3 ms·
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
by 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 agoThere 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.