.

https://youtu.be/SrzU-MMBGIM

Greg Boston:

So someone makes a post you don’t like and then you delete it.



There is another option we’ve seen you use which is to move it to Area 51. It would seem the thread could have been easily moved there instead of just deleting it.

Hi John,

Area 51 is specifically for discussing 'rumors' of new gear, etc. No thread is ever deleted. It is simply moved into an area that only the moderators can view. It can be modified and restored to view if need be.

Hi John,

As the poster who brought gun control into that thread, I have no objection to him removing that aspect of it. I feel very strongly about the subject which is why I posted, perhaps somewhat naively as a UK citizen, but fully understand why it could be seen as turning into a heated political debate, which may not be appropriate on this refreshingly amicable forum.

I also have no idea what else was posted following my post, as it had disappeared by the time I looked again, but Greg presumably felt it was heading in an unacceptable direction.

Roger

Thank you very much Roger for your understanding. That topic is one of great debate both inside/outside the US and within the US itself. There are people who feel very strongly about both sides and I have seen far too many discussions on other parts of the internet that devolve into vitriol and we just don't want that to happen on any part of DVINFO. Chris has always striven to keep DVINFO as a "refreshingly amicable forum", as you stated.