Teenager with unmanned drone shooting handgun

[Darrell KSR]

Gotta admit, this is pretty cool. Not sure how I feel about it, though.


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

[Doc]

scares the **** out of me.

[suncat05]

Remarkable, but then again too, we already have armed drones. Armed with missiles and machine guns, as well as cameras and other goodies too.

But it does make you think.........what happens when the wrong type of people can get their hands on either drone? Then what?

[KSRBEvans]

scares the **** out of me.

This is why we can't have nice things.

Stories like this, or one I heard over the weekend of helicopter assistance to an auto accident with serious injuries being delayed due to people flying drones into the air space, are why the FAA will eventually regulate (some might say overregulate) drones.

[dan_bgblue]

He was assisted in the build by his teacher or professor, if I read the news reports correctly. I wonder if they were just ding the build for fun or as a proof of concept.

[suncat05]

Just a different form of "rubber neckers" that will show up at an accident scene. Same people, different vehicle, that's all. Beyond stupid, and mostly oblivious that they are in the way and possibly impeding the first responders from being able to help the accident victims in the most expedient manner possible.
The perfect example of blind stupidity.

[CatinIL]

It was inevitable IMO. I would be willing to bet he isn't the first person to successfully do it.

[CitizenBBN]

Not sure it warrants the level of government response it seems to be generating, but it does violate just about every rule of proper gun handling in some way or another.

I agree with BEvans, this stuff will give the necessary fuel to the push to regulate drones like everything else in our world. The Feds regulate everything from how much water a dishwasher can use to the size and style of street signs in every town in America. This won't be left alone for long.

[kingcat]

If they start taking our armed drones away, I'm blaming Doc..

[Darrell KSR]

Here's the story Keith referenced in case you missed it earlier.

The guy who shot the drone hovering over his property could have been shooting this one out of the sky above his land. Who knows?

[Doc]

Here's the story Keith referenced in case you missed it earlier.

The guy who shot the drone hovering over his property could have been shooting this one out of the sky above his land. Who knows?

Of course you don't believe that either. The guy was ANNOYED that somebody was flying a drone over his property. He wasn't in fear for the safety of his life or his family's life. If he was then he was a woose. He was annoyed because this wasn't the first time it happened. I'd have been annoyed too. Likely as annoyed as when my neighbors dog comes in my yard and takes a dump, or chews a hole in my screen, or knocks over my garbage. I'd like to shoot the dog but I don't. Legally, I not sure that he has the right to destroy property because they were annoying. As a lawyer, let me aske a question. If somebody parks in my driveway, can I destroy their car since they are trespassing on my property? I would think not. How does this differ?

[Darrell KSR]

Actually, I can use the car example to illustrate the points of law involved. You can destroy their car if it is headed toward you, Doc. That presents a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm. A parked car "probably" does not, unless you have someone armed inside of it. In that case, then you could again destroy the car.

But don't get confused. This isn't a difficult case. I've never said he had the right to destroy the drone. I said that his cause of action for trespass and invasion of privacy is much better than the drones case for destruction of property.

His only exposure is whether he has any criminal endangerment type issues, which is what I said earlier. The drone owner can pound sand, he trespassed in all 50 states and a decent argument can be made for invasion of privacy. Both tort claims are better than the property one.

My preference would be for the drone owner not to get any setoff at all, hence my wish that the landowner had some reasonable fear of harm. But I'm not turn up about it either way. It's little exposure for property damage.


Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

[Darrell KSR]

Hate editing on my phone. Mess it up 100 times out of 100, too.

[Doc]

Actually, I can use the car example to illustrate the points of law involved. You can destroy their car if it is headed toward you, Doc. That presents a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm. A parked car "probably" does not, unless you have someone armed inside of it. In that case, then you could again destroy the car.

But don't get confused. This isn't a difficult case. I've never said he had the right to destroy the drone. I said that his cause of action for trespass and invasion of privacy is much better than the drones case for destruction of property.

His only exposure is whether he has any criminal endangerment type issues, which is what I said earlier. The drone owner can pound sand, he trespassed in all 50 states and a decent argument can be made for invasion of privacy. Both tort claims are better than the property one.

My preference would be for the drone owner not to get any setoff at all, hence my wish that the landowner had some reasonable fear of harm. But I'm not turn up about it either way. It's little exposure for property damage.


Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

I agree 100%. I do not believe the man had the right to destroy the drone. Never did because I never felt he or his family was in danger which is why I parked the car. If his defense was I thought it as an armed drone and he was in danger, I'd guess he was a liar. He was annoyed and I don't believe being annoyed gives one the right to destroy property

Of course that doesn't absolve the drone owner of his part in this as it appears he has repeatedly done this. Had he not trespasses in the first place then this wouldn't have occured. I doubt this was the accidental "threw the ball over the fence" thing so I'm like you and seeing no sympathy or relief for drone owner

[KSRBEvans]

The drone-shooting case is one that I don't think will ever go to trial--at the state level, at least. I don't think you'll ever get a Bullitt County jury to unanimously vote to convict this guy, and I think the prosecutor (County Attorney or Commonwealth Attorney) probably knows it, too. Maybe the feds would prosecute on some vague firearms or airspace violation, but it's probably low priority for them, so I doubt they'd take it.

[Doc]

The drone-shooting case is one that I don't think will ever go to trial--at the state level, at least. I don't think you'll ever get a Bullitt County jury to unanimously vote to convict this guy, and I think the prosecutor (County Attorney or Commonwealth Attorney) probably knows it, too. Maybe the feds would prosecute on some vague firearms or airspace violation, but it's probably low priority for them, so I doubt they'd take it.

No, it won't ever go to trial, nor should it. Were this some kids flying a kite and it inadvertently flew over somebody's property and the guy shot it out of the sky then I could see going after the guy but that didn't happen. Of course presenting him as some fearful guy worried that this was a uzi packing drone, or that he was concerned that somebody was filming is daughter so they had images for their "spank bank" (this argument was presented on Fox and Friends) is as ridiculous. Now could the feds go after him? Only to make a point, which with this "anti-gun" administration, that isn't a stretch at all. Personally I think I'm glad the guy shot it down even though it was likely illegal to do so.

[jazyd]

should be illegal