# Ya! Dude!



## KmH (Jul 29, 2015)

Get this guy a medal, a plaque, and a T-shirt:

My Backyard​Is A Drone No Fly Zone​Trespassers Will Be Blown Out Of The Sky

Kentucky man shoots down drone hovering over his backyard


----------



## Derrel (Jul 29, 2015)

The Kentuckian was arrested Sunday evening in Hillview, Kentucky, just south of Louisville and charged with criminal mischief and wanton endangerment. He was released the following day. The Hillview Police Department did not immediately respond to Ars’ request for comment.

He gets an A+ for arrogance and idiocy in my book!


----------



## tirediron (Jul 29, 2015)

I agree with his sentiment 100% but discharging a firearm an urban back yard?  That sort of mentality is what generates stereotypes!


----------



## Designer (Jul 29, 2015)

Wait, what?

He was arrested?  for what? 

There's just way too much insanity.

_"charged with criminal mischief and wanton endangerment."_

Criminal mischief?  Really?


----------



## tirediron (Jul 29, 2015)

Designer said:


> Wait, what?
> 
> He was arrested?  for what?
> 
> ...


I don't get the criminal mischief either; reckless endangerment makes sense.  I'm curious about the "ownership" of airspace in the US; is there an altitude below which it's considered as belonging to the home-owner?


----------



## Derrel (Jul 29, 2015)

It is against the law in virtually any US municipality to discharge a firearm within the city limits, except in the case of LEGAL use of force...even "firing a warning shot" has landed people in jail and court...blasting an $1,800 drone in the airspace above one's home would probably fall into the "criminal" spectrum, and is probably _a catch-all charge_ designed to encompass illegal discharge of a firearm, willful destruction of private property, menacing of the men who owned the drone and who showed up, and recklessly endangering the town/neighbors. As far as his claim that #8 birdshot is harmless...not so much when it rains down...there are over 500 pellets in each average 12-gauge low-base load of 8's...and he shot three times into the air--enough shot to blind some kid six to ten blocks away out playing, or somebody just walking along. Our Kentucky genius threatened people with being shot, while wearing an openly carried pistol...that is menacing. All in all, a series of criminal acts, each with legal penalties.

His next logical step: Getting out his scope-sighted .300 Win Magnum deer rifle and firing shots at a news helicopter...you know, because it was "hu'vrin!"


----------



## limr (Jul 29, 2015)

It is kind of a silly name for the activity, but yes, Criminal Mischief refers to the unlawful destruction of property:

"Under the laws of Kentucky, the charge of *criminal mischief *is a criminal offense related to damage to property. It can be done deliberately, or carelessly, if you knowingly commit some action that endangers, or could reasonably be dangerous and reckless. The more serious the cost of the damage, the more strict the charge is, and the resulting penalties if convicted."

First, Second, and Third degrees differ by the value of the property damaged.

Kentucky Criminal Mischief Laws - KY Criminal Mischief Arson Penalties


----------



## Didereaux (Jul 29, 2015)

As for shooting down drones it don't take a firearm,  a good BB gun will do it, and a slingshot more fun.  If you are going to fire a weapon in an urban area why waste the criminal charge on the drone...go for the operator! 

btw drones with unshielded open blades are legally considered a danger (when I say legally I mean if they hurt or do damage the operator can be taken to court and sued to hell and gone.).  One flying low over your yard 'endangers' person and pets alike.


----------



## table1349 (Jul 30, 2015)

This is far more fun.  






Hit the switch and the drone is on it's own.  Nothing like cutting the signal between the flyer and the drone.  Never know where that baby will end up, and if it is programed to go into hover mode then you have a new lawn ornament when the battery dies.


----------



## tirediron (Jul 30, 2015)

gryphonslair99 said:


> This is far more fun.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Which is likely to land you in more trouble than the firearms charge (if caught) since communications jamming is covered by federal statutes.


----------



## table1349 (Jul 30, 2015)

tirediron said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> > This is far more fun.
> ...


Yes with such a broad spectrum device pictured above you would be correct, however the bands alloted for hobby type devices such as the cheaper RC drones come with a warning regarding frequency interference from other items using the same bandwidth.  If they are 27 or 49 MHz a simple, legal CB radio will overpower the signal.  "Breaker 19, breaker 19, we got a bogey in the sky." 

If they are using a 72 MHz controller then having 72MHz rc transmitter would suffice.  

Its once they get into the higher priced units that the issue gets a little tougher, however it is also tougher for them as well.  Once you get into the 6 meter band types, that have much longer ranges etc., the operator must possess a Ham license to operate the device.  

Of course you could just build a really large fly swatter and accomplish the same thing.


----------



## floatingby (Jul 30, 2015)

If one of those thing showed up and started filming or taking photos in my backyard I'd be pretty pissed too. I wouldn't shoot it, but that's just because my neighbors are too close, certainly not out of respect for the voyeuristic jerk controlling it.


----------



## table1349 (Jul 30, 2015)

This could be fun.....




This air cannon will shoot streamers over 100' in the air.  My guess is streamers and propellers just don't play nice together.


----------



## tirediron (Jul 30, 2015)

gryphonslair99 said:


> This could be fun.....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


"Oops... sorry 'bout that!"


----------



## snerd (Jul 30, 2015)

Yes, there are also laws against destroying aircraft. He's lucky the FAA hasn't gotten involved yet.

*18 U.S. Code § 32 - Destruction of aircraft or aircraft facilities*

18 U.S. Code 32 - Destruction of aircraft or aircraft facilities US Law LII Legal Information Institute

Yes, when the new rules come out later this year or next, the drones will be addressed. But the idiot flyers will always be with us.


----------



## snerd (Jul 30, 2015)

The flyer is a fool for flying over the neighborhood. That's the LAST place to be flying! Go to the park, or the country, or wherever.................. but don't be pissing off your neighbors!


----------



## vintagesnaps (Jul 30, 2015)

It's not always best to do what you feel like doing. I'd probably feel like getting out a jolly green giant sized fly swatter and whacking the thing but that wouldn't really be a good idea.

Apparently now he's facing felony charges. I think on the news they said it's illegal for one to be flown over someone's property recording video without the property owner's permission. He probably should have called the police, so could his neighbors, which would give authorities something to act on instead of getting himself in trouble.


----------



## table1349 (Jul 30, 2015)

snerd said:


> Yes, there are also laws against destroying aircraft. He's lucky the FAA hasn't gotten involved yet.
> 
> *18 U.S. Code § 32 - Destruction of aircraft or aircraft facilities*
> 
> ...


While that sounds menacing in _Huerta v. Pirker_, in March 2014 a judge ruled that that model aircraft are not legally classified as "aircraft" and that they are not subject to any current Federal Aviation Regulations.  As of now that federal ruling still stands.


----------



## snerd (Jul 30, 2015)

gryphonslair99 said:


> snerd said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, there are also laws against destroying aircraft. He's lucky the FAA hasn't gotten involved yet.
> ...


Apparently, you're not current with that case.........

*Huerta v. Pirker: NTSB Rules that UAS Are “Aircraft” and Subject to FAA Prohibition on Careless and Reckless Operations
Authors: Kenneth P. Quinn, Jennifer E. Trock, Benjamin M. Berlin, Graham C. Keithley *
 11/19/2014 

On November 18, 2014, in a unanimous decision, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) concluded that unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) are: (1) “aircraft” within the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) statutory and regulatory definitions; and (2) prohibited from operation in a careless and reckless manner under FAA regulations. The decision represents a significant win for the FAA in its attempts to prohibit unlawful UAS operations, and a setback for commercial interests that were hoping to turn the _Pirker _battle into a broader war against the FAA’s ban on commercial use of UAS. The opinion reverses an NTSB Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) decision earlier this year that the UAS Pirker commercially operated was a “model aircraft” beyond the FAA’s authority.

The full Board decision affirms the FAA’s ability to regulate both manned and unmanned aircraft operations and seek civil penalties from UAS operators in violation of FAA regulations, but explicitly refused to address whether the actual operation was careless and reckless, remanding the case to the ALJ. The Board also refused to address numerous UAS issues raised in amici briefs, including a challenge to the FAA’s ban on commercial UAS operations, absent an exemption. Ultimately, the decision puts both private-use and commercial operators on notice that UAS are clearly under the FAA’s jurisdiction as many commercial operators seek regulatory exemptions before beginning their operations...........................

Huerta v. Pirker NTSB Rules that UAS Are Aircraft and Subject to FAA Rules


----------



## snerd (Jul 30, 2015)

And I still say the flyer was stupid for flying in a neighborhood.


----------



## snerd (Jul 30, 2015)

gryphonslair99 said:


> snerd said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, there are also laws against destroying aircraft. He's lucky the FAA hasn't gotten involved yet.
> ...


So, in other words, if they fall under the jurisdiction of the FAA and are classified as aircraft, which they now are, they're also afforded all of the protections of the FAA concerning aircraft. They can't have it both ways, which is probably what their thinking is.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Jul 30, 2015)

I don't know how much actual thinking was involved here. lol 

I've read that they're unmanned aerial vehicles or UAVs and are under FAA rules and regs; the radio operated toys that kids and hobbyists used to fly around in their own backyards etc. are just that, toys. These aren't. But toys are probably all some people should be allowed to have!


----------



## snerd (Jul 30, 2015)

vintagesnaps said:


> I don't know how much actual thinking was involved here. lol
> 
> I've read that they're unmanned aerial vehicles or UAVs and are under FAA rules and regs; the radio operated toys that kids and hobbyists used to fly around in their own backyards etc. are just that, toys. These aren't. But toys are probably all some people should be allowed to have!


Yes, we operate under the "Recommendations" of the FAA for model aircraft:


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
These are not "law", just recommendations. For now. The last one is what they're using to slap idiots with fines, and I believe they need to do a LOT more of it. There are some real boneheads out there. It will all be sorted out with the new rules when they decide on them, which is supposed to be soon.


----------



## table1349 (Jul 31, 2015)

snerd said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> > snerd said:
> ...


You are not current with the working situation. The FFA has talked the talk.   They have yet to walk the walk.  Not one enforcement action covering model aircraft since Huerta v Pirker.


----------



## runnah (Jul 31, 2015)




----------



## mmaria (Jul 31, 2015)

people have too much time for stupid things


----------



## runnah (Jul 31, 2015)

mmaria said:


> people have too much time for stupid things



That's what America is founded upon!!!


----------



## snerd (Jul 31, 2015)

gryphonslair99 said:


> You are not current with the working situation. The FFA has talked the talk.   They have yet to walk the walk.  Not one enforcement action covering model aircraft since Huerta v Pirker.


Oh, absolutely. I've stated many times they need to make some examples of the clowns flying near airports, hovering over people's backyards, flying over large crowds, etc. My quad copter is a serious tool in my photography bag, and of those many, many others using them safely and responsibly. But it's only the "bad" incidents making the news, so there is a very nasty anti-drone sentiment about. A shame, really.


----------



## floatingby (Jul 31, 2015)

snerd said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> > You are not current with the working situation. The FFA has talked the talk.   They have yet to walk the walk.  Not one enforcement action covering model aircraft since Huerta v Pirker.
> ...


It is a pretty common, if irrational, for people to blame the tools instead of the behavior of the people using said tools though.


----------



## KmH (Jul 31, 2015)

Derrel said:


> The Kentuckian was arrested Sunday evening in Hillview, Kentucky, just south of Louisville and charged with criminal mischief and wanton endangerment. He was released the following day. The Hillview Police Department did not immediately respond to Ars’ request for comment.
> 
> He gets an A+ for arrogance and idiocy in my book!


Being arrested just means the police were doing their job.
He, the drone owner, and the city will get their day in court. Both the drone owner and the city seems to be on not very solid legal ground.
Sometimes, civil disobedience becomes the best course of action.


> "We have a lawyer and there's a court date and then there's going to be a hearing," Merideth said. "It's not going to stop with the two charges against me, which I'm confident that we'll get reduced or get dismissed completely."


I agree. It's quite likely the charges will be completely dismissed or reduced.


----------



## robbins.photo (Jul 31, 2015)

tirediron said:


> I agree with his sentiment 100% but discharging a firearm an urban back yard?  That sort of mentality is what generates stereotypes!


So that's a bad thing?

Sent from my 306SH using Tapatalk


----------



## JacaRanda (Jul 31, 2015)

vintagesnaps said:


> I don't know how much actual thinking was involved here. lol
> But toys are probably all some people should be allowed to have!


Agree 100% times 200.


----------



## otherprof (Jul 31, 2015)

Derrel said:


> It is against the law in virtually any US municipality to discharge a firearm within the city limits, except in the case of LEGAL use of force...even "firing a warning shot" has landed people in jail and court...blasting an $1,800 drone in the airspace above one's home would probably fall into the "criminal" spectrum, and is probably _a catch-all charge_ designed to encompass illegal discharge of a firearm, willful destruction of private property, menacing of the men who owned the drone and who showed up, and recklessly endangering the town/neighbors. As far as his claim that #8 birdshot is harmless...not so much when it rains down...there are over 500 pellets in each average 12-gauge low-base load of 8's...and he shot three times into the air--enough shot to blind some kid six to ten blocks away out playing, or somebody just walking along. Our Kentucky genius threatened people with being shot, while wearing an openly carried pistol...that is menacing. All in all, a series of criminal acts, each with legal penalties.
> 
> His next logical step: Getting out his scope-sighted .300 Win Magnum deer rifle and firing shots at a news helicopter...you know, because it was "hu'vrin!"


I quite agree with recklessness of shooting at the drone, and don't get the shooter's distinction between shooting a 22 and the buckshot. As I learned in high school physics, whatever is shot upward will slow down due to gravity until at its apex it will have all its kinetic energy converted to potential energy. Then it starts down an all that potential energy is converted kinetic energy. In other words, it comes down basically as fast as it went up (a little energy is lost due to air friction). That buckshot can do damage and hurt innocent people.  I think of this lesson in physics whenever I see read about people celebrating by shooting guns in the air. What do they think happens to the bullets?


----------



## robbins.photo (Jul 31, 2015)

otherprof said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > It is against the law in virtually any US municipality to discharge a firearm within the city limits, except in the case of LEGAL use of force...even "firing a warning shot" has landed people in jail and court...blasting an $1,800 drone in the airspace above one's home would probably fall into the "criminal" spectrum, and is probably _a catch-all charge_ designed to encompass illegal discharge of a firearm, willful destruction of private property, menacing of the men who owned the drone and who showed up, and recklessly endangering the town/neighbors. As far as his claim that #8 birdshot is harmless...not so much when it rains down...there are over 500 pellets in each average 12-gauge low-base load of 8's...and he shot three times into the air--enough shot to blind some kid six to ten blocks away out playing, or somebody just walking along. Our Kentucky genius threatened people with being shot, while wearing an openly carried pistol...that is menacing. All in all, a series of criminal acts, each with legal penalties.
> ...


Don't they simple vanish into the same alternative universe that one sock goes into when you activate the dryer?

Sent from my 306SH using Tapatalk


----------



## Designer (Jul 31, 2015)

otherprof said:


> (a little energy is lost due to air friction).


Quite a bit, actually, compared to 25 yards right out of the muzzle.  I've been downrange of birdshot, and there is barely enough energy to penetrate a dry leaf.  We simply turned our heads so the shot wouldn't hit our eyes.


----------



## limr (Aug 1, 2015)

More information emerges. Drone operator's flight data shows the drone's altitude at 250 feet: Dispute Emerges Over Drone Shot Down By Kentucky Man The Two-Way NPR

"The issue centers on imminent harm, robotics law expert Ryan Calo of the University of Washington tells tech site GigaOM. He says, "You would probably have to be threatened physically, or another person or maybe your property, for you to be able to destroy someone else's drone without fear of a counterclaim."

The situation can be compared to a trespass, GigaOM says: "In this sense, the law is the same as what applies when a car or a cow trespasses on your land — you can remove the car or cow (or whatever) and bill the owner for your trouble, but you can't simply destroy the invading article."

Another option for opponents of drones, of course, would be to deploy "jammers" that muddle drones' control signals. But that practice isn't legal — and the strategy doesn't address the main reason the FAA doesn't want people trying to shoot drones out of the sky in the first place: They're likely to come down in a very unpredictable, and possibly very dangerous, manner."


----------



## table1349 (Aug 1, 2015)

One excellent method to resolve the issue........Doves.  Raise doves, lots of doves.  Ever see a flock of doves taking off.  Like herding chickens.    A natural deterrent.  The turbulence they would create could give the little bugger a wonderful ride.

Even better a small AVE (Atmospheric Vortex Engine).  Nothing like a small invisible tornado like spiral of air to give the little bugger a dizzying ride.


----------



## Designer (Aug 1, 2015)

(quote from article) "The drone's owner, David Boggs, says the drone wasn't hovering low over anyone's property, showing flight tracking data to local media that indicates an altitude of more than 250 feet."

Now the two statements (or allegations) do not correlate.

If the drone had never been below 250 feet above the ground, and the effective range of ordinary birdshot is less than that, Shotgun Pellet Size Selection for Upland Game
then his being able to shoot it down is extremely suspect.  IOW: he would need a very tight pattern with some quite heavy shot to reach up more than 250 feet.  

Oh, and here's an article that tells a slightly different story:

Kentucky man shoots down drone spying on 16-year-old daughter

The article pasted here so nobody has to go off into the interwebs and possibly fail to return here.

_"Where should we draw the line between the advancement of technology and the protection of personal privacy? For one Kentucky man, his property line is where he gets to make the call, and he made that point of view perfectly clear when he pointed his shotgun at a drone hovering in his backyard and pulled the trigger. 

"It was just right there. It was hovering. I would never have shot it if it was flying," William Merideth said in an interview with Ars Technica. "When he came down with a video camera right over my back deck, that's not going to work." 

Merideth claims that the drone was first spotted hovering over his neighbor's house—a claim his neighbor confirms—and he had no intentions of taking any actions against it until it entered onto his own property. Merideth's 16-year-old daughter was laying out by their pool at the time, and when the drone pilot decided to stop his vehicle and get an electronic eyeful, he decided enough was enough. 

The homeowner fetched his shotgun and pumped three helpings of birdshot into the $1,800 drone, taking it out of the air in short order. Shortly thereafter, the drone pilot and three of his friends arrived at Merideth's property. 

"If you cross that sidewalk onto my property, there's going to be another shooting," Merideth says he told the men.

The police eventually arrived and Merideth was charged with first-degree criminal mischief and first-degree wanton endangerment, both related to his discharge of the firearm. The 47-year-old Merideth is confident that the charges will be reduced or thrown out entirely once his trial date arrives."
_
There are some discrepancies between the the various versions of the story.


----------



## table1349 (Aug 1, 2015)

Bottom of the chart.  Keep in mind the information included is with a muzzle at 30 degree elevation.  Higher the elevation the shorter the distance above 30 degrees the shot will travel.  





While the 40/40 rule is for the most part very accurate, 40 inch pattern at 40 yards, with a properly placed pellet or two you can get a "kill" at further ranges.  Past 40 yards the shot pattern (spread) increases dramatically lessening the chance of a clean kill.


----------



## otherprof (Aug 1, 2015)

otherprof said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > It is against the law in virtually any US municipality to discharge a firearm within the city limits, except in the case of LEGAL use of force...even "firing a warning shot" has landed people in jail and court...blasting an $1,800 drone in the airspace above one's home would probably fall into the "criminal" spectrum, and is probably _a catch-all charge_ designed to encompass illegal discharge of a firearm, willful destruction of private property, menacing of the men who owned the drone and who showed up, and recklessly endangering the town/neighbors. As far as his claim that #8 birdshot is harmless...not so much when it rains down...there are over 500 pellets in each average 12-gauge low-base load of 8's...and he shot three times into the air--enough shot to blind some kid six to ten blocks away out playing, or somebody just walking along. Our Kentucky genius threatened people with being shot, while wearing an openly carried pistol...that is menacing. All in all, a series of criminal acts, each with legal penalties.
> ...


----------



## otherprof (Aug 1, 2015)

Designer said:


> otherprof said:
> 
> 
> > (a little energy is lost due to air friction).
> ...


Interesting discussion of this very question, although more about bullets than buckshot, at the Physics Forum    How fast does a bullet return to earth


----------



## table1349 (Aug 1, 2015)

otherprof said:


> otherprof said:
> 
> 
> > Derrel said:
> ...


Sorry, but terminal velocity will keep the falling shot from reaching anywhere near the initial velocity it had when it left the barrel of the  shotgun.  





A 30-06 fired up into the air will have an initial velocity of 2,900 feet per second when it leaves the rifle barrel.  A .30 caliber rounds will reach terminal velocities of 300 feet per second on descent.


----------



## The_Traveler (Aug 1, 2015)

otherprof said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > It is against the law in virtually any US municipality to discharge a firearm within the city limits, except in the case of LEGAL use of force...even "firing a warning shot" has landed people in jail and court...blasting an $1,800 drone in the airspace above one's home would probably fall into the "criminal" spectrum, and is probably _a catch-all charge_ designed to encompass illegal discharge of a firearm, willful destruction of private property, menacing of the men who owned the drone and who showed up, and recklessly endangering the town/neighbors. As far as his claim that #8 birdshot is harmless...not so much when it rains down...there are over 500 pellets in each average 12-gauge low-base load of 8's...and he shot three times into the air--enough shot to blind some kid six to ten blocks away out playing, or somebody just walking along. Our Kentucky genius threatened people with being shot, while wearing an openly carried pistol...that is menacing. All in all, a series of criminal acts, each with legal penalties.
> ...



Anyone who has ever hunted dove or ducks knows from experience that falling bird-shot aren't either painful or dangerous.


----------



## otherprof (Aug 1, 2015)

gryphonslair99 said:


> otherprof said:
> 
> 
> > otherprof said:
> ...


Since bullets almost never fall straight down (long axis vertical) would the difference in drag realative to a round object be significant? Also would the buckshot have a smaller area? I thought both were true, but the last gun I fired was my Red Rider pump action BB gun.


----------



## Designer (Aug 1, 2015)

Speaking of criminality; what would we call taking video of the girl sunbathing?  Assuming she was wearing a swim suit, it would not be classified as child pornography, but what about just a video?  Is that legal, considering that she had the expectation of privacy in her own backyard?


----------



## table1349 (Aug 1, 2015)

otherprof said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> > otherprof said:
> ...


Shot is not unlike the round-ball used in muzzle loaders.  Thing about the roundball vs the more aerodynamic bullet, the curvature of the ball or shot causes a higher rage of drag.  If you compare the velocity charts over various ranges from the muzzle of the weapon you will see that the ball looses velocity much more rapidly then the cylindrical bullet.


----------



## snerd (Aug 1, 2015)

Designer said:


> Speaking of criminality; what would we call taking video of the girl sunbathing?  Assuming she was wearing a swim suit, it would not be classified as child pornography, but what about just a video?  Is that legal, considering that she had the expectation of privacy in her own backyard?


In the case of the drone we're discussing here, now we have the other side of the story. Flyer says he wasn't over the shooter's property, but was looking towards another house. And I can tell you, from first-hand experience, at 250' feet altitude, no photo or video will show you "anything" identifiable about "any" person or object of that size. The shooter overreacted. It's called vigilante justice, and it's frowned upon because as in the case here, he had no clue what the flyer was "actually" doing. He "assumed" a scenario, then took violent action. Strange that some here seem to approve of that. But again I state my personal preference...................... the owner, nor "anyone", should fly these things over populated neighborhoods. Why go looking for trouble?!

"......... The drone's owner, David Boggs, says the drone wasn't hovering low over anyone's property, showing flight tracking data to local media that indicates an altitude of more than 250 feet. And he says he wasn't trying to invade anyone's privacy.

"No. 1, I was having fun with my friends and family," Boggs tells WDRB, adding that he was trying out the drone he had only recently bought. He said he was trying to film the house of a friend who lives in the area but was visiting Las Vegas.

"Now the drone is getting a bad name because the Drone slayer made a bad decision and went skeet shooting in a neighborhood," Boggs told local WHAS Channel 11................"

Dispute Emerges Over Drone Shot Down By Kentucky Man The Two-Way NPR


----------



## The_Traveler (Aug 1, 2015)

External Ballistics - Hornady Manufacturing Inc


----------



## table1349 (Aug 1, 2015)

Designer said:


> Speaking of criminality; what would we call taking video of the girl sunbathing?  Assuming she was wearing a swim suit, it would not be classified as child pornography, but what about just a video?  Is that legal, considering that she had the expectation of privacy in her own backyard?


Funny thing about the concept of pedophelia.  From my experience over 30+ years virtually every pedophile we arrested had underwear catalogs depicting children in underwear and/or swimsuits.  Most also had copies of Jock Sturges's books.  The children, most underage and often prepubescent girls, were nude but not in obvious sexual positions or actions.  

I'm not saying that the owner of the drone is a pedophile but the fact that the girl had on a swimsuit has no bearing on whether she could be an object of sexual stimulation to a pedophile.


----------



## table1349 (Aug 1, 2015)

snerd said:


> Designer said:
> 
> 
> > Speaking of criminality; what would we call taking video of the girl sunbathing?  Assuming she was wearing a swim suit, it would not be classified as child pornography, but what about just a video?  Is that legal, considering that she had the expectation of privacy in her own backyard?
> ...


From the article you linked to: "Both Boggs and Merideth say they want to see the video that the drone captured but neither seems to know what happened to the memory card inside the drone that saved the video."

I'm guessing that the dentist that shot Cecil the lion is hiding the memory card as well.


----------



## Designer (Aug 1, 2015)

Two different points of view:

The first story, written from the point of view of a journalist (free press) has the property owner as the dangerous gun-wielding saboteur who not only shoots private property out of the air, but apparently can do so at a height of over 250 feet.  Quite remarkable shooting, and extraordinarily powerful ballistics.

The second version has that the property owner watched as the drone CAME DOWN and hovered over his back deck.  No estimate of the height in that story.

Then there is the seemingly unrelated bit about the drone pilot coming to confront the man WITH THREE FRIENDS, which is a clear attempt to cause or threaten physical harm to the property owner.  Why do you suppose he felt as though he needed three friends to go with him?  

I've known for years that there are usually two (or more) versions of the same incident.  

Now I'm all for a free press, and that includes taking pictures of anybody in public, but this is not the case.


----------



## snerd (Aug 1, 2015)

gryphonslair99 said:


> snerd said:
> 
> 
> > Designer said:
> ...


My strategy........................... I'll wait until all of the evidence is in, then make up my mind. I just thought I'd try countering some of the knee-jerk, negative reactions here, based on nothing but hearsay. I'm out.


----------



## Designer (Aug 1, 2015)

gryphonslair99 said:


> From the article you linked to: "Both Boggs and Merideth say they want to see the video that the drone captured but neither seems to know what happened to the memory card inside the drone that saved the video."


Uh-huh.  The memory card cannot be found.  Right.


----------



## tirediron (Aug 1, 2015)

gryphonslair99 said:


> One excellent method to resolve the issue........Doves.  Raise doves, lots of doves.  Ever see a flock of doves taking off.  Like herding chickens.    A natural deterrent.  The turbulence they would create could give the little bugger a wonderful ride.
> 
> Even better a small AVE (Atmospheric Vortex Engine).  Nothing like a small invisible tornado like spiral of air to give the little bugger a dizzying ride.


I'd take that to the next level; never mind doves, go for Canada geese.  If one of them can bring down a commercial airliner, imagine what a flock would do to a drone?


----------



## table1349 (Aug 1, 2015)

Maybe this is just an upgrade to the age old sport.........


----------



## table1349 (Aug 1, 2015)

A startling revelation has come in this case.  It has recently been learned that Merideth was a graduate of the Dick Cheney school of shooting and that the drone had a striking resemblance to Harry Whittington.  Meredith assumed that he was just shooting at another lawyer and as such was justified.  Case Dismissed.


----------



## snerd (Aug 1, 2015)

And I can always change my mind. I just went to fetch my mail, the apartment complex swimming pool is packed with babes! I'm charging my drone batteries as I type!


----------



## table1349 (Aug 1, 2015)

snerd said:


> And I can always change my mind. I just went to fetch my mail, the apartment complex swimming pool is packed with babes! I'm charging my drone batteries as I type!


Is this yours???


----------



## snerd (Aug 1, 2015)

gryphonslair99 said:


> snerd said:
> 
> 
> > And I can always change my mind. I just went to fetch my mail, the apartment complex swimming pool is packed with babes! I'm charging my drone batteries as I type!
> ...


I kept trying to hit the the Play button before realizing it was a photo lol!


----------



## The_Traveler (Aug 1, 2015)

The drone at ~80 yards (250 feet) off the ground and some unknown deflection is one hell of a lucky shot with a shotgun.


----------



## table1349 (Aug 1, 2015)

snerd said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> > snerd said:
> ...


Ahh but the real question is, did you catch the "Where's Waldo" part of the photo.  The girl flashing the camera??

This will cause a rush of viewers of the photo, Guaranteed.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Aug 1, 2015)

Here's the original article by the TV station that first broke the story. Their police chief was quoted as saying it is illegal to shoot a gun in the city.
Hillview man arrested for shooting down drone cites right to pr - WDRB 41 Louisville News 

I was thinking that when the drone was shot down it could have veered off into another yard and hit someone instead of crashing in a field. The FAA spokesman in the article addresses that, and talks about it being unsafe to shoot one down; says these are not supposed to be flown over buildings either.

I read before that the FAA was supposed to have new laws in place by, I think, the first of the year. I'm thinking there may not be laws in place yet to act on some of these violations of how/where someone operates a drone.


----------



## limr (Aug 1, 2015)

snerd said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> > From the article you linked to: ...
> ...



I guess you did not notice the exact same link that I posted on the previous page?


----------



## robbins.photo (Aug 1, 2015)

snerd said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> > snerd said:
> ...


Which is very close to my strategic position, which is to wait until we have all the facts and then realize I don't really give a  crap.

Sent from my 306SH using Tapatalk


----------



## snerd (Aug 1, 2015)

limr said:


> snerd said:
> 
> 
> > gryphonslair99 said:
> ...


Oh, sorry. No, I didn't. Reading too quickly I guess.


----------



## limr (Aug 1, 2015)

snerd said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > snerd said:
> ...



Just wanted to let ya know that some of us also like to get more info before passing judgment


----------



## Designer (Aug 1, 2015)

_"“Well, I came out and it was down by the neighbor’s house, about 10 feet off the ground, looking under their canopy ..

.. he flew down low enough to see under the patio."
_
So much for that "above 250 feet high" BS.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 1, 2015)

Designer said:


> _"“Well, I came out and it was down by the neighbor’s house, about 10 feet off the ground, looking under their canopy ..
> 
> .. he flew down low enough to see under the patio."
> _
> So much for that "above 250 feet high" BS.



Hilarious....you are now accepting Shotgunner Ketuckian's POV and telling of the tale as the "truth"? Or are you just trying to be funny? It's difficult to tell!


----------



## Designer (Aug 1, 2015)

Derrel said:


> Designer said:
> 
> 
> > _"“Well, I came out and it was down by the neighbor’s house, about 10 feet off the ground, looking under their canopy ..
> ...


Actually, my point is to show that there are at least two versions of every incident, and sometimes more. 

Frankly, I didn't believe the first story based mostly on fantasy ballistics.

Then I found the second article of the same incident which hints at a motive.

Then I read the link provided by vintage snaps (post #62) where I learned of yet more previously unreported facts.

Now throw in the "missing" memory card and the three men accompanying the drone pilot.

Adding it all up, I will say that there is more to this story than is being honestly reported.


----------



## robbins.photo (Aug 1, 2015)

limr said:


> Just wanted to let ya know that some of us also like to get more info before passing judgment



Not me.  I've had way too many good rants completely spoiled that way.


----------



## The_Traveler (Aug 1, 2015)

Derrel said:


> Designer said:
> 
> 
> > _"“Well, I came out and it was down by the neighbor’s house, about 10 feet off the ground, looking under their canopy ..
> ...



I would think that the laws of gravity and ballistics pretty much negate the drone flier's story.
250 feet up and 50 away will make an 85 yard shot with #8 birdshot damn miraculous.
I would think that at 250 feet the speed of birdshot would be about as fast as I can run.


----------



## floatingby (Aug 1, 2015)

The_Traveler said:


> I would think that the laws of gravity and ballistics pretty much negate the drone flier's story.
> 250 feet up and 50 away will make an 85 yard shot with #8 birdshot damn miraculous.
> I would think that at 250 feet the speed of birdshot would be about as fast as I can run.


Yeah, that is not a believable story.


----------



## Buckster (Aug 2, 2015)

55 meters / 60 yards:


----------



## Buckster (Aug 2, 2015)

Interesting that the shooter says it was hovering 10' up and spying on his sunbathing daughter, but in the 3 shots he got off, all the damage his shots did was to break off one blade of one propeller, then it crashed quite some distance away, not in his own yard.  That sounds to me like it was up far enough away that only a single pellet of the 3 volleys of bird shot made managed an actual hit.  If it was a close as the shooter claims, it should have been blown to bits.

The flight path tracking submitted by the flyer shows that it was much higher when it was over the shooter's house, then suddenly lost altitude and crashed at some distance away, which would seem to indicate that it was the real flight path, not footage from some other flight.

The shooter also said that they saw it flying around the neighborhood, so he went into the house and got a gun to shoot it down if it came over his own house, which sounds a lot more like he was just itching for a reason to shoot this thing out of the sky even before it came near the airspace over his property, not as a reaction to it supposedly spying on his sunbathing daughter from a low altitude in or near his own yard, which is his other account of the circumstances.

The submitted flight path data also doesn't show it being in a position or altitude long enough to have actually been "spying" on his sunbathing daughter, as though this is some sort of pedo-peeper incident.   I also notice that the flyer is no kid, and says that it was only his 2nd day with the thing, and was still learning to fly it, so had no intention of going below tree level, for fear of a mishap, which also seem very reasonable to me.

Texts on the flyer's cell phone confirm that he was indeed talking with a friend who wanted him to fly it over his house, presumably in that same neighborhood, another confirmation of his story for why he was flying it where he was.

As for why he showed up with his friends, they were with him during the flying of the thing, so why wouldn't they accompany him to find out what happened?  That seems perfectly natural to me.

Obviously, somebody's not telling the truth.  My gut tells me that the flight data isn't a lie, and that the flyer's details gel together a lot better than the shooter's.

Kentucky Man Who Shot Drone Out Of The Sky With Shotgun Arrested Faces Two Felony Charges - DIY Photography


----------



## table1349 (Aug 2, 2015)

tirediron said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> > One excellent method to resolve the issue........Doves.  Raise doves, lots of doves.  Ever see a flock of doves taking off.  Like herding chickens.    A natural deterrent.  The turbulence they would create could give the little bugger a wonderful ride.
> ...


Dude, we have some here that people stupidly feed so they are now year rounders waiting on their hand out.  Have you ever seen the area where those things hang out.  They $#!% everywhere.  I'm not sure that all that $#!% is worth all the $#!& it would cause.


----------



## table1349 (Aug 2, 2015)

You know, that is kind of interesting flight path that the owner of the drone choose for "having fun" considering there was a whole passel of open field area that he crossed with his drone to get to a residential area.   Apparently "having fun" includes girls laying out at a pool more than just the flying the drone around.  

But like they always say.....Location......location........location.


----------



## Buckster (Aug 2, 2015)

You missed the part where he explained "why" that particular flight path, and the texts between him and his friend that confirm his "why".


----------



## tirediron (Aug 2, 2015)

gryphonslair99 said:


> Dude, we have some here that people stupidly feed so they are now year rounders waiting on their hand out.  Have you ever seen the area where those things hang out.  They $#!% everywhere.  I'm not sure that all that $#!% is worth all the $#!& it would cause.


We have a HUGE year-rounder population here in Victoria, so yeah, I know exactly of what you speak!


----------



## table1349 (Aug 2, 2015)

Buckster said:


> You missed the part where he explained "why" that particular flight path, and the texts between him and his friend that confirm his "why".


No I didn't miss it.  It had a hint of the Family Circus route to it.


----------



## Buckster (Aug 2, 2015)

gryphonslair99 said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > You missed the part where he explained "why" that particular flight path, and the texts between him and his friend that confirm his "why".
> ...


Ahhh... I guess I just missed that you'd figured out he had X-ray vision to penetrate the fences, bushes, trees and so forth, in order to know there was a sunbathing girl in that backyard, which is why he flew that-a-way instead of this-a-way, and therefor rejected his seemingly reasonable explanation with text messages confirmation as though you hadn't read it, and went with the shooter's excuse for shooting it down instead.

My bad.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 2, 2015)

tirediron said:
			
		

> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



We have a lot of homeless people here in the Portland area as well. The "Fareless Square" transit mall area (where TPF member *goodguy* was accosted this summer) is thick with them. All age classes too, from young teen to middle aged.


----------



## table1349 (Aug 2, 2015)

Derrel said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Derrel, were not talking about people here, were talking about geese.
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV



tirediron said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> > One excellent method to resolve the issue........Doves.  Raise doves, lots of doves.  Ever see a flock of doves taking off.  Like herding chickens.    A natural deterrent.  The turbulence they would create could give the little bugger a wonderful ride.
> ...


----------



## Derrel (Aug 2, 2015)

Suuuuure you were. So was I!  ;-)


----------



## table1349 (Aug 2, 2015)

Derrel said:


> Suuuuure you were. So was I!  ;-)


Sadly we were. 

What is even sadder, the geese I was talking about have become dependent on humans to feed.  They have lost their instinct to hunt their own food.  We even have 2nd and 3rd generation geese that have never left the Riverside Park area year round.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 2, 2015)

I know what you were talking about. I thought you'd recognize nonsense when confronted with it... )wink(

Yeah...the day-old-bread-fed flocks of Canada geese, domesticated mallards, and hybridized, bastardized cross-bred mongrel ducks and drakes that liter our local area parks are a public health nuisance. There have been multiple instances of fairly widespread public health issues from all the duck and goose poop that now COVERS large areas of local parks that have populations of these flying rats. As I understand it, this is something that has grown exponentially over the last 20 years--people feeding ducks and geese to the extent that there are now large populations of waterfowl that resides year-round in thousands of municipal areas. We're located RIGHT ON the Pacific Flyway...which in Washington,Oregon, and California follows Interstate 5. All along the I-5 corridor, there are parks where the ducks and geese are little more than crap-factory workers that churn out turds so frequently that at one park, walking through the grass is just simply ridiculous...there's a pile of bird dung every three or four feet, over about the entire two acres of park grounds, and the goose population is about 50 individuals, and the ducks number about 150 I would estimate. Oh....and also about 50 seagulls or so...


----------



## JacaRanda (Aug 2, 2015)

The Canada Geese spoil my fun of getting out and walking in some parks.  And..........if the gaggle is in the middle of a road, forget about them double timing it to move to one side or the other.  They are RUDE.


----------



## table1349 (Aug 2, 2015)

We have areas of Riverside Park that literally there is no vegetation on the ground due to the massive amount of goose $#!%.

I feel your pain about the traffic problem.  Seems like once a week at least it is goose stroll time across the road while people are on the way to work.  I use the word stroll as I have no other word to describe it that is slower.  Well maybe Stroooooooooooollllllll.

Derrel,  I knew you knew but I figured that you knew that I knew that you knew.  Who knew?


----------



## snerd (Aug 2, 2015)

We have the Canada geese problem all the way down here in Oklahoma! The aerial shot of the small in-town lake I posted awhile back has probably 50-60 of them that get fed bread by parents and their kids, year-round. Just pulling into the parking lot near the water on one end sends them swimming toward shore! Yes, crap "everywhere"! And it stinks, too!


----------



## table1349 (Aug 2, 2015)

OMG.  Watching Carnival Eats and just saw the most amazing looking and sounding treat. 

Funnel cake covered with................................................................wait for it............................................................................................4 strips of crumbled Candied Bacon topped with a drizzle of maple syrup.


----------

