4 ms·

Well. Yeah, you don't need to utilise 'lethal' force on the little robotic fellas. This is completely reckless, pointless, an abuse of your right to own a firea

by Kequc 11y ago

Well. Yeah, you don't need to utilise 'lethal' force on the little robotic fellas. This is completely reckless, pointless, an abuse of your right to own a firearm, all of those things. Then to threaten the lives of human beings who aren't even on your lawn yet. I mean, I get it. It's the wild west still and there's frontier towns popping up all over the place. But this man is anti-social, and trouble, for anyone living in a currently active century.

gadders 11y ago
>>Minutes later, a car full of four men that he didn't recognize rolled up, "looking for a fight." >> "Are you the son of a bitch that shot my drone?" one said, according to Merideth. I think if four people turn up looking for a fight, you are entitled to defend yourself.
- vardump 11y ago
  That's true, if you can see the future. Somehow I don't think this guy could when he shot the drone.
  - swasheck 11y ago
    why does it matter whether or not he knew what would happen if he shot the drone? i'm not exactly sure what relevance precognition would have to do with this.
    - mikeash 11y ago
      Because "defend yourself" means that you threaten or use force when there's a threat against you. In this particular instance, the shooter used force first, and only afterwards was there a threat against him.
      - swasheck 11y ago
        fair enough, i see your point. it's hard to quantify a "threat" though. seems like this guy felt "threatened" because of the hovering and lingering of the drone. i'm not advocating the practice of blasting things out of the sky, but we're focusing too much attention on the gunner and not enough on the pilots in this conversation of "threatening." the display of entitlement to be able to deliberately invade someone's personal privacy and then act appalled that someone forcefully stopped them from doing so is absurd.
        mikeash 11y ago
        There may be gray areas to "threat" but this was far outside them. There was no potential for imminent harm. It's certainly possible that the shooter felt threatened, but that's simply not enough. A crazy person might feel threatened at people walking by on the sidewalk, but that's not justification for opening fire. People are focused on the shooter because abuse of a deadly weapon is a serious crime. The drone operator's crime was extremely minor by comparison, if any. It's not "entitlement" to be appalled that someone used deadly force against your property in a completely inappropriate and likely criminal manner. You don't lose all your rights when you do something wrong, and if someone escalates the situation far beyond where it was, that's a major problem.
  - gadders 11y ago
    Yeah, but he could when the 4 owners turned up an threatened him. I think if someone is flying a mobile video camera over my house to spy on me, I don't think it's unreasonable to shoot their toy down. If you know of a non-permanent way to bring one down I'd be happy to hear of it.
wang_li 11y ago
If you bring your toy onto my shooting range and I shoot it, that's your problem not mine. Since it's not alive there should be zero question of lethality or violence. Yes, I know that within most municipalities you cannot shoot guns, but if you are in a rural setting outside of the city limits, you most certainly can shoot as long as you take proper safety measures. Shooting a shotgun into the air is not a danger to anyone. By the time it comes down it'll have the ballistic properties of a handful of BBs thrown into the air.

by Kequc 11y ago

gadders 11y ago

>>Minutes later, a car full of four men that he didn't recognize rolled up, "looking for a fight." >> "Are you the son of a bitch that shot my drone?" one said, according to Merideth. I think if four people turn up looking for a fight, you are entitled to defend yourself.

vardump 11y ago
That's true, if you can see the future. Somehow I don't think this guy could when he shot the drone.
- swasheck 11y ago
  why does it matter whether or not he knew what would happen if he shot the drone? i'm not exactly sure what relevance precognition would have to do with this.
  - mikeash 11y ago
    Because "defend yourself" means that you threaten or use force when there's a threat against you. In this particular instance, the shooter used force first, and only afterwards was there a threat against him.
    - swasheck 11y ago
      fair enough, i see your point. it's hard to quantify a "threat" though. seems like this guy felt "threatened" because of the hovering and lingering of the drone. i'm not advocating the practice of blasting things out of the sky, but we're focusing too much attention on the gunner and not enough on the pilots in this conversation of "threatening." the display of entitlement to be able to deliberately invade someone's personal privacy and then act appalled that someone forcefully stopped them from doing so is absurd.
      - mikeash 11y ago
        There may be gray areas to "threat" but this was far outside them. There was no potential for imminent harm. It's certainly possible that the shooter felt threatened, but that's simply not enough. A crazy person might feel threatened at people walking by on the sidewalk, but that's not justification for opening fire. People are focused on the shooter because abuse of a deadly weapon is a serious crime. The drone operator's crime was extremely minor by comparison, if any. It's not "entitlement" to be appalled that someone used deadly force against your property in a completely inappropriate and likely criminal manner. You don't lose all your rights when you do something wrong, and if someone escalates the situation far beyond where it was, that's a major problem.
- gadders 11y ago
  Yeah, but he could when the 4 owners turned up an threatened him. I think if someone is flying a mobile video camera over my house to spy on me, I don't think it's unreasonable to shoot their toy down. If you know of a non-permanent way to bring one down I'd be happy to hear of it.

wang_li 11y ago

If you bring your toy onto my shooting range and I shoot it, that's your problem not mine. Since it's not alive there should be zero question of lethality or violence. Yes, I know that within most municipalities you cannot shoot guns, but if you are in a rural setting outside of the city limits, you most certainly can shoot as long as you take proper safety measures. Shooting a shotgun into the air is not a danger to anyone. By the time it comes down it'll have the ballistic properties of a handful of BBs thrown into the air.