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

Re: Hard to hit with a shotgun?

"With respect, shotguns were designed to hit fast moving highly manoeuvrable objects at moderate range."

Agreed. I don't know what shotgun owners get up to stateside, but in the UK the most popular sport is probably clay-pigeon shooting (skeet shooting if you're left-pondian), and if you're any good at that a moving drone at a reasonably low height wouldn't be a problem as they're much slower.

As far as endangerment of his neighbours goes, I've always got the impression that on a clay-pigeon shoot, no-one's too bothered about who's the other side of the hedge at the end of the field, as if you're firing almost straight up, standard shot will have lost pretty much all of its kinetic energy by the time it hits the ground.

Had he been using a rifle though, there certainly would be a case for a serious endangerment charge. For example, you wouldn't want to get on the wrong side of a .303 bullet even at 2 miles or so, and that's with a flat trajectory when fired at a paper target and missing the range butts. I dread to think how far it would go if fired up in the air, and it would certainly "sting a bit" if it hit someone when it came down again.

Re: And the drone owners?

It would certainly be worth the shooter's time filing charges against them. Even if he gets fined for shooting it down, a larger fine for them would send the message that their behaviour wasn't acceptable.

Re: And the drone owners?

Posted this above, but the FAA regulations for drones is the same as other model aircraft for personal use:

•Fly below 400 feet and remain clear of surrounding obstacles

•Keep the aircraft within visual line of sight at all times

•Remain well clear of and do not interfere with manned aircraft operations

•Don't fly within 5 miles of an airport unless you contact the airport and control tower before flying

•Don't fly near people or stadiums

•Don't fly an aircraft that weighs more than 55 lbs

•Don't be careless or reckless with your unmanned aircraft – you could be fined for endangering people or other aircraft

http://www.faa.gov/uas/model_aircraft/

If they had actually been flying the drone above 500ft, then the FAA would want to talk to them, but there are still other points there that they're likely afoul of.

Re: Good on him

Yup. I suspect if more and more drones are used to invade privacy there will eventually be a rise in people training in clay pigeon shooting.

I suspect that the first person who comes up with a defender drone or another means to reliably down a drone will have quite a winner on their hands, provided they have the usual caveats in the operating manual. I'd buy one, I hate the f*cking idiots who have no respect for someone else's privacy. I want my kids to grow up in peace.

Re: Good on him

"Hopefully the fine will be almost nothing and the warning to drone operators invading peoples privacy will be public."

The fine for shooting down the drone, maybe.

The sanction for recklessly endangering neighbours I hope is more severe.

Not sure which I would object to more - being snooped on or being (and having my family and property) peppered with shot by neighbours...

Re: Good on him

There is no evidence of any possibility of a violent confrontation from the report. The lack of violence can not be attributed to the presence of a hand gun. There is nothing to suggest that either party intended to be violent, bar the declaration that should the home owner's property boundary be breached would lead to the further discharge of a firearm.

Re: Good on him

"violent confrontation was defused by the open carry Glock"

Maybe. In this case. But what if the drone operators were open-carry nuts all carrying handguns?

He shot it with bird shot, which has quite a limited effective range,

In the US, 500 feet above your property is considered private airspace, if the drone was above 500 feet, it would have been out of range of the bird shot, so the fact it was shot down over his property, means it must have been under 500 feet to be in range, and so therefore was trespassing.

"This was a home invasion"

in case you didn't read the article, this was OUTSIDE.

Re: Good for him

Things fly over my house without my permission all the time, doesn't mean I can shoot them down.

Re: It took 4 not 1 idiots to do this?

"Just exactly what were 4 idiots up to flying this cam equipped drone at low altitude around the back yards of a posh suburb? Scouting burglaries, looking to peep? There is more to this story."

I draw your attention to the $1800 price tag on the drone, odds are that these were residents of the aforementioned "Posh" suburb playing with a new toy that one of them has bought.

If you think some guys messing about with tech has to have a sinister back story may I suggest that you would do better reading the daily mail.

Re: So what's the best way to down a drone?

Modern radio control stuff is a lot more sophisticated than in days of yore. A drone can generally be set up to return to the launch site if it loses comms with the transmitter. This isn't foolproof but it's unlikely that jamming will cause instant loss of aerodynamic control (even if it can't respond directly to the owner).

Re: So what's the best way to down a drone?

For a low-flying Peeping Tom drone like in this incident, how about a decent-sized throwing net, say 2m diameter? Toss it up, bag the drone, pull it back to earth, and report to the police with the evidence, so to say, in hand?

Re: Danger danger

It was #8 birdshot!

The pellets were tiny and when falling would never get to a speed where they could injure someone or damage property. You'd be in more danger of a bird flying over and crapping in your eye.

As a father with kids I would take great exception to someone flying a drone over my house without my permission.

As a father with kids I would take great exception to someone using a gun to shoot down that drone, were I their neighbour.

I make no pronouncements either way in this case. Both parties were in the wrong as far as I'm concerned (and as you pointed out) and I, for one, will be watching to see how the Courts deal with the issue. As others have noted, this will be an interesting test case.

Re: Gits exhibiting loathsome behaviour

If they flew within 500ft of your farm, and the farm isn't within the approach path of a scheduled aerodrome (not a private strip), then report it to the CAA, not the MOT (who won't have a clue).

Re: Getting them

Tresspass, certainly. Voyeurism would depend on its actions during the intrusion.

As for shooting down, that's something of a gray area. If one could bag, net, or otherwise capture the drone while it's over your property, one could at least argue confiscation and get off. Shooting it down will take more arguing before the judge since the circumstances can result in collateral damage, which is why most localities don't allow discharging within their limits.