No drone on this lawn - Virginia woman blasts trespassing drone out of the sky with her shotgun - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Arc Nova;50984879]Shotguns can shoot pretty far[/QUOTE] Not if she used bird shot

[QUOTE=Arc Nova;50984879]Shotguns can shoot pretty far[/QUOTE] Not with birdshot. If it was over her property and close enough that she could take it with birdshot, it was definitely trespassing. I know the gut reaction they're going for with this gun-totin' granny caricature is incredulity at the whole situation, but if someone electronically disabled a camera drone that was coming on their property to spy on their celebrity neighbor, I don't think this would be as controversial. The guys operating the drone were trying to intrude on someone's privacy and are in absolutely no position to complain that their trespassing toy got forcibly disabled.

[QUOTE=Michael haxz;50984890]Not if she used bird shot[/QUOTE] Looking at what she said, she most likely had it loaded with 00 or slugs due to home defense.

[QUOTE=Crimor;50982749]Actually unsure about this, do you actually own the airspace above you? and if so, how many metres above say, the roof, 10? 20?[/QUOTE] Under US property laws, you own the airspace above your property from the surface of the earth all the way to the edge of space, though obvious exceptions exist for things like government easements near airports for lower altitude flights. Otherwise, air travel in general has FAA minimum approved altitude limits that must be adhered to, as well. As long as the drone was operating above the minimum specified altitudes for that classification of aircraft, I doubt she has a case, though the fact that she was able to blast it out of the sky with a shotgun at all seems to indicate that it probably wasn't.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;50985177]Under US property laws, you own the airspace above your property from the surface of the earth all the way to the edge of space, though obvious exceptions exist for things like government easements near airports for lower altitude flights. Otherwise, air travel in general has FAA minimum approved altitude limits that must be adhered to, as well. As long as the drone was operating above the minimum specified altitudes for that classification of aircraft, I doubt she has a case, though the fact that she was able to blast it out of the sky with a shotgun at all seems to indicate that it probably wasn't.[/QUOTE] Pretty sure that you cannot shoot down an FAA registered aircraft though, as that would be a felony. Since drones over 2lbs(?) have to be registered now, I think that they get afforded that protection.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;50984860]Get sued by whom? Amazon? If the drone is low enough to be considered a nuisance, then amazon has no case. If it's high enough, then no one is going to bother shooting it down.[/QUOTE] Drones are already causing rumbles regarding airspace regulations for these exact reasons. We will see further regulations in the near future regarding the altitudes and conditions that drones are allowed to operate. [editline]1st September 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Revenge282;50985235]Pretty sure that you cannot shoot down an FAA registered aircraft though, as that would be a felony. Since drones over 2lbs(?) have to be registered now, I think that they get afforded that protection.[/QUOTE] Drones exist in a weird place right now, legislatively. It's cases like this that will continue establishing legal precedents regarding their operation. As far as I'm concerned, if the drone is operating at low altitudes directly above your property, without your consent, you may have a case to disable it. The question, in my mind, is what those altitude restrictions should be.

[QUOTE=Michael haxz;50984890]Not if she used bird shot[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=catbarf;50984900]Not with birdshot. If it was over her property and close enough that she could take it with birdshot, it was definitely trespassing. I know the gut reaction they're going for with this gun-totin' granny caricature is incredulity at the whole situation, but if someone electronically disabled a camera drone that was coming on their property to spy on their celebrity neighbor, I don't think this would be as controversial. The guys operating the drone were trying to intrude on someone's privacy and are in absolutely no position to complain that their trespassing toy got forcibly disabled.[/QUOTE] yeah but it doesn't say anywhere in the article that she was using birdshot though?? dunno why bring it up if it's an "if"

[QUOTE=Arc Nova;50985439]yeah but it doesn't say anywhere in the article that she was using birdshot though??[/QUOTE] It doesn't state what ammunition she used at all, but it's very likely birdshot [QUOTE=Michael haxz;50984890]Not [B][I][U]if[/U][/I][/B] she used bird shot[/QUOTE]

My post was to just say a shotgun can shoot further than most people think, I wasn't including all the ifs and buts and candy and nuts about it, Geez Louise, Papa Cheese.

Or maybe here's another idea, how about [B]asking people for their permission before flying your expensive hardware through their property at low altitude[/B]? Is it really that fucking hard? If they don't want you to, tough shit... revise your flight path and plan ahead accordingly. [QUOTE=ilikecorn;50984887]Unlike video games, in real life, shotguns can be extremely accurate. The shot pattern doesn't just magically spread out 4 meters past the end of the barrel. Depending on the choke installed on the gun, the group can actually be exceedingly tight, even at 50+ meters.[/QUOTE] 50 meters (or even 100 meters) still well within the territory a farm which more than likely spans across several acres of land. Even if she shot straight upwards at a distance of around 50 meters, the drone would only be around 164 feet in the air. Basically unless she shot at the drone from the edge of her property into public space, I'd say it's more than likely that the operators were flying it well within her private property into restricted airspace.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;50985177]Under US property laws, you own the airspace above your property from the surface of the earth all the way to the edge of space, though obvious exceptions exist for things like government easements near airports for lower altitude flights. Otherwise, air travel in general has FAA minimum approved altitude limits that must be adhered to, as well. As long as the drone was operating above the minimum specified altitudes for that classification of aircraft, I doubt she has a case, though the fact that she was able to blast it out of the sky with a shotgun at all seems to indicate that it probably wasn't.[/QUOTE] I think that's how it used to be, but that is no longer the case due to precedents set with hang gliders etc.

[QUOTE=phygon;50985530]I think that's how it used to be, but that is no longer the case due to precedents set with hang gliders etc.[/QUOTE] There's a whole slew of government regulations and restrictions regarding operations in airspace above private property. There are also easements, which specifically allow for travel throughout that airspace for aviation entities. But, generally speaking, you DO own the land above your property all the way up to the edge of space -- at least according the real estate licensing class I'm taking. There are also regulations surrounding surface rights, subsurface rights, and water rights (differentiating between littoral and riparian rights, and navigable and non-navigable rights). Examples include building codes, mining rights, oil rights, well rights, whether you are allowed to build docks or restrict trafficking through waterways, etc, etc. Some are federal, others vary from state to state, city to city, or even county to county. BUT, generally speaking, yeah: you do still technically own the airspace above your property. You can even sell, lease, or license the right to use it. [editline]1st September 2016[/editline] I mean, I'm not a lawyer: this is just what I was learning in my real estate licensing course not three hours ago. Could be a lot I just haven't learned yet, so if I'm incorrect then please let me know.

Most of you went straight forward to post how crazy she is or how wrong she is for shooting it down and have a hard on for drones. I have nothing against drones and think they're awesome BUT if you read the article you would have read that it was harassing her cattle and her so she shot it down. The stupid line she said about liking the kill, is just a dumb line stop acting on it.

If a guy puts a camera on a long pole and holds it over your garden would you be within your rights to smash said camera with a baseball bat? or heck lets go another mile and say if you flew an RC airplane over someone garden would they be in their right to ask you to stop and take steps if you refused? A drone is a controlled object and as far as I am concerned this means you are in charge of using it responsibly, use it irresponsibly and without regard for others, all consequences fall to you. Now sure, drones are great, they look like great fun and make for great video. But by the same token if you were to pull out a camera and start filming random people in the street they would get pissed and rightly so. If you were to go onto someone's lawn and take photo's they would be well within their rights to tell you to fuck off and call the police. Lets think of it ANOTHER way, what if you wanted to take a photo of your house, but the best angle to take said photo is from the doorstep of the house across the street. The owner of said house would be well within their rights to tell you to get the fuck off their property and use whatever self defence methods applicable for trespassers. The fact that this is a drone changes nothing, as far as I care, hovering a drone over someone's house is tantamount to you personally walking in there yourself, as the drone operator PERSONALLY made a choice to move their drone into that area.

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;50983396]I still can't believe you can get from dense rich-people suburban sprawl where I am to old ladies shooting technology out of the air with shotguns on their farms in less than an hour's drive.[/QUOTE] I used to live 10 mins south of Winchester and it's like another universe

[QUOTE=AlbertWesker;50985517]Or maybe here's another idea, how about [B]asking people for their permission before flying your expensive hardware through their property at low altitude[/B]? Is it really that fucking hard? If they don't want you to, tough shit... revise your flight path and plan ahead accordingly.[/QUOTE] If what others are saying has any merit, these two guys could've been going over her property to get shots of Duvall. However, instead of getting out the shotgun, she could've confronted them about it since [i]she could see them in plain sight.[/i]

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;50985238]Drones exist in a weird place right now, legislatively. It's cases like this that will continue establishing legal precedents regarding their operation. As far as I'm concerned, if the drone is operating at low altitudes directly above your property, without your consent, you may have a case to disable it. The question, in my mind, is what those altitude restrictions should be.[/QUOTE] Afaik, right now if a drone trespasses and the home-owner shoots it down, the homeowner can sue the drone owner for trespass and the drone owner can sue the home-owner for destruction of property, and if there is video evidence then both cases would win.

I mean, why bother solving things with words when it can be solved with bullets?

[QUOTE=RikohZX;50986405]If what others are saying has any merit, these two guys could've been going over her property to get shots of Duvall. However, instead of getting out the shotgun, she could've confronted them about it since [i]she could see them in plain sight.[/i][/QUOTE][QUOTE=paul simon;50989375]I mean, why bother solving things with words when it can be solved with bullets?[/QUOTE] How could she confront them if they were driving in a vehicle while flying the drone?

[QUOTE=paul simon;50989375]I mean, why bother solving things with words when it can be solved with bullets?[/QUOTE] Why bother solving things with words when you can just intrude on someone's property to spy on their neighbors? Don't act like she was the one that was being unreasonable to begin with.

Man, RC helicopters have been a thing for a long time, and it wasn't impossible to mount cameras on them. I remember when I was a kid some guy at the model airfield was doing tricks with his helicopter and had a screen right on his remote for viewing the camera on the helicopter. Why are people [I]just now[/I] being assholes and causing legislative problems with drones? :v:

[QUOTE=catbarf;50989416]Why bother solving things with words when you can just intrude on someone's property to spy on their neighbors? Don't act like she was the one that was being unreasonable to begin with.[/QUOTE] Of course she was the one being unreasonable. According to the article, she saw the people controlling the drone - She could've asked them to not fly here. But no we have to be the wild west pew pew, so she just shot it without even thinking about how stupid that is.

[QUOTE=paul simon;50989773]Of course she was the one being unreasonable. According to the article, she saw the people controlling the drone - She could've asked them to not fly here. But no we have to be the wild west pew pew, so she just shot it without even thinking about how stupid that is.[/QUOTE] Why ask? Why give them an opportunity to back off and then maliciously comply with any requests later? Their equipment was more likely than not trespassing. She didn't recklessly endanger anyone, and solved the issue without escalating the situation further or risking harm to herself or others. How much do you want to bet that they don't try to pull that shit on her property ever again? You are free to dislike her solution. She's free not to give a fuck about your opinion, and she clearly doesn't. She wanted the drone gone. It had no pretext for being there. She got rid of it in a manner that is more likely than not legally untouchable. You don't have to like the solution, but you can't deny it's ruthless effectiveness and simple efficiency.

[QUOTE=Zephyrs;50990176]Why ask? Why give them an opportunity to back off and then maliciously comply with any requests later? Their equipment was more likely than not trespassing. She didn't recklessly endanger anyone, and solved the issue without escalating the situation further or risking harm to herself or others. How much do you want to bet that they don't try to pull that shit on her property ever again? You are free to dislike her solution. She's free not to give a fuck about your opinion, and she clearly doesn't. She wanted the drone gone. It had no pretext for being there. She got rid of it in a manner that is more likely than not legally untouchable. You don't have to like the solution, but you can't deny it's ruthless effectiveness and simple efficiency.[/QUOTE] It's absurd, stupid and destructive. Where I live, you communicate with words.

[QUOTE=paul simon;50990239]It's absurd, stupid and destructive. Where I live, you communicate with words.[/QUOTE] Where I live, you don't fly spy aircraft over people's property without their permission to begin with. Well, some people might - those people lose their toys. I don't have an issue with blasting this drone out of the sky, though I do think her comments to the news make her sound rather dangerously unstable.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50990251]Where I live, you don't fly spy aircraft over people's property without their permission to begin with. Well, some people might - those people lose their toys. I don't have an issue with blasting this drone out of the sky, though I do think her comments to the news make her sound rather dangerously unstable.[/QUOTE] Thing is that as far as I know, nobody knows what the purpose of the flying was. It's the difference between spying and chucking your football into the wrong garden.

I know our countries have different definitions of the word football but I don't think in either case footballs are remotely controlled surveillance aircraft hovering for extended periods of time (long enough for an old lady to go get her shotgun and then shoot it down first try)

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50990347]I know our countries have different definitions of the word football but I don't think in either case footballs are remotely controlled surveillance aircraft hovering for extended periods of time (long enough for an old lady to go get her shotgun and then shoot it down first try)[/QUOTE] Of course not, but they can be used for a wild variety of purposes, and to assume someone is spying is sort of presumptuous. Like, come on, there's a lot of things you can do instead of instantly jumping to the "nuke it" solution.

[QUOTE=Dr. Evilcop;50989531]Man, RC helicopters have been a thing for a long time, and it wasn't impossible to mount cameras on them. I remember when I was a kid some guy at the model airfield was doing tricks with his helicopter and had a screen right on his remote for viewing the camera on the helicopter. Why are people [I]just now[/I] being assholes and causing legislative problems with drones? :v:[/QUOTE] The efficacy and availability of the kind of equipment needed has increased, while the cost has decreased. The tech is just more prevalent and more powerful now, and so it's gaining more attention.

[QUOTE=paul simon;50990366]Of course not, but they can be used for a wild variety of purposes, and to assume someone is spying is sort of presumptuous. Like, come on, there's a lot of things you can do instead of instantly jumping to the "nuke it" solution.[/QUOTE] It sounds like they were scoping Robert Duvall's house, so - you know. I don't know what else a camera drone could be doing hovering in one spot for a long time. It's not like it's difficult to hover a quadcopter. Yeah, drones have all kinds of hobby purposes and I'm sure are plenty fun to fly (I own a couple helicopters) but their intentions here seem pretty clear to me. It's not like they were just whizzing around having fun.