7 ms·

Man takes drone out for a sunset flight, drone gets shot down

44 points by CPLX 10y ago

hinkley 10y ago
Dear assholes, Bullets have a ballistic trajectory and if you miss your target in a populated area, the bullet is quite likely going into someone's house or car. Signed, The Internet (I'm not a fan of drones flying over my house either, but wtf people)
- bmelton 10y ago
  Not that I would be likely to shoot at anything, but if I were shooting down a drone, I'd probably use a 12-gauge filled with birdshot. Assuming the shooter in this case chose similarly, then falling projectile damage is extremely unlikely. Possibly some eye injury if it landed just so, but looking at the sparse terrain this drone was flying over (if representative), it's hard to say whether or not shooting at the drone was dangerous per se. Edit: Looking at the image[1] of the affected drone, it doesn't really look like a BB from a shotgun. It still could be, but it does look more like a .22 hole to me. [1] - https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Photo-Apr-18-8-24-41-PM-1280x960.jpg https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Photo...
  - grecy 10y ago
    If someone used a 12-gauge, I'm 100% certain they would have been seen doing it.
    - fnordfnordfnord 10y ago
      Why? None of this happened in an urban area.
      - grecy 10y ago
        Because the range of a 12-gauge is not so great, and the noise is loud enough to make people watch.
  - tyingq 10y ago
    This seems likely to me. Gun owners would be familiar with shooting a flying object down with a shotgun loaded with birdshot. It would be the intuitive thing to grab, and more likely to hit something. A small gauge one, like a .410, would even be relatively quiet (louder than a .22 rifle, but quieter than most other types of guns).
  - justin66 10y ago
    > Assuming the shooter in this case chose similarly, then falling projectile damage is extremely unlikely. This varies by locality but in anything you'd ordinarily consider a suburban residential neighborhood, this would still amount to unlawful discharge of a firearm, I would think. If not fired into a backstop those little pellets are going to fall to earth and embed themselves into something.
    - bmelton 10y ago
      I'd say it varies too much by locality to even generalize about. In the parts of the south I've lived in, the unlawful discharge laws tend to only apply to MUCH denser population centers. I know of a case in Arkansas in which a husband shot the wall behind where his wife was standing in a domestic dispute. But because she wouldn't say that he was shooting at her, and there's no law against shooting your own wall in the sticks, there was nothing to be done about it.
    - tyingq 10y ago
      The individual pellets in 12 gauge number 8 birdshot weigh less than 0.08 grams and measure .09″ in diameter. Falling birdshot isn't embedding itself into anything. Direct blast, sure.
  - kpil 10y ago
    Let's hope they won't use anything else than a 12-gauge with birdshot. A guy in my school was hit in the head while driving. He died instantly. It was a bit of a mystery until they found out he was hit by a stray bullet that went through the open side window, shot at 40 degrees angle more than 6 kilometres away, from a military shooting range. (It was a low caliber bullet, but I can't remember exactly what weapon it was.)
dvt 10y ago
From United States v. Causby: We have said that the airspace is a public highway. Yet it is obvious that if the landowner is to have full enjoyment of the land, he must have exclusive control of the immediate reaches of the enveloping atmosphere. Otherwise buildings could not be erected, trees could not be planted, and even fences could not be run. The principle is recognized when the law gives a remedy in case overhanging structures are erected on adjoining land. 9 The landowner owns at least as much of the space above the ground as the can occupy or use in connection with the land. See Hinman v. Pacific Air Transport, 9 Cir., 84 F.2d 755. The fact that he does not occupy it in a physical sense-by the erection of buildings and the like-is not material. As we have said, the flight of airplanes, which skim the surface but do not touch it, is as much an appropriation of the use of the land as a more conventional entry upon it. We would not doub that if the United States erected [328 U.S. 256, 265] an elevated railway over respondents' land at the precise altitude where its planes now fly, there would be a partial taking, even though none of the supports of the structure rested on the land. 10 The reason is that there would be an intrusion so immediate and direct as to subtract from the owner's full enjoyment of the property and to limit his exploitation of it. While the owner does not in any physical manner occupy that stratum of airspace or make use of it in the conventional sense, he does use it in somewhat the same sense that space left between buildings for the purpose of light and air is used. The superadjacent airspace at this low altitude is so close to the land that continuous invasions of it affect the use of the surface of the land itself. We think that the landowner, as an incident to his ownership, has a claim to it and that invasions of it are in the same category as invasions of the surface. 11 Obviously, it's a tricky issue. It's hard to see if flying a drone over someone else's property is illegal or not. It seems that it might be contingent on altitude, noise, and other forms of disruption.
- pdabbadabba 10y ago
  All true. But I'm not sure this has much to say about whether it is acceptable to shoot the intruding drone.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - 10y ago
wccrawford 10y ago
It's pathetic how he keeps blaming the neighbor without any proof at all. He even claims to have had no complaints, yet the neighbor told him he "didn't like the damn thing". Seems like the drone flier was the real asshole here. Someone probably got fed up with it and finally took action. Yes, firing a gun in the air is incredibly dangerous and illegal all on its own. There was no excuse for it. But there's also no excuse for this guy bothering his neighbors with it just because they can't stop him. Or at least, he thought they couldn't.
- sgift 10y ago
  > It's pathetic how he keeps blaming the neighbor without any proof at all. He even claims to have had no complaints, yet the neighbor told him he "didn't like the damn thing". Nothing pathetic. Theory of least surprise. He stood near the position the thing was shot. No one else was directly visible. He is armed. He didn't like the drone. Is this proof? No. Is it pathetic to assume it? Also no. > Seems like the drone flier was the real asshole here. And you know this because ...? > But there's also no excuse for this guy bothering his neighbors with it just because they can't stop him. Or at least, he thought they couldn't. Yeah, because it is a good idea to allow any idiot to do whatever he wants if he doesn't like something.
- hobarrera 10y ago
  There's a huge difference in being "inconsiderate", and being a dangerous criminal, shooting a drone like that. And yes, I said dangerous. If the drone had landed on someone, that someone could be dead.
- grecy 10y ago
  So one guy did something annoying, and another person retaliated by doing something completely illegal that could have put lives in danger. Sounds like a reasonable reaction.
- CPLX 10y ago
  I have quite a bit of sympathy for someone who finds a drone flying over their property annoying, if someone was doing that to me I'd want it to stop. With that said, it's not like he has no proof at all. If there is a neighbor that admits he hates the drone, admits he was firing his rifle in the yard the very same day, and your drone gets shot by a rifle while adjacent to his property, that's at least somewhat persuasive. It's all circumstantial evidence, clearly, but despite the common misconceptions out there circumstantial evidence is very much a kind of evidence.
olivermarks 10y ago
I own a drone and am acutely aware of people's unease about what is essentially a flying camera. The surveillance implications of it being disallowed to disable an intrusive drone are worrying - while I'd be v unhappy if my expensive drone was shot down it is a worry if that was completely illegal. The snooping realities of drone/cameras in the wrong hands are pretty bad, from burglars scoping out targets and peeping toms all the way up to state spying on citizens. I don't have any answers on this, but it seems our legislation is suddenly very out of date...
EGreg 10y ago
The real question is, what about drones flying above a crowded place like Times Square? 1. Is it legal according to all the regulations? 2. What about liability if a drone malfunctions and divebombs some people?
- antisthenes 10y ago
  2. This constitutes vehicular assault due to reckless operation of the vehicle. If you're flying a drone over crowds, you should take full responsibility for its ability to safely operate in a regular manner compliant with regulations. Unless you could prove that your drone was sabotaged or jammed or something to that extent, you'd be liable for at least the damages and a misdemeanor charge. I'm not a legal professional though, so take this with a grain of salt and consult one before flying over crowds (as well as FAA obviously).
- pavel_lishin 10y ago
  > 1. Is it legal according to all the regulations? Turns out that New York has not passed any relevant drone laws that I've found, but FAA guidelines specifically say you should not fly above groups of people: https://www.faa.gov/uas/getting_started/fly_for_fun/ https://www.faa.gov/uas/getting_started/fly_for_fun/
  - CPLX 10y ago
    NYC has banned drones generally, except for some specific parks in the outer boroughs: http://www1.nyc.gov/nyc-resources/service/5521/drones http://www1.nyc.gov/nyc-resources/service/5521/drones
    - pavel_lishin 10y ago
      Huh, I didn't know that! Thanks.
      - EGreg 10y ago
        I think that's being challenged in Federal court
TazeTSchnitzel 10y ago
> Everything was fine, except the left rear motor with a bullet hole in it. Potential market gap here: gunshot-resistant drones, exclusively for the US market.
Neliquat 10y ago
If you fly your drone over private property, get permission. How hard is that?
- pavel_lishin 10y ago
  From the article: > "I never crossed his property—I looked back at my flight log—I never once crossed his property."
- mejari 10y ago
  Did you read the article? The drone pilot says he never flew over the person's property.
drivingmenuts 10y ago
Seems like the minimum height for general aviation is 500 feet. Why isn't it the same for drones?
- jdhawk 10y ago
  Drones are specifically required to stay under 400ft. https://www.faa.gov/uas/getting_started/ https://www.faa.gov/uas/getting_started/
- _JamesA_ 10y ago
  The FAA recommends a maximum height of 400 feet for recreational operation. https://www.faa.gov/uas/getting_started/fly_for_fun/ https://www.faa.gov/uas/getting_started/fly_for_fun/
- brixon 10y ago
  You don't want drones and planes in the same air space. A drone sucked into the engine of a plane is a bad day for the pilot.
JorgeGT 10y ago
The example video has no audio track, but in real life I could see how someone would not be OK with the buzzing noise [1] of a drone flying "as he does on most nights". By the way, is flying a drone legal over populated places in the US? At least in my country it's illegal [2]. --- [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EI0i1wfKB_I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EI0i1wfKB_I [2] http://www.seguridadaerea.gob.es/media/4427085/recomendaciones_uso_drones.pdf http://www.seguridadaerea.gob.es/media/4427085/recomendacion...
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
droithomme 10y ago
In this case the only suspect denies shooting and there's no hard evidence pinning him to it. It would be a waste of time to prosecute. It's extremely impressive though that someone was able to hit a small moving drone from a distance with a single bullet fired. Whoever fired the shot is either lucky or an exquisite marksman.
Veratyr 10y ago
I believe this is a stupid idea but it's come up on the Reddit thread for this article quite frequently: Can you use a GPS/2.4GHz jammer to interfere with a drone flying over your property? The FCC is quite clear on the legality and penalties for doing so (https://transition.fcc.gov/eb/jammerenforcement/jamfaq.pdf https://transition.fcc.gov/eb/jammerenforcement/jamfaq.pdf) but what I'm not clear on is whether the FCC can practically enforce those laws. How can someone (not the FCC) determine a jammer is being employed and would the FCC actually do anything about it?
- falcolas 10y ago
  The FCC has vehicles with directional finders; if interference is reported, they can track it down and take the appropriate action (fines, etc).
elipsey 10y ago
Is it acceptable to shoot your neighbor's property if you believe it is being used to create an illegal nuisance? Does this rule generalize well? For example: --my neighbor's motorcycle clearly has an illegal muffler, which annoys me in my home; am I justified in shooting it? --my neighbors somtimes play amplified music outdoors on the private easement in front of my home after 10pm, in violation of the city noise ordinance; am I justified in shooting the stereo? --unauthorized cars are often parked in my private lot in spite of clear sign-age; may I reasonably shoot them?
- dvt 10y ago
  The answer is very intuitively an emphatic "no" -- you can't go around destroying property willy-nilly.

44 points by CPLX 10y ago

Dear assholes, Bullets have a ballistic trajectory and if you miss your target in a populated area, the bullet is quite likely going into someone's house or car. Signed, The Internet (I'm not a fan of drones flying over my house either, but wtf people)

bmelton 10y ago
Not that I would be likely to shoot at anything, but if I were shooting down a drone, I'd probably use a 12-gauge filled with birdshot. Assuming the shooter in this case chose similarly, then falling projectile damage is extremely unlikely. Possibly some eye injury if it landed just so, but looking at the sparse terrain this drone was flying over (if representative), it's hard to say whether or not shooting at the drone was dangerous per se. Edit: Looking at the image[1] of the affected drone, it doesn't really look like a BB from a shotgun. It still could be, but it does look more like a .22 hole to me. [1] - https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Photo-Apr-18-8-24-41-PM-1280x960.jpg https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Photo...
- grecy 10y ago
  If someone used a 12-gauge, I'm 100% certain they would have been seen doing it.
  - fnordfnordfnord 10y ago
    Why? None of this happened in an urban area.
    - grecy 10y ago
      Because the range of a 12-gauge is not so great, and the noise is loud enough to make people watch.
- tyingq 10y ago
  This seems likely to me. Gun owners would be familiar with shooting a flying object down with a shotgun loaded with birdshot. It would be the intuitive thing to grab, and more likely to hit something. A small gauge one, like a .410, would even be relatively quiet (louder than a .22 rifle, but quieter than most other types of guns).
- justin66 10y ago
  > Assuming the shooter in this case chose similarly, then falling projectile damage is extremely unlikely. This varies by locality but in anything you'd ordinarily consider a suburban residential neighborhood, this would still amount to unlawful discharge of a firearm, I would think. If not fired into a backstop those little pellets are going to fall to earth and embed themselves into something.
  - bmelton 10y ago
    I'd say it varies too much by locality to even generalize about. In the parts of the south I've lived in, the unlawful discharge laws tend to only apply to MUCH denser population centers. I know of a case in Arkansas in which a husband shot the wall behind where his wife was standing in a domestic dispute. But because she wouldn't say that he was shooting at her, and there's no law against shooting your own wall in the sticks, there was nothing to be done about it.
  - tyingq 10y ago
    The individual pellets in 12 gauge number 8 birdshot weigh less than 0.08 grams and measure .09″ in diameter. Falling birdshot isn't embedding itself into anything. Direct blast, sure.
- kpil 10y ago
  Let's hope they won't use anything else than a 12-gauge with birdshot. A guy in my school was hit in the head while driving. He died instantly. It was a bit of a mystery until they found out he was hit by a stray bullet that went through the open side window, shot at 40 degrees angle more than 6 kilometres away, from a military shooting range. (It was a low caliber bullet, but I can't remember exactly what weapon it was.)

dvt 10y ago

From United States v. Causby: We have said that the airspace is a public highway. Yet it is obvious that if the landowner is to have full enjoyment of the land, he must have exclusive control of the immediate reaches of the enveloping atmosphere. Otherwise buildings could not be erected, trees could not be planted, and even fences could not be run. The principle is recognized when the law gives a remedy in case overhanging structures are erected on adjoining land. 9 The landowner owns at least as much of the space above the ground as the can occupy or use in connection with the land. See Hinman v. Pacific Air Transport, 9 Cir., 84 F.2d 755. The fact that he does not occupy it in a physical sense-by the erection of buildings and the like-is not material. As we have said, the flight of airplanes, which skim the surface but do not touch it, is as much an appropriation of the use of the land as a more conventional entry upon it. We would not doub that if the United States erected [328 U.S. 256, 265] an elevated railway over respondents' land at the precise altitude where its planes now fly, there would be a partial taking, even though none of the supports of the structure rested on the land. 10 The reason is that there would be an intrusion so immediate and direct as to subtract from the owner's full enjoyment of the property and to limit his exploitation of it. While the owner does not in any physical manner occupy that stratum of airspace or make use of it in the conventional sense, he does use it in somewhat the same sense that space left between buildings for the purpose of light and air is used. The superadjacent airspace at this low altitude is so close to the land that continuous invasions of it affect the use of the surface of the land itself. We think that the landowner, as an incident to his ownership, has a claim to it and that invasions of it are in the same category as invasions of the surface. 11 Obviously, it's a tricky issue. It's hard to see if flying a drone over someone else's property is illegal or not. It seems that it might be contingent on altitude, noise, and other forms of disruption.

pdabbadabba 10y ago
All true. But I'm not sure this has much to say about whether it is acceptable to shoot the intruding drone.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- 10y ago

wccrawford 10y ago

It's pathetic how he keeps blaming the neighbor without any proof at all. He even claims to have had no complaints, yet the neighbor told him he "didn't like the damn thing". Seems like the drone flier was the real asshole here. Someone probably got fed up with it and finally took action. Yes, firing a gun in the air is incredibly dangerous and illegal all on its own. There was no excuse for it. But there's also no excuse for this guy bothering his neighbors with it just because they can't stop him. Or at least, he thought they couldn't.

sgift 10y ago
> It's pathetic how he keeps blaming the neighbor without any proof at all. He even claims to have had no complaints, yet the neighbor told him he "didn't like the damn thing". Nothing pathetic. Theory of least surprise. He stood near the position the thing was shot. No one else was directly visible. He is armed. He didn't like the drone. Is this proof? No. Is it pathetic to assume it? Also no. > Seems like the drone flier was the real asshole here. And you know this because ...? > But there's also no excuse for this guy bothering his neighbors with it just because they can't stop him. Or at least, he thought they couldn't. Yeah, because it is a good idea to allow any idiot to do whatever he wants if he doesn't like something.
hobarrera 10y ago
There's a huge difference in being "inconsiderate", and being a dangerous criminal, shooting a drone like that. And yes, I said dangerous. If the drone had landed on someone, that someone could be dead.
grecy 10y ago
So one guy did something annoying, and another person retaliated by doing something completely illegal that could have put lives in danger. Sounds like a reasonable reaction.
CPLX 10y ago
I have quite a bit of sympathy for someone who finds a drone flying over their property annoying, if someone was doing that to me I'd want it to stop. With that said, it's not like he has no proof at all. If there is a neighbor that admits he hates the drone, admits he was firing his rifle in the yard the very same day, and your drone gets shot by a rifle while adjacent to his property, that's at least somewhat persuasive. It's all circumstantial evidence, clearly, but despite the common misconceptions out there circumstantial evidence is very much a kind of evidence.

olivermarks 10y ago

I own a drone and am acutely aware of people's unease about what is essentially a flying camera. The surveillance implications of it being disallowed to disable an intrusive drone are worrying - while I'd be v unhappy if my expensive drone was shot down it is a worry if that was completely illegal. The snooping realities of drone/cameras in the wrong hands are pretty bad, from burglars scoping out targets and peeping toms all the way up to state spying on citizens. I don't have any answers on this, but it seems our legislation is suddenly very out of date...

EGreg 10y ago

The real question is, what about drones flying above a crowded place like Times Square? 1. Is it legal according to all the regulations? 2. What about liability if a drone malfunctions and divebombs some people?

antisthenes 10y ago
2. This constitutes vehicular assault due to reckless operation of the vehicle. If you're flying a drone over crowds, you should take full responsibility for its ability to safely operate in a regular manner compliant with regulations. Unless you could prove that your drone was sabotaged or jammed or something to that extent, you'd be liable for at least the damages and a misdemeanor charge. I'm not a legal professional though, so take this with a grain of salt and consult one before flying over crowds (as well as FAA obviously).
pavel_lishin 10y ago
> 1. Is it legal according to all the regulations? Turns out that New York has not passed any relevant drone laws that I've found, but FAA guidelines specifically say you should not fly above groups of people: https://www.faa.gov/uas/getting_started/fly_for_fun/ https://www.faa.gov/uas/getting_started/fly_for_fun/
- CPLX 10y ago
  NYC has banned drones generally, except for some specific parks in the outer boroughs: http://www1.nyc.gov/nyc-resources/service/5521/drones http://www1.nyc.gov/nyc-resources/service/5521/drones
  - pavel_lishin 10y ago
    Huh, I didn't know that! Thanks.
    - EGreg 10y ago
      I think that's being challenged in Federal court

TazeTSchnitzel 10y ago

> Everything was fine, except the left rear motor with a bullet hole in it. Potential market gap here: gunshot-resistant drones, exclusively for the US market.

Neliquat 10y ago

If you fly your drone over private property, get permission. How hard is that?

pavel_lishin 10y ago
From the article: > "I never crossed his property—I looked back at my flight log—I never once crossed his property."
mejari 10y ago
Did you read the article? The drone pilot says he never flew over the person's property.

drivingmenuts 10y ago

Seems like the minimum height for general aviation is 500 feet. Why isn't it the same for drones?

jdhawk 10y ago
Drones are specifically required to stay under 400ft. https://www.faa.gov/uas/getting_started/ https://www.faa.gov/uas/getting_started/
_JamesA_ 10y ago
The FAA recommends a maximum height of 400 feet for recreational operation. https://www.faa.gov/uas/getting_started/fly_for_fun/ https://www.faa.gov/uas/getting_started/fly_for_fun/
brixon 10y ago
You don't want drones and planes in the same air space. A drone sucked into the engine of a plane is a bad day for the pilot.

JorgeGT 10y ago

The example video has no audio track, but in real life I could see how someone would not be OK with the buzzing noise [1] of a drone flying "as he does on most nights". By the way, is flying a drone legal over populated places in the US? At least in my country it's illegal [2]. --- [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EI0i1wfKB_I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EI0i1wfKB_I [2] http://www.seguridadaerea.gob.es/media/4427085/recomendaciones_uso_drones.pdf http://www.seguridadaerea.gob.es/media/4427085/recomendacion...

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

droithomme 10y ago

In this case the only suspect denies shooting and there's no hard evidence pinning him to it. It would be a waste of time to prosecute. It's extremely impressive though that someone was able to hit a small moving drone from a distance with a single bullet fired. Whoever fired the shot is either lucky or an exquisite marksman.

Veratyr 10y ago

I believe this is a stupid idea but it's come up on the Reddit thread for this article quite frequently: Can you use a GPS/2.4GHz jammer to interfere with a drone flying over your property? The FCC is quite clear on the legality and penalties for doing so (https://transition.fcc.gov/eb/jammerenforcement/jamfaq.pdf https://transition.fcc.gov/eb/jammerenforcement/jamfaq.pdf) but what I'm not clear on is whether the FCC can practically enforce those laws. How can someone (not the FCC) determine a jammer is being employed and would the FCC actually do anything about it?

falcolas 10y ago
The FCC has vehicles with directional finders; if interference is reported, they can track it down and take the appropriate action (fines, etc).

elipsey 10y ago

Is it acceptable to shoot your neighbor's property if you believe it is being used to create an illegal nuisance? Does this rule generalize well? For example: --my neighbor's motorcycle clearly has an illegal muffler, which annoys me in my home; am I justified in shooting it? --my neighbors somtimes play amplified music outdoors on the private easement in front of my home after 10pm, in violation of the city noise ordinance; am I justified in shooting the stereo? --unauthorized cars are often parked in my private lot in spite of clear sign-age; may I reasonably shoot them?

dvt 10y ago
The answer is very intuitively an emphatic "no" -- you can't go around destroying property willy-nilly.