Man shoots down a drone flying over his backyard

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

So in a residential neighbourhood it is ok for drones to fly over personal property ???

SMH.

I am not a gun nut, but in this case he had every right IMO

I get pissed off when I see Google cars with cameras pass by.

Exacerbating a situation is irresponsible. Gunshots should not be the norm in a residential area. If you live there, surely there's a duty to respect the peace of the people who live near you. The whole situation there is demented.

[Teddy B 17,251]

Mine are blue.

[TBoneTX 43,058]

Mine are blue.

Past time to caucus with some sheep, dude?

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/08/new-drone-telemetry-suggests-shot-down-drone-was-higher-than-alleged/

[Teddy B 17,251]

The drone shooter. Notice the can of Bud Light on the bench, a must have when hunting! Murica!!

"If you cross that sidewalk onto my property, there’s going to be another shooting."

The 43-year-old man claimed that law enforcement officials, including the county jailer, told him privately that they agreed with his actions. "The people that own the drones and the people that hate guns are the only ones that disagree with what I did," he said. "Now, if I’d have had a .22 rifle, I should have gone to jail for that. The diameter of those things are going to come down with enough force to hurt somebody. Number 8 birdshot is not. Number 8 is the size of a pinhead. The bottom line is that it's a right to privacy issue and defending my property issue. It would have been no different had he been standing in my backyard. As Americans, we have a right to defend our rights and property."

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/07/kentucky-man-shoots-down-drone-hovering-over-his-backyard/

So if that #8 birdshot came down and hit someone in the eye or in the face it wouldn't hurt anybody? And what about a ricochet or just plain missing the target and hitting a person by mistake? There are many scenarios where a person could be seriously hurt by what this guy did. What a clown!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

He's just an arrogant idiot with no consideration. Imagine if you live near him and are sitting at home with your kids and hear a gun go off out back - it'd scare the hell out of you.

Even hearing the explanation it wouldn't strike me as a reasonable response to the situation.

"You fired a gun in our street, have you last your mind!?"

Edited August 7, 2015 by Venkman

[Robby999 1,024]

I wonder how difficult it would be to take out a pervs drone with a butter-knife and cricket bat?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I wonder how difficult it would be to take out a pervs drone with a butter-knife and cricket bat?

I don't wonder much about it at all. I think, in these situations, it's perhaps easier to... I don't know... engage brain first. Is anyone in physical danger? If the answer is no, then maybe the solution should not be violent action that disturbs the peace of the neighbourhood. Instead, how about starting up a neighbourhood watch programme or making a quick call to the police.

Edited August 7, 2015 by Venkman

[Teddy B 17,251]

I don't wonder much about it at all. I think, in these situations, it's perhaps easier to... I don't know... engage brain first. Is anyone in physical danger? If the answer is no, then maybe the solution should not be violent action that disturbs the peace of the neighbourhood. Instead, how about starting up a neighbourhood watch programme or making a quick call to the police.

But, but, but, guns!!!!

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

I wonder how difficult it would be to take out a pervs drone with a butter-knife and cricket bat?

Pretty hard, when the drone is over 200 feet in the air. Unless one is a professional butter knife thrower, that is.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Pretty hard, when the drone is over 200 feet in the air. Unless one is a professional butter knife thrower, that is.

At that height he better have an 18-300 lense on that thing or he won't be able to get decent footage of the kids.

[Robby999 1,024]

Money is not a problem for most people whom own drones and that includes pervs! Once drone use becomes popular with domestic government agencies and law enforcement the ACLU will have a field-day filing lawsuits against any agency that attempts to use evidence obtained by drones!

LOS ANGELES - The battle between celebrities and the paparazzi could be going airborne in a new way.

Show business photographers, known for doing anything to get the shot, are now eyeing an eye in the sky.

The paparazzi have a reputation of doing whatever it takes to get the shot on the ground - and now, in the air.

Some paparazzi are using drones to take pictures of celebrities on their private property.

CBS News

What's the concern about paparazzi using drones?

"Well you have a situation where they're able to go anywhere," said Sean Burke.

Burke is director of the Paparazzi Reform Initiative and a former celebrity bodyguard. Last year, with the help of testimony from actresses Halle Berry and Jennifer Garner, he helped get a law on the books in California protecting children of celebrities from harassment by photographers.

Now, he says, the stakes are even higher.

"You have someone with a drone start photographing someone in their backyard, that's a privacy concern, and I think it's a privacy concern for all of us," Burke said.

Actress Jennifer Garner testified about the harassment by photographers of celebrities' children.

CBS News

California law already protects areas on the ground where people have a reasonable expectation of privacy - like a backyard. Newly proposed legislation would expand that protection to the skies.

Recently, Miley Cyrus posted a video of a drone with a camera that she said was hovering about her home.

"It's kind of the like the wild West out there," said Eric Maloney.

Maloney is head of production at Drone Dudes, an aerial cinematography company in Los Angeles. He supports regulations on where drones can fly.

"You shouldn't be allowed to spy on people, to go onto their property, to invade their personal space, simply because you have this new technology," he said.

Burke says he seen situations where paparazzi are packed should to shoulder on the ground. Can he see that happening in the sky with drones?

"Yeah, absolutely," he said. "You're walking down Rodeo Drive here in Beverly Hills, and there's a pack of paparazzi. Why wouldn't there be 30 drones flying over them?"

The Federal Aviation Administration predicts at least 30,000 drones will share the skies in the next five years.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/paparazzi-take-to-the-skies-to-pursue-stars-with-drones/

Pretty hard, when the drone is over 200 feet in the air. Unless one is a professional butter knife thrower, that is.

My point exactly! Luckily we still have the option and ability to protect our privacy and property, unlike many other countries!

[elmcitymaven 9,711]

My point exactly! Luckily we still have the option and ability to protect our privacy and property, unlike many other countries!

Yes, we do, but not with guns. Invasion of privacy is a tort, not a crime. The remedy is damages and injunctive relief. Further, although Kentucky law does permit the use of deadly force in some very limited circumstances to protect property, criminal trespass ain't one of them.

http://www.lrc.ky.gov/krs/503-00/080.PDF

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

My point exactly! Luckily we still have the option and ability to protect our privacy and property, unlike many other countries!

Nonsense. You don't have any right to disturb the peace of the neighbourhood. The guy who did this isn't a hero, he's an arrogant bonehead

[TBoneTX 43,058]

Invasion of privacy is a tort

One of my most favorite words of all time is "tortfeasor."