# Man Shoots Drone, Gets Arrested



## Ozarks Tom (May 27, 2011)

Would you do the same under the circumstances described?

_LOUISVILLE, Ky. (WDRB) -- A Hillview man has been arrested after he shot down a drone flying over his property -- but he's not making any apologies for it._
_It happened Sunday night at a home on Earlywood Way, just south of the intersection between Smith Lane and Mud Lane in Bullitt County, according to an arrest report._
_Hillview Police say they were called to the home of 47-year-old William H. Merideth after someone complained about a firearm._
_When they arrived, police say Merideth told them he had shot down a drone that was flying over his house. The drone was hit in mid-air and crashed in a field near Merideth's home._
_Police say the owner of the drone claimed he was flying it to get pictures of a friend's house -- and that the cost of the drone was over $1,800._

http://www.wdrb.com/story/29650818/...or-shooting-down-drone-cites-right-to-privacy

I would, in a heartbeat. The guy had a 6' privacy fence, and I've got trees planted for the same reason. If you, or a device under your control comes over my property line to video _anything _without my permission there will be consequences.

In reading the comments section I was amazed at the number of people who thought the drone was just fine. Obviously city people who have no expectation of privacy to begin with.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Yea... People need to be realistic about drones. Flying a camera over peoples property is just stupid. It makes people uncomfortable, because anyone could actually have nefarious reasons for doing it. If you can't fly it in a public place where I can reasonably protect myself from public invasion of privacy if I so choose, you don't get to fly it. And I don't know about getting myself in trouble using a firearm in city limits, but I'd take the thing down somehow someway.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

Ozarks Tom said:


> Would you do the same under the circumstances described?
> 
> _LOUISVILLE, Ky. (WDRB) -- A Hillview man has been arrested after he shot down a drone flying over his property -- but he's not making any apologies for it._
> _It happened Sunday night at a home on Earlywood Way, just south of the intersection between Smith Lane and Mud Lane in Bullitt County, according to an arrest report._
> ...


I've done worse this month to a car at 3:30 am. Don't get drunk, open a gate and do doughnuts in the pasture trying to chase down calves. No one died but the car was peppered with high brass 7 1/2 bird shot. It was a welcome to the neighborhood to a new tenant in the trailer park across the road.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

My parents live in a very slecuded spot. A neighbor kid was caught stealing some of their belongings,my parents did not press charges or tell the parents of said kid. The other day(2 weeks ago) the kid comes down the drive on his bike looking for his lost drone. up.in.my.parents.trees.


----------



## Ozarks Tom (May 27, 2011)

TripleD said:


> I've done worse this month to a car at 3:30 am. Don't get drunk, open a gate and do doughnuts in the pasture trying to chase down calves. No one died but the car was peppered with high brass 7 1/2 bird shot. It was a welcome to the neighborhood to a new tenant in the trailer park across the road.


I wish I could "like" this more than once!


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

What as he arrested for shooting the drown or discharging a fire arm in the city?


----------



## Ozarks Tom (May 27, 2011)

Old Vet said:


> What as he arrested for shooting the drown or discharging a fire arm in the city?


_Merideth was arrested and charged with first degree criminal mischief and first degree wanton endangerment. He was booked into the Bullitt County Detention Center, and released on Monday.

_The criminal mischief charge most likely was the destruction of the drone, while the wanton endangerment charge would be for shooting in the city.

I do believe this is the kind of case jury nullification was meant for. At least if I was on the jury it would be.


----------



## Fishindude (May 19, 2015)

What's the limit on drones, and what size shot do you recommend?

I say, fair game if they are buzzing your property filming.


----------



## Ozarks Tom (May 27, 2011)

My 12 gauge stays loaded with 00 buckshot. Not near the pattern as birdshot, but it sure does a job on armadillos at 50 yards.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

Fishindude said:


> What's the limit on drones, and what size shot do you recommend?
> 
> I say, fair game if they are buzzing your property filming.


Any decent turkey or goose load should do the trick.....


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Old Vet said:


> What as he arrested for shooting the drown or discharging a fire arm in the city?


If that were the sole consideration, then everyone who defends their life with a gun who be equally guilty of this. The reasonable expectation of harm must be considered. If a reasonable person would find the intrusion of a drone to be a threat to property or person, then they have a right to self defense. 
This is a question that will need resolution under law and soon. 
I personally would feel as threatened with a drone hovering at my window as I would a person with a camera. So what rights do I have to security if it is decided that a drone makes it acceptable to do what would be illegal if done in person?


----------



## hippygirl (Apr 3, 2010)

I wondered when I'd finally hear of someone shooting one down...good for him!

It never ceases to amaze me just how PROFOUNDLY stupid some people are! If you don't want someone to shoot down your $1800 drone, keep it on your own property or GET PERMISSION to do a fly-over.

I think there will eventually have to be some sort "rules", so to speak, put into place for these drones. They're cool and all that, but there are some genuine privacy and safety issues in play here..."Hey! I don't have to physically recon your property...I can just buzz you with a drone, find what I want and its location, and then come back when you're not at home!".


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

TripleD said:


> I've done worse this month to a car at 3:30 am. Don't get drunk, open a gate and do doughnuts in the pasture trying to chase down calves. No one died but the car was peppered with high brass 7 1/2 bird shot. It was a welcome to the neighborhood to a new tenant in the trailer park across the road.


You're lucky you're not in jail on a felony charge.

I wouldn't be bragging about that in public, since what you did was more serious than their crime



> G.S. 14-34.1 makes it a Class E felony to discharge a barreled weapon or firearm into occupied property. The offense is elevated to a* Class D felony* if the property is an occupied dwelling or occupied conveyance in operation, and to a Class C felony if the defendant causes serious bodily injury.


http://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/di...erty-if-people-are-on-the-porch-its-occupied/


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

where I want to said:


> If that were the sole consideration, then everyone who defends their life with a gun who be equally guilty of this. The reasonable expectation of harm must be considered. If a reasonable person would find the intrusion of a drone to be a threat to property or person, then they have a right to self defense.
> This is a question that will need resolution under law and soon.
> 
> *I personally would feel as threatened with a drone hovering at my window as I would a person with a camera.*
> ...


You couldn't legally shoot the person nor the camera, and there's no way to tell what, if anything was being recorded by the drone.

It was a stupid overreaction to start shooting in town


----------



## Shrek (May 1, 2002)

A local had a drone owned by a new neighbor invading his airspace and as it was a low altitude one, he took it down with one of his own radio controlled aircraft while entertaining his grandson over his own property when the accidental mid air collision occurred. 

That was his story and he stuck to it. All I know for sure is we haven't seen any expensive toy drones in the area since.

One of the guys at the cafÃ© was kidding that the guy whose property it was picked that day to fly his Japanese Zero r/c model but another guy said unless he was heard yelling "Bonzai !" it was just an accidental collision. Plus I heard it was actually his twin fuselage P-38 Mustang model, so I think it really was an accident.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

I can see the Drone Wars now. Stealth drones, clouds of drones, drone entangling string, drone water cannons, drone interceptors, cluster drones, camo drones, etc etc etc.
one thing that gets me is that if you need a policeman to stop someone from destroying your property on your property, they will tell you they can't do a single thing - it's a civil matter. 
In fact, I'm pretty sure that unless the drone flyer was a relative if a politician, it was only shooting a gun that got him into trouble.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

I guess if one was flying over my place, I'd shoot it down too.
For one thing, nobody has any business being within miles of here. If someone stops, he's either a friend, relative or up to no good.


----------



## CajunSunshine (Apr 24, 2007)

Fishindude said:


> What's the limit on drones, and what size shot do you recommend?


:hysterical: Good one, Fishindude!



Thumbing thru my recipe books now, lol. Oh wait, here's one: Drone Gumbo. Serves one drone flyer. 


.


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

CajunSunshine said:


> :hysterical: Good one, Fishindude!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Little bit crunchy....needs marinating.


----------



## TnAndy (Sep 15, 2005)

What do ya'll recommend for helicopters doing air surveillance ? 

I've got black tip (AP) 30.06.....that enough ?


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You're lucky you're not in jail on a felony charge.
> 
> I wouldn't be bragging about that in public, since what you did was more serious than their crime
> 
> ...


Cow lives matter....


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

TnAndy said:


> What do ya'll recommend for helicopters doing air surveillance ?
> 
> I've got black tip (AP) 30.06.....that enough ?


Don't know what to recommend to make the kill but I'd fix that on an open fire outdoors....a little BBQ sauce.


----------



## Riverdale (Jan 20, 2008)

Skeet load.

I find it funny how people who think that BBQ smoke should stay in 'your property line' think drones "flying out of people lavatories, infringing on their personal freedoms"* are okay

*Thanks John Cleese and Eric Idle!


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Did the pot need a stir ?


Riverdale said:


> I find it funny how people who think that BBQ smoke should stay in 'your property line' think drones "flying out of people lavatories, infringing on their personal freedoms"* are okay
> 
> 
> 
> *Thanks John Cleese and Eric Idle!



The only post in this entire thread that could even be grossly stretched into that would be Barefootfarms post advocating some restraint.


----------



## jross (Sep 3, 2006)

Today there was report of a drone within 100 feet of a landing aircraft at Kennedy airport, N.Y. 1000 feet is the permissible distance between all aircraft and drones are restricted to 400 ft. I wonder if this incident is a test run for some of our peace loving Koranists? I see one here, no. 4 buck it is.


----------



## farmer9989 (Apr 22, 2008)

season is open year round


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

The charges are most likely from discharging a firearm inside city limits, and firing into the air. Destruction of the drone itself would be destruction of private property.


----------



## dizzy (Jun 25, 2013)

Wonder if a high pressured stream of water would bring one down.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Danaus29 said:


> The charges are most likely from discharging a firearm inside city limits, and firing into the air. Destruction of the drone itself would be destruction of private property.


Destruction of the drone is "criminal mischief"
Discharging the weapon is "wanton endangerment"

http://www.opb.org/news/article/npr-dispute-emerges-over-drone-shot-down-by-kentucky-man/

http://www.people.com/article/man-shoots-down-drone-arrested-kentucky-video



> Kentucky Man Faces Felony Charges After Shooting Down Drone


It also seems there is evidence the drone was flying higher than the shooter claimed:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...ests-shot-down-drone-was-higher-than-alleged/



> The pilot of the drone shot down Sunday evening over a Kentucky property has now come forward with video provided to Ars, seemingly showing that the drone wasnât nearly as close as the property owner made it out to be. However, the federal legal standard for how far into the air a personâs private property extends remains in dispute.
> 
> According to the telemetry provided by David Boggs, the drone pilot, his aircraft was only in flight for barely two minutes before it was shot down.
> 
> The data also shows that it was *well over 200 feet above the ground *before the fatal shots fired by William Merideth.


----------



## Snowfan (Nov 6, 2011)

At what altitude above your property is considered your air space. It seems to be worded strangely, but I think you know what I'm asking. If, for the sake of argument, it's 500 feet, how does either party "prove" at what altitude the drone was flying? Lots of questions to answer.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

My error. The descent of the drone or the discharge of the firearm could have brought about the wanton endangerment charge, 
http://www.lrc.ky.gov/Statutes/statute.aspx?id=19790
http://www.lrc.ky.gov/statutes/statute.aspx?id=19734

According to the original linked article the uncontrolled descent was the more likely cause of the wanton endangerment charge. 

It will be interesting to find how this all plays out. Was it over the wrong property? Could the sim card have been edited? Do people have the right to protect themselves from invasion by snooping drones?

ETA, technically the operator may have been in violation of FAA regulations which require the operator to keep the aircraft within sight.
Some of the FAA regulations are here:
https://www.faa.gov/uas/media/model_aircraft_spec_rule.pdf

The AMA rules in regard to trespass and private property:
http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/2012RevisedModelFliersandNeighborsDOC.pdf

Apparently you can't shoot down a trespassing drone, or even swat it out of the sky but instead have to sue the owner of said drone for trespassing or endangerment. Not right, IMO. If it's close enough to touch, it's a personal danger.


----------



## Riverdale (Jan 20, 2008)

AmericanStand said:


> Did the pot need a stir ?
> 
> 
> 
> The only post in this entire thread that could even be grossly stretched into that would be Barefootfarms post advocating some restraint.



Why thank you, it's not often I get a chance to quote Monty Python :gaptooth:


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

The end result...New drone laws.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Danaus29 said:


> Apparently you can't shoot down a trespassing drone, or even swat it out of the sky but instead have to sue the owner of said drone for trespassing or endangerment. Not right, IMO. If it's close enough to touch, it's a personal danger.


Which will mean that cases will rarely be successful. Mostly it will be unknown who sent the drone unless they have been downed and the owner shows up. Then I suppose it could be an effective counter suit for the drone owner's suit.

But I agree that the courts have the wrong end of stick on this. If an uncontrolled descent is a problem, then the drone flown in low enough to be snatched, which is illegal anyway, is the cause of the problem. That is the action leading to the danger. This is not a human as on board pilot issue. 

I would say legislature is the answer but I wonder if the Federal Government, who has already laid claim to regulating drones, will try to keep States from creating rules.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Snowfan said:


> *At what altitude above your property is considered your air space*. It seems to be worded strangely, but I think you know what I'm asking. If, for the sake of argument, it's 500 feet, how does either party "prove" at what altitude the drone was flying? Lots of questions to answer.


The FAA considers everything from the ground up as "their" airspace.

The one legal precedent I know of granted a settlement for a violation of 83 feet.

There is no law that allows one to shoot down any machine that is simply flying



> Not right, IMO. If it's close enough to touch, it's a personal danger.


This drone was never "close enough to touch", and it's not a "danger" until it actually attacks


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Every city that has ordinances regarding remote controlled airplanes should just put the same restrictions on drones right now. Most large cities actually have RC parks. Make them fly their drones there. This is stupid. We all knew this was going to be an issue with drones, given the cameras. I mean if they're flying at 50 feet or higher they're not going to see much with the wide angle lens. I don't know if I have a problem with people flying them at beaches, they all seem to be just getting huge panorama shots from higher up and everyone on the beach is wearing what they're comfortable wearing at a beach. But the next thing we'll be dealing with is people modifying the camera or drones with more advanced cameras. Confine them to certain parks and acceptable public areas and get it over with, I say.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

This drone wasn't close enough to touch. I never said it was. If the drone is not in sight of the operator it is a danger.


----------



## Nimrod (Jun 8, 2010)

The neighbors accounts that the drone was hovering over the pool and 16 year old female and the account that the drone hovered 10 feet above the ground so it could look under the canopy mean that the operator was spying on people or casing the places for a burglary. 

To me this justifies shooting it down. He shot it down with a shotgun which has a very limited range. So much for the operator's claim that it wasn't flying low.

What ever happened to SSS?


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

Ok, from what I've read in the article.

1. The drone was over the person's property and waved off
2. When the father was told about it by the daughter, he investigated and saw it flying at 10' looking under the neighbors patio awning.
3. He then had time to re enter the house and retrieve his shotgun.
4. The drone is now hovering over his property AGAIN!
5. He shot it down..

So the drone operators were not taking pictures of a friends property. They were either casing the neighborhood or being "peeping Toms".
They were "waved" off once from this man's property, but then returned and hovered..
These drone operators should be in jail for pedophilia or casing the neighborhood for criminal activity..
If the home owner had shot this drone like he was at a skeet range, (thus assuming it was flying past the property) then I would understand the charges.
But it appears by the story that the drone operators chose to hover over his property.
This guy should be acquitted of all charges and the drone operators need to be jailed and charged with defiant trespass (they were waved off once already and returned), being a peeping tom (don't know the name for the charge), casing a property for criminal activity (because I have as of yet seen or heard where this "friends" property is that they were supposedly taking pics of). 
You would think if this "friend" lived in the neighborhood, that he would have told his neighbors about this..

So charge the operators and let the property owner alone..


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Well now I've got a personal connection. 
Last night I was staying at the Riverside casino in Laughlin Nevada. I was sitting on the balcony enjoying the view. When I Noticed a drone over the parking lot rising a slowly and then swooping down to rise again slow. Took me a bit to figger out it was scooping out the motel rooms. 
It would find one interesting sometimes fly in and hold a while. 
Seems like it had to recharge about every ten minutes.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> 1. The drone was over the person's property and waved off
> 2. When the father was told about it by the daughter, he investigated and saw it flying at 10' looking under the neighbors patio awning.
> 3. He then had time to re enter the house and retrieve his shotgun.
> 4. The drone is now hovering over his property AGAIN!
> 5. He shot it down..


That's not even close to the version I heard, and the recorded telemetry shows it was over 200 ft high, and the entire flight was only about 2 minutes

How about a link to your story?

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...-emerges-over-drone-shot-down-by-kentucky-man



> "Sunday afternoon, the kids &#8212; my girls &#8212; were out on the back deck, and the neighbors were out in their yard," Meredith tells local TV news station WDRB. "And they come in and said, 'Dad, there's a drone out here, flying over everybody's yard.'"
> 
> Meredith grabbed his shotgun and went out to watch the drone, which he says was hovering over a neighbor's property.
> 
> "Within a minute or so, here it came," he said. "It was hovering overtop of my property, and I shot it out of the sky."


If, as you claim, it was "10 ft high, over his property", how is it that it didn't fall in his yard after he shot at it 3 times?



> The drone's owner, David Boggs, says the drone wasn't hovering low over anyone's property, showing flight tracking data to local media that indicates an altitude of more than 250 feet. And he says he wasn't trying to invade anyone's privacy.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's not even close to the version I heard, and the recorded telemetry shows it was over 200 ft high, and the entire flight was only about 2 minutes
> 
> How about a link to your story?
> 
> ...


Pretty high to knock down with a shotgun ???


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

TripleD said:


> Pretty high to knock down with a shotgun ???


Not really, since it's less than 70 yds, he fired three rounds, and he'd only need to chip a propeller or damage the control electronics to throw it all off balance

One or two pellets could do that


----------



## Michael W. Smith (Jun 2, 2002)

I think we will be seeing more and more problems like this.

Lots of people buying new "toys" and trying them out. The problem is that these are akin to ATV's. The owner buys one and doesn't have enough land to ride it on, so if offended when he's riding on someone else's land and is told to "Get off my property."

The ATV may not be causing any physical damage - or it could - but if it's not your property - stay off.

The thing with drones is - they can do video. Someone may just be flying a drone over your property just to "take in the scenery". But they could also be checking out your property to see what all goodies you have that they can come over and steal too.

Where does your "air space" over your property end? That's the real question - do you even own any air space OVER your property?

So, if it's legal to shoot down drones, will that also make it legal to shoot down an Ultra Light? That person on the Ultra Light may just be joy riding, or they might also be spying on you or checking out what goodies you have.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...ests-shot-down-drone-was-higher-than-alleged/

The simplest article on the case yet.

Of course, this issue is not the same for a passenger flyer as for a strickly mechanical one.

I wonder if the issue will come to a head when a drone strikes a large bird in flight, or frightens livestock, etc such as horses or sheep, such as the precedent case mentioned. You know some idiot will be trying it. I had one drive a remote controlled car into my horse's paddock once. Some people have zero rethink ability before acting.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

where I want to said:


> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...ests-shot-down-drone-was-higher-than-alleged/
> 
> The simplest article on the case yet.
> 
> ...


Come to a head?

The next fireball you see on a tarmac with a death list of over 200 people, caused by a jet striking a drone, will certainly make it happen.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I wonder if the issue will come to a head when a drone strikes a large bird in flight, or frightens livestock, etc such as horses or sheep, such as the precedent case mentioned. You know some idiot will be trying it. I had one drive a remote controlled car into my horse's paddock once. Some people have zero rethink ability before acting.


If one was *in the act *of chasing your livestock, that would be justification to shoot, as you would any other "predator", and since that is an illegal act


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Apparently it is against the law to shoot down a drone. Just as it is against the law to shoot over the heads of 2 AM poachers in your pasture. Just as it against the law to shoot a person exiting your home with a bag of property. Just as it is against the law to shoot the neighbors dog with a paint ball for crapping in your lawn.


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's not even close to the version I heard, and the recorded telemetry shows it was over 200 ft high, and the entire flight was only about 2 minutes
> 
> How about a link to your story?
> 
> ...



Same link as you from the first post.. Which I stated my thoughts were based on that article

Quote from the story but I've bolded a portion;

âWell, I came out and it was down by the neighborâs house, *about 10 feet off the ground, looking under their canopy that theyâve got in their back yard,"* Merideth said. "I went and got my shotgun and I said, âIâm not going to do anything unless itâs directly over my property.â"



So I am mistaken it was 10' over the neighbors property looking under the canopy.. 

So you do know what you can do with your self-righteousness.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Quote from the story but I've bolded a portion;
> 
> âWell, I came out and it was down by the neighborâs house, about 10 feet off the ground, looking under their canopy that theyâve got in their back yard," Merideth said. "I went and got my shotgun and I said, âIâm not going to do anything unless itâs directly over my property.â"
> 
> ...


That's a totally different version of the story he told another reporter, which leads me to believe he lied in an attempt to justify the shooting



> âSunday afternoon, the kids â my girls â were out on the back deck, and the neighbors were out in their yard,â Meredith tells local TV news station WDRB. âAnd they come in and said, âDad, thereâs a drone out here, flying over everybodyâs yard.ââ
> 
> Meredith grabbed his shotgun and went out to watch the drone, which he says was hovering over a neighborâs property.
> 
> âWithin a minute or so, here it came,â he said. âIt was hovering over top of my property, and I shot it out of the sky.â


The recorded data shows it wasn't that low and the entire flight was about 2 minutes


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> If one was *in the act *of chasing your livestock, that would be justification to shoot, as you would any other "predator", and since that is an illegal act


That's what I was doing in post 3. It was just a manned drone that took off after the lead started flying.:banana:


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

TripleD said:


> That's what I was doing in post 3. It was just a manned drone that took off after the lead started flying.:banana:


You fired at an occupied vehicle which is a felony no matter how many icons you include


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's a totally different version of the story he told another reporter, which leads me to believe he lied in an attempt to justify the shooting
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Umm the two things you quoted would seem to agree with each other and with the claims of a two minute flight reaching 200 feet.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You fired at an occupied vehicle which is a felony no matter how many icons you include



No. 


It's not. Where do you get this stuff ?


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's a totally different version of the story he told another reporter, which leads me to believe he lied in an attempt to justify the shooting
> 
> 
> 
> The recorded data shows it wasn't that low and the entire flight was about 2 minutes



It's the version that was in the original post and the one I based my statements on as stated in my post.

I also don't trust the "data" since the operators maintained possession of it after the fact. I know I can change computer "data" after the fact
I'm a CADD operator and change drawings all the time. I can change the data of the file just as easily..


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> No.* It's not. *
> 
> Where do you get this stuff ?


I posted a link to *the statute*.
Where do you get your stuff?




> Quote:
> G.S. 14-34.1 makes it a Class E felony to discharge a barreled weapon or firearm into occupied property. The offense is elevated to a Class D felony if the property is an occupied dwelling or occupied conveyance in operation, and to a Class C felony if the defendant causes serious bodily injury.


http://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/dis...-its-occupied/


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> Umm the two things you quoted would *seem to agree* with each other and with the claims of a two minute flight reaching 200 feet.


No, they do not agree

One version says he went back in to get the gun and the other says he got it before going outside

Neither says it was over his property more than once



> "I didn't shoot across the road, I didn't shoot across my neighbor's fences, I shot directly into the air," he added.


If he shot three times straight up and it didn't land on his property, it was much higher than 10 feet


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

I'm confused. Are we talking about a drone 10 feet in the air over a guy's property, a drone 200 feet over a guy's property or the felony for firing bird shot at an occupied car in a guy's field?


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

haypoint said:


> I'm confused. Are we talking about a drone 10 feet in the air over a guy's property, a drone 200 feet over a guy's property or the felony for firing bird shot at an occupied car in a guy's field?


Thread drift in post 3 . My fault Sorry.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

I think a lot of this discussion boils down to "How far would you go?" There is a movie, " Falling Down" where the main character, stuck in rush hour traffic in a junky car, simply walks away from it. I think most folks would identify with that emotion. 

Then he tries to use a pay phone but needs change. The Korean Party Store owner won't give change, but prices are sky high. Owner pulls a baseball bat on the guy and orders him out of the store. Tempers flair and the guy smashes some snacks and chips with the baseball bat, leaves a dollar and takes ten dimes. Most people are watching and thinking, "Heck yes. That'll teach him a lesson."

But as this journey progresses, the violence increases and we realize that the line was crossed beyond civil disobedience to anarchy. Not exactly the correct wording, but you get the picture. 

In this drone situation, the letter of the law was broken by shooting the drone at 10 feet above his head, but most of us side with the shooter. If the drone was passing by at 300 feet and he shot it out of the sky, fewer of us side with the shooter. Most of us have a line, in our heads, where we can no longer justify the shooting.

I think it would send a message to shoot the neighbor's dog with a paint ball every time he trespasses and lays a log on my lawn. Some thinks that's too violent. Others think I should dust the dog with a shotgun blast of rock salt.

Drones are a new invasion of privacy. For years my farm fields were a location used by airplane pilot trainers for "touch and go", near landings. It was an ideal location. Most of the county is forest and my mostly level 80 acres mowed hay field is a safe place to touch down or nearly touch down, roaring across the field at over 100 miles an hour, inches above my property. Law says 3000 feet minimum, over land. Plane either too low or too high to read the letters/numbers on the wing. Should I have shot at or near the plane? Perhaps not.

I've had poachers shoot deer in the night wit rifles and spotlights, shooting into my horse pasture. A warning shot over their heads would teach a lesson, but who'd stand with me if I accidently shot someone? 

Then we often forget "push comes to shove". After this drone incident, all parties understand what existing law covers and what it doesn't cover. So, you might get away with shooting a drone, once, but the owner can cause all sorts of harassment, within the law, that you can't do anything about. These situations often end badly.


----------



## KatieVT (Dec 22, 2014)

haypoint said:


> Then we often forget "push comes to shove". After this drone incident, all parties understand what existing law covers and what it doesn't cover. So, you might get away with shooting a drone, once, but the owner can cause all sorts of harassment, within the law, that you can't do anything about. These situations often end badly.


Case in point: a number of years ago, a teenager drove into a freshly planted cornfield one night and did donuts until he got the car stuck. He wandered up to a farmhouse to ask for help. Farmer got his big White articulated tractor and played "monster truck" with the car. Law sided with farmer.

Last year, that farmer's son had the same thing happen to his fields. Only he beat the guy up instead of crushing the vehicle. He got a court date! Assault is illegal; apparently, crushing trespassing vehicles isn't.*

*In VT - in this case. The more recent tractor crushing case in VT was illegal, but the guy got off for mental incompetence: http://www.wcax.com/story/19180748/man-on-tractor-crushes-vt-police-cruisers


----------



## logbuilder (Jan 31, 2006)

Legislators will be hesitant to create laws that severely limit the activities of drones since law enforcement is very interested in this technology as are businesses. I suspect the opposite will happen which will be laws limiting what the public can do to drones.

Currently they are limited to a max of 400 feet altitude. The camera technology can be very good and can take outstanding pictures or video at that altitude. The video is recorded to a SD card.

The technology also exists for that video to be real time transmitted to the ground. That has opened an interesting door called FPV flying. FPV means First Person View. The operator on the ground controls the drone by watching what the camera is recording. They have FPV goggles do you can just sit on your couch and fly around. You don't need to be line of sight at all. And some of the radio transmitters can go pretty far. One can get a fairly good full FPV setup (drone, cameras, transmitters, goggles) for about $700.

They are now racing these FPV drones. Quite interesting to watch. The technology is real and readily available.

Watch here:

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGlBLBwvFRo[/ame]


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I posted a link to *the statute*.
> 
> Where do you get your stuff?
> 
> ...



You can't just take one tiny portion of the law out of context.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> You can't just take one tiny portion of the law out of context.


I didn't
It's a felony to shoot into an occupied vehicle.

You can disagree all you like, but I'm going with the written statute over the random guy on the internet.

But feel free to point out *the specifics *if you insist shooting at an occupied vehicle is legal. I'll be happy to look at any real data you want to provide


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I didn't
> It's a felony to shoot into an occupied vehicle.
> 
> You can disagree all you like, but I'm going with the written statute over the random guy on the internet.
> ...


OK, we are talking about a shotgun blast into the side of an occupied car, on your property. We are not talking about a drone 10 feet off the ground or a drone 200 feet in the air. Not sure if everyone has been able to keep on the same page.

But Bearfooffarm's post #47 says it is legal to shoot a trespassers vehicle if worrying livestock, but in a few posts since then calls such action reckless endangerment and a felony. 

Since it seems we are having an open discussion on shooting joyriders in the night, shooting drones from the outer reaches of bird shot and shooting a drone so close you could have hit it with a golf club, can we agree to specify which thread you are discussing?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> But Bearfooffarm's *post #47 *says it is *legal to shoot a trespassers vehicle* if worrying livestock, but in a few posts since then calls such action reckless endangerment and a felony.


No, I never said that at all.

That post was in reference to *a drone*, and not a person or an occupied vehicle

The OP drone shooting was a felony charge, and then there was talk about shooting at a car in a field, which is another felony.

It shouldn't be that hard to follow, although it may require scrolling back to get the context


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

I thought Bearfootfarm said, â it is *legal to shoot a trespassers vehicle* if worrying livestockâ. But he actually said, âIf one was *in the act*of chasing your livestock, that would be justification to shoot,â Sorry I failed to see the difference.
So to restate your words again, for clarity, when you say âoneâ you donât mean a person or occupied vehicle but a drone.
If one, meaning drone, was in the act of chasing your livestock, you can drop it like a WKRP Turkey giveaway. If one, meaning a car load of drunk white trash teenagers was in the act of chasing your livestock, it is a felony to pepper their vehicle with a pattern of hail stone dimples. Keeping in mind that an established court case has shown its justifiable to flatten a trespasserâs vehicle with a 28,000 pound articulated tractor.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

haypoint said:


> I thought Bearfootfarm said, â it is *legal to shoot a trespassers vehicle* if worrying livestockâ. But he actually said, âIf one was *in the act*of chasing your livestock, that would be justification to shoot,â Sorry I failed to see the difference.
> So to restate your words again, for clarity, when you say âoneâ you donât mean a person or occupied vehicle but a drone.
> If one, meaning drone, was in the act of chasing your livestock, you can drop it like a WKRP Turkey giveaway. If one, meaning a car load of drunk white trash teenagers was in the act of chasing your livestock, it is a felony to pepper their vehicle with a pattern of hail stone dimples. Keeping in mind that an established court case has shown its justifiable to flatten a trespasserâs vehicle with a 28,000 pound articulated tractor.


I have no knowledge of any details in the "flattened vehicle" event, and that didn't happen in NC, which is where I was talking about.

Context is everything, along with the proper order of the posts:

It started in Post #3 by TripleD (from NC):


> I've done worse this month to *a car* at 3:30 am. Don't get drunk, open a gate and do doughnuts in the pasture trying to chase down calves. No one died but *the car* was peppered with high brass 7 1/2 bird shot. It was a welcome to the neighborhood to a new tenant in the trailer park across the road.


I responded in Post #13:


> I wouldn't be bragging about that in public, since what you did was more serious than their crime
> 
> Quote:
> G.S. 14-34.1 makes it a Class E felony to discharge a barreled weapon or firearm into occupied property. The offense is elevated to a Class D felony if the property is an occupied dwelling or *occupied conveyance* in operation, and to a Class C felony if the defendant causes serious bodily injury.
> http://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/dis...-its-occupied/


The next comment was Post #47, in reference to a *remote controlled *vehicle mentioned by "where i want to":



> I wonder if the issue will come to a head when* a drone* strikes a large bird in flight, or *frightens livestock*, etc such as horses or sheep, such as the precedent case mentioned. You know some idiot will be trying it. I had one drive a* remote controlled car *into my horse's paddock once. Some people have zero rethink ability before acting.


to which I replied:


> If one was in the act of chasing your livestock, that would be justification to shoot, as you would any other "predator", and since that is an illegal act


It's not legal in NC to shoot people nor an *occupied* vehicle for trespassing or harassing livestock, but I know of no laws that would stop you from shooting a remote controlled vehicle in the act of harassing livestock, since it's legal to shoot animals that commit the same acts


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

BeAr foot you keep saying that but. I havnt seen any proof. Please present some evidence that it's always a felony to shoot into a occupied vehical. 

Personally I'm pretty sure if someone where endangering my life , say for instance by trying to swing the car into me while I was standing with my livestock in MY field, I would be fully justified In defending myself against a 4000 pound weapon with a once of lead.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> BeAr foot you keep saying that but. I havnt seen any proof. Please present some evidence that it's *always a felony* to shoot into a occupied vehical.


If you haven't seen it, you're not trying very hard, since it's been posted more than once, and don't go changing the wording to something I never said.



> Personally I'm pretty sure if someone where* endangering my life* , say for instance by trying to swing the car into me while I was standing with my livestock in MY field, I would be fully justified In* defending myself *against a 4000 pound weapon with a once of lead.


You're manufacturing a totally different scenario, and changing the parameters to a life or death situation.

But you already knew I wasn't talking about *self* defense, so let's not pretend


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> If you haven't seen it, you're not trying very hard, since it's been posted more than once, and don't go changing the wording to something I never said.
> 
> 
> You're manufacturing a totally different scenario, and changing the parameters to a life or death situation.
> ...



If you had ever stood in a field. while a idiot. Spun circles around you you would realize it's ALWAYS life threatening. 

You also don't seem to get that the one tiny piece of the law you quote is modified and subject to other parts of the law.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> If you had ever stood in a field. while a idiot. *Spun circles around you* you would realize it's ALWAYS life threatening.
> 
> You also don't seem to get that the one tiny piece of the law you quote is modified and subject to other parts of the law.


You don't seem to get you're the only one talking about a self defense scenario.

No one was spinning circles around anyone. No one's life was in danger.

You're arguing over something I didn't say at all, as I have explained once already


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You don't seem to get you're the only one talking about a self defense scenario.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Did you read post #3?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> Did you read post #3?


I've read it several times
Have you read it and *understood* what it says?

Nowhere in that post does it say any *person* was in danger, or even in the pasture with the vehicle.



> I've done worse this month to a car at 3:30 am. Don't get drunk, open a gate and do doughnuts *in the pasture trying to chase down calves.*
> 
> No one died but the car was peppered with high brass 7 1/2 bird shot. It was a welcome to the neighborhood to a new tenant in the trailer park across the road.


You can not shoot into an* occupied *vehicle to protect animals nor property in NC. It is a felony to do so.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I've read it several times
> 
> Have you read it and *understood* what it says?
> 
> ...



NOW who is changing the parameters ?

Post 3 is quite clear there was a vehicle In the pasture causing damage obviously trying to do damage to living things. As a living thing the poster was in fear of his life. 
Wether he was in that pasture or separated from it by a board or thin strand of wire in immaterial to a 4000 pound car. 
It's obvious that he felt in jeopardy other wise why would he fire on that car ? It's not like he spends his days firing on random vehicles. 

Just common sense.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Post 3 is quite clear there was a vehicle In the pasture causing damage obviously trying to do damage to living things. *As a living thing the poster was in fear of his life*.


You're making up your own fantasy now.
It's pointless to continue


----------

