New Privacy/Property Rights Territory

[cabiness42]

http://www.wdrb.com/story/29650818/hillvie...cy#WNPoll147728

 

So, what do the legal experts here think? Does anybody have the right to fly a drone over your property, or do your property rights extend upward from the ground? If so, how high?

 

 

[Texsox]

I've been waiting for a case like this. Read the article before responding. The drone was not just flying over, it was hovering over people's homes and even flying low enough to look under a patio roof. At some point that seems like an unreasonable amount of spying. I don't advocate at all shooting it down. I think the home owner will, and should, be punished based on discharging a firearm in the city. But there needs to be some laws written regulating these drones.

[cabiness42]

I've been waiting for a case like this. Read the article before responding. The drone was not just flying over, it was hovering over people's homes and even flying low enough to look under a patio roof. At some point that seems like an unreasonable amount of spying. I don't advocate at all shooting it down. I think the home owner will, and should, be punished based on discharging a firearm in the city. But there needs to be some laws written regulating these drones.

 

That's exactly why I included my last sentence. Should there be a distinction between something flying above your property at 1000 feet, 100 feet, and 10 feet, and where exactly should the line be drawn?

[Chisoxfn]

Shooting a gun at something, with neighbors and everything around seems like a bad idea. Even if he shot straight in the air. So no, I don't think he should have shot it down (cause something worse could have happened), however, I think it should be illegal to fly a drone on my property at that low of a level. Would I care, I probably wouldn't if I wasn't out their, but if my kids were out their, how do I know it isn't some perv or how do I know they aren't scouting my house for a robbery, etc. Should it be legal for people to just be able to walk through my backyard and check it out, no, so why should it be legal to fly something with video camera's right above it.

 

I'm sure in 99% of the situations, it is just people having fun and no harm is ever intended, but the drone can cause damage to the house, etc.

 

Edit: If he took a baseball bat to it, that would be another story and I'd be totally 100% okay with that.

[CrimsonWeltall]

That's exactly why I included my last sentence. Should there be a distinction between something flying above your property at 1000 feet, 100 feet, and 10 feet, and where exactly should the line be drawn?

 

Tricky. Somewhere definitely above throwing distance and below airplane distance.

[EvilMonkey]

If there is a law against discharging a weapon where he was at, he should be charged with that only. I would also find something to charge the operator with if possible.

[cabiness42]

If there is a law against discharging a weapon where he was at, he should be charged with that only. I would also find something to charge the operator with if possible.

 

There is indeed such a law, although I was wondering, given the ability of drones to carry weapons, if he could make a self-defense argument, because you are allowed to discharge a weapon in self-defense.

[Jenksismyhero]

I'm fine with him shooting it. How else are you going to stop that? Call the cops? The drone will be gone by then and there's no way for the pervs to get caught.

 

You should have a right to privacy on your property, including the air above your property. Good for this guy for fighting it.

[Balta1701]

I'm fine with him shooting it. How else are you going to stop that? Call the cops? The drone will be gone by then and there's no way for the pervs to get caught.

 

You should have a right to privacy on your property, including the air above your property. Good for this guy for fighting it.

If the bullet were to hit someone on the way back down, would he face extra charges for that?

[StrangeSox]

Firing deadly weapons in response to at most a trespassing seems pretty irresponsible and dangerous.

[Jenksismyhero]

If the bullet were to hit someone on the way back down, would he face extra charges for that?

 

Sure, that's the risk you take.

 

It was a shotgun too. Much less dangerous than a more powerful weapon that's going to send a bullet a mile or whatever into the air.

 

edit: I mean I'm fine giving the guy a fine for some ordinance violation. I would be less agreeable to jail time for it.

Edited July 29, 2015 by Jenksismybitch

[StrangeSox]

That said drones are raising more and more issues. They recently screwed up a California firefighting mission

 

 

http://www.npr.org/2015/07/23/425654435/ca...ne-interference

[Jenksismyhero]

That said drones are raising more and more issues. They recently screwed up a California firefighting mission

 

 

http://www.npr.org/2015/07/23/425654435/ca...ne-interference

 

The guys that strapped the gun on the drone was kind of eye opening for me. I dunno why, but I thought at worse we'd get a lot privacy, peeping tom issues with drones. But man, if someone gets killed by a drone gun attack, how on earth are you going to solve that? At some point (if not now) you could control a drone from states or countries away via the internet.

[StrangeSox]

They are banned from all national park land, and they recently tazed and arrested someone who refused to stop flying.

http://m.hawaiinewsnow.com/hawaiinewsnow/p...d=od%3A3I037mzw

[StrangeSox]

That's exactly why I included my last sentence. Should there be a distinction between something flying above your property at 1000 feet, 100 feet, and 10 feet, and where exactly should the line be drawn?

Some legal analysis here

http://volokh.com/2012/02/19/private-drone...roperty-rights/

[Jenksismyhero]

There really should be a legal presumption that if you're flying over private property without permission, you're unreasonably interfering with the use of the property, or perhaps creating a nuisance. Or even invading someone's privacy, although those civil laws are pretty meaningless and would have to be changed.

[StrangeSox]

There really should be a legal presumption that if you're flying over private property without permission, you're unreasonably interfering with the use of the property, or perhaps creating a nuisance. Or even invading someone's privacy, although those civil laws are pretty meaningless and would have to be changed.

But none of that legally justifies discharging a firearm.

 

[Texsox]

If the bullet were to hit someone on the way back down, would he face extra charges for that?

 

He should.

 

Flying ten feet off the ground peeking under roofs? I hope they were laughing at each other saying "what are they going to do, shoot it down!"

 

The point is how do you investigate and charge someone with flying a drone in an unsafe, harassing, manner? We sometimes talk about all the new laws that get created and we don't need any more laws. Here is a prime example. Drones. Registration? Permits? Training? Identifying signals? Tracking? Flight plans? Limit the size and range? Some lawyers are going to be making bank in this industry.

[Texsox]

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/07...r-his-backyard/

 

He used #8 birdshot. If they had fallen on someone it would be far less than getting hit by hail. But it's a gun and they are all the same to some people.

 

The thing had a camera attached. peeping on people. Anyone think that doesn't go over the line?

[Balta1701]

He should.

 

Flying ten feet off the ground peeking under roofs? I hope they were laughing at each other saying "what are they going to do, shoot it down!"

 

The point is how do you investigate and charge someone with flying a drone in an unsafe, harassing, manner? We sometimes talk about all the new laws that get created and we don't need any more laws. Here is a prime example. Drones. Registration? Permits? Training? Identifying signals? Tracking? Flight plans? Limit the size and range? Some lawyers are going to be making bank in this industry.

If you want another interesting case, several drones interfered with firefighting in L.A. about 2 weeks ago and as a consequence several loads of fire retardant were dropped away from their targets. The fire in question hopped the 15 freeway and destroyed a bunch of cars, so they literally produced hundreds of thousands of dollars of damages.

[Texsox]

If you want another interesting case, several drones interfered with firefighting in L.A. about 2 weeks ago and as a consequence several loads of fire retardant were dropped away from their targets. The fire in question hopped the 15 freeway and destroyed a bunch of cars, so they literally produced hundreds of thousands of dollars of damages.

 

I also saw a video of firefighters knocking one out of the sky by shooting water at it. Can we guess the path drone regulation will take?

 

Step 1, the industry will claim they can take care of it through education programs and no government interference (laws) are necessary.

[cabiness42]

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/07...r-his-backyard/

 

He used #8 birdshot. If they had fallen on someone it would be far less than getting hit by hail. But it's a gun and they are all the same to some people.

 

The thing had a camera attached. peeping on people. Anyone think that doesn't go over the line?

 

I didn't really want to get into the gun aspect of this case. I'm much more worried about the privacy/property rights issues. If somebody's going to fly one of those things that slowly that close to the ground, I can whack it with a bat (unless I'm Tyler Flowers, then I'd miss).

Edited July 29, 2015 by HickoryHuskers

[StrangeSox]

:rimshot:

[EvilMonkey]

I didn't really want to get into the gun aspect of this case. I'm much more worried about the privacy/property rights issues. If somebody's going to fly one of those things that slowly that close to the ground, I can whack it with a bat (unless I'm Tyler Flowers, then I'd miss).

Was waiting to see who would take that low hanging fruit. i thought the same thing, but a different player.

[Texsox]

I didn't really want to get into the gun aspect of this case. I'm much more worried about the privacy/property rights issues. If somebody's going to fly one of those things that slowly that close to the ground, I can whack it with a bat (unless I'm Tyler Flowers, then I'd miss).

 

I didn't either but earlier Balta mentioned what if the bullet hit someone, he didn't use a rifle and he used really small shot. It also kind of confirms his version that it was really close.

 

I wish the police confiscated the video to accurately tell what they were looking at.