Say what?
You believe what you want to believe about the legalities of shooting down an aircraft, but if you (or anyone else) shoots mine down you're going to have more to deal with than local authorities.
Is the following an invasion of Privacy?
- Thread starter outer limits
- Start date
Say what?
You believe what you want to believe about the legalities of shooting down an aircraft, but if you (or anyone else) shoots mine down you're going to have more to deal with than local authorities.
If I was willing to go through with shooting down someone’s drone (that has no business buzzing around my house in the middle of nowhere anyway) I don’t think I’d have issues going toe to toe with the pilot when he gets upset about it...
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2015
- Messages
- 744
- Reaction score
- 191
The range of a 22 caliber rifle using I long rifle bullet, is about one mile. So, if you are holding only to the range of a shotgun, fine, if not, then, we are all... always the problem using your analogy. However, I totally disagree with you. Otherwise we better all start using Litchi, and Google Earth and making our waypoints fly the outer perimeters of all homes just to be able to get out of our own neighborhood to fly whatever our goal was for that mission.
Alright, I’m done trying to point out the stupidity of deliberately annoying people with your drone flying. Go be a menace to your neighbors, ignore their requests to stop and fly over all the yards you want because you can. Sooner or later enough annoyed people will push back and the only way you can fly wil either be by getting commercial licenses and filing a flight plan for paid work, or joining the nearest model aircraft club and using their authorized fields only.
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2015
- Messages
- 744
- Reaction score
- 191
You have a point there concerning weed whackers, but for the most part, that is a paid for service that usually doesn't last too long and something we have to put up with. But, think about this. The cities, and governments have restricted UAV hobbyists so that we can't fly over anything interesting like Nat'l Parks, local parks, sports fields, no people, popular beaches, skycrapers, other businesses, etc. So, instead of UAV pilots traveling to those beautiful and interesting places, due to ordinances, local laws, rules, and Nat'l laws, they are forcing us to remain in our own neighborhoods. Then our neighbors complain because now they have lost what they used to think was their private air space. And in a world where even our own computers, Facebook, Google, normal internet browsing, cell phones, tablets and the like are open to the NSA, hackers, viruses, theft of meta data from the Googles and Facebooks, it's no wonder they are trying to protect their last refuge, their backyard, even though they are misinformed about drones.
I don’t think the problem was pointing out your point of view. I, for one, found one of your posts on point an rational. I think it was your gun muscles that took this in the wrong direction.
I agree with that part of your argument 100%... what I don't agree with is your apparent justification for shooting down a drone over your property just because you're annoyed by it!
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2015
- Messages
- 744
- Reaction score
- 191
Your point is well taken if in fact this thread was about 'the stupidity of deliberately annoying people with your drone flying'. That is not what this thread is about. The Op showed his video in the beginning and he did not intentionally annoy anybody. You may want to re-read what you are writing or re-think what you are thinking instead of being angry at the rest of us here.
N017RW
Premium Pilot
The fear of privacy invasion is understandable. When most fly a Phantom, they do so to capture images. Some intentional, others not. (However I fly my P2-NV for sport).
This is a paradigm shift from traditional or legacy r/c aircraft (which are now lumped into the UAS category) where flight was conducted at dedicated, often remote, sites primary to emulate full-scale flight regimens be it pattern, stunt, scale, combat, etc.
The ‘any-man, flying camera equipped aircraft in an anonymous manner capable of loitering and transmitting real-time imagery is unsettling to many, and rightly so.
This is a paradigm shift from traditional or legacy r/c aircraft (which are now lumped into the UAS category) where flight was conducted at dedicated, often remote, sites primary to emulate full-scale flight regimens be it pattern, stunt, scale, combat, etc.
The ‘any-man, flying camera equipped aircraft in an anonymous manner capable of loitering and transmitting real-time imagery is unsettling to many, and rightly so.
Well, some of us just need to compensate by driving bigger trucks and shooting bigger guns... it’s been going on since the beginning of time... why do you think they bred those giant Budweiser horses in the first place? Or invent those giant swords he-man couldn’t even swing without falling over?
Compensate for what?
I'm a .22 collector myself, and drive a work van
BTW, Clydesdales were bred in Scotland to haul heavy loads... not a Budweiser wagon
I agree. The op didn’t deliberately do anything. But now that he knows the property owner doesn’t like what he’s doing over his garden, such a flight would be deliberately annoying him. Just because you can legally do something, doesn’t mean you should. At the end of the day, the annoyed property owners are going to win over the hobby drone flyer they see (rightly or wrongly) as an unnecessary annoyance or violation of privacy when the next round of tighter regulations make it through the government.
I’m not angry at anyone. More like frustration that some don’t see the need to respect others because by the law says they can do it. I already seen my RC planes become lumped in with drones and restricted more heavily. I don’t want to see the whole hobby basically regulated away because some people can’t respect the wishes of others.
If you can’t read the tongue in cheek humour in my statement, I’m not going to spell it out on a public forum lol
To be fair, if I was to get to that point personally, it would have to be a persistent problem where I’ve already told the operator multiple times to cut it out. There are people with much lower tolerance than me out there however.
Ha ha. I was actually making a play off the term “beer muscles.” A false bravado that comes with drinking beer. I will leave the gun metaphor as an exercise to the reader. ;-)
Urban Dictionary: beer muscles
And there are those with a much higher tolerance level also... to include those who would seek legal measures, or otherwise approach the source of their annoyance rationally.
It's been enlightening going (virtually) toe-to-toe with you, lol, but I should move on now.
I feel like if you and I were sitting on the back deck having a cold beverage, we would agree about 98.6% of the time.... Accurately communicating what you feel in writing is hard though
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2015
- Messages
- 744
- Reaction score
- 191
Now we're getting to the point where the bullet hits the target. In this type situation, you would have to attempt to discuss it calmly with the owner. The Op did this and wanted to show the owner the video which the owner refused to watch. So, in this situation you have a neighbor who refused to try and come to a solution. Walk away and remember this for future situations. I would however, document the incident with dates and times. This type person is angry about something and because he saw my drone partially over his garden, he thought he would attack. Most people don't direct their anger to that which they are really angry.
Frustration is a mild form of anger and respect goes both ways. In this thread, the owner had no respect for anyone but himself. Otherwise he would have worked with the Op for a solution.
I am going to risk being flamed here ..............
1. We see a clip of the video and have to trust person posting it that it is complete for the events stated. It is not unknown for 'clips' to be edited ..... I am only saying and not accusing.
2. This I base on the posts by the OP after receiving replies : I wonder what the exchange of words were with the person complaining about 'claimed overfly' ? I would hope that OP had a more relaxed - reasonable tone than has become apparent in posts here ?
The problem like many posted - is we only get to hear / read one side of the story. We have no idea why the guy refused to view the video ....
Remember Hogwarts - the guy who had the woman prosecuted for arguing with him after he overflew people on the beach ... few weeks later bragged about it ? It then turned out his video used as evidence was EDITED !!
Plus not long after posted a Youtube firing a gun of a Multi Rotor (quadcopter) ....
It was also later publicised about his School attendance behaviour etc. ......
This of course when revealed showed a completely different light than he'd claimed when the woman objected to his overflying the beach.
I am not accusing OP here .... I am just illustrating how difficult it is to actually come to a conclusion when not all parties are at hand.
Nigel
1. We see a clip of the video and have to trust person posting it that it is complete for the events stated. It is not unknown for 'clips' to be edited ..... I am only saying and not accusing.
2. This I base on the posts by the OP after receiving replies : I wonder what the exchange of words were with the person complaining about 'claimed overfly' ? I would hope that OP had a more relaxed - reasonable tone than has become apparent in posts here ?
The problem like many posted - is we only get to hear / read one side of the story. We have no idea why the guy refused to view the video ....
Remember Hogwarts - the guy who had the woman prosecuted for arguing with him after he overflew people on the beach ... few weeks later bragged about it ? It then turned out his video used as evidence was EDITED !!
Plus not long after posted a Youtube firing a gun of a Multi Rotor (quadcopter) ....
It was also later publicised about his School attendance behaviour etc. ......
This of course when revealed showed a completely different light than he'd claimed when the woman objected to his overflying the beach.
I am not accusing OP here .... I am just illustrating how difficult it is to actually come to a conclusion when not all parties are at hand.
Nigel
Similar threads
