So does anyone know what happened ot the drone shot down in Kentucky?

[JoeSchmoe]

Im sure not here to put anybody down... But i actually met the guy.. and He didnt really have any business flying a P3 in public as far as I could tell.. But thats just my opinion..,. and we all started somewhere.. right? So .. I was surprised as hell.. when the guy told me.. that he had an Inspire on order. Since my other buddy told me.. that they were flying together.. and he (guy who got shot down) asked him to land his P3 cause there were "people watching"

Thats all I was trying to say.

 

[kengineer]

So back to the question this post was about..., WHAT HAPPENED IN COURT? I am fascinated with the commentary going on, but it is unrelated to the question, WHAT HAPPENED IN COURT.

My neighbor said, bla, bla, bla, but if anyone knows what happened in court, please post it.

 

[JoeSchmoe]

Case is still pending...

but you coudlve googled that....

 

[kengineer]

Case is still pending...

but you coudlve googled that....

Joe,

Thanks, I tried to search the net to find something out, but I am unable to. You must have the gift? I tried several phrases but only got similar content to this post.

We should all care about this and we all do have opinions, but I am trying to keep up with the facts of the case.

I would be grateful for tips on how you found that it has not been resolved so I can follow it too.

Thanks for the update, Ken

 

[JoeSchmoe]

According to the local news... the case was dismissed today... didnt really care enough to pay attention to the details.. but im sure its google-able...

 

[apprentice]

around the end of July this year, David Boggs was flying a drone in Kentucky when William Meredith, 47, of Bullitt County, Ky shot it down because he thought it was spying on his daughter. I am interested to know the outcome of the charges that wild Bill was charged with.

I visit many sites that firearms groups say they would, also shoot one down. Since wild Bill was arrested and charged with a felony, I am interested to know if there was any news on this case.

Thanks, Ken

This is what they said about this topic on Engadget today.

• Judge says drone was invading the privacy of the man who shot it

And these were their sources:

• “Drone Slayer” cleared of charges: “I wish this had never happened”
• Judge dismisses charges for man who shot down drone

For my opinion it would be great if DJI would have some kind of web site which would allow us to review flights and export GPX tracks like we can do that on Endomondo or Runtastic or Runkeeper or Garmin. We could have those tracks as a proof where we were really flying. So if you were flying over at the elevation of 300 feet someone could not say it was just above the treeline.

 

[kenjancef]

For my opinion it would be great if DJI would have some kind of web site which would allow us to review flights and export GPX tracks like we can do that on Endomondo or Runtastic or Runkeeper or Garmin. We could have those tracks as a proof where we were really flying. So if you were flying over at the elevation of 300 feet someone could not say it was just above the treeline.

But for those of is with Phantom 2's. we'd have to add additional hardware. I wish this was built-in to the P2, I always like to see where I've flown and all that. Doesn't the Flytrex do this?

 

[apprentice]

But for those of is with Phantom 2's. we'd have to add additional hardware. I wish this was built-in to the P2, I always like to see where I've flown and all that. Doesn't the Flytrex do this?

I'm sorry. I don't know. I'm very new to this business

 

[bbfpv]

Doesn't the Flytrex do this?

yes.

 

[Jeff48920]

My two cents is that the judge over-reached. A person has no right to shoot at anyone else's property regardless of whether that property is trespassing on that person's property unless the trespass is a physical danger to the property owner or persons on his property. That is the extent of it. You can't legally shoot your neighbor's dog for coming on your property unless it is attacking a person or animal.
Your recourse for enforcing your "privacy rights" is the call the police or bring a civil action. The judge just got this wrong and unfortunately we are going to see many more activist judges doing the same thing until the entire issue is resolved at the federal level. (eg. FAA defines drones as "aircraft" and it is illegal to shoot at any aircraft).

 

[JoeSchmoe]

Kentucky is kinda like the 'Wild West of the south'

Maybe the judge felt like if he didn't dismiss the case.. More folks would just hover over their neighbors property or homes? With impunity..? Taking nosy neighboring to a whole nother level?

This also happened in a kind of rural county that allows discharge of firearms. I'm not sure that if it happened in the city... It would've been dismissed so quickly.. Or at all

 

[Jeff48920]

Kentucky is kinda like the 'Wild West of the south'

Well, up to a point. When you swear in as an attorney in KY, they warn you not to become involved in a duel because you can lose your license. Truth. Sound fairly civilized to me. [emoji1][emoji1]

Still it is not the judiciary's role to disregard or modify laws they don't agree with. That role belongs to the legislature only. This judge is exactly the type of activist jurists that cause more problems than they solve. [emoji433][emoji404][emoji631]

 

[joe21]

Thanks to the posters who posted updates on this. I remember the incident when it happened, but the follow-up media coverage has been nonexistent.

Never would have expected this outcome. I suspect the civil case will go in a different direction.

Some people are making the comparison to shooting a dog or a vehicle that trespasses. That is not a valid comparison. Shooting a dog or occupied vehicle is attempting to take a life. Deadly force against people is certainly illegal, and there are similar laws regarding pets in most areas. Even wildlife would usually require a valid hunting license and be subject to several restrictions.

A better comparison would be if someone drove an RC car into your yard, or reached over your fence and placed an RC boat into your pool. If I saw an RC car driving through my yard (where my kids/pets were playing) I wouldn't hesitate to stop it - most likely by stepping on it or dropping something on it. Such action would certainly turn it into a pile of broken plastic. I would feel justified in my actions. Moreso if the RC vehicle had a camera on it.

Not as easy to do for an object even 20 or 30 feet in the air. While I don't necessarily condone the method of takedown used (would depend on the details and circumstance - it could be done safely. The judge seemed to agree that the discharge did not put anyone in danger) but it certainly seems like there weren't other options to stop the vehicle in this case. My guess is that this is part of the logic used by the judge in his decision.

I see many posts on this forum talking about the dangers of flying over people. Seems like the pilot in this case did exactly that (and seemingly without much knowledge or experience at the controls). It would appear that the pilot is the more dangerous person in this story.

 

[GoodnNuff]

Thanks to the posters who posted updates on this. I remember the incident when it happened, but the follow-up media coverage has been nonexistent.

Never would have expected this outcome. I suspect the civil case will go in a different direction.

Some people are making the comparison to shooting a dog or a vehicle that trespasses. That is not a valid comparison. Shooting a dog or occupied vehicle is attempting to take a life. Deadly force against people is certainly illegal, and there are similar laws regarding pets in most areas. Even wildlife would usually require a valid hunting license and be subject to several restrictions.

A better comparison would be if someone drove an RC car into your yard, or reached over your fence and placed an RC boat into your pool. If I saw an RC car driving through my yard (where my kids/pets were playing) I wouldn't hesitate to stop it - most likely by stepping on it or dropping something on it. Such action would certainly turn it into a pile of broken plastic. I would feel justified in my actions. Moreso if the RC vehicle had a camera on it.

Not as easy to do for an object even 20 or 30 feet in the air. While I don't necessarily condone the method of takedown used (would depend on the details and circumstance - it could be done safely. The judge seemed to agree that the discharge did not put anyone in danger) but it certainly seems like there weren't other options to stop the vehicle in this case. My guess is that this is part of the logic used by the judge in his decision.

I see many posts on this forum talking about the dangers of flying over people. Seems like the pilot in this case did exactly that (and seemingly without much knowledge or experience at the controls). It would appear that the pilot is the more dangerous person in this story.

Hmm. as far as who is more dangerous, an inexperienced drone pilot or a hot head with a gun - my money goes on the hot head with a gun.

 

[tcope]

Thanks to the posters who posted updates on this. I remember the incident when it happened, but the follow-up media coverage has been nonexistent.

Never would have expected this outcome. I suspect the civil case will go in a different direction.

Some people are making the comparison to shooting a dog or a vehicle that trespasses. That is not a valid comparison. Shooting a dog or occupied vehicle is attempting to take a life. Deadly force against people is certainly illegal, and there are similar laws regarding pets in most areas. Even wildlife would usually require a valid hunting license and be subject to several restrictions.

A better comparison would be if someone drove an RC car into your yard, or reached over your fence and placed an RC boat into your pool. If I saw an RC car driving through my yard (where my kids/pets were playing) I wouldn't hesitate to stop it - most likely by stepping on it or dropping something on it. Such action would certainly turn it into a pile of broken plastic. I would feel justified in my actions. Moreso if the RC vehicle had a camera on it.

Not as easy to do for an object even 20 or 30 feet in the air. While I don't necessarily condone the method of takedown used (would depend on the details and circumstance - it could be done safely. The judge seemed to agree that the discharge did not put anyone in danger) but it certainly seems like there weren't other options to stop the vehicle in this case. My guess is that this is part of the logic used by the judge in his decision.

I see many posts on this forum talking about the dangers of flying over people. Seems like the pilot in this case did exactly that (and seemingly without much knowledge or experience at the controls). It would appear that the pilot is the more dangerous person in this story.

Shooting a dig is more like shooting a drone in that the dog is considered personal property.

 

[kenjancef]

Hmm. as far as who is more dangerous, an inexperienced drone pilot or a hot head with a gun - my money goes on the hot head with a gun.

I think it's the judge that doesn't enforce laws...

 

[joe21]

Shooting a dig is more like shooting a drone in that the dog is considered personal property.

I'm sure the laws vary by jurisdiction. Around here, intentionally harming an animal - especially someone's pet - it a much more serious crime than breaking someone's toy.

 

[Jeff48920]

Just a quick legal note. Take it or leave it. You cannot simply destroy someone else's property simply because it is on or over your property. I don't care if you beat it with a shovel or shoot it, you will definitely be liable for your intentional acts in jurisdictions with judges who follow the law.
There are reasons we have laws and for those think they can take law into their own hands, we have legends of blood feuds to clarify what develops from vigilante justice.

 

[joe21]

Jeff - you are right. However the issue is not cut and dried.

If someone stands in the street, uses a 50ft selfie-stick to place a camera in your yard and takes pictures of your family (where you have an expectation of privacy) I bet there are few judges who would fault you for grabbing that camera and watching it fall to the ground. If an UAV was flying directly at you and you honestly felt you were in danger, you have every right to swat it with a shovel (and damage it).

Each circumstance is unique. A judge will rule based on the law and it application to that specific circumstance. That seems to be what happened here.

I also bet your explanation will be proven more relevant in civil court where it is highly likely the pilot will get awarded restitution for the destroyed UAV. If that ends up being the case, then both judges are still right, although having arrived at seemingly different decisions.

 

[GoodnNuff]

Jeff - you are right. However the issue is not cut and dried.

If someone stands in the street, uses a 50ft selfie-stick to place a camera in your yard and takes pictures of your family (where you have an expectation of privacy) I bet there are few judges who would fault you for grabbing that camera and watching it fall to the ground. If an UAV was flying directly at you and you honestly felt you were in danger, you have every right to swat it with a shovel (and damage it).

Each circumstance is unique. A judge will rule based on the law and it application to that specific circumstance. That seems to be what happened here.

I also bet your explanation will be proven more relevant in civil court where it is highly likely the pilot will get awarded restitution for the destroyed UAV. If that ends up being the case, then both judges are still right, although having arrived at seemingly different decisions.

Jeff is actually an attorney.