back to article Bloke cuffed for blowing low-flying camera drone to bits with shotgun

A father of two girls didn't take too kindly to a camera-equipped quadrocopter hovering over his house and snooping on his kids – so he blasted it out of the sky. Now he's facing charges of first-degree criminal mischief and wanton endangerment. William Merideth, 47, was relaxing at his home in Hillview, Kentucky, US, on …

Page:

    1. This post has been deleted by its author

      1. Khaptain Silver badge

        Re: 40mm Glock

        A 40mm Glock would truly enter into the realms of a hand "cannon"...

        For anyone that doesn't know, calibers are expressed either in mm or in inches.

        A 40 is actually a 0.40" = 10mm. Although a 10mm should never be confused with a 0.40" because it is a much more powerfull caliber.

        The original 10mm was deemed too powefull for the majority of cops, they found it uncomfortable to shoot. So the .40 was invented to replace it, although the diameter is the same, the charge is much weaker, a 0.40 still packs a punch though...

        Anyway I agree with this guy, the drone had no right to be in his backyard. This drone shit will soon have to be vorrectly regulated by laws before it gets way out of hand.

        If that drone had lost power and dropped on someone's head and killed them would the owners be liable for the death. Especially when they intentionally flew it over someone elses property.

        1. Ol'Peculier

          Re: 40mm Glock

          If that drone had lost power and dropped on someone's head and killed them would the owners be liable for the death. Especially when they intentionally flew it over someone elses property.

          So, if the drone fell on somebody after being shot down, would the bloke with the gun be liable?

          1. Elmer Phud

            Re: 40mm Glock

            Yes

          2. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

            Re: 40mm Glock

            "So, if the drone fell on somebody after being shot down, would the bloke with the gun be liable?"

            s/drone/bits of drone/

        2. Trollslayer
          Joke

          Re: 40mm Glock

          Maybe if fires bullets sideways.

    2. WonkoTheSane
      Headmaster

      Re: 40mm Glock

      Most likely a Glock MODEL 40 which is a 10mm calibre weapon

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: 40mm Glock

        Indeed. Otherwise the recoil would have placed him in his neighbour's garden!

      2. Khaptain Silver badge

        Re: 40mm Glock

        just read one WDRB websites article and ironically the guy was held at the (wait for it)

        Bullitt County Detention Center.....

        The article reads as though the drone pilots were indeed looking into peoples property. The pilots stated that they wanted to photograph a friends house, so why didn't they take off next to the friends house instead of flying over everyones back yard. It would be interesting to see the film, if it so happens that they were filming people next to their pools then things might heat up yet again, especially if this guys daughter appear on the film.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: 40mm Glock

      I've got a 40mm diameter gun and it's equipped with a 50mm Stahelm, Woof! Woof!

      Anyway better go, if word gets out I'm missing, five hundred girls will kill themselves. And I wouldn't want them on my conscience, not when they ought to be on my *face*! Hello? Cancel the state funeral, tell the king to stop blubbing, Flash is not dead! I simply ran out of juice! And before five hundred girls all go 'oh, what's the point in living any more?' I'm talking about petrol! Woof! Send someone along to pick me up. General Melchett's driver will do, she hangs round with a big knob so she'll be used to a fellow like me. Woof!

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: 40mm Glock

        I'm shocked. A register reader has just down thumbed a Blackadder Captain Flashheart quote. What is the world coming to!

        This is a slippery slope. There will be hating on Thunderbirds and the Clangers next.

        1. P. Lee
          Trollface

          Re: 40mm Glock

          Its the automated down-voting troll-fairy

        2. VinceH
          Unhappy

          Re: 40mm Glock

          "This is a slippery slope. There will be hating on Thunderbirds and the Clangers next."

          Have you seen the new Thunderbirds?

  1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
    Trollface

    It's time

    ... for antidrone drones.

    And +1 for using projectile weapons in anger, espically if "liberal" whining and manufactured outrage is increased by doing so.

    1. hplasm
      Go

      Re: It's time

      Begun, these Drone Wars have...

    2. auburnman

      Re: It's time

      Net Gun. Job done.

      1. P. Lee
        Terminator

        Re: It's time

        LOIC should work nicely. If it auto-lands you get yourself a nice new drone.

  2. Kharkov
    Big Brother

    Let the arms race begin...

    I'm not a gun fan myself but I can sympathize with the guy who had put up a 2mtr fence to get some privacy. Discharging a gun inside the city limits can be problematic though, because you're never sure where the bullet will end up if you miss (and sometimes even if you hit - pass through, minimal loss of velocity etc) but I'd think a shotgun would have been ok in that regard.

    So how about this? No, you can't shoot things with guns but you CAN use your own small, fast, maneuverable drone which will, on command, and only over your own property, to a maximum height of... let's say 100 meters?, carry stuff to be dropped over the intruding drone, thereby fouling the blades and causing it to drop to the floor.

    Just press a button or have a web-cam or something scanning for intruders and when people get nosy, bring the vehicle of their nosiness down with a bump. After that, it's finders-keepers, losers... have to cough up to get their drone back...

    1. Paul Crawford Silver badge

      Re: Let the arms race begin...

      I don't know much about guns, but I imagine that a typical shotgun charge has a lot of small round shot in it, so the risk of that coming down far away elsewhere under gravity and remaining momentum is a whole lot smaller than a bullet.

      Any commentards with more knowledge willing to add to this?

      1. Charles 9

        Re: Let the arms race begin...

        Shot can't keep a ballistic trajectory (shotguns are smoothbore), which is the key reason bullets fired up are still deadly coming back down (because their spin from the rifling stabilizes their flight). They'll tumble instead and fall to the ground with about the force of a comparably-sized pebble dropped from the shot's apex (1-200 feet, I think). Meaning, at worst, it can be annoying but it shouldn't be lethal.

        1. rh587

          Re: Let the arms race begin...

          "They'll tumble instead and fall to the ground with about the force of a comparably-sized pebble dropped from the shot's apex (1-200 feet, I think). Meaning, at worst, it can be annoying but it shouldn't be lethal."

          Yes and no. Depending on the angle at which it was fired, it may still be travelling horizontally with some force - even if it's vertical speed is only the acceleration due to gravity from the apex.

          At best it bounces off, at worst it could break the skin. If it hits a small child or a vulnerable area (e.g. your eyes) the results could be more severe. Of course this guy wouldn't know if anyone was "downrange" if he was shooting over a 2-metre privacy fence...

        2. itzman

          Re: Let the arms race begin...

          Bit more than that. I've heard pellets rustling through the leaves about 150m from where someone was shooting.

          I reckon top range is 200m, but once over 50 m is definitely sub lethal and at 100m unlikely top even sting.

          Unless you are loaded with other than birdshot.

          1. Charles Manning

            Re: Let the arms race begin...

            It all depends on the shot you're using...

            If this guy just picked up his home defence shotgun loaded with slugs or OO buckshot (9 balls) he would be lucky to hit a drone, but the projectiles travel a reasonable range.

            If he had lighter bird shot in there, the pellets don't fly as far. 7 or 8 (typically used for skeet) does not make it past about 300m or so but have lost their ability to cause any damage long before then.

            The ideal anti-drone shotgun load would probably be some sort of "chain shot" using nylon and rubber balls. Absolutely zero danger to people when they come down, but would cause a lovely tangle on the props.

            1. Boothy

              Re: Let the arms race begin...

              He apparently loaded bird shot, specifically because he was using it in a built up area.

      2. rh587

        Re: Let the arms race begin...

        "I don't know much about guns, but I imagine that a typical shotgun charge has a lot of small round shot in it, so the risk of that coming down far away elsewhere under gravity and remaining momentum is a whole lot smaller than a bullet."

        A lot less than a bullet, and being spherical, the shot has an awful ballistic co-efficient and bleeds it's energy very quickly.

        Depending on the weight of shot and the powder load (26/28/32g) as well as the range, it could break the skin or worse if you caught one in the eye.

    2. rh587

      Re: Let the arms race begin...

      "Discharging a gun inside the city limits can be problematic though, because you're never sure where the bullet will end up if you miss (and sometimes even if you hit - pass through, minimal loss of velocity etc) but I'd think a shotgun would have been ok in that regard."

      Shotgun = lots of little balls of shot, not one big bullet (assuming he wasn't shooting solid slug, and I'd be amazed if he hit a drone with solid slug!).

      Pro: those pellets bleed energy quickly and won't go more than 300yds.

      Cons: Lots of them means it's a statistical certainty not all of them will hit the drone - that's the point, you fire a pattern of shot and effectively get more than one attempt per cartridge.

      This means shot WILL have landed downrange - not very far, but probably on someone else's property. That's reckless endangerment.

      1. Steve Davies 3 Silver badge

        Re: Let the arms race begin...

        This means shot WILL have landed downrange - not very far, but probably on someone else's property. That's reckless endangerment.

        Only if said neighbours decide to press charges. As the drone was had probably flown over their property they might side with him on this.

        I guess that there will soon be areas of the US proclaiming themselves to be Drone Free and allowing their residents to shoot them down on sight.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Let the arms race begin...

      Mythbusters did a test on this, go watch the results before forming an opinion

    4. P. Lee
      Linux

      Re: Let the arms race begin...

      > finders-keepers, losers

      Hmm, down Amazon's drone, see if its carrying anything you want and send it back up again.

      Better yet, train a falcon (or a penguin) to pick off the payload.

  3. ShadowDragon8685
    Meh

    Meh. I'm of two minds on this.

    On the one hand, I'm a firm supporter of gun ownership, gun use, and especially home defense.

    On the other, I'm also a firm believer that you are responsible for the privacy you wish to enjoy. If it can be seen by someone who is not trespassing, you have no right to complain. (ex. if you walk around naked in front of bay windows, you have no right to complain if people stop and enjoy an eyeful.)

    In this case, I have to ask the question: how high above a property's ground-level boundariesl does their jurisdiction extend? Does the height of the tallest permanent structure on that land matter? (I think it should, to cover, for example, skyscrapers.)

    Does a person have jurisdiction over the airspace above their home at all? And if that is indeed the case, how much will that jurisdiction be abrogated in the name of public passage? For example, in the US, most homes' property lines actually extend out into the middle of the street, but you can't, say, go and erect a fence crossing the sidewalk and your half of the street. Whether or not you own the land (and hence are technically responsible for it, particularly for clearing it of snow and ice in winteritme,) you aren't allowed to, say, put up traffic cones to reserve the curbside parking area for yourself, nor are you permitted to prevent others from traversing the sidewalk.

    Ultimately, I think people are just going to have to accept that elevated persons (or their agents, IE, their drones in this case,) can look onto their property, and they're going to have to treat the air space like they treat the sidewalk; either put up a big fence (in this case, a dome?) or just do without and accept that anything that can be seen from an elevated point of view is still something that's in plain sight, and hence, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy.

    That said, the drone operators definitely should not have been flying low and/or slow enough that some hick with a shotgun could take it down. They were in fuckin' Kentucky! Folks 'round those parts tend to be good shots.

    WRT the question of how high above someone's property their jurisdiction ends, I dunno. Perhaps 25m above the height of the highest part of the tallest permanent structure on the land. You definitely shouldn't have to tolerate someone buzzing your tower with a drone, but at the same time, you shouldn't have the right to go full paranoid arsehole and shoot down anything that crosses the property line.

    1. Mark 85

      I'm not sure "height" is the requirement. Most cities do regulate how high a privacy fence can be however.

      Where the gray (grey) area is with multistory housing. If you're looking in a window, say across the street with binoculars, you can be arrested for being a Peeping Tom. I'm assuming from what I've read, that this is problem with the drones.. fly along slowly and photograph the inside of apartments, etc. I would think this principle could be applied even on a single floor unit.

      If I put up a privacy fence, I have an expectation of privacy from the "normal" view. Drones violate that "normal" viewing.

    2. Charles 9

      Actually, a homeowner normally DOES possess air rights to the space immediately above their homes, up to a certain height where it's government-regulated airspace instead (where airplanes fly). I know this because my neighborhood signed an eminent domain settlement giving the Navy an easement allowing the jets of a nearby airbase to fly over our neighborhood in exchange for compensation. They wouldn't do this unless the homeowners actually owned the space over their houses.

      1. Boothy

        Quote: "Actually, a homeowner normally DOES possess air rights to the space..."

        If that's the case across the USA, then I guess the drone itself was trespassing, and so was effectively 'asking for it'.

        1. Boothy

          I did a bit of quick googling, as far as I can see, in the USA, normal private property owns all rights to the immediate airspace above the property, up to 500 feet.

          So anything entering that airspace without permission, is trespassing.

        2. Irony Deficient

          US airspace rights

          Boothy, yes, it’s US-wide due to the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Causby (1946). This part of that decision could be relevant in this instance:

          While the owner does not in any physical manner occupy that stratum of airspace [below 500 feet (152.4 m)] or make use of it in the conventional sense, he does use it in somewhat the same sense that space left between buildings for the purpose of light and air is used. The superadjacent airspace at this low altitude [83 feet (25.3 m) in this case] is so close to the land that continuous invasions of it affect the use of the surface of the land itself. We think that the landowner, as an incident to his ownership, has a claim to it and that invasions of it are in the same category as invasions of the surface.
          State governments can (and do) regulate airspace below 500 feet.

  4. Gambler
    Thumb Up

    Na Na Nana Na(not a coward-forgot password)

    The thing about "rights" is that you do not have ther right to intrude in other peoples yards, especially i there is a 6 FOOT fence that clearly screams "I want my privacy!!!". The charge of discharging a firearm in a residential neighborhood, well that is hard to argue about. If you operate your drone in such a manner that someone finds issue with it, you should have your expensive MANTOY confiscated and possibly charged with illegal survalence of other people or something along those lines. Learn how to jam such devices instead of going cowboy on them. Hint they are suseptible to uhf disturbances and the best way to do this by a wait for it-Citizens Band hand held radio or another RC toy. I understand the frustration of being charged for the greatly aimed shotgun blast, unless you own your own ranch you cannot do that( the spent shot has to land somewhere) and neighborhoods have those rules for a reason. Drones are no excuse for bad behavior and you should be held responsible for thier use or misuse. Good job standing your ground on the open carry. Nice to see proper application of laws and good supervision by honest police. Good job cops for not trampling a homeownwers rights to his property. Shame on you who own the drone; you got what you had coming!!!

    1. ShadowDragon8685

      Re: Na Na Nana Na(not a coward-forgot password)

      I'm sorry, at what point did the drone's operators intrude in this person's yard?

      Putting up a tall fence does not make your property magically invisible. It blocks line of sight by virtue of being a solid object. But you can't claim that nobody flying overhead is in the wrong if they happen to observe what's going on there, just as you can't claim that somebody is in the wrong if you put up no privacy fence and someone observes what's going on in your yard under those circumstances.

      Now, if the drone was hovering around rooftop level, then yeah, they should have been yelled at for that, but calling the cops and having the cops slap the cuffs on them - or slap a fine on them - is an appropriate response, not shooting the drone down. That's only acceptable if the drone is actually shooting AT you, same as if the guy was physically present with a camcorder.

      1. WonkoTheSane
        Black Helicopters

        Re: Na Na Nana Na(not a coward-forgot password)

        Having read the original article, it seems the drone was operating at BELOW roof height (approx 10 feet), and stopping at intervals to ogle sunbathing girls, including HIS daughters!

        See http://www.wdrb.com/story/29650818/hillview-man-arrested-for-shooting-down-drone-cites-right-to-privacy

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Na Na Nana Na(not a coward-forgot password)

          Yep, shoot it down, no fecking peeping tom is gonna look at my daughters sunbathing, less he marries 'em first.

          Seriously, the guy made his point (point blank) and I bet drone-boy will be a lot more careful in future.

          And, I do see a potential market for drone jamming tools on the horizon.

      2. Adam JC

        Re: Na Na Nana Na(not a coward-forgot password)

        So what you're saying, is that if your two 16 year old daughters are sunbathing in your garden and suddenly a drone flies over the fence at lower than roof level (Presumably with a camera attached), you'd be perfectly okay with this? I think anyone in the same boat would be pretty miffed. Admittedly, shooting it out of the sky is a tad overkill but certainly whip a pressure washer out or throw something at it!

        1. rh587

          Re: Na Na Nana Na(not a coward-forgot password)

          "So what you're saying, is that if your two 16 year old daughters are sunbathing in your garden and suddenly a drone flies over the fence at lower than roof level (Presumably with a camera attached), you'd be perfectly okay with this?"

          But would you also be okay with your neighbour shooting at it, perhaps unaware that your daughters are sunbathing (because of the privacy fence) and injuring or even blinding them when they get peppered with shot?

          Droneboy wasn't in the right here, but the shooter could rightly be facing reckless endangerment charges.

          1. Adam JC

            Re: Na Na Nana Na(not a coward-forgot password)

            I didn't say I'd be okay with my neighbour shooting it, I said I would have whipped a pressure washer out or threw something at it. I live in England, where if you tried something like this, you'd almost certainly be arrested on the spot. Then again, nobody in England would attempt this as firearms aren't handed out like sweets here, you actually have to go through rigorous assessments and psychological evaluation before being allowed to own one!

      3. Dan Paul

        Re: Na Na Nana Na @ShadowDragon8685 PRIVATE AIRSPACE!

        The drone pilot got what he deserved, the home owner has a right to privacy in his own yard. Let alone that I believe you have private airspace over your own property.

        It is quite illegal in many states to point ANY surveillance camera on to anothers private property. The drone had a camera. The homeowner was concerned that the drone was "perving" on his daughters.

        Most states have "Peeping Tom" laws as well. I say the drone pilot was guilty of BOTH infractions as well as criminal trespass. The gun owner was within his rights to shoot the drone down as it was just a "proxy" for a Peeping Tom.

        Hell, we have hail here that frequently gets to the size of baseballs here and that's way more dangerous than No. 8 Birdshot. The homeowner shouldn't get charged with ANYTHING, even the offense of discharging a firearm within city limits which all towns have. He was defending his property and daughters against a potential pervert.

        I am claiming private airspace rights up to 400 feet above my property so NO DRONES will overfly the boundaries of my property line.

        1. Boothy

          Re: Na Na Nana Na @ShadowDragon8685 PRIVATE AIRSPACE!

          The airspace above a private property is owned by the property owner (up to a point, where it becomes public airspace).

          Any aircraft, or drone etc. that is flying below the public airspace is technically trespassing, irrespective of their reason.

          So when they flew the drone over the persons garden/yard, they were breaking the law.

        2. ShadowDragon8685

          Re: Na Na Nana Na @ShadowDragon8685 PRIVATE AIRSPACE!

          I'm sorry, I don't buy that.

          Technology should not be restricted by laws, laws should adjust to accommodate technology.

          Drones are, quite simply, the way of the future, just like cameras were.

          People just need to get with the fact that folks' cameras are gonna be buzzing around doing stuff, and they might be seen, incidentally or intentionally, and if they don't like that, then they need to take steps to block the view of those drones, just as they took steps to block the view of Joe Blow walking by with a camera. Now Joe Blows' camera has wings, they need to adapt.

          Privacy is something you have a reasonable expectation to when you're within four walls and under a ceiling you have control over, or which deal in delicate times where you expect it (IE, a public restroom, or clothier's fitting room.) When out in the yard, not so much.

          Now, the drone guys were being arseholes and no mistake, they definitely should not have been buzzing over people's houses, but that was not a shooting offense. They definitely should have been much higher and/or over the street or sidewalk.

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Reminds me of the Google Maps cars...

    There was a big outcry when they started filming everywhere, and people's faces are now usually blurred out, even if they are caught outside of their own properties.

    Now we have drones and every moron can intrude other people's privacy and put the filmed material online. (Quite comparable to Google Glass and similar technology)

    In many countries it's not allowed to film persons of no public interest whatsoever and publish the material without their consent. Now how many drone owners will walk the flight path afterwards and get consent of everybody caught on camera?

    There really ought to be some clearly defined rules as to where and how to use drones. Maybe even a license to operate them. I know it sounds a bit over the top, but soon we'll see accidents involving drones with humans, property (oops, did not see that window coming!), cars, maybe even private small aircraft.

    <tinfoil mode>

    Maybe $government has no interest in regulating it too early though. The filmed and published material might be of use.

    </tinfoil mode>

    I can sympathise with the guy. I'm not pro guns at all, but if he used it on his property without remotely endangering anybody and managed to take out a flying drone, it really can't have been far away. Quite skilled that dude.

  6. davtom

    I don't know all the details of this, but:

    (1) The drone operators probably were breaking some laws when they commanded their drone to fly over somebody else's property, especially if the drone was not in sight of the operators at the time; but

    (2) Discharging a firearm to disable the drone would seem to be an act that has ample potential to be dangerous. The flight path of the drone after being shot could not possibly be controlled and it could easily cause damage to property and/or injury.

    Also, it would seem that the gun owner threatened the operators with shooting them. In Britain, that would rightly get you locked up. I don't understand why or how that's acceptable in America.

    Both parties were in the wrong IMO.

    1. rh587

      "Also, it would seem that the gun owner threatened the operators with shooting them. In Britain, that would rightly get you locked up. I don't understand why or how that's acceptable in America."

      Slightly different. He effectively stated that if they came onto his land looking for a fight he would shoot them, putting the fight to an end.

      Castle Doctrine is alive and well in the US.

      Simply threatening to shoot them would not be acceptable. Stating that he would defend himself with his firearm if they approached him is a bit different.

      He's still in the wrong though, as his action in shooting down the drone probably constituted reckless endangerment since he could not have known if there were people downrange, beyond his opaque privacy fence.

    2. euclid

      "Discharging a firearm to disable the drone would seem to be an act that has ample potential to be dangerous. The flight path of the drone after being shot could not possibly be controlled and it could easily cause damage to property and/or injury."

      Right. A damaged quad could crash anywhere in battery range and poses a significant risk of injury, damage and fire.

      1. Intractable Potsherd

        "A damaged quad could crash anywhere in battery range and poses a significant risk of injury, damage and fire."

        This is the real issue here. Regardless of what method used (lead shot, nylon and rubber chain shot, water, radio interference), there is a strong possibility of the incapacitated drone falling uncontrolled from a significant height. The "uncontrolled" aspect means there is a risk of injury or damage to property, regardless of how "safe" the method of bringing it down is. Liability is then going to spread far and wide without clear laws on this.

        Note: I don't really defend either party here. The drone operators behaved badly, but so did the man with the gun. However, my wife would insist on me finding a way to bring down a drone hovering over the garden, and I'd e classed as "useless" if I didn't - regardless of how little I would care in most situations.

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