Judge rules man had right to shoot down drone over his house

[SlowBurn]

Stand Your Airspace
http://www.cnet.com/news/judge-rules-man-had-right-to-shoot-down-drone-over-his-house/

[b4uqzme]

Good for Merideth.

Let it go Boggs...let it go.

[muggsy]

How much should you lead a drone?

[Longitude Zero]

Excellent decision. The pilot of the drone was a Peeper.

[Droolguy]

Great, we now have precedent that says that peoples opinions are more important than actual flight data.

This is a perfect example of our justice system catering to public opinion as opposed to actual justice.

I swear they might as well just give the popular media free reign over prosecution in this country, it's not like they aren't judge and jury now-a-days anyway.

Headline might as well read "Man let go despite hard evidence that he's lying, because who the hell cares about facts?"

[SlowBurn]

How much should you lead a drone?

Not sure, maybe 4", but here's the right load:
http://www.ammoland.com/2015/08/snake-river-shooting-products-announces-drone-munition-now-shipping/#axzz3q5ETXtqe

[Scarywoody]

Who else wanted to see a picture of the daughter to see if it was worth it?

[Bawanna]

Yeah, I'd definitely need to see the daughter to make a good decision on something like this.

I probably would have blasted it too though.

I do agree with droolguy though, the media controlls a lot of stuff they got no business controlling now days.

[GROTMAN]

I think shooting down a drone is ok as long as you have the proper permit..
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-uB9_U_6G15A/Uewzxqtu3gI/AAAAAAAAIVo/l84ATCcyRfA/s1600/drone.jpg

[yqtszhj]

Not sure, maybe 4", but here's the right load:
http://www.ammoland.com/2015/08/snake-river-shooting-products-announces-drone-munition-now-shipping/#axzz3q5ETXtqe
Thats awesome. Perfect reason to get a shotgun..

[Bawanna]

This is no BS. We just had a call at the front desk, said she had a Drone or a UFO flying over her house.
Wanted to know if it was ok to shoot it?

Girl (not a violet yet) asked me how to answer and I said I'd go ask the officers.

They wanted to know what I said and I told em blast the sumbuck!

They said the answer is no, can't shoot in the city limits. I asked what if it's causing a threat of serious injury or death, then they saind blast the sumbuck?

Thank goodness for the internet, how did anybody know anything before the internet.

[OldLincoln]

So, if the drone is behaving in a threatening manner like trying to run into your front door, you can shoot it. Some smart kid should come up with a directional EMP thingy (ray gun?) to swat them down.

[CPTKILLER]

Good!

[DeaconKC]

I am not a shotgun hunter, but wouldn't 400' be out of most shotgun loads' range?

[MatCat]

That judge is off their rockers, I make my living making electronics for 'drones', and I have seen the pilots own data and raw video, he was about 150 feet if I recall in altitude, and his cameras where forward facing getting the horizon, the persons property was not even visible to the camera feed. Second to that anything in the air is federal, your land rights do not include the sky and things that fly in it, regardless of it being a full sized jet plane or a paper plane. I am all for self defense for legitimate infringements, but this case was not one of them, if anything the guy that shot it down created more of a safety risk then solving one. Sadly it is a slippery slope these days, the FAA wants hobbyists to stay below 400', but below 400' is very visible to the general public whom get excited over things they don't fully understand other then the crap the media poops out, why I almost always fly above 500' to avoid the hassle of pissing someone off that thinks my plane can see them way the hell down there :P.

[Longitude Zero]

That judge is off their rockers, I make my living making electronics for 'drones', and I have seen the pilots own data and raw video, he was about 150 feet if I recall in altitude, and his cameras where forward facing getting the horizon, the persons property was not even visible to the camera feed. Second to that anything in the air is federal, your land rights do not include the sky and things that fly in it, regardless of it being a full sized jet plane or a paper plane. I am all for self defense for legitimate infringements, but this case was not one of them, if anything the guy that shot it down created more of a safety risk then solving one. Sadly it is a slippery slope these days, the FAA wants hobbyists to stay below 400', but below 400' is very visible to the general public whom get excited over things they don't fully understand other then the crap the media poops out, why I almost always fly above 500' to avoid the hassle of pissing someone off that thinks my plane can see them way the hell down there :P.

How can you trust the pilots own data? He could be lying or have altered/corrupted the data to his advantage. Your thoughts on what is or is not an infringement are just that opinions and NOT facts. If the quad is just flying past my property no biggie. Get down below 50' and hover I consider you a criminal Peeping Tom. Here in my state we have had several anuswipe quad pilots flying hundreds of yards beyond the property line to harass animals and hunters. Harass me while hunting your toy hits the ground!

[SlowBurn]

There is no rule that allows you to operate a drone over someone's property without permission 150' overhead. Its trespass and the drone operators were in the wrong even by their own account. Trespass doesn't automatically give a property owner the right to destroy the drone, and there are other issues such as warning, invasion of privacy etc that come into play. But whoever is telling drone operators they're legally ok as long as they stay that high is misleading them.

Its also true as LZ says that law enforcement did not maintain chain of custody, so the drone operator's video and flight data evidence is tainted and could not establish their version beyond a reasonable doubt (the standard in a criminal case like this) especially in view of the neighbors eyewitness evidence to the contrary.

[jocko]

I am not a shotgun hunter, but wouldn't 400' be out of most shotgun loads' range?

absolutely...

[jocko]

This is no BS. We just had a call at the front desk, said she had a Drone or a UFO flying over her house.
Wanted to know if it was ok to shoot it?

Girl (not a violet yet) asked me how to answer and I said I'd go ask the officers.

They wanted to know what I said and I told em blast the sumbuck!

They said the answer is no, can't shoot in the city limits. I asked what if it's causing a threat of serious injury or death, then they saind blast the sumbuck?

Thank goodness for the internet, how did anybody know anything before the internet.

they couldn't do that to your home, as I am told you park it every evening in a different wal-mart parking lot. Just say. Not sure how much truth is to that, maybe its a Target parking lot. Just sayin

[Armybrat]

If that guy's drone peeped into our windows in the evening, his camera would probably explode, short out, melt, or something.

[hardluk1]

MatCat might want to brush up on whats legal in most areas pertaining to air space laws . Passing threw is fine, lingering or low frequent pass's are NOT legal unless you have signed permission .

This story makes me want to re pattern my long barrel 12 ga with some #2 shot , BBand 4 buck loads

[Longitude Zero]

MatCat might want to brush up on whats legal in most areas pertaining to air space laws . Passing threw is fine, lingering or low frequent pass's are NOT legal unless you have signed permission .

This story makes me want to re pattern my long barrel 12 ga with some #2 shot , BBand 4 buck loads

Agreed.

[Bobshouse]

New Headline "The Mayor, angry that his drone was shot down, fires Judge."

[Droolguy]

So, being an actual rated pilot in rotary, fixed-wing, and currently getting my drone certifications I would like to clear something up.

"The pilot might have faked the flight data", while valid and possible, is many (many, many, many, many) multiple times more difficult than people just making **** up on the spot because they don't like something or someone. I can get a dozen people to say that the moon isn't real for a case of beer.

Also, I can tell you that no one in this forum can accurately judge aircraft height with their naked eye from the ground. Not a single one. So them saying "it was below the treeline" at best is a complete guess unless it literally flew between them and the tree, and at worst a complete lie that they made up to get the scary drone away from them.

This case is so ridiculously witch-hunty that it actually makes me angry that a judge can be that ignorant.

[Longitude Zero]

Droolguy fortunately the vast majority of drone operators operate more or less legally for now. I am on several RC boards and the current attitude is the hell with the FAA, the public and the media. If the RC folks fail to police themselves, and it is apparent from the majority of postings they will not, they are going to have onerous restrictions shoved down their throats. They are ignorantly relying up the Reauthorization Act of I believe 2012 to hang their collective hats on and they are about to be surprised. It is not a matter of if but when a valid and documentable full sized aircraft/drone incident does occur and when it does the industry and operators will be all but finished. By your broad based claim about the inability of judging heights is all the more reason to mandate that drones have an electronic height restrictor that cannot be manipulated! Judging height is not as difficult as you erroneously believe.

The undeniable truth/reality is that the drone operators are going to be their own undoing.

[knkali]

Droolguy fortunately the vast majority of drone operators operate more or less legally for now. I am on several RC boards and the current attitude is the hell with the FAA, the public and the media. If the RC folks fail to police themselves, and it is apparent from the majority of postings they will not, they are going to have onerous restrictions shoved down their throats. They are ignorantly relying up the Reauthorization Act of I believe 2012 to hang their collective hats on and they are about to be surprised. It is not a matter of if but when a valid and documentable full sized aircraft/drone incident does occur and when it does the industry and operators will be all but finished. By your broad based claim about the inability of judging heights is all the more reason to mandate that drones have an electronic height restrictor that cannot be manipulated! Judging height is not as difficult as you erroneously believe.

The undeniable truth/reality is that the drone operators are going to be their own undoing.

well said. Doesn't your post typify the concept of just because you can doesn't mean you should?

[Longitude Zero]

well said. Doesn't your post typify the concept of just because you can doesn't mean you should?

True for quad/drone flying and a whole lot of other things also.

[Planedude]

If you want to know how fast the legal environment for hobby can change, look no further than amateur rocketry. One day, the BATF puts out a list of "controlled explosives" and they had added ammonium perchlorate composite propellant (APCP) used in higher power rocketry as fuel. The effect was devastating to the hobby and soon BATF agents were tracking down those "dangerous geeks" and subjecting them to a lot of onerous rules and regulations. The BATF sought to control the "trafficking" of such rocket motors across state lines (get a $$$ permit) and adding a motor storage "magazine" ($$$) that also required permits along with "no notice inspections" by agents that knew not one dang thing about what they were sent to see. As one guy at our rocket shoot described his inspection "the agent was not terribly bright and this really is rocket science..."


But the BATF's plan to take over the hobby had one major flaw. ACPC is a propellant and not an explosive. The rocketry community (not surprisingly) had a mountain of science to back that truth up. When the court case started back in the spring of 02, the rocketry folks had a tight line of reasoning, backed by accepted science written into their brief.


The original BATF brief told the federal court that ACPC was an explosive because "they said so" and that the court should just take their (big government agency) word for it as the court wouldn't be able to understand the science... which went pretty much the way you'd expect after that. Seems the judge knew he'd be fine sifting thru the science and the BATF better start showing some real evidence or be ruled against. In short, they never did... I'll pause while y'all get past the shock of hearing that... And it finally did cause the BATF to lose the case.


The real issue was the eight years of time and huge amounts of money it took the rocketry folks to finally be free of an out of control agency with a rule they had made, "just cause they could".

The Qaudcopter, R/C aircraft and "Drone builders" need to watch their six as the FAA is just as capable of stupid ruling today as the BATF was back then. Rocketry has two great, smart and well run organizations to fight through, NAR and Tripoli (TRA). These two groups were able to raise the funds and lead the fight against the BATF.


I am not aware of any such organizations for the "Drone" crowd. My son builds and loves both big rockets and quads. I put many dollars in the passing hat for the first fight, I will hope I don't have to do the same for a second fight...

If you can stand the legal jargon, here is a link to the history of the case. Parts of it will piss you off seeing the wild and sorry way the BATF tied to circumvent the courts dragging the case on to wait out the rocketry folks (run them out of $$$). Other parts will make you laugh as the BATF stumbled through the entire case with its pants around their ankles.

http://www1.tripoli.org/News/Internal/BATFELawSuit/tabid/113/Default.aspx

Oh and my view on the "drone shoot down" is with the "judge got it wrong in this case" folks... Just saying.

[Baklash]

Back in the 60's I would occasionally fly as high as 400 feet, and I never hit an airplane.....just a friend or two, and I saw all kinds of crazy stuff up there, maybe even a drone. Today I never get over 4 inches off the ground.

[Longitude Zero]

Planedude the RC community has the AMA American Modelers Association. They have been fighting the proposed rules but they are coming from behind. They are IMHO fighting a loosing battle or at best to a draw. Back when the rocketry crowd was being hounded there was not the nincompoops operating them like the RC crowd has to deal with now. The other part of the equation is YouTube idiots. There are tons of quad/drone operators that do supremely stupid stuff and show it on video. Unless there is a "mistake of law" the judges ruling will and should stand as valid. The so called fact it is "wrong" has no place in a legal discussion as the only concern is that the ruling was "legal". Whether it is right or wrong has never been an issue in the court system. Also for the most part the BATFE is a widely disrespected agency that has over reached its bounds time and again and they are not directly related to public safety. The FAA has a much better reputation and they are winning the public relations battle because of ignorant quad/drone operators.

[Droolguy]

Droolguy fortunately the vast majority of drone operators operate more or less legally for now. I am on several RC boards and the current attitude is the hell with the FAA, the public and the media. If the RC folks fail to police themselves, and it is apparent from the majority of postings they will not, they are going to have onerous restrictions shoved down their throats. They are ignorantly relying up the Reauthorization Act of I believe 2012 to hang their collective hats on and they are about to be surprised. It is not a matter of if but when a valid and documentable full sized aircraft/drone incident does occur and when it does the industry and operators will be all but finished. By your broad based claim about the inability of judging heights is all the more reason to mandate that drones have an electronic height restrictor that cannot be manipulated! Judging height is not as difficult as you erroneously believe.

The undeniable truth/reality is that the drone operators are going to be their own undoing.

I am very familiar with what drone operators are doing, and I have a 333 exemption currently in processing to use them commercially inside the states, as well as persuing a degree in sUAS. So I keep very current on the subject.

Judging height is exactly as difficult as I believe, just because you can do it with your RC plane after practicing with it, doesnt mean that you can do it with a drone that doesnt conform to a set dimension and silhouette that you are intimately familiar with.

Dont mistake learned processes with natural ones.

Also, this whole drone operators do it to themselves line of thinking is bull. The vast majority do what they are supposed to, the issue is that doing the right thing is uninteresting to most people. Who actively search out rule breakers because its more exciting. So those are the only ones the news reports on, and those are the only videos on youtube going viral.

The problem is one of scale that people havent figured out yet, just because there are videos on Youtube does not mean that something is a huge issue. Most of the time those videos are specifically put up because they represent something "cool" to the uploader or viewer base which statistically makes them not representative of common happenings.

The government and most of the people are not able to dissociate alarmism generated but the sheer mass of media available now-a-days, with the actual statistical impact of those events.

If it doesnt get fixed this is probably the No. 1 contender for "Things that will probably destroy our country, eventually."

[Longitude Zero]

NOT thinking that quad/drone operators are doing it to themselves is BS. If it were not for the scofflaws and the videos on YouTube there would be NO ISSUE in the public eye. Quad/drone operators need to clean their own house and not let the minority dictate what happens to the law abiding majority. Here is a reminder for you, "The squeaking wheel gets the grease." As to judging height/distance accurately all I need to do is see the object in front of me one time and then when I see it again at a distance/height determining the height is an approximation based upon the decreased angular view. If you can judge horizontal distance with reasonable accuracy height is nothing more than horizontal distance turned into the vertical.

[Bawanna]

Your both correct just approaching it from different angles.

Like so many other things in life a few bad eggs ruin the whole deal for everybody.

Like shooting in gravel pits and such. 100 people go, shoot safe, clean up after themselves and all is good.

Then you get 2 or 3 that bring their tv or home appliances, blast em, leave crap all over the place, turning the pristine nice shooting area into a land fill and then it becomes an issue. They close the area, now the 100 good people got no place to go shoot.

We had an area where many got together and had cleanup weekends to clean up all the messes. Worked for awhile but eventually they shut down the whole area.

These drones are even harder to track so the few looking for exciting stuff are surely gonna cause headaches for the serious operators.

I've had the wife out in her bikini trying to bait em but it's starting to get chilly and we've never seen a drone so she's becoming more and more uncooperative, hope I get one soon, like seeing her in the bikini.

[Droolguy]

It's a new world, removing all the videos from Youtube and policing other people are not reasonable, and in most cases not even possible without that other persons consent. The fact that you would even suggest such things implies ignorance to the current political and social structure.

As for being able to judge height accurately by just seeing the object once I have a feeling the Dunnigan-Kreuger effect is in full swing here.

Either that or your definition of accurate must be very different than mine and even if this was true, the people making the claims had never seen the drone before so what would their frame of reference be?

[Bawanna]

I didn't see anybody suggest removing any Youtube video's myself. I know that would probably be an impossible task although the world would be a lot better place if a lot of it was removed.

Keep it friendly here folks.

[yqtszhj]

.... I can get a dozen people to say that the moon isn't real for a case of beer.


The moon isn't real.


If I say it 12 times can I get a dozon cases of beer? It will save you time waiting on the other 11 people to chime in. :cool:

[Longitude Zero]

It's a new world, removing all the videos from Youtube and policing other people are not reasonable, and in most cases not even possible without that other persons consent. The fact that you would even suggest such things implies ignorance to the current political and social structure.

As for being able to judge height accurately by just seeing the object once I have a feeling the Dunnigan-Kreuger effect is in full swing here.

Either that or your definition of accurate must be very different than mine and even if this was true, the people making the claims had never seen the drone before so what would their frame of reference be?

I suggested nothing and the fact you think I did calls reading and comprehension skills into serious question! Ad hominems are the self destruction of invalid arguments in the first place. If you want to see a probable textbook example of a DK then mirrors abound. I fly quads as a hobbyist. A coworker is working on 333 Exemption Status. UAV's can do great work but ONLY IF THEY ARE OPERATED BY SAFE AND RESPONSIBLE OPERATORS! It is clear that many folks flying quads/drones should NOT be allowed to walk let alone operate a complicated piece of technology. All anybody needs to do is look at the Facebook pages and enthusiast webboards to see the that the arrogant scofflaw attitude of "I will do what I dang well please and screw the FAA and the public." Those the do not actively disassociate themselves from the scofflaws get what they deserve since the did nothing to stop it.

[yqtszhj]

Beer, Beer, Beer.......

[getsome]

Ahhhh the good old days:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkuIdCz_98A

[Droolguy]

"If it were not for the scofflaws and the videos on YouTube there would be NO ISSUE in the public eye. Quad/drone operators need to clean their own house and not let the minority dictate what happens to the law abiding majority."

Implied suggestion is that both the "scofflaws" and "Youtube" need to be controlled by "Quad/drone operators" (Specifically, the "law abiding majority"). To do so would mean infringing on other peoples rights, and would also mean the removal of said content from Youtube because without it there would be "NO ISSUE" (as well as the censorship/removal of "scofflaws") as to leave it there would be considered letting "the minority dictate what happens".

My statement that "The fact that you would even suggest such things implies ignorance to the current political and social structure." is not classified as an ad hominem attack as it is an observance because the solutions you propose are not possible inside the current system, therefore you must be ignorant of the current system. I could have stated it a bit more politically correctly, but I did not think it would offend you the way it was worded which was my mistake. I did not say that you were an "ignorant person" which would have been an ad hominem attack because it's in reference to you as a person and not a specific set of data, for all I know you might be very knowledgeable about other things.

You are free to prove me wrong in which case I would consent to the error, actually, I will state that the use of "suggest" on my part was erroneous and should have been more along the lines of an inferral.

If you mean that my stating that the Dunnigan-Kreuger effect was the reason you were so confident in your ability to determine was an ad-hominem attack, I was simply providing a reason to back up your claimed natural ability of observation as stated in "As to judging height/distance accurately all I need to do is see the object in front of me one time and then when I see it again at a distance/height determining the height is an approximation based upon the decreased angular view. If you can judge horizontal distance with reasonable accuracy height is nothing more than horizontal distance turned into the vertical."

As for implying that I was the one suffering from "DK" as you put it... I make no claims to know everything or even to know the majority of information on aviation. What I do know however is backed up by licenses, certifications, and classes specifically on the subject of which I can provide proof as long as you are willing to provide proof of similar studies. I will not go out of my way to provide credentials if you can't provide any in return.

To get back on the subject at hand though, I wholly believe that the verdict in this case was brought about by media and political pressure, because people are intimidated by sUAS technology and are looking for ways to strike out in order to alleviate that fear in some small way.

I would also like to ask if you claim that you could determine the heights of flying objects before you began flying remote control aircraft on a regular basis? Or was it something that you had to learn by flying them? And if you could answer the question posed in my previous response of "the people making the claims had never seen the drone before so what would their frame of reference be?".

[SlowBurn]

The altitude of the drone was within the vertical range of a shotgun ergo it was flying too low

[Planedude]

If the FAA demands drones stay below 400ft and we except an average (mature) tree height of 70/80ft than any legal operating altitude of a drone puts it in the range of my 12gage with the right load and choke...


My issue with this incident is the blasting with the shotgun at all. The next furious (and a little paranoid) do good-er might just decide to shoot down little Johnny's toy drone at take-off and end up blasting out the windows of a nearby house (or worse) because the court said he had a right to shoot the little "spybots".

It is the odd truth of the state of technology that RC Quads have become so complex and sophisticated that they are super easy to fly. Pick and load the right combo of hardware and software and your quad will fly stable and even return to it launching spot and self land with the flip of one switch. The new level of tech has made flying them successfully a skill in the wheelhouse of anyone who could play a few levels of Donkey Kong. My Sons newest quad has a "WTF' button on the controller. Lose sight of the quad or if you feel its getting away from you, push the button and the quad will right itself, power up to a select height (90ft on my boys) and hover in that spot, correcting for any wind, until the pilot feels he is ready to start flying again. It is a complex control problem that is a button push away and used to save the quad from a crash, but a paranoid someone might presume the quad is "watching me" and grab up the ol blunderbuss.

Yes the RC community has self policing to do before the hammer comes down on them. I wish them luck, it is a very interesting hobby that could be gutted clean by a couple of idiot operators.:crazy:

[SlowBurn]

FAA regs exempt model airplanes (which would include non-commercial drones) below 400' keeping at least 3 miles from any airport, away from populated areas. They don't, and can't, authorize you to fly (much less hover) your drone over below 400' over MY property. If you do that without permission, you are trespassing, PERIOD.

The legal remedy for trespassing is another matter, and doesn't normally include shooting them down unless you've been warned, are invading privacy, are threatening, or some other factor. Just like we can't always just shoot an ordinary trespasser or smash up his car for parking in our private driveway.

But property owners do have legal rights and non commercial drones hovering over private property are violating those rights as much as uninvited jerks using our front stoop for a hang out. Go away.

[Longitude Zero]

If the FAA demands drones stay below 400ft and we except an average (mature) tree height of 70/80ft than any legal operating altitude of a drone puts it in the range of my 12gage with the right load and choke...

It is the odd truth of the state of technology that RC Quads have become so complex and sophisticated that they are super easy to fly. Pick and load the right combo of hardware and software and your quad will fly stable and even return to it launching spot and self land with the flip of one switch. The new level of tech has made flying them successfully a skill in the wheelhouse of anyone who could play a few levels of Donkey Kong. My Sons newest quad has a "WTF' button on the controller. Lose sight of the quad or if you feel its getting away from you, push the button and the quad will right itself, power up to a select height (90ft on my boys) and hover in that spot, correcting for any wind, until the pilot feels he is ready to start flying again. It is a complex control problem that is a button push away and used to save the quad from a crash, but a paranoid someone might presume the quad is "watching me" and grab up the ol blunderbuss.

Yes the RC community has self policing to do before the hammer comes down on them. I wish them luck, it is a very interesting hobby that could be gutted clean by a couple of idiot operators.:crazy:

Precisely.

[Longitude Zero]

FAA regs exempt model airplanes (which would include non-commercial drones) below 400' keeping at least 3 miles from any airport, away from populated areas. They don't, and can't, authorize you to fly (much less hover) your drone over below 400' over MY property. If you do that without permission, you are trespassing, PERIOD.

The legal remedy for trespassing is another matter, and doesn't normally include shooting them down unless you've been warned, are invading privacy, are threatening, or some other factor. Just like we can't always just shoot an ordinary trespasser or smash up his car for parking in our private driveway.

But property owners do have legal rights and non commercial drones hovering over private property are violating those rights as much as uninvited jerks using our front stoop for a hang out. Go away.

You have hit the nail squarely on its head.

[Droolguy]

FAA regs exempt model airplanes (which would include non-commercial drones) below 400' keeping at least 3 miles from any airport, away from populated areas. They don't, and can't, authorize you to fly (much less hover) your drone over below 400' over MY property. If you do that without permission, you are trespassing, PERIOD.

The legal remedy for trespassing is another matter, and doesn't normally include shooting them down unless you've been warned, are invading privacy, are threatening, or some other factor. Just like we can't always just shoot an ordinary trespasser or smash up his car for parking in our private driveway.

But property owners do have legal rights and non commercial drones hovering over private property are violating those rights as much as uninvited jerks using our front stoop for a hang out. Go away.

How do you know what a commercial and a hobbyist drone look like? Since the only difference is a piece of paper from the FAA.

The right to airspace above your property is tenuous at best, with no hard legal backing on either side.

People really need to think long and hard before shooting someones drone down because they dont like the sound or are paranoid its watching them.

The ones that cost $20,000 dont look very much different than the ones that cost $2,000, and you could find yourself in a very bad position very quickly if the operators start taking the law into their own hands like the overzealous property owners.

Just remember that "An eye for an eye" is something that most people still believe in.

Also, the FAA can impose rules on any airspace they want, including that below 500ft. It just has to be put to public docket like all their other regulations.

Other than that a well reasoned post.

[Bawanna]

Personally I think this Drone Bone has been chewed to the well "Bone".

I think both sides of this have been offered and not much to gain from here going forward.

I'm gonna leave it open for a bit but don't seem much more than a cyber fisticuff happening. I'm all for a good fisticuff now and again but this would'nt be a good one.