4 ms·

Isn't this generally the same ruling that allows land owners to shoot trespassers? After hearing about drones with batteries dying falling out of the sky and ta

by bruxis 9y ago

Isn't this generally the same ruling that allows land owners to shoot trespassers? After hearing about drones with batteries dying falling out of the sky and taking out a child's eye [1], I wouldn't want some random person controlling a drone on my property. 1. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-34936739 http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-349367... EDIT: I'm not saying shooting the thing is the best idea (esp. given bullet trajectory and such), but what real, immediate options does an offended homeowner have here?

pdabbadabba 9y ago
> Isn't this generally the same ruling that allows land owners to shoot trespassers? No. And, at least in the U.S., there is no such ruling. You absolutely cannot shoot someone just for trespassing on your property.
- sqeaky 9y ago
  What is the point were you can start shooting? I know that where I live, Nebraska, the rare instance when someone breaks into a home and gets shot the homeowner is in the clear. There is often talk of "castle doctrine" but I don't really know what that means. I also don't know if the breaking into a home is the important part or if someone on your lawn waving a gun or knife around could be shot with legal blessing.
  - pdabbadabba 9y ago
    It's ambiguous, and varies from state to state (the variations usually relate to side issues like whether you have a duty to retreat instead of shooting, etc.) but the general rule is that the response has to be 'reasonable' and proportionate to the reasonably perceived harm. The Castle Doctrine doesn't, as far as I know, have a single clear meaning, but generally refers to rules that expand the circumstances in which a homeowner can use force (including deadly force) on an intruder to their home.
fnordfnordfnord 9y ago
I don't think it's the same as shooting a trespasser, the theory for shooting trespassers is that they may directly pose a threat to your safety. It's hard to argue that a drone poses such a threat unless they're chasing you or have a weapon mounted on them or something. If the shooter from OP's link used a .22 or anything other than bird shot, then they are a real fool and a danger to everyone around them. Off the top of my head I'm inclined to think that the reach of a shotgun is probably about the right distance that ought to be protected, maybe a little bit further because of cheap optics.
- pdabbadabba 9y ago
  > I don't think it's the same as shooting a trespasser, the theory for shooting trespassers is that they may directly pose a threat to your safety. I really feel the need to drive this point home, for obvious reasons: there is no such theory. You CANNOT DO THIS. You cannot shoot a trespasser on your land, just because he is trespassing. There has to be something else involved like reasonable fear of imminent bodily injury. The threat cannot necessarily be implied from the mere fact that he is trespassing. (It's clearly a different case if the trespassing is happening in your field in broad daylight v. in your bedroom in the middle of the night.)
  - fnordfnordfnord 9y ago
    Agreed, I should have been more precise.
- RUG3Y 9y ago
  Just to clarify, shooting a .22 into the air is still very dangerous. A .22 round can travel a mile or so after being fired to the air. Anything other than birdshot in this situation would be unacceptable, IMO, assuming shooting the drone is acceptable in the first place.

by bruxis 9y ago

pdabbadabba 9y ago

> Isn't this generally the same ruling that allows land owners to shoot trespassers? No. And, at least in the U.S., there is no such ruling. You absolutely cannot shoot someone just for trespassing on your property.

sqeaky 9y ago
What is the point were you can start shooting? I know that where I live, Nebraska, the rare instance when someone breaks into a home and gets shot the homeowner is in the clear. There is often talk of "castle doctrine" but I don't really know what that means. I also don't know if the breaking into a home is the important part or if someone on your lawn waving a gun or knife around could be shot with legal blessing.
- pdabbadabba 9y ago
  It's ambiguous, and varies from state to state (the variations usually relate to side issues like whether you have a duty to retreat instead of shooting, etc.) but the general rule is that the response has to be 'reasonable' and proportionate to the reasonably perceived harm. The Castle Doctrine doesn't, as far as I know, have a single clear meaning, but generally refers to rules that expand the circumstances in which a homeowner can use force (including deadly force) on an intruder to their home.

fnordfnordfnord 9y ago

I don't think it's the same as shooting a trespasser, the theory for shooting trespassers is that they may directly pose a threat to your safety. It's hard to argue that a drone poses such a threat unless they're chasing you or have a weapon mounted on them or something. If the shooter from OP's link used a .22 or anything other than bird shot, then they are a real fool and a danger to everyone around them. Off the top of my head I'm inclined to think that the reach of a shotgun is probably about the right distance that ought to be protected, maybe a little bit further because of cheap optics.

pdabbadabba 9y ago
> I don't think it's the same as shooting a trespasser, the theory for shooting trespassers is that they may directly pose a threat to your safety. I really feel the need to drive this point home, for obvious reasons: there is no such theory. You CANNOT DO THIS. You cannot shoot a trespasser on your land, just because he is trespassing. There has to be something else involved like reasonable fear of imminent bodily injury. The threat cannot necessarily be implied from the mere fact that he is trespassing. (It's clearly a different case if the trespassing is happening in your field in broad daylight v. in your bedroom in the middle of the night.)
- fnordfnordfnord 9y ago
  Agreed, I should have been more precise.
RUG3Y 9y ago
Just to clarify, shooting a .22 into the air is still very dangerous. A .22 round can travel a mile or so after being fired to the air. Anything other than birdshot in this situation would be unacceptable, IMO, assuming shooting the drone is acceptable in the first place.