Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 07-31-2015, 01:54 AM
 
11,025 posts, read 7,838,905 times
Reputation: 23702

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Caldwell View Post
The minimum distance from any habitable structure is 500 feet, so if the drone were flying legally it would have been out of shotgun range.

There is no expectation of privacy in your front yard, but your back yard surrounded by a privacy fence carries the same expectation of privacy as your living room or bedroom. The drone was definitely trespassing.
So if you have a six foot fence and your next door neighbor looks into your yard from his second floor window he is somehow trespassing?

Try again.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-31-2015, 07:13 AM
 
2,936 posts, read 2,334,617 times
Reputation: 6690
I totally agree with the guy who shot the drone. Unfortunately, as we've seen in the last decade of rapid technological advances the legal code has yet to be updated to accommodate for things like drones, cyber bullying, cyber crime etc...

My only question is why the title of this thread says the drone was looking into his daughters room. I didn't read that anywhere in the article. Did I miss something?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-31-2015, 07:27 AM
 
2,284 posts, read 1,583,401 times
Reputation: 3858
I would have destroyed the drone too. That is trespassing whether the law is up to date or not. A drone (essentially a camera) taking pics of your kids on your property? It's like putting a camcorder on a 200 foot imaginary pole on your property.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-31-2015, 07:38 AM
 
Location: Honolulu/DMV Area/NYC
30,633 posts, read 18,222,068 times
Reputation: 34509
Quote:
Originally Posted by PedroMartinez View Post
It sounds like the arrest might have been from him firing off the shotgun in an area where he shouldn't have.

It MAY be that had he shot a possum, he may have faced similar consequences.

I wouldn't won't my neighbor discharging a shotgun at a hovering target either.

Shooting down at a poisonous snake in the canal where the shot wouldn't be flying across yards is another matter.



With such laws, the recourse would be to call the police and his actions would probably have still landed him in jail, assuming it was the weapons discharge that put him there.
Pretty much. To hear the shooter compare this to a simple trespass case is nonsensical as you're not allowed to simply shoot at someone who is trespassing on your land; there needs to be an element of danger (and a Peeping Tom, no matter how disgcraceful, isn't inherently dangerous to one's physical safety).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-31-2015, 07:38 AM
 
Location: Lexington, Kentucky
14,775 posts, read 8,106,589 times
Reputation: 25162
William Merideth arrested after shooting down $1,800 drone hovering over sunbathing daughter - Washington Times

^He looks really different in this picture. More elaboration on the story.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-31-2015, 07:51 AM
 
17,307 posts, read 22,039,209 times
Reputation: 29648
Guy could have drenched it with a hose or even thrown an object at it (a guy tossed a wet tshirt at one and took it down at a concert or something recently).......Shot gun was extreme and could have injured others in the area (pellets have to come down somewhere).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-31-2015, 08:04 AM
 
Location: california
7,321 posts, read 6,925,052 times
Reputation: 9258
I think the more important issue is criminals that use drones to scout homes for future break in .
I would be willing to bet the owner of the drone in question was doing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-31-2015, 08:12 AM
 
Location: Coos Bay, Oregon
7,138 posts, read 11,029,019 times
Reputation: 7808
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boris347 View Post
Maybe you need to provide a source. Where do all these ridiculous ideas come from? If you own Property, you can erect a Radio Tower or structure hundreds of feet high, and the Government does not claim anything you build above the ground. By your ridiculous notions, the Government would own your house, as soon as it left ground level. Utter nonsense.
United States v. Causby 328 U.S. 256 (1946)

Please educate yourself before you try to sound like a know it all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-31-2015, 08:26 AM
 
Location: Coos Bay, Oregon
7,138 posts, read 11,029,019 times
Reputation: 7808
Quote:
Originally Posted by WaldoKitty View Post
And if you are going to make up legal theory, then at least get it right. In the United States "air rights" i.e. Public Air Space is legally defined as starting 500 feet above property. See.
[indent][i]49 U.S.C. 180, 49 U.S.C.A. 18 , § 40103 "use of airspace"
You are the one making up legal theory. That code says nothing (zero) about 500 feet.

Stop talking BS and please educate yourself about:

United States v. Causby 328 U.S. 256 (1946)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-31-2015, 08:41 AM
 
Location: Coos Bay, Oregon
7,138 posts, read 11,029,019 times
Reputation: 7808
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Caldwell View Post
They are not exempt. The FAA has made the rule that they need to maintain the same 500' separation from structures that all aircraft have to obey. That's why Amazon canceled their plans to deliver parcels by drone. They can't get that close to a house.
Nope they haven't given up. They are still going strong on it.

Amazon proposes drones-only airspace to facilitate high-speed delivery

The retail giant’s proposal carves out airspace from 200ft-400ft exclusively for autonomous drones, with a further 100ft above it declared a no-fly zone
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:58 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top