back to article Dad who shot 'snooping vid drone' out of the sky is cleared of charges

A father who shot down a drone that was hovering over his family home in Kentucky has been cleared of all charges. Dad-of-two William Merideth thought the quadcopter was spying on his daughters in their yard in Hillview, and blasted the gizmo out of the sky with a shotgun. That earned him the title "Drone Slayer" from pro- …

Page:

          1. Pascal Monett Silver badge

            @Robert Helpmann??

            Sorry Robert, but you cannot deny that the USA is the only country in the world where so many people die from gunshot wounds every year. And that in a country that is not even at war.

            The simple fact is that having less guns lying around would certainly solve the issue. Another simple fact is that that is never going to happen.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: @Robert Helpmann??

              The simple fact is that having less guns lying around would certainly solve the issue.

              Here in the UK it's easy to get a gun, many criminals have them.

              The non criminal element called "PoliceTFU" also have them,

              I think they are about level on number of people shot, mainly by mistake according to the UK courts

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: @Robert Helpmann??

                "Here in the UK it's easy to get a gun,"

                It really isn't.

                "many criminals have them."

                A very few have them. And it's an instant 5 years + prison sentence if you get caught; If you are not shot dead by one of our exceedingly efficient police firearms units first...

              2. dogged

                Re: @Robert Helpmann??

                > Here in the UK it's easy to get a gun, many criminals have them.

                Yeah, I don't know if you know anything about the black market but you don't just rock up in the East End yelling "WHO WANTS TO SELL ME A GUN!!?!" You could, of course. But you probably wouldn't get a gun. You'd get arrested or stabbed.

                So yes, criminals have them. But socially inadequate school children, as a rule, do not.

            2. Robert Helpmann??
              Childcatcher

              Re: @Robert Helpmann??

              "The simple fact is that having less guns lying around would certainly solve the issue."

              The issue of violent crime, guns or no, will most certainly not be solved simply by removing guns. There is a much higher incidence of violent crimes in this country that does not involve guns than does, though the proportion that does is pretty much the same across the board. You might solve the issue of accidental death or injury caused by guns, but not those issues caused by intentional acts. At least on the face of it, guns seem to be a means to an ends. Getting rid of this particular means will not alter the desire to get to the horrible ends, nor the ability of people to achieve said ends. And yes, I agree with you concerning the likelihood of removing guns from the equation altogether, though I disagree with you concerning the results should that unlikely goal be achieved. Simply put, the current data does not support your statement. The cause of violent crime is not the presence or absence of guns. Failing to identify and address that root cause will see guns banned, politicians claiming victory over gun violence, and the same numbers of people killed or injured in violent crime.

              1. DavCrav

                Re: @Robert Helpmann??

                "The issue of violent crime, guns or no, will most certainly not be solved simply by removing guns."

                No, but it's escalation of risk that's the problem. Guns are powerful and dangerous, and when lots of people have them, a simple pickpocketing or car theft becomes a possible murder scene. That just doesn't happen in the UK, because there's generally little possibility of a serious escalation in violence.

                The UK has a vastly lower level of violent crime, and severity of violent crime, than the US. Consider that, in the UK, a 'violent crime' is considered to be any crime involving violence, e.g., common assault. In the US this is so commonplace that it is a misdemeanour.

                1. ChrisBedford

                  Re: @Robert Helpmann??

                  "That just doesn't happen in the UK, because there's generally little possibility of a serious escalation in violence" - yeah, because the PEOPLE in the UK are different. Not solely because they don't have firearms!

                  When told they couldn't have guns, the English public went, "yeah, ok". When told you MIGHT have to register your guns, the American public raised an outcry. Differenty mentality, mate.

              2. James Micallef Silver badge

                Re: @Robert Helpmann??

                Firstly, there needs to be a more nuanced discussion than simply using the word 'guns'. There are 2 countries in the 'western' world with comparable* levels of gun ownership as US. These are Canada and Switzerland. However in Canada the majority of guns are hunting weapons, in Switzerland these are military weapons that people have from compulsory military service and have very strict (and very strictly observed) rules around carrying, storage and transport. In the US, the vast majority of guns are handguns that are relatively easy to carry on one's person and/or conceal and/or kept readily accessible as 'self-defence' in homes.

                I think this a major key. Gun advocates say that high gun ownership promotes deterrence, that no-one is willing to commit a gun crime because anyone else might pull a gun on them. But I think in reality, all it promotes is that baddies carry bigger and more guns, and are less inclined to show restraint to bystanders, exactly because the bystanders could be armed.

                The other big key is a deep-rooted social fear. No two ways about it, black people and white people in US are afraid of each other. Not in the xenophobic European 'I'm afraid they will take my jobs' kind of way, but in a paranoid 'they will kill me if they get a chance' kind of way. Not, of course, everyone and everywhere, but enough to make a huge difference in firearm murders.

                *Still less than US, but not order-of-magnitudes less as in all Western Europe

                1. Robert Helpmann??
                  Childcatcher

                  Re: @Robert Helpmann??

                  @James Micallef, What you seem to be alluding to in your comparisons between countries would still seem to come down to cultural differences in attitudes toward guns, their possession and their uses. I think that this goes to the root of the issue of not just gun violence but violent crime in general. I consider @DavCrav's earlier comment concerning the way the UK counts violent crime in contrast to the US as a reasonable example of cultural differences in this regard.

                  "Gun advocates say that high gun ownership promotes deterrence, that no-one is willing to commit a gun crime because anyone else might pull a gun on them." At least in the US, this does not seem to hold water. Nor does the counter that making access to guns will decrease their use in crime. I realize these statements really upsets a lots of people, but given the available information it is clear that neither approach has proven useful other than for fear mongering among our politicians.

                  Perhaps you are correct concerning a more nuanced approach to what is appropriate in terms of pistols versus hunting weapons. It certainly seems logical that hand guns are more apt to be used in crime than more traditional hunting weapons (long rifles, shotguns) and should be approached differently by legislators, but I would like to see some evidence that such an approach will be effective before having to listen to both sides talk past each other yet again. What does seem clear is that changing people's attitudes concerning gun ownership in the US is both a necessary and extremely difficult task for which there is remarkably little political will given that it is now used by both our major parties to get out the vote.

            3. unimaginative

              Re: @Robert Helpmann??

              Not true, lots countries have higher murder rates, and anywhere with a war on will have more gunshot deaths! Territories (OK not the same things as countries) with higher murder rates include British and French overseas territories and Greenland. Countries include Russia and Estonia.

              Even if you exclude murders using guns, the US still has a MUCH higher murder rate than other developed countries, so guns are clearly not the underlying problem (although they may make it worse).

            4. Kiwi

              Re: @Robert Helpmann??

              The simple fact is that having less guns lying around would certainly solve the issue. Another simple fact is that that is never going to happen.

              Yet Canada has much more gun ownership than the US last I looked, IIRC 4x the ownership of guns (although I could be thinking of stuff from some M. Moore "documentary"), yet not even 1/10th of the violent crime.

              I suspect that there have been times where the US has had much higher rates of gun ownership than it does today, but much less crime.

              [Note that I am somewhat neutral on gun ownership. I first fired a .22 rifle at about 3 (prone position at static targets), and later hunting for food - I do not now and never have owned a gun but simply because the supermarket provides my meat.]

            5. ChrisBedford

              Re: @Robert Helpmann??

              "The simple fact is that having less guns lying around would certainly solve the issue"

              Sure. But who says having anti-gun laws means there are less guns lying around? It's an often-quoted maxim, but true for all that, that when you outlaw guns only outlaws have guns. The charmingly quaint but nevertheless naive view that banning firearms leads to lowered firearm violence, assumes that owners of illegal weapons would turn their guns in. It doesn't take much analysis to realise that of course they won't. Which is of course what you said in your second sentence. But the point it too many people think that new laws are the answer to society's ills; they aren't, proper enforcement of existing laws often helps, but more often you have to change society's mindset.

              And that doesn't happen overnight.

              1. x 7

                Re: @Robert Helpmann??

                " when you outlaw guns only outlaws have guns. "

                but the key point - or at least in the USA - is that most illegal guns started out as legal.

                I've forgotten the exact figure, but there are reportedly something like 2.5 million thefts of legal guns in the USA each year. Without the pool of legal guns they wouldn't have been stolen........and if guns really did act as protection they would not have been stolen anyway.

                Face it: in the USA the only role the average gun has is as a penis extension

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: not allowed access to firearms

            Do you seriously believe this?

            So you saying that ready access to firearms has no connection to firearms related crime.

            and you also think that the low rate of gun crime in the UK is as a result of our use of community service

            in relation to petty offences, and nothing to do with the fact that we don't have any guns?

            1. Robert Helpmann??

              Re: not allowed access to firearms

              So you saying that ready access to firearms has no connection to firearms related crime.

              What I am saying is that there is no correlation in the US between successfully restricting gun ownership and reducing either violent crime or violent crime involving guns. I am not stating a belief - here is a summary of the relationships between gun ownership, etc, in the US that I referred to previously: link. I am also saying I believe that focusing on violent crime involving guns as opposed to all violent crime will not alter the overall number of deaths by violent means even though the number of people killed by guns may go down.

              My example of community service vs incarceration is just an example of a difference between cultures, not a complete cure to the world's problems. Don't be daft! It may or may not have some bearing on the subject, but I understand there is evidence that imprisoning juveniles leads to much worse outcomes than alternatives such as community service and we have a very high rate of imprisonment in this country. More to the point, the UK's collective approach to a lot of things is different from that of the US and it might be worth drawing from the experiences of those from outside our country in dealing with these issues.

            2. LucreLout

              Re: not allowed access to firearms

              @AC

              So you saying that ready access to firearms has no connection to firearms related crime.

              I think it does, but not the connection you think it has. America has more guns than people, and has a high firearms related murder rate. Norway has 30 guns per 100 people and a lower firearms related murder rate than the UK.

              in relation to petty offences, and nothing to do with the fact that we don't have any guns?

              The uk has 6.6 guns per 100 people. That isn't "no guns". Whatever Norway is doing around firearms related violence they are doing a lot better than us, given a gun ownership rate about 5 times higher than ours and a lower homicide rate.

              For clarity, I don't want a relaxation of our gun laws. I would however, prefer we learn from other countries like Norway that are doing things so much better than we are. Posts like yours obfuscate that learning opportunity by comparing the "worst case" country with ours as though it means we have it right, when we don't.

          3. James Micallef Silver badge

            Re: not allowed access to firearms

            "Anti-gun laws here in the US are successful in depressing levels of gun ownership but not in lowering relative incidence of their use in crime "

            Of course, because if there are strict gun laws in one state you can just go buy them in another.

            " there does not seem to be a correlation between gun ownership levels and gun crime levels in the US"

            Maybe not across the US, but again that is because guns are easily mobile across state borders. Comparing US with non-US it is very clear that gun crime in US is order of magnitude higher than that of other civilised countries.

            " identifying and addressing the root causes of violent crime might be a little more to the point"

            Here I agree with you, however this is only a part of the solution, with limiting access to firearms being the other.

            1. PaulFrederick

              Re: not allowed access to firearms

              Limiting access to firearms is unconstitutional. Do not even suggest it. Because when home invaders are breaking into my residence you will not be here to take the rape, and beating they are doling out. The police are under absolutely no legal obligation to protect me either. Warren v. District of Columbia

          4. This post has been deleted by its author

          5. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: not allowed access to firearms

            "For example, Washington, DC has both some of the toughest gun laws and highest rates of violent crime."

            It would undoubtedly be far worse without those gun laws.

            "Again, there does not seem to be a correlation between gun ownership levels and gun crime levels in the US. "

            Just LOL. You might want to read http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Firearm-Ownership-and-Violent-Crime.pdf

            'They found no evidence that states with more households with guns led to timid criminals. In fact, firearm assaults were 6.8 times more common in states with the most guns versus states with the least. Firearm robbery increased with every increase in gun ownership except in the very highest quintile of gun-owning states (the difference in that cluster was not statistically significant). Firearm homicide was 2.8 times more common in states with the most guns versus states with the least. . . .'

            "It is that you come from a different set of values, attitudes and circumstances."

            Well not only that, it's also that we don't have easy access to weapons. Not having an endemic culture of gung-ho stupidity helps of course.

            1. sisk

              Re: not allowed access to firearms

              "For example, Washington, DC has both some of the toughest gun laws and highest rates of violent crime."

              It would undoubtedly be far worse without those gun laws.

              A better example, perhaps, is Chicago. Every time they implement stricter gun laws there the murder rate goes up. When they finally relaxed it a little the murder rate dropped.

            2. PaulFrederick

              Re: not allowed access to firearms

              It would be far worse for who? The criminals, or law abiding citizens trying to defend themselves?

          6. Ronnie Gibson

            Re: not allowed access to firearms

            Not sure what version of Google you searched...maybe you could post some actual references that back up your conclusions?

            Here's a couple of intersting ones:

            http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/

            http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/06/19/guns-in-america-for-every-criminal-killed-in-self-defense-34-innocent-people-die/

          7. Matt Bryant Silver badge

            Re: Robert Helpmann Re: not allowed access to firearms

            It's a statistical fact that guncrime in the UK went up after the handgun ban. This is simply because taking handguns away from law-abiding citizens did not affect the criminals actually using guns for crime. Shootings do happen on a daily basis in London, it's just not getting the same attention as the politicians in the UK have already used banning handguns as a gimmick and don't want to admit it did SFA to stop guncrime, whereas in the US there is still plenty of political mileage out of spreading the lie that banning legal guns stops guncrime. The real cause of school attacks and other mass shootings is mental health issues - when the nutters don't have access to a gun they simply use something else such as knives and petrol (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shiguan_kindergarten_attack).

            A simple answer to the "guns = massacres" bullshit is to simply point out that the places firearms are most common in civillian hands - shooting ranges - are also the places without shooting massacres, because even the nutters realise they would be quickly shot and killed by armed civilians defending themselves, whereas unarmed kids and teachers are easy prey.

          8. WalterAlter
            Happy

            Re: not allowed access to firearms

            Boy, lookit how a rational, fact based analysis hits the ideologically sieved robot program downvote factor. Having trouble escaping the sh!t/Shinola paradigm, are we?

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTHL0y6xvLE

          9. Anonymous Cow Herder

            Re: not allowed access to firearms

            "the reason you don't have "high levels of gun crime, lots of children shooting each other and daily mass murders" is most likely not that you aren't allowed access to firearms. It is that you come from a different set of values, attitudes and circumstances." -Now that's real BS!

            1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
              Boffin

              Anon Cow Herder Re: not allowed access to firearms

              ".....Now that'''s real BS!" Well, yes and no. The common threads amongst the majority of school shootings Worldwide are male youth as the shooter; with known mental illness and/or "social issues" (i.e., likely undiagnosed mental illness); and choosing a target of their peer group that they know will be unarmed and unlikely to be able to defend themselves. Strangely, there are no outraged shrieks of "racial profiling" when the FBI state the profile for a school shooter is a white male youth..... Deeper investigation has shown they often viewed prior school shootings as acts that should garner "respect" and that performing their own massacre will gain them immortality. This is common to such massacres as the two notorious shootings in Finland (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jokela_school_shooting and https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kauhajoki_school_shooting) which have striking similarities to those in the US. Indeed, if you just read through the Wiki articles with the names of the people and places removed you would assume they were stories of US massacres. So the problem would seem to be partly one of "youth culture".

              Why don't we have school shootings with female shooters? Well we may soon. The "culture" is spreading to girls as well (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/cops-pennsylvania-girl-wanted-to-be-the-first-female-school-shooter/). Please note the common thread of known mental issues and "respect" for other shooters.

              Why don't we see more shootings of other easy targets? Why do the shooters pick schools over old people's homes? The latter offers plenty of easy targets which are highly unlikely to be armed. Again, it comes back to the thoughts and beliefs or delusions of the attackers - they blame their peer groups for their lack of success.

              The solution would seem to be much greater monitoring of youth social media; more and - yes - intrusive psychiatric help in schools; and have some better form of defence in schools, including armed police. Simply saying "take away all the guns" will not remove the nutters from the schools, and examples around the World show they will resort to other means anyway (knives, explosives, inflammables, etc.).

          10. midcapwarrior

            Re: not allowed access to firearms

            DC may have some of the toughest but Virginia has some of the easiest and it's just across the river.

            Virginia is the purchase location of choice for the entire East Coast.

          11. CheesyTheClown

            Re: not allowed access to firearms

            I like your posting... it contacts on what is really the problem (though who am I to suggest I even understand the problem well enough to know what it is)... haha I'm a poster on The Reg... therefore I'm an expert on everything in my own mind... so bare with me.

            Wait... the same thing which makes me feel as if I should post here on this topic... this feeling of expertise of some type... this feeling I have that I should add my two cents and be part of this battle. This is something close to the problem.

            Let's be fair, you said that American's have a different set of values that the British or well anywhere else in the world. I have spent much time in America (as I am from there and have spent time in 42 states) as well as spending a few weeks in England.. London specifically which obviously makes me an expert on everything British... and I live in Norway now for 17 years.

            England and Norway have a single cultural difference which makes a gigantic advantage over America. The mass population of the U.S. (myself included) are descendants of "The crap from the bottom of the barrel" that entered the U.S. through Ellis Island fleeing from bad situations everywhere. Landing in America to feel like they're entitled to something better than before and having been for many years earlier the underdog... the weak... the people unable to accomplish any greatness in their homes, but now have become great by joining a club made up of "The other crap from the bottoms of the barrels in other countries"

            Many many many Americans are descendants of each countries religious outcasts... people who fled their countries because they believed the right way to pray to their god was wearing a hat with a flat top instead of a round one. People who believed their messiah was white instead of brown. People who made religion such an incredibly important part of their lives that they fled their home and ran off somewhere they could build their churches and not be infected or inflicted by the heathens. Did they build schools? Hell no! Who needs a school if we have a church?

            We Americans have this in-built obsessive need to always believe people want to take what we have. We know we wouldn't steal from our neighbor, but we're sure our neighbor would steal from us because they weren't raised as well as we are. We have values and we're right. Oh, those neighbors aren't so bad in a kind of uncivilized way, but you know how it is, not everyone had our benefits growing up. Our entire country is populated by people who think they're special and better than each other. They preach competition in all things... not just when watching uneducated boys in shorts kicking balls around for millions of dollars. They compete on everything and are sure that everyone must want what they have.

            It's amazing how most people I've heard that have a gun in case someone breaks into their house to rape their wife or daughter have the ugliest wives and daughters I've ever seen.

            In the end, the non-American culture regarding gun ownership is much better and much more mature because :

            a) Americans are the only people on earth who are so hell bent on everyone wanting what they have that they feel an irrational need to arm themselves to protected it... eventually extending this desperate fear of "they're coming to take my stuff" to a freakish belief that their most valuable possessions requiring protection are their own guns and rights to hold them.

            b) Americans are the only society on earth where gun owners are strongly opposed to proper training of how to own and manage guns. For example, here in Norway, people with guns in their houses are required to store their ammunition separate from the firearm itself. That means no round in the chamber. The bullets are locked in a safe. Americans all seem to believe that if a highly alert, armed burglar were climbing though their bedroom window, they could wake up, aim, shoot and actually hit something in a few seconds. They need to have a loaded weapon with the safety off one each side of the bed and one under the pillow. These people preach how they have freedom and liberty and yet they live in such utter fear that they will forfeit their own liberties to be armed at all times to feel safe and free.

            American gun owners actively fight any suggestion that people should have to take proper training to learn how be mature responsible gun owners. These courses aren't the ones run by the redneck in the shop selling assault rifles with bayonets for slicing onions while camping. I'm talking about courses run by military professionals or police professionals who focus on how to manage a situation so a gun doesn't need to be fired instead of teaching under what conditions you can legally kill someone.

            It'll be 500 years and many generations before Americans can start to own guns responsibly. To see them more as a tool like a hammer or a screw driver than as a snuggy security blanket. It will take a long time before American's see that a massive chunk of the rest of the world has so much more that they do that while we were busy bickering little little kids thinking someone wants to steal my toy... those other kids got better toys and just stopped looking at us other than to laugh.

            I am extremely happy I left the U.S., there is so much I love about the U.S. but the constant bickering and generally white hat/black hat bullshit is toxic. It's a nice place to visit, but it's so far behind most of the world on most things that it would be like moving from the city to live in a cave to go back there.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Be glad - it's also why we dont have high levels of gun crime, lots of children shooting each other

          you are not a Londoner then?

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            "you are not a Londoner then?"

            That's still very rare and is for the most part 'Black on Black' crime, so comes under the Darwin Award nominations (desirable gene pool cleaning) for the rest of us...

        2. LucreLout

          Be glad - it's also why we dont have high levels of gun crime, lots of children shooting each other and daily mass murders...

          No it isn't.

          Shotguns are readily available to anyone with a clean criminal record - just apply for the licence, get the gun safe, and decide which gauge you prefer.

          Secondly, what we have instead is rampant knife crime. Yes, it is hard for an individual to kill a lot of people with a knife than a semi automatic weapon, but what you're doing is limiting the body count rather than addressing the problem. I accept the inevitable repost that on its own that is still a laudable thing.

          Thirdly, there are many countries with more casual gun laws than our own, such as Norway (30+ guns per 100 people), that have neither the knife crime nor the gun crime (Norways rate is below our own). Clearly then, guns aren't the problem (no I don't own one) and whatever the problem is ain't being addressed - and it most certainly would need addressing before we could relax our gun laws without predictable carnage.

          1. sisk

            Yes, it is hard for an individual to kill a lot of people with a knife than a semi automatic weapon

            Not really, no. Mass stabbings actually have similar body counts to mass shootings, believe it or not.

            1. dogged

              > Not really, no. Mass stabbings actually have similar body counts to mass shootings, believe it or not.

              [citation needed]

              1. sisk

                Not really, no. Mass stabbings actually have similar body counts to mass shootings, believe it or not.

                [citation needed]

                At UCC last month nine were killed and nine more wounded.

                In Aurora, CO 20 were killed.

                In Chattanooga, TN, 5 were killed.

                In Charleston, SC, 9 were killed

                In Marysville, WA, 3 were killed.

                Those are 5 of the most publicized mass shootings in recent years. Now for the stabbings (linked because the mass media doesn't bother whipping folks into a frenzy over knives so they're harder to find):

                China Body count: 33, Injured: 130

                Brooklyn Body count: 5, maybe 6 (one wounded victim was critical and had an uncertain prognosis at the time of the article)

                Jersey body count: 6

                Like I said, pretty similar body counts.

        3. unimaginative

          Rubbish. The US has a much higher murder rate than other developed countries murder rate even if you exclude gun murders. It is a social (Americans are more inclined to use lethal force) or medical (victims of attacks are not receiving as good or as prompt) treatment.

        4. ChrisBedford

          [quot]""Oh. no I wouldn't because we're generally not allowed access to firearms in the u.k.""

          Be glad - it's also why we dont have high levels of gun crime, lots of children shooting each other and daily mass murders...[/quot]

          Do you really believe that? Guns cause crime? Not stupidity, gung-ho frontier mentality, alcohol, and lack of education or awareness?

      1. Your alien overlord - fear me

        Green laser, 5Mw pointed below the drone (to where the camera normally is). Good bye camera, or at least it is if the camera is pointing at you. If drone voyeur complains to the poilce, he's just admitted to invasion of privacy.

        And if you're wondering why green, it's visible in daylight so you can see where you're pointing it. Blue lasers might be better but are way to expensive at the moment.

        1. dan1980

          @Your alien overlord - fear me

          No, high-powered green lasers are a genuine issue for pilots and, certainly in Australia, if you were found to be aiming them upwards, it might not go down overly well.

          I would suggest that some kind of counter-drone would be a fantastic idea. It would 'need' a camera to record the incident, as evidence if needed, a second camera to detect drones and help 'home in' on them and then a mounted laser that disrupts the camera.

          Of course drones come in many configurations so that might be difficult but I'm sure someone clever could figure it out.

          If not that then another option would be for a specially hardened drone that could disable other drones simply by hitting them. It wouldn't need to be overly forceful.

          1. Just Enough

            "No, high-powered green lasers are a genuine issue for pilots and, certainly in Australia, if you were found to be aiming them upwards, it might not go down overly well."

            Let's not get carried away. It is not illegal to aim a laser upwards, it is illegal to aim a laser at an aircraft.

          2. Kiwi
            Mushroom

            @ dan1980

            If not that then another option would be for a specially hardened drone that could disable other drones simply by hitting them. It wouldn't need to be overly forceful.

            Probably don't need much hardening.. Some string/netting/streamers dangling below, attached by some means with a weaker breaking strength than would disturb your own drone..

            Hmm... Wonder about those tiny choppers with the little water jet thingy underneath.. Maybe I could take that concept and make one filled with a suitably combustible material..

          3. geoot

            Sounds like an aerial version of "Robot Wars" that I used to watch on cable TV. If you have your own "watch drone" I believe that it would legally bring the whole affair to the level of saying "sic em" to your dog when some else's dog trespasses on your property. I am surprised that no one has mentioned the right of farmers to shoot dogs that are harassing livestock. It is a clear legal right but is exercised cautiously because of the very real human relations issues,

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Where do I get this 5 Mega-watt green laser? Does it come with a generator or power cable?

        3. TheVogon

          "Green laser, 5Mw pointed below the drone"

          That size system + targeting system would need a truck, would vaporise the drone, would endanger anything else in the sky, and would cost millions.

          See http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/04/21/us-navy-tests-laser-weapons

        4. DaddyHoggy

          I think you may have got the case of your 'm' and 'W' mixed up.

          Unless you have access to Reagan's Star Wars anti-ICBM technology hitting a drone with a 5 Megawatt Green Laser may be considered overkill.

      2. Jimboom

        "I feel a drone Kickstarter project coming on."

        Anti-drone drones. I like it. Take my money good sir and make it so! At the very least you would get a good tv show out of it. Drone wars.

        1. auburnman

          Re: anti-drone drones

          Last time these were discussed I suggested strapping some rotors and an automatic lid closer to a wheelie bin for live drone capture in a low budget homage to You Only live Twice.*

          *IIRC correctly we were discussing nicking stuff around the time amazon declared they wanted to do drone delivery.

        2. 0laf

          I think you might be too slow for that. Plenty of anti-drone tech being developed right now. Governments are very keen on it so there is a nice big pork barrel to be opened.

          And you can by anti-drone shotgun shells if you really like your snake oil ammunition

    1. Stevelane

      It is not hard to get a shotgun licence in the UK if you are a country dweller. Air guns are also legal and would probably send an appropriate message to the drone flyer.

      1. 0laf

        Doubt the UK judiciary would be quite so tolerant of a shotgun being discharged into the air.

Page:

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like