Snooping drone shoot down.

[BC Guy]

It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the courts.
http://www.wdrb.com/story/29650818/...or-shooting-down-drone-cites-right-to-privacy

 

[WriterMs]

His lawyers should quickly check any social media accounts under the drone pilots' names. Men (?) like this usually like to show off and brag about the photos they sneak. I'd bet there are some on YouTube or Facebook or such. If they have posted incriminating evidence, it can be copied and preserved as if the SD card had been kept as evidence.

Any jury seeing that the operators were taking such invasive photos are not going to convict him in my opinion. Because we all know we could be the next victim. And the numbers are only going to increase. After drones disrupting firefighting planes in CA, I'm sure more regulations will be coming.

I wonder if a pellet gun is still discharging a weapon? Or something else that could take it down but not be considered a firearm with potential harm to others? Some who commented made valid points about where the projectile (bullet) would end up --- but didn't the article say he used a shotgun?

 

[LeeRevell]

Good shoot.  This was criminal invasion of privacy.

 

[LeeRevell]

Gotta check local and state laws.  In sunny Florida "Tater Guns" are illegal.  Hmmmm....  Falconry might be an option.  

 

[SoulRaven]

I think sling shots are legal almost anywhere...

 

[WriterMs]

Bingo on the slingshot. LOL

The bola without the spud gun would be good too... but who the heck knows how to hand throw a bola these days? Oh wait... where's HDR or oneleggedcowboy. hahahaha

Or what about a boomerang? If it could come back to you after striking the drone... maybe there is not even any evidence. Well, the drone cam would show it being thrown probably.. but still it might work do down the darned thing.

 

[LeeRevell]

Or, having grown up net fishing on the coast here, I might use a small cast net.  Guaranteed to tangle the rotors and bring the offending gizmo down.  Then a healthy application of either handaxe or size fifteen boot......    problem solved.

 

[WheelEstate USA]

Well sir, I was flying my kite when this thing came out of nowhere and got tangled in my lines. In my excitement, I might have stepped on it (a few times)

 

[Optimistic Paranoid]

You know, there's already a video on Youtube of a drone firing a handgun.  Instead of a handgun, mount a .410 shotgun barrel and make a fighter-drone.  In addition to protecting your privacy from snoops, I could easily see how this could become a rich mans hobby - a combat flying league where two drones would dogfight and attempt to shoot each other down.

Mark my words - that's coming.

Regards
John

 

[LeeRevell]

A Peeping Tom is a criminal, whether peeking in our windows or flying over our yards with a camera equipped quadcopter.  RC aircraft are fun, but this misuse needs to be stopped, destructively in necessary.  I take my privacy seriously.

 

[Seraphim]

A Peeping Tom is a criminal, whether peeking in our windows or flying over our yards with a camera equipped quadcopter.  RC aircraft are fun, but this misuse needs to be stopped, destructively in necessary.  I take my privacy seriously.

Lee

There is no indication of voyeuristic intent on the drone owners. No peeping Tom.  There was no trespass - one does own the airspace above ones property. There may have been an invasion of privacy, since the man said he has a six foot privacy fence. It depends on whether or not the fence provided complete privacy.

Whether or not the operator of the drone violated a law, the shooter definitely did. The drone could have come down on the street in front of his home and caused an injury accident, or struck another person.  And even though shotguns have more limit effective range, the shotgun blast could have injured another person he didn't know was on the other side of his privacy fence. A single piece of shot, even falling at terminal velocity, could have blinded, caused other serious injury, or even caused a fatality. The shooter was arrogantly stupid. One potential violation of the law doesn't excuse another. 

I'm not condoning the drone operator. But I think it's moronic to admire, condone, or emulate such wanton stupidity.

 

[WriterMs]

Seraphim,

I have to respectfully disagree with some of your conclusions or at least ask you for some clarifications.

Do you really feel that flying a drone low enough in the neighbor's yard to "peek" underneath the awning that hangs over their patio is NOT being a peeping tom?

Let's say you have your rig parked on a piece of land that you own or rent. Are you saying you would not feel invaded (and maybe threatened) if those four guys came up to your rig and just stood at the edge of your awning and watched everything you are doing? (which is the essence of what they were using the drone to do) You probably do not have a six-foot fence around your rig so then you would have no legal expectation of privacy?

Is continually traveling back and forth over the same few backyards somehow just fun "general" flying versus harassment of those property owners?

I do not think anyone here is agreeing with the idea of using a firearm because of potential harm to others. We are venting our outrage at the hoodlums who were flying this drone in the manner they were flying it. We are being creative in throwing out theoretical ideas to "block" the drone with no potential harm to other people.

You have to admit, it's possible that the operators might lose control of their drone and the drone itself could become an object that falls and puts out someone's eye. Or that the drone might erratically fly into a child's face with its rotors turning. They obviously saw all the people below and around their toy, so why would they not immediately take precautions to eliminate the possibility of their drone causing harm?

In my opinion, the old saying of "your rights end where my rights begin" is appropriate here.

 

[LeeRevell]

Lee

There is no indication of voyeuristic intent on the drone owners. No peeping Tom.  There was no trespass - one does own the airspace above ones property. There may have been an invasion of privacy, since the man said he has a six foot privacy fence. It depends on whether or not the fence provided complete privacy.

Whether or not the operator of the drone violated a law, the shooter definitely did. The drone could have come down on the street in front of his home and caused an injury accident, or struck another person.  And even though shotguns have more limit effective range, the shotgun blast could have injured another person he didn't know was on the other side of his privacy fence. A single piece of shot, even falling at terminal velocity, could have blinded, caused other serious injury, or even caused a fatality. The shooter was arrogantly stupid. One potential violation of the law doesn't excuse another. 

I'm not condoning the drone operator. But I think it's moronic to admire, condone, or emulate such wanton stupidity.

TOTALLY WRONG ANSWER AND CONCLUSION.  :dodgy:

 

[WriterMs]

New idea -- fighting intrusive flying camera with other cameras!

Curbing my well-founded reaction to violently destroy the peeping-tom drone, it occurs to me that another way to make the operators nervous is to use your own camera in an obvious way. For instance, begin using your cell phone to video the drone's behavior.

Have someone get your still camera to record more and to ZOOM in to capture identifying marks on the drone. Do those drones have a visible serial/ID number painted on them like real airplanes? It might be possible to get in a car and follow the drone as it hightails it back to its operators. I would not confront the men but rather take photos of them so I would have proof of who was responsible.

The operators might then get the idea that you are recording what they are doing to file a law suit -- which you might end up doing.

My inclination, if I got some good pics showing how intrusive it was, would be to go to local media with my pics and get a story going on local TV and in the newspaper. I would then call the county or state attorney to find out if there are any laws on the books to press charges (or encourage the media reporters to do that very thing.. putting more pressure on the system to do something).

It's always good to have a plan.

 

[LeeRevell]

New idea -- fighting intrusive flying camera with other cameras!

Curbing my well-founded reaction to violently destroy the peeping-tom drone, it occurs to me that another way to make the operators nervous is to use your own camera in an obvious way. For instance, begin using your cell phone to video the drone's behavior.

Have someone get your still camera to record more and to ZOOM in to capture identifying marks on the drone. Do those drones have a visible serial/ID number painted on them like real airplanes?
No, they are not registered aircraft, they are glorified toys.  Really not "drones" by the true definition.

It might be possible to get in a car and follow the drone as it hightails it back to its operators.
No, they have little actual range, so the offenders are likely no more than a few yards away.
I would not confront the men but rather take photos of them so I would have proof of who was responsible.

The operators might then get the idea that you are recording what they are doing to file a law suit -- which you might end up doing.
Oh, you could count on it.  But consult a lawyer, no need to get thrown out of court for a 'nuisance suit'.

My inclination, if I got some good pics showing how intrusive it was, would be to go to local media with my pics and get a story going on local TV and in the newspaper. I would then call the county or state attorney to find out if there are any laws on the books to press charges (or encourage the media reporters to do that very thing.. putting more pressure on the system to do something).

It's always good to have a plan.

Or you could "Fight fire with fire".  Get your own camera-equipped drone and follow THEM around.  Make 'em sweat.  They violate MY privacy?  I violate their's.

 

[MikeRuth]

I have stated before that I am an RC enthusiast and have been in the hobby now for more than 45 years. I've watched this particular area of the hobby evolve.
Drone is a correct description although I wish they would make a difference, Drone and UAV unmanned aerial vehicle. I'd like to think a drone is an aircraft that is flown either completely out of the operators site or autonomously.  A small UAV being what the hobbyist fly's, which are Tri copters(three rotors), quad copters (four rotors) Hexicopters(6 rotors) etc.
As the last roughly 5 years have gone by these have turned from home built, hope they fly to commercial products available everywhere and there damn nice. Off the shelf units now in the $500.00 plus range have decent HD camera's GPS and RTH (return to home) capabilities. There are units that run $10,000.00 for the capability to handle large professional HD camera systems and fail over electronics should a motor fail.

with that said, if it's true these bone heads actually flew on down to patio height or less they posed a very serious danger!!! Even on a small tri copter those blades can do serious harm. Imagine a little kid seeing this in the back yard and maybe trying to jump up and grab it. It could be down right fatal!.

As much as I would love to drop a few that I have seen in flight with a gun, that's just not as safe as you might think. Damaging the electronics might allow it to come screaming back to earth with the motors ripping and if that were again to hit someone I need say no more. Damaging one or more blades would have the same effect. Possibly if the aircraft does hvae a RTH system on failure of a component or radio signal Jamming the aircraft's control frequency(usually2.4GHz) would initiate RTH. then again if it does not have that it may once again become a lethal object falling from the sky.

At this time I don't know of any satisfactory ways to being one down safely. I realize location would be a factor, right out in the middle of the mountains, interfering with fire ops, causing one to fail might be perfectly safe. Then again it may be near homes. So I again don't know of a safe way.

With that said I truly believe that swift enactment of laws that would make some of these flights a felony with hefty fines are in order and I hate saying that but is there an alternative?
I hate regulations as much as the next guy but there may bee a need for certifications to own and use them. Qualifications in piloting, understanding the laws, identifying the aircraft with a ID number etc may be in order.

BTW if you do know who was operating the UAV's during the last three fires in San Bernadino, you could wind up $50,000.00 wealthier! on the bounty. 

Mike R

 

[johnny b]

This is what we need to fight back:

http://www.amazing1.com/pages/high-voltage/emp-electro-magnetic-pulse.html

Or maybe just an old school 'jamming' radio:

http://www.endoacustica.com/jammers_en.htm

:dodgy: :dodgy:

 

[ZoNiE]

Lee

There is no indication of voyeuristic intent on the drone owners. No peeping Tom.  There was no trespass - one does own the airspace above ones property. There may have been an invasion of privacy, since the man said he has a six foot privacy fence. It depends on whether or not the fence provided complete privacy.

Whether or not the operator of the drone violated a law, the shooter definitely did. The drone could have come down on the street in front of his home and caused an injury accident, or struck another person.  And even though shotguns have more limit effective range, the shotgun blast could have injured another person he didn't know was on the other side of his privacy fence. A single piece of shot, even falling at terminal velocity, could have blinded, caused other serious injury, or even caused a fatality. The shooter was arrogantly stupid. One potential violation of the law doesn't excuse another. 

I'm not condoning the drone operator. But I think it's moronic to admire, condone, or emulate such wanton stupidity.

Awww. you take all the fun out of the conversation.

Perhaps an EMP gun would fry it's controls?

 

[sushidog]

How about using a scanner to find the frequencies the controls operate at and then using your own closer, more powerful transmitter tuned to their frequencies to take control of their drone and bring it down safely? It sounds difficult to me, but I'm sure someone here has the tech savvy to pull off something similar and either jam or override their controls.

Just a thought.

Chip

 

[LeeRevell]

How about using a scanner to find the frequencies the controls operate at and then using your own closer, more powerful transmitter tuned to their frequencies to take control of their drone and bring it down safely? It sounds difficult to me, but I'm sure someone here has the tech savvy to pull off something similar and either jam or override their controls.

Just a thought.

Chip

Me, I'd fly 'er out over the National Forest (my back yard) and let 'er go......   
"Uh, no, Mr. Drone Owner, I haven't seen it.  Last I saw of your toy, you flew it away into the woods......"