When the falling or out of control UAV injures or kills someone. Can't seem to get action until theres a body count.
So some idiot shot my phantom3 advanced WITH 22.
- Thread starter Cody Fontenot
- Start date
When the falling or out of control UAV injures or kills someone. Can't seem to get action until theres a body count.
Came close in that "skiing incident" on national TV. Would love to know what exactly happened for that drone to fall from the sky like it did. Anyone know?
How can the FAA or any other federal agency investigate and take any actions against someone who shoots at a drone if it is not reported. If it were mine, I would have called the FBI and the FAA. Then you can see what their reaction would be and go from there.
It's illegal in the U.S. to shoot at an aircraft, manned or unmanned. It's also downright dangerous. You say you were over a highway...What if it fell and hit a car's windshield going 60 MPH. Someone could get hurt...BAD!
Ask the sheriff to call the FAA. Also if you find who did it you can sue them in small claims court. There is no justification for shooting at an aircraft, over private land or not. The nations's airspace is owned by the public not individual property owners. Of course a landowner could sue you for violating his privacy but no court would find in his favor unless it was parked right outside his window.
While bringing all guns to bear on the offender may be justified, this is a neighbor and who's family may if they feel to prosecuted may deal out some form of revenge.
How many times have we seen these feuds get out of hand on the news?!
As far as I know, Louisiana doesn't have any laws regarding flying a drone in public. If you were on the highway's right-of-way, which extends several feet either side of the highway, and the drone wasn't over someone's private property, they had no right to shoot your drone. Louisiana is one of the states where EVERYONE has some kind of firearms. There are few laws restricting the use of them. The most probable charges that may be filed against the aggressor is 'destruction of personal property'. Time is of the essence. If you're going to pursue this, press charges immediately. Let the courts sort it out.
No. Citizens can not expect any rights to privacy when in public. To prohibit the recording or recounting of anything that is in full view of the public is in violation of the right to free speech.
What about throwing a hand full of gravel at it? At 50 feet, a few pebbles might have found their target. Might not have caused any serious damage. But, the pilot would have gotten the hint.
So the thrower would have to be out in the road right of way to pitch some gravel? Still a destruction of property and the UAV was in the roads right of way like a car. You can't just throw things at vehicles in public space. Anyone heard of the google street view recorders being attacked while on the street?
I was referring to the gentleman who said that he felt like shooting one down that was hovering over his back yard while he was there with children. But, he would be in trouble for shooting.
Probably would be within the logic of was hovering to close to be safe, but then the same could be then said that trying to hit a flying lawn mower would be safer? Where will it go if hit?
Well, he said it was about 50 feet up, or 50 feet away from them. IF the drone's balance was thrown off enough to cause it to crash, from a hovering status, hopefully it wouldn't go far in any direction but down. But, because it was hovering, it probably wouldn't gather much speed before it got too close to any person. It would probably still be slow enough for them to dodge it. All of this is hypothetical anyway. I really don't suggest that this would be his first action. I think it would be most prudent to find out who the drone belonged to and suggest to that person that they should refrain from being so 'invasive' with his UAV. Then, if the pilot persisted, there are other courses of action that could be taken, before it came to destruction of personal property.
After taking several photos to show to both the offender and if need be the authorities. Picture is worth a thousand words. The he said she said goes out the window with photo evidence. I wouldn't be to surprised if insurance companies start giving $$$ to have dash cams like in Russia.
Use of a camera has saved my bacon more than once in car accidents and when my house burned.
Use of a camera has saved my bacon more than once in car accidents and when my house burned.
With a moniker like "Prairie Pyro" I would think it a smart idea to video an alibi when your house catches fire.
Video evidence of the belongings in the home. Over year fight with insurance company as they brought in a unlicensed contractor and got caught. Fire was either cheap Chinese trouble lamp or stain rags self combusting in trash. Three years of renovating farm house gone in an hour.
This is the type of article that spreads incorrect information. The author is a twit. Typical attorney BS (and the authors isn't even an attorney)... they are always in the right until they are wrong.
The author claims that "under current law it's illegal to shoot down a drone, even if it's hovering above your own property." This is an overly broad and highly misleading statement. There is no such specific law (there may be in some specific jurisdiction, but it would be rare).
If there was a law then why isn't it cited? Why did police charge Meredith with "criminal mischief and wanton endangerment." and not the law the author claims exists? Same for the other cases referenced in the article.
If the authors claims are demonstrably true, why does he state: "There's an alternate theory, though, from law professor Michael Froomkin. He argues that self-defense should be permissible against drones simply because you don't know their capabilities." Apparently there is a differing viewpoint and neither has been settled in court.
Why are companies allows to develop and sell items that have the express purpose of breaking this "law?" ("Defenses are being developed. Both Lockheed Martin and Boeing sell anti-drone laser weapons. One company sells shotgun shells specifically designed to shoot down drones.")
I'm not claiming it is advisable to shoot a drone or even fire a weapon into the air (always know your target and what is behind it). My point is that there are other laws at state and local levels which may - or may not - turn a drone shooting into an illegal act. This article is an _opinion_ piece masquerading as a news article. No one is going to be arrested under the "illegal to shoot down the drone" law, because such a law does not exist.
EVERYTHING IN THE ABOVE POST IS FALSE.
The overall law does not need to be read/written into the article, because anyone who knows the smallest bit of information about aviation law understands that drones are codified as aircraft. There is no legal difference between a UAV and a Cessna 182 or a Boeing 747. The circumstances are identical. If you really wish do dig in; (18 USC § 32) and you'll have your answer.
In short:
(a) Whoever willfully—
(1) sets fire to, damages, destroys, disables, or wrecks any aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States or any civil aircraft used, operated, or employed in interstate, overseas, or foreign air commerce;
...shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years or both.
Nothing more to say on that topic.
Well, just realized, there are those flying drones who don't understand drones are classified the same as Civil Aviation.
Well...this is why we have the 333 Exemption, exempting drones from some of the same standards as Civil Aircraft (no radio needed, no transponder needed, no IFR, etc). You might want to read: Self-Defense Against Robots and Drones by A. Michael Froomkin, Zak Colangelo :: SSRN for additional information.
If you don't know this information, you'll have little chance of passing the Part 107 written exam which will be required later this year if you're flying in anything but recreational circumstances.
Persons have ALREADY been arrested for shooting down drones. A firefighter was arrested and charged for downing a drone with a firehose, and a New Jersey man has been arrested and jailed for shooting down a drone. Two US Forest Service ranger heli pilots have been suspended for forcing a drone down with their helicopter.
Know your facts before spewing opinion. State law has zip to do with the conversation. Even a 13-year old Boy Scout with his Citizenship in the Nation merit badge can tell you that Federal law supercedes state law in most instances. Federal law says you can't shoot a drone, nor interrupt it's flight in any way.
UAV operators/drone operators need to get their **** together if they're going to fly in the NAS. It's not that hard, but it does require a tiny bit of effort that goes beyond charging batteries.
Similar threads
