Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Kentucky man shoots down drone hovering over his backyard

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Quoth wolfie View Post
    WTF? Drone owner thinks it's OK to hover over someone's backyard and videotape them?
    It's not okay, but depending on location it may not be illegal; and the shooter may wind up having to pay for the damage. Sucks.

    Comment


    • #17
      Quoth Gilhelmi View Post
      Depends on if they can get his videos. Hopefully, Idiot lives up to his title and has not destroyed the evidence.
      Wait, so the drone was owned by Tom Brady?
      PWNADE(TM) - Serve up a glass today! | PWNZER - An act of pwnage so awesome, it's like the victim got hit by a tank.

      There are only Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse because I choose to walk!

      Comment


      • #18
        An update or another take.
        I'm trying to see things from your point of view, but I can't get my head that far up my keister!

        Who is John Galt?
        -Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

        Comment


        • #19
          Oh, I didn't know that about the self-help thing. I've never done anything but call the police. Now, here's my question: what do people need drones for? I thought they were going to be largely used by companies? This is a weird story.
          "Is it hot in here to you? It's very warm, isn't it?"--Nero, probably

          Comment


          • #20
            I have to admit...when I was a horny teenager (who wasn't dating at the time) most of the houses in the neighborhood where I lived had chain-link fences.

            Well, caddy-corner across the alley lived a girl I went to high school with who was a cheerleader. Well, she had a trampoline in her back yard, and would occasionally invite one of her friends (also a cheerleader) over.

            They'd jump on the trampoline...in halter tops and hotpants...with one of those "back and forth" water sprinklers underneath it sometimes...

            Whenever I noticed this (usually during the summer or on weekends), I'd always find something to do in the back yard...practicing my baseball/football skills, shooting baskets, whatever...

            And yeah, they probably thought it was creepy.
            Skilled programmers aren't cheap. Cheap programmers aren't skilled.

            Comment


            • #21
              Quoth Food Lady View Post
              Oh, I didn't know that about the self-help thing. I've never done anything but call the police. Now, here's my question: what do people need drones for? I thought they were going to be largely used by companies? This is a weird story.
              I don't think it's people "needing" drones. They're basically just a fun, expensive toy for people to play with. If you really think about it, a drone is really nothing more than a radio-controlled airplane/helicopter with a camera on it.

              Though as is evident from the article, they do have video capabilities, and so you could get some nice shots flying over a small wooded area, or a lake, or a park.

              I don't condone hovering over someone's house.
              Skilled programmers aren't cheap. Cheap programmers aren't skilled.

              Comment


              • #22
                Bit of a pet peeve - the gizmo in question, from what the story says, is NOT a drone. Drones, by definition, are able to operate at least semi-autonomously (operator tells it "go there", and it finds its own way). This appears to be a radio-controlled VTOL, possibly with some automatic stabilization (old-style R/C helicopters were notorious for needing a LOT of skill to keep them under control).

                It's a high-tech toy, not something that someone would need.

                Rule of thumb: If it's not OK to send the old Mark 1 Rev 0 eyeball somewhere to look at something, it's not OK to send a fancy "eye in the sky" there to look.
                Any fool can piss on the floor. It takes a talented SC to shit on the ceiling.

                Comment


                • #23
                  This is getting pretty bad as of late. There have been airports having to establish "no drone zones" because they're an air and ground traffic hazard and I recall at least one story of a news or police helicopter having to take evasive maneuvers because an idiot controlling one decided to get up close and personal.
                  I AM the evil bastard!
                  A+ Certified IT Technician

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Quoth wolfie View Post
                    Bit of a pet peeve - the gizmo in question, from what the story says, is NOT a drone. Drones, by definition, are able to operate at least semi-autonomously (operator tells it "go there", and it finds its own way).
                    Good points, wolfie.

                    Most of these things, if I understand, are basically radio-controlled "quad-copters" with a camera or cameras on them. Some/most of them are damned expensive, though.
                    Skilled programmers aren't cheap. Cheap programmers aren't skilled.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      What's this? Drones in the way of airplanes?

                      Oh, I'm sure that would never happen.

                      Nope, no way, no how.

                      Why, that'd be irresponsible, and...

                      Pfffft, okay, I can't keep it up. XD

                      Yeah, all pretty similar, but still.

                      There's a really good one, where two drone operators were confronted, one was apologetic, and hadn't meant to cause problems. Another had a little tin god wanna-be reporter thing going on.

                      Think it was linked on CalOES's twitter...


                      Edit: Related news, etc.

                      California bill proposes giving firefighters the right/ability to shoot down drones in certain circumstances.

                      Article on a Website where you can request your home be a "No fly zone" for drones, voluntary, but, interesting.

                      Drone rules and legistlation proposed by the FAA.

                      Probably already linked, but, Drone lands on White House lawn.
                      Last edited by Tee; 08-21-2015, 12:55 AM. Reason: More stuffs.
                      I am a Blank Space for spacing purposes, ignore me.
                      In order to treat someone as your equal, you first need to believe both: that they are your equal, and that you are their's.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Another update.
                        In a nutshell: criminal charges dismissed.
                        I'm trying to see things from your point of view, but I can't get my head that far up my keister!

                        Who is John Galt?
                        -Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          I like that video link, so many edits. XD
                          I am a Blank Space for spacing purposes, ignore me.
                          In order to treat someone as your equal, you first need to believe both: that they are your equal, and that you are their's.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Quoth taxguykarl View Post
                            Another update.
                            In a nutshell: criminal charges dismissed.
                            Unfortunately the idiot drone owner is appealing, which means this isn't over yet...

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Quoth mjr View Post
                              Though as is evident from the article, they do have video capabilities, and so you could get some nice shots flying over a small wooded area, or a lake, or a park.
                              This is why I kinda want a drone. I've seen some neat footage of Boston from the air, and I'd love to try some myself.

                              Dad leaked my choice of present to mom though, and with the FAA requiring outdoor operators to register I'm not sure I want the headaches...also if she found out I bought one she'd ship me out to his neck of the woods (not that that would necessarily be a bad thing...)
                              "I am quite confident that I do exist."
                              "Excuse me, I'm making perfect sense. You're just not keeping up." The Doctor

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Some minor points about all of this:

                                The judge dismissed the case, but not with prejudice, and he did not find the shooter not guilty. The charges can come back, and here's the why:

                                The FAA regulates anything that flies. This includes paper airplanes (yes, seriously). There are people who dispute it, but the people in charge of the FAA believe it to be true. Note that there is no altitude restriction, either. If it flies 5 feet or 50,000, they believe it's in their purview, at least in the USA.

                                I've watched the video of his flight, and from my own flights and videos, I can tell you that this drone was at least 50' up, and likely approaching 150'. Not the 10' the shooter claims.

                                Destruction of property is destruction of property, regardless of where that property happens to be. The shooter is guilty of that. I recognize enough of the drone from that video to know the manufacturer, and I can say with some certainty that an uncontrolled fall from that altitude very likely did a significant amount of damage. Damage that would not have been sustained had the shooter not shot it down.

                                I can also say that the drone itself, with the camera and battery in it, was around 1Kg, or about 2lbs (depending on the camera, possibly as much as 1.25KG, or 2.5lbs, roughly). Falling from that altitude, it could have picked up significant kinetic energy. If it had hit someone at the ground, it could have done some real harm. Add in the speed of the props (assuming they were powered and spinning for the fall, they would have been travelling at over 50MPH at the tip, if I did my math right), and anybody underneath it would likely have needed a trip to the hospital.

                                So, that's where the shooter was in the wrong. The drone operator was also in the wrong, though.

                                FAA rules state that you are not to fly these devices over populated areas. This was definitely a populated area.

                                FAA rules state that you are always to have the drone in your line of sight. While it was possible, I find it unlikely that he did judging by ground distance traveled.

                                He didn't fly above 400ft. He didn't (appear to) fly within 3 miles of an airport. He didn't appear to disobey any temporary flight restrictions or no fly zones.

                                Both were in the wrong, legally speaking. The shooter, though, created a great deal more danger to others than did the drone operator. I've flown either that exact drone, or one of the earlier revisions. They are easy to operate safely, and the operator was doing that pretty well until the drone got shot.

                                Anyway, a few points worth clarifying about all of this. It's an interesting story to follow, no matter how you slice it.

                                Oh, and Dreamstalker? You want to know a reason you should not get a drone? Just read up on Andrea Mears. I worry about that every time I fly one.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X