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

[QUOTE=paul simon;50995169]Jeez it's not about their actions being "valid". The very extremely simple point is that you can solve things without trying so hard to keep up the wild west image. You talk to someone instead of shooting their stuff. Maybe it's a misunderstanding, and both parties resolve the situation without any grievance.[/QUOTE] There's nothing wild west about it. Don't stick your shit in other people's business, and these sorts of things don't happen to you. Americans are on the whole pretty friendly people, but when you step over certain thresholds, things go from 0 to 100 quite fast. Many foreigners struggle to understand that because the lines in the sand are in different places than what they are used to, and we have far fewer objections to the utilization of substantial force, due in large part to the heavy focus on individual empowerment. Again, nothing stops you talking to people about stuff if you want to do so, but why should anyone be required to do so?

[QUOTE=Zephyrs;50997564]There's nothing wild west about it. Don't stick your shit in other people's business, and these sorts of things don't happen to you. Americans are on the whole pretty friendly people, but when you step over certain thresholds, things go from 0 to 100 quite fast. Many foreigners struggle to understand that because the lines in the sand are in different places than what they are used to, and we have far fewer objections to the utilization of substantial force, due in large part to the heavy focus on individual empowerment. Again, nothing stops you talking to people about stuff if you want to do so, but why should anyone be required to do so?[/QUOTE] It's sort of like this: [img]https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/arbitrage.png[/img] Just because you CAN be a douchebag doesn't mean you should. You should always try to solve issues in the least destructive way, especially when it's unclear what the intentions are. They were obviously in the wrong by flying over someones property, but jeez just go tell them like a normal person instead of causing an unnecessary conflict.

fukkin anime faggot avatars saying a good ol granma is insane for shooting a drone i hope she shoots you between the fucking eyebrows ;) [highlight](User was permabanned for this post ("Shit Posting/Alt" - UncleJimmema))[/highlight]

[QUOTE=Kruma;50999404]fukkin anime faggot avatars saying a good ol granma is insane for shooting a drone i hope she shoots you between the fucking eyebrows ;)[/QUOTE] Oh yeah, that's a really sane line of thinking.

[QUOTE=Exploders;50999534]Oh yeah, that's a really sane line of thinking.[/QUOTE] Well he's obviously not trolling or anything :downs:

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50991047]If you were walking around my property taking pictures of my stuff (or my celebrity neighbor's stuff) with an expensive DSLR I can guarantee you your camera wouldn't survive if I caught you - that or it'd become my camera. There's functionally no difference between smashing some nosy prick's camera and some nosy prick's drone. Mind your own fucking business. There's a surprising amount of people that are okay with trespassing and spying.[/QUOTE] holy fucking shit you are really aggressive and in love with vigilante culture seriously, from what i've been gathering from your posts you're fucking loco dude

[QUOTE=Araknid;50982801]I wouldn't really want a drone flying around above my house either. But this woman is fucking insane [editline]1st September 2016[/editline] [t]https://localtvwtvr.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/shotgun.jpeg?quality=85&strip=all&w=770&strip=all[/t] lol[/QUOTE]Now I remember where I've seen that woman: [video=youtube;SpuW-aREDgA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpuW-aREDgA[/video]

[QUOTE=paul simon;50999161]Just because you CAN be a douchebag doesn't mean you should. [B] You should always try to solve issues in the least destructive way[/B], especially when it's unclear what the intentions are. They were obviously in the wrong by flying over someones property, but jeez just go tell them like a normal person instead of causing an unnecessary conflict.[/QUOTE] Why? You keep saying this, but you haven't given any reason for it. You want the world to operate like this, but the harsh reality is that it simply doesn't. Sometimes the violent solution is by far and away the most effective. Again, how much are you willing to bet on whether they ever try something like that on her property again? Again, why should someone, particularly an elderly woman of all people, be required to put themselves in a situation where they might be at risk when a simple, fast, and safe alternative exists?

[QUOTE=Saturn V;50999620]holy fucking shit you are really aggressive and in love with vigilante culture seriously, from what i've been gathering from your posts you're fucking loco dude[/QUOTE] Self defense isn't vigilantism I'm not going to roll over because someone who's obviously much more important than me wants to walk around on my property and photograph my land and my home. You want to ask first and explain what you're doing? Fine. Trespassing is illegal. Don't trespass, you don't lose your toys.

Not sure how I feel about how things should have gone, but yall are acting like its a no brainier for her to be allowed to shoot property (probably) trespassing on her own. If I drove an ATV onto her property does that mean shes totally in the right to shoot it up? If a car gets lost and ends up down her drive way can she and should she go mad max on it? What about property lines? If someone is flying their drone on their own property but a gust of wind takes it into this lady's property is it totally cool that she lights it up?

[QUOTE=Dolton;50999841]Not sure how I feel about how things should have gone, but yall are acting like its a no brainier for her to be allowed to shoot property (probably) trespassing on her own. If I drove an ATV onto her property does that mean shes totally in the right to shoot it up? If a car gets lost and ends up down her drive way can she and should she go mad max on it?[/QUOTE] No, because ATVs and cars aren't flying cameras actively spying on private citizens in their own homes. They are also, more often than not in your given scenario, full of people who would be endangered by shooting at them. Shooting down a drone trying to take unauthorized pictures of somebody's house is a no-brainer. [QUOTE=Dolton;50999841]What about property lines? If someone is flying their drone on their own property but a gust of wind takes it into this lady's property is it totally cool that she lights it up?[/QUOTE] What if the drone was actually an HK-Aerial drone outfitted with a terrifying array of weapons from lasers to missiles?

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50999846]No, because ATVs and cars aren't flying cameras actively spying on private citizens in their own homes. They are also, more often than not in your given scenario, full of people who would be endangered by shooting at them. Shooting down a drone trying to take unauthorized pictures of somebody's house is a no-brainer.[/QUOTE] And shooting a shotgun in the direction of a drone which has someone controlling it isn't at last somewhat negligent? And okay, so If someone rides an ATV with mounted cameras through her yard then steps away she should be allowed to riddle it with holes?

[QUOTE=Dolton;50999853]And shooting a shotgun in the direction of a drone which has someone controlling it isn't at last somewhat negligent? And okay, so If someone rides an ATV with mounted cameras through her yard then steps away she should be allowed to riddle it with holes?[/QUOTE] It isn't negligent. Shotguns are nonlethal - like, completely not even capable of hurting someone at all - after a very short distance in firearms terms, particularly when fired into the air. When the pellets are coming back down they're moving at their terminal velocity which, for very small pellets of lead, is very low. Imagine throwing a copper BB for a pellet gun as hard as you can. The odds are good your target wouldn't even feel it. The lead pellets are moving slower than that on their way back to Earth. And okay if you're driving around my property taking pictures of my house or my neighbor's house with an ATV outfitted with a bunch of cameras you'll be very lucky if I don't take a baseball bat to it for your trouble. The ATV isn't flying and isn't capable of independent movement without an operator so shooting it is unnecessary, but not unwarranted if you're an old lady without the strength to swing a bat. How do you not see the difference between unmanned surveillance equipment and benign vehicles? Keep your airborne spy cameras off of other people's property, dude. The fact that this is so difficult for such a large percentage of people to understand really makes me worry.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50999867]Keep your airborne spy cameras off of other people's property, dude. The fact that this is so difficult for such a large percentage of people to understand really makes me worry.[/QUOTE] What percentage? Nobody's here is saying it's ok to fly a drone in someone elses garden. [editline]4th September 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Zephyrs;50999752]Why? You keep saying this, [B]but you haven't given any reason for it.[/B] You want the world to operate like this, but the harsh reality is that it simply doesn't. Sometimes the violent solution is by far and away the most effective. Again, how much are you willing to bet on whether they ever try something like that on her property again? Again, why should someone, particularly an elderly woman of all people, be required to put themselves in a situation where they might be at risk when a simple, fast, and safe alternative exists?[/QUOTE] Yes I've given a reason for it. It's an extremely simple reason, you cause less damage, trouble and conflict.

[QUOTE=Dolton;50999853]And shooting a shotgun in the direction of a drone which has someone controlling it isn't at last somewhat negligent? And okay, so If someone rides an ATV with mounted cameras through her yard then steps away she should be allowed to riddle it with holes?[/QUOTE] Unless you're shooting slugs, after a certain distance the shot's pellets could maybe bruise you at best. It's also not about the cameras. Drones do often come with cameras, so they're easy to use as surveillance. Drones are completely unmanned so they're also completely harmless to shoot down. You can't post analogs to drones to make the woman sound more crazy. Drones are their own special niche. If you asked for some chips and salsa and I put out Skittles, would that make sense? No? Then don't liken a camera-ridden ATV to a drone.

[QUOTE=paul simon;50999953]Yes I've given a reason for it. It's an extremely simple reason, you cause less damage, trouble and conflict.[/QUOTE] The damage is not her problem to deal with, so it's completely irrelevant. It's solely a problem for the people operating the drone to figure out and deal with. There is no conflict. That is unless the operators are stupid enough to start something with someone who has a shotgun. Going out and "just talking" to them allows for far more confrontation, may have exposed her to harm if they were aggressive and/or violent in nature, and isn't even guaranteed to solve the problem in the first place if they aren't. You keep assuming that everyone in this scenario is a decent human being, and that they are rational. Paparazzi are, practically speaking, awful people by definition. By shooting it she has solved the problem in an absolute and irrevocable fashion, and made it abundantly clear that she has no intentions of tolerating that behavior, and that there is no room for negotiation, or passive aggressive "we'll agree to not do it and then do it anyways" scenarios. All that for the cost of a few shells. I've repeatedly challenged you to argue against the effectiveness of the solution and you have failed to do so because you fundamentally cannot. Your only argument is that you do not like the behavior. The answer to that is deal with it. She got the job done, got it done quickly, got it done cheaply, and didn't hurt anyone in the process.

[QUOTE=Zephyrs;51000302]The damage is not her problem to deal with, so it's completely irrelevant. It's solely a problem for the people operating the drone to figure out and deal with. There is no conflict. That is unless the operators are stupid enough to start something with someone who has a shotgun. Going out and "just talking" to them allows for far more confrontation, may have exposed her to harm if they were aggressive and/or violent in nature, and isn't even guaranteed to solve the problem in the first place if they aren't. You keep assuming that everyone in this scenario is a decent human being, and that they are rational. Paparazzi are, practically speaking, awful people by definition. By shooting it she has solved the problem in an absolute and irrevocable fashion, and made it abundantly clear that she has no intentions of tolerating that behavior, and that there is no room for negotiation, or passive aggressive "we'll agree to not do it and then do it anyways" scenarios. All that for the cost of a few shells. I've repeatedly challenged you to argue against the effectiveness of the solution and you have failed to do so because you fundamentally cannot. Your only argument is that you do not like the behavior. The answer to that is deal with it. She got the job done, got it done quickly, got it done cheaply, and didn't hurt anyone in the process.[/QUOTE] You're trying to argue something that I'm not trying to argue. What's the point of arguing effectiveness? Don't you think she's got the time to walk a couple of meters? If someone asks you to hand them something, do you chuck it in their face because it's quicker? It frankly scares me how you: a) Somehow think violence is the answer to such a trivial issue b) Assume the identity and intent of the drone operators, even though they've not had a say in the matter c) Assume the drone operators are dangerous people It's like paranoia fuels your life. It's abnormal. I'd talk to the guys and solve it all without causing unnecessary grievance and controversy.

How is shooting a drone violent? It's not a living thing. I am not inflicting violence upon the paper targets I shoot at the range. I'm just putting holes in them with a tool. They don't bleed. They don't feel. They cannot suffer. Shooting inanimate objects is entirely different from shooting people.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;51000379]How is shooting a drone violent? It's not a living thing. I am not inflicting violence upon the paper targets I shoot at the range. I'm just putting holes in them with a tool. They don't bleed. They don't feel. They cannot suffer. Shooting inanimate objects is entirely different from shooting people.[/QUOTE] I'm fairly sure the word "violence" can be used when we're talking about inanimate objects too, but maybe I'm just wrong. Just pretend it's a synonym like "destructiveness" or "aggression", aight? No point arguing about a wrongly placed word when the message is otherwise clear.

No, you're using negatively charged words to paint her as a violent barbarian destroying some innocent drone. It's an object. She used a tool to disable a surveillance drone trespassing on her property. The quote this woman gave to the news makes her look insane. She might even be insane. But using a shotgun to down a drone harassing you or your neighbors is not by itself an insane act.

[QUOTE=paul simon;51000339]You're trying to argue something that I'm not trying to argue.[/QUOTE] Exactly. You aren't considering the broader picture. You keep saying she should not have shot it. The rebuttal is, well why the fuck not? Your argument is, you don't like that. The rebuttal is, well that's too damn bad for you. She felt it was disrupting her. She eliminated the disruption. I don't fault her for her methods. You do. That's the difference between our viewpoints. You are free to not consider alternatives. You are free to consider them and find them lacking. You are free to consider them and utilize them. You don't see the broader context, and only want to think about the solutions you personally find acceptable. For what it's worth, I would not personally shoot down a drone over my property. I don't even own any firearms in the first place, but even if I did, I can't see myself giving enough of a shit to bother if the drone isn't near the house, or harassing my dogs. That doesn't mean I fault someone who does own firearms. Nor does it mean I fault someone who chooses to use them to eliminate a disturbance, especially when no individual was directly harmed by their use. It's their choice to make, and theirs alone. That's what I like about this country. For better, or for worse, you [i]have[/i] that choice here. It's ironic really. You talk about paranoia, and fail to see the broader picture; a picture where [b]you[/b] are the one who is afraid of the empowerment to make that choice.

These guys could have went to a park and flown their drone peacefully but decided to do it on private property. What business does anyone have flying a drone over someone else's home

[QUOTE=redBadger;51001931]These guys could have went to a park and flown their drone peacefully but decided to do it on private property. What business does anyone have flying a drone over someone else's home[/QUOTE] I think this is what people really miss. Okay, you can have your opinions of the woman, but they should have fucked off and been respectful in the first place. Being considerate is generally a good way to not have your property destroyed.

[QUOTE=false prophet;50984831]Guys, it's a fucking shotgun. How close was this drone? Is she Annie Oakley?[/QUOTE] Shotguns are pretty accurate up close, and when you're using bird shot the spread can get really wide, but because of how many pellets there are it's still dense. I could hit clay targets out of the air between 50-100 yards and always at least clip it. I was never that good at trap shooting though. I was definitely a rifle guy. Rifles are where I got my bronze medal in the junior olympics

They can be accurate to really long ranges especially if it's rifled and firing slugs, which as I said earlier, slugs and 00 shot being the most popular(and effective) home defense ammo types, which seems like the main reason for her to own a shotgun from what she's said. Hell if you wanna be evil, I bet flechette would work well against drones.